October 2019 This publication was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It is prepared for USAID/Ethiopia under contract AID-OAA-I-15-00024 by MENDEZ ENGLAND & ASSOCIATES INC. Authors: Ange Tingbo, Team Leader, Raya Abagodu, Nuri Kedir, Ermias Assefa, Abiy Samuel Tibebu, and Bisrat Weldesilassie. Supervision: Alex Dow and Wondimu Wolde. EVALUATION USAID/ETHIOPIA COMMODITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE FOOD FOR PEACE, DEVELOPMENT FOOD SECURITY ACTIVITY (DFSA)/PRODUCTIVE SAFETYNET PROGRAM (PSNP) USAID/ETHIOPIA COMMODITY MANAGEMENT REVIEW OF THE FOOD FOR PEACE, DEVELOPMENT FOOD SECURITY ACTIVITY (DFSA)/PRODUCTIVE SAFETYNET PROGRAM (PSNP) Submitted: October 21, 2019 Prepared by: Submitted by: ME&A 4350 East-West Highway, Suite 210 Bethesda, MD 20814-4413 Tel: (301) 652-4334 Fax: (301) 652-3733 Email: DISCLAIMER The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Agency for International Development or the United States Government. TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................................... 1 1. REVIEW BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND QUESTIONS............................................................ 7 1.1 Background.................................................................................................................................... 7 1.2 Review Purpose............................................................................................................................ 7 1.3 Review Questions........................................................................................................................ 8 2. REVIEW METHODOLOGY.................................................................................................................... 9 2.1 Sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 9 2.2 Review Tools and Field Data Collection.............................................................................. 12 2.3 Data Analysis............................................................................................................................... 12 2.4 Review Limitations .................................................................................................................... 12 3. FINDINGS.................................................................................................................................................. 13 3.1 Thematic Area 1: Distribution of Food AID....................................................................... 13 3.2 Thematic Area 2: Food Management Practices and Internal Control Systems..... 29 3.3 Thematic Area 3: Reporting.................................................................................................... 36 4. CONCLUSIONS AND BEST PRACTICES........................................................................................ 38 5. RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................................................... 39 ANNEXES Annex 1: SCope OF WORK.................................................................................................................. 43 Annex 2: Team and Timetable............................................................................................................... 49 Annex 3: KII and FGD Tools................................................................................................................. 51 Annex 4: Warehouse/PDP/FDP Checklist.......................................................................................... 54 Annex 5: Food Distribution Point (FDP) Checklist.......................................................................... 57 Annex 6: Rapid Market Assessment Checklist.................................................................................. 59 Annex 7: Beneficiary Survey................................................................................................................... 60 Annex 8: DFSA Beneficiary Orientation Guidelines ........................................................................ 62 Annex 9: Primary Distribution Points and Food Distribution Points Visited............................. 64 Annex 10: Beneficiary Survey Frequency Tables............................................................................... 65 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Sample Woreda and FDP by Region and IP ........................................................................................ 9 Table 2: Number of KIIs, FGDs, Surveys, and Site Visits Completed......................................................... 11 Table 3: Proportion of Respondents by Wait Time and Length of Wait Time........................................ 24 Table 4: Proportion of Respondents by Travel Time to FDP....................................................................... 25 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Ethiopia with DFSA Regions in Purple .................................................................................. 7 Figure 2: Respondents by Level of Satisfaction with Quantity of Food...................................................... 16 Figure 3: Respondents by Level of Satisfaction with the Quality of Food.................................................. 17 Figure 4: Respondents Satisfaction with Timeliness of Food Distribution................................................. 18 Figure 5: Respondents by the Knowledge of Food Aid Donor ................................................................... 20 Figure 6: Food Distribution Effectiveness by Region and IP.......................................................................... 23 Figure 7: Respondents’ Satisfaction with IP Staff.............................................................................................. 24 Figure 8: Respondents Agreement with FDPs Having the Necessary Facilities ....................................... 27 Figure 9: Response to the Question “How did you utilize the food commodity you received?”........ 29 LIST OF PHOTOS Photo 1: Standard measurements for scooping. .............................................................................................. 14 Photo 2: List of beneficiaries (Payroll) and fingerprints at FDP.................................................................... 15 Photo 3: Signboards with Food Rations. ............................................................................................................ 16 Photo 4: One of clerical mistakes in Ledgers. Columns without signatures. ............................................ 32 Photo 5: One of clerical mistakes on Stack Cards. Columns without signatures.................................... 32 Photo 6: Torn bags in Ethiopian Catholic Church Social Development Coordination Rub Hall......... 36 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The members of the Commodity Management Review (CMR) team would like to acknowledge the support of Endale Lemma (Contracting Officer Representative for the CMR) and Yodit Berhanu of USAID for their assistance throughout the implementation of the review. We would also like to thank all staff from the Mission who took their time to respond to the interview questions. The team would particularly like to thank the field Food Managers/Coordinators, the Chiefs of Party (COPs) and Deputy COPs of the Implementing Partners (IPs) for all the time they devoted during the two week-long fieldwork. We are very grateful to the IP staff in Addis who were the first to provide us with very useful preliminary information. Special thanks go to Emanuel Thomas of Daystar Management Consultancy whose logistical support with cars, drivers, translators, office equipment, etc., was indispensable for the implementation of the Review. Finally, we would also like to thank the IPs’ field staff in general, the beneficiaries, and the local authorities for their time to answer our questions. Their openness during the key informant interviews and focus group discussions provided us with all the information needed for the endeavor. ACRONYMS BUBD Best Used by Date CMR Commodity Management Review COP Chief of Party CRS Catholic Relief Services CSR Commodity Status Report DCOP Deputy Chief of Party DFSA Development Food Security Activity FDP Food Distribution Point FFP Food for Peace FGD Focus Group Discussion FHE Food for the Hungry, Ethiopia FIFO First-In-First-Out FSTF Food Security Task Force GOE Government of Ethiopia HCS Hararghe Catholic Services HH Household HQ Headquarters ID Identity Card IP Implementing Partner JEOP Joint Emergency Operation Program kg Kilogram KII Key Informant Interview LMMS Last Mile Mobile Solution m Meter MCS Meki Church Secretariat NGO Non-Governmental Organization ORDA Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara PDP Primary Distribution Point PDS Public Direct Support PREP Pipeline and Resource Estimate Proposal PSNP Productive Safety Net Program PW Public Work QWICR Quarterly Web-Interfaced Commodity Reporting REST Relief Society of Tigray RT Review Team SOW Scope of Work USA United States of America USAID United States Agency for International Development WV World Vision YSP Yellow Split Peas GLOSSARY Kebele – The smallest administrative unit in Ethiopia, a ward or neighborhood Rub- Hall – A large, relocatable tent-like structure often used in humanitarian emergencies for storage of commodities in rural settings Woreda – The main district political/geographical unit used in Ethiopia, above the Kebele level 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY REVIEW PURPOSE The purpose of the United States Agency for International Development Ethiopia (USAID/Ethiopia) Commodity Management Review (CMR) of the Food for Peace (FFP), Development Food Security Activity (DFSA)/Productive SafetyNet Program (PSNP) is to assess whether: 1. The procedures and systems of food commodities receipt, management, handling, utilization, and reporting under the activities in all regions are consistent with USAID regulations and guidelines; 2. Partners follow appropriate standards and best practices in food commodities receipt, management, distribution, and reporting; and 3. Partners maintain sufficient internal control systems to manage and utilize Title II food resources efficiently. The primary audience for this CMR is USAID/Ethiopia, the implementing partners (IPs), and relevant Government of Ethiopia (GOE) counterparts involved in supporting IPs’ activities. The results of this CMR may also be shared with donors and other interested stakeholders, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Finally, results may also be used for reporting purposes to Washington D.C.- based stakeholders. ACTIVITY BACKGROUND DFSA is an important USAID Food for Peace P.L. 480 collaboration that is critical to the achievement of the GOE’s goals for PSNP. This collaboration aims to help the GOE in its efforts to ensure community food security resilience in food insecure rural areas (woredas) in Ethiopia. The ultimate goal is to ensure community asset building and support for improved nutrition and livelihoods food transfers (and cash). USAID supports the PSNP through four DFSAs implemented by NGOs partners in 43 woredas of three regions - Amhara, Oromia, Tigray - and one administration, the Dire Dawa City Administration. DFSAs are mechanisms that support the PSNP to address chronic food needs with a goal to make sustained changes to food security and livelihoods of targeted households and communities and reduce their vulnerability to disaster. DFSAs started their operation in October 2016. They are implemented by four IPs, namely World Vision (WV), Food for the Hungry Ethiopia (FHE), the Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA), Relief Society of Tigray (REST), and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) along with the Ethiopian Catholic Church Social Development Coordination Office. The estimated five-year budget Life of Award of $570 million is to provide support to more than 1.4 million safety net beneficiaries. The IPs’ contribution is in the form of Title II food rations composed of 15 kilograms of wheat, 1.5 kilograms of yellow split peas (pulses), and 0.45 kilogram of vegetable oil per beneficiary, per month. REVIEW DESIGN, METHODS, AND LIMITATIONS The scope of work of this CMR concerns only the management of the Title II food commodities. Accordingly, it looked at four main analytical domains: 1. Distribution of Food Aid: Assess whether food distributions were conducted as per USAID regulations and standards, commodities are distributed to intended beneficiaries, and IPs are using an efficient system for distribution and facilitating the process. 2. Food Management Practices and Internal Control System: Assess whether partners establish and practice appropriate and adequate food commodities management, safeguarding mechanisms, and internal control systems to manage Food for Peace donated food resources. 2 3. Reporting: Assess the appropriateness of the type of reporting, accuracy, and frequency, including identifying reports that feed into the government reporting channel. 4. Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices: Identify lessons drawn from the management and internal control system and innovative approaches. To conduct the CMR, the review team (RT) utilized a mixed-methods approach, which included key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), observation of live food distributions, beneficiary surveys, rapid market assessments, and review of documents and reports provided to the team by USAID and the IPs, and reports found during the RT’s independent literature review. The RT applied proportionate stratification to select a sample of 22 out of a total of 43 DFSA target woredas. Within each region, the RT selected a sample of woredas using a computer-generated random sampling method. Dire Dawa’s only woreda was automatically included in the sample. Once the sample woredas were determined, the RT used purposive sampling to select sample primary dispatch points (PDPs), food distribution points (FDPs), kebeles, markets, as well as KIIs and FGD participants. To collect data, the RT divided into three sub-teams of two members each. Each sub-team was deployed to the three regions and Dire Dawa. Overall, the RT completed KIIs with 102 people (61 males and 41 females), conducted 22 FGDs with 221 people (100 males and 121 females), surveyed 360 people (139 males and 221 females), conducted 30 site visits (8 PDPs and 22 FDPs), and conducted 12 rapid market assessments. Table 1 shows how these were distributed across regions and IPs. The analysis of the qualitative data was carried out primarily using a summary format to draw out trends and key findings. The quantitative data analysis of the beneficiary survey involved generating summary statistics using Excel software. A methodological limitation encountered in conducting this CMR was that its timing did not allow the team to observe a live food distribution in Amhara and only one live distribution in Oromia. In addition, some woredas and FDPs selected for the review were inaccessible due to rainy season, poor roads, and long distance such that the RT had to replace them in the sample with other woredas and FDPs. FINDINGS Distribution of Food Aid: Beneficiaries receive the approved ration sizes across all locations covered by this review. There are, moreover, signboards at each FDP with the food rations size widely written in both the local language and English together with a messaging session by megaphone before each distribution by the IP staff reminding the beneficiaries of their entitlements. Beneficiary survey results indicated that 84 percent of the beneficiaries are aware of their rations size and the US origin of the commodities. In each region, the IPs have built locally-made gauge containers for each of the three types of commodities. The beneficiaries have all agreed on the measurement of the local weight containers for wheat, yellow split peas, and vegetable oil used by the scoopers. Across each region, the respective woreda officials determine the distribution dates of the food transfer schedule by sending the list of the beneficiaries, called the “Payroll,” to the IPs. The IPs then make the food available for each round at the FDPs. On occasion, the distribution is postponed on distribution day because the Payroll is not finalized and/or transmitted from the woreda to the IPs on time. The distribution is then re-scheduled for another day. The main problem found across the CMR regions is the inefficiency of the food distribution at the FDPs, with an average wait time of 4 hours 17 minutes, although this varies widely across regions and IPs (see Tables 4 and 5 in the main report). In addition to this average waiting time, beneficiaries spend an average of 2 hours 6 minutes to walk from home to the FDP and back (see Tables 5 and 6). Walking back home at night with their rations exposes beneficiaries to potential dangers, particularly women, many of whom make the trip with small children. For example, beneficiaries in Tigray shared stories of 3 women who were harassed making the long trek to and from the FDP. To address this problem, Food for the Hungry, Ethiopia (FHE) in the Amhara region is now promoting individual scooping on a first￾come-first-served basis. However, this approach has its own disadvantages in that it increases the working hours of the IP clerks and the amount of documentation required. Food Management and Internal Control Systems: The RT found few notable shortcomings in this area. PDPs and FDPs are located in secure places (not isolated), some of them are fenced with barbed wires, and all have round-the-clock security guards. Furthermore, the staffing pattern evinces a clear segregation of duties with a manager, storekeeper, FDP inventory comptroller, food distributor, and janitor. Notwithstanding, in Deder and Dire Dawa, most of the warehouses/PDPs/FDPs are old Rubb Halls some of which are either torn, leak, or have holes that are entry points for rodents. Overall, the PDPs and FDPs are well managed, with appropriate equipment recommended by Title II food commodities management procedures, including calibrated scales, ladders, pallets, tarpaulins, fire extinguishers, etc. The flow of management documents makes food movements accurately traceable. The dispatch of food commodities from PDPs, receipt by FDPs, and release from warehouses for distribution are well documented and follow compliance procedures. In the three regions, the RT did a physical count of the commodities and found everything to be in order. All the figures in the ledgers and the BIN cards are all reconciled. Physical inspections are performed on a monthly basis, which is authenticated in the books by the comptroller/inspector’s signatures. At some FDPs, the RT noted some clerical issues, including columns with no signatures, erasures, and signatures without initials, making it difficult for a newcomer to know who actually made the transactions. Another issue is using the same people to conduct warehouse inspections each time, which increases the risk of manipulation, malfeasance, or side dealing. Ledgers are well kept along with the retained BIN/stack cards, while stack cards are visible on each food pile. The goods receiving notes created by the IPs (Inter Transfer Vouchers – ITV/Goods Receiving Vouchers – GRVs for REST – Food Commodity Requisition Note for CARE/WV) with at least three signatures from authorizing staff members and same number of persons at the receiving end, including the driver who transports the food commodities, are effective mechanisms to prevent unauthorized food movements. Because of the application of the first-in-first-out system and presence of ventilated warehouses, IPs, with the exception of FHE and WV/ORDA, did not find it necessary to fumigate their warehouses. The FHE’s fumigation provider, Tadesse Pesticide Fumigation, provided a 15-page document detailing the product (Phosphine) to be used and the procedure to be followed. The WV/ORDA’s provider gave a one-page certificate with the name of the chemical (Aluminum Phosphide) without any description of the procedure. Reporting: Overall, reporting procedures work well, with few notable issues. Copies of the Commodity Status Reports (CSRs) are sent to USAID with copies kept in the office folders and cabinets. The Quarterly Web-Interfaced Commodity Reports (QWICR) are prepared on a quarterly basis and submitted to USAID. An old error in REST’s QWICR surfaced recently and both USAID and REST came to an agreement to fix it. In the four separate KIIs conducted with USAID/Ethiopia commodity management staff indicated that they had no problem with the timely submission of the reports by the IPs. CONCLUSIONS Evidence collected from all sources for the PSNP CMR, implemented in collaboration with the GOE, indicates the conclusion that the PSNP is a successful program. Other conclusions falling under each of the relevant thematic areas are provided below. Thematic Area 1 – Distribution of Food Aid: The RT concludes that the food beneficiaries were the intended beneficiaries based on the vulnerability criteria for their selection, that they are receiving the approved ration size across the three regions of Amhara, Tigray, and Oromia and in Dire Dawa. 4 Signboards, banners, sensitization sessions by megaphone have effectively communicated key messages so that the large majority of the beneficiaries know their entitlements. The agreement reached over the standardized local weight measurements is a good step towards making distributions easier for scoopers. It should have made distributions quicker too, but the way the distributions are done makes the process a bit too long. Local governments play an integral role in the distribution process. Government officials from woredas and kebeles establish the beneficiary list and determine distribution dates, which are then relayed through the kebele leaders to village leaders and then down to the communities. On the day of the distribution, kebele and village leaders/FSTF play a pivotal role to validate the beneficiary identities. The main issued noted is the time spent by beneficiaries at FDPs during distribution days. Across the CMR regions and IPs, FDPs take several hours to conclude the distributions requiring many beneficiaries to remain for hours typically without shelter, water, or toilet facilities. Many of the same beneficiaries walk long distances to arrive at the FDP, while walking home in the evening with their food rations exposes them to undue risk, particularly women accompanied by small children. Thematic Area 2 – Food Management and Internal Control Systems: PDP warehouses are well managed, and commodities are stored in safe and secure compounds and structures, together with adequate security protocols. The receipt of commodities follows an efficient pattern, while all the bags of wheat and pulses and cartons of vegetable oil are accounted for. Each IP follows the monitoring and compliance procedures by conducting monthly checks. The food commodities are physically counted and checked against stack/BIN cards and ledgers. All IPs conduct monthly warehouse visits. However, the practice of assigning the same person to conduct the visit each time potentially reduces the effectiveness of such visits and raises the possibility of collusion if the same persons are doing the inspections each time. The system in place for transporting food commodities is reliable and predictable. The IPs issue the foods dispatching from the PDPs to the FDPs based on the government’s requirements. They calculate the tonnage of commodities and make arrangements to transport food to the FDPs by the distribution dates. Transfer requests are done through pre-numbered documentation with the signatures of more than three persons for the foods dispatched. At the FDP, there are also pre-numbered management documents to acknowledge receipt of the food commodities. The system works in such a way that all the food movements are traceable. The IPs work closely with their government counterparts in all aspects of the distribution. Thematic Area 3 – Reporting: The reporting system is satisfactory. All IPs systematically prepare, update, and retain BIN cards, stock cards, authorizations, goods transfer notes, goods receiving notes, waybills, ledgers, BUBD tables. CSRs are submitted on a timely basis. QWICR reports are submitted quarterly to USAID. The RT did not receive any negative comments from USAID on the timeliness of the reports’ nor their quality indicating that they meet the Mission’s expectations in both cases. BEST PRACTICES • USAID branding: Across all the sampled FDPs and primary warehouses in the three regions, there are clear and large signboards posted depicting the USAID logo, the types of commodities stored, and the rations size to which beneficiaries are entitled. • Collaboration: There exists close collaboration between the local authorities (woreda), the kebele, the communities, and the IPs for the selection of intended beneficiaries and distribution of food aid. • Traceability: All food movements are well documented minimizing the opportunities for mistakes. 5 • Last Mile Mobile Solution: LMMS requires less time to confirm beneficiaries’ identities, and it minimizes possible malfeasance, making the distribution considerably more efficient. • Latrines: The latrines built by FHE in corrugated iron (in Tach Gayint) with an affordable water dispenser for hands washing have created better conditions for the beneficiaries while they wait for the food distribution and have eased their wait. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings and conclusions, the RT makes the following recommendations to improve the management, efficiency, and effectiveness of the DFSA food commodities program. Location of FDPs: In the Amhara region, the distances are large and the terrain is difficult. This situation imposes significant hardships on beneficiaries who have to walk to the FDPs to receive their food rations. FHE and FHE/ORDA have started satellite food distributions to take food commodities closer to the communities. The experience has proven so far to be a good relief for the beneficiaries. The RT thus recommends that the partners in the Amhara region explore two possibilities: 1. Relocate/decentralize their FDPs by constructing new warehouses in their coverage area (like REST in Tigray). 2. Systematize the satellite distributions by taking the food commodities to the beneficiaries on distribution days. This implies putting in place basic distribution infrastructures i.e. use tarpaulins and foldable poles to build foldable/portable shelters for beneficiaries and food distributors (to be mounted just on foods distribution day). 3. Continue with on-site distributions (satellite) (for those IPs with FDPs that are far away). Time for beneficiaries to receive rations: The RT found that the wait-times for beneficiaries to collect their rations, across the three regions, to be largely unproductive for the beneficiaries. The main reason is that all beneficiaries do not come on time and early arrivers have to wait until the there are enough people to constitute small groups. It is possible for the IPs to reduce the wait-time for the beneficiaries to less than an hour and a half at the FDP sites adopting one or more of the following recommendations: 4. Reinforce the sensitization of the beneficiaries on the notion of time at the community, kebele, woreda, and FDP levels. The timelier they arrive, the earlier they can go home. 5. Fifteen minutes after the convocation time, check IDs against Payroll lists and constitute groups of ten or fifteen and designate de facto group leaders. 6. Fingerprint the members of each group (after ID against payroll) and start the distribution. Through “grouping,” the beneficiaries will do the distribution among themselves since everybody knows the rations and the contents of the local measurement gauges. 7. Use grouping or explore a good combination of scooping and grouping to reduce time spent on the distribution site by beneficiaries. Groups of 5 or 15 beneficiaries can manage their own sharing as they all know the rations size and the local weight containers are widely accepted. 8. Do a sensitization of communities-kebeles-woredas-foods staff on time management with the beneficiaries. Re-organize the distribution mode to reduce the wait-time. Basic Provisions at FDPs: With the exception of Amhara and a couple of FDPs in Tigray, there are no toilets, drinking water, and or shelters for beneficiaries at the FDPs. Although the RT was told that beneficiaries are allowed to use the staff latrines in some cases, many beneficiaries are not aware of this. The RT thus recommends that the IPs adopt the following recommendations: 9. Build two 1m x 1m latrines (for men and women) at each FDP site for beneficiaries. For sanitation reasons, a tippy-tap water system or a plastic water container can be installed near the toilets for hands washing. Ash can also be made available in lieu of soap. 10. While waiting for funding to build shelters for beneficiaries, build shelters made of tarpaulins or local woven thatch stretched on wooden poles. The paramount concern is to protect 6 beneficiaries and children from the elements. Other Recommendations: 11. Train storekeepers on how to handle mistakes in the ledgers and BIN/Stack cards i.e. no erasures or whitewash, but parallel bars on the wrong entries. 12. Remind storekeepers and comptrollers to put their initials or names next to their signatures in the designated columns in the ledgers or on the BIN/Stack cards. 13. IPs should alternate sending staff members for monthly warehouse visits who are not involved in the food department. 14. Identify entry points for rodents and take measures to close them. 15. Systematize taking commodities from the warehouse for distribution by able community members (no payment by beneficiaries) as part of a community empowerment strategy. 16. Ask guards well trained in using fire extinguishers to train other users of the warehouse i.e. storekeepers, janitors, distributors, etc. 17. Add a layer of security by initiating the two-padlock system, and identify a second person to keep the second set of keys. Warehouses should only be opened with both individuals present. 18. Explore using and expanding the LMMS initiated by WV. 19. Recommendations made during monitoring visits by IP and USAID food commodity managers have yet to be addressed. These recommendations should be date-bound for execution. 7 1. REVIEW BACKGROUND, PURPOSE, AND QUESTIONS 1.1 BACKGROUND The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is the major supporter of the Government of Ethiopia (GOE) Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). The aim of PSNP is to build the resilience of chronically food insecure communities and households through cash and food transfers, community asset building, and support for improved nutrition and livelihoods. USAID bolsters the PSNP through four Development Food Security Activities (DFSAs) in 43 woredas of three regions—Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray—and the Dire Dawa City Administration (see Figure 1). The DFSA programs, which began in October 2016, are five-year programs with an estimated budget of $570 million. Four non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—World Vision (WV), Food for the Hungry, Ethiopia (FHE), Relief Society of Tigray (REST), and Catholic Relief Services (CRS)—implement the DFSAs. The goal of the DFSAs is to make sustained changes to the food security and livelihoods of more than 1.4 million target beneficiaries and reduce their vulnerability to disaster. To achieve this goal, USAID Title II food commodity resources must be appropriately handled, managed, distributed, and utilized as per USAID regulations. Figure 1: Map of Ethiopia with DFSA Regions in Purple 1.2 REVIEW PURPOSE The purpose of this commodity management review (CMR) is to assess whether the approved Food for Peace (FFP) DFSA food commodity resources, which are received by the four implementing partners (IPs), are managed and distributed in compliance with the USAID Regulation 11. Specifically, the review assessed whether: 8 • The procedures and systems of commodity receipts, management, handling, utilization, and reporting under the activities in all regions are consistent with USAID regulations and guidelines; • IPs follow appropriate standards and best practices in commodity receipts, management, distribution, and reporting; and • IPs maintain sufficient internal control systems to manage and utilize Title II food resources efficiently. The main audience for the CMR is USAID/Ethiopia. It is anticipated that the findings of the CMR will be used to inform USAID/Ethiopia of how current NGO Title II program management, reporting, and handling regulations are interpreted, implemented, and enforced by IPs and to inform future DFSA programming. Improving DFSA programming will serve to reinforce related USAID programming in support of the GOE’s nationwide PSNP. 1.3 REVIEW QUESTIONS The CMR addressed the following key thematic areas. The complete list of questions and sub-questions are included in the Scope of Work (SOW) found in Annex 1. 1. Distribution of Food Aid: Assess and determine whether food distributions are conducted as per USAID regulations and standards, commodities are distributed to intended beneficiaries, and IPs are using an efficient system for distribution and facilitating the process. Examine the knowledge and practices of all stakeholders—beneficiaries, local governments, and IPs—in an effort to ensure efficient, effective, and timely commodity distribution. At the IP level, review efficiency and timeliness of commodity distribution. At the beneficiary level, assess awareness, perceptions, and satisfaction related to food distribution and utilization; quantity of entitled rations; commodity mix; quantity, quality, and timeliness of commodity receipts; waiting time; donor knowledge; etc. 2. Food Management Practices and Internal Control System: Assess and determine whether IPs establish and practice appropriate and adequate commodity management, safeguarding mechanisms, and internal control systems to manage FFP donated food resources. Review IP practices and systems from central warehouses and primary distribution points (PDPs) to food distribution points (FDPs) and affirm that they comply with USAID Regulation 11. 3. Reporting: Assess and determine appropriateness of the type of reporting and its accuracy and frequency, including identifying reports that feed into the government reporting channel. Examine current practices of warehouse inventory management; transfers, losses, claims, and claims reporting; and commodity status reporting—quarterly web-interfaced commodity reporting (QWICR). Review the accuracy of beneficiary records, distribution reports, reporting of identified or suspected commodity losses (in warehouses or during transportation and distribution), commodity recording and reporting, best practices, and reporting and resolution mechanisms. 4. Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices: Identify and document best and innovative practices and provide feedback on areas needing improvement for effective commodity management and distribution. 9 2. REVIEW METHODOLOGY The Review Team (RT), which included a team leader (international consultant), two local commodity management experts, and three research assistants employed a mixed-methods approach for the CMR, as discussed below. 2.1 SAMPLING The SOW of the Review required that the RT select at least 50 percent of the total 43 DFSA target woredas proportional to the total target woredas. To do this, the RT applied proportionate stratification, which is a type of stratified sampling, with the strata being the three regions—Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray—and Dire Dawa City Administration. The stratification resulted in a sample of 22 woredas (51 percent). Within each region, the RT then selected a sample of woredas using a computer￾generated random sampling method. Dire Dawa’s only woreda was automatically included in the sample. Once the sample woredas were determined, the RT used purposive sampling to select sample PDPs, FDPs, kebeles, markets, as well as key informant interview (KIIs) and focus group discussion (FGD) participants. In each sample woreda, one FDP and two kebeles in its catchment area were purposively selected. Table 1 below presents the selected woredas by region. Table 1: Sample Woreda and FDP by Region and IP Region Partner Zone Sample Woreda Sample FDP Sample Kebeles Amhara FHE South Gondar Tach Gayint Agat Agat and Efrata South Gondar Lay Gayint Lay Gayint Checheho and Mossob Terrava South Gondar Simada Wogeda Engudader and Segayit Wag Himra Abergele Nurak Adi Zelay and Werke Divenu WV/Organization for Rehabilitation and Development in Amhara (ORDA) North Wollo Wadla Gashena Gashena and Melay North Wollo Gazo Estayish Addisgay and Buya Wag Himra Dahena Qoziba Kewuzba and Shimela Sekota Sekota Weleh and Bagmilla Dire Dawa CRS Dire Dawa Dire Dawa Ija Anani Ija Anani Oromia East Hararghe Deder Deder Deder and Lele Arsi Zuway Dugda Ogolcho Ogalcho and Burka lamafo West Arsi Arsi Nagele Hargisa Rafu Hargisa and Keraro West Arsi Heben Arsi Alambado Alambado and Meti WV West Hararghe Gemechis Qunni Town and Homicho WV West Hararghe Chiro Zuriya Magala Duletti Magala Duletti and Sagaria 10 Region Partner Zone Sample Woreda Sample FDP Sample Kebeles WV West Arsi Siraro Luke Luke Town and Basa Meja Tigray REST Central Ahferom Enticho and Bet-Gebez Enticho and Bet-Gebez Eastern Gulomekeda Zalambesa and Sebeya Zalambesa and Sebeya Eastern Kiletawlealo Negash and Agula’e Negash, Agula’e, and Wukro Endamekoni Maychew Maychew Southern Alamata Garjalle and Timuga Garjalle and Timuga Eastern Hawzen Megab & Moste Megab and Moste To collect data, the RT was divided into three sub-teams of two members. Each sub-team was deployed to the three regions and Dire Dawa. All sub-teams used the same data collection methods, including desk review of documents received from USAID and the IPs, KIIs, FGDs, site visits to FDPs and PDPs, beneficiary surveys, and rapid market assessments. Details of these methods are described below. • Desk review: The desk review included a review of primary and secondary documents relevant to the CMR, such as project proposals, work plans, annual and periodic monitoring reports, pipeline and resource estimate proposals (PREPs), Port Surveyors Report, copy of Commodity Status Report (CSR)-relevant literature on food commodity management and distribution, and any other material provided by USAID/Ethiopia, IPs, or that the RT found during its independent literature review. • KIIs: The RT conducted KIIs in each woreda with key informants drawn from different stakeholder groups, including community members, FDP staff (storekeepers, food distributers, etc.), Food Security Task Force (FSTF) members, etc. At the kebele level, the RT held KIIs with community leaders and selected beneficiaries to collect their stories and experiences with food commodity distribution. The RT also met with IP staff in Addis and Mekelle and with USAID Local Mission senior officers in Addis to discuss food commodity distribution and management issues. (See Annex 3 for KII guides.) • FGDs: RT members conducted FGDs with a mixed group of female and male beneficiaries in each FDP catchment area to capture the perception and satisfaction of target beneficiaries on the food aid they receive. Data collection also included direct observations mainly at the PDPs/warehouses/FDPs on warehouse structure, equipment, records, live food distributions, etc. In Oromia and Tigray, food distributions were still happening when the RT arrived. This gave the team the opportunity to meet with beneficiaries for FGD or KII sessions while waiting for their food rations at the FDPs. However, in Amhara, where food distributions were completed before the fieldwork, the RT had to meet beneficiaries either in their neighborhoods or at the FDP as a gathering point under the invitation of the IP’s field manager. (See Annex 3 for examples of FGD guides.) • Site Visits: The RT conducted sites visits at the PDP warehouse where they spoke with and administered a PDP checklist to warehouse managers, store clerks, and storekeepers and at FDPs where they spoke with and administered an FDP checklist to field office managers, storekeepers, commodity accountants, inventory comptrollers, and distributors. (See Annexes 4 and 5 for examples of the PDP and FDP checklists.) Some of the information collected from these site visits was instrumental in corroborating or triangulating facts in ensuing discussions. • Rapid Market Assessments: To assess the extent of food aid commodity utilization and the degree of self-monetization (i.e., reselling of food aid for cash or in-kind), the RT conducted 12 11 rapid market assessments (five in Amhara, four in Tigray, two in Oromia, and one in Dire Dawa). The RT observed the extent of availability of Title II Food Commodities, prices, demand, etc. In addition to observation, reviewers/researchers complemented the observation by interviewing a gender mix of traders and market actors. • Beneficiary Survey: In addition to FGDs and KIIs, the RT also conducted beneficiary surveys with a random sample of beneficiary households who had received food rations from the DFSA at least once in six months before the CMR. The purpose of the survey was primarily to provide a snapshot of food commodity beneficiaries’ perceptions on food distribution and use. The sample size of the survey was estimated by applying a sample size formula1 designed to work with large populations and with an assumption of a 90 percent confidence level and 5 percent margin of error. Based on the total population of beneficiaries (1.4 million), a sample size of 360 beneficiary households was determined at the overall DFSA operational area, given time and logistic constraints. The sample was then proportionally allocated to the three regions of Amhara, Oromia, and Tigray (Dire Dawa was included in Oromia due to its proximity), resulting in 120 beneficiary households in each region. To select the beneficiary households, the RT used the Public Work (PW) and Public Direct Support (PDS) household lists as a sampling frame. Once beneficiaries were randomly selected from the lists, they were called to an FDP or nearby FDP kebele convenient to administer the survey questionnaire. The survey was designed using Kobo Toolbox and was installed in the team members’ tablets. Owing to the logistical and time constraints, breadth of topics covered, and extent of information required from the survey, survey questions were limited to keep each interview short while targeting the most knowledgeable household member about the DFSA food distribution. Overall, the sub-teams: conducted 102 KIIs (61 male and 41 female), 22 FGDs with 221 participants (100 male and 121 female), and 12 rapid market assessments, surveyed 360 beneficiary households (139 male and 221 female); and observed eight PDPs and 22 FDPs. Table 2 shows how these were distributed across regions and IPs. Table 2: Number of KIIs, FGDs, Surveys, and Site Visits Completed Method Region IP Total Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray CRS FHE REST WV KIIs 43 5 21 33 26 22 33 21 102 -Males 31 2 14 14 16 14 14 17 61 -Females 12 3 7 19 10 8 19 4 41 FGDs 8 1 7 6 7 4 6 5 22 -Males 49 4 23 24 23 26 24 27 100 -Females 46 4 31 40 31 19 40 31 121 Site Visits 11 2 10 7 10 6 7 5 30 -PDPs 3 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 8 -FDPs 8 1 7 6 7 4 6 5 22 Rapid Market Assessments 5 1 2 4 3 2 4 3 12 Surveys 120 8 112 120 75 60 120 105 360 -Males 61 3 38 37 22 30 37 50 139 -Females 59 5 74 83 53 30 83 55 221 1 Where: no = sample size; e = the desired level of precision (i.e., margin of error); Z = standard score or Z￾value; p = the estimated prevalence of the measured attribute in proportion; and q = 1-p. The sample proportion is what we expect the results to be for any measured food commodity-related attribute. For example, the proportion of food commodity recipient households who report self-monetization is assumed at 20 percent given the target population’s homogeneity. All are targets of the GOE’s PSNP. 12 2.2 REVIEW TOOLS AND FIELD DATA COLLECTION Prior to deployment to the field, the RT members conducted a three-day workshop in Addis to refine and build common understanding on the review approach, methodologies, procedures, protocols, and the tools to be used. The RT familiarized itself with the questions prior to their administration in the local languages and on the protocols to follow while meeting with respondents in the field for the KIIs, FGDs, and beneficiary surveys. The protocol included getting the verbal consent of the respondents by stating clearly upfront that the interview was important and confidential, participation was voluntary, and respondents could choose to continue or decline the interview with no consequences. The six-person RT split into three sub-teams of two persons with fieldwork taking place concurrently in the three regions and Dire Dawa City Administration. As per the CMR schedule approved by USAID, the field data collection was conducted from July 28 to August 17, 2019. In Oromia region, the RT visited seven sample woredas selected from four zones, which included the zones of East and West Haraghe, East and West Arsi zones while the eighth site visit included the Dire Dawa Administration. In the Amhara Region, the RT visited the eight sample woredas and inspected three PDPs in Nefasmewcha and Kombolcha towns. It is to be noted that Lay Gayint woreda replaced Sede Muja, which was originally selected. The replacement was suggested by FHE senior officers in order to have a good geographic representation. In Tigray, the team visited the six woredas originally sampled. 2.3 DATA ANALYSIS The RT conducted analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data from the sample woredas, PDPs, FDPs, market assessments, and beneficiaries according to the four research thematic areas and the review/research questions. Key findings from the analysis were validated via data triangulation from the different sources and methods. Qualitative Data: The analysis of the data from the qualitative study was carried out primarily using a summary format. Using matrices, raw data from the qualitative study were systematically summarized to draw out trends and key findings. These key findings from the qualitative survey were complemented by the beneficiary survey in generating the findings, as well as the conclusions and recommendations. Quantitative Data: The quantitative data analysis of the beneficiary survey involved generating summary statistics using Excel software. Mainly two types of summary statistics were employed. Measures central tendency (e.g., mean, median, range) and contingency tables showing how different groups responded to different questions and whether these differences are significant. 2.4 REVIEW LIMITATIONS Some of the challenges the CMR team encountered included: Timing: In the Amhara region, it was not possible for the RT to observe a live food distribution. The planned distribution for the season was done before the team arrived in the field. In Oromia, there was only one live food distribution left. Therefore, the RT had to make arrangements to meet with the beneficiaries at a rally point or in their neighborhoods. Accessibility: The RT was unable to go to some of the woredas and FDPs selected for the review due to inaccessibility. In the Amhara region, for example, two FDPs (Silda in Dahena and Chena in Wadla) were not accessible by car due to the rainy season and thus were removed from the sampling frame of FDPs in the woredas. Sahart Samre, a woreda in Tigray, which was in the initial plan, was substituted for Endamekoni due to distance, poor road conditions, and the rainy season. Hintalo Wajerat woreda was also dropped (as per Mission’s suggestion) and changed to Werie Lekhe. Because of the short distances and relatively good road conditions (in comparison with the two other regions), the Tigray sub-team was able to add two more woredas to its schedule: Gantafeshum and Were Lekhe. Because of the good road conditions, proximity of other woredas, and, mainly, because of the availability of REST’s Field Food Commodities Manager, the RT took on two additional woredas. Two FDPs in 13 Tigray were visited in each of the two new woredas. Namely, Mugulat and Adigrat in Gantafeshum woreda and Edaga Hamus and Nebelet in Werie Lekhe. 3. FINDINGS This section provides the key review findings based on in-depth analysis of the qualitative and quantitative data. The findings are organized based on the four commodity management and distribution themes and the review questions under the respective thematic areas: 1) distribution of food aid, 2) food management practices and internal control systems, 3) reporting, and 4) key lessons learned or promising practices. In presenting the findings, the review questions under the respective themes have been further re-grouped based on patterns and complementarities observed during the analysis of the responses to one or more closely related review questions. Annex 10 provides the results of the responses to the quantitative beneficiary survey. 3.1 THEMATIC AREA 1: DISTRIBUTION OF FOOD AID Food Distribution a. Are distributions made to entitled beneficiaries as per the approved ration size and mix, with no over or underpayment of entitlements to beneficiaries? Overall, across the three regions and Dire Dawa City Administration, the targeting/registration and selection of the beneficiaries is by and large the same. The local governments, in association with the IPs, play a significant role in the process as well as at the actual food distribution sites. The community selects beneficiaries based on criteria that are nationwide for the PSNP, i.e., the poorest of the poor such as the elderly, landless, disabled, AIDS victims, orphans, and pregnant/lactating women. The RT was able to confirm that beneficiaries received the approved food ration size of 15 kilograms (kg) of wheat, 1.5 kg of yellow split peas (YSP), and 0.45 liters of oil. Beneficiaries are aware of the type and amount of each food item they receive as the FDP staff explains to them verbally in the local language and/or displays on banners each of the food items and the quantity with the USAID logo clearly displayed. The RT attended three live food distributions in Tigray and one in Oromia. During these events, the team did not observe any random checking of entitlements at these FDPs. Neither was the team able to verify that this was done from the review of documents and reports. However, during the KIIs and FGDs with staff and beneficiaries, participants indicated that whenever a beneficiary complains, the Food Monitors in the respective IPs check the facts using their portable scales. Oromia/CRS/WV: In every FDP, the only food recipients are the eligible beneficiaries who have been selected by the local government in each woreda according to an established procedure. At the FDP, the IPs, through their staff and kebele FSTF members, are responsible for the verification of and ensuring that the intended beneficiaries receive their food donation. KIIs with the beneficiaries confirmed that only the woreda PSNP offices were responsible to issue beneficiary identify cards (IDs). The FDP staff refer to the IDs and ration cards to verify that the food receivers are the entitled beneficiaries. As an innovative practice for the verification of intended beneficiaries, WV uses the “Last Mile Mobile Solution (LMMS)” technology in the Siraro woreda. In addition, kebeles monitor food receivers from each beneficiary household, especially if men are the receivers for fear that the men might sell the food if their wives could not be physically present at the FDP due to health issues, pregnancy, maternity, etc. In addition, the kebele FSTF members also monitor food distributions and have the responsibility to authorize food distribution by signing on a distribution form of the IPs at each FDP. As observed in the Ija Anani kebele FDP in Dire Dawa Administration, beneficiaries lined up in a queue delimitated by a rope. They waited for their turn to receive the foods when the FDP staff called their names. After the FSTF and FDP staff proved that a person was eligible, s/he joined the beneficiaries’ queue to receive the foods. 14 The beneficiaries are aware of the type and quantity of each type of food they receive. The FDP staff explains to them in the local language the type and quantity of foods they will receive. There are also banners with each type of food and the quantity to be received along with the USAID logo clearly displayed. Scoopers paid by the IPs weigh or measure the quantity of each type of food per the criteria. The RT verified that the type and quantity of foods received by every beneficiary were the allowed rations by the GOE for PSNP beneficiaries. Moreover, the RT counterchecked the list of beneficiaries’ names sent from the woreda PSNP office and verified that the DFSA food receivers were the entitled beneficiaries and the food ration sizes and mixes were exactly the same as specified in the entitlement. As per the RT’s observation in Oromia, the staff verified and checked the beneficiaries’ list or payroll against ID cards to ensure the beneficiaries were effectively enlisted as the intended recipients. The scoopers weighed the individual rations. The RT observed the whole process of food distribution and determined that beneficiaries received their full rations of the food commodities. However, the RT learned that in Deder, a group of women2 collects 1 kg of wheat from each beneficiary outside the premises of the FDP on each distribution day. In a KII, the storekeeper and the food distributor in Deder told the RT member that the woreda food security office was aware of the problem. The local (woreda-level) IP staff said the matter had been reported to the woreda food security office, but no action had been taken. They were now planning to report it to their IP office in a formal letter. According to the IP/FDP staff, this group of women is illegal, although they tell the beneficiaries they are working for the IP. Such practice is a severe violation of USAID’s Regulation 11 and deserves corrective management actions. Amhara/FH and WV: The RT in the Amhara region did not have the opportunity to observe live food distributions. The last round of food transfers of the year took place before the start of the fieldwork for the CMR. As a result, all findings regarding the distribution process are derived from information obtained through FGDs, KIIs, and beneficiary surveys, as well as document reviews. The RT learned that selection of beneficiaries across the FDPs is done in a transparent and participatory way involving communities starting from the village level. There were 6-8 villages in each sampled kebele that the team visited. There is an FSTF established at the village and kebele level to lead the process of selecting DFSA beneficiaries. There is also an Appeal Committee in each kebele to oversee the complaints at village level. The kebele FSTF3 reviews the nomination it receives from the villages and prepares the list of candidate beneficiaries. Final approval and selection is made by the general assembly of the kebele community at large. Once endorsed by the community, the names of selected households, along with their entitlements, are sent to the woreda food security office. This forms the basis for preparing a master list of beneficiaries by the woreda food security office. Similar processes and procedures are followed by the FDPs in each cycle of food distribution to targeted recipients. Relevant documents, including a beneficiary master list and a distribution list/payroll, are 2 Some years back, a 31-member women’s association was initially organized by the woreda Women Affairs Office in Deder as a labor force to assist beneficiaries and the FDP in the food distribution process. The group was assisting the FDP in scooping food commodities for the beneficiaries. But the IP (Hararghe Catholic Services, or HCS) later hired its own scoopers. As a result, the association members became jobless and resorted to taking 1 kg of wheat from each beneficiary on each distribution day. They do the collection when the beneficiary is out of the FDP compound. They share their collection among themselves by giving the full amount collected to a different member each time the food is distributed. 3 Members of the Kebele FSTF comprise an agriculture expert, kebele administrator, school head, women’s representative, community elder, disabled persons representative, and health extension agent. Photo 1: Standard measurements for scooping. 15 used to verify the eligibility of a beneficiary who presents a recipient identification/ration card. The KII and FGD participants unanimously judged the process of transferring the approved size and commodity mix to entitled beneficiaries as transparent and participatory. Beneficiaries in the WV/ORDA sample woredas carry the LMMS, an electronic card introduced by WV for authentication of beneficiaries during food distributions. The beneficiaries at the FDPs visited by the RT were quite aware of the individual entitlement of 15 kg of wheat, 1.5 kg of YSP, and 0.45 liters of oil per month. Several factors played a role in this. First, most beneficiaries have stayed in the relief program for many years, some of them for more than ten years, and they are knowledgeable of their monthly entitlements. Second, the IPs communicate the information to beneficiaries through signboards and banners, which are widely displayed and posted in the FDP’s compound with the approved size and mix of food commodities. Third, ration size and commodity mix entitlements are among the topics discussed in a monthly public meeting on distribution dates. The RT observed that the FDPs have standardized measurement scales in various sizes used by scoopers in the FDPs. Food distributors and kebele authorities closely monitor the scooping activities to ensure that scoopers are accurately using the scales. Furthermore, some FDPs have also an observer group drawn from community elders to witness the proper transfer of the Title II food commodities to entitled beneficiaries as per the approved size (see also findings under review question (d) for details). The FGD and KII respondents have also confirmed receiving the correct amount and mix of commodities according to their entitlements. However, some beneficiaries in FGD sessions in FHE operational woredas (in Lay Gayint and Simada) felt that their ration size, particularly of YSP, had reduced since the adoption of the individual distribution system. The RT could not verify this claim but reported this to the IP for further investigation. Making an adequate number of weighing scales available in the FDP and encouraging beneficiaries to check the size of the ration they received from scoopers could be an important step to clear the doubts. Tigray/REST: The targeting, registration, and selection of the beneficiaries have been the same. The local government, in association with the IPs, plays a significant role in the process as well as at the actual FDPs. For the RT, the collaboration between the IP, REST, and the local government is viewed to be critical for the implementation of the overall PSNP. The beneficiary registration and selection start at the lower structure of the kebeles. The community selects beneficiaries based on criteria of poorest of the poor, i.e., elderly, landless/no cattle, disabled, AIDS victims, orphans, large families without resources, pregnant/lactating women, etc. The criteria are nationwide wherever the PSNP is implemented. The list is amended at the kebele level with inclusion or exclusion of potential or non-qualified beneficiaries. For example, if someone who has been selected as a potential beneficiary (based on the above-mentioned criteria) was found to be receiving a remittance from a family member abroad, s/he is removed from the list. At the final kebele community meeting, the list is verified, approved, and sent to the woreda where it becomes an official beneficiary list. The list comes out with the dates for food distributions. All the information is relayed through the kebele leaders to village leaders and then down to the communities. Such process and all the actors Photo 2: List of beneficiaries (Payroll) and fingerprints at FDP. 16 involved ensure that all those who come to the FDPs to receive their food rations are the intended beneficiaries. The RT found that beneficiaries receive the approved food rations at FDPs in Tigray of 15 kg of wheat, 1.5 kg of YSP, and 0.45 liters of oil per month. At all FDPs, there are signboards and banners in the local language and English, suggesting that the information regarding rations sizes is being effectively communicated to the beneficiaries and the general public. In addition, through a sound system (megaphone), storekeepers, food distributors, or other members of the staff hold a sensitization session prior to the actual food distribution and remind beneficiaries of their entitlements. In a practical way, there are local container gauges for each food used by the scoopers. The weight of the contents is widely known and accepted by the beneficiaries and authorities alike as the right weight for the beneficiaries’ entitlements. Furthermore, all the warehouses visited have portable scales to be used in case of complaints from a beneficiary who thinks s/he has been cheated. To assess beneficiaries’ perception and triangulate the qualitative information on the quantity of food received, the beneficiary survey asked the question “How satisfied are you with the quantity of food you received?” About 84 percent of the respondents reported “somewhat satisfied” to “very satisfied,” while 16 percent were “not satisfied” with the quantity of food received. The results by region and IP are indicated in Figure 2 below. Figure 2: Respondents by Level of Satisfaction with Quantity of Food Regarding food quality, over 95 percent of survey respondents in all regions were either “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the food quality (see Figure 3). Across regions and IPs, satisfaction level with the quality of food far exceeds satisfaction with the quantity of food. For instance, while only about 46.9 percent of overall survey respondents (Amhara 32.5 percent, Oromia 68.3 percent and Tigray 40.0 percent) were either satisfied or very satisfied with the quantity of food, the corresponding result for satisfaction with the quality of food was 97.2 percent (Amhara 95.8 percent, Oromia 97.5 percent and Tigray 98.3 percent). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Amhara (n=120) Oromia (n=120) Tigray (n=120) CRS (n=75) FH (n=60) REST (n=120) WV (n=105) Region Partner Total (n=3 60) Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied Photo 3: Signboards with Food Rations. 17 Figure 3: Respondents by Level of Satisfaction with the Quality of Food b. Is there reliable/predictable food transfer schedule? To assess the reliability and predictability of food transfer, the RT relied on interviews with IP staff and beneficiaries. The observations and findings under this research question are presented below by region and IP. Oromia/CRS/WV: Beneficiaries are aware that they receive aid six out of 12 months. However, they are not sure on which day they will receive the food. They frequently observed that food is not distributed on the day initially indicated. It was noted from KIIs that the list of beneficiaries is often not sent on time from the woreda to FDPs. The RT tried to identify the reason for the lack of timeliness and the inefficiency of woredas to authorize and facilitate the dispatch of foods from the IPs’ PDP to the FDPs. According to the key informants, woredas authorize food distributions only after they receive the confirmation of the list of the beneficiaries. Unfortunately, the development agents (DAs) who verify participants in PW take too long to fill the attendance sheets. This is important because participants in PW should work 15 days every month to receive their food rations. Thus, it is only after the attendance sheet is received that woredas confirm the list of beneficiaries to receive food. Given this, food distribution is somewhat unpredictable and unreliable. Some FGD participants in Siraro woreda said that the food distributions had experienced significant delays, which they estimated to vary from two weeks to three months, typically in July and August. Amhara/FH/WV: The RT observed that the DFSA projects in the woredas they visited had annual and monthly food distribution schedules. The schedules are jointly prepared by the woreda food security office and the IPs’ field office. The planned transfer schedules and the specific distribution dates are then communicated to concerned kebele leaders ahead of time. Kebele leaders announce the distribution dates to target beneficiaries. The RT saw that both the monthly and annual distribution schedules were displayed on signboards and banners posted in the FDP compound. Most of the beneficiaries do not complain about the timing of the food commodities transfer. However, FHE staff reported that some delays in food distribution usually occur due to the failure to organize and execute the scheduled PW activities by the woreda agriculture office. The IP staff mentioned that local authorities usually give priority to other activities, such as mobilizing the community for the annual soil and water conservation activities undertaken free of charge. The PW beneficiaries cannot get the food ration unless they participate in the planned PW development activities. As reported in the 2018 FHE 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Amhara Oromia Tigray CRS FH REST WV Region Partner Total (n=3 60) Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 18 annual report, the average percentage of timely transfers of Title II food commodities was 69 percent across all the distribution sites. However, FHE claimed that all transfers were made to the target beneficiaries with slight variation of timeliness. 4 Key informants in the FHE woredas of Tach Gayint, Lay Gayint, Simada, and Abergele suggested that the monthly distributions in March and April are always merged and released to the beneficiaries in April. They have been experiencing that particular delay for the last two years. The main characteristics of the DFSA program is for GoE and USAID (FFP) to reach the intended beneficiaries. The woreda authorities prepare the payrolls as per the selection criteria. Moreover, those who are involved in Public Works (PW) have to meet some attendance criteria before receiving their entitlements. The verification of the time spent on the PW before updating the list of beneficiaries takes some time, which affects the distribution schedule. However, beneficiaries did not complain about losing their entitlements as a result of a missed distribution. All the rations are always ultimately delivered to the beneficiaries. Tigray/REST: The woreda DFSA project administrators have all agreed on monthly distribution/transfer schedules. As a result, the woreda food security office, in collaboration with the IPs’ field office, together plan food transfer schedules and distribution dates ahead of time. The schedules are communicated to the kebele leaders who in turn inform the intended beneficiaries. But the process does not always work as planned. The RT found that the food distribution schedule done by the IP along with their government counterparts is sometimes challenged by field realities. The list of people engaged in the PW often takes time to be finalized. Woreda authorities have to verify the attendance of the individuals engaged in the PW and the work progress. The ensuing delay compels the IP to postpone the announced distribution date. The beneficiaries are informed ahead of time through the kebele. When the survey asked beneficiaries “How satisfied are you with the timeliness of the food you received?” the majority reported that they were “satisfied” or “very satisfied” (68 percent) with the timing of food distribution, while about 32 percent responded “somewhat” or “not satisfied at all.” While there are no significant differences by IP and region, it can be noted that, in the CRS DFSA operational area, a relatively higher proportion of respondents reported they were either “somewhat” or “not satisfied” at all (48 percent). Figure 4: Respondents Satisfaction with Timeliness of Food Distribution 4 The outcome indicator defined for PSNP participants is the “percentage of clients paid within the agreed timeframe (20 days for cash and 30 days for food) from the end of the previous month disaggregated by highland and low land.” 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Amhara (n=120) Oromia (n=120) Tigray (n=120) CRS (n=75) FH (n=60) REST (n=120) WV (n=105) Region Partner Tot al (n= 360) Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 19 c. Do partners practice appropriate communication system to inform all stakeholders/clients ration size and entitlements at all levels? At all FDPs visited for the review, there were signboards and banners in both local languages and English, indicating that the information on the rations size was being communicated to the beneficiaries. In addition, the FDP staff used a megaphone to conduct mass sensitization sessions prior to the food distribution to remind beneficiaries of their entitlements. In FGDs, beneficiaries routinely noted that they have participated in awareness raising events on the food distribution process. Other key informants confirmed that beneficiaries and other stakeholders are informed by the FDP staff about the food aid, including types and the quantity of the food items to which they are entitled. Kebele FSTF members also inform beneficiaries of the quantities of each food item to be distributed to each eligible beneficiary. Oromia/CRS/WV: Across FGDs and KIIs, beneficiaries indicated that they were all aware of the food distribution process. Kebele heads and the FSTF members interviewed indicated that they receive information about food distribution from the official letter the woredas send to the kebele office about the date and the food items to be distributed. In addition, when food is delivered to the FDP store, FDP staff communicate to the responsible FSTF members on which date food will be distributed and request them to monitor and facilitate the distribution. Then the kebele, together with FDP staff, announce to all beneficiaries on which day of the month they should come to the FDP to receive their food rations. In this way, woreda, kebele structures, and FDPs are the channels used to communicate information about the rations size, entitlements, and the food distribution day to beneficiaries. AMHARA/FH/WV: The RT found the communication system put in place by the FDPs to be appropriate and satisfactory. The FDPs visited in Amhara have monthly public meetings to discuss program issues with the beneficiaries, the overall objectives of the food aid, who the donor and partners are (USAID, government, and FH/WV), rations size by commodity type/entitlement, scoopers’ role and responsibility, and that beneficiaries are not obliged to pay for food scooping. Signboards and banners are posted at visible places in the warehouse compound so that beneficiaries know their rations sizes and who the donor is. TIGRAY/REST: In addition to the banners and signboards, there are regular public meetings to discuss the program objectives with beneficiaries, ration size by commodity type, role and responsibility of scoopers, and that beneficiaries are not obliged to pay for food scooping. Signboards and banners are posted at visible places in the warehouse compound. Furthermore, there is a messaging session by megaphone before each distribution by the IP staff reminding the beneficiaries of their entitlements. The agreement reached between the IP and beneficiaries over a standardized local weight measurement for each type of the food commodity is also evidence of effective communication, which also makes the job of distributing food easier for scoopers. In the beneficiary survey, respondents were asked “Do you know who provides the food assistance?” Eighty￾four (84) percent answered “yes.” Those who responded yes were next asked to identify and name the specific donor, and about 80 percent identified USAID/United States of America (USA)/the American people and government, followed by IPs at 16 percent (see Figure 5). 20 Figure 5: Respondents by the Knowledge of Food Aid Donor d. Do partners exercise efficient systems to manage and control food distributions? Oromia/CRS/WV: As indicated earlier, the Oromia sub-team observed live food distribution at one FDP only where it observed the IP staff working with the FSTF to manage the food distribution. The main mechanism used to control the process was the list of beneficiaries sent from the woreda office, which is verified against the name and beneficiary’s photo on the beneficiary ration and ID card. The team learned that in the event the receiver is a different person other than the actual beneficiary, s/he is required to provide a power of attorney document to the FSTF and FDP in order to legally represent the absent beneficiary. The sub-team observed that the LMMS technology, which is being used by WV, is an effective tool to authenticate a registered food beneficiary. LMMS technology is faster than going through two or more pages in search of beneficiary’s name against the ration and ID cards. As another control mechanism, the beneficiaries are required to sign for their food distribution. The rope used to delimitate the area is yet another control mechanism to manage and/or control the food distributions. The RT found this way of handling the food distribution, as used by the Hararghe Catholic Secretariat (HCS) in the Ija Anani FDP, in an effective method of food distribution. Amhara/FH/WV: In Amhara, the IPs have established an appropriate system to manage and control food distributions. For example, in ORDA DFSA project areas, they used the following to manage and control food distributions efficiently: • Requests for foods transfer are cross-checked with the master beneficiaries’ list and authorized by IP staff and local authorities. • Beneficiaries are checked against their ID cards and then sign the payroll with their fingerprint. • To avoid a conflict of interest, all commodities are requested from the warehouse by the commodity distributor for the eligible beneficiaries. • The distribution is carried out in the presence of the commodity distribution supervisor. The supervisor weighs a sample of rations and interviews selected beneficiaries about the distribution. • Government representatives witness the process. • Food aid monitors observe live distributions. 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Amhara (n=120) Oromia (n=120) Tigray (n=120) CRS (n=75) FH (n=60) REST (n=120) WV (n=105) Region Partner Tot al (n= 360) USAID/USA/The American People and Gov't Implementing Parters (REST, FH, WV, ORDA, CRS) Government of Ethiopia Other (UNICEF, SAVE, Foreign Gov't.) 21 • Head office commodity teams make surprise visits to observe live distributions at sample FDPs on a quarterly basis. The RT also found that FHE applies similarly efficient management and control systems, including: • FHE monitors the distribution process to verify recipient eligibility and ensure recipients are receiving their entitled food quality and quantity. • FHE monitors the distribution site storage to assess the adequacy of storage facilities, inventory management, and recordkeeping. • FHE monitors the post-distribution to verify that the intended recipients had received their rations. • Head office staff conduct surprise visits by head to observe live food distributions. Overall, food distribution supervisors in both FHE and WV/ORDA are responsible for sample weighing to check accuracy of the measurements. Tigray/REST: The RT observed the same process at the FDPs it visited during food distributions for REST in Tigray. • REST staff, along with the local authorities, check the beneficiaries ID against the master list called Payroll, which was sent by the woreda office. • Beneficiary names are listed in alphabetical order which renders verification easier. • Verification is done with the ration/ID cards and the beneficiary is fingerprinted as his/her signature. • IP staff and local authorities identify beneficiaries to ensure transparency and that the recipients are the intended beneficiaries. • The kebele authority or the woreda issues a paper authorization to mandate a third party to collect foods for sick beneficiaries in order to legally represent the absent beneficiary. • Food monitors have the overall responsibility. They are present observing and stand ready to settle any misunderstandings. • IP staff from the head office conduct occasional field visits. • DFSA food specialists at USAID conduct occasional field visits. In addition to the above, the RT did not see any crowd movements that necessitated security interventions or putting ropes to delimitate the distribution area. e. What is the role of local government in the distribution processes, especially at the FDP level? Local governments, especially kebeles and woredas, play important roles in the food distribution process, particularly in beneficiary selection, to make sure that the eligible beneficiaries are the recipients of the food aid. The role of the government in the whole process is key to the success of the PSNP program. It starts with establishing the selection criteria making sure that the intended beneficiaries are the poorest of the poor. The list of the beneficiaries known as the payroll for each food distribution is established by the woreda authorities. From the KIIs, the RT learned that the distribution dates are shared with the IPs while the beneficiaries are informed thru their sub-kebele and the kebele, by phone or in person. Oromia/CDS/WV: Key informants and FGD participants confirmed that the selection and registration of beneficiaries starts at the lowest level of kebele structure where the neighborhood groups (known as gare, budin, etc.), identify and select the poorest of the poor households (HHs). The list of HHs selected is sent to the sub-kebele, known as the Ketena or sub-kebele, which integrates the proposal from lower structures and sends it to kebele. Finally, the kebele calls a community meeting to discuss the proposal and reach a consensus on the final list of beneficiaries. The kebele prepares and sends the final list of selected beneficiaries to the woreda. The DFSA FDPs distribute food according 22 to this list. It is now the responsibility of IP/FDPs staff to make sure the intended beneficiaries receive their food rations. Amhara/FH/WV: The local government authorities are key actors in the distribution process. As noted earlier, kebele administrators, managers, and agriculture experts play important roles in the distribution activities. The RT noted that the local government provides a master beneficiary list, prepares payroll and attendance sheets, prepares the distribution schedules in collaboration with FH/WV/ORDA project offices, announces the distribution date at least three days before, and oversees the distribution process. In addition, it also provides ID cards and facilitates an official delegation letter from the kebele social court for those unable to collect their rations because they are old, weak, blind, sick, pregnancy, etc. The kebele agriculture expert is responsible for the planning and implementation of PW activities in the villages and holds attendance recordings for each safety net beneficiary. The PW beneficiaries receive their entitlements according to the number of days worked as approved by the agriculture expert. In general, food aid distribution could not happen without the active participation of the woreda- and kebele-level government authorities. Tigray/REST: Here too, the role of the local government authorities is very critical in the food distribution process. The woreda is the final body that validates the beneficiary list based on government selection criteria. As in the other regions, the communities also play a role in this process. For food distribution, the master beneficiary list, known as Payroll, and the attendance sheets (for PW activities) are prepared by woreda officials. They also prepare the distribution schedules in collaboration with REST project offices. They announce the distribution dates and are always present during the distribution process. The local government also issues identification cards to each beneficiary. Moreover, the woreda facilitates the issuance of a delegation letter (proxy) to a third party to authorize ration collections for a registered beneficiary unable to go collect his/her rations due to sickness, old age, maternity, etc. Again, food aid distribution could not happen in the DFSA context without the active participation of the woreda and kebele level government authorities f. Are food distributions efficient? Oromia/CRS/WV: FGD participants in each of the sample woredas generally agreed that the food distribution process has improved over the last one-two years, which they attributed both to FDP staff and the kebele FSTF members who monitor and facilitate food distributions. As a result, the time spent to receive food has fallen significantly. Some IPs opened satellite FDPs to be as close as possible to the villages they serve. Others use mixed scooping methods, while most IPs use group scooping; some others still use only individual scooping that they consider more efficient method for food distribution. Amhara/FH/WV: Food distribution in all FDPs is well planned and being implemented in collaboration with the local government. With very few exceptions, in operational areas the right rations size in the right commodity mix is distributed in both IPs using standard scooping materials/measurements on the scheduled day of distribution. However, beneficiaries interviewed had mixed feelings about the amount of walking and waiting times required to receive the rations. The long distance between the villages and the FDPs is one of the major problems for most beneficiaries in the Amhara region. Given the rugged terrain in the DFSA operational woredas, walking as much as four hours one way is a challenge for many, particularly for the disabled, women, and elderly beneficiaries. Although ORDA established seven satellite distribution sites in focal points to address the issue, distance still remains a major problem for beneficiaries living in remote villages. Tigray/REST: The overall food distribution process at REST’s FDPs is efficient. As confirmed in all 23 data sources, beneficiaries are satisfied with the food donation and the food quality, although they are less satisfied with the food quantity. Also, importantly, the three types of foods distributed are culturally accepted in the Ethiopian diet. Other factors indicating the efficiency of food distribution is the acceptance by beneficiaries and local authorities of the local measurement tools used by the scoopers to deliver the food rations. However, the program’s effectiveness is adversely affected by the distance required to travel from home to the FDP site and wait-time on site to receive rations. REST has made efforts to bring the FDPs to the beneficiaries, including building warehouses in strategic locations to reduce waiting times. While this has reduced travel time for some beneficiaries to as low as 10 minutes, there are still others who have to walk 1-2 hours to come to the FDP. In the three regions, the RT asked in the beneficiary survey about the overall effectiveness of the food distribution and perception towards the IP food distribution staff. Overall, over 80 percent of survey respondents find the food distribution process to be either effective or highly effective, as seen by the survey results in Figure 6. This is true regardless of the IP or region. None of the respondents reported the food distribution process is “not effective” except for a very small proportion in Tigray/REST (see Figure 6). Figure 6: Food Distribution Effectiveness by Region and IP Beneficiaries’ opinions of IP staff are also very positive. About 72.8 percent and 19.7 percent of the survey respondents, respectively, reported that they are “satisfied” and “very satisfied” with IP staff, while only 5.6 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively, were “somewhat satisfied” and “not satisfied.” Comparison of survey respondents by regions shows that 3.3 percent in Amhara, 12.5 percent in Oromia and 6.7 percent in Tigray were either “not satisfied” or “somewhat satisfied” with IP staff (see Figure 7). 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Amhara Oromia Tigray CRS FH REST WV Region Partner Total (n=3 60) Not effective Somewhat effective Effective Very effective 24 Figure 7: Respondents’ Satisfaction with IP Staff g. How long, on average, does it take to complete one round of transfer to beneficiaries (from the beneficiaries’ arrival until the end) in a specific FDP? The RT found that the wait time to receive food ration, which is one of the indicators of food distribution efficiency, is unreasonably high across the three regions and the four IPs. According to the beneficiary survey, the average wait time ranges from 3-6 hours across the regions and from 2-6 across IPs with an overall average wait time of 4 hours and 17 minutes. FGDs confirmed both the range and length of wait times reported by survey respondents. Table 3: Proportion of Respondents by Wait Time and Length of Wait Time (By Region) Wait Time Region Amhara (n=120) Oromia (n=120) Tigray (n=120) Total (n=360) Less than one hour (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 One to two hours (%) 16.7 39.2 0.0 23.9 Greater than two hours (%) 68.3 60.8 100.0 76.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The minimum waiting time reported per region 1h 1h 3h 7m - The maximum waiting time reported per region 6h 10h 10h 8m - Average waiting time (hrs. minutes) 5 3h 16m 3h 22m 6h 12m 4h 17m Table 4: Proportion of Respondents by Wait Time and Length of Wait Time (By IP) 5 Average for each column is calculated by adding the time reported by each respondent divided by the total number of the sample for that column. For example, for Amhara, the average time of 3hour 16 minutes was calculated by adding the times reported by each of the 120 beneficiaries surveyed, divided by the number of beneficiaries (n=120). 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Amhara Oromia Tigray CRS FH REST WV Region Partner Total (n=36 0) Not satisfied Somewhat satisfied Satisfied Very satisfied 25 Wait Time IP CRS (n=75) FHI (n=60) REST (n=120) WV (n=105) Total (n=360) Less than one hour (%) 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 One to two hours (%) 34.7 61.7 0.0 21.0 23.9 Greater than two hours (%) 65.3 38.3 100.0 79.0 76.1 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The minimum waiting time reported per IP 1h 1h 3h 7m 1h - The maximum waiting time reported per IP 10h 5h 10h 6h - Average waiting time per IP (hrs. minutes) 3h 42m 2h 19m 6h 12m 3h 36m 4h 17m6 Often, the long wait time to receive food distributions is compounded by the long travel time required to reach the FDP. According to the beneficiary survey, the overall average one-way, travel time by region to reach the FDP is 1 hour 3 minutes (see Table 5). Further analysis revealed that the highest average travel time is in Amhara (1 hour and 11 minutes) followed by Tigray (1 hour 6 minutes). The least amount of time to reach an FDP was in Oromia (54 minutes). By IP, the lowest average travel time is in WV’s operational area (52 minutes), and the highest in FHI’s operational area (1hour 29 minutes) (see Table 6). On average, beneficiaries spend 1 hour 3 minutes one way or 2 hours 6 minutes to the FDP and back home. In some cases, beneficiaries have to return to their remote residences at night or are obliged to spend the night in the vicinity of FDPs. The risks to travel such distances are high for the all beneficiaries, but in particular for female beneficiaries. The proportion of respondents who travel half an hour and above is the highest in Amhara (80 percent), followed by Tigray (66.4 percent). In Tigray, close to half of the respondents travel more than an hour to FDPs to collect their food rations. By IP, it is in FHI’s operational area where the highest proportion of respondents, 95 percent, travel half an hour and above (See Tables 5 and 6). Table 5: Proportion of Respondents by Travel Time to FDP (by Region) Travel Time to FDP Region Amhara (n=120) Oromia (n=120) Tigray (120) Total (360) Less than half an hour (%) 20.0 31.7 25.0 25.6 Half an hour to one hour (%) 52.5 44.2 25.8 40.8 More than one hour (%) 27.5 24.2 49.2 33.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The minimum7 travel time reported per region 2m 1m 6m - The maximum8 travel time (the longest time) reported per region 5h 3h 3h 7m - Total time9 reported per region (hours) 142 109 133 384 Average travel time (hrs. minutes10) 1h 11m 54m 1h 6m 1h 3m 6 The average travel time is calculated from the total number of respondents interviewed from all regions (n= 360 respondents). See Annex 10 for more details. 7 The shortest of all times reported by the respondents of each region (this is not an average). 8 The longest of all times reported by the respondents of each region (this is not an average). 9 The sum of the times reported by each respondent in each region (n=120 in each region). 10 Average for each column is calculated by dividing the total time reported from all respondents by the total number of respondents. For example, for Amhara, the average time of 1hour 11minutes was calculated by dividing 26 Table 6: Proportion of Respondents by Travel Time to FDP (by IP) Travel Time to FDP IP CRS (n=75) FHI (n=60) REST (n=120) WV (n=105) Total (360) Less than half an hour (%) 42.7 5.0 25.0 25.7 25.6 Half an hour to one hour (%) 26.7 65.0 25.8 54.3 40.8 More than one hour (%) 30.7 30.0 49.2 20.0 33.6 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 The minimum11 travel time reported per FDP 3m 10m 5m 1m The maximum12 travel time reported per FDP 3h 5h 3h 7m 4h Total time13 reported per FDP (hours) 69 90 133 92 384 Average14 travel time (hrs. minutes) 54m 1h 29m 1h 6m 52m 1h 3m Oromia/CRS/WV: Almost all the woreda’s FDPs are located in a central area, which is relatively close to the kebeles served by the FDPs. According to FGD participants, FDPs are accessible to beneficiaries’ households with the distance from the beneficiary village to FDP varying from about 15 minutes to three hours; while the time taken by households living in the marginal areas significantly exceeding the average time of about one and a half hours. In order to reduce the time, beneficiaries have to spend waiting at FDPs to receive food, some IPs have opened satellite FDPs to reduce the long distances walked to the FDPs. For example, key informants indicated that as a result of a new FDP built in the Chiro Zuriya woreda using corrugated iron sheets near the village, both the travel time and wait time have been reduced. There are also plans to open other satellite FDPs in areas closer to other beneficiaries’ villages. According to the beneficiary survey results, 34.7 percent of the respondents in CRS woredas “strongly agree” that the FDP is in a convenient location, another 58.7 percent “agree” that the FGD is conveniently located, while only 5.3 percent “disagree.” The relevant percentages for WV were 27.0 percent, 67.7 percent, and 4.8 percent. Among survey respondents from Dire Dawa Administration, 25.0 percent “strongly agree” and 62.5 percent “agree” that the FDP is conveniently located compared to, respectively, 64.4 percent and 47.3 percent of respondents from Oromia. Amhara/FH/WV: The RT found that long waiting times is also a major problem in Amhara, which compromises the efficiency of the food distribution. The RT noted that the waiting time less an issue for beneficiaries interviewed in FHE operational woredas where the individual distribution method is used. This is because beneficiaries are not required to wait until other group members arrive. Beneficiaries spend much less time compared to their counterparts in other IPs to collect their rations; they receive the distribution when they reach the distribution point or have a moderate wait if there is a queue. However, beneficiaries in WV/ORDA operation areas, where group scooping is practiced, the total time of 142 hours by the total number of respondents from that region (n=120). See Annex 10 for more details. 11 The shortest of all times reported by the respondents in the FDP operated by each IP (this is not an average). 12 The longest of all times reported by the respondents in the FDP operated by each IP (this is not an average). 13 The sum of the times reported by each respondent in the FDP operated by each IP [n= 75 (CRS); n=60 (FHI); n=120 (REST); and n=105 (WV)]. 14 Average for each column is calculated by dividing the total time reported from all respondents by the total number of respondents. For example, for CRS, the average time of 54 minutes was calculated by dividing the total time of 69 hours by the total number of respondents from the FDP run by CRS (n=75). See Annex 10 for more details. 27 complained about the long waiting time to get their rations. Beneficiaries in ORDA-managed FDPs reported waiting for an average of four hours until their group members arrive at the distribution point. Tigray/REST: The wait time is a cause of concerns at the REST FDPs visited. With an average wait time of over six hours according to beneficiary survey finding (confirmed by both RT observations and FGD respondents), the wait time is unreasonably excessive. The RT estimates that distributions should be concluded within two hours, so that the beneficiaries can go to the FDP, collect their rations, and return home within daylight hours. Anything beyond this time will make the trek back home hazardous for the beneficiaries, especially women, many of whom traveled to the distribution points with their little children or even babies. The long wait time imposes other opportunity costs of beneficiaries, such as lost time to spend on necessary household chores. Key informants pointed to the group scooping method as a major contributor to the long wait time. If all beneficiaries in a group do not come on time, early arrivers are forced to wait until the group size is large enough to constitute a scooping group. Paradoxically, the early arrivers are being penalized by this process, which in turn creates disincentives for them or others to arrive early or on time. Overall, in the beneficiary survey, sample respondents were asked to express their level of agreement to the statement “The FDP is located in a convenient location” and the overwhelming majority (85 percent) “agree” or “strongly agree” while 15 percent “disagree.” With regard to facilities at the FDPs (e.g., latrines, water, shelter), about 15.3 percent of survey respondents “strongly agree,” and 41.1 percent agreed that necessarily facilities were present at the FDP, while 43.6 percent either “disagree” or “strongly disagree.” By region, the highest percentage of respondents who “disagree” or “strongly disagree” is in Tigray (60.8 Percent), followed by Amhara region (45.8 percent). By IP, FH and had the highest proportion, at 71.7 percent and 60.8 percent, respectively (see Figure 8). The lack of adequate shelter and water is a common problem at FDPs, a problem that is exacerbated by the, often, long wait times experienced by beneficiaries. Some IPs have attempted to alleviate the lack of shelter. For example, WV/CARE and FHE built a shelter to protect beneficiaries from the high temperatures and rain. Figure 8: Respondents Agreement with FDPs Having the Necessary Facilities h. Do partners use group based or scooping methods system during food ration distributions—what are the pros and cons of using one or the other? 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% Amhara Oromia Tigray CRS FH REST WV Region Partner Total (n=36 0) Strongly Disagree Disagree Agree Strongly agree 28 Oromia/CRS/WV: The preferred scooping method varies from one IP to another. Some IPs use only individual scooping, while the others use only group scooping. Still the other IPs mix individual scooping with group scooping. As noted by FGD participants, the group scooping method is not preferred since beneficiaries who come early have to wait for the arrival of the other beneficiaries. For the same reason, beneficiaries prefer the individual scooping method since they receive the food without wasting time waiting for other beneficiaries. The downside of individual scooping is that it requires many scoopers to efficiently distribute food, or a scooper needs to work for a prolonged time to serve all beneficiaries. It is also more costly to use individual scooping since the IPs need hire more food scoopers. Amhara/FH/WV: The two IPs reviewed in the region are using different methods of food distribution. The WV/ORDA uses the group-based method in DSFA project woredas as it is seen as being less expensive for the IPs and can be completed in shorter period. On the negative side, early arrivers are forced to wait for late comers, which increases their waiting time. In contrast, FHE woredas have adopted the individual scooping method. The advantage of individual scooping, as cited by the beneficiaries and IPs staff alike, is it helps beneficiaries to receive their entitlements; it reduces the incidence of “ghost” clients, it enables quicker distribution for beneficiaries who arrive early at the sites according to the “first-come-first-served” principle, and it helps minimizing complaints about food distribution. Disadvantages of individual scooping, as identified by IP staff, include: • Individual scooping may result in an excess loss of commodities due to under/overweight of bags. FDPs do not weigh bags/containers when receiving food commodities from the PDPs. • Compared to the group scooping, the individual scooping approach is tiresome as it deals with individuals just on arrival. • Individual scooping incurs additional costs for loading and unloading purpose as foods must be stacked at the booths of the distributors during the distribution day. The leftover food commodities have to be warehoused by the storekeeper at the end of the distribution. • Individual scooping may also require construction of small booths for distributors. • Individual scooping can be time consuming compared to the group scooping. • Individual scooping may require additional staff, especially distributors, and needs intensive supervision. This may, therefore, have an impact on the approved budget. In sum, the group scooping method is more appropriate and efficient in the eyes of FDP staff as it is done with less effort and cost to the program. Notwithstanding, beneficiaries participating in FGDs and responding to the survey expressed a clear preference for the individual method. For example, respondents from FHE woredas expressed the highest satisfaction with efficiency of the food distribution staff and with the overall food distribution more than beneficiaries from IPs who use group scooping. The RT found that WV/ORDA is currently piloting individual scooping approach in 28 kebeles in the three Ethiopia Joint Emergency Operation Program (JEOP) operational woredas. ORDA is looking for scaling up the individual distribution system in all its operational woredas in order to minimize the unreasonably long waiting time for beneficiaries. A recent midterm review of commodity management of the JEOP—which covered 23 FDPs in Oromia, Dire Dawa, Amhara, Tigray, and Southern, Nations, Nationalities, and Peoples Region (SNNPR)—has thoroughly discussed the pros and cons of the two scooping methods and concluded that: “Although the grouping system is an approach which can make the distribution process easier for FDP staff, however, in the majority of FDPs across the six IPs, this has reduced the efficiency of the distribution process. The primary reason for this is that these FDPs wait considerable lengths of time to allow the ‘majority’ of beneficiaries to first arrive, before they form different groups. Whilst this can make life easier for the staff and helpers at each of the FDPs, this is at the trade-off against beneficiaries. Beneficiaries arriving early have to wait until the majority of beneficiaries arrive, creating frustration.” (International 29 Business & Technical Consultants Inc. (2018) Commodity Management Review: USAID/ETHIOPIA Joint Emergency Operation Program (JEOP) Final Report, p. 24) Tigray/REST: At each of the visited FDPs, REST used individual scooping. Usually, there are three stations where the beneficiaries have to go to after fingerprinting the Payroll: 1) wheat, 2) YSP, and 3) oil. Beneficiaries generally praised scoopers and the warehouse staff for their performance. But moving from a station to another takes some time because the beneficiary has to move away to secure his/her ration of wheat or pulses before going to the next station. The group and individual scooping methods have their own weaknesses and strengths. However, the RT strongly thinks that the advantages of group scooping outweigh the benefits of individual scooping (as explained above). “Grouping” is by far the most effective way of carrying out food distributions in the DFSA context. Food Aid Utilization and Self-Monetization To assess the extent of food aid commodity utilization and the degree of self-monetization the review team conducted rapid market assessment in 12 markets. The RT observed the extent of availability of Title II Food Commodities, prices, demand, etc. In addition to observation, reviewers/researchers complemented the observation by interviewing a gender mix of traders and market actors. In the 12 markets visited, there were no established Title II food sellers. The RT was able to observe very small quantities of Title II YSP (average 35 kgs per market) bartered against locally grown cereals for higher quantity of the latter. This practice is used as a mechanism to fill the gap when a family is large while the ration is capped to a household size of five persons so that they can have a larger quantity of the local produce. This finding was triangulated through KIIs and FGDs where participants confirmed that few beneficiaries sell or barter a small portion of their rations to buy other household consumption ingredients like pepper or salt. Moreover, in the beneficiary survey, the RT asked the respondents about their utilization of the food commodities. The majority responded for household consumption only: Amhara (98.3 percent), Oromia (100 percent), and Tigray (93.3 percent) (see Figure 9). This finding is in line with the most recent Bellmon Analysis Report for Ethiopia (January 2018), which indicated importation of Title II commodity resources will have no negative effect on markets nor any interference with local food production performance. Figure 9: Response to the Question “How did you utilize the food commodity you received?” 3.2 THEMATIC AREA 2: FOOD MANAGEMENT PRACTICES AND INTERNAL CONTROL SYSTEMS 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Amhara Oromia Tigray CRS FH REST WV Region Partner Total (n=3 60) Consumption Sale/self-monetization 30 a. How are the IPs’ food management, operation, and reporting systems mapped at all levels (central warehouses, regions, woreda level)? Regarding the Food Management Practices and Internal Control Systems, there is no significant difference between the IPs in terms of procedures, processes, and practices. As a result, mapping the system of one partner will provide a picture of the systems used by each IP at all levels, including the head office, regional (PDP), and woreda (FDP) levels. Food commodities are transported from the port of Djibouti to the PDP regional warehouses. The PDP managers and storekeepers receive the food commodities and store them in warehouses with larger capacity. Any losses or damages that occur during the inland transportation are reported on the waybill. The truckloads come with a port survey report with a record of any maritime losses or damages against the total tonnage as per the Bill of Lading (BL). The graph on the left is a summary of the essential sequence of events for the release of the food commodities systems across the food commodity management and distribution chains and reports. The Government prepares the Payroll Lists of the beneficiaries based on the result of the selection. The selection of the beneficiaries is based on strict criteria of vulnerability. Woreda authorities prepare request for food quantities according to number of beneficiaries. Request is sent to IPs and arrangements are made to transfer the food commodities from PDP warehouses. IPs prepare dispatch request with all goods transfer documents signed by different parties. FDP staff receives commodities at the FDPs with Goods Receiving Notes/Vouchers/Waybills signed by the driver and the storekeeper, with mention of losses, if any, during inland transportation. Commodities are stacked in the FDP warehouse, and BIN cards prepared/updated, and attached to each stack. Stock cards are also prepared/updated and filed. Ledger books are updated accordingly with new entries. Loss and Adjustment reports are prepared and filed. Monthly Commodity Status Reports (CSR) are prepared and sent to USAID. Copies are filed by the IPs. IPs Head Office is at the top with the overall responsibility of managing the food aid commodities. The Head Offices ensure safe delivery from ports to PDPs, approve dispatches requested by woreda projects, and instruct PDPs to proceed with the distribution of the approved amount. The Head Offices are also responsible to monitor and supervise the appropriate handling and distribution at all levels of the chain. For example, Head Office commodity teams visit sample live distributions quarterly. • The PDPs receive commodities from ports and properly store and handle them until dispatched to FDPs as per approved amount. • Woreda project offices manage the FDPs and satellite distribution sites in each woreda. Core activities of woreda project office are to ensure: - FDPs are storing and handling the food commodities received from PDPs; - All payment requested are cross-checked with master beneficiaries’ list and authorized by concerned personnel. Government Prepares Beneficiaries List Dispatch Notes prepared to request Commodities from IP PDPS Dispatch Notes Approved by IP Foods Received at FDPs from PDP with Waybill signed by all parties Ledgers & BIN/Stack Cards prepared or updated by IP IPs send monthly CSRs to USAID Government Prepares Payroll List IPs send quarterly QWICR Report to USAID 31 - Beneficiaries sign on PASS payroll, - To avoid conflict of interest, all commodities are requested from the store by commodity distributer and distributed to eligible beneficiaries. - Distribution is facilitated in the presence of commodity distribution supervisor. - Food aid monitors observe live distributions. - FDPs are site level actors in the chain. They are responsible to receive food commodities from PDPs and properly keep them in the warehouse until distribution. - Reports flow from FDP to woreda project office to Head Office. The PDPs report directly to Head Office of IPs. Overall, PDPs are well managed in the three regions of Amhara, Oromia, Tigray, as well as in the Dire Dawa Administration. The food commodities are stored in safe and secure compounds. The structures are generally in cement with strong metal doors and good roofing. However, in Adama, the warehouses managed by CRS and WV are Rub Halls (or large, re-locatable tent-link structures). The WV warehouse (run by CARE) is better managed as per the standards of food commodities storage. The Rub Halls are erected in a way that enables ventilation and good drainage all around. In addition to Rub Halls, WV has built other warehouses with corrugated sheets (wall and roof) instead of renting private storage structures, which are not maintained by the owners and require costly rental fees. Similarly, all sample FDPs were found to offer safe and sound structures to store food commodities; with the exception of the Rub Halls, the brick structures are found to be very secure, with metal doors, high roofing, good ventilation, barbed wire-fencing, and high storage capacity. All IPs have adequate security protocols with the presence of day and night guards on the premises. The receipts/transfers of commodities were found to be very efficient and there are structured monitoring and compliance procedures in place for dispatching food commodities from PDPs to FDPs. b. How are commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling and disposal of losses handled including Best Used by Date (BUBD)? Food Dispatch to Distribution Point Warehouses (FDP) – From PDP to FDP: Across the three regions and Dire Dawa Administration, the local government authorities (woreda) send the final list and calculation of the food tonnage to the IPs. The Payroll, or list of the beneficiaries, lists the commodities needed for each round. IPs dispatch the food commodities from their main PDPs to the FDPs. As mentioned earlier, the IPs work closely with their government counterparts in all aspects of food distribution, where respective woreda officials determine distribution dates. At some FDPs (Atigrat, Gantafeshum [REST], Agat, Tach Gayint [FHE], Adama [CARE], Deder [CRS], Siraro [WV]), the RT found some clerical mistakes in the handling of the ledgers and the stacks/Bin cards. These included columns with no signatures, erasures, and signatures without initials making it difficult for a newcomer to know who actually did the transactions. It is worth mentioning that these shortcomings were not indicative of any coverup. There were simply clerical errors derived by the lack of supervision by managers and monthly inspectors. All the bags and cartons have been accounted for. Operations and Record Keeping: The common operation practices in the receipt and dispatch of food commodities observed include the following: 32 a. Tally cards are visible in the warehouse along with well recorded (receipt, delivery dates) commodity movements. The tally cards are filled with pen. b. Erroneous entries (observed in eight of 22 FDPs visited) were crossed with two parallel bars and re-entered. Some warehouses, however, just wrote over deleted entries. c. General ledgers are maintained at the office to reconcile all the food movements to and from the warehouses. d. Voucher/waybills are signed by the receiving person(s) of truckload based on actual numbers and cargo conditions of the food. e. Each warehouse uses first-in-first-out (FIFO) for commodities distribution. f. Physical inventory is performed every month, but the same person is designated each month. g. PDP warehouses have the required equipment and practice the required operation and management systems. h. Scales or ground balances for weighing foods are available, and with the exception of Zuway Dugda and Siraro, all the FDPs and PDPs in the three regions have fire extinguishers in working condition. FHE and WV perform fumigation in their warehouses every six months (depending on the evidence of infestation). Because of the application of the first-in-first-out system and presence of ventilated warehouses, IPs, with the exception of FHE and WV/ORDA, did not find it necessary to fumigate their warehouses. FHE’s fumigation provider, Tadesse Pesticide Fumigation, gave a 15-page document detailing the product (Phosphine) to be used and the whole procedure. The WV/ORDA’s provider gave a one-page certificate with the name of the chemical (Aluminum Phosphide) without any description of the procedure. i. The IP Chief of Party (COP), Deputy Chief of Party (DCOP), Project/Project Manager, etc. make unscheduled visits to the warehouse and distribution points. j. DFSA Food Specialists at USAID also make scheduled visits. Ledgers and Stack Cards Handling: The ledgers for each type of commodities are all well-kept, with all the food movements duly transcribed by the storekeeper. The monthly physical inspections take place and are also recorded in the respective ledgers with the signature of the comptroller. The same information and evidence are transcribed on the corresponding stack and Bin cards. c. Are these systems aligned with commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling and disposal of losses per 22 CFR 211 (Regulation 11) requirements and other USAID directives, including reporting through the QWICR system? Across the three regions, the RT found that the management and reporting systems of all PDPs and most FDPs (19 out of 22) are in line with 22 CFR 211 (Regulation 11) requirements and other USAID directives. The three FDPs that do not meet the standard were in Oromia: 1) Zuway Dugda store does not have any warehouse equipment and the storekeeper has no knowledge of warehouse management; and 2) Siraro has neither storage with basic facilities, nor equipment or standard management practices Photo 5: One of clerical mistakes on Stack Cards columns without signatures. Photo 4: One of clerical mistakes in Ledgers. Columns without signatures. 33 to be considered as a standard FDP15 since food commodities are distributed immediately after it is delivered to the staff. All IPs submit the QWICR report to USAID on a quarterly basis. This was confirmed in the KII with two DFSA Food Specialists at the USAID/Ethiopia Mission. The IPs have developed a very good system of file management. Nearly all the reports are stored in filing cabinets at the FDPs with copies sent to their head office as well. The FDPs of Zuway Dugda and Siraro in Oromia are the exceptions. Zuway Dudga did not have the essential equipment and facilities (fire extinguishers, pallets, first aid kits, cleaning materials, latrines, etc.), and the storekeeper did not know much about reporting, handling, and disposal activities. Siraro is an FDP which does not have a warehouse of its own but transports food for distribution as a satellite station. d. Is there appropriate and sufficient warehouse staff in place with clear understanding of USAID commodity management rules and regulations? Do warehouse staff have access to all the required warehouse equipment at the warehouse level? There are sufficient warehouse staff in each of the FDPs and PDPs visited. Each FDP is staffed with a storekeeper, inventory controller, food distributors, cleaners, and guards. In general, the staff were found to be knowledgeable of USAID commodity management rules and regulations, and their duties are clearly segregated. The IPs have regular on-the-job training programs to enhance staff capacity in food management and handling. They have access to all the required warehouse equipment, i.e., ladder, scales, empty bags and plastic containers for reconditioning, local ration measurement gauges, brooms, etc. All the guards have the capacity to operate the fire extinguishers. The RT had live demonstrations in Amhara and Tigray to test their knowledge. As mentioned earlier, Oromia region is the exception. The required staff were not in place in most of the FDP warehouses visited in Oromia. Where they were in place, they were not familiar with Regulation 11 and did not understand USAID commodity management rules and regulations. In the worst case, the storekeeper in Zuway Dugda said he was completely unfamiliar with the USAID commodity management rules and regulations. In addition, a few FDPs are short in staff. For instance, the Deder FDP storekeeper used to work for the FDP in the Deder woreda while at the same time managing a second FDP. e. Is there appropriate and standard practice in recordkeeping of all relevant documentation with appropriate authorizations at all levels? f. Are all commodity movements and transfers supported by appropriate documentation, including distribution plans, dispatch notes, and any other documentation that authorizes the movement of commodities. After reviewing all documents and practices, the RT found that there are good standard practices in recordkeeping at all levels of the food management at the PDPs and FDPs. The same can be said of the head offices of all DFSA IPs. The only exceptions remain the cases of Deder and Zuway Dugda. The RT also observed and confirmed that there is appropriate documentation that supports commodity movements, both from the port to PDPs as well as transfers from PDP to FDP warehouses. Similarly, FDPs maintained copies of appropriate documentation that are authorized to support commodity movement, distribution, dispatch, etc. The documentation process includes the following steps: 15 There is a checklist to define an FDP i.e. location, structure, equipment, storage, records keeping, USAID logo, staffing, shelter, latrines, etc. Siraro does not have these, therefore, the RT hesitates to call it a standard FDP. 34 • First, on the receipt of the request for a specific amount of each food commodity for an FDP, the IP project manager or a person responsible approves the request. • After the approval by the project manager, another staff member in charge authorizes the dispatch of the specified amount of food commodities approved. • Following the approval and authorization to dispatch, the logistics department or division issues a bidding request or invites already shortlisted transport service providers to provide trucks to deliver the food commodities. The winner of the tender signs an agreement with the IP. • On receipt of the authorization of commodities to be dispatched and the dispatch order, the warehouse manager prepares a waybill with the commodity type, total in each unit (bags or cartons) of commodity, truck plate number, destination, etc. Simultaneously, the tally sheet is recorded as the commodity is being counted and loaded on the truck so that any difference is resolved before a waybill is signed and the truck leaves the warehouse. • The truck transports the food commodities to the specified FDP warehouse. • The storekeeper acknowledges receipt of the food commodities and records any losses or damages on the waybill. Every bag of wheat/pulse, and every carton of oil is traceable. • The transaction recorded on the waybill is also recorded on the PDP warehouse ledger as well as on the Bin/stack cards. With REST, there is a system of Inter Store Transfer Voucher (ISTV), Goods Receiving Voucher (GRV), Food Commodities Requisition Forms, and waybills with clear segregation of duties evidenced by the many IP staff signatures, including the transporter’s. The forms are all pre-numbered in six copies with carbon paper. Every food movement is effectively traceable and well documented. IPs initiate regular monthly checks to ensure that commodities are physically accounted for and checked against the stack/Bin cards and the ledgers. CRS has a series of forms for food movements as well, including Commodities Release Form and Waybill. WV’s forms include Food Commodities Requisition Form, Waybill, Commodity Dispatch Authorization Form, Commodity Release Form, and Commodities Issue Voucher Form. CARE’s include Commodity Receiving Notification, Daily Commodity Register, and Waybill Dispatcher. g. Is compliance with internal controls reviewed periodically? Overall, the RT found that compliance with internal controls is reviewed periodically. Ledgers and stack cards are maintained and monthly inspections and monitoring field visits take place regularly, while head office staff are very knowledgeable of the relevant regulations. The RT, however, did observe a few things that may need to tighter control by the IPs. For example, in some ledgers or stack cards, there were columns without a signature for a whole month. The RT found cases where the occurrence of the inspection was written in blue, the same color as the daily entries, instead of in red. In some books, there were erasures of wrong entries, which is against compliance with internal controls. Moreover, in many FDPs, the monthly inspection is conducted by the same person over and over again suggesting that such inspection might become just a formality or a routine. h. How frequently do IPs conduct physical inventories and other monitoring? How are inconsistencies of figures between stocktaking and the records handled? i. Is there an unusual volume of inventory adjustment, write-off, or disposal? As mentioned earlier, the IPs conduct monthly physical inventories and reconcile the respective ledgers with the Bin/stack cards and the physical counts. There are also quarterly monitoring visits by headquarters (HQ) staff, and USAID’s food specialists conduct unscheduled visits. The RT did not find or observe any discrepancies during its fieldwork with the exception of WV/ORDA in which the physical inventory is performed weekly by storekeepers, monthly by a commodity accountant, and annually by a joint committee with government sectors. The RT did not find or hear about any inventory adjustments, write-offs, etc. However, REST mentioned the destruction of some infested YSP, which became wet from at port of Djibouti. There was a 35 certificate from the Ministry of Health declaring the food unfit for human consumption. j. What is the frequency of commodity monitoring visits conducted by the head office? According to the PDP and FDP warehouses staff and the field reports reviewed, the relevant people at the IPs’ head offices conduct commodity monitoring visits on a quarterly basis. In all three regions, all IPs conduct physical inventory on a monthly basis by the comptroller. However, a surprise monitoring inspection also occurs by the Field Food Managers. The IPs’ HQ staff also make commodity monitoring visits on quarterly basis. For REST, at the head office, which is in Mekele, the field food commodities manager meets often with his FDP counterparts. In WV/ORDA, physical inventory is done on a weekly, monthly and annual basis by storekeepers, Commodity Accountants or a joint committee with government sectors. Quarterly commodity monitoring visits by a senior staff from the HQ are also part of the established practices. In Oromia/CRS/WV, according to warehouses staff, IPs’ head offices’ conduct commodity monitoring visits every quarter. But it is less frequently that IPs’ head offices undertake commodity monitoring visits at the FDP warehouses. k. How are the storage/warehouse conditions at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels handled, maintained, and equipped? Oromia: All except two sample FDP and PDP warehouses reviewed in Oromia are well structured with minimum standard requirements. Specific observations by the RT are summarized below. • Warehouses are built in a standard structure in very secure and clean environment. They have secure doors and windows, roofs are not leaking, no cracks/holes were found in the walls, and the floors are sufficiently hard packed to prevent burrowing by rodents. • Warehouses have adequate capacity to store the quantity of the commodities required for the planned distributions to the target beneficiaries. • Warehouses are equipped with all necessary equipment, including fire extinguishers with the staff skilled to use it, weighing scales, first aid kits, cleaning materials, and office furniture. • Warehouse records are promptly and properly kept. Records of food commodities movement are well kept and reconciled. • None of the FDPs, however, have a double-padlock system to access the warehouse. In Tigray, the RT visited six FDPs (three live distributions) and a PDP as planned and added two more FDPs. The RT’s observations are as follows: • Warehouses are built in concrete in a very secure environment and fenced with barbed wire. They have secure wide metal doors and high windows; there are no cracks, and the floors are cemented. • Warehouses have adequate capacity to store the commodities and all the necessary equipment. • Warehouses have a double-padlock system. When asked about the potential risks, all the storekeepers said they open the warehouse every morning with the night guard, as a precaution. • Warehouses lack electricity, shelters, and drinking water. The lack of electricity, however, does not seem to be a problem because the windows are large enough to let in the daylight. In Amhara, all sample FDP and PDP warehouses reviewed are well structured and furnished with minimum standard requirements. The RT observed the following: • Warehouses are built in a standard structure in a very secure and clean environment. • Warehouses have secure doors and windows, roofs are not leaking, no cracks/holes were found in the walls, and the floors are sufficiently hard packed to prevent burrowing by rodents. • Warehouses have adequate capacity to store the commodities and all the necessary equipment. • None of the FDPs has a double-padlock system. 36 • FDPs lack electricity, shelters, and drinking water. With the exception of Agat FDP in Tach Gayint, all FDPs visited do not have toilets. Some of the Rub Halls that the PDPs are using appear old, are difficult to maintain, and are likely to have negative impact if food commodities are stored for a long period of time under such high temperatures, like the hot weather in Dire Dawa and Nazret. The RT has doubts about the security of a rented CRS warehouse, which is located near the road to Harar, outside Dire Dawa town. According to CRS, it is renting the warehouse because it could not find a private warehouse that is licensed and pays an Ethiopia sales tax rate (VAT); however, the warehouse’s location is concerning. The RT also has security concerns with a PDP in Kombolcha, which is rented and used by FHE. Although the structure and other aspects of the warehouse are up to the required standards, the warehouse is in a compound shared with living quarters and shops. The owner of the warehouse is also constructing a hotel next door to the warehouse. Two CRS-managed FDP warehouses (Deder and Arsi Nagele) are located in an undesirable environment. One of them (Deder) sits next to toilets. In Arsi Nageke woreda, the warehouse is located in an open field with no fence. The FDP warehouse in Zuway Dugda woreda does not have any equipment or cleaning materials, and it is difficult to understand how commodities are handled in this warehouse. Moreover, the RT observed a few bags of commodities stacked directly on an unclean floor without pallets, which shows that commodities handling is far from the standard practice in this FDP warehouse. In Deder, the RT found a leaking roof. The old Rub Hall has an uneven floor with cracks at the center and the sides. The roof has holes that force the storekeeper to put a tarp over his desk to protect the documents against the leakage. Some bags are split open with contents partially spilling. The RT did not see any rodents but conditions implied their presence. In Tigray, REST started about two years ago building new FDP warehouses at its distribution sites. The main objective is to put these warehouses where there is a high concentration of beneficiaries and thereby reduce the travel time to get there. The RT further observed the following: • The warehouses are built in cement, have high roofing, and are fenced with barbed wire. The places are secure as the warehouses are not in an isolated place. • Warehouses all have metal doors, but not with the double-padlock system. There were no cracks/holes in the walls, and the floors are hard cement. • Warehouses have enough capacity to store the commodities and all the necessary equipment to meet USAID’s requirements. • The food commodities were stored as per the standard practice, i.e., one meter from the wall, space between the piles, and acceptable height for the piles. • Warehouse and food commodity records are well kept and reconciled. • FDPs lack electricity but the meshed windows are wide enough to let in the daylight. • FDPs do not have shelters for the beneficiaries, drinking water, or latrines (except Alamata, Ahferom, Hawzen). The RT was told by a REST staff member that the beneficiaries are allowed to use the staff latrines (Gantafeshum and Gulomekada). However, during interviews with beneficiaries, it was clear that they were not aware of this. 3.3 THEMATIC AREA 3: REPORTING Photo 6: Torn bags in Ethiopian Catholic Church Social Development Coordination Rub Hall. 37 a. What types of commodity-related information are collected and disseminated and how frequently? Are these adequate for ensuring sound management system? The review team found the IPs have appropriate commodity-related information collection system. Data and information collected include dispatching, transfer, loss/damage/misuse and physical inventory of food commodities. IPs, in partnership with local authorities, also collect beneficiary data (payroll list) based on which quantity of food commodity requirements are estimated, dispatch notes, losses, commodity status reports, post distribution monitoring data, etc. In addition, IP and FDP staff provide awareness to beneficiaries on the utilization of the foods and the relevance of the food commodities distributed, as well as on USAID regulations on the utilization of food aid. FHE has a monthly information center (IC) report it shares with woreda food security office and the local USAID Mission. Other information disseminated is the monthly CSR, required of all IPs, shared with FHE regional office and the USAID Mission. BUBD reports and physical inventories are shared on weekly, monthly, and quarterly basis with relevant stakeholders. All of these reports are minimum requirements to ensure sound management. Other aspects of commodity related information are discussed under food distribution and food management above. b. How timely are the reports produced and shared? What systems/tools are in place to validate data quality of various reports at all levels (from field level to Addis office)? All IPs prepare and submit the monthly CSR and the quarterly QWICR to the Mission in Addis Ababa. In each of the three regions, the RT saw the copies of the CSRs transmitted to USAID. None of the IPs have ever received negative feedback or clarification request from the Mission about their reports. In a written KII interaction, two of USAID’s DFSA specialists stated that the IPs comply with their CSRs and other report obligations. Since the RT did not hear any negative reaction from the Mission regarding these reports, it assumes that USAID agrees with the above findings. However, the RT in Tigray did learn that recently an old problem with REST’s QWICR emerged, and the two parties set a time for late August 2019 to fix it. All IPs have established systems to validate the quality of their reports. FHE, for example, has both Excel and a Country Commodity Tracking System (CCTS) at field project level and Addis office. QWICR is in place at the Addis office to validate the data quality of the organization’s commodity reports. WV/ORDA uses waybills, commodity receiving notes, commodity issue vouchers, and supporting documents like PASS payroll, attendances sheet, a master beneficiary list, and commodity tracking software to validate data quality. Additional tools and methods used to validate the data quality of various reports include verifications and data entry checks as well as documenting evidences such as photographs and beneficiary interview records. c. Do partners have feedback loop systems that identify and improve report quality? Partners have food monitors, periodic inspectors, and reports received at each level on which they receive feedback. The daily status report is the fastest means to know the overall condition of the warehouses and the food commodities in each FDP. Detailed reporting and feedback is obtained from monthly and quarterly reports. 38 4. CONCLUSIONS AND BEST PRACTICES Evidence collected from all sources for the PSNP CMR, implemented in collaboration with the GOE, indicates the conclusion that the PSNP is a successful program. Other conclusions falling under each of the relevant thematic areas are provided below. Thematic Area 1 – Distribution of Food Aid: The RT concludes that the food beneficiaries were the intended beneficiaries based on the vulnerability criteria for their selection, that they are receiving the approved ration size across the three regions of Amhara, Tigray, and Oromia and in Dire Dawa. Signboards, banners, and sensitization sessions by megaphone have effectively communicated key messages so that the large majority of the beneficiaries know their entitlements. The agreement reached over the standardized local weight measurements is a good step towards making distributions easier for scoopers. It should have made distributions quicker too, but the way the distributions are done makes the process a bit too long. The high percentage of the beneficiaries who know their rations and the United States (U.S.) origin of the commodities is a very good sign suggesting the IPs are meeting USAID’s branding and marking standards. As for the food movements from PDPs to FDPs, the system in place is reliable and predictable. The IPs issue the foods, dispatching from the PDPs to the FDPs based on the government’s appeal. They calculate the tonnage of commodities required for each round and make arrangements to have the food commodities transported to the FDPs before the distribution dates. The transfer requests are done through pre-numbered documentation with the signatures of more than three persons for the foods dispatched. At the FDP, there are also pre-numbered management documents to acknowledge receipt of the food commodities. The system works in such a way that all the food movements are traceable. The IPs work closely with their government counterparts in all aspects of the distribution. The distribution dates are determined by respective woreda officials. Local governments play an integral role in the distribution process from the onset. Government officials from the woredas and kebeles have the important role of establishing the beneficiary list and determining distribution dates. The dates are then relayed through the kebele leaders to village leaders and then down to the communities. On the day of the distribution, the kebele and village leaders/FSTF play a pivotal role to validate the beneficiary identities. The RT’s main concern is the time spent by the beneficiaries at the FDPs during distribution days. Across the five regions and all IPs, the majority of FDPs take significant time to conclude the distributions. The RT estimates that distributions should be concluded within two hours, so that the beneficiaries can come to the FDP, collect their rations, and return home within daylight hours. Anything beyond this time makes the trek home hazardous, particularly given that the beneficiaries are carrying their food distributions. Women are more vulnerable, especially those that come to the distribution points with little children. With the exception of Dire Dawa, where the distribution point is 30 minutes away for some beneficiaries, in the Amhara region, some beneficiaries have to walk five hours one way to reach the FDP. Thematic Area 2 – Food Management and Internal Control Systems: PDP warehouses are well managed, and commodities are stored in safe and secure compounds and structures, together with adequate security protocols. The receipt of commodities follows an efficient pattern, while all the bags of wheat and pulses and cartons of vegetable oil are accounted for. Each IP follows the monitoring and compliance procedures by conducting monthly checks. The food commodities are physically counted and checked against stack/Bin cards and ledgers. 39 All IPs conduct monthly warehouse visits. However, assigning the same person to do the visit each time potentially reduces the effectiveness of this control if it becomes just a routine, and it raised the possibility of collusion if the same persons are doing the inspections each time. Thematic Area 3 – Reporting: The reporting system is satisfactory. All IPs systematically prepare, update, and retain Bin cards, stock cards, authorizations, goods transfer notes, goods receiving notes, waybills, ledgers, and BUBD tables. CSRs are submitted on a timely basis, and fumigation certificates (FHE and WW/ORDA) and weighing scale calibration certificates are on file. QWICR reports are submitted quarterly to USAID. The RT did not receive any negative comments from USAID on the timeliness of the reports’ nor their quality indicating that they meet the Mission’s expectations in both cases. Over the course of the review, the RT observed several best practices. • USAID branding: Across all the sampled FDPs and primary warehouses in the three regions and Dire Dawa, there are clear and large signboards posted depicting the USAID logo, the types of commodities stored, and the rations size to which beneficiaries are entitled. • Collaboration: There is close collaboration between the local authorities (woreda), the kebele, the communities, and the IPs for the selection of intended beneficiaries. • Traceability: All food movements are well documented minimizing the opportunities for mistakes. • Last Mile Mobile Solution: LMMS requires less time to confirm beneficiaries’ identities, and it minimizes possible malfeasance, making the distribution considerably more efficient. • Latrines: The latrines built by FHE in corrugated iron (in Tach Gayint) with an affordable water dispenser for hands washing can be built by other IPs at their respective FDPs. • The mode of food distribution: There are two schools of thoughts related to grouping and scooping. Grouping is less expensive and more effective than scooping. There is a capacity building aspect attached to it. All the beneficiaries know their food rations and entitlements. 5. RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the above findings and conclusions, the RT makes the following recommendations to improve the management, efficiency, and effectiveness of the DFSA food commodities program. Location of FDPs: In the Amhara region, the distances are large and the terrain is difficult. This situation imposes significant hardships on beneficiaries who have to walk to the FDPs to receive their food rations. FHE and FHE/ORDA have started satellite food distributions to take food commodities closer to the communities. The experience has proven so far to be a good relief for the beneficiaries. The RT thus recommends that the partners in the Amhara region explore three possibilities: 1. Relocate/decentralize their FDPs by constructing new warehouses in their coverage area (like REST in Tigray). 2. Systematize the satellite distributions by taking the food commodities to the beneficiaries on distribution days. This implies putting in place basic distribution infrastructures, i.e., use tarpaulins and foldable poles to build foldable/portable shelters for beneficiaries and food distributors (to be mounted just on foods distribution day). 3. Continue with on-site distributions (satellite) (for those IPs with FDPs that are far away). Time for beneficiaries to receive rations: The RT found the wait times for beneficiaries to collect their rations, across the three regions, to be largely unproductive for the beneficiaries. The main reason is that all beneficiaries do not come on time and early arrivers have to wait until the there are enough people to constitute small groups. It is possible for the IPs to reduce the wait time for the beneficiaries to less than an hour and a half at the FDP sites adopting one or more of the following recommendations: 40 1. Reinforce the sensitization of the beneficiaries on the notion of time. This should be done at four levels: community, kebele, woreda, and FDP. The timelier beneficiaries arrive, the earlier they can go home. In other countries, IPs encourage peer pressure or companionship by asking neighbor beneficiaries to walk together to the distribution point at the given time. 2. Fifteen (15) minutes after the convocation time, check IDs against Payroll lists and constitute groups of ten or 15 beneficiaries and designate de facto group leaders. 3. Fingerprint the members of each group (after ID against payroll) and start the distribution. Through “grouping,” the beneficiaries will do the distribution among themselves since everyone knows the rations and the contents of the local measurement gauges. Food distributors/scoopers are still around should a problem arise. 4. Use grouping or explore a good combination of scooping and grouping to reduce beneficiaries’ time on the distribution site. Groups of five or 15 beneficiaries can manage their own sharing as they all know the rations sizes and the local weight containers are widely accepted. 5. Do a sensitization of communities-kebeles-woredas-foods staff on time management with the beneficiaries. Reorganize the distribution mode to reduce the wait time. Basic Provisions at FDPs: With the exception of Amhara and a couple of FDPs in Tigray, there are no toilets, drinking water, or shelters for beneficiaries at the FDPs. Although the RT was told that beneficiaries are allowed to use the staff latrines in some cases, many beneficiaries are not aware of this. The RT thus recommends that the IPs adopt the following recommendations: 6. Build two 1-meter (m) x 1 m latrines (for men and women) at each FDP site for beneficiaries. For sanitation reasons, a tippy-tap water system or a plastic water container can be installed near the toilets for hands washing. Ash can also be made available in lieu of soap. 7. While waiting for funding to build shelters for beneficiaries, build shelters made of tarpaulins or local woven thatch stretched on wooden poles. The paramount concern is to protect beneficiaries and children from the elements. In addition to the above, the RT offers the following recommendations for USAID/Ethiopia’s consideration. 8. Train storekeepers on how to handle mistakes in the ledgers and Bin/Stack cards, i.e., no erasures or whitewash, but parallel bars on the wrong entries. 9. Designate alternate staff who are not “that close” to the food department to ensure effective warehouse oversight. 10. Remind storekeepers and comptrollers to put their initials or names next to their signatures in the designated columns in the ledgers or on the Bin/Stack cards. 11. Monthly inventories in the warehouses are meant to have a neutral/third party for the control of the food commodities. This review has shown, however, that the same persons do the inspection every month. IPs should alternate sending staff members not involved in the food department. 12. Identify entry points for rodents and take measures to close them. 13. Systematize taking commodities from the warehouse for distribution by able community members (no payment by beneficiaries) as part of a community empowerment strategy. 14. Ask guards well trained in using fire extinguishers to train other users of the warehouse, i.e., storekeepers, janitor, distributors, etc. 15. Add a layer of security by initiating the two-padlock system to the warehouses. Identify a second person to keep the second set of keys. The warehouse should only be opened with the 41 presence of both individuals. 16. Explore the possibility of using and expanding the automated LMMS system initiated by WV. 17. There are monitoring visits carried out by IP and USAID food commodity managers. The RT read some of their reports and recommendations and found that the recommendations had yet to be addressed. The RT thus recommends that recommendations from monitoring reports to be date-bound for execution. 18. Get warehouse staff together at the release of this CMR report. They may agree on strategies to revise their way of running the food program. 19. Follow all the procedures with the USAID Bureau Environmental Officer (BEO) before fumigation takes place. An unfortunate mistake of food poisoning by using the wrong chemical may have bad bilateral consequences. 20. It was reported that in Deder, a group of women collects 1 kg of wheat from each beneficiary out of the premises of the FDP on each distribution day. The RT recommends the Mission and IPs look into this. 42 ANNEXES 43 ANNEX 1: SCOPE OF WORK C.1 TITLE Commodity Management Review of the Food for Peace, Development Food Security Activity (DFSA)/Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP). C.2 OBJECTIVE The objective of this review is to assess and determine whether the approved Food for Peace DFSAs commodities which are received by implementing partners, are managed and distributed as per the established standard of USAID and maintain a sufficient internal control system to manage and utilize Title II food resources efficiently. The review will assess and determine: • Whether the procedures and systems of commodity receipt, management, handling, utilization and reporting under the activities in all regions are consistent with USAID regulations and guidelines, • Whether partners follow appropriate standards and best practices in commodity receipt, management, distribution and reporting, and • Whether partners maintain sufficient internal control systems to manage and utilize Title II food resources efficiently. The Contractor will be required to sample 50% of the 43 Woredas of DFSAs operational areas located in three regions, Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia and Dire Dawa City Administration provided that the 50% sampling considers the proportional number of Woredas for each of the four regions. C.3 BACKGROUND The Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP) is a key element of the Government of Ethiopia’s Food Security Program and plays a critical role in building the resilience of chronically food insecure communities through cash and food transfers, community asset building and support for improved nutrition and livelihoods. USAID supports the Government of Ethiopia’s Productive Safety Net Program (PSNP4) through four Development Food Security Activities (DFSAs) implemented by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) partners in 43 Woredas of three regions and one administration in Ethiopia: Amhara, Oromia, Tigray and Dire Dawa City Administration. USAID’s DFSAs are mechanisms that support the PSNP to address chronic food needs with a goal to make sustained changes to food security and livelihoods of targeted households and communities and reduce their vulnerability to disaster. DFSA started operation in October 2016. The DFSAs are implemented by four NGO partners namely World Vision (WV), Food for the Hungry Ethiopia (FH Ethiopia) Relief Society of Tigray (REST) and Catholic Relief Services (CRS) with the estimated five years total budget Life of Award (LOA) $570 million to provide support to more than 1.4 million Safety Nets beneficiaries. Catholic Relief Services (CRS), under the Ethiopian Livelihoods, & Resilience Program (ELRP) and in consortium with Ethiopian Catholic Church Social & Development Commissions of Harar and Meki (commonly referred to as HCS and MCS), and Mercy Corps implements the ELRP which is designed to build resilience to shocks, enhance livelihoods and improve food security and nutrition for rural households (HHs) vulnerable to food insecurity. The CRS consortium operates in nine Woredas of the East Hararghe, Arsi, West Arsi and Dire Dawa zones. FH Ethiopia implements five integrated and gender-sensitive package of interventions addressing Mother and Child Health and Nutrition (MCHN), agricultural production, markets and income generation, and Disaster Risk Reduction, or Disaster Preparedness and Planning. FH Ethiopia targets 44 seven Woredas across South Gondar and Wag Himra zones. Under PSNP4, REST combines opportunities to consolidate, strengthen and expand Title II investments to date for more accelerated pathways towards graduation; and allowing opportunities to transfer good practices into new areas, by integrating and layering with other REST and non- REST programs for improved food security outcomes, and to enhance Woreda performance in safety nets. REST targets twelve chronically food insecure Woredas in Southern, Eastern and Central Tigray. World Vision’s activities aim to strengthen PSNP 4 institutions and Resilience. Specific Woredas within each region were selected according to level of food insecurity, prevalence of undernutrition, and geographic contiguousness for efficiencies. The WV DFSA targets 15 Woredas in North Wollo, and Wag Himra zones of Amhara and East and West Hararghe and West Arsi zones of Oromia regions. Table 1: Summary of Partners Intervention Areas and Number of Beneficiaries by Region Region Number of Woredas Beneficiary by Region Partners Amhara 16 467,656 FHE & WV/ORDA Oromia 14 331,154 CRS/HCS-MCS & WV/CARE Tigray 12 498,707 REST Dire Dawa 1 64,702 CRS/HCS Total 43 1,362,219 In 2018/19 CRS, FH/E, REST and WV plan to conduct food transfers in 43 Woredas (18% of the total PSNP beneficiaries) with approximately 95,463MT of commodity (an estimated 84,485MT of cereal, 8,449MT of pulses, and 2,530MT of Oil) based upon the beneficiary figures above. This food contribution includes approximately 4,545 MT in contingency resources (5 percent Woreda level). FH/E is also approved to conduct cash transfers to PSNP public works, temporary direct support and PDS beneficiaries using e-payment for three rounds in Lay Gayint and Tach Gayint Woredas. Table 2: LOA Budget and Metric Tons for Food and Planned and Obligated Food Grains in FY 2018/19 by Implementing Partners Partner LOA MT FY 2019 MT Approved CRS 77,280 15,350 FH 100,000 15,590 REST 233,850 38,130 WV 117,640 26,393 Total 528,770 95,463 *FY 2019 MT includes carryover from FY 2018 Title II food assistance programs are subject to USAID’s 22 Code of Federal Regulations 211, which is commonly known as Regulation 11.16 This regulation, as well as other USAID directives, outlines commodity management responsibilities, reporting requirements, and claims handling practices that applies to NGO Title II programs. To that effect, USAID/Ethiopia intends to conduct the commodity management review for the Development Food Security Activity implemented by the four NGO partners in the Tigray, Amhara, and Oromia regions and Dire Dawa City Administration starting from on/about June 24, 2019 to on/about September 30, 2019. 16 https://www.usaid.gov/documents/1866/regulation-11 (TITLE 22--FOREIGN RELATIONS CHAPTER II-- AGENCY FOR INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT, INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT COOPERATION AGENCY) 45 C.4 GENERAL GUIDANCE The following general guidance applies to all services provided under this Task Order. a. Geographic Focus The geographical scope of the study is limited to the approved Woredas in regions where cooperating sponsors are implementing FFP-funded activities with commodities.17 USAID/Ethiopia, in collaboration with the Contractor, will identify and prioritize Woredas to carry out the commodity review and the review will include a partner-by-partner analysis through selection of representative sample Woredas, warehouses and targeted households. b. Relationships and Responsibilities The relationships and responsibilities of the Contractor and USAID/Ethiopia are set forth below. i. The Contractor The Contractor shall complete the following tasks: A. Identify key data sources B. Meet with the Chiefs of Party of the DFSAs, USAID Activity Managers, Commodity management and logistics officers, warehouse managers and commodity accountants of all implementing partners who will outline commodity management and distribution requirements C. Determine the effectiveness of control systems established by partners for food management and the entire supply chain starting from receipt at the primary warehouse, allocation, dispatch and distribution as well as identification of key commodity management issues; D. Prepare and deliver inception and assessment reports as per the required purpose, scope, methodology, tasks and deliverables in this statement of work. E. Conduct a presentation on preliminary findings to USAID/Ethiopia and partners; F. Submit draft reports for review and feedback by the technical team; and G. Submit final reports which incorporate feedback from the draft report. ii. USAID/Ethiopia The USAID/ Ethiopia’s ALT office will provide overall technical leadership and direction for the review team throughout the assignment and will undertake the following specific roles and responsibilities: A. Provide information on the total levels of food resources approved for partners in 2018/2019. Provide reference materials to the Contractor preferably in electronic form: including the Regulation 11 and other relevant guidelines and checklists, B. Provide a list of implementing partners along with the operational Woredas, the number of warehouses, and contacts; C. Throughout the assessment work, ensure constant availability of a point of contact who can provide technical leadership and direction for the team’s work; D. Introduce the assessment team to implementing partners and other stakeholders; E. Prioritize and identify activities and/or regions to be included in the review for each year and communicate to the Contractor three months in advance to the field work; F. Provide timely review and approval of inception reports, work plans, draft/final reports and 17 This currently includes Woredas in Amhara, Oromia, Dire Dawa, and Tigray Regions served by the partners. 46 approval of the deliverables. c. Logistics USAID/Ethiopia will not provide any logistical support. The Contractor will, therefore, be responsible for arranging the required travel and logistics. USAID/Ethiopia will inform with a letter the appropriate government offices that facilitate support letters to the regions for the planned commodity review work. d. Team Composition and Skills Team Composition: The assessment will be conducted by a team of international and local experts with experience and skills that are applicable to carrying out this review. The Assessment Team should be consisting of one Team Leader plus 4 – 6 Team Assistants/Commodity management Experts. The Team Leader will be responsible for organizing the review, reviewing all relevant documentation, producing a work plan, assembling and coordinating Team Assistants, planning and oversight of data collection efforts, and ensuring the timeliness and quality of deliverables. The Team Assistants will be responsible for various data collection and analysis responsibilities as directed by the Team Leader. Team Qualifications: If necessary, the Contractor should work in partnership with the relevant local consultants/firm with commodity management expertise of the following skills: A. Demonstrated qualifications, experience, and skills related to commodity management review, audits and assessments applicable to conducting this review. B. Technical competency in related fields such as accounting, economics or logistics management. C. Substantial experience with data collection procedures, surveys, and analysis and interpretation of databases. D. Good communication skills and the ability to interact with Ethiopians and expatriates, including at least one team member fluent in the regional languages (Oromifa, Tigrigna, and Amharic). C.5 SERVICES REQUIRED This review will assess and respond to research questions that aligned with key aspects of commodity management and distribution practices, including, but not limited to, the following: e. Distribution of Food Aid The review will assess and determine that whether or not food distributions are conducted per USAID regulations and standards, commodities are distributed to intended beneficiaries; and IPs are using an efficient system for distribution and facilitating the process. The review will respond, but not limited, to the following review questions: A. Are distributions made to entitled beneficiaries per the approved ration size and mix, with no over or under payment of entitlements to beneficiaries? B. Is there reliable/predictable food transfer schedule? C. Do partners practice appropriate communication system to inform all stakeholders/clients ration size and entitlements at all levels? D. Do partners exercise efficient system to manage and control food distributions? E. What is the role of local government in the distribution processes, especially at the FDP level? F. Are food distributions efficient? G. How long, on average, it takes to complete one round transfer to beneficiaries (from the beneficiaries’ arrival till the end) in a specific Food Distribution Point (FDP)? 47 H. Do partners use group based or scooping methods system- what are the pros and cons of using one or the other? f. Food Management Practices and Internal Control System Assess and determine that partners establish and practiced appropriate and adequate commodity management, safeguarding mechanisms and internal control systems to manage FFP donated food resources: A. How do partner's food management, operation and reporting systems mapped at all levels (Central warehouses, regions, Woreda level)? B. How are commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling and disposal of losses handled including Best Used By Date (BUBD)? C. Are these systems aligned with commodity tracking, management, reporting, and handling and disposal of losses per 22 CFR 211 (Regulation 11) requirements and other USAID directives, including reporting through the QWICR system? D. Is there appropriate and sufficient warehouse staff in place with clear understanding of USAID commodity management rules and regulations? Do warehouse staffs have access to all the required warehouse equipment (including but not limited to operable fire extinguishers and reconstitution materials) at the warehouse level? E. Is there appropriate and standard practice in record keeping of all relevant documentation with appropriate authorizations at all levels? F. Are all commodity movements and transfers are supported by appropriate documentation, including distribution plans, dispatch notes, and any other documentation that authorizes the movement of commodities? G. Is compliance with internal controls reviewed periodically? H. How frequently partners conduct physical inventories and other monitoring? How do inconsistencies of figures between stocktaking and the records handled? I. Is there an unusual volume of inventory adjustment, write-off, or disposal? J. What is the frequency of commodity monitoring visits conducted by the head office? K. How are the storage/warehouse conditions at primary, secondary and tertiary levels handled, maintained and equipped? L. Are there adequate commodity management practices, measures to reduce losses? How are commodity reconstitution and damaged commodities handled and disposed? Are there appropriate records that tracking of loss claim payments by third parties or from IPs to USAID? M. How do partners handle Best Used By Date (BUBD) management – tracking, documentations, reporting and posting. g. Reporting Assess and determine appropriateness of the type of reporting, accuracy and frequency, including identifying reports that feed into the government reporting channel: A. What types of commodity related information collected and disseminated and how frequently? B. Are these adequate for ensuring sound management system? C. How timely are the reports produced and shared? 48 D. What systems/tools are in place to validate data quality of various reports at all levels (from field level to Addis office)? E. Do partners have feedback loop systems that identify and improve reports quality? h. Key Lessons Learned or Promising Practices Identify and list good lessons drawn from management and internal control system, innovative approaches. i. Methodology It is envisaged that the review will employ a mix of methods and triangulation of data in order to ensure the appropriateness and efficiency of IP’s commodity management and utilization. i. Methods The methods should include but are not limited to the following: A. Document Reviews, including Reviews of Quarterly Commodity Reports B. Key Informant Interviews C. Surveys of Beneficiaries/beneficiary interviews D. Observations of commodity distributions to beneficiaries E. Warehouse visits F. Local Market assessment -to analyze utilization vis-a-vi extent of self- monetization G. Examination of master beneficiary list, recipient list etc. ii. Data Sources and Collection Methods Primary sources such as beneficiaries, key informants such as Keble and Woreda Food Security Task Forces, and commodity management personnel, and secondary sources such as IP’s commodity distribution and other periodic reports, are to be used as the sources of data. Qualitative methods will be used for the collection of data among the sampled program beneficiaries and key informants. iii. Sample Selection and Size The Contractor will prepare a detailed assessment framework including sample size and instruments which will be reviewed and approved by USAID/Ethiopia. USAID/Ethiopia will work with the Contractor to prioritize and identify region(s) and activities to be included in the review for any specific year. iv. Data Analysis and Presentation The Contractor will apply appropriate data analysis to the qualitative/quantitative data so as to be able to clearly determine the appropriateness and efficiency of IPs’ Title II food management systems, and any corrective measures needed. Before and after completion of the field work, the Contractor will conduct an entry and exit conference with USAID/Ethiopia and IP staff working in the selected Woredas. Finally, the Contractor is expected to present all the findings together with recommendations including: (a) generic issues applicable to all IPs and reviewed Woredas and (b) specific findings (positive and negative) applicable to USAID/Ethiopia and to the reviewed partner. 49 ANNEX 2: TEAM AND TIMETABLE Review Team Members’ Role and Responsibilities The assessment team was led by Ange Tingbo (Team Leader) assisted by Raya Abagodu (Commodity Management Expert) and Nuri Kedir (Commodity Management Expert). Four team assistants were also hired to help in the field with the FGDs, KIIs, and household survey. The following matrix outlines the roles and responsibility of each of the review team members: Position Name Roles and Responsibility Team Leader Ange Tingbo Technical: Lead day-to-day implementation of the assessment, work planning, lead/develop data collection protocols, lead/conduct review of reports and documents, lead validation workshop and debriefing with USAID/Ethiopia and partners, report writing. Management: Maintain communications with the NGO partners and their key staff, management of the assessment team, coordinate field communications and coordinate weekly communications with Mendez & England’s HQ. Commodity Management Expert Raya Abagodu Provide support in this review protocol operations; assist in sample selection, contribute in the design of survey and interview instruments, assist in data collection, tabulation and analyses; review reports and documents; contribute to validation workshop and debriefing, draft and final report writing. Commodity Management Expert Nuri Kedir Provide support in this review protocol operations; assist in sample selection, contribute in the design of survey and interview instruments, assist in data collection, tabulation and analyses; review reports and documents; contribute to validation workshop and debriefing, draft and final report writing. Lead Researcher (Amhara) Ermias Assefa Assist with the design of the beneficiary survey tool and support the Team Leader and Commodity Management Experts to conduct interviews with local key informants using an interview guide prepared by the team leader and the team. Support the review team in data collection and analysis and responsible for quantitative data management. Assist review team members during visit to FDPs. Project Assistant (Oromia) Abiy Samuel Tibebu Assist the Team Leader and the Assessment Team members in the conduct of interviews with local key informants using an interview guide prepared by the team leader and the team; support the review team in data collection and analysis. Assist review team members during visit to FDPs. Project Assistant (Tigray) Bisrat Weldesilassie Assist the Team Leader and the Assessment Team members in the conduct of interviews with local key informants in Tigray using an interview guide prepared by the team leader and the team; support the review team in data collection and analysis. Assist review team members during visit to FDPs. 50 CMR Review Timetable Activities Date Draft Inception report, review plan, questions and guides July 8, 2019 USAID Review and Approval of Workplan July 19, 2019 Fieldwork July 22, 2019-August 24, 2019 In-brief with USAID/Ethiopia, IP Country Reps, COPs and Others July 22, 2019 Data Collection Methods workshop and Translation of Questionnaires: July 23, 2019 KIIs with Addis Ababa based IP reps, COP, and other suggested stakeholders July 25-26, 2019 Analyze and revise data collection tools based on pilot feedback July 27, 2019 Data Collection in Amhara, Oromia, Dire Dawa, and Tigray July 28, 2019-August 16, 2019 Data compilation and analysis August 7-22, 2019 Out-brief Presentation of preliminary findings August 23, 2019 Draft Report August 26, 2019-September 11, 2019 Submit Draft Report September 12, 2019 USAID/Ethiopia comments September 20, 2019 Submit Final Report and raw data sets submitted to USAID September 30, 2019 51 ANNEX 3: KII AND FGD TOOLS Key Informant Interviews Guide and Topics Key Informant Interviews (KII) are in-depth, semi-structured interviews conducted with individuals or small groups (e.g., 2-3 participants) of key informants drawn from key stakeholder groups. The review will use the knowledge gained from the desk review and in-depth interviews conducted during phase 1 of the evaluation to inform developing and refining of the KII discussion guides and the selection of interviewees. Based on information from the SOW, we have identified. The following key stakeholder groups that are candidates for the KIIs: 1. USAID Ethiopia Office – ALT management and Activity Managers: a. Endale Lemma, Sr. Program Management Specialist, COR; b. Eliyas Negera, Commodity and Markets Specialist c. Addis Alem, Program Management Specialist d. Solomon Alemu, Program Management Specialist e. Moges Work, PSNP Advisor f. Leulseged Belay, Program Management Specialist g. Reshid Abdi, DFSA Team Leader; h. Konjit Eshetu, Food Security Advisor; 2. DFSA implementing partners – Chiefs of Party, program managers, logistics managers, storekeepers, food monitors, etc.): a. Shane Lennon, COP/CRS; Thomas Hollywood, DCOP/CRS b. Michael Mulford, COP/WV; Morshed Monzu DCOP/WV c. Girma Deressa, COP/FH; Getahun Shibeshi, DCOP/FH; Gosa Furgasa, Commodity Manager d. Samson Abreha, COP/REST; Grebrehiwot Hailu, DCOP/M&E Manager; Luel Tesfay, DFSA commodity Manager 3. Woreda and Kebele Food Security Task Forces. TBD with IPs. 4. Community/village leaders/elders. As per field schedule TBD with IPs. 52 Date NGO Partner Region Woreda KII Participant Name (optional) Facilitator Recorder Descriptive role/responsibility of the person(s) interviewed: (KII topics to be customized based on the KII stakeholder group) 1. What are your roles in the food commodity management and distribution? 2. What is the most common food commodity storage, transportation and distribution issues and challenges in your Woreda/community (causes and frequency)? What are you doing to solve them? 3. How do you assess the registration of beneficiaries and distribution of food in your area? Who conducts the registration? Are there set? Are the criteria being followed? 4. How do you assess the registration, verification and distribution of food in your area? 5. How do you describe the quantity, quality and timeliness of the food distribution criteria? 6. What are the main problems in distributing food to beneficiaries? Why they occur? How they can be overcome? 7. In your opinion how effective is the food commodity management? If not, what can be done to improve? 8. In your opinion how effective is the food commodity distribution processes? If not, what can be done to improve? 9. Are the food commodities reaching the intended beneficiaries at the right time? 10. In your opinion, are the food commodities of good quality? How about the quantity? 11. If food commodities were not good quality what are the reasons for the poor quality of food? 12. How long does the food commodity sustain the HHs? What other sources of food does the HHs compliment the food gaps? 13. How do you describe utilization of food commodities by the beneficiaries? Who is using them in the household and who is not? Why? 14. How accessible is/are the FDP (s) to the beneficiaries? How far do they have to walk, i.e., hours, minutes, etc. 15. Any other issue you would like to share regarding food commodity in your village/community/Woreda? 53 Focus Group Discussions Guide and Topics A Focus Group Discussion (FGD) is a data gathering method that brings together a small group of community members (usually 6-10 persons) on topics of interest. The purpose of FDs is to use the group dynamics to reveal underlying community opinions, attitudes, and perceptions about issues or priority problems of a community, and perception on quality, quantity and timeliness of services with general, specific and probing questions. We will undertake at least two focus group discussion in each of the four Regions, one with male and another with female group. Date NGO Partner Region Woreda # of FGD participants Male________ Female__________ Facilitator Recorder Descriptive role/responsibility of the person(s) interviewed: (Topics to be customized based on FGDs Participants) 1. Who are recipients of food commodity in your community? 2. Who is responsible to select eligible beneficiaries? 3. Discuss opinion about selection of beneficiaries and registration requirements? Are the eligibility criteria communicated? If not, why? 4. In your opinion are the beneficiaries receiving the food commodity at the right time in the right quantity? If not, why? 5. How do you describe the food commodity handling and distributions in your community? 6. What aspects of it are good? 7. What aspects are poor? 8. What should be done to improve? Who should do what? 9. Discuss FDPs accessibility: How far is the FDP from the beneficiaries in general, i.e., hours/minutes’ walk? 10. How do you carry your food rations home? Yourself, with family members? 11. How much does it cost you if you have to pay for transportation? 12. Are latrines, shelters, drinkable water available at FDP on distribution days? 13. What methods of distribution are used (e.g., individual scooping, grouping)? 14. Discuss the condition of food and utilization? How is food utilized? Consumed? 15. Do you know of some people selling the foods they receive? Why? 16. If yes, who are the buyers? Market or Individual buyers? 17. What does the community think about the food commodity distribution overall? 18. Any other constraints related to food commodity management and utilization in your community? 54 ANNEX 4: WAREHOUSE/PDP/FDP CHECKLIST (to be used in combination with direct observation) This questionnaire is used in combination with direct observation during the interview. It should be used only by the evaluator. Interview as you observe filling out the questionnaire/checklist below. This used to identify whether standard practices are applied. Date Warehouse Name NGO Partner Region Woreda Respondent Name Researcher/Recorder Item Yes No Comment Warehouse structure & environment 1. Is the warehouse location secure and safe? 2. Is the warehouse environment clean? 3. Is there a double-padlock system to access the warehouse? 4. Are the key/s kept by one person only? 5. Is one person alone allowed to enter the warehouse? 6. Are visitors and daily laborers checked before entry to the warehouse premise? 7. Is information on contact persons available? 8. Is the roof leaking? 9. Are Doors and Windows Secure? 10. Are there any cracks/holes in the walls? 11. Are there any controlling mechanisms to prevent and minimize the damage from rodents? 12. Is the warehouse clean? 13. Is there proper drainage? 14. Stack at a reasonable height for ease of handling? 15. Does it have adequate ventilation? 16. Does the warehouse have adequate capacity to handle commodity needs? 17. Is floor sufficiently hard-packed to prevent burrowing by rodents 18. Is the warehouse well lit? 55 Equipment Yes No Comment 1. Are Fire extinguishers available and in working order? 2. Do the warehouse staff know how to operate the extinguishers, i.e., pull the pin and aim at the base of the flames, etc.? 3. Does the warehouse have electricity? 4. Are weighing scales calibrated and in working condition? 5. Is there communication equipment? 6. Are there first aid kits? 7. Are there adequate warehouse cleaning materials? 8. Is office furniture available? Commodity Storage Yes No Comment 1. Are Commodities Stacked on Pallets? 2. Are Commodities Stacked Against wall? 3. Are commodities stored in orderly fashion and countable? 4. Spacing: Is there sufficient space (1m) between stacks? 5. Are non-food items stored with food items? 6. Are there Leaking/Torn/Stained Containers? 7. Were Spoiled Commodities Set Aside from Sound Commodities? 8. Is damaged commodity stacked separately? 9. Are there any evidences of infestations? 10. Is fumigation performed? 11. When was the last time you fumigated? Who did the fumigation (name of company)? Warehouse Records Yes No Comment 1. Are Commodity Receipts/Dispatches Recorded promptly? 2. Are bin cards and stock cards visible and properly recorded? 3. Does warehouse keep up to date records of food commodities received and distributed? 4. Are daily, weekly, monthly commodity status reports maintained? 5. Is there a documentation showing the reconstruction/reconditioning of damaged commodities in the book? 6. Are Stocks Issued First In, First Out? 7. Are Damaged and Contaminated Commodities Listed Separately in the Registers? 56 Warehouse Records Yes No Comment 8. Are there monthly monitoring/inspections by third parties? 9. Are loss reports prepared and communicated on time? DMCR? 10. Does the warehouse or Operating Woreda Office keep accurate records of beneficiaries served? Overall comments [assessment of internal control system/mechanisms (e.g. Policies; Processes and 57 ANNEX 5: FOOD DISTRIBUTION POINT (FDP) CHECKLIST (to be used in combination with direct observation) This checklist will be used in combination with direct observation to be conducted with food distributors that can be conducted regardless of if it is a food distribution day. It should be used only by the evaluator. Interview as you observe filling out the questionnaire/checklist below. This used to identify whether standard practices are applied. Date Name of FDP NGO Partner Region Woreda Respondent Name Researcher/Recorder Item Yes No Comment 1. Do distribution procedures follow regulations? 2. Do recipients acknowledge receipt by signature? 3. Does FDP use ration card? 4. Are recipients verified as eligible at the time of distribution? 5. Is the verification mechanism adequate and reliable? 6. Are there beneficiaries List? 7. Do ration sizes distributed vary from entitled ration? sizes? 8. Are there mechanisms used by IPs to verify if beneficiaries are receiving the right rations? 9. Is there a signed commodity request form for distribution? 10. Are food commodity distribution records in order? 11. Were the distribution periods set? 12. What mechanisms and systems are available or adopted to set distribution plans? 13. Was the distribution schedule shared with beneficiaries? How (i.e. public notification/chief Kebele, mouth to ear, phone, etc.)? 14. Is the FDP in a convenient location (i.e., accessible to diverse clans, shelters or trees for protection 58 Item Yes No Comment against the sun, no traffic, no perceptible hazards, latrines, etc.)? 15. Are there adequate space to store commodities at FDPs? 16. Are beneficiaries list maintained at FDPs? 17. Are records kept matching the quantity distributed on each distribution date? 18. Is the USAID logo clearly displayed? 19. Are the entitled ration sizes clearly displayed? 20. Are commodities weighed and/or scooped in front of beneficiary? 21. Are there any evidences of same beneficiaries receiving more than one time (in a single round)? 22. On average, how does it take for beneficiaries to come to the FDP (days, hours, minutes)? 23. How long does it take to do the food distributions (between beneficiaries’ arrival and actual distributions) 24. Is there crowd control mechanism in place, i.e., rope for space delimitation, community members ensuring security. 25. How are the empty containers handled (empty bags, oil containers, etc.) 26. Have you heard about people selling part or their whole food rations? Why? Overall comments: 59 ANNEX 6: RAPID MARKET ASSESSMENT CHECKLIST This checklist is used to observe selected local markets to observe and document the extent of availability of Title II Food Commodities, prices, demand, etc. in the local market. In addition to observation reviewers/ researchers complement by interviewing a gender mix of traders and market actors (buyers and sellers). Date NGO Partner Region Woreda Name of Local Market Name of Researcher Completing Item High Low None Comment 1. Availability of Title II food commodities in the local market: Wheat Pulse Oil 2. Prices of Title to commodities compared to local produce: Wheat Pulse Oil 3. Number of buyers? 4. Number of sellers? 5. Demand for Title II food commodities? Who are the different types of Title II commodity sellers in the market? Why they sell? Who are the different types of Title II commodity buyers in the market? Why they buy? What are the difficulties in buying or selling Title II commodities? Overall comments: 60 ANNEX 7: BENEFICIARY SURVEY Informed Consent “Currently we are conducting a Commodity Management Review to assess how the DFSA food commodity is distributed and utilized in your village and would appreciate your participation in the interview. Your selection to participate in the survey is based on sampling (randomly selected from the food distribution list). The survey takes no more than 30 minutes to complete. Your responses will be treated with utmost confidentiality, and no respondent’s name is identified. However, your honest response to the questions is critically important as the information will help us understand the food commodity distribution and utilization issues adequately and address any problem. Participation in this survey is entirely voluntary and you can choose not to participate. On our part, we greatly appreciate if you participate since your views and opinions would be very important.” Date NGO Partner Region Woreda Respondent Name Name of FDP for the catchment area Interviewer Respondents Background (write the response on the right end column) Respondent Background Information 1 Sex of respondent ● Male Female 2 Household Size 1. Male Female 3 How long does it take you to reach to the FDP from your home (in hours)? 4 How long have you to wait at FDP to receive your ration (in hours)? 5 What mode of transportation do you use to come to FDP? 6 How much does the transportation cost you? (cost per return trip in Birr) Food Ration 7 Do you have a ration Card? 1. Yes No (if no, skip to Q# 10) 8 If yes, observe and record the number of times food rations have been received since October 2016? 9 How many times since October 2016 have you received food rations according to the payroll list at FDP? 10 Do you know who provide the food assistance? 1. Yes 2. No If yes, who? 11 In your opinion how effective was the food distribution? 1. Not effective 2. Somewhat effective 3. Effective Very effective 61 12 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 11? 13 How satisfied are you with the quality of food you received? 1. Not satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied 14 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 13? 15 How satisfied are you with the quantity of food you received? 1. Not satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied 16 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 15? 17 How satisfied are you with the timeliness of the food you received? 1. Not satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied 18 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 17? 19 How satisfied are you with the food distribution staff? 1. Not satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Satisfied 4. Very satisfied 20 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 19 above? 21 How satisfied are you with the overall food distribution? 1. Not satisfied 2. Somewhat satisfied 3. Satisfied Very satisfied 22 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 21 above? 23 How did you utilize the food commodity you received? ● Consumption ● Sale/self-monetization ● For both consumption and sale/self-monetization Please indicate your response to the following statements regarding your experience at FDP 24 The FDP is in a convenient location. ● Strongly Disagree ● Disagree ● Agree Strongly agree 25 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 24 above? 26 The FDP has the necessary facilities (latrines, water, shelters). ● Strongly Disagree ● Disagree ● Agree Strongly agree 27 Please explain why based on your responses to question # 26 above 62 ANNEX 8: DFSA BENEFICIARY ORIENTATION GUIDELINES Introduction To maintain transparency during food distribution information about the program, the size, predictability and timing of DFSA/PSNP transfer should be communicated to PSNP clients. They have to be informed about their entitlement, right and responsibilities during public orientations. Clients should understand the distribution process, implementing partners’ responsibility and the source of the food aid. This message shall be announced in local languages by the food distributor/commodity supervisor before the start of each distribution if possible after more than 80 percent of the clients arrived to the FDP. Regardless of the number of clients that come for distribution, the distributor/commodity supervisor should pass all the necessary information before providing the commodity. Using all possible means, they must make sure that the message is clear and appropriately delivered to clients. The following contents should be addressed during client orientation sessions. • Donor recognition: PSNP clients should be informed that DFSA food commodities have been provided through the friendship of the American people—through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). Refer clients to the banners around the distribution site. At distribution centers, partners shall, to the extent feasible, display three banners, posters, or similar media which shall contain information about the donor source during distribution. One of those banners, at a minimum, contain messages and guidance on the DFSA Feedback Mechanism. • Name of the program: Partners should inform the food distribution is from the USAID funded Development Food Security Activity (DFSA) and which round of food to be distributed must be announced. • Beneficiary Entitlement: IPs should announce that each client will receive commodities— 15 kg of cereal, 4 kg of YSP. Before using scooping materials for distribution partners should provide detail information about the scooping unit measurements together with the amount to be scooped per family size. • Feedback and Complaint Mechanism: All clients should understand the process used during distribution, and should know who they can complain to if they believe they have been unfairly threated or have any other complaints about the distribution. Together, they should be informed about the complaint mechanism in place (Kebele Appeal Committee, IVR). Reference should also be made to the Feedback/Complaint (IVR) banner and they should be informed about the phone number and given a simple overview of how the IVR mechanism works. • Payment associated with the distribution: IPs should publicly address that food is provided free of charge and any payment should not be attached with the food distribution program. They must inform clients that the food they are provided is not for sale or exchange. In addition, clients should be informed that all bags of dry goods and oil tins are provided free of charge. • Priority to special group of beneficiaries: During announcement beneficiaries should be informed that pregnant and lactating women, elderly, and disabled groups are given priority to take their entailment first during distribution. • Payroll (PASS) Sheet: Beneficiaries should be informed that they have to sign in the PASS sheet individually using their thumb print as a confirmation of collecting their entitlement. • Arrival time for distribution: IPs should inform that beneficiaries should arrive to the FDP early in the morning so that distribution to commence around 11:00 am and to be completed before 5:00 pm. 63 • Essential Nutrition Action (ENA) Message: IPs should facilitate the delivery of ENA messages at FDPs during food distribution through Health Extension Workers (HEW). 64 ANNEX 9: PRIMARY DISTRIBUTION POINTS AND FOOD DISTRIBUTION POINTS VISITED Table 1: FDPs in the Three Regions Region Location/Woreda Sampled FDPs FDPs Visited Ahmara Tach Gayint Agat Agat Lay Gayint Nefas Mewcha Nefas Mewcha Simada Yeguassa Yeguassa Abergele Nurak Nurak Wadla Gashena Gashena Gazo Estayish Estayish Dahena Qoziba Qoziba Sekota Sekota Sekota Oromia Dire Dawa Diredawa Ejeaneni Ejeaneni Deder Deder Deder Chiro Zuria Megale Duleti Megale Duleti Gemechis Kuni Kuni Negele Arsi Rafu Argesa Rafu Argesa Aben Arsi Alembada FDP Alembada Zeway Dugda Ogolcha FDP Ogolcho Siraro Basa Meja FDP Basa Meja Tigray Ahferom Enticho Enticho & Bet-Gebez Gulomekeda Zalambesa Zalambesa & Sebeya Kiletawlealo Negash Negash & Agula’e Endamekoni Maychew Maychew Alamata Garjalle Garjalle & Timuga FDP Hawzen Megab Megab & Moste Table 2: PDPs in the Three Regions Region Location Sampled PDPs PDPs Visited Ahmara Nefas Mewcha FHE Warehouse FHE Warehouse Kombolcha FHE Warehouse FHE Warehouse Kombolcha ORDA Warehouse ORDA Warehouse Oromia Dire Dawa Dire Dawa CRS 3Kilo Diredawa PDP CRS 3Kilo Diredawa PDP Adama Care Ethiopia Adama PDP Care Ethiopia Adama PDP Adama CRS Adama PDP CRS Adama PDP Tigray Mekele REST PDP REST Mekele PDP 65 ANNEX 10: BENEFICIARY SURVEY FREQUENCY TABLES Table 1: Sex of Respondents by IP IP Sex of Respondent Female Male Total Percent of Females CRS Ethiopia 53 22 75 66% FH Ethiopia 30 30 60 50% REST 83 37 120 67% WV Ethiopia 55 50 105 52% Total 221 139 360 61% Table 2: Sex of Respondent by Region Region Sex of Respondent Female Male Total Percent of Females Amhara 59 61 120 49% Dire Dawa 7 1 8 88% Oromia 72 40 112 64% Tigray 83 37 120 69% Grand Total 221 139 360 61% Table 3: Households Size Distribution by Central Tendency and SD Household Size All Male Female Mean 5.28 2.60 2.68 Median 5 2 3 Mode 5 2 2 Standard deviation (SD) 2.22 1.57 1.38 Table 4: Household Average Size Distribution by Region Household Size by Region Minimum Average Maximum Amhara 1 4.96 10 Dire Dawa 2 7.25 10 Oromia 2 6.17 13 Tigray 1 4.63 9 Table 5: FDP Distance From Beneficiaries’ Home by IPs (in hours) IP Minimum Average Maximum CRS Ethiopia 0:03 0:54 3:00 FH Ethiopia 0:05 1:29 2:00 WV Ethiopia 0:01 0:52 5:00 REST 0:06 1:06 2:00 66 Table 6: FDP Distance From Beneficiaries Home by Region (in hours) Region Minimum Average Maximum Amhara 0:02 1:11 5:00 Dire Dawa 0:05 0:14 0:30 Oromia 0:01 0:54 3:00 Tigray 0:06 1:06 2:00 Table 7: Beneficiaries Waiting Time at FDP to Receive Their Ration by IPs (in hours) IP Minimum Average Maximum CRS Ethiopia 1:00 3:42 10:00 FH Ethiopia 1:00 2:19 3:00 WV Ethiopia 1:00 3:36 6:00 REST 3:07 6:12 10:00 Table 8: Beneficiaries Waiting Time at FDP to Receive Their Ration by Region (in hours) Region Minimum Average Maximum Amhara 1:00 3:16 6:00 Dire Dawa 1:30 2:18 3:00 Oromia 1:00 3:22 10:00 Tigray 3:07 6:12 10:00 Table 9: Mode of Transportation to Come to FDP Mode of Transportation to Come FDP Number Percent On Foot (walking) 345 96% Public Transport (bus, bajaj, etc.) 12 3% Other (donkey, horse cart, carrying the commodities) 3 1% Total 360 100% Table 10: Ration Card Availability by IPs IP Response No Yes Total Percent CRS Ethiopia 1 74 75 99% FH Ethiopia 60 60 100% REST 2 118 120 98% WV Ethiopia 8 97 105 92% Total 11 349 360 97% 67 Table 11: Ration Card Availability by Regions Region Response No Yes Total Percent Amhara 120 120 100% Dire Dawa 8 8 100% Oromia 9 103 112 98% Tigray 2 118 120 92% Total 11 349 360 97% Table 12a: Knowledge of Food Aid Donor by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Grand Total Percent Yes 66 56 80 94 296 82.2% No 9 4 40 11 64 17.8% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100.0% Table 12b: Knowledge of Food Aid Donor by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Yes 112 6 98 80 296 82.2% No 8 2 14 40 64 17.8% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100.0% Table 13a: Respondents Who Responded Yes by Type of Donor Mentioned by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Grand Total Percent USAID/USA/the American People and Government 60 29 74 77 240 80.3% IPs (REST, FH, WV, ORDA, CRS) 3 25 5 14 47 15.7% GOE 0 3 1 2 6 2.0% Other (UNICEF, SAVE, Foreign Government) 2 1 0 3 6 2.0% Table 13a: Respondents Who Responded Yes by Type of Donor Mentioned by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent USAID/USA/the American People and Government 76 3 87 74 240 80.3% IPs (REST, FH, WV, ORDA, CRS) 30 3 9 5 47 15.7% GOE 3 2 1 6 2.0% Other (UNICEF, SAVE, Foreign Government) 4 2 0 6 2.0% 68 Table 14a: Food Distribution Effectiveness by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Not effective 4 4 1% Somewhat effective 12 2 19 11 44 12% Effective 53 57 96 71 277 77% Very effective 10 1 1 23 35 10% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% Table 14b: Food Distribution Effectiveness by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Not effective 4 4 1% Somewhat effective 10 15 19 44 12% Effective 109 6 66 96 277 77% Very effective 1 2 31 1 35 10% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100% Table 15a: Quality of Food Distribution by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Not satisfied 1 1 0.3% Somewhat satisfied 2 2 2 3 9 2.5% Satisfied 29 56 92 59 236 65.6% Very satisfied 43 2 26 43 114 31.7% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% Table 15b: Quality of Food Distribution by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Not satisfied 1 1 0.3% Somewhat satisfied 5 2 2 9 2.5% Satisfied 104 3 37 92 236 65.6% Very satisfied 11 5 72 26 114 31.7% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100.0% Table 16a: Quantity of Food Distribution by IPs Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Not satisfied 4 10 35 7 56 15.6% Somewhat satisfied 19 40 37 39 135 37.5% Satisfied 41 10 48 49 148 41.1% Very satisfied 11 10 21 5.8% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100.0% 69 Table 16b: Quantity of Food Distribution by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Not satisfied 17 1 3 35 56 15.6% Somewhat satisfied 64 1 33 37 135 37.5% Satisfied 39 4 57 48 148 41.1% Very satisfied 2 19 21 5.8% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100.0% Table 17a: Timeliness of Food Distribution by IPs Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Not satisfied 9 5 14 28 8% Somewhat satisfied 27 10 28 21 86 24% Satisfied 29 45 78 60 212 59% Very satisfied 10 24 34 9% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% Table 17b: Timeliness of Food Distribution by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Not satisfied 5 1 8 14 28 8% Somewhat satisfied 18 2 38 28 86 24% Satisfied 96 3 35 78 212 59% Very satisfied 1 2 31 34 9% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100% Table 18a: Food Distribution Staffs by IPs Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Not satisfied 2 5 7 2% Somewhat satisfied 9 2 3 6 20 6% Satisfied 46 41 108 67 262 73% Very satisfied 18 17 4 32 71 20% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% Table 18b: Food Distribution Staffs by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Not satisfied 2 5 7 2% Somewhat satisfied 4 13 3 20 6% Satisfied 91 5 58 108 262 73% Very satisfied 25 3 39 4 71 20% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100% 70 Table 19a: Utilization of the Food Commodity by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Consumption 75 59 112 104 350 97.2% For both consumption and sale 1 8 1 10 2.8% Sale only 0 0.0% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100.0% Table 19b: Utilization of the Food Commodity by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Consumption 118 8 112 112 350 97.2% For both consumption and sale 2 8 10 2.8% Sale only 0 0.0% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100.0% Table 20a: Level of Agreement with Location of FDP by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Strongly disagree 1 1 0.3% Disagree 4 19 25 5 53 14.7% Agree 44 34 93 71 242 67.2% Strongly agree 26 7 2 29 64 17.8% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% Table 20b: Level of Agreement with Location of FDP by Region Response IP Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Strongly disagree 1 1 0.3% Disagree 21 7 25 53 14.7% Agree 91 5 53 93 242 67.2% Strongly agree 8 2 52 2 64 17.8% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100% Table 21a: Level of Agreement with Facilities at FDP by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Strongly disagree 1 10 2 2 15 4% Disagree 15 33 71 23 142 39% Agree 39 17 46 46 148 41% Strongly agree 20 1 34 55 15% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% 71 Table 21b: Level of Agreement with Facilities at FDP by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Total Percent Strongly disagree 10 1 2 2 15 4% Disagree 45 26 71 142 39% Agree 46 4 52 46 148 41% Strongly agree 19 3 32 1 55 15% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100% Table 22a: Satisfaction with the Overall Food Distribution by IP Response IP CRS Ethiopia FH Ethiopia REST WV Ethiopia Total Percent Not satisfied 1 2 3 1% Somewhat satisfied 12 3 24 8 47 13% Satisfied 52 54 93 71 270 75% Very satisfied 10 3 1 26 40 11% Total 75 60 120 105 360 100% Table 22b: Satisfaction with the Overall Food Distribution by Region Response Region Amhara Dire Dawa Oromia Tigray Grand Total Percent Not satisfied 1 2 3 1% Somewhat 8 2 13 24 47 13% Satisfied 107 3 67 93 270 75% Very satisfied 5 3 31 1 40 11% Total 120 8 112 120 360 100%