NEPAL INTEGRATED GOVERNANCE PROJECT (IGP) END-LINE SURVEY 2019 ii NEPAL INTEGRATED GOVERNANCE PROJECT (IGP) END-LINE SURVEY 2019 October 2020 Evaluation/Survey Mechanism Number: AID-367-C-15-00001 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. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS Nepal Integrated Governance Project (IGP) End-line Survey 2019 ii Acronyms and Abbreviations v Survey Team Members vi Executive Summary vii Survey Purpose vii Project Background vii Findings viii Conclusions ix Introduction and Background 1 Survey Purpose 1 Survey Methodology 2 Sampling Frame 2 Survey Instrument 4 Limitations 5 Findings 7 Section 1: Inclusion and Tolerance 7 Section 2: Peaceful Conflict Resolution 9 Remaining Issues of the Peace Process 12 Section 3: Participation and Governance 15 B. Sixteen IGP Indicators 15 C. Media 21 D. Election 21 E. Corruption 23 F. Citizens Interactions With Elected Representatives and the Bureaucracy 25 G. Human Trafficking 27 G1. The Proportion of People Who Are Aware of Human Trafficking 27 H. Effective Government 28 I. Assessment of Governments After The New Constitution 29 Appendix 1: Survey Statement of Work 38 Appendix 2: List of Indicators That Changed Significantly Between 2015 and 2019 43 Appendix 3: Contributing Questions for 16 IGP Indicators 57 Appendix 4: Desegregation of 16 PMP IGP Indicators 59 Appendix 5: Study Districts and Cluster and Sample Size 75 Appendix 6: Tables of All Questions Comparing the 2015 Baseline, 2017 Midline, and 2019 End-line 80 Appendix 7: Survey Questionnaire 116 iv Appendix 8: Support letter from Ministry of Federal Affairs for Data Collection 162 Appendix 9: Study and Data Collection Team 163 Appendix 10: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest 164 v Acronyms and Abbreviations ADS Automated Directives Systems AOR Agreement Officer’s Representative APR Annual Performance Review AT+ AID Tracker Plus CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy CIO Chief Information Officer (USAID Bureau for Management) COP Chief of Party COR Contracting Officer’s Representative CLA Collaborating, Learning, and Adapting CPA Comprehensive Peace Accord DDL Development Data Library DEC Development Experience Clearinghouse DGO Democracy and Governance Office (USAID/ Nepal) DMD Deputy Mission Director DO Development Objective DRRO Disaster Risk Reduction Office (USAID/ Nepal) DRG Democracy, Human Right and Governance FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year GIS Geographic Information System (or Services) HEO Health and Education Office (USAID/ Nepal) IMET Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Team (USAID/ Nepal) IP Implementing Partner IT Information Technology KPI Key Performance Indicator M&E Monitoring and Evaluation MEL Monitoring, Evaluation, and Learning (USAID/ Nepal Project) OAA Office of Acquisition and Assistance (USAID/ Nepal) PAD Project Appraisal Document PIRS Performance Indicator Reference Sheet PMP Performance Management Plan POC Point of Contact PPD Program and Project Development (USAID/ Nepal Office) PPR Annual Performance Plan and Report RFP Request for Proposal SEED Social, Environmental, and Economic Development Office (USAID/ Nepal) SLT Senior Leadership Team SOW Scope of Work STTA Short Term Technical Assistance TOC Theory of Change USAID United States Agency for International Development/ Mission VDC Village Development Committee vi Survey Team Members Sudhindra Sharma, PhD, Independent Consultant Kshitiz Shrestha, Evaluation Specialist, CAMRIS International Ganesh Sharma, Statistician/Data Analyst Specialist, CAMRIS International Ram Khoju Shrestha, Data Management Specialist Manorama Adhikari, Deputy Chief of Party, CAMRIS International New Era: Survey Partner vii Executive Summary This report presents the findings from the 2019 End-line Survey of the Integrated Governance Project (IGP), comparing these findings from the baseline (2015/16) and midline (2017) surveys of IGP. Where applicable, this report also highlights the major differences between the USAID and national samples. Furthermore, this report analyzes data and findings beyond those covered in the USAID/Nepal Performance Management Plan (PMP) indicators by developing relevant themes and by mapping the survey questions to those pertinent themes. SURVEY PURPOSE The IGP surveys provide information on the extent to which the Mission’s programs have been successful in increasing the inclusion of the Nepalese population in civic and political life and improving the government’s ability to respond to people’s needs and demands. In addition to the involvement and satisfaction of the overall population with the government programs, the surveys also examine the involvement and satisfaction of traditionally marginalized and excluded groups, including women, youth, Dalit, Janajati, and Madhesi, among others. The surveys intend to provide a richer and more detailed understanding of Nepalese people’s attitudes, values, and aspirations, and how these are translated into their relationships with their government. Furthermore, the surveys supplement monitoring and evaluation activities supported by USAID and others by providing bottom-up information about the success of Mission programs. Through all this information, the surveys’ major objective is to provide evidence-based findings to the Mission and it’s implementing partners to improve the design and implementation of ongoing and new programs and to inform the new USAID/Nepal Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). PROJECT BACKGROUND The IGP surveys play an important role in providing information for USAID’s comprehensive 2014 PMP, reflecting the CDCS. The PMP is a single, Mission-wide source of information which assists USAID in managing results to achieve its development goals. The CDCS has guided approximately $400 million in investments from fiscal years 2014 to 2019. The overall goal for the Mission, as stated in the CDCS, is “a more democratic, prosperous, and resilient Nepal.” Three development objectives (DO) contribute to the achievement of this goal and reflect the key development hypotheses that informed USAID/Nepal’s projects and activities over the five-year CDCS period: DO1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance. DO2: Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth to Reduce Extreme Poverty. DO3: Increased Human Capital. Within the PMP, DO1 established indicators for each intermediate result (IR) and each of the four sub￾immediate results, including peace, accountability, civil participation, and performance. The IGP surveys supply several datasets for monitoring and evaluation efforts under the PMP. Finally, the surveys provide valuable information to the Mission’s implementing partners from across the USAID development sectors. viii FINDINGS This report focuses on key IGP performance indicators from the USAID/Nepal Mission Performance PMP, comparing responses to questions in the 2015/16 baseline survey and 2017 survey to responses in the 2019 end-line survey to determine the level of change in three areas: (1) inclusion and tolerance, (2) peaceful conflict resolution, and (3) participation and governance. Regarding inclusion and tolerance, the share of people who agree with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities has declined by 9.2 percent between the baseline and end-line. Similarly, the percent of those who express tolerance towards other groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youths, Muslim, Brahmin/Chettri, etc.) also has declined by 7.1 percent points in the four years between 2015 and 2019. Not all facets of inclusion have declined, however. The percent of those who agree with the concept that all segments of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities has more or less remained the same (99 percent) during these four years. Regarding peaceful conflict resolution, the share of people expressing awareness of any community efforts to resolve conflicts has declined by 6.3 percent between 2015 and 2019. Regarding the indicator on willingness to resort to violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations, there is a significant increase - 24.3 percent between the baseline and the end-line. The share of people mentioning unresolved local conflicts in their community between the baseline and the end-line has declined by 11.9 percent. Likewise, the share of people who think that the peace process is progressing in the right direction increased by 29.6 percent in 2019 compared to 2015. The share of people who think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is performing well has decreased by 1.2 percent points in the total sample between the baseline (50.5 percent) and end-line (49.3 percent). And the proportion of people who think the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons is performing well has decreased by 5.2 percent points in the total sample between the mid-line (44.4 percent) and end-line (39.2 percent) (Note: this question was not asked during the baseline). The proportion of people who think true and unbiased information has to be provided to conflict victims has declined by 3.8 percent from the baseline (99.5 percent) to the end-line (95.7 percent). Ninety-five percent of the people in the end-line, compared to 79.4 percent in the baseline, think it is important to provide required services to conflict victims. Though slightly less than the baseline (98.3 percent), a vast majority of the people in the end-line (96.2 percent) still think that those who commit crimes and human rights violations should be punished for their actions. As for participation and governance, the proportion of people who used social accountability mechanisms in the past 12 months has increased by 5 percent between 2015 and 2019. The share of people saying that they actively participate in oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities has increased by 21.2 percent point. The percentage of people who think community organizations very effectively advocate the people’s interests to the government has increased by 9 percent from the baseline to the end-line. Similarly, the share of people who feel that they have a strong voice in political decisions that affect them/their community increased by 20.3 percent from 2015 to in 2019. Likewise, there is a significant increase in the share of people who report being satisfied with government services – a 44.9 percent increase in 2019 compared to 2015. Similarly, the share of people who report that services received satisfactorily respond to their needs also increased by 22.9 percent. Those who say they experience discrimination in accessing public services has remained more or less the same in 2019 compared to 2015. However, the share of people who report that they often participate in community groups/organizations decreased by 14.5 percent in 2019 compared to 2015. The percentage of people reporting to have had pay a bribe in the past 12 months (without specifying the actual situation/circumstances) increased from 8 percent to 11.5 percent between the baseline and ix end-line period, and those reporting to have paid a bribe in the past 12 months (specifying the actual situation/circumstances) also increased from 5.7 percent to 8.3 percent in the same period. Regarding citizen’s interaction with elected representatives, political party leaders, community service organizations, and bureaucrats, 20.8 percent had mentioned having done so in the baseline, and 28.8 percent have mentioned doing so in the end-line – an increment of 8.8 percent. Only 25.8 percent of people reported during the baseline that the government had made improvements in various aspects of people’s lives, such as livelihood, health, education, infrastructure, social security, etc. However, the share of people replying in the affirmative during the baseline increased to 83.3 percent – an increment of 57.5 percent. Lastly, while 33.2 percent of the respondents during the baseline had reported that civil society organizations are effectively performing their roles and responsibilities, 49.7 percent reported the same in the end-line – an increment of 16.5 percent. CONCLUSIONS Though the value of two out of the three main indicators on inclusion and tolerance has declined in the end-line compared to the baseline, an overwhelming majority still adhere to it. In other words, a majority continue to agree that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Similarly, a significant majority still express tolerance towards groups other than their own. Regarding peaceful conflict resolution, comparison between the baseline and end-line values present a mixed picture. The share of people expressing awareness of any community efforts to resolve conflicts has declined, and worryingly, there is a significant increase in the percentage of the population willing to resort to violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations. However, it is encouraging that the share of people mentioning unresolved local conflicts in their community between the baseline and the end-line has declined, and the share of people who think that the peace process is progressing in the right direction also has increased considerably in the end-line. Similarly, there has been a considerable increase in the percentage of people who believe that it is important to provide required services to conflict victims, and a vast majority of people still think that those who are responsible for crimes and human rights violations should be punished for their actions. In contrast to the above two thematic areas, most of the indicators related to participation and governance show that overall, there is good progress. Both the share of people who assert that they actively participate in oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities and the percentage of people who state that the effectiveness of community organizations in advocating the government for the people’s interests vary have increased in the end-line. Similarly, the share of people who feel that they have a strong voice in political decisions that affect them/their communities and the share of people who report being satisfied with government services have both increased significantly compared to the baseline. But it is worth noting that there is an increase in the percentage of people in the end-line who reported having paid a bribe. Furthermore, the share of people who experienced discrimination while accessing public services has more or less remained the same as the baseline. However, since the time of the baseline, there has been an increase in citizen’s interactions with elected representatives, political party leaders, community service organization, and bureaucrats, and there has been a significant increase in the percentage of people who believe that the government has made improvements in various aspects related to people’s lives. 1 Introduction and Background USAID’s 2013 Violent Extremism Assessment and the U.S. Government’s 2011 Interagency Conflict Assessment stated that while the likelihood of returning to a major conflict is currently low in Nepal, poor governance remains a conflict driver that could lead to increased violence. Additionally, USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Assessment identified several critical barriers to good governance that reflect the grievances of Nepal’s conflicts. These include a lack of public accountability by the government, limited capacity to address Nepal's growing demands and increased expectations of government, and the need for powerful institutions to include women and other marginalized groups in decision-making and service provision. The DRG Assessment described the main DRG problem as a “government effectiveness gap,” in which the Government of Nepal (GON) fails to meet the increasing demands for inclusion. To address this gap and to achieve the objective of effective governance and political inclusion in Nepal, four conditions must be achieved: peace, accountability, civic participation, and better performance. Without peace, human development is not possible, and without human development, peace is unsustainable. The Mission will target these conditions at the local level while pushing for national-level accountability and reform to close the government’s effectiveness gap on the ground. The IGP surveys play an important role in providing information for USAID’s comprehensive 2014 Performance Management Plan (PMP), reflecting the USAID/Nepal Country Development Cooperation Strategy (CDCS). The PMP is a single, Mission-wide source of information to assist USAID in managing results to achieve its highest development goals. The CDCS guides approximately $400 million in investments from fiscal years 2014 to 2019. The overall goal for the Mission, as stated in the CDCS, is “a more democratic, prosperous, and resilient Nepal.” Three development objectives (DOs) contribute to the achievement of this goal and reflect the key development hypotheses that will inform USAID/Nepal’s projects and activities over the five-year CDCS period: DO1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance. DO2: Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth to Reduce Extreme Poverty. DO3: Increased Human Capital. Within the PMP, DO1 established indicators for each intermediate result (IR) and each of the four sub￾immediate results, including peace, accountability, civil participation, and performance. The surveys of the Integrated Governance Project (IGP) supply several datasets for monitoring and evaluation efforts under PMP. Finally, the surveys provide valuable information to the Mission’s implementing partners from across the development sectors within USAID. Survey Purpose In 2015, 2017, and again in 2019, the USAID’s Democracy and Government Office (DGO) conducted a nationally representative IGP survey to assess the progress of the Mission’s CDCS in meeting the goals of DO1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance. In-depth, in-person interviews were conducted in households to measure attitudes, perceptions, and experiences of respondents. The first (baseline) survey was conducted between November 28, 2015 and January 5, 2016, with most interviews in December 2015. The second (midline) survey was conducted between August 25, 2017 and October 16, 2017, with most interviews occurring in September, and the third (end-line) survey was conducted between June and July 2019. 2 The purpose of the survey is to provide information on the extent to which the Mission’s programs successfully increased the inclusion of Nepalese in civic and political life and improved the government’s ability to respond to public needs and demands. In addition to the overall citizen involvement and satisfaction with government programs, the project also will examine the involvement and satisfaction of traditionally marginalized and excluded groups, including women, youth, Dalit, Janajati, and Madhesi, among others. The intention is to provide actionable information that will allow the Mission and its implementing partners to assess and improve the design and implementation of its programs across the remaining life of the CDCS (2014-2019). The survey also intends to provide a richer and more detailed understanding of Nepali attitudes, values, and aspirations, and how these are translated into their relationships with their government. The surveys supplement monitoring and evaluation activities supported by USAID and others by providing bottom-up information about the success of Mission programs. In addition to the 2015 and 2017 reports, this report has tried to analyze the data beyond those covered in USAID’s PMP indicators by developing relevant themes and mapping the survey questions to the pertinent themes. The number of indicators of PMP DO1 and additional indicators are presented in the below table. Indicator Type/ Theme Inclusion and Tolerance Peaceful Conflict Resolution Participation and Governance Total Main 3 4 9 16 New 0 5 16 21 Total 37 SURVEY METHODOLOGY SAMPLING FRAME The survey methodology was designed to collect a representative sample of respondents using a stratified multi-stage cluster sampling strategy ending with a random selection of household members aged 18 to 65. Interviews were conducted face-to-face with data collected on electronic devices. A total of 1,980 interviews were conducted during the baseline survey, 1,994 interviews during the midline survey, and 2,112 interviews during the end-line survey. Identical stratification and selection of village development committees (VDCs)1 were used in all three periods. Two distinct samples were designed to compare USAID targeted VDCs and with the rest of the country. There was an overlapping of districts (seven districts) for the national and USAID sample, but not at the VDC level. The national sample consisted of 780 respondents in the baseline, 786 respondents in the midline, and 832 in the end-line. The USAID sample consisted of 1,200 respondents in the baseline, 1,208 respondents in the midline, and 1,280 in the end-line. Sampling within VDCs differed somewhat between the baseline and midline surveys. However, the sampling procedures during the midline and end-line remained the same. Details of the sampling methodology used in each round are described in detail below. 1 Original sample frame was finalized during baseline (2015) and has been followed/remained the same until end line, so we shouldn’t change the language. However, it is noted that the term VDC has become obsolete since Nepal moved into new federal administrative restructuring since 2017. 3 The national sample in 2019 replicated the methodology in baseline and midline methodology for stratification. The sample was split into fifteen strata based on administrative region (Eastern, Central, Western, and Mid and Far Western), and geo-climatic region (Terai, Hills, and Mountains). The administrative regions run from east to west, while the geo-climatic regions run from south to north, so these fifteen strata approximate a 3 x 5 grid laid over a map of Nepal. In the national sample, 52 clusters (wards) spreading over 42 districts were allocated across the strata based on the strata’s population. Fifteen households were selected from each stratum for an interview. (See table 1 for cluster allocation). Table 1. Cluster Allocation Based on the Population Distribution for the National Survey (in 2015 baseline and 2017 midline) Domain Eastern Region Central Region Western Region Mid-Western Region Far Western Region All Nepal Mountain 1 1 1 1 1 5 Hill 2 3 5 9 3 22 Terai 2 3 4 9 7 25 Total 5 7 10 19 11 52 Similarly, the midline USAID sample replicated the stratification process used in the baseline. Eighty clusters were allocated across eight key districts (Makawanpur, Kapilvastu, Dang, Surkhet, Banke, Bardiya, Kailali, and Kanchanpur) in USAID program districts. However, these eighty clusters were divided equally (10 in each district) rather than based on the population. (See table 2) Table 2. Cluster Allocation Based on the Survey of Population Distribution for USAID Program Districts (in 2015 baseline and 2017 midline) Domain Far Western Region Mid-Western Region Western Region Central Region Eastern Region All Nepal Mountain 0 0 0 0 0 0 Hill 0 10 0 10 0 20 Terai 20 30 10 0 0 60 Total 20 40 10 10 0 80 In all three surveys, ward (cluster), the lowest administrative unit in Nepal, was taken as the primary sampling unit within the strata, and the households were selected randomly. The most recent population census (2011) was used to determine the size of wards. Respective wards were selected in the midline and the end-line, both for the national sample and USAID sample, to maintain comparability with the baseline. Within wards, the methodology for identifying 15 or 16 households for selection changed somewhat between the baseline and midline surveys. However, the methodology remains the same in the midline and end-line. In the baseline survey, the survey team selected 15 households from each ward by choosing a landmark and following a “right-hand” rule. Thus, those households near the landmark had a 4 much higher probability of inclusion, but the methodology used possibly excluded important population sub-groups that often reside outside of the landmark coverage. For example, chosen landmarks were usually a marketplace, church, school, or health post. However, the most vulnerable minority and disadvantaged group (MDAG), who typically reside away from these areas, had a much lower probability of being selected. In contrast to the baseline, the midline survey randomly selected multiple areas (six to seven landmarks) across the ward to increase the coverage of the population. After randomly selecting three of the six to seven landmarks, the survey team listed the households and selected five to six of them using systematic random sampling from each landmark area, making a total of 15 to 16 households from each ward. In both baseline and midline surveys, interviewers followed a Kish grid approach (where male and female respondents are alternated). Similarly, interviewers attempted three “callbacks,” and after the third attempt to interview at the household, teams moved to the adjacent household. The survey team replicated the same methodology in the end-line survey as well. In the midline survey, the survey team introduced a training of trainers and cognitive pretesting. It extended the duration of the main training (in days) to ensure that the tools were reliable and clear in terminology and that enumerators established a good connection with the questionnaire. The survey team for the end-line used the same approach. In the first round, from April 8 to May 6, 2019, the team conducted a questionnaire review and cognitive pretesting to improve further and make the instruments clearer. Between May 7 to 11, 2019, the team trained supervisors on paper and tablets, and from May 19 to June 4, 2019, trained enumerators, including supervisors. Piloting started in Kathmandu Valley from June 3 to 4, 2019. The 19 teams, each consisting of three enumerators and one supervisor, embarked on a trip to the field for data collection from June 6 to July 7, 2019. Moreover, a key issue identified in the baseline was the absence of an instruction manual, which raised concerns about the integrity of questionnaire administration. This was corrected in the midline and the end-line by introducing the training manual that included specific instructions to address such issues. Terminology definitions also were included in the manual to ensure consistency. Another critical issue this midline survey addressed was the local language (Awadhi, Bhojpuri, and Maithali) – enumerators fluent in these languages were assigned to their respective clusters. The same was replicated in the end￾line. SURVEY INSTRUMENT The overall comparability from baseline to midline/end-line is ensured methodologically, though several improvements were made after the baseline. PMP performance and context indicators from the baseline survey were maintained in the midline survey to allow for a comparison of these indicators. However, a thorough attempt was made to simplify the questions and better organize and sequence them around the themes so that it was convenient for the respondents to understand the questions. In a few instances, the team converted the short themes/options present in the baseline questions as a complete question by linking them with the main question. Additionally, the team introduced filter questions wherever applicable to minimize the errors, particularly for the questions with skip patterns. There also was an effort to reduce the length of the survey in 2017. Through back-and-forth meetings and discussion with the Mission, the team removed some survey response options. The team eliminated questions because they were redundant, no longer valid or relevant, had extremely high numbers of non-responses, were confusing, or otherwise found to be unnecessary by the Mission. Even though the team also administered the 2017 survey instruments using electronic devices (like in the baseline survey), it introduced quality-control protocols to review and remove poor quality interviews. Poor quality interviews included those where the location for the interview was outside of the assigned 5 sample area, and where interviewers did not follow the necessary interview protocols (e.g., whether the interview read the consent form, read too quickly, skipped parts of the question, did not allow the respondent to answer, etc.). In 2019, the survey team added six perception-related questions concerning the proportionate budget allocation of three government tiers, benefit-sharing from federal and province-level, including the religious and cultural rights, and the inclusiveness of Nepal’s constitution. Where applicable, data in this report appears in comparative tables with information from the baseline 2015, the midline 2017, and the end-line 2019 surveys. LIMITATIONS While a considerable effort was made to maintain comparability across the surveys conducted during the three periods, there are some differences in the survey instruments and the samples. There is, however, a higher level of consistency in the midline and end-line, besides a few additional questions in the end-line to capture the changed context. As a result, some differences observed between the surveys may be due to changes in the survey (measurement error) rather than changes in the population's attitudes and behaviors. The table below gives a snapshot of the 2015 baseline limitations and the improvements made in 2017 and 2019 surveys. Note that this could be a limitation in terms of the comparability of two datasets. The questionnaire and the methodology in midline and end-line, however, remained relatively consistent. Limitations in 2015 Improvements in 2017 and 2019 The survey team selected 15 households from each ward by choosing a landmark and following a “right-hand” rule, increasing the probability of choosing well-off households living in or near landmarks or possibly excluding important population sub-groups that often reside outside of the landmark coverage. The team first randomly listed multiple areas (6 -12 landmarks) across the ward and selected at least three landmarks (5 households from each) to increase the coverage of the population. The duration of the enumerators' training was insufficient, and English words were translated literally in Nepali. The number of days of training for enumerators was increased to establish a good connection with questionnaires, and cognitive pre-testing also was done. Additionally, the distribution of revised “cheat sheets” were given if there still were difficult words to understand. There was no instruction manual, which raised concerns about the integrity of the questionnaire administration. Both an instructional manual and survey-to-go manual were developed and implemented, ensuring integrity and standardization. There were language issues as a few study team members had to rely on local interpreters to help translate information to non-Nepali speakers, which, in turn, compromised the reliability of responses. Enumerators familiar with local languages (Awadhi, Bhojpuri, Maithili, and Tamang) were hired and allocated to respective language clusters. The survey team completed the pre-testing in an urban setting, one in Kavrepalanchowk and another near Budhanilkantha; both areas are near the country’s capital, Kathmandu. Thus, it lacked representation of rural settings. Enumerators conducted cognitive in Patlekhat, Kavrepalanchowk, and performed the pilot testing in Rabiopi VDC. Both locations were rural and inhabited by illiterate and marginalized communities. 6 Limitations in 2015 Improvements in 2017 and 2019 The baseline questionnaire was theme-based. Themes were elaborated and asked by framing them as questions In some instances, there were no filter questions. Enumerators inquired about the satisfaction of different services without knowing whether the respondents visited the institutions that provide such services within the previous 12 months. Enumerators asked respondents who visited the institutions in the previous 12 months about satisfaction-related questions. Questions and options. A few questions that were irrelevant, confusing, or unnecessary were removed. However, some contextual factors, worth nothing during all three periods, might have affected the responses. Those tables with methodological issues include a hash symbol (#) at the end of the table name. Between November 28, 2015 and January 5, 2016, several events took place in Nepal before the baseline survey. In April and May 2015, two devastating earthquakes struck Nepal. Though the central development region's mountain and hill districts were most severely affected, parts of the eastern development region and western development region were also adversely affected. The earthquakes killed and injured thousands of people, left several thousand homeless, and impacted people’s livelihood options and the local economy. However, the earthquakes prompted the political parties to draft and promulgate the much-delayed new constitution in September 2015 through a fast-track process. The Nepali people received their new constitution on September 20, 2015, just two months before the fieldwork for the baseline started. However, the fast-track process failed to consider all interest groups and demands from various quarters. Among other failures, the failure to accommodate the diverse interests led to the Madhesi parties’ agitation against the constitution and the ensuing economic blockade, which affected different spheres of Nepali society, from the end of September 2015 to early 2016. During this time, the public mood was marked by both a sigh of relief that the new constitution had been passed and the day-to-day difficulties faced due to the economic blockade. The fieldwork for the midline survey occurred from August 25, 2017 to October 16, 2017. By the time the midline survey was underway, the new local structures had already come into effect (from March 14, 2017), and the first and second phases of local level elections had just concluded. Besides the above￾mentioned differences in the 2015 and 2017 surveys, two critical contextual factors characterize the national context during the 2017 midline survey: Elections and flooding. Due to the elections, the team conducted the midline survey in two phases: Enumerators collected data in the immediate post-period of the local level elections and during the pre-election period of the provincial and federal elections. After all elections concluded, the survey team collected data in province 2, which accounts for eight percent of the sample size. The midline data collection also occurred in the aftermath of flooding that affected most of the Terai and a handful of Hill districts. Respondents’ agitation in the immediate aftermath of floods and heated political environment during the pre- and post-election periods might have affected the responses to a substantial number of indicators, mainly the tolerance, community conflicts, and resort to violent protest indicators. On the other hand, there was a sense of elation among the citizens that the elections of the local bodies were taking place after a gap of 20 years. The new constitution recognized local governments along with the provincial and federal governments. The local governments were larger geographical units (compared to the erstwhile VDCs and 7 municipalities) and were considerably empowered. Local elections to these newly structured and empowered local governments took place in three phases on May 14, June 28, and September 6, 2017. A little less than two years before the end-line survey fieldwork, elections for the national and provincial governments took place in Nepal – Phase 1 on November 26, 2017, and Phase 2 on December 7, 2017. The national and provincial level elections led to the coalition between the two left parties -the Communist Party of Nepal (Unified Marxist – Leninist), or CPN (UML), and Maoists. They won the elections and subsequently formed the government. KP Sharma Oli was appointed as the new prime minister on February 15, 2018, and the two leftist parties later reunited as the Nepal Communist Party. Thus, by the time the end-line survey was underway, Nepalis had witnessed a government at the center that had lasted more than two years – a special feat in a country that had perennially suffered from political instability during the previous three decades and where, on average, a government lasted only nine months. By the time the end-line survey was underway, elected local government officials had been functioning for two years. This backdrop needs to be kept in mind when analyzing the findings of the survey data. As noted above, though the sampling method and the tools remained consistent between the midline and end-line surveys, the 2017 survey team made drastic improvements in the survey methodology and tools to capture better representative data and quality datasets. In turn, this change might have compromised the comparability of datasets between the baseline and midline surveys and the baseline and end-line surveys. The survey team based the midline survey methodology on a more robust sampling approach to get a better representation of respondents. It conducted a few significant tests to understand whether the sample characteristics (age, marital status, education qualification, and caste/ethnicity) were significantly different between the 2015 and 2019 surveys. The demographic characteristics of the respondents in the 2015 and 2019 surveys was found to be significantly different in all four characteristics. Thus, this might have affected the comparability of the two datasets. FINDINGS The purpose of this analysis is to determine the extent of change, if any, in key performance indicators from the USAID/Nepal PMP between the baseline, midline, and end-line. The findings are organized into three sections: (1) Inclusion and Tolerance, (2) Peaceful Conflict Resolution, and (3) Participation and Governance. Section 1: Inclusion and Tolerance The composite measure designed to gauge the extent to which attitudes toward gender equality have changed shows a slight decline in the percentage of those who support the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. The measure includes questions that ask whether men should have priority over women for employment when jobs are scarce, whether men make better leaders than women, and whether males and females should have an equal opportunity to social, economic, and political opportunities. In the 2015 baseline survey, 82.2 percent agreed with the concept of gender equality, while this percentage was 70 percent in 2017 (midline) and 73 percent in 2019 (end-line). The decline was more pronounced in the national sample with a difference of 13.3 percent than in the USAID sample (6.5 percent) when comparing the baseline and the end-line. (PI 1-3) There was an overall decrease of 9 percent between the baseline and end-line, and it was highly significant (<.05). In the end-line, there was a difference of around 6 percent between the USAID sample and the national sample – the difference was statistically significant (<.05). 8 One may conclude that the inclusion agenda, in particular, the idea that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities, though still high, is less than what it was in 2015. PI 1-3 Proportion of Target Population Agreeing with the Concept that Males and Females Should Have Equal Access to Social, Economic, and Political Opportunities Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1627 82.2* 81.4 82.7 1395 70.0 66.9 71.9 1542 73.0* 68.1** 76.2** No 353 17.8 18.6 17.3 597 29.9 33.0 28.0 570 27.0 31.9 23.8 Total 1980 100 100 100 1994 100 100 100 2112 100 100 100 * Denotes sig test between baseline and end-line (if significant). ** Denotes sig test between National and USAID sample in end-line (if significant)/ In contrast to attitudes towards gender equality and support for equality for ethnic, cultural, and marginalized groups remains high across the four years. The composite measure combined questions asking about an agreement with statements about the following: whether people from all ethnic and cultural groups should be allowed to run for office; whether all communities should be allowed to protest; whether people from all ethnic and cultural groups should have equal access to social, economic, and political rights; whether the country would be better off if marginalized groups played a more equal role in politics and government; and whether religion, caste, ethnicity or gender should be an obstacle to assuming the office of the PM. The combined measure shows a near-universal agreement with the concept that all segments of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. In all surveys – baseline, midline, and end-line – and across all samples – there is more than 98 percent agreement. PI 1-4 Proportion of the Target Population Agreeing with the Concept That All Segments of the Population Should Have Equal Access to Social, Economic, and Political Opportunities Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1966 99.3 99.4 99.3 1960 98.3 97.1 99.1 2080 98.7 99.0 98.5 No 14 0.7 0.6 0.7 34 1.7 2.9 0.9 32 1.3 1.0 1.5 Total 1980 100 100 100 1994 100 100 100 2112 100 100 100 Tolerance towards other cultural or ethnic groups declined slightly from 2015 to 2019 in all samples. This composite measure combines agreement with statements about whether people from all ethnic and cultural groups should be allowed to live in my community, and whether a child should only be allowed to marry someone from his /her own cultural or ethnic group. More than half of the baseline, midline, and end-line samples showed a tolerant attitude. However, compared to the baseline, the number of people exhibiting a tolerant attitude in the end-line declined a little. If in 2015, 58.9 percent exhibited a tolerant attitude, in 2019, 51.8 percent did so – a decline of 7.1 percent. It had declined for both national as well as the USAID samples. 9 A decline of 7.8 percent in tolerance towards other groups is observed in the USAID sample compared to a decline of 6.1 percent in the national sample in 2019 when compared to 2015. (PI 1.1-3) Between the baseline and the end-line, there was an overall decline of 6 percent and it was highly significant (<.05). In contrast, a 2.8 percent difference between the national and USAID samples in the end-line was not significant (p>.05). The response to these sets of questions indicates a decline in an inclusivist attitude though slightly more than 50 percent of the people still adhere to it. PI 1.1-3: Percent of Public in Target Districts Expressing Tolerance Towards Other Groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youth, Muslims, Brahmin/Chhetri, etc.) Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1166 58.9* 56.3 60.6 1080 54.2 50.5 56.5 1094 51.8* 50.2** 52.8** No 814 41.1 43.7 39.4 913 45.8 49.4 43.5 1018 48.2 49.8 47.2 Total 1980 100 100 100 1994 100 100 100 2112 100 100 100 Section 2: Peaceful Conflict Resolution There is a total of four indexes in the section on Peaceful Conflict Resolution. The first of these is an awareness of community efforts to resolve conflicts. Overall, most respondents, over 60 percent in all samples (the baseline, midline, and end-line surveys), reported that they are aware of community efforts to resolve conflicts. Compared to 2015, the share of people stating awareness declined slightly in 2019. If 72.3 percent had mentioned that they were aware of community efforts to resolve conflict in 2015, 63.1 percent had mentioned this in 2017, and 66 percent mentioned this in 2019. Between the four years, the share of people expressing awareness declined by 8.4 percent. Comparing the national sample and the USAID sample, the decline between 2015 and 2019 is 8.1 percent and 5.2 percent, respectively. The share of decline is relatively higher in the national sample than in the USAID sample. While a decrease of about 6.3 percent between the baseline and end-line was highly significant (p<.05), the difference of .6 percent between the USAID and national samples in the end-line was not significant (p>.05). PI 1.1.2-2 Percent Aware of Community Efforts to Resolve Conflicts Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Tota l (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 667 72.3* 74.4 70.9 765 63.1 60.9 64.4 816 66.0* 66.3 65.7 No 255 27.7 25.6 29.1 448 36.9 39.1 35.6 416 34.0 33.7 34.3 Total 922 100 100 100 1213 100 100 100 1222 100 100 100 The second index is on unresolved local conflicts in their community. The percentage of people who reported that there is no significant conflict in communities has decreased from 53.4 percent in 2015 to 41.5 percent in 2019 – a decline of 11.9 percent. A similar decline is observed in the national and USAID samples between the baseline and the end-line surveys. However, those reporting that there are occasional but mostly minor conflicts are relatively higher by around 1-2 percentage points in 2019 10 compared to 2015 in all samples (36.4 percent in 2015 to 37.7 percent in 2019). Similarly, the share of the population who reported that there are moderate continuing conflicts has increased by around 9.9 percent, from 9.2 percent in 2015 to 19.1 percent in 2019. This increased share of people is relatively higher in the USAID sample (11.2 percent) than in the national sample (7.3 percent). The proportion of respondents who mentioned that there are major unresolved conflicts was 1.6 percent in 2019, while this share was 1 percent in 2015. The share of people who say so is relatively more in 2019 by 0.6 percent than in 2015. This increased share of people is relatively higher in the national sample (1.3 percent) than in the USAID sample (0.3 percent). (PI 1.1.2-1) There was a significant difference(p<.05) between the baseline and end-line after combining the first two categories into one and the latter two into another. However, no significant difference(p>.05) in terms of the USAID sample and the national sample was observed in the end-line. PI 1.1.2-1: Percent of Respondents with Continuing/Ongoing and/or Major Unresolved Local Conflicts in Their Community Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts 1058 53.4* 50.5 55.3 780 39.1 40.5 38.2 876 41.5* 39.5 42.8 There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor 721 36.4 36.5 36.3 801 40.2 39.7 40.5 796 37.7 38.9 37.0 There are moderate continuing conflicts 182 9.2* 12.1 7.3 386 19.4 18.1 20.2 403 19.1* 19.4 19.0 There are major unresolved conflicts 19 1.0 0.9 1.0 25 1.3 1.8 0.9 34 1.6 2.2 1.3 Total 1980 100 100 100 1992 100 100 100 2109 100 100 100 The third index is the willingness to resort to violence. Between the baseline and the end-line, there is an increase in the number of people reporting a willingness to engage in violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations. While only 2.6 percent reported that they are certainly willing to engage in violent protests in 2015, this share increased to 26.9 percent in 2019. The proportion of respondents who said so is relatively higher in the national sample (28.8 percent) than the USAID sample areas (25.6 percent). Similarly, the share of those who say that they will probably engage in violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations has also increased from 5.6 percent in 2015 to 23 percent in 2019. This share of the population is 21.5 percent in the national sample and 24.1 percent in the USAID sample in 2019, while it was 5.9 percent in the national sample and 5.3 percent in the USAID sample in 2015. 11 (PI 1.1-2) There was a significant difference (P<.05) between the baseline and end-line after combining the first two categories into “willing” and the latter two categories into “not willing.” But no significant difference (p>0.5) was observed in the USAID and national samples in the end-line. A sharp increase in the number of people reporting a willingness to engage in violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations is worrisome. However, it is important to keep in mind that this is a hypothetical and purely attitudinal question. Therefore, it does not precisely reflect the reality of resorting to violent protests, as the PMP also highlights. The limitation of this indicator is that attitude might quickly shift based on the local context. PI 1.1-2 Percent of People Willing to Resort to Violence Protest if the Peace and Reconciliation Process Does Not Meet Their Expectations Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Certainly willing 51 2.6* 2.3 2.8 544 27.5 21.9 31.2 565 26.9* 28.8 25.6 Probably willing 110 5.6* 5.9 5.3 437 22.1 22.4 21.9 484 23.0* 21.3 24.1 Probably not willing 296 14.9* 15.5 14.6 199 10.1 12.4 8.6 205 9.7* 11.2 8.8 Certainly not willing 1522 76.9* 76.2 77.3 797 40.3 43.4 38.3 850 40.4* 38.7 41.5 Total 1979 100 100 100 1992 100 100 100 2104 100 100 100 Another indicator is how the peace process is progressing. Those who had reported that the peace process is too slow was 86.8 percent in the 2015 baseline but declined to 50.3 percent in 2019 baseline; thus, there was a 36.5 percent decline from the baseline to the end-line. Likewise, those who report that the peace process is about the right speed have increased by 29.6 percent point in 2019 (from 11.8 percent in 2015 to 41.4 percent in 2019). The largest increase was among respondents in the USAID sample, which increased from 10.4 percent in 2015 to 41.3 percent in 2019. PI 1.1.1-1 Percentage Distribution of Respondents by Their Perception on How Peace Process in Progressing (PPSPEED) Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Too Slow 1705 86.8 84.7 88.1 1088 55.1 57.1 53.8 1052 50.3 49.3 51.0 About the right Speed 231 11.8 13.9 10.4 751 38.0 35.4 39.7 866 41.4 41.6 41.3 Too Fast 29 1.5 1.4 1.5 136 6.9 7.4 6.5 172 8.2 9.1 7.7 Total 1965 100 100 100 1975 100 100 100 2090 100 100 100 Linked to the perception of the peace process are the comprehensive peace accord milestones perceived as having been completed. This is the last indicator in the section on Peaceful Conflict Resolution. 12 The Table below is the composite score of eleven elements related to the comprehensive peace agreement measured on a five-point Likert scale. The table does not represent the actual progress on the peace process, but people’s perception towards it, which might vary depending on the situation, timing, and micro-level incidences at the time of interviews. Whereas 10 percent of respondents in all samples and the USAID sample in 2015 believed that the peace process has been completed, only 1.1 percent responded as such in samples in 2017. Likewise, those reporting “partially completed” varied from 71 percent and 68.5 percent in the national and USAID sample in 2015 to 53 percent among both the samples in 2017. In contrast, the share of people saying the peace process has not been completed has decreased from 19 percent and 21 percent among all samples and the USAID sample in 2015 to 46 percent in 2017 among both samples. The responses of people for this indicator was not captured in the end￾line survey, which was carried out in 2019. PI 1.1.1-1 Average Percentage of Comprehensive Peace Accord (CPA) Milestones Perceived as Completed by the Public (Cumulative indicator calculated from different CPA elements) (#) Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 195 10 9.2 10.3 22 1.1 1.3 1.0 32 1.5 1.9 1.3 Partially completed 1414 71 76.0 68.5 1055 53.0 52.9 53.0 1210 57.4 59.4 56.1 No 370 19 14.8 21.3 915 45.9 45.9 46.0 867 41.1 38.7 42.7 Total 1965 100 100 100 1975 100 100 100 2109 100 100 100 REMAINING ISSUES OF THE PEACE PROCESS This IGP end-line longitudinal survey sought to document deeper and measure changes and continuing views of people regarding the peace process. In this context, the survey team developed some composite indicators. The first indicator is about the performance of the truth and reconciliation commission. Responses of people on three questions were considered to calculate the value of this composite index. The three questions were (1) whether people have heard of the truth and reconciliation commission, (2) people’s knowledge about the commission, and (3) evaluation of the progress made by the commission. The table below measures the changes based on the composite index. Survey findings reveal that around half of the people think that the truth and reconciliation commission is performing well. Though this share of the population is almost the same in all samples in all survey rounds, people who think the commission is performing well is relatively higher in the midline compared to baseline and end-line surveys. The share of people who think the commission is performing well has gone down by 8.9 percent points in the national sample between baseline (58.6 percent) and end-line (49.7 percent). The share of people who think the commission is performing well has declined in the USAID sample by 3.9 percent point from the baseline (57.9 percent) to the end-line (54 percent). (A1) A decrease of around 9 percent between the baseline and end-line was highly significant (p<.05). However, in 2019, the USAID sample showed a difference by 11 percent than the national sample, and that difference was unlikely due to chance alone (p<.05). The decline in this indicator need not come as a surprise, given the slow pace at which the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is progressing. There have hardly been stories in the media about what the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is doing or if it is making any progress. 13 A1. The Proportion of People Who Think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is Performing Well Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 436 58.6* 59.6 57.9 415 56.6 52.4 59.5 370 49.7* 43.1 54.0 No 308 41.4 40.04 42.1 318 43.4 47.6 40.5 375 50.3 56.9 46.0 Total 744 100 100 100 733 100 100 100 745 100 100 100 The second composite index was about the performance of the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons. This composite index is calculated by combining the responses of people on three questions: (1) whether people heard of the commission, (2) people’s knowledge about the commission, and (3) evaluation of the progress made by the commission. This index was not calculated in the baseline survey because questions related to this index had not been asked in the baseline. The finding shows than compared to mid-line (44.4 percent), relatively fewer respondents in the end-line (39.2 percent) think that this commission is performing well. Likewise, compared to the midline, around 5 percent fewer people in all samples in the end-line think that commission is performing well. (A2) USAID sample reported a higher value than that of the national sample by 6.5 percent, and that difference was significant (p<.05) in 2019. Though baseline figures do not exist, given the decline between the midline and the end-line, need not come as a surprise given the slow pace at which the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons is progressing. As with the earlier indicator, there have hardly been stories in the media about what the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons is doing or if it is making any progress. A2. The Proportion of People Who Think the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons is Performing Well Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes This question was not captured in baseline 422 44.4 40.2 46.9 387 39.2 35.3** 41.8** No 529 55.6 59.8 53.1 600 60.8 64.7 58.2 Total 951 100 100 100 987 100 100 100 The third index was about the proportion of people who think true and unbiased information must be provided to the families of conflict victims. More than 95 percent of respondents in all rounds of surveys in all samples reported that true and unbiased information must be provided to the families of conflict victims. However, the share of people who think so is relatively less in the mid-line and end-line compared to baseline. Since this is a normative question, it is not surprising that most respondents believe that this has to be done. 14 A3. The Proportion of People Who Think True and Unbiased Information Must be Provided to the Families of Conflict Victims Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total ( %) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1966 99.3* 99.5 99.2 1849 93.1 93.2 93.0 2015 95.7* 95.9 95.5 No 14 0.7 0.5 0.8 138 6.9 6.8 7.0 91 4.3 4.1 4.5 Total 1980 100 100 100 1987 100 100 100 2106 100 100 100 Another index is related to the proportion of people who think required services should be provided to the conflict victims. This index is based on a response of people to a single question. Most people in all rounds of surveys in all samples believe that these services are important for the victims of conflicts. The share of people who think these services are important for the victims of conflict has increased by 15.6 percentage points from the baseline (79.4 percent) to the end-line (95 percent). This increased share of the population is relatively higher in the USAID sample (16.9 percent) than the national sample (13.6 percent). (A4) A decrease of 3.6 percent between the baseline and end-line was recorded, and that was highly significant (p<.05). In contrast, no significant (p>.05) difference was observed during the end-line between the USAID and national samples. There has been a slight decline in the number of people who think required services should be provided to the conflict victims. Nevertheless, despite the decline, an overwhelming majority continue to think that required services should be provided to the conflict victims. This is also indicative of people’s strong support for social justice. A4. The Proportion of People Who Think Required Services Should be Provided to the Conflict Victims Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample Very important 632 32.1 33.8 30.9 1246 63.3 63.0 63.4 1532 73.0 73.9 72.4 Somewhat important 931 47.3 48.3 46.6 610 31.0 30.6 31.2 461 22.0 21.8 22.0 Not very important 333 16.9 14.4 18.5 48 2.4 2.2 2.6 50 2.4 1.7 2.8 Not at all important 74 3.8 3.5 3.9 65 3.3 4.1 2.8 57 2.7 2.7 2.8 Total 1970 100 100 100 1969 100 100 100 2100 100 100 100 The last index in the section on the peace process was the proportion of people who think that individuals who are responsible for crimes and human rights violations should be punished. Two questions were taken into account to calculate the index value: (1) to what extent people think it is important to ensure that human rights abuses will not happen again in Nepal, and (2) to what extent people think it is important to punish those who are responsible for crimes and other human rights violation during a conflict. An overwhelming majority of people with more than 95 percent in all samples of baseline, midline, and end-line think that those who are responsible for crimes and human rights violations should be punished. (A5) An overall decrease of 2.1 percent was observed, and that was highly significant (p<.05). However, there was no significant difference (p>.5) between the USAID and national samples in 2019. 15 A5. The Proportion of People Who Think That Individuals Responsible for Crimes and Human Rights Violations Should be Punished Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1947 98.3* 98.1 98.5 1892 95.2 94.4 95.8 2029 96.2* 96.9 95.8 No 33 1.7 1.9 1.5 95 4.8 5.6 4.2 80 3.8 3.1 4.2 Total 1980 100 100 100 1987 100 100 100 2109 100 100 100 Section 3: Participation and Governance B. SIXTEEN IGP INDICATORS One indicator of participation and governance is using social accountability mechanisms in the past 12 months. This is a composite index, developed from six different questions. The share of people who report having used an accountability mechanism out of the six (social audit, public hearing, citizen scorecard, CIAA grievance report, right to information, and Hello Sarkar) increased a little bit between the baseline (7.2 percent) and the end-line (12.2 percent). This share of the people who reported using an accountability mechanism in the past 12 months is almost the same in the national and the USAID samples in 2015 and 2019. The largest increase was in the USAID sample by 5.6 percent compared to the national sample (3.9 percent). Though there is a relative increment in the share of people who say so in 2019 as compared to 2015, when compared to the mid-line survey of 2017, those reporting this in 2019 has declined considerably (from 23.8 percent in 2017 to 12.2 percent in 2019). (PI 1.2-3) A significant difference of 5.2 percent in the baseline and end-line was observed. But while checking the difference of 1.1 percent between the USAID and national samples in 2019, it seemed that it occurred only by chance alone (p>0). Many of the accountability mechanism tools were developed during the Local Governance and Community Development Programme period and were being implemented before the state restructuring came into being. The existing local governments made efforts to see to it that these were implemented. Even though the current constitution does not have provisions for some of these accountability mechanisms, their practices have continued to a certain extent at the local government level. This explains why there has been a slight increase between the baseline and end-line and why this peaked during the mid-line in 2017. PI 1.2-3 Percent of People Who Used a Social Accountability Mechanism in the Past 12 Months of Those Who Have Heard About It Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 143 7.2* 7.6 7.0 475 23.8 22.3 24.8 257 12.2* 11.5 12.6 No 1837 92.8 92.4 93.0 1519 76.2 77.7 75.2 1855 87.8 88.5 87.4 Total 1980 100 100 100 1994 100 100 100 1745 100 100 100 16 Another indicator of participation and governance is the oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities. There is a similar increase in the percent of respondents participating in local government oversight activities. While 8.3 percent reported participating in oversight and monitoring subnational government activities in 2015, 29.5 percent reported this in 2019. In the USAID sample, 7.7 percent reported this in the baseline, and 29.9 percent reported this in 2019 – an increase of 22.2 percent. (PI 1.2.2-1) An additional 21.7 percent of people reported participating in the end-line than in baseline, and it was highly significant (p<.05). But no significant difference (p>0.5) was observed between the USAID and national samples in 2019 The reason for the increase in oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities in the baseline compared to the end-line is because there is provision for oversight and monitoring of subnational government in the current constitution. Once local elections were held to the local government, processes that related to oversight and monitoring of local government got underway. PI 1.2.2-1 Percent of People Who Indicate That They Actively Participate in Oversight and Monitoring of Subnational Government Activities Another indicator of participation and governance is participation in community groups/organizations. Among those who are members of community groups or organizations, 58.8 percent of the respondents reported participating “often” in group meetings of activities in 2015. The share of those reporting “often” declined to 43.9 percent in 2019. The decreased share of people who say so is higher in the national sample (17.8 percent) than the USAID sample (12.4 percent). However, those who reported they participate sometimes increased in 2019 compared to 2015 (34.4 percent in 2015 to 37.9 percent in 2019). Notably, the percentage of those saying that they never participate in community organizational activities increased from 1.8 percent in 2015 to 13.7 percent in 2019. (PI 1.3-4) There was a 14.5 percent decline from the baseline to the end-line among those who reported participating “often,” and the decrease was highly significant (p<.05). Around 7 percent more people participated in the USAID sample than in national samples, and it was not due to chance alone (p<.05). There has been a decline in participation in community groups/organizations. User groups/community groups had been provided for at the local level by the earlier Local Governance and Community Development Programme. Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 165 8.3* 9.4 7.7 605 30.4 29.3 31.2 622 29.5* 29.0 29.9 No 1814 91.7 90.5 92.3 1384 69.6 70.7 68.8 1485 70.5 71.0 70.1 Total 1979 100 100 100 1989 100 100 100 2107 100 100 100 17 These are not recognized by the constitution, and acts that define how these entities are to function have not yet come into existence. Even though the current constitution does not have provision for some of these community groups/organizations, their practices have continued to an extent, at the local government level. This explains why there has been a decline between the baseline and end-line. Despite the decline, the proportion who say they “often” participate in community groups/organizations remained high in 2019. PI 1.3-4 Percent of People Who Often Participate in Community Groups/Organizations Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Often 396 58.4* 57.6 58.8 447 32.1 29.6 33.8 492 43.9* 39.8** 46.4** Sometimes 233 34.4 34.7 34.2 573 41.2 40.5 41.6 425 37.9 41.7 35.5 Rarely 37 5.5 5.1 5.7 52 3.7 4.0 3.6 51 4.5 5.6 3.9 Never 12 1.8 2.5 1.4 319 22.9 25.8 21.0 154 13.7 13.0 14.2 Total 678 100 100 100 1391 100 100 100 1122 100 100 100 Another indicator of participation and governance is local organizations effectively advocate the peoples’ interests to the government. The percentage of respondents saying that community organizations effectively advocate for the people’s interests in government increased from 10.3 percent in 2015 to 19.3 percent in 2019. Similarly, the share of those who say community organizations somewhat effectively advocate for the people’s interests in the government is also relatively higher in 2019 than in 2015 (61.6 percent in 2015 to 70.6 percent in 2019). Conversely, the percentage of respondents saying that these organizations are not effective declined from about 28.1 percent in 2015 to less than 10.1 percent in 2019. (PI 1.3-3) There was a substantial increase of 9 percent of respondents saying “very effective” in the end-line than in the baseline, and that increase was not due to chance alone (p<.05). Interestingly, a difference of around 4 percent in the national and USAID samples was significant (p<.05). There has been an increase among these who say that local organizations effectively advocate the peoples’ interests to the government because local organizations – be these community-based organizations (CBOs) or local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) – continue to remain functional and have good communication channels with the elected local government. Even while many of the provisions at the local level – such as the existence of ward citizen forums (WCFs), community awareness centers (CACs), and other entities – changed between the old interim constitution and the new constitution, the CBOs and local NGOs continued to function at the local level. PI 1.3-3 Percent of the Public Who Think Community Organizations Effectively Advocate the People’s Interests to the Government Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Very Effective 197 10.3* 8.3 11.3 241 21.2 23.2 19.8 365 19.3* 21.6** 17.7** Somewhat Effective 1177 61.6 66.6 56.6 789 69.3 68.1 70.1 1338 70.6 66.9 73.1 Not effective 537 28.1 25.1 29.1 43 8.43 7.6 9.0 192 10.1 11.5 9.2 Total 678 100 100 100 1126 100 100 100 1895 100 100 100 18 Another indicator of participation and governance is moderate or strong voice in political decisions that affect them or their community. While very few respondents felt that had a very strong voice in political decisions affecting them, or their community in 2015 (less than 4.1 percent) in all samples, a higher proportion of respondents feel so in 2019 (around 23 percent). Similarly, the share of those respondents saying they have a moderate voice also was higher in 2019 (47 percent) than 2015 (35 percent). Concomitantly there was a large decline in the percentage of people saying they had “a weak voice” – this declined from 40.1 percent in 2015 to 7.9 percent in 2019. The share of people who said they had “a weak voice” is declined more significantly (by 35 percent) in the USAID sample than in the national sample (by 28 percent point) between the baseline and end-line. (PI 1.3.2-2) There was about 30 percent difference between those (saying either strong or moderate voice) between baseline (38.9 percent) and end-line (70.5 percent) and that difference was highly significant (p<.05). But no such significant difference was observed in the USAID sample and national sample in the end-line. This could be explained by the elected local government undertaking deliberations with the local community people – due to which people think they have either a strong voice or a moderate voice in political decisions that affect them or their community. PI 1.3.2-2 Percent of People Who Feel That They Have a Moderate or Strong Voice in Political Decisions That Affect Them or Their Community Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample A very strong voice 59 3.0 4.1* 2.3 554 28.0 28.7 27.5 489 23.3* 23.3 23.2 A moderate voice 709 35.8 35.8* 35.9 887 44.8 41.8 46.8 992 47.2* 45.6 48.3 A weak voice 793 40.1 37.1 42.1 135 6.8 6.6 7.0 165 7.9 9.1 7.1 No voice at all 415 21 22.9 19.8 402 20.3 22.9 18.6 465 21.7 22.0 21.4 Total 1976 100 100 100 1978 100 100 100 2101 100 100 100 Another indicator of participation and governance is free and fair elections in Nepal. In 2015, more than 85.6 percent of respondents thought that elections were either completely, or mostly, free and fair. But when this question was asked in 2019, the share of people who thought that elections were either completely, or mostly, free and fair was 67.9 percent. Moreover, in 2019, 10.3 percent of respondents said that elections were “not at all free and fair,” compared to 4.2 percent in 2015. It is worth noting that the 2019 survey was administered roughly two years after the elections were underway in Nepal – while the local elections were underway in summer and monsoon of 2017, provincial and national elections were underway in winter of 2017. There are no major variations between the overall, national, and USAID samples across the baseline, midline, and end-line surveys. 19 (PI 1.2.3-1) There was a decrease in the perception of election fairness by 17.6 percent (combining the first two and last two categories) between the baseline and end-line. The decrease was unlikely by chance alone (p<.05). There was no noticeable difference between the USAID sample and the national sample in 2019. There is no single clear explanation of why people feel this way some two years after the election has already been underway. PI 1.2.3-1 Percent of the Public Who Consider Elections in Nepal as Free and Fair Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Completely free and fair 636 32.8* 32.9 32.7 427 22.4 22.5 22.3 468 22.8* 21.1 24.0 Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems 1025 52.8* 54.6 51.7 751 39.4 39.5 39.3 925 45.1* 47.2 43.8 Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems 198 10.2 8.9 11.1 440 23.1 22.0 23.8 446 21.8 21.4 22.0 Not at all free and fair 81 4.2 3.7 4.5 289 15.2 16.0 14.6 211 10.3 10.3 10.3 Total 1940 100 100 100 1907 100 100 100 2050 100 100 100 Satisfaction with government services is yet another indicator of participation and governance. The measure of satisfaction with government services is based on a composite of questions asking respondents their level of satisfaction with eleven different government services (e.g., district hospitals, health clinics, public schools, agricultural and forestry services, and subnational government offices). Based on this measure, the percent of individuals satisfied with such services increased from 41.1 percent of respondents in the USAID sample in 2015 to 91 percent in 2019. The percent of the national sample respondents increased by 37.2 percent (from 52.7 percent in 2015 to 89.9 percent in 2019), and by 49.9 percent (from 41.1 percent to 91 percent) in the USAID sample. (CI* 1.4-3) An increase of 45 percent between the baseline and end-line, which was highly significant (p<.05). And no such significant difference (p>.05) was observed between the national and USAID samples in 2019. The respondents for this question differed slightly in 2017 and 2019 compared to that of 2015. In 2015 this question was asked to all the respondents irrespective of their status of the service sought from these institutions. However, in 2017 and 2019, this question was asked only to respondents who have received the services from these institutions within the previous 12 months of the survey. The timeline of 12 months has, to a large extent, rectified the recall bias. There has been a sharp increase among the people reporting satisfaction with government services because the agencies mandated with delivering services have begun providing their services. Many of the services are now under the mandate of local governments. After the local government elections, the elected local governments have begun performing, which implies that the public has started receiving services. 20 CI* 1.4-3 Percent of People Satisfied With Government Services (#) Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 904 45.7* 52.7 41.1 1416 78.7 79.1 78.4 1417 90.6* 89.9 91.0 No 1076 54.3 47.3 58.9 384 21.3 20.9 21.6 147 9.4 10.1 9.0 Total 1940 100 100 100 1800 100 100 100 1564 100 100 100 There is another related indicator of participation and governance regarding whether the services received satisfactorily responded to their needs. Respondents in 2019 reported being more satisfied that their needs are being met by a variety of services provided by all actors than in 2015. A composite measure of satisfaction was comprised of responses to a question about several services, including healthcare, agricultural assistance, education, protection from crime and violence, dispute resolution, and information on safe migration from government, non-government, and private service providers. The percentage of satisfied respondents increased in the national sample from 51.4 percent in 2015 to 67.8 percent in 2019. Likewise, the percentage of those satisfied in the USAID sample increased from 41.3 percent in 2015 to 68.8 percent in 2019. Interestingly, the percentage increase was substantially more in the USAID sample (27.5 percent) than in the national sample (16.4 percent) between 2015 and 2019. (CI* 1.4-3) An increase of about 23 percent between the baseline and end-line was observed, and that increase is highly significant (p<.05). And no such significant difference (p>.05) was observed between the national and USAID samples in 2019. This, again, could be explained by the fact that the agencies mandated with delivering services have begun providing their services. A higher proportion of people think that the availed services satisfactorily responded to their needs. PI 1.4.2-2 Percent of People Who Report That Services Received Satisfactorily Respond to Their Needs (#) Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 896 45.3* 51.4 41.3 1380 69.7 69.0 70.2 1438 68.2* 67.8 68.8 No 1084 54.7 48.6 58.8 599 30.3 31.0 29.8 671 31.8 32.2 31.2 Total 1980 100 100 100 1979 100 100 100 2109 100 100 100 Discrimination in accessing public services is yet another indicator of participation and governance. While satisfaction with services increased in 2019, there is also a slight increase in the percentage of those who report discrimination in accessing public services. In 2015, about 2 percent, overall, reported they experienced discrimination. Those reporting so in 2019 was 3 percent. An overwhelming majority of people report not feeling discriminated in accessing public services, with more than 95 percent of respondents in all samples saying so in the baseline, midline, and end-line. (PI 1.4.2-3) There was a difference of 0.9 percent between baseline and end-line, but the difference was not insignificant (p>.05). Between the 2019 USAID and national samples, the difference was only due to chance (p>.05). 21 PI 1.4.2-3 Percent of People Who Reported Experiencing Discrimination in Accessing Public Services Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 37 1.9 1.4 2.2 95 4.8 5.0 4.6 58 2.8 3.3 2.4 No 1939 98.1 98.6 97.8 1882 95.2 95.0 94.5 2043 97.2 96.7 97.6 Total 1976 100 100 100 1977 100 100 100 2101 100 100 100 C. MEDIA This study also measures the changes in people’s views regarding the media’s performance over a period. A composite indicator was developed to measure people’s opinions about media performance. Responses on three questions were taken into account to calculate the indicator’s value - whether the media’s reporting about government is generally accurate and reliable, whether the government controls too much of the media, and whether the media covers the government and the opposition fairly. Most people think that the media is performing in an unbiased manner and independently. The proportion of people who think so has remained almost the same in all samples in all rounds of surveys (72.4 percent in 2015, 73.2 percent in 2017, and 72.8 percent in 2019). (C1) There is no significant difference between the baseline and end-line and neither is there between the USAID and national samples in the end-line. C1. The Proportion of People Who Think the Media is Performing in an Unbiased manner and Independently Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1416 72.4 74.0 71.3 1452 73.2 72.7 73.6 1522 72.4 72.8 72.1 No 540 27.6 26.0 28.7 531 26.8 27.3 26.4 581 27.6 27.2 27.9 Total 1956 100 100 100 1983 100 100 100 2103 100 100 100 D. ELECTION This category mainly covers people’s views regarding citizen’s duty to vote and confidence in the Election Commission of Nepal. Three indicators were developed. The first indicator is about people’s views on whether citizens have a duty to vote. The questions asked to measure respondents’ views were whether they think their votes don’t matter and whether they think a citizen has a duty to vote. The finding reveals that most people believe that a citizen has a duty to vote. This share of people who adhere to this view is almost the same in all samples of all survey rounds (98.3 percent in 2015, 92.1 percent in 2017, and 98.5 percent in 2019). 22 D1. The Proportion of People Who Think a Citizen Has a Duty to Vote Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Strongly Agree 1617 81.7 82.1 81.4 1611 81.0 80.4 81.4 1897 89.9 90.3 89.7 Somewhat agree 328 16.6 16.3 16.8 221 11.1 11.5 10.9 182 8.6 8.3 8.8 Somewhat disagree 30 1.5 1.4 1.6 41 2.1 2.0 2.1 19 0.9 1.2 0.7 Strongly Disagree 5 0.3 0.3 0.3 115 5.8 6.0 5.6 12 0.6 0.2 0.8 Total 1980 100 100 100 1988 100 100 100 2110 100 100 100 The second indicator was developed to understand whether people who were registered had voted in national or local/provincial elections. Over three-quarters of respondents who were registered said that they did vote – this is true in the case of all the samples. The share of people who said they had voted is higher in 2019 (86.8 percent) than the midline (81.4 percent) and baseline (75.4 percent). A similar pattern is observed in all samples in all survey rounds. However, those who said they had voted is 4.5 percentage points higher in the USAID sample than the national sample in the end-line survey. D1_1 Percent of People Who Either Voted in a National or Local/Provincial Election Response Baseline (2015)-2013 single election Midline (2017)2013 single election End-line (2019)- 2017 N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1422 75.5 76.4 74.9 1310 81.4 81.4 81.4 1443 86.8 84.1 88.6 No 461 24.5 23.6 25.1 300 18.6 18.6 18.6 220 13.2 15.9 11.4 Total 1883 100 100 100 1610 100 100 100 1663 100 100 100 The third composite indicator measures the confidence of people towards the Election Commission of Nepal (ECN). Responses of two questions were considered to calculate the value of this indicator. The first question regarded how much confidence people have in the ECN to manage the election process. The second question considered how much confidence people have in ECN to honestly and accurately report results. Even though a very small share of people say they have no confidence at all in ECN, the value of this indicator shows that the share of people who said they have a lot of confidence in ECN is not significantly higher in all samples in all round of surveys. A relatively large proportion of people expressed some confidence in the ECN. Taken together, all the additional three indicators related to ECN show a stable high level of support and trust towards ECN. 23 D2. The Proportion of People Who Have Confidence in the ECN Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample A lot of confidence 716 36.9 38.9 35.6 627 34.2 35.5 33.4 872 42.6 40.5 43.9 Some confidence 1016 52.4 52 52.6 941 51.4 50.2 52.1 864 42.2 43.8 41.2 Little confidence 171 8.8 7 10 214 11.7 11.2 12 209 10.2 11.6 9.3 No confidence at all 37 1.9 2.1 1.8 50 2.7 3.1 2.5 102 5 4.1 5.6 Total 1940 100 100 100 1832 100 100 100 2047 100 100 100 E. CORRUPTION Enumerators asked two types of questions to document changes regarding people’s experience of corruption. The first question regarded whether people have had to pay a bribe in the previous 12 months. This question was a general question and did not specify the entity to which the bribe had to be paid but only asked if the respondent had paid a bribe within the 12 previous months. A composite index was then developed by considering the various entities/organizations to which a bribe was paid for services. This composite index is a combination of whether people had to pay a bribe or give a gift to the police, someone in the educational system, judicial system, health system, government registry/permit, utility service provider, tax office, or a service provider. Concerning whether people have had to pay a bribe in the previous 12 months, the end-line findings show that 11.5 percent of respondents, up from 3.5 percent during the baseline, reported having to give a bribe. This increased share of the population is relatively higher in the national sample (which increase by 6.1 percent) than in the USAID sample (which increased by 1.8 percent). Though the share of people who had experienced corruption in the 12 months before each survey increased from 2015 to 2019, this share of the population decreased during the end-line (2019) as compared to midline (2017) by 4.3 percent. Moreover, this reduced population share is higher in the USAID sample (5.8 percent) than the national sample (2.1 percent). Thus, the level of corruption was higher in the mid-line than in the baseline and the end-line. (E1a) There was a difference of 3.5 percent between the baseline and end-line, and that difference was not due to chance alone; it was highly significant (p<.05). Similarly, a difference of 3 percent between the national and USAID samples was also significant (p<.05). The data seems to indicate an increase in the number of people who have experienced corruption. 24 E1a. The Proportion of People Who Experienced Corruption in the Previous 12 Months Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 158 8.0* 7.2 8.5 312 15.8 15.4 16.1 241 11.5* 13.3** 10.3** No 1815 92.0 92.8 91.5 1661 84.2 84.6 83.9 1863 88.5 86.7 89.7 Total(n) 1973 100 100 100 1973 100 100 100 2104 100 100 100 As mentioned above, a composite index was developed by considering the various entities/organizations to which a bribe was paid for services. Respondents paid bribes to the police, educational system, judicial system, health system, government registry/permit, utility service provider, tax office, and land service providers. The end-line findings show that most of the people (91.7 percent) didn’t experience corruption in the past 12 months. Some 8.3 percent reported having to give bribe during the end-line. While comparing the findings between baseline and end-line, the share of people who have experienced the corruption has gone up by 2.6 percentage points in the end-line. This increased share of the population is relatively higher in the national sample (gone up by 3.8 percent) than in the USAID sample (gone up by 2 percent). Even though the share of people who have experienced corruption in the past 12 months has increased in 2019 compared to 2015, this share of population has gone down in end-line (2019) compared to mid￾line (2017) by 2 percentage points. This decreased share of populations is higher in the national sample (gone down by 2.9 percent) than in the USAID sample (gone down by 1.8 percent). As in the case of the earlier question on corruption, for the composite index of corruption as well, the level of corruption is observed to be higher in the mid-line than in the baseline or in the end-line. (E1b) The difference of 2.6 percent between the baseline (5.7) and end-line value (8.3) was highly significant (p<.05). However, there was no significant difference (P>0.5) between the national and USAID samples in 2019. The response to this question substantiates the earlier response. When specifying situations related to the police, the educational system, judicial system, health system, government registry/permit, utility service provider, tax office, and land service providers, the share of people who have experienced the corruption has increased 2.6 percentage points in the end-line. Although it may appear to be a small percentage, the increment in the number of people experiencing corruption is statistically significant. E1b. The Proportion of People Who Experience Corruption While Accessing Different Listed Services Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (% ) National Sample USAID sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 112 5.7* 5.4 5.8 203 10.3 12.1 9.1 175 8.3* 9.2 7.8 No 1861 94.3 94.6 94.2 1770 89.7 87.9 90.9 1929 91.7 90.8 92.2 Total(n) 1973 100 100 100 1973 100 100 100 2104 100 100 100 The third index of corruption was developed to measure people’s views about where they think corruption is higher - is it higher in the national government or the local/provincial government. While the earlier questions sought to measure people’s actual experiences as far as corruption is concerned, 25 this question is primarily perception related. The index value shows that in the end-line, most of the population (72.9 percent) think that corruption is the same at both the national and local/provincial levels. In the baseline, 54.9 percent believed that corruption is the same in both the national and local/provincial governments. The share of the population who expressed this opinion had increased significantly during mid-line to 78.6 percent. Then between the mid-line (2017) and end-line (2019), the figure declined by 5.7 percentage points. The share of the population who think the national government is more corrupt has decreased significantly by 19 percentage points in the end-line (13.7 percent) compared to the baseline (32.3 percent). The same response is observed in both samples (the national and USAID samples) of baseline, midline, and end-line. On the other hand, those who think local/provincial government is more corrupt, except for the midline, has remained the same across the four years – while 12.8 percent had this opinion in the baseline, 13 percent have this opinion in the end-line. The trend is similar for both the national and USAID samples. However, this population share is relatively lower in the midline study than in the baseline and the end-line. (E2) While combining two former categories into one and comparing with corruption is the same at different levels, an approximate18 percent was detected, which was highly significant (p<.05). E2. The Proportion of People Who Think Corruption is More in the National and Provincial Governments Than in the Local Government Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample National Government is more corrupt 625 32.3 29.6 34.1 257 13.7 14.1 13.5 272 13.7 14.1 13.5 Local/ Provincial government is more corrupt 247 12.8 12.6 12.9 144 7.7 8.9 6.9 265 13 13.6 13.6 Corruption in both is same 1061 54.9 57.8 53.0 1472 78.6 77.0 79.6 1444 72.9 72.9 72.9 Total(n) 1933 100 100 100 1873 100 100 100 1981 100 100 100 F. CITIZENS INTERACTIONS WITH ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES AND THE BUREAUCRACY One of the indicators is related to citizens' interaction with elected representatives, political party leaders, community service organizations, and bureaucrats. This is a composite index comprised of five questions – whether a respondent requested help from elected parliament members, local political parties, bureaucrats, or community service organizations in the previous two years. The index value shows that the share of people who sought help is higher in 2017 (32.9 percent) than in 2015 (20.8 percent) and 2019 (28.8 percent). The share of people who sought help is relatively higher in the USAID sample in the midline and end-line than in the national sample. But this share of the population is relatively less in the USAID sample in the baseline compared to the national sample. (F1) The difference of 8 percent between the baseline and end-line was highly significant (p<.05). But there was no significant difference (p>.05) between the USAID and national samples in 2019. 26 Regarding citizen’s interaction with elected representatives, political party leaders, community service organizations, or bureaucrats, a higher number of people reported seeking help. This could be due to the local government being in place – after a long gap – and functioning. F1. The Proportion of People Who Sought Help From Elected Representatives, Political Party Leaders, Community Service Organizations, or Bureaucrats During the Previous Year Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 412 20.8* 22.6 19.7 657 32.9 31.0 34.2 608 28.8* 27.5 29.6 No 1568 79.2 77.4 80.3 1337 67.1 69.0 65.8 1504 71.2 72.5 70.4 Total (n) 1864 100 100 100 1994 100 100 100 2112 100 100 100 In this regard, another index is used to measure how satisfied the people have been with the help they received. Findings show that most respondents of the baseline (88.3 percent)2, midline (85.9 percent), and end-line (84.5 percent) said they are either very satisfied or somewhat satisfied with the help they received. This share of populations in uniform with the majority in all rounds. Even though most people in all survey rounds were satisfied with the help they received, the share of people who were dissatisfied with the help they received has been gradually increasing across the four years (from 11.7 percent in 2015 to 14.1 percent in 2017 to 15.6 percent in 2019). The share dissatisfied people is almost double in the USAID sample (14.4 percent)3 than in the national sample (7.9 percent) at the baseline. Whereas in the midline this share of people is lower in the USAID sample than in the national sample. In the end-line, this share of people is the same in both the national and USAID samples. (F2) A difference of around 4 percent between the baseline and end-line (after combining the former two categories into “satisfied” and the latter two into “unsatisfied) was observed; however, it was not significant (p>.05). Between the USAID and national samples in the end-line, the difference was not significant either (p>0.5). F2. The Proportion of People Who are Satisfied With the Help That They Received Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID sample Very satisfied 91 28.9 30.7 27.7 117 31.1 31.7 30.7 138 35.8 33.8 36.8 Somewhat Satisfied 187 59.4 61.4 58.0 206 54.8 50.3 57.6 188 48.7 50.4 47.8 Somewhat unsatisfied 30 9.5 6.3 11.7 18 4.8 6.2 3.9 20 5.2 8.3 3.6 Very unsatisfied 7 2.2 1.6 2.7 35 9.3 11.7 7.8 40 10.4 7.5 11.9 Total(n) 315 100 100 100 376 100 100 100 386 100 100 100 2 Sum of very satisfied and somewhat satisfied. 3 Sum of very unsatisfied and somewhat unsatisfied. 27 G. HUMAN TRAFFICKING The study also sought to document awareness about human trafficking. This was asked in all survey rounds. An overwhelming majority of people are likely to report that they are aware of human trafficking. Nevertheless, over time the share of people who say that they are aware of human trafficking has declined. In the baseline, 91.4 percent of respondents mentioned that they were aware of human trafficking, and 80.7 percent noted they were aware of human trafficking in the end-line. During the midline, 79.9 percent stated they were aware of human trafficking. Almost the same pattern of responses was observed in both the national and USAID samples in all survey rounds. G1. THE PROPORTION OF PEOPLE WHO ARE AWARE OF HUMAN TRAFFICKING Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 1809 91.4 91.7 91.2 1591 79.9 77.1 81.7 1700 80.7 80.7 80.7 No 171 8.6 8.3 8.8 400 20.1 22.9 18.3 407 19.3 19.3 19.3 Total(n) 1980 100 100 100 1991 100 100 100 2107 100 100 100 The second indicator regarding human trafficking was about the kind of trafficking people heard of. This indicator's value is calculated from the responses of those who said they are aware of human trafficking. Most people in all survey rounds reported they have heard of sex trafficking. The population share who mentioned that they have heard of sex trafficking increased over the four years, from 70.9 percent in 2015 to 73.1 percent in 2017 to 91.6 percent in 2019. This population share increased in the USAID sample by 23 percent, from 67.5 percent in 2015 to 90.5 percent in 2019. However, it increased in the national sample by 17.1 percent, from 76.2 percent in 2015 to 93.3 percent in 2019. The second type of human trafficking that people heard of is child trafficking. The proportion of people who said they have heard of child trafficking decline from the baseline to the end-line by 21.3 percent (51.7 percent in 2015 to 47.7 percent in 2017 to 30.4 percent in 2019). The same pattern of response was observed in both the national and USAID samples in all survey rounds. The third type of human trafficking that people heard of is labor trafficking. The share of people who said they have heard pf labor trafficking is relatively higher in the midline (40.7 percent) than in the baseline (36.8 percent) and in the end-line (27.2 percent). The fourth type of human trafficking that people heard of is forced marriage. The proportion of people who said they have heard of forced marriage has declined from the baseline to the end-line by 20.6 percent (27.4 percent in 2015 to 14.3 percent in 2017 to 6.8 percent in 2019). The same pattern of responses was observed in the national and USAID samples in all survey rounds. The fifth type of human trafficking that people heard of is organ trafficking. The proportion of people who said they have heard of organ trafficking decreased from the baseline to the end-line by13 percent (21.6 percent in 2015 to 15.2 percent in 2017 to 8.6 percent in 2019). The same pattern of responses was observed in the national and USAID samples in all survey rounds. 28 G1. The Proportion of People Who Have Heard of Different Kinds of Trafficking Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Sex 1283 70.9 76.2 67.5 1098 73.1 72.5 73.5 1538 91.6 93.3 90.5 Labor 665 36.8 40.1 34.6 611 40.7 40.4 40.9 457 27.2 26.5 27.7 Organ 391 21.6 31.0 15.4 228 15.2 19.5 12.6 144 8.6 8.5 8.6 Forced marriage 495 27.4 29.7 25.9 215 14.3 13.9 14.6 114 6.8 5.2 7.9 Child Trafficking 936 51.7 55.1 49.5 717 47.7 49.6 46.6 511 30.4 28.0 32.0 The last indicator related to human trafficking was whether the government addresses human trafficking well. A much larger proportion of people in the end-line (86.1 percent) thought that the government addresses human trafficking well than those who think the government is unable to address it (13.8 percent)4. The share of people who think the government addresses human trafficking well increased by 36.4 percent over the four years, from 49.7 percent in 2015 to 80.3 percent in 2017 to 86.1 percent in 20195. A similar pattern of responses was observed in the national and USAID samples in all survey rounds. (G3) A difference of around 36 percent (after combining the former two categories into “well” and the latter two into “badly), between the baseline and end-line, and was highly significant (p<.05). Similarly, A difference of 3.6 percent between the USAID and national samples also was significant (p<.05). G3. The Proportion of People Who Think the Government Addresses Human Trafficking Well Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Very well 202 10.8* 9.8 11.5 511 26.3 23.8 27.9 592 30.6* 29.8 31.2 Fairly well 725 38.9* 38.7 39.0 1050 54.0 56.4 52.4 1073 55.5* 54.1 56.4 Fairly badly 907 48.7 50.6 47.4 197 10.1 9.5 10.5 143 7.4 8.3 6.8 Very badly 30 1.6 0.8 2.1 187 9.6 10.3 9.2 124 6.4 7.8 5.6 Total(n) 1864 100 100 100 1945 100 100 100 1932 100 100 100 H. EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT A composite index was developed to document the changes in people’s views regarding government efforts to improve various aspects related to people’s lives. This index comprised of 10 related questions. These questions are how the respondent thinks the GON has (1) improve the living standard of the poor, (2) improved education, (3) improved social security, (4) created jobs, (5) kept prices down, (6) reduced crimes, (7) enhanced basic health services, (8) fights corruption, (9) provides clean water and sanitation, and (10) provides a reliable supply of electricity when needed. The finding of the index value shows that the proportion of people who think the government of Nepal has made improvements in various aspects of people’s lives, such as livelihood, health, education, infrastructure, social security, and so on, has increased by 57.7 percent from the baseline to the end-line 4 Sum of fairly bad and very bad. 5 Sum of very well and fairly well. 29 (25.8 percent in 2015 to 77.8 percent in 2017 to 83.8 percent in 2019). This increased share of people is the same in the national and USAID samples. (H1) A difference of 58 percent between baseline and end-line was highly significant (p<.05)—however, there was no such significant difference (p<.05) between the USAID and national samples in the end-line. A sharp increase in the number of people reporting that the government has made improvements in various aspects of people’s lives is probably due to political stability. After the early 1990s, the (federal) government has lasted for more than three years. Likewise, the provincial and local governments that have been formed after the elections have continued uninterrupted. This implies that the federal, provincial, and local governments have been able to provide the minimum level of services that they are mandated to provide. This, in turn, has registered a positive assessment on the part of the public. H1. The Proportion of People Who Think the GON Makes Improvement in the Various Aspects of People’s Lives (livelihood, health, education, infrastructure, social security etc.) Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 511 25.8* 26.0 25.7 1551 77.8 74.9 79.6 1759 83.3* 83.9 82.9 No 1469 74.2 74.0 74.3 443 22.2 25.1 20.4 353 16.7 16.1 17.1 Total(n) 1980 100 100 100 1994 100 100 100 2012 100 100 100 I. ASSESSMENT OF GOVERNMENTS AFTER THE NEW CONSTITUTION In response to the question whether the local government is getting a fair budget from the central and provincial governments, a much larger share of people (78.5 percent) think that the local government is getting a fair budget compared to those who think local government is not getting a fair budget (21.5 percent). This question was asked only in the end-line survey. A similar pattern of responses was observed for the national and the USAID samples. (I1) A difference of 1.1 percent between the USAID and national samples was not significant (p>0.5). This, too, corresponds to the experiences of the people. Local governments are indeed receiving a generous budget from central and provincial governments. In relative terms, the budget volumes are much bigger than the budgets that used to be allocated to erstwhile VDCs. People may be aware of these processes and could be why they gave the responses they did. I1. The Proportion of People Who Think the Local Government is Getting a Fair Budget From the Central and Provincial Governments Response End-line (2019) N (2112) Total (1%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Yes 442 78.5 77.8 78.9 No 1613 21.5 22.2 21.1 Total(n) 1912 100 100 100 30 J. Discrimination A composite index was developed to measure the experience of discrimination faced by people. This composite index comprised the response to seven questions: about whether people experienced unfair treatment because of their gender, ethnicity, or religion or caste in the following situations: (1) when accessing healthcare service, (2) when accessing agriculture extension services, (3) when accessing education for their child, (4) when receiving protection from crime and violence (5) when there are disputes with other citizens or the authorities, (6) receiving information on safe migration, (7) when accessing services from a VDC/CDO. The longitudinal IGP survey reveals that an overwhelming majority of people (97 percent) reported that they do not feel or experience discrimination when accessing the above-mentioned services. The share of people is the same in all samples in all survey rounds. (J1) There was no significant difference (p>0.5) between the baseline and end-line, nor between the USAID and national samples in the end-line was detected. J1. The Proportion of People Who Feel or Experience Discrimination While Accessing Services Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total (%) National Sample USAID sample N (1994) Total (%) National Sample USAID sample N (2112) Total (%) National Sample USAID sample Yes 37 1.9 1.4 2.2 52 2.6 2.2 2.9 39 1.9 2.1 1.7 No 1943 98.1 98.6 97.8 1925 97.4 97.8 97.1 2073 98.1 97.9 98.3 Total(n) 1980 100 100 100 1977 100 100 100 2101 100 100 100 K. Role of Civil Society Organizations A composited indicator was developed to understand and measure the changes in people’s views regarding the roles and responsibilities of CSOs. This indicator comprised people’s responds to six different but related questions: how effectively CSOs advocates people’s interest to the government, provide needed services to their members, give a sense of belongingness to their members, hold the government accountable to respond to citizen concerns, improve people’s daily lives, and strengthen the political voices of the people. Most people believe that CSOs are not effectively performing their roles and responsibilities. However, the share of people who think that they are effectively performing their roles and responsibilities increased by 16.5 percent from the baseline to the end-line (33.2 percent in 2015 to 47.1 percent in 2017 to 49.7 percent in 2019). A similar pattern of responses was observed in all samples in survey rounds. This finding may be contrary to the perception that CSOs may not be performing well at a cursory level. There has been regular reporting in the media in the past two to three years that the space for CSOs has been shrinking. This composite index’s findings appear to contradict the widespread perception (about the space for civil society becoming narrower) that a greater number of people in 2019 think that CSOs are effectively performing their roles. However, it’s important to note that the “civil society” organization in the question does not distinguish between service delivery CSOs and advocacy CSOs. If it did, the findings likely would have yielded different results since most CSOs are service delivery 31 organizations. Thus, this finding does not refute media reports or reports by the intelligentsia that the space for CSOs is shrinking. (K1) There was a difference of 16.5 percent between the baseline and end-line, and the difference was highly significant (p<.05) – not due to chance alone. But no such difference was detected between the USAID and national samples in 2019. K1. The Proportion of People Who Think Civil Society Organization are Effectively Performing Their Roles and Responsibilities Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) N (1980) Total ( %) National Sample USAID Sample N (1994) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample N (2112) Total (% ) National Sample USAID Sample Yes 652 33.2* 34.6 32.4 536 47.1 45.1 48.3 950 49.7* 49.5 49.8 No 1310 66.8 65.4 67.6 603 52.9 54.9 51.7 962 50.3 50.5 50.2 Total(n) 1962 100 100 100 1139 100 100 100 1912 100 100 100 Conclusions 1: Inclusion and Tolerance While comparing the overall figures relating to people’s views on inclusion and tolerance between the baseline and end-line, the values of two of the three main indicators appears to be declining. The share of people who agree with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities declined by 9.2 percent between 2015 and 2019. Similarly, those who expressed tolerance towards other groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youths, Muslim, Brahmin/Chettri, etc.) also have declined by 7.1 percent from 2015 to 2019. However, not all facets of inclusion have declined. Those who agree with the concept that all segments of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political activities have more or less remained the same in these four years. However, it is important to keep in mind that though the value of two out of the three main indicators on inclusion and violence has declined in the end-line compared to the baseline, an overwhelming majority still adhere to it. In other words, a significant majority continue to agree that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Similarly, a significant majority still express tolerance towards groups other than their own. To understand why fewer people in 2019 think that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities than in 2015 (a 9.2 percent decline) and why fewer people in 2019 expressed tolerance towards other groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youths, Muslim, Brahmin/Chettri, etc.) than 2015 (has declined by 7.1 percent), one needs to consider the political events immediately preceding 2015 and between 2015 and 2019. Though all the main political parties had discussed and espoused concerns about inclusion, the Maoists spearheaded it. As the Maoists, a hitherto extremist-marginal political force that had undertaken an armed rebellion, began to gravitate towards the center after joining mainstream politics in 2006, so did the agenda they had spearheaded. When the Maoists became the main political party in the constituent assembly after the first constituent assembly election in 2008, the issue of inclusion came to the fore. However, the first constituent assembly was unable to formulate the constitution and was eventually dissolved. When the second constituent assembly election in 2013 drastically reduced the Maoists’ size within Nepal’s mainstream politics, the Nepali Congress and NCP UML became the second constituent assembly’s leading political parties. The election of 2013 also was a litmus test for the various agenda items the Maoists championed, which, besides inclusion, also involved ethnicity-based federalism. The 32 defeat of the Maoists could be interpreted as the public not supporting the radical elements of the Maoists’ agenda. Though the mainstream political parties that became victorious in 2013 adopted the agenda, they watered it down so that they would not alienate themselves from any specific society sections. The constitution that was eventually passed by the second constituent assembly in September 2015 did have provisions related to inclusion but in a much less stringent form than what the Maoists had championed. Once the constitution was passed in September 2015, the contours of what was permissible was sealed. Thus, by 2019 though a high proportion of the public still adhered to inclusion and evinces a largely tolerant outlook, fewer people, compared to 2015, agreed with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Other nationwide public opinion surveys, such as Survey of Nepali People 2017 and Survey of Nepali People 2018, have attempted to delve further into equal access to men and women in the social, economic, and political domains, and these surveys provide a more nuanced view of which areas men should have access to and which areas women should have access to regarding social, economic and political opportunities. Similarly, though a high proportion of the public still shows tolerance towards other groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youths, Muslims, Brahmin/Chettri, etc.), fewer people do so in 2019 compared to 2015. Those who agree with the concept that all segments of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political activities have more or less remained the same in these four years. 2: Peaceful Conflict Resolution While comparing people’s views on peaceful conflict resolution between the baseline and end-line, the picture is mixed. Among the five main indicators, while the values of two of the indicators are declining, the other two indicators' values are increasing. Regarding the share of people expressing awareness of any community efforts to resolve conflicts, one of the indicators, has declined by 6.3 percent between 2015 and 20196. Worrisome is that the indicator on willingness to resort to violent protest if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectation registers a significant increase - 24.3 percent between the baseline and the end-line. Regarding the share of people mentioning unresolved local conflicts in their community between the baseline and the end-line, there was a 11.9 percent decline, which is positive. Regarding the perception of the peace process, the share of people who think that the peace process is progressing in the right direction increased by 29.6 percent from 2015 to 2019. Among the additional five indicators, the values of three indicators declined, the value of one indicator increased, and the value of one indicator remained constant. Regarding the proportion of people who think the Truth and Reconciliation Commission is performing well, the share of people who think that it is performing well decreased by 1.2 percent between the baseline (50.5 percent) and end-line (49.3 percent). Regarding the proportion of people who think the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons is performing well decreased by 5.2 percent points between the mid-line (44.4 percent) and end-line (39.2 percent) (Note: the baseline did not include this question). The proportion of people who think true and unbiased information has to be provided to the conflict victims, declined by 3.8 percent from the baseline (99.5 percent) to the end-line (95.7 percent). Regarding the proportion of people who think required services should be provided to conflict victims, the share 6 This, however, may be either positive or negative. Positive because since there may not be any conflicts in the community, people may not be aware of any community efforts to resolve the conflicts. The indicator may be negative for obvious reasons. 33 increased by 15.6 percent from the baseline (79.4 percent) to the end-line (95 percent). Similarly, 98.3 percent of people in the baseline and 96.3 percent in the end-line think that those who are responsible for crimes and human rights violations should be punished. The period between the baseline and the end-line (December 2015 to September 2019), was a period wherein elections to the new structures (the local, provincial, and federal governments) envisaged by the constitution took place, and when the elected officials begun functioning and executing their roles. As far as peaceful conflict resolution is concerned, the period between 2015 and 2019 furthered processes that had been initiated earlier. The incidents of severe disputes in communities generally declined with the passing of the constitution in September 2015, except for the Tarai-Madhes based political parties which continued to vent their grievances for the next several months. Thus, it does not surprising that the share of people expressing awareness of community efforts to resolve conflicts, an indicator, declined between 2015 and 2019. With the main Maoist party firmly involved in the constitution-making process and in the mainstream, only a radical fringe led by Biplav, denounced the constitution and continued to take up arms against the state. This has been a small force and has been unable to undermine the state or disrupt ordinary men’s or women’s lives. This probably explains why there has been a significant jump in the proportion of people who think that the peace process is progressing in the right direction in the end-line compared to baseline. There had been attempts in the past to strengthen informal justice and adjudication mechanisms at the local level through Community Mediation Centers (CMCs). The constitution recognized the informal justice and adjudication mechanism’s importance by vesting the local governments with this authority, with the deputy mayors of Gaonpalika and Nagarpalika being designated as chiefs of the judicial committees. The role played by CMCs in the past and the roles played by the judicial committees after the enactment of the constitution may be one of the reasons why fewer people in 2019 than in 2015 asserted that there were local disputes and conflicts. This further underscores the idea that disputes and conflicts in society need to be resolved peacefully. At variance with the general trend is the indicator on the willingness of individuals to resort to violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations. This indicator registers a significant increase. This orientation has probably come about because of the bad precedent set by the Maoist conflict, which, though, was ultimately resolved peacefully, those involved in gross human rights violations have not faced justice. This precedent could have created the impression in people’s minds that violence pays and that one could get away with violent acts. This is unfortunate and would probably not have come about if the two important commissions - Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons – had performed their functions well. 3: Participation and Governance In contrast to the above two thematic areas, most of the indicators related to participation and governance show that overall, there is good progress. Out of the nine indicators related to participation and governance, the values of seven indicators have increased from the baseline to the end-line. Regarding the proportion of people who used a social accountability mechanism in the previous 12 months, the indicator’s value increased by 5 percent between 2015 and 2019. The share of people saying that they actively participate in oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities increased by 21.2 percent. The percentage of people who think community organizations very effectively advocate to the government people’s interest has increased by 9 percent from the baseline to the end-line. 34 Similarly, the share of people who feel that they have a strong voice in political decisions that affect them or their community increased 20.3 percent from 2015 to 2019. Likewise, there is a significant increase in the share of people who report being satisfied with government services - 44.9 percent increase from 2015 to 2019. Similarly, the share of people who report that services received satisfactorily respond to their needs also increased by 22.9 percent. In contrast to the seven indicators mentioned above which have registered a change in the positive direction, those who say they experienced discrimination in accessing public services remained more or less the same from 2015 to 2019. However, the share of people who report that they often participate in community groups/organizations declined by 14.5 percent from 2015 to 2019. Among the 13 additional indicators on participation and governance, the values of fours indicators decreased, four indicators increased, and three remained constant; it is not possible to frame values as increasing or decreasing for two indicators. Regarding the performance of the media over a period of time, there is no significant difference between the baseline and end-line. There is no significant difference between baseline and end-line regarding whether people who were registered had voted in national or local/provincial elections. Regarding people’s confidence in the Election Commission of Nepal, while 75.5 percent of respondents mentioned that they were confident (sum of “a lot of confidence” and “some confidence”) in the baseline, 86.8 percent reported so in the end-line. Regarding whether people have had to pay a bribe in the previous 12 months – without specifying the actual situation/circumstances – 8 percent reported in the baseline that they had paid bribes, and 11.5 percent reported in the end-line that they had done so. This increment in the number of people reporting having to pay bribes is negative. Likewise, regarding whether people have had to pay a bribe in the previous 12 months – specifying the actual situation/circumstances – 5.7 percent of respondents in the baseline reported having paid bribes, and 8.3 percent of respondents reported so in the end-line. As in the earlier case, this increment in the number of people reporting having to pay bribes is negative. Regarding people’s views about where they think the corruption is higher - is it higher in national government or is it higher in the local/provincial government, it is not possible to record the differences in terms of either positive or negative. Regarding citizen’s interaction with elected representatives, political party leaders, community service organizations and bureaucrats, 20.8 percent of respondents in the baseline mentioned having done, and 28.8 percent of respondents in the end-line reported doing so– an increment of 8.8 percent. Concerning how satisfied people have been with the help they received, 88.3 percent (the combination of “very satisfied” and “somewhat satisfied”) reported this in the baseline, and 85.5 percent reported this in the end-line – a decline of 3.8 percent. Regarding people’s views of the government’s efforts to improve various aspects related to people’s lives, only 25.8 percent had replied in the affirmative in the baseline, but 83.3 percent replied in the affirmative in the end-line – an increment of 57.5 percent. Since the end￾line included the question about whether the local government is getting a fair budget from central and provincial governments, it is impossible to frame the response as having increased or decreased. Regarding the experience of discrimination faced by the people, 1.9 percent of respondents in the baseline and 1.9 respondents in the end-line felt they had been discriminated against; thus, the value of that indicator has remained constant. Lastly, regarding CSOs’ roles and responsibilities, 33.2 percent of respondents in the baseline reported CSOs effectively performed their roles and responsibilities, and 49.7 percent of respondents reported the same in the end-line. It is unsurprising that the indicators related to participation and governance have mostly increased from the baseline to the end-line. This is because the period was when the constitution was enacted, elections to the local government, provincial government and federal government were held, and when elected officials of all the three types of government had begun functioning and executing their roles. By the time 35 the end-line survey was underway in August-September 2019, most of the local governments, except for Province 2, had already been functioning for two years. Local government elections have been especially crucial since local governments are the entities responsible for managing services related to people’s daily lives. And prior to the elections, there had been a 20-year hiatus since the local governmental positions had been filled. Many of the indicators related to participation and governance are directly or indirectly connected with the proper functioning and effectiveness of local government. As noted above, the various indicators associated with participation and governance increased between the baseline and the end-line. The important indicators in this area include: using social accountability mechanism; active participation in oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities; community organizations very effectively advocate the people’s interests to the government; the share of people who feel that they have a strong voice in political decisions that affect them or their community; share of people who report being satisfied with government service; the share of people who report that services received satisfactorily respond to their needs; citizen’s interaction with elected representatives, political party leaders, community service organization and bureaucrats; the views of people regarding the effort the government made to improve the various aspect related to people’s lives; the roles and responsibility of civil society organization. All these indicators presume an effective and properly functioning local government. An indicator that registers no change but is important for the functioning of democracy is the media’s performance. The increase in the number of people who report having to pay bribes is something that is important to pay attention to as it could undermine the gains of democracy if not addressed timely. Implications of the Findings for Future Programs The implications of the findings for future programs are informed by the emergence of three features in Nepal’s current political landscape: (1) formation of a government led by the Communist Party of Nepal, (2) functioning of local, provincial, and federal governments, and (3) perceptions regarding growing incidents of corruption. How to support the functioning of local, provincial, and federal governments relates to the procedural aspects of supporting democracy. However, strengthening democracy and governance in the historical juncture that Nepal is in entails supporting democracy substantially, including supporting procedural democracy. The Communist Party of Nepal (CPN), created after the merger of the hitherto CPN UML and Maoists, not only leads the government but also is an overwhelming majority in the parliament. The K.P. Sharma Oli led government has continued at the center for more than two years – a feat in a country that had perennially suffered from political instability during the past three decades. Though the former two communist parties have merged, unification has occurred mainly at the top leadership, and infighting between the two factions – the hitherto UML and the Maoists – continues. This, however, has not led to the breakup of the party so far, and K.P. Sharma Oli-led government has continued. While it is commendable that a government supported by an overwhelming majority in the parliament has continued in office for more than two years, there is a danger that the communist government could veer towards what could be regarded as a totalitarian regime. Experiences from various countries ruled by a communist government or a single political party clearly shows that the rule of law in those 36 countries tend to be weak. The media tends to be muzzled, the judiciary is not independent, and separation of powers between the legislature, executive, and the judiciary, tend to be non-existent. As the CPN’s hold on the government continues, there is a danger that Nepal, too, may succumb to this fate. Strengthening substantive democracy in these circumstances through support to the rule of law and ensuring that the media remains free and vibrant, becomes more pressing. Another issue that needs to be tackled is the corrosive effect of corruption. Corruption by elected officials and public servants undermines the trust in public institutions and democracy and, in the long run, threatens the survival of democracy itself, as discussed in the relevant section above. In a context characterized by the domination of a communist party and the possibility of undermining plurality, periodic public opinion surveys and reporting of the surveys’ findings in the media help strengthened substantive democracy. Opinion polls are tools that can help democratize the polity in numerous ways. Public opinion surveys not only help democratize the polity by providing information about what the average person thinks, but also help ensure the general public’s participation. In the poll-taking exercises, what is important is what an average person thinks – just as in the outcome of an election, it is the vote of the ordinary person that matters. Third, the very exercise of poll-taking and the dissemination of the main findings in the public domain underscore its relationship with the right to freedom of opinion and expression in that it gives voice to minorities and those who are marginalized, who otherwise would be unable to articulate their opinions and expressions; therefore, the exercise helps ensure inclusion and tolerance. Fourth, by providing regular feedback to the government on how the average person assesses their various decisions, periodic public opinion surveys could become an important tool for political parties and the government to strengthen democratic governance. Fifth, and linked to an earlier point, periodic or longitudinal opinion surveys could help in internal political party reforms so that the political parties meet the democratic aspirations of the people. Recommendations for Future USAID Programs in Nepal 1. Inclusion and Tolerance In the context of the Communist Party of Nepal forming an overwhelming majority in the federal parliament, promote pluralism and substantive democracy. Work to ensure that males and females have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities in circumstances where this liberal orientation seems to be declining. This could be done at a strategic level by working with USAID’s larger gender quality and social inclusion (GESI) strategies, including integrating GESI in all aspects of DRG programming. Pluralism, inclusion, and a tolerant outlook go hand in hand. Promote tolerant outlooks (i.e., help ensure that people, irrespective of their caste-ethnic groups, are tolerant and have goodwill towards one another is nurtured). Likewise, promote further an attitude that all segments of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political activities. Support the strengthening of the rule of law, the balance of powers, and an independent in order to promote pluralism and substantive democracy and help ensure that Nepal remains a tolerant society. 37 2. Peaceful Conflict Resolution Continue strengthening initiatives aimed at informal justice and adjudication mechanisms. In circumstances where this authority has been given to local governments, and where local governments have generally been executing this function generally well, strengthen local civil societies that could function as effective watchdogs of the local and provincial governments. As mentioned earlier, it is worrisome that the indicator on willingness of individuals to resort to violent protests if the peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectation registers a significant increase. To counter this tendency, the two important commissions - Truth and Reconciliation Commission and Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons – need to perform their functions well. Repeated coverage in the media about what the two commissions are doing (or not doing) could help build pressure and be an impetus so that the two commissions perform their roles well. 3. Participation and Governance As local governments and provincial governments begin to perform their functions well, and as their dealings with the public grow, there is a danger that some office bearers and some public servants will engage in corrupt behavior. The behavior of corrupt office bearers and corrupt public servants could discredit entire provincial or local governments. If corruption is not tackled, it could undermine the very functioning of democracy. Strengthen civil society at the local and provincial levels to raise awareness about issues, advocate against corruption, and act as watchdogs. Doing so, could be an important mechanism for further enhancing accountability and transparency of local and provincial governments, thereby helping to ensure that federalism works in Nepal. 38 Appendix 1: Survey Statement of Work I. Introduction This is a scope of work for the USAID/Nepal Integrated Governance Project (IGP) Survey. This IGP survey is intended to capture a mid-term data for indicators set in 2015 baseline survey. The outcome of this survey assists in tracking USAID/Nepal’s progress on Development Objective (DO) 1, More Inclusive and Effective Governance, as part of its Country Development and Cooperation Strategy (CDCS), FY 2014-2019. Baseline survey was conducted in 2015 and an End-Line survey will be conducted in 2019. The same methodology will be applied for all three surveys. USAID/Nepal’s CDCS focuses efforts towards moving the dial on ending extreme poverty in Nepal. As of 2011, approximately 25 percent of the population still lived below the international poverty line of $1.25 per day.7 The greatest population density is found along the lower elevation of the Terai, where 50 percent of Nepalis live and where poverty is concentrated. Inclusive poverty reductions in Nepal require coordinated and sustained efforts to improve the health, education, and livelihood opportunities for the duration of the strategy period and onward. The depth of poverty has plummeted from 26 percent in 1996, to 18 percent in 2003, to 5.6 percent in 2010, demonstrating the viability of meaningful poverty reductions in Nepal. Further reductions require widespread engagement with marginalized and vulnerable populations, which is a cross-cutting theme throughout USAID/Nepal’s five-year strategy. II. Background USAID’s 2013 Violent Extremism Assessment and the U.S. Government’s 2011 Interagency conflict Assessment state that while the likelihood of returning to a major conflict is currently low in Nepal, poor governance remains a conflict driver that could lead to increased violence. Additionally, USAID’s Democracy, Human Rights, and Governance (DRG) Assessment identified a number of critical barriers to good governance that reflect the grievances of Nepal’s conflict. These include: a lack of public accountability by the government; limited capacity to address Nepal’s’ growing demands and increased expectations of government; and the need for powerful institutions to include women and other marginalized groups in decision-making and service provision. The DRG Assessment described the main DRG problem as a “government effectiveness gap,” in which the Government of Nepal (GON) fails to meet the increasing demands for inclusion. To address this gap and to achieve the objective of effective governance and political inclusion in Nepal four conditions must be achieved—peace, accountability, civic participation, and better performance. Without peace, human development is not possible, and without human development, peace is not sustainable. The Mission will target these conditions at the local level, while pushing for national level accountability and reform to close the government effectiveness gap on the ground. The IGP Survey plays an important role in providing information for USAID’s comprehensive 2014 Performance Management Plan (PMP), reflecting the CDCS. The PMP is a single, Mission-wide source of information aimed at assisting USAID to manage for results in order to achieve its highest development goals. The CDCS guides approximately $400 million in investments through Fiscal Year 2019. The overall goal for the Mission, as stated in the CDCS, is “a more democratic, prosperous, and resilient Nepal.” Three development objectives (DO) contribute to the achievement of this goal and reflect the key development hypotheses that will inform USAID/Nepal’s projects and activities over the five-year CDCS period: 7 Source: World Bank, World Development Indicators, http://data.worldbank.org/country/nepal 39 DO1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance DO2: Inclusive and Sustainable Economic Growth to Reduce Extreme Poverty DO3: Increased Human Capital Within the PMP, DO1 established indicators for each intermediate result (IR) and each of the four sub￾immediate results including peace, accountability, civil participation and performance. The IGP Survey will supply several data sets for monitoring and evaluation effort under PMP. Finally, the survey will provide valuable information to the Mission’s implementing partners from across the development sectors within USAID. III. Rationale and Purpose USAID/Nepal’s Democracy and Governance Office (DGO) expects Mission’s Monitoring Evaluation and Learning project (MEL) conduct this survey to track and assess the progress of the Missions CDCS in meeting the goals of DO1: More Inclusive and Effective Governance. The IGP Survey will provide information on the extent to which the Mission’s programs successfully increased inclusion of Nepalis in civic and political life and improved the government’s ability to respond to public needs and demands. The survey’s focus will not only be on overall citizen involvement and satisfaction with government programs but also on the involvement and satisfaction of traditionally marginalized and excluded groups including women, youth, Dalit, Janajati, and Madhesi, among others. The intention is to provide actionable information that will allow the Mission and its partners to assess and improve the design and implementation of its programs across the remaining life of the CDCS. The survey also is intended to provide a richer and more fine-grained understanding Nepali attitudes and values and aspirations and DO I: MORE INCLUSIVE AND EFFECTIVE GOVERNANCE Develop Hypothesis: Investment in Nepal's peace process, accountable democratic institutions, civic participation and improved governance capacity will result in more effective governance and increased inclusion IR 1.1: PEACEFUL POLITICAL ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINED SUB-IR 1.1.1: NEPAL’S PEACE PROCESS SUPPORTED SUB-IR 1.1.2: LOCAL CONFLICT MITIGATED IR 1.2: ACCOUNTABILITY OF INSTITUTIONS STRENGTHENED SUB-IR 1.2.1: LEGISLATIVE AND GOVERNMENT OVERSIGHT MECHANISMS STRENGTHENED SUB-IR 1.2.2: REPORTING, OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING ENHANCED SUB-IR 1.2.3: ELECTORAL PROCESSES IMPROVED SUB-IR 1.2.4: PUBLIC FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS STRENGTHENED IR 1.3: CIVIC PARTICIPATION AND ADVOCACY INCREASED SUB-IR 1.3.1: CIVIL SOCIETY CAPACITY STRENGTHENED SUB-IR 1.3.2: INCLUSION OF AND DECISIONS BY VULNERABLE POPULATIONS INCREASED SUB_IR 1.3.3: ENGAGEMENT BETWEEN CIVIL SOCIETY AND GOVERNMENT IMPROVED SUB-IR 1.3.4: VULNERABLE POPULATIONS’ RIGHTS PROTECTED IR 1.4: PUBLIC POLICY AND PERFORMANCE IMPROVED SUB-IR 1.4.1: LEGISLATION, REGULATION, AND POLICIES CREATED, REFORMED, OR IMPLEMENTED SUB-IR 1.4.2: GOVERNMENTAL, NON￾GOVERNMENTAL AND PRIVATE SECTOR ACTORS’ SERVICE DELIVERY IMPROVED 40 their relationships both with one another with their government. The survey will supplement other monitoring and evaluation activities supported by USAID and others by providing bottom up information about the success of Mission programs. This mid-term survey will follow the methodology and indicators used in 2015 baseline survey conducted in partnership with DRG Center’s Learning Division and will present the changes from 2015 to 2017. IV. Scope of survey Scope of the mid-term survey are to ● Review survey design from 2015 baseline survey, update as needed and present a written survey design for 2015 mid-term survey ● Capture 2017 comparable dataset for all the indicators used in 2015 baseline survey, and present 2017 data together with comparison to 2015 data Refer to set of methodological and output reports from 2015 baseline survey conducted in partnership with DRG Center’s Learning Division. 2015 survey conducted 2,828 household visits across 42 districts with over 100 questions to cover set of data for over 15 indicators under immediate results of peace, accountability, civic participation and performance. V. Requirements, Deliverables and Timelines The survey will consist of a nation-wide area probability sample of approximately 800 citizens, ages 16 years and over. Because of an interest in some municipally-based programs in smaller cities, the nation￾wide probability survey will be augmented with oversamples of 150 respondents each of eight districts where USAID programming has been concentrated including: Banke, Bardiya, Dang, Kailali, Kanchanpur, Surkhet, Kapilvastu, and Makawanpur. The total sample will be approximately 2,000 responded cases, post-weighted to ensure that the final sample is nationally and demographically representative. Age and gender quotas will be used at the household level to facilitate representation by gender and age. Per new USAID/Nepal policy, “all person-level indicators for which data are collected (either through quarterly/annual reports, surveys, or evaluations) should be disaggregated by sex and caste/ethnicity. The caste/ethnicity disaggregation should follow, at a minimum, the following six categories: Dalit, Muslim, Brahmin/Chhetri, Newar, Janajati, and Other.” This survey needs to take this into consideration, particularly in relations to sampling to be nationally representative. Given the Mission’s strategy and focus on extreme poverty, the survey methodology also should offer stratification to present comparative analysis of the extremely poor with other socioeconomic conditions. The survey is likely to be complex with numerous skip questions, a need to randomized response options for numerous questions, and the possible use of survey experiments and list questions (requiring the random selection of respondents into treatment and control groups) so the use of electronic, hand￾held devices is essential. The survey will follow requirements as per 2015 baseline survey with revisions if required. Any revisions need to be justified and agreed, which maintains the comparability as minimum. The scope of this analysis would be directed by the set of data available from 2015 baseline survey, Mission priorities and agreed upon with the contractor. 41 Deliverables will include: Deliverable Due Written survey design that includes key questions, methods, description of sampling frame, samples, data collection instruments/forms, data collection and analysis plan, crews, management and quality assurance plan etc. May 2017 Datasets—and supporting documentation such as code books with questionnaires, output tables, data dictionaries, scope, and methodology used to collect and analyze the data, list of respondents, list of enumerators etc. Mid-November 2017 Draft Demo Tables of PMP indicators Mid-November A draft report in agreed format with data disaggregated by gender, age, caste, ethnicity, and socioeconomic Mid-December A final report in agreed format Within two weeks of receipt of comments from USAID. Expected Timeline Responsible Party Task Timeline USAID/Nepal PPD/DGO sends SOW to MEL End-Jan 2017 MEL MEL sends survey proposal with team composition, LOE, modality, response to SOW Feb USAID/Nepal PPD/DGO provides comments to the proposal 2nd week March MEL Submits final proposal 3rd week March USAID/Nepal PPD/DGO finalizes the task 3rd week April MEL Submits survey design report 3rd week May USAID/Nepal PPD/DGO provides comments to design report 2nd week of June MEL Submits final design report addressing Mission comments MEL Conducts the fieldwork July-August MEL Submits the demo table for PMP indicators Mid-November USAID/Nepal PPD/DGO provides comments on demo table Third week of November MEL Submits datasets Mid-November MEL Submits draft report Mid- December USAID/Nepal Provides comments on draft report End December MEL Provides final report within 2 weeks of receipt of Mission’s comments. 2 weeks of receipt of Mission comments. 42 VI. Methods The survey will replicate methods as per 2015 baseline survey with revisions if required. Any revisions need to be justified and agreed, which maintains the comparability as minimum. The 2015 baseline mainly involved quantitative data collection methods with household survey, and tablet assisted data entry. Data analysis was made with database program. VII. Roles and Responsibilities USAID/Nepal provides timely feedback to the MEL team on draft products delivered and may join events for quality assurance and backup. USAID/Nepal may provide coordination support when MEL requires to coordinate with USAID partners and stakeholders. MEL manages this survey through set of hired survey team. It also manages all the logistics and ensures timely delivery of quality products. VIII. Team Composition An appropriate team, with subject matter and methodological expertise, shall be proposed by MEL as part of the proposal. Reference to be made to 2015 baseline survey as in terms of individuals, qualification, experience as appropriate. The comparability of 2017 results to 2015 baseline will not be compromised due to changes in team members. IX. Documents to Review Set of 2015 Baseline report with survey design, fieldwork plan, sampling, outputs reports/tables, questionnaires/checklists, data codebook. 43 Appendix 2: List of Indicators That Changed Significantly Between 2015 and 2019 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators1/Dashboard1?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 44 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators2/Dashboard12?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 45 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators3/Dashboard13?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 46 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators4/Dashboard14?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 47 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators5/Dashboard15?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 48 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators6/Dashboard16?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 49 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators7/Dashboard17?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 50 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators8/Dashboard18?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 51 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators9/Dashboard19?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 52 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators10/Dashboard110?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 53 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-indicators11/Dashboard111?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 54 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators12/Dashboard112?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators13/Dashboard113?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 55 56 https://public.tableau.com/views/IGP-Indicators14/Dashboard114?:language=en&:display_count=y&publish=yes&:origin=viz_share_link 57 Appendix 3: Contributing Questions for 16 IGP Indicators S. N. Indicator Number Indicator Name Question/s contributing to it 1 PI* 1-3 Proportion of the targeted population reporting an increased agreement with the concept that males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities (GNDR 4) POLMEN GNDRJOBS FEMRGHT 2 PI 1-4 Proportion of the targeted population reporting increased agreement with the concept that all portions of the population should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities LLGELCT LLGDEMON LLGEQUAL EQLRGHT PMRGHT LLGEQUAL 3 PI 1.1-2 Percent of people willing to resort to violence if peace and reconciliation process does not meet their expectations VIOLENT 4 PI 1.1-3 Percent of public in target districts expressing tolerance towards other groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youth, Muslims, Brahmin/Chhetri, etc.) LLGBAN and LLGMARY 5 PI 1.1.1-1 Average percentage of CPA milestones perceived as completed by the public PPSPEED 6 PI 1.1.2-1 Percent of the public with continuing/ongoing and/or major unresolved local conflicts in their community CNFLCT 7 PI 1.1.2-2 Percent of the public in target USAID districts aware of any community efforts in to resolve conflicts CNFLCTRSLV 8 PI 1.2-3 Percent of people who used a social accountability mechanism in the previous 12 months SOACCMECH, MECHUSE and MECHWHEN 9 PI 1.2.2-1 Percent of people who indicate that they actively participate in oversight and monitoring of subnational government activities GVRNPRT 10 PI 1.2.3-1 Percent of the public who consider elections in Nepal as free and fair ELCTFREE 11 PI 1.3-3 Percent of the public who think local organizations effectively advocate the peoples’ interests to the government ADVOCATE_9 12 PI 1.3-4 Percent of people in USAID-targeted districts who often participate in community groups/organizations ORGTIME 13 PI 1.3.2-2 Percent of people who feel that they have a moderate or strong voice in political decisions that affect them or their community POLVCE 14 CI* 1.4-3 Percent of people in the target districts satisfied with government services as provided by target institutions SATGOVSERV (1-11) 15 PI 1.4.2-2: Percent of people who report that services received satisfactorily respond to their needs SOCSRVHLTH, SOCSRVAG, SOCSRVEDU, SOCSRVSEC, SOCSRVJUST, SOCSRVTRAFF and 58 S. N. Indicator Number Indicator Name Question/s contributing to it SOCSRVCDO/ VDC/CDO 16 PI 1.4.2-3 Percent of people reporting experience of discrimination in accessing public services DISCPUB 59 Appendix 4: Desegregation of 16 PMP IGP Indicators PI* 1-3 Proportion of Target Population (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Reporting Increased Agreement With the Concept That Males and Females Should Have Equal Access to Social, Economic, and Political Opportunities Background characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 85.4 14.6 390 85.2 14.8 600 70.5 29.5 398 77.8 22.2 599 73.3 26.7 416 81.7 18.3 640 Male 77.4 22.6 390 80.2 19.8 600 63.4 36.6 388 66.3 33.7 609 63.0 37.0 416 70.6 29.4 640 Age 15-24 85.5 14.5 145 86.1 13.9 266 67.3 32.7 202 75.0 25.0 348 69.8 30.2 159 79.9 20.1 308 25-34 83.3 16.7 198 83.6 16.4 342 68.3 31.7 205 74.2 25.8 353 69.9 30.1 249 79.5 20.5 391 35-44 79.7 20.3 217 80.9 19.1 278 70.4 29.6 159 72.1 27.9 219 71.9 28.1 171 72.7 27.3 304 45 and above 78.6 21.4 220 80.3 19.7 314 63.0 37.0 219 65.5 34.5 287 62.8 37.2 253 71.1 28.9 277 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 87.9 12.1 290 84.2 15.8 463 77.7 22.3 297 77.9 22.1 530 80.4 19.6 327 82.1 17.9 588 Janajati 82.6 17.4 270 85.3 14.7 429 62.8 37.2 290 67.1 32.9 429 65.5 34.5 267 73.6 26.4 458 Dalit 74.7 25.3 95 83.1 16.9 130 59.2 40.8 98 70.3 29.7 145 57.1 42.9 105 68.0 32.0 147 Others# 68.8 31.2 125 71.9 28.1 178 55.4 44.6 101 64.4 35.6 104 51.9 48.1 133 63.2 36.8 87 60 PI 1-4 Proportion of the Target Population (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Reporting Increased Agreement With the Concept That All Portions of the Population Should Have Equal Access to Social, Economic, and Political Opportunities Background characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 99.5 0.5 390 99.3 0.7 600 97.2 2.8 398 98.7 1.3 599 98.8 1.2 416 98.4 1.6 640 Male 99.7 0.3 390 99.7 0.3 600 96.9 3.1 388 99.5 0.5 609 98.8 1.2 416 98.1 1.9 640 Age 15-24 100.0 0.0 145 98.9 1.1 266 95.5 4.5 202 98.6 1.4 348 97.5 2.5 159 99.0 1.0 308 25-34 100.0 0.0 198 100.0 0.0 342 97.6 2.4 205 99.4 0.6 353 99.2 0.8 249 98.0 2.0 391 35-44 99.5 0.5 217 100.0 0.0 278 97.5 2.5 159 99.1 0.9 219 99.4 0.6 171 99.0 1.0 304 45 and above 99.1 0.9 220 99.0 1.0 314 97.7 2.3 219 99.3 0.7 287 98.8 1.2 253 97.1 2.9 277 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 99.3 0.7 290 99.8 0.2 463 96.3 3.7 297 99.4 0.6 530 99.1 0.9 327 98.8 1.2 588 Janajati 100.0 0.0 270 99.5 0.5 429 96.9 3.1 290 98.4 1.6 429 98.9 1.1 267 97.6 2.4 458 Dalit 98.9 1.1 95 100.0 0.0 130 98.0 2.0 98 100.0 0.0 145 97.1 2.9 105 98.6 1.4 147 Others# 100.0 0.0 125 98.3 1.7 178 99.0 1.0 101 99.0 1.0 104 99.2 0.8 133 97.7 2.3 87 61 PI 1.1-2 Percent of people (by gender, age and caste/ethnicity) Willing to Resort to Violence if the Peace and Reconciliation Process Does Not Meet Their Expectations Background characteristics 2015 baseline 2017 Midline End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Certainly willing (%) Probably willing (%) Probably not willing (%) Certainly not willing (%) Total (n) Certainly willing (%) Probably willing (%) Probably not willing (%) Certainly not willing (%) Total (n) Certainly willing (%) Probably willing (%) Probably not willing (%) Certainly not willing (%) Total (n) Certainly willing (%) Probably willing (%) Probably not willing (%) Certainly not willing (%) Total (n) Certainly willing (%) Probably willing (%) Probably not willing (%) Certainly not willing (%) Total (n) Certainly willing (%) Probably willing (%) Probably not willing (%) Certainly not willing (%) Total (n) Gender Female 1 4 15 80 390 1 4 15 80 600 24 24 12 40 398 36 22 8 34 599 33 19 14 34 414 29 28 10 33 636 Male 4 8 16 72 390 4 7 15 74 600 20 21 13 47 388 27 22 9 42 609 25 24 9 43 416 22 21 8 50 638 Age 15-24 3 9 16 72 145 5 7 9 79 266 27 26 15 32 202 33 27 7 33 348 35 23 13 29 158 27 31 10 33 308 25-34 1 7 14 78 198 2 5 18 75 342 26 22 12 40 205 33 22 9 37 353 32 25 13 30 248 27 24 8 41 389 35-44 2 4 15 79 217 1 4 12 82 278 17 20 12 52 159 27 20 11 43 219 26 23 8 43 171 24 22 8 46 302 45 and above 3 5 17 75 220 3 5 18 75 314 17 21 10 52 219 30 18 8 43 287 24 16 10 50 253 24 19 9 48 275 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 2 6 12 80 290 3 5 13 79 463 21 20 11 48 297 32 20 10 38 530 22 20 10 47 327 26 22 8 45 586 Janajati 2 4 14 79 270 2 7 16 76 429 23 24 15 39 290 29 24 7 40 429 34 24 13 30 266 24 28 10 38 455 Dalit 1 8 24 66 95 2 2 17 79 130 27 32 11 31 98 31 24 13 32 145 35 28 7 31 104 27 25 12 36 147 Others# 5 7 20 68 125 5 6 13 75 178 17 17 9 57 101 38 19 5 39 104 31 14 14 41 133 28 20 6 47 86 62 PI 1.1-3: Percent of the Public (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) in Target Districts Expressing Tolerance Towards Other Groups (Dalits, women, indigenous peoples, youth, Muslims, Brahmin/Chhetri, etc.) Background characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID sample National Sample USAID sample National Sample USAID sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 54.9 45.1 390 55.8 44.2 600 49.9 50.1 398 53.6 46.4 599 45.9 54.1 416 51.9 48.1 640 Male 57.7 42.3 390 65.3 34.7 600 51.3 48.7 388 59.4 40.6 609 54.6 45.4 416 53.8 46.3 640 Age 15-24 64.8 35.2 145 74.8 25.2 266 59.4 40.6 202 65.8 34.2 348 59.7 40.3 159 67.5 32.5 308 25-34 61.1 38.9 198 61.1 38.9 342 52.7 47.3 205 60.6 39.4 353 55.0 45.0 249 57.8 42.2 391 35-44 52.1 47.9 217 56.5 43.5 278 48.4 51.6 159 52.5 47.5 219 48.0 52.0 171 44.1 55.9 304 45 and above 50.5 49.5 220 51.6 48.4 314 42.0 58.0 219 43.4 56.6 287 41.1 58.9 253 39.0 61.0 277 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 57.6 42.4 290 59.4 40.6 463 52.0 48.0 297 56.2 43.8 530 49.2 50.8 327 50.3 49.7 588 Janajati 63.3 36.7 270 66.0 34.0 429 55.2 44.8 290 62.9 37.1 429 56.9 43.1 267 58.5 41.5 458 Dalit 61.1 38.9 95 77.7 22.3 130 42.9 57.1 98 52.4 47.6 145 51.4 48.6 105 49.0 51.0 147 Others# 34.4 65.6 125 38.2 61.8 178 40.6 59.4 101 37.5 62.5 104 38.3 61.7 133 46.0 54.0 87 63 PI 1.1.1-1 Average Percentage of CPA Milestones the Public Perceived as Being Completed Background Characteristics 2015 Baseline 2017 Midline End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) Partially completed (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) Partially completed (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) Partially completed (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) Partially completed (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) Partially completed (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) Partially completed (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 64 48 54 390 52 49 53 600 60 52 48 398 83 55 42 599 81 52 46 416 70 53 45 638 Male 36 53 46 390 48 51 47 600 40 48 52 388 17 45 58 609 19 48 54 416 30 47 55 639 Age 15-24 24 19 12 145 20 23 19 266 20 30 21 202 58 32 25 348 25 23 13 159 55 29 15 308 25-34 25 25 26 198 37 27 30 342 10 25 28 205 8 31 28 353 31 32 27 249 25 30 31 390 35-44 36 26 35 217 22 24 23 278 10 19 22 159 8 18 18 219 19 21 20 171 5 23 25 303 45 and above 15 30 27 220 20 26 28 314 60 26 30 219 25 20 29 287 25 23 41 253 15 17 29 276 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 10 76 15 290 11 67 21 463 10 39 37 297 25 44 45 530 25 37 43 327 25 44 51 588 Janajati 11 76 13 270 9 70 21 429 60 38 35 290 33 36 35 429 50 34 29 267 70 37 32 456 Dalit 4 76 20 95 20 65 15 130 10 9 11 98 33 13 11 145 6 14 11 105 12 12 147 Others# 8 78 14 125 2 71 26 178 20 14 16 101 8 8 9 104 19 15 17 133 5 7 6 86 64 PI 1.1.2-1: Percent of the Public (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) with Continuing/Ongoing and/or Major Unresolved Local Conflicts in Their Community Background Characteristics 2015 Baseline 2017 Midline 2019 End-line National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts (%) There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor (%) There are moderate continuing conflicts (%) There are major unresolved conflicts (%) Total (n) People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts (%) There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor (%) There are moderate continuing conflicts (%) There are major unresolved conflicts (%) Total (n) People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts (%) There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor (%) There are moderate continuing conflicts (%) There are major unresolved conflicts (%) Total (n) People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts (%) There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor (%) There are moderate continuing conflicts (%) There are major unresolved conflicts (%) Total (n) People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts (%) There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor (%) There are moderate continuing conflicts (%) There are major unresolved conflicts (%) Total (n) People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts (%) There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor (%) There are moderate continuing conflicts (%) There are major unresolved conflicts (%) Total (n) Gender Female 55 32 12 1 390 58 33 8 1 600 43 39 16 1 398 41 39 19 1 599 44 35 20 1 416 46 35 17 2 639 Male 46 41 12 1 390 52 40 7 1 600 38 40 20 2 388 36 42 21 1 609 36 43 19 3 416 40 39 21 1 638 Age 15-24 54 32 12 1 145 54 40 6 0 266 31 47 20 2 202 29 48 22 1 348 32 45 20 3 159 35 41 23 2 307 25-34 54 34 12 1 198 57 33 9 2 342 42 40 16 2 205 41 40 18 1 353 38 43 17 2 249 39 44 16 1 391 35-44 52 36 12 1 217 60 32 7 1 278 42 35 23 1 159 42 37 22 219 43 36 20 2 171 48 32 19 1 304 45 and above 45 42 12 1 220 51 41 7 1 314 0 37 15 2 219 44 35 20 1 287 44 34 21 2 253 51 29 19 1 275 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 61 35 3 1 290 66 27 6 1 463 47 35 17 1 297 43 37 19 1 530 39 40 21 1 327 49 31 18 2 587 Janajati 57 34 8 1 270 51 42 6 1 429 39 41 18 2 290 32 47 21 0 429 41 39 17 3 267 37 43 19 2 456 Dalit 36 38 26 95 59 35 6 130 34 44 20 2 98 41 33 24 2 145 43 34 21 2 105 42 39 20 0 147 Others# 22 46 30 2 125 35 50 15 1 178 35 44 20 2 101 35 43 20 2 104 37 38 20 5 133 36 43 22 0 87 65 PI 1.1.2-2 Percent of the Public (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) in Target USAID Districts Aware of Any Community Efforts to Resolve Conflicts Background Characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 68.2 31.8 390 62.8 37.2 600 55.8 44.2 398 57.9 42.1 599 59.7 40.3 231 58.6 41.4 343 Male 79.5 20.5 390 78.0 22.0 600 65.7 34.3 388 70.3 29.7 609 71.9 28.1 267 72.2 27.8 381 Age 15-24 73.1 26.9 145 61.0 39.0 266 54.0 46.0 202 59.9 40.1 348 52.3 47.7 107 55.6 44.4 196 25-34 67.4 32.6 198 66.2 33.8 342 59.7 40.3 205 66.5 33.5 353 70.6 29.4 153 66.4 33.6 235 35-44 76.2 23.8 217 72.3 27.7 278 64.5 35.5 159 68.0 32.0 219 70.1 29.9 97 72.6 27.4 157 45 and above 78.7 21.3 220 82.4 17.6 314 67.5 32.5 219 65.8 34.2 287 69.5 30.5 141 71.3 28.7 136 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 76.8 23.2 290 69.4 30.6 463 71.1 28.9 297 61.1 38.9 530 71.4 28.6 199 67.2 32.8 296 Janajati 80.2 19.8 270 76.2 23.8 429 51.7 48.3 290 64.8 35.2 429 64.6 35.4 158 59.7 40.3 288 Dalit 75.4 24.6 95 64.2 35.8 130 50.8 49.2 98 66.3 33.7 145 62.7 37.3 59 78.8 21.2 85 Others# 63.9 36.1 125 66.4 33.6 178 71.2 28.8 101 75.0 25.0 104 59.8 40.2 82 69.1 30.9 55 66 PI 1.2-3 Percent of People (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Who Used a Social Accountability Mechanism in the Previous 12 Months Background Characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 5.6 94.4 390 3.2 96.8 600 17.1 82.9 398 21.2 78.8 599 6.3 93.8 416 10.8 89.2 640 Male 9.5 90.5 390 10.8 89.2 600 27.6 72.4 388 28.4 71.6 609 16.8 83.2 416 14.4 85.6 640 Age 15-24 7.6 92.4 145 6.0 94.0 266 18.8 81.2 202 21.6 78.4 348 3.8 96.2 159 2.9 97.1 308 25-34 7.1 92.9 198 5.6 94.4 342 21.5 78.5 205 23.2 76.8 353 8.8 91.2 249 11.5 88.5 391 35-44 8.8 91.2 217 9.4 90.6 278 23.3 76.7 159 28.3 71.7 219 15.8 84.2 171 17.4 82.6 304 45 and above 6.8 93.2 220 7.3 92.7 314 25.5 74.5 219 28.1 71.9 287 16.2 83.8 253 19.5 80.5 277 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 10.7 89.3 290 11.9 88.1 463 28.3 71.7 297 24.5 75.5 530 14.4 85.6 327 15.1 84.9 588 Janajati 7.4 92.6 270 4.4 95.6 429 19.0 81.0 290 28.4 71.6 429 10.1 89.9 267 10.7 89.3 458 Dalit 4.2 95.8 95 4.6 95.4 130 18.4 81.6 98 18.6 81.4 145 9.5 90.5 105 8.8 91.2 147 Others# 3.2 96.8 125 2.2 97.8 178 17.8 82.2 101 20.2 79.8 104 9.0 91.0 133 11.5 88.5 87 67 PI 1.2.2-1 Percent of People (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Who Indicate That They Actively Participate in Oversight and Monitoring of Subnational Government Activities Background Characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 4.9 94.9 390 3.8 96.2 600 22.7 77.3 398 22.1 77.9 599 19.2 80.8 416 24.3 75.7 637 Male 13.8 86.2 390 11.5 88.5 600 36.0 64.0 388 40.1 59.9 609 38.8 61.2 415 35.4 64.6 639 Age 15-24 2.1 97.9 145 6.8 93.2 266 18.3 81.7 202 24.1 75.9 348 20.9 79.1 158 19.9 80.1 307 25-34 9.6 89.9 198 5.3 94.7 342 28.9 71.1 205 27.8 72.2 353 26.9 73.1 249 28.5 71.5 390 35-44 10.6 89.4 217 8.6 91.4 278 36.1 63.9 159 39.7 60.3 219 30.4 69.6 171 33.7 66.3 303 45 and above 12.7 87.3 220 10.2 89.8 314 34.9 65.1 219 37.3 62.7 287 35.2 64.8 253 38.8 61.2 276 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 12.4 87.6 290 11.9 88.1 463 33.3 66.7 297 34.0 66.0 530 33.3 66.7 327 29.2 70.8 586 Janajati 6.7 93.0 270 4.2 95.8 429 27.3 72.7 290 28.5 71.5 429 22.5 77.5 267 28.2 71.8 457 Dalit 7.4 92.6 95 7.7 92.3 130 29.6 70.4 98 27.6 72.4 145 28.8 71.2 104 36.3 63.7 146 Others# 9.6 90.4 125 5.1 94.9 178 22.8 77.2 101 32.7 67.3 104 31.6 68.4 133 32.2 67.8 87 68 PI 1.2.3-1 Percent of the Public (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Who Consider Elections in Nepal as Free and Fair Background Characteristics 2015 Baseline 2017 Midline End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Completely free & fair (%) Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems (%) Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems (%) Not at all free and fair (%) Total (n) Completely free & fair (%) Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems (%) Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems (%) Not at all free and fair (%) Total (n) Completely free & fair (%) Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems (%) Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems (%) Not at all free and fair (%) Total (n) Completely free & fair (%) Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems (%) Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems (%) Not at all free and fair (%) Total (n) Completely free & fair (%) Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems (%) Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems (%) Not at all free and fair (%) Total (n) Completely free & fair (%) Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems (%) Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems (%) Not at all free and fair (%) Total (n) Gender Female 36 51 8 3 390 33 48 12 3 600 25 35 25 16 398 26 37 22 15 599 20 46 24 10 405 21 43 25 12 610 Male 29 56 9 5 390 31 53 10 6 600 20 44 19 16 388 19 42 25 15 609 22 48 20 11 411 27 45 19 9 624 Age 15-24 27 58 9 4 145 27 53 12 27 266 18 40 21 21 202 17 44 25 14 348 23 50 17 10 155 18 45 28 10 303 25-34 27 58 11 3 198 33 50 12 33 342 21 42 24 14 205 23 41 22 15 353 15 46 27 12 241 24 46 21 8 374 35-44 36 52 8 3 217 28 56 9 28 278 25 37 26 12 159 22 38 22 18 219 19 51 19 10 170 22 47 21 10 291 45 and above 37 50 7 5 220 40 44 10 4 314 26 39 19 16 219 28 32 26 14 287 27 44 20 9 250 34 35 17 14 266 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 31 55 11 3 290 32 52 10 5 463 17 42 26 15 297 18 42 27 14 530 16 47 25 12 326 21 48 22 10 577 Janajati 33 50 9 6 270 31 49 14 3 429 21 41 21 18 290 24 38 22 15 429 20 52 19 10 259 26 41 23 10 437 Dalit 34 60 5 95 38 51 6 4 130 24 37 16 23 98 22 42 21 15 145 33 36 25 6 102 30 38 21 12 139 Others# 34 54 6 2 125 28 49 9 6 178 42 30 20 8 101 38 28 19 15 104 26 47 17 11 129 30 44 19 7 81 69 PI 1.3-3 Percent of the Public (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Who Think Local Organizations Effectively Advocate the Peoples’ Interests to the Government Background Characteristics 2015 Baseline 2017 Midline End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Very Effective (%) Somewhat Effective (%) Not effective (%) Total (n) Very Effective (%) Somewhat Effective (%) Not effective (%) Total (n) Very Effective (%) Somewhat Effective (%) Not effective (%) Total (n) Very Effective (%) Somewhat Effective (%) Not effective (%) Total (n) Very Effective (%) Somewhat Effective (%) Not effective (%) Total (n) Very Effective (%) Somewhat Effective (%) Not effective (%) Total (n) Gender Female 7 60 26 390 9 56 30 600 29 62 10 398 24 68 9 599 23 63 14 375 18 73 9 554 Male 9 67 22 390 14 57 28 600 20 74 6 388 18 73 9 609 21 71 9 390 17 73 10 576 Age 15-24 7 68 23 145 11 59 27 266 23 69 8 202 22 73 5 348 24 66 11 148 15 78 7 277 25-34 8 62 25 198 11 60 27 342 21 75 4 205 23 65 12 353 19 74 8 230 18 73 9 341 35-44 9 59 28 217 9 58 29 278 23 71 6 159 16 80 5 219 20 68 12 163 19 72 10 273 45 and above 8 67 20 220 14 49 33 314 27 62 12 219 18 68 14 287 24 60 16 224 19 70 11 239 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 7 67 24 290 15 58 25 463 19 75 6 297 15 77 8 530 15 72 13 311 14 77 10 548 Janajati 8 60 25 270 8 59 30 429 25 66 10 290 22 67 11 429 22 67 11 240 24 67 9 385 Dalit 6 57 35 95 7 49 40 130 31 64 4 98 30 62 8 145 29 62 9 93 20 75 5 123 Others# 11 71 15 125 11 53 29 178 29 62 9 101 28 64 9 104 32 58 10 121 14 74 12 74 70 PI 1.3-4 Percent of People (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity in) USAID Targeted Districts Who Often Participate in Community Groups/Organizations Background Characteristics 2015 Baseline 2017 Midline End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Often (%) Sometimes (%) Rarely (%) Never (%) Total (n) Often (%) Sometimes (%) Rarely (%) Never (%) Total (n) Often (%) Sometimes (%) Rarely (%) Never (%) Total (n) Often (%) Sometimes (%) Rarely (%) Never (%) Total (n) Often (%) Sometimes (%) Rarely (%) Never (%) Total (n) Often (%) Sometimes (%) Rarely (%) Never (%) Total (n) Gender Female 3 5 34 59 390 2 5 34 60 600 28 39 1 32 398 32 41 4 23 599 40 42 3 15 175 51 33 2 14 173 Male 3 5 36 56 390 1 7 35 58 600 31 42 7 20 388 35 43 3 19 609 40 41 7 12 257 42 38 6 14 147 Age 15-24 0 10 27 63 145 2 12 37 50 266 22 47 2 30 202 23 55 1 21 348 43 43 3 12 61 39 34 7 19 108 25-34 2 5 37 57 198 1 4 40 55 342 32 42 4 22 205 35 38 6 22 353 32 50 5 14 123 46 44 1 9 212 35-44 1 6 38 55 217 3 6 34 57 278 32 33 6 29 159 36 42 5 18 219 42 38 6 13 97 52 29 3 16 185 45 and above 7 2 32 60 220 4 27 70 314 32 41 4 24 219 41 34 3 23 287 44 37 7 13 151 46 34 6 15 185 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 2 3 33 62 290 1 4 35 60 463 33 41 5 20 297 36 42 4 18 530 40 42 9 10 185 49 35 4 12 175 Janajati 2 8 32 58 270 1 6 39 55 429 31 38 3 29 290 33 40 3 24 429 35 46 3 16 132 46 35 3 16 107 Dalit 5 5 55 35 95 0 14 16 70 130 16 48 0 36 98 34 44 2 20 145 48 40 2 10 48 33 43 5 19 21 Others# 5 5 36 55 125 10 7 27 57 178 26 39 9 26 101 27 43 4 27 104 43 34 5 18 67 43 33 5 20 17 71 PI 1.3.2-2 Percent of people by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity who feel that they have a moderate or strong voice in political decisions that affect them or their community Background Characteristics 2015 Baseline 2017 Midline End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample A very strong voice (%) A moderate voice (%) A weak voice (%) No voice at all (%) Total (n) A very strong voice (%) A moderate voice (%) A weak voice (%) No voice at all (%) Total (n) A very strong voice (%) A moderate voice (%) A weak voice (%) No voice at all (%) Total (n) A very strong voice (%) A moderate voice (%) A weak voice (%) No voice at all (%) Total (n) A very strong voice (%) A moderate voice (%) A weak voice (%) No voice at all (%) Total (n) A very strong voice (%) A moderate voice (%) A weak voice (%) No voice at all (%) Total (n) Gender Female 1 26 40 32 390 1 27 46 26 600 24 39 7 30 398 24 44 7 25 599 20 44 8 28 411 21 47 7 25 634 Male 7 45 34 14 390 4 45 38 13 600 33 44 6 16 388 31 50 7 12 609 26 47 10 16 416 25 50 7 18 640 Age 15-24 1 32 40 26 145 2 31 46 22 266 24 50 5 21 202 20 53 9 18 348 21 48 8 22 157 17 50 7 27 306 25-34 4 36 38 21 198 3 38 44 15 342 28 42 6 24 205 27 47 6 20 353 24 50 6 20 246 21 50 6 22 389 35-44 5 37 35 23 217 1 35 44 19 278 30 36 9 25 159 30 46 5 18 219 22 46 8 24 171 27 46 8 19 302 45 and above 5 36 36 23 220 3 39 35 23 314 33 38 7 22 219 35 39 8 19 287 25 40 13 22 253 30 45 8 18 277 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 6 40 36 18 290 4 42 41 13 463 34 41 8 17 297 28 47 6 19 530 24 49 6 21 326 23 50 8 19 137 Janajati 3 33 37 26 270 1 33 45 21 429 26 46 5 24 290 27 49 8 16 429 22 45 8 25 265 21 49 6 24 93 Dalit 2 28 38 32 95 2 31 40 27 130 31 39 5 25 98 28 45 8 19 145 21 40 18 20 103 32 38 8 22 47 Others# 4 36 38 22 125 2 30 41 27 178 21 37 9 34 101 27 41 4 28 104 26 42 12 20 133 22 51 6 22 19 72 CI* 1.4-3 Percent of People (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) in Target Districts Satisfied With Government Services as Provided by Target Institutions Background Characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 57.9 42.1 390 44.7 55.3 600 81.1 18.9 398 83.1 16.9 599 94.4 5.6 337 93.5 6.5 554 Male 47.4 52.6 390 37.5 62.5 600 77.2 22.8 388 74.0 26.0 609 87.2 12.8 366 89.6 10.4 587 Age 15-24 53.8 46.2 145 45.5 54.5 266 85.2 14.8 202 81.1 18.9 348 94.6 5.4 129 95.3 4.7 274 25-34 53.5 46.5 198 38.9 61.1 342 81.6 18.4 205 76.9 23.1 353 92.4 7.6 211 90.3 9.7 351 35-44 51.2 48.8 217 39.9 60.1 278 73.2 26.8 159 81.6 18.4 219 90.7 9.3 151 89.2 10.8 278 45 and above 52.7 47.3 220 40.8 59.2 314 75.1 24.9 219 74.4 25.6 287 86.3 13.7 212 91.6 8.4 238 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 52.1 47.9 290 34.3 65.7 463 77.7 22.3 297 76.0 24.0 530 87.2 12.8 288 88.1 11.9 529 Janajati 53.3 46.7 270 46.6 53.4 429 83.2 16.8 290 80.5 19.5 429 96.3 3.7 218 94.0 6.0 402 Dalit 51.6 48.4 95 43.8 56.2 130 70.0 30.0 98 78.4 21.6 145 91.7 8.3 96 96.2 3.8 132 Others# 53.6 46.4 125 43.3 56.7 178 80.0 20.0 101 81.9 18.1 104 87.1 12.9 101 93.6 6.4 78 73 PI 1.4.2-2 Percent of People (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Who Report That Services Received Satisfactorily Respond to Their Needs Background Characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019 National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 54.4 45.6 390 47.0 53.0 600 70.4 28.6 398 73.1 25.7 599 70.7 29.3 416 68.7 31.3 638 Male 48.5 51.5 390 35.5 64.5 600 66.5 33.0 388 66.3 33.3 609 66.8 33.2 416 66.9 33.1 639 Age 15-24 48.3 51.7 145 43.2 56.8 266 75.2 24.8 202 73.9 25.6 348 66.0 34.0 159 69.8 30.2 308 25-34 51.0 49.0 198 42.7 57.3 342 67.8 32.2 205 67.4 31.7 353 69.9 30.1 249 68.8 31.2 391 35-44 52.1 47.9 217 39.6 60.4 278 64.2 35.2 159 68.9 30.6 219 71.9 28.1 171 67.5 32.5 302 45 and above 53.2 46.8 220 39.5 60.5 314 65.9 31.8 219 68.1 30.9 287 67.2 32.8 253 64.5 35.5 276 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 50.3 49.7 290 37.1 62.9 463 64.6 34.3 297 68.1 31.3 530 60.9 39.1 199 61.6 38.4 362 Janajati 50.7 49.3 270 45.7 54.3 429 71.0 28.6 290 70.6 28.4 429 74.5 25.5 199 73.2 26.8 333 Dalit 50.5 49.5 95 46.2 53.8 130 72.4 27.6 98 69.7 29.7 145 75.2 24.8 79 79.6 20.4 117 Others# 56.0 44.0 125 37.6 62.4 178 68.3 29.7 101 74.0 25.0 104 71.4 28.6 95 62.1 37.9 54 74 PI 1.4.2-3 Percent of People (by gender, age, and caste/ethnicity) Reporting Experience of Discrimination in Accessing Public Service Background Characteristics Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) End-line (2019) National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample National Sample USAID Sample Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Yes (%) No (%) Total (n) Gender Female 1.0 98.7 390 2.2 97.8 600 5.1 94.9 398 4.2 95.8 599 3.4 96.6 413 2.5 97.5 639 Male 1.8 97.7 390 2.2 97.7 600 4.9 95.1 388 5.1 94.9 609 3.1 96.9 414 2.4 97.6 635 Age 15-24 1.4 97.9 145 1.1 98.9 266 7.0 93.0 202 3.8 96.2 348 3.9 96.1 155 3.3 96.7 307 25-34 1.5 98.0 198 2.3 97.4 342 3.9 96.1 205 5.1 94.9 353 2.8 97.2 248 2.1 97.9 389 35-44 0.5 99.1 217 3.6 96.4 278 5.1 94.9 159 4.6 95.4 219 2.3 97.7 171 2.6 97.4 302 45 and above 2.3 97.7 220 1.6 98.4 314 4.1 95.9 219 5.3 94.7 287 4.0 96.0 253 1.8 98.2 276 Caste-ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 0.0 100.0 290 0.0 99.8 463 3.8 96.2 297 3.0 97.0 530 2.1 97.9 327 1.7 98.3 588 Janajati 1.5 97.4 270 2.6 97.4 429 5.9 94.1 290 4.7 95.3 429 2.6 97.4 266 3.1 96.9 454 Dalit 7.4 92.6 95 3.1 96.9 130 8.2 91.8 98 6.3 93.7 145 6.7 93.3 104 2.0 98.0 147 Others# 0.0 100.0 125 6.2 93.8 178 3.0 97.0 101 10.7 89.3 104 4.6 95.4 130 4.7 95.3 85 75 Appendix 5: Study Districts and Cluster and Sample Size i. USAID Sample USAID Program Districts Survey Sample Distribution: 1200(baseline)/1208(midline) Respondents across 80 Clusters (15 household per cluster) List of wards selected based on the population distribution for USAID program districts Region Zone District VDC/Municipality Name Ward No Sample Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Baijapur 4 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Betahani 6 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Jaispur 2 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Kohalpur 7 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Mahadevpuri 2 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Naubasta 2 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Nepalgunj Municipality 12 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Paraspur 7 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Rajhena 8 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Sonpur 9 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Badalpur 4 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Belawa 5 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Deudakala 3 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Gulariya Municipality 3 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Gulariya Municipality 6 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Kalika 4 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Manpur Mainapokhar 2 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Neulapur 6 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Patabhar 9 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Sorhawa 4 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Chaulahi 3 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Gadhawa 4 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Ghorahi Municipality 10 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Halwar 5 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Lalmatiya 4 15 76 Region Zone District VDC/Municipality Name Ward No Sample Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Narayanpur 3 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Rajpur 2 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Shantinagar 9 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Tulsipur Municipality 6 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Tulsipur Municipality 7 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Baliya 8 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Chaumala 8 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Dhangadhi Municipality 1 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Dhangadhi Municipality 12 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Godawari 2 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Lalbojhi 2 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Narayanpur 9 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Pratapapur 5 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Sreepur 4 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Tikapur Municipality 8 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Beldandi 3 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Bhimdatta Municipality 6 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Bhimdatta Municipality 8 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Chandani 6 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Dekhatbhuli 9 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Jhalari 2 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Krishnapur 4 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Pipaladi 7 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Rampur Bilasipur 9 15 Farwestern Terai Mahakali Kanchanpur Suda 4 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Birendranagar Municipality 3 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Birendranagar Municipality 6 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Birendranagar Municipality 10 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Ghumkhahare 7 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Kalyan 3 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Latikoili 9 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Maintada 1 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Ramghat 3 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Satakhani 2 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Uttarganga 8 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Barkulpur 4 15 77 Region Zone District VDC/Municipality Name Ward No Sample Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Birpur 9 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Fulika 5 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Hathausa 1 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Kapilvastu Municipality 12 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Krishnanagar 5 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Mahendrakot 6 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Pakadi 4 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Shivagadhi 3 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Tilaurakot 3 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Basamadi 8 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Churiyamai 3 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Faparbari 1 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Hatiya 3 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Hetauda Municipality 5 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Hetauda Municipality 10 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Kankada 4 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Namtar 6 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Raigaun 6 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Shreepur Chhatiwan 4 15 i. NATIONAL SAMPLE BY DISTRICT National Sample Distribution: 780 (baseline)/786 (midline) respondents across 52 Clusters (15 household per cluster) List of wards selected based on the population distribution for the national survey Region Zone District VDC / Municipality Name Ward Sample Eastern Mountain Koshi Sankhuwasabha Khandbari Municipality 3 15 Eastern Hills Koshi Dhankuta Bhirgaun 5 15 Eastern Hills Mechi Ilam Naya Bazar 5 15 Eastern Hills Sagarmatha Udayapur Beltar 1 15 Eastern Terai Koshi Morang Dadarbairiya/ 1 15 Eastern Terai Koshi Morang Sisawanijahada 8 15 Eastern Terai Koshi Sunsari Hansaposa 2 15 Eastern Terai Mechi Jhapa Bahundangi/ 4 15 Eastern Terai Mechi Jhapa Maheshpur 2 15 78 Region Zone District VDC / Municipality Name Ward Sample Eastern Terai Sagarmatha Saptari Kamalpur 6 15 Eastern Terai Sagarmatha Siraha Majhauliya 2 15 Sub-Total Eastern Region 165 Central Mountain Janakpur Rasuwa Laharepauwa 8 15 Central Hills Bagmati Ramechhap Manthali 4 15 Central Hills Bagmati Kathmandu Gothatar 8 15 Central Hills Bagmati Kathmandu Kathmandu Metro 15 15 Central Hills Bagmati Kathmandu Kathmandu Metro 16 15 Central Hills Bagmati Kathmandu Kathmandu Metro 33 15 Central Hills Bagmati Kavrepalanchok Gairi Bisouna Deupur 3 15 Central Hills Bagmati Lalitpur Lalitpur Sub￾Metropolitan City 4 15 Central Hills Janakpur Sindhuli Hatpate 4 15 Central Hills Narayani Makwanpur Palung 7 15 Central Terai Narayani Bara Narahi 9 15 Central Terai Narayani Chitawan Shaktikhor 5 15 Central Terai Narayani Chitawan Birendranagar 8 15 Central Terai Janakpur Dhanusa Khariyani 7 15 Central Terai Janakpur Mahottari Fulahatta Parikauli 8 15 Central Terai Narayani Parsa Bageshwari Titrona 2 15 Central Terai Narayani Rautahat Chandranigahapur 5 15 Central Terai Janakpur Sarlahi Noukailawa 1 15 Central Terai Janakpur Sarlahi Barahathawa 9 15 Sub-total Central Region 285 Western Mountain Dhaulagiri Mustang Marpha 5 15 Western Hills Dhaulagiri Baglung Paiyunpata 4 15 Western Hills Gandaki Kaski Ghandruk/ 8 15 Western Hills Gandaki Kaski Pokhara Sub-Metro 8 15 Western Hills Gandaki Syangja Aruchaur 9 15 Western Hills Gandaki Tanahu Kahu Shivapur 4 15 Western Terai Lumbini Kapilbastu Kapilvastu Municipality 1 15 Western Terai Lumbini Nawalparasi Makar 1 15 Western Terai Lumbini Rupandehi Butwal Municipality/ 14 15 Western Terai Lumbini Rupandehi Parroha 6 15 Sub-total Western Region 150 Midwestern Mountain Karnali Kalikot Manma 5 15 Midwestern Hills Bheri Dailekh Raniban 9 15 79 Region Zone District VDC / Municipality Name Ward Sample Midwestern Hills Bheri Surkhet Sahare 9 15 Midwestern Hills Rapti Rukum Garayala 3 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Banke Nepalgunj Municipality 4 15 Midwestern Terai Bheri Bardiya Naya Gaun 1 15 Midwestern Terai Rapti Dang Pawan Nagar 5 15 Sub-total Mid-western Region 105 Farwestern Mountain Seti Bajura Barhabis 5 15 Farwestern Hills Mahakali Dadeldhura Amargadhi Municipality 3 15 Farwestern Hills Seti Doti Dipayal Silgadhi Municipality 6 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Tikapur Municipality 8 15 Farwestern Terai Seti Kailali Chaumala 5 15 Sub-total Far-western Region 75 TOTAL 780 80 Appendix 6: Tables of All Questions Comparing the 2015 Baseline, 2017 Midline, and 2019 End￾line Section 1: Demographic Characteristics Table 1.1: The Distribution of Respondents by Sample Characteristics With Significant Test Issues Baseline (n=1980) % Midline (n=1994) % Total (n=3974) % Gender Female 50.0 50.0 50.0 Male 50.0 50.0 50.0 Age (in completed years) 15-24 20.8 27.6 24.2 25-34 27.3 28.0 27.6 35-44 25.0 19.0 22.0 45-65 27.0 25.5 26.2 Mean Age 36.0 34.8 35.5 Significance Test P<.05** Educational qualification No formal education 29.6 16.4 23.0 Primary education (either complete or incomplete) 19.9 17.3 18.6 Incomplete secondary education 31.5 40.1 35.9 Higher education(complete or incomplete) 12.6 18.2 15.4 Graduate & above 6.3 7.9 7.1 Significance Test P<.05** Marital status Married 83.3 79.4 81.4 Never Married/Separated/Widowed 16.7 20.6 18.6 Significance Test P<.05** Caste Ethnicity Brahmin/Chhetri 38.0 41.5 39.8 Janajati 35.3 36.1 35.7 Dalit 11.4 12.2 11.8 Others 15.3 10.3 12.8 Significance Test p<.05** ** means significant at .01 level * means significant at .05 level 81 Section 2: Peace Process Supported Table 2.1 Average Percentage of CPA Milestones Perceived as Completed by the Public Response Baseline (2015) Midline (2017) National Sample USAID Sample Total National Sample USAID Sample Total N % N % N % N % N % N % Too Slow 654 83.8 1051 87.6 1705 86.1 445 56.6 643 53.2 1088 54.6 About the right Speed 107 13.7 124 10.3 231 11.7 276 35.1 475 39.3 751 37.7 Too Fast 11 1.4 18 1.5 29 1.5 58 7.4 78 6.5 136 6.8 Don’t Know 8 1.0 7 0.6 15 0.8 7 0.9 12 1.0 Total 780 100.0 1200 100.0 1980 100.0 786 100.0 1208 100.0 1994 100.0 Table 2.2 Percentage of CPA Milestone Perceived as Completed by the Public Categorized by Eleven Components8 Components of Peace Process and Response Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Absolving the king and electing constituent assembly Yes 80.4 75.6 3.8 2.6 Partially completed 18.5 20.4 71.2 78.2 No 0.6 2.7 22.9 17.4 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing cases 0.5 1.3 2 1.9 Ending the conflict Yes 42.8 53.9 8.1 6.6 Partially completed 51.8 38.5 78.6 82.1 No 5.1 7.0 11.2 9.4 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing cases 0.3 0.7 2.2 1.8 Drafting a new constitution Yes 48.3 50.8 5.9 5.2 Partially completed 41.8 40.2 73.2 77.2 No 6.8 5.7 14.1 12.1 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing 3.1 3.3 6.9 5.4 Guaranteeing human rights for all of Nepal’s citizens, including social, civil, economic, and cultural rights Yes 5.0 3.2 5.5 5.0 Partially completed 81.3 76 77.1 80.4 No 10.1 13.4 14.2 12.7 Don't Know/Have never heard of it 3.5 7.5 Refused/Missing 0.1 0.0 3.2 1.8 8 Missing response <2. 82 Components of Peace Process and Response Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Resolving problems based on class, caste, region and gender Yes 3.7 4.1 5.9 5.0 Partially completed 78.7 72.3 79.2 81.3 No 15.8 21.3 13.2 12.0 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing 1.8 2.3 1.8 1.7 Restructuring the State Yes 8.8 6.8 6.0 5.5 Partially completed 50.5 46.3 74.5 74.6 No 31.5 32.3 16.0 15.9 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/ Missing cases 9.2 14.7 3.4 4.1 Managing the army and arms Yes 37.4 36.3 14.0 14.8 Partially completed 54.3 50.7 71.6 72.6 No 3.1 3.7 7.6 6.5 Don't Know/Have never heard of it 5.0 9.4 Refused/Missing 0.1 0.0 6.7 6.2 Reintegration of Maoist combatants into Nepal Army Yes 56.2 54.3 15.9 13.7 Partially completed 37.9 36.5 68.7 72.0 No 1.9 3.2 10.4 9.2 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing 4.0 6.1 5.0 5.0 Establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons/evaluation of the progress made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission9 Yes 8.6 8.2 1.5 1.2 Partially completed 34.6 30.1 30.6 31.2 No 7.3 11.3 4.8 3.7 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Not Applicable 49.4 50.6 63.0 63.9 Clearing landmines Yes 24.9 23.4 14.2 16.5 Partially completed 64.8 59.5 67.4 71.7 No 5.8 8.2 13.0 9.1 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing 4.6 8.9 5.3 2.7 Implementing new land reform 9 The questions used in baseline 2015 and mid-line were completely different; in baseline, the question was concerning the progress made in terms of establishing a Truth and Reconciliation Commission and a Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons whereas in midline it was concerning the evaluation of the progress made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission as it was already established in 2016 83 Components of Peace Process and Response Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Yes 0.8 1.1 5.2 5.0 Partially completed 35.5 29.9 67 65.6 No 39.7 45.3 22.8 25.9 Don't Know/Have never heard of it/Missing 24.1 23.7 5.0 3.5 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 Table 2.3 Ideas/opinions about what is required to create and sustain a just and lasting peace10 Components to Create and Sustain a Just and lasting peace Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Letting the families of missing people know what happened to their loved ones Very Important 86.2 85.5 77.7 81.0 Somewhat Important 13.3 14.1 16.5 15.1 Not Very Important 0.5 0.3 1.3 1.6 Not at All Important 0.0 0.1 3.1 1.9 Providing a true and unbiased account of who was to blame for the conflict Very Important 76.5 77.8 71.5 69.9 Somewhat Important 21.9 20.6 20.0 22.2 Not Very Important 1.0 1.5 1.4 1.7 Not at All Important 0.3 77.8 3.8 4.1 Providing financial compensation, for those who suffered losses in the conflict Very Important 74.7 70.7 77.1 78.0 Somewhat Important 23.6 27.7 17.8 18.1 Not Very Important 1.4 1.4 0.8 0.9 Not at All Important 0.1 0.3 2.5 2.2 Providing services including rehabilitation, psychosocial support, building memorials of the conflict victims Very Important 33.7 30.8 62.1 62.7 Somewhat Important 48.1 46.3 30.2 30.9 Not Very Important 14.4 18.4 2.2 2.6 Not at All Important 3.5 3.9 4.1 2.7 Ensuring that human rights abuses will not happen again in Nepal Very Important 74.6 77.2 79.3 77.2 Somewhat Important 24.0 21.9 15.8 18.9 10 Non response/Missing response < 1 percent. 84 Components to Create and Sustain a Just and lasting peace Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Not Very Important 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.9 Not at All Important 0.1 0.2 2.4 1.9 Punishing those responsible for crimes and other human rights violations during the conflict Very Important 71.3 75.0 78.9 81.3 Somewhat Important 26.7 23.1 15.0 15.2 Not Very Important 1.8 1.6 1.8 1.4 Not at All Important 0.1 0.3 2.8 1.7 Building ties between the participants in the conflict to increase cooperation and trust Very Important 64.5 62.8 73.8 73.5 Somewhat Important 33.1 35.4 21.1 23.1 Not Very Important 1.9 1.6 0.9 0.7 Not at All Important 0.3 0.3 2.8 1.6 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 Table 2.4 Opinions on the Following Statements About the Conflict11 Opinions About Conflict Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Conduct investigations into the armed conflict so that we can learn from our mistakes and not make them again Certainly True/Strongly Agree 56.5 57.7 73.8 72.7 Probably True/Somewhat Agree 41.8 40.2 20.2 21.6 Probably Not True/Somewhat Disagree 0.8 1.8 1.5 2.5 Certainly Not True/Strongly Disagree 0.6 0.3 3.6 2.6 Better not to open old wounds by talking about what happened in the past Certainly True/Strongly Agree 26.4 22.5 57.6 54.7 Probably True/Somewhat Agree 47.8 45.1 15.0 17.9 Probably Not True/Somewhat Disagree 18.1 23.5 11.2 11.6 Certainly Not True/Strongly Disagree 7.6 8.9 16.2 15.7 I want my children to learn about what happened during the conflict period Certainly True/Strongly Agree 56.0 51.9 64.5 62.9 Probably True/Somewhat Agree 36.5 35.0 19.1 20.6 Probably Not True/Somewhat Disagree 5.0 7.8 6.2 4.6 Certainly Not True/Strongly Disagree 2.4 5.3 9.8 11.5 11 Non-response/Missing response < 1 percent. 85 Opinions About Conflict Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) The conflict caused great pain, but it served an important cause which justified the pain in the long run Certainly True/Strongly Agree 11.8 12.7 42.6 40.2 Probably True/Somewhat Agree 51.7 53.3 24.7 24.8 Probably Not True/Somewhat Disagree 29.0 23.6 11.5 12.5 Certainly Not True/Strongly Disagree 6.8 9.4 20.2 20.7 In the long run, the conflict has made or will make Nepal a better country Certainly True/Strongly Agree 7.3 7.3 43.5 38.7 Probably True/Somewhat Agree 38.5 39.3 22.3 22.5 Probably Not True/Somewhat Disagree 36.2 34.8 11.3 12.1 Certainly Not True/Strongly Disagree 17.2 18.3 22.3 25.7 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 Table 2.5: Incidence Happened to You and Your Family Member in the Conflict12 Incidence happened to you/your family Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Did anything happen to you or a member of your family in the conflict Yes 14.9 19.9 33.2 40.5 No 85.1 80.1 66.8 59.5 Which of the following happened to you or a member of your family in the conflict13 n=116 n =239 n =261 n =489 You or a family member was injured in the conflict 15.5 11.7 28.4 23.1 You or a family member was tortured during the conflict 62.9 50.2 68.2 70.3 You or a family member experienced sexual violence during the conflict 5.2 0.4 7.3 4.1 A family member was killed or disappeared in the conflict 15.5 10.5 17.6 15.7 You or a family member lost land or had property damaged in the conflict 30.2 38.1 34.1 30.7 You or a family member was displaced as a result of the conflict 19.0 14.2 29.5 35.6 Some people tell us that they have put the conflict behind them and achieved inner peace 12 Missing/non-response <1 percent not shown in table. 13 Do not add 100 percent in multiple response. 86 Incidence happened to you/your family Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) and resolution. Others feel that the conflict remains unresolved and continues to cause them pain. What do you feel in this regard? Fully at peace with the conflict 49.4 53.5 52.2 49.8 Somewhat at peace with the conflict 47.3 44.4 40.1 43.2 Still somewhat pained by the conflict 2.4 1.8 5.2 4.5 Still very much pained by the conflict 0.3 0.3 1.8 2.1 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 Opinion about others who supported “the other side” in the conflict Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) They should be banned from holding public office in Nepal Strongly Agree 11.3 8.6 30.2 26.8 Somewhat Agree 31.0 33.4 16.7 16.8 Somewhat Disagree 31.0 31.4 17.4 19.4 Strongly Disagree 25.6 26.4 33.3 35.3 We are all Nepali and have to learn to get along Strongly Agree 88.3 91.4 94.9 97.2 Somewhat Agree 10.6 7.8 3.2 2.3 Somewhat Disagree 0.6 0.8 0.1 0.1 Strongly Disagree 0.1 1.4 0.4 We need to forgive those on the other side for the sake of peace Strongly Agree 46.3 48.0 74.0 73.3 Somewhat Agree 47.7 45.7 20.1 20.4 Somewhat Disagree 4.5 5.7 2.3 2.4 Strongly Disagree 1.4 0.7 3.2 3.6 I would not do business with someone from the other side Strongly Agree 4.9 2.5 This question was deleted in midline line survey Somewhat Agree 21.3 15.3 Somewhat Disagree 40.9 47.5 Strongly Disagree 32.3 34.7 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 87 Section 3: Local Conflict Mitigated Table 3.1: Percent of Respondents With Continuing/Ongoing and/or Major Unresolved Local Conflicts in Their Community Opinions About Conflict Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Percent of respondents with continuing/ongoing and/or major unresolved local conflicts in their community People mostly get along; there are no significant conflicts 50.5 55.3 40.5 38.2 There are occasional conflicts, but they are mostly minor 36.5 36.3 39.7 40.5 There are moderate continuing conflicts 12.1 7.3 18.1 20.2 There are major unresolved conflicts 0.9 1.0 1.8 0.9 Aware of any efforts in your community to resolve these conflicts n=386 n=536 n=468 n=745 Yes 36.8 31.7 36.3 39.7 No 12.7 13.0 23.3 21.9 Missing 50.5 55.3 40.5 38.3 Leading these conflict resolutions efforts in your community n=287 n=380 n=275 n=464 Local Community Mediators 55.7 60.5 40.4 50.0 Political party leaders 20.9 9.5 13.8 16.6 Methods local communities have traditionally used 15.7 24.2 30.9 21.1 Local Government Officials (e.g., ward, municipality) 4.5 2.9 10.9 9.3 Others14 3.1 2.6 4.0 3.0 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 14 Others include religious leaders, local organizations, and others. 88 Section 4: Accountability of Institutions Strengthened Table 4.1 Accountability of Institutions Strengthened Accountability of Institutions Strengthened Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Heard social audits Yes 20.5 20.0 44.0 43.3 No 79.5 80.0 56.0 56.7 Have ever used or participated in Social Audits n=160 n=240 n=132 n=199 Yes 16.9 17.5 38.5 38.2 No 83.1 82.5 61.5 61.8 Have used or participated in social audits in the last 12 months n =12 n =21 n =75 n =122 Yes 44.4 50.0 56.8 61.3 No 55.6 50.0 43.2 38.7 Heard Public hearings Yes 48.8 48.3 50.1 55.8 No 51.2 51.8 49.0 44.0 Have ever used or participated in Public hearings n=62 n=94 n=143 n=280 Yes 16.3 16.2 36.3 41.5 No 83.7 83.8 63.7 58.5 Have used or participated in Public hearings in the last 12 months n =37 n=53 n=79 n=161 Yes 59.7 56.4 55.6 57.5 No 40.3 43.6 44.4 42.5 Heard Citizen Scorecards Yes 11.2 9.1 22.0 20.6 No 88.8 90.9 78.0 79.4 Have ever used or participated in Citizen Scorecards n=4 n=5 n=30 n=51 Yes 4.6 4.6 17.5 20.6 No 95.4 95.4 82.5 79.4 Have used or participated in Citizen Scorecards in the last 12 months n =0 n =3 n =16 n =31 Yes 0 60.0 53.3 60.8 No 0 40.0 46.7 39.2 Heard CIAA Grievance Reports Yes 51.7 52.1 60.9 61.7 No 48.3 47.9 39.1 38.3 Have ever used or participated in CIAA Grievance Reports n=5 n=14 n=17 n=26 Yes 1.2 2.2 3.6 3.5 89 Accountability of Institutions Strengthened Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) No 98.8 97.8 96.4 96.5 Have used or participated in CIAA Grievance Reports in the last 12 months n=2 n=1 n=4 n=9 Yes 40.0 7.1 23.5 34.6 No 60.0 92.9 76.5 65.4 Heard Right to information Yes 36.8 38.3 66.9 70.1 No 63.2 61.7 32.8 29.6 Have ever used or participated in Right to information n=42 n=62 n=163 n=303 Yes 14.6 13.5 31.0 35.8 No 85.4 86.5 69.0 64.2 Have used or participated in Right to information in the last 12 months(n =21,36,90,160) n=21 n=36 n=90 n=160 Yes 50.0 58.1 55.2 52.8 No 50.0 41.9 44.8 47.2 Heard Hello Sarkar Yes 23.1 21.5 31.4 33.3 No 76.9 78.5 67.9 65.9 Have ever used or participated in Hello Sarkar n=6 n=8 n=13 n=17 Yes 3.3 3.1 5.3 4.2 No 96.7 96.9 94.7 95.8 Have used or participated in Hello Sarkar in the last 12 months(n =,2,6,5) n=5 n=2 n=6 n=5 Yes 83.3 25.0 46.2 29.4 No 16.7 75.0 53.8 70.6 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 90 Section 5: Legislative/Government Oversight Strengthened Table 5.1 The Role of the Government15 Role of the Government Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Who should be MOST responsible for making sure that the Government in Nepal does what it is supposed to do for the country and its people The Government itself 68.8 65.9 51.2 54.3 Political parties 16.9 15.6 13.4 11.0 Citizens and voters 11.8 15.8 24.9 24.3 Media 1.0 0.6 3.0 3.0 Local Organization 0.5 0.8 3.4 3.6 Others16 0.6 1.4 1.6 1.5 Aware of any efforts in your community to resolve these conflicts Radio 26.2 25.1 37.0 45.2 Television 45.9 45.8 30.7 30.1 Friends and Relatives 17.4 19.2 7.3 5.5 Community Leaders 5.5 3.8 1.9 2.0 Political Party members 0.4 0.8 2.7 1.5 Newspapers/magazines/leaflets 2.1 3.3 7.3 5.1 Internet 2.6 2.1 9.7 8.9 Local organization 1.7 1.0 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 Table 5.2 Opinion About the Media 15 Missing/Non-response <1% not shown 16 Others include CIAA and The judiciary Opinion Towards the Media Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) The media’s reporting about government is generally accurate and reliable* Strongly Agree 26.4 21.8 37.0 38.4 Somewhat Agree 58.1 56.8 44.8 44.8 Somewhat Disagree 13.6 17.3 10.8 11.4 Strongly Disagree 1.3 2.4 6.6 4.0 Don’t Know/Missing response 0.6 1.8 0.8 1.4 The media is controlled too much by the government* Strongly Agree 5.5 5.0 35.5 34.4 Somewhat Agree 41.3 40.9 37.4 40.2 Somewhat Disagree 33.7 34.7 16.2 14.2 91 Table 5.3. Corruption Role of the Government Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Have you or someone you know experienced an act of corruption in the past twelve months Yes 7.2 8.5 15.1 16.0 No 92.2 91.3 83.5 83.2 Personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to one of the following either to get a service to which you were entitled or to avoid a penalty in previous 12 months n=56 n=102 n=119 n=193 The Police Yes 21.4 18.6 19.3 12.4 No 78.6 81.4 80.7 87.6 Education System Yes 10.7 1.0 4.2 2.1 No 89.3 99.0 95.8 97.9 Judicial System Yes 7.1 11.8 5.0 4.1 No 89.3 88.2 95.0 95.9 Medical and Health System Yes 3.6 0.0 2.5 1.6 No 96.4 100.0 97.5 98.4 Government Registry and Permit Offices Yes 32.1 17.6 7.6 8.4 No 66.1 82.4 92.4 91.6 Utilities (i.e. water, telephone, electricity) Yes 3.6 3.9 4.2 2.1 No 94.6 96.1 95.8 97.9 Taxes Yes 5.4 1.0 0.8 2.1 No 92.9 99.0 99.2 97.9 Land service Strongly Disagree 15.4 14.9 8.3 8.7 Don’t Know/Missing response 4.1 4.5 2.7 2.6 The media covers both the government and opposition fairly* Strongly Agree 16.3 18.5 38.8 39.7 Somewhat Agree 47.3 42.3 36.5 40.0 Somewhat Disagree 25.6 26.8 12.7 11.3 Strongly Disagree 7.4 8.5 9.0 6.5 Don’t Know/Missing response 3.3 3.8 2.9 2.5 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 92 Role of the Government Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Yes 23.2 36.3 11.8 7.3 No 76.8 63.7 88.2 92.7 How do you think corruption in the national government compares to corruption in your local government National government is more corrupt 29.2 12.7 13.2 12.7 Local government is more corrupt 12.3 6.5 8.4 6.5 Corruption in both is much the same 56.4 74.7 72.5 74.7 Missing/Non-response 2.1 2.3 5.9 6.2 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 Section 6: Electoral Processes Improved Table 6.1 Improved Electoral Process Improved Electoral Process Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) How strong of a voice do you think you have in political decisions that affect you or your community A very strong voice 4.1 2.3 28.7 27.5 A moderate voice 35.6 35.9 41.8 46.8 A weak voice 36.9 42.1 6.6 7.0 No voice at all 22.8 19.8 22.9 18.6 How interested would you say you are in politics Very interested 5.5 2.8 19.7 22.6 Somewhat interested 31.9 26.4 53.8 54.7 Not very interested 33.7 36.9 4.5 6.0 Not at all interested 28.8 33.8 22.1 16.7 Please tell me if you have you done the following activities in the past two years. If yes, which activities have you done Signed a petition to protest a government decision 1.3 2.5 4.2 5.6 Written to or visited a public official about an issue or policy 3.3 1.8 6.7 7.6 Participated in a protest march or demonstration 7.8 7.3 12.6 18.2 Worked together with others to solve a problem in my community 11.5 9.5 42.1 48.6 93 Participated in a political party meeting, rally, or another event 10.3 13.3 41.0 46.8 A citizen has a duty to vote even if they do not think their vote matters much Strongly Agree 82.1 81.4 80.4 81.4 Somewhat Agree 16.3 16.8 11.5 10.9 Somewhat Disagree 1.4 1.6 2.0 2.1 Strongly Disagree 0.3 0.3 6.0 5.6 Those who govern this country do not really care what people like you think Strongly Agree 42.1 50.7 45.4 37.5 Somewhat Agree 42.2 35.5 22.3 28.5 Somewhat Disagree 10.9 10.7 11.1 13.3 Strongly Disagree 4.7 3.2 21.3 20.7 Politics is too complicated for someone like you to understand Strongly Agree 36.7 50.7 40.6 36.3 Somewhat Agree 41.3 31.3 31.3 36.8 Somewhat Disagree 17.4 13.2 14.4 15.2 Strongly Disagree 4.6 4.9 13.7 11.7 Our government is not perfect , but our leaders try very hard to do what is best for Nepal Strongly Agree 2.9 5.4 Somewhat Agree 27.1 28.4 Somewhat Disagree 32.9 30.6 Strongly Disagree 36.7 35.5 Did you vote in the November 2013 election/ 2016 election for the Nepali Constituent Assembly Yes 73.6 70.7 81.4 81.4 No 22.7 23.7 18.6 18.6 Not Eligible 3.7 5.7 If no, are you registered to vote Yes 31.6 21.8 80.5 80.9 No 48.6 58.8 19.3 18.9 Not Eligible 19.2 19.4 0.1 0.2 If yes, when deciding which party to vote for in the November 2013 election, which of the following was the most important consideration for you Voting for someone associated with the same political party 12.0 24.3 10.9 10.7 Voting for someone from my region or district 13.9 10.3 9.3 7.3 Voting for someone who I think is honest 22.6 17.8 21.6 19.7 Voting for someone from my ethnic or religious group 0.7 1.7 1.0 1.1 94 Voting for someone who I think will be a strong leader 14.8 9.9 7.2 6.4 Voting for someone who stands for the issues I think are important 4.4 4.2 7.4 7.1 Voting for someone who I think will do the most for me personally 1.0 1.7 1.9 3.5 Voting for someone who will do the most for the country as a whole even if it doesn’t benefit me or my region 15.9 16.4 38.9 41.6 Voting for someone other people in my family and/or community voted for 14.6 13.8 1.8 2.4 How much confidence do you have in the competence of the Election Commission (ECN) to effectively register voters and manage the election process A lot of confidence 38.2 34.8 32.7 31.2 Some confidence 51.2 51.4 46.3 48.7 Little confidence 6.9 9.8 10.3 11.2 No confidence at all 2.1 1.8 2.8 2.3 Missing/Never heard of ECN 1.7 2.3 7.9 6.6 How much confidence do you have that the Election Commission honestly and accurately reports election results A lot of confidence 37.7 33.0 33.8 34.5 Some confidence 51.6 51.7 37.4 39.5 Little confidence 7.7 12.9 14.5 15.1 No confidence at all 2.9 2.2 4.3 2.8 Missing 1.7 2.3 9.9 8.0 On the whole, how would you rate the freedom and fairness of elections in Nepal? Would you say they are Completely free and fair 32.3 32.0 21.5 21.4 Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems 53.7 50.5 37.7 37.7 Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems 8.7 10.8 21.0 22.8 Not at all free and fair 3.6 4.4 15.3 14.0 Missing 1.7 2.3 4.6 4.2 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 95 SECTION 7: Civic Participation and Advocacy Increased Table 7.1: Role of Civil Society and the Satisfaction From CSO Performance 17 Do not add 100 percent in multiple response. Civil Society Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) What do you consider to be the key role of Civil Society Organization17 To advocate on behalf of citizen and community interests 46.7 43.4 47.8 58.9 To provide services to the public (e.g. health, education) 22.7 28.3 53.6 54.8 Social networking 6.4 4.3 13.2 14.3 Income generation and economic development 10.4 13.9 21.7 23.4 Improving daily lives 41.5 34.0 Strengthening political voice 20.8 22.1 Don’t know 13.8 10.1 Are you satisfied with how CSOs fulfill this role Very Satisfied 4.1 7.1 19.6 14.8 Satisfied 62.8 63.2 53.9 57.9 Not Very Satisfied 17.6 18.3 20.0 23.7 Not satisfied at all 1.3 1.3 6.5 3.5 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 96 Section 8: Civil Society Capacity Strengthened Table 8.1 Civil Society Capacity Strengthened 18 Do not add 100 percent in multiple response. 19 Do not add 100 percent in multiple response. Organization membership Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Are you a member of any of the following groups of organizations if yes18 n=236 n=442 n=550 n=842 Trade Union (such as taxi drivers associations) 3.4 0.2 3.1 2.4 Professional or business association (Bar, journalists, teacher associations, management association) 10.2 8.6 13.5 12.6 Religious or cultural groups 4.2 1.8 20.9 21.5 Women or youth groups 33.9 43.2 42.0 42.2 Sports clubs 1.7 1.1 12.7 10.9 Political party 10.2 6.8 27.1 27.7 Parent/teacher or education groups 3.8 2.5 35.8 32.3 Farmers’ organizations 9.3 9.0 20.9 24.3 Female Village Community Health Volunteer 0.8 0.5 3.3 3.2 Sector Committees (e.g. health, agriculture, anti-trafficking, etc.) 3.4 2.5 7.5 9.5 User’s group (e.g. forest, water, etc.) 6.4 10.2 27.8 32.7 Traditional institutions (Velmansha of Tharu, Guthi of Newars) 3.4 1.6 12.7 11.0 Any types of cooperative 44.9 43.3 Community-based organizations (other than previously mentioned) 23.7 23.5 12.7 15.9 Of the organizations you listed, which one is the most important to you(< 3 percent response rate)—Not shown With regard to [group name], how frequently in the past year have you participated in a group meeting or other activity n=236 n=442 n=550 n=842 Often 57.6 58.8 29.6 33.8 Sometimes 34.7 34.2 40.5 41.6 Rarely 5.1 5.7 4.0 3.6 Never 2.5 1.4 25.8 21.0 In the past year, have you received any communications from this group n=236 n=442 n=550 n=842 Yes 88.1 86.0 51.2 52.9 No 11.4 14.0 48.8 47.1 From which media you receive communication from this group19 n=205 n=373 n=277 n=443 Flyer 4.9 5.9 41.2 37.2 Radio 4.4 5.1 38.6 39.3 97 TV 0.5 25.3 27.1 Newspapers 4.9 4.6 36.1 38.1 Social media (e.g. Facebook) 5.9 5.1 35.7 35.4 Email 2.4 1.1 43.0 32.5 Phone or text message 48.8 49.1 68.6 61.6 Face to face contact 95.1 96.0 88.4 83.7 Overall, how well do you think [this group] represents your interests n=236 n=442 n=550 n=842 Very well 35.6 33.7 20.8 17.1 Somewhat well 61.9 61.8 67.5 69.8 Not very well 2.1 4.5 5.6 7.8 Not at all well 0.0 0.0 6.1 5.3 Don’t know/missing 0.4 0.0 2.4 1.1 Table 8.2 Functioning of this Organization More generally, how effectively do you think organizations such as these perform the following functions in Nepal Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Advocate the peoples’ interests to the government n=672 n=1079 n=443 n=691 Very effective 8.0 11.8 23.2 19.8 Somewhat effective 64.6 58.1 68.1 70.0 Not effective 26.2 28.8 7.6 9.0 Don’t know/missing 1.2 1.3 1.1 1.2 Provide needed services to their members Very effective 26.6 28.6 22.1 20.8 Somewhat effective 61.0 62.3 68.5 69.6 Not effective 11.6 8.5 7.8 9.1 Don’t know/missing 0.7 0.6 1.6 0.4 Give members a sense of belonging Very effective 34.2 37.8 25.4 26.5 Somewhat effective 53.7 55.0 64.7 64.1 Not effective 11.5 6.8 8.5 8.7 Don’t know/missing 0.6 0.5 1.3 0.7 Hold the government accountable to respond to citizen concerns Very effective 11.6 11.0 23.2 27.1 Somewhat effective 51.3 45.1 65.0 62.1 Not effective 35.9 42.4 10.7 9.8 Don’t know/missing 1.2 1.4 1.1 1.0 Improve peoples’ daily lives 98 Very effective 18.6 16.7 26.1 22.7 Somewhat effective 50.9 57.0 59.6 66.7 Not effective 30.1 26.2 12.9 10.3 Don’t know/missing 0.4 0.1 1.3 0.3 Strengthen the political voices of the people Very effective 9.1 11.2 28.8 28.5 Somewhat effective 53.6 44.1 56.5 61.8 Not effective 36.3 43.4 13.4 9.1 Don’t know/missing 1.0 1.3 1.3 0.6 More generally, whether or not you are a member, do you think that the activities of these types of groups are good or bad for Nepal n=780 n=1200 n=786 n=1208 Very good 26.6 30.5 47.5 48.8 Somewhat good 66.2 62.1 47.3 47.2 Somewhat bad 6.0 6.3 3.4 2.3 Very bad 0.7 0.7 1.8 1.6 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 99 Table 8.3 Requested Help From Government Requested help from the government Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) In the past two years, have you requested help from any of the following An elected member of Parliament 3.6 2.8 12.3 15.3 A local political party leader 14.5 11.3 20.7 22.5 A bureaucrat at the national level 3.6 2.2 8.2 8.4 A bureaucrat at the local level 11.4 12.8 16.3 17.6 CSO 4.4 4.4 9.6 12.8 If you had a specific issue with the Government or a government policy/service, how would you approach the Government n=176 n=236 n=241 n=401 Individually 34.7 46.6 22.6 25.3 Through a personal contact 22.7 14.0 18.9 15.2 Through a family member 9.7 11.9 16.2 13.6 Through a civil society organization 8.0 8.5 13.8 17.4 Through a political party 25.0 19.1 24.6 25.8 Other 3.7 2.7 Which of these was the most recent person you contacted An elected member of Parliament 6.3 5.9 14.6 13.7 A local political party leader 54.0 41.9 38.2 41.8 A bureaucrat at the national level 6.8 3.8 4.9 5.1 A bureaucrat at the local level 30.7 47.0 26.4 25.8 A representative of community-based org. - - 16.0 13.7 Not Applicable 2.3 1.3 How did you contact that official n=172 n=233 n=241 n=401 In person at his/her office 41.9 57.1 43.8 36.5 In person outside of their office 34.3 29.6 20.1 22.0 By standard mail 0.6 0.7 1.6 By telephone 16.3 11.2 25.7 30.2 By email or the internet 0.7 Through an intermediary 7.0 2.1 4.9 4.7 Others 4.2 5.1 Did you receive a response from the [most recent] government official from whom you requested help Yes 73.8 81.1 64.5 64.9 No 25.6 18.9 35.5 35.1 How satisfied were you with their response to your [most recent if more than one] request n=127 n=189 n=145 n=231 Very satisfied 30.7 27.5 32.6 30.8 Satisfied 61.4 57.7 48.3 57.7 Not very satisfied 6.3 11.6 5.6 3.8 Not satisfied at all 1.6 2.6 13.5 7.7 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 100 Section 9: Vulnerable Populations’ Rights Protected Table 9.1 Trust in Institutions/Leaders Trust in institutions/leaders Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Which of the following institutions and leaders do you trust to protect the interest of people like you The prime minister 41.5 41.3 63.5 67.3 The president 17.8 20.2 68.5 70.7 The national legislature 16.7 22.4 71.9 75.5 The courts 44.4 40.8 14.4 13.5 CSO The army 41.5 43.6 85.5 84.1 The police 76.7 71.9 81.1 85.1 The NGOs and other social service organizations 13.7 18.6 82.8 85.2 Local government 26.3 27.4 86.8 88.5 Community elders, etc. 58.6 60.4 88.9 89.8 If you were physically harmed or threatened with physical harm or abuse, which of the following would you trust to help you A police officer 86.8 84.6 92.3 92.4 A judge or lawyer 11.0 17.7 88.2 85.4 A soldier 13.3 19.3 83.4 83.1 A local government official 16.3 18.6 86.6 86.5 An NGO or other social organization 5.3 8.5 83.7 83.0 A women’s shelter 9.1 8.9 94.2 96.3 85.7 3.1 1.3 56.0 50.7 A family member 61.3 74.1 98.7 98.8 A teacher 3.3 2.6 79.4 76.6 A health worker 5.6 5.6 86.1 82.2 A community elder 53.1 49.8 89.9 91.0 Overall, men make better political leaders than women do Strongly agree 13.3 8.0 37.0 29.5 Somewhat agree 30.4 27.0 26.5 30.0 Somewhat disagree 28.7 25.7 17.4 14.7 Strongly disagree 27.3 39.1 18.7 25.5 When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women Strongly agree 6.7 6.8 19.1 17.2 Somewhat agree 18.7 19.6 16.8 14.2 Somewhat disagree 25.9 23.7 22.1 18.0 Strongly disagree 48.7 50.0 41.7 50.5 101 Homosexuals should not have the same legal rights as others Strongly agree 3.7 2.0 20.5 15.8 Somewhat agree 6.9 7.4 13.7 12.6 Somewhat disagree 28.2 25.0 14.5 15.5 Strongly disagree 54.9 64.6 51.3 56.1 The country would be better off if historically marginalized peoples played an equal role with others in politics and government Strongly disagree 66.5 67.3 70.5 72.4 Somewhat agree 29.9 27.4 22.9 22.4 Somewhat disagree 2.6 3.8 2.9 2.3 Strongly disagree 0.6 1.4 3.7 2.9 Males and females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities Strongly Agree 81.4 85.3 86.8 89.7 Somewhat Agree 17.9 13.9 10.4 8.9 Somewhat Disagree 0.5 0.7 0.4 0.3 Strongly Disagree 0.1 0.2 2.2 0.7 Religion, caste, ethnicity, gender should not be an obstacle for any person from Nepal to assume the PM office Strongly agree 75.5 76.4 79.4 81.7 Somewhat agree 23.2 22.0 12.5 12.3 Somewhat disagree 0.8 0.8 2.3 2.7 Strongly disagree 0.4 0.7 5.8 3.2 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 102 Table 9.2: Human Trafficking 20 Do not add 100 percent in multiple responses. 21 Do not add 100 percent in multiple responses. 22 Don’t add 100 percent in multiple responses. Human Trafficking Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) There has been a lot of discussion recently about human trafficking. Have you heard anything about this Yes 91.7 91.2 77.1 81.7 No 8.3 8.8 22.9 18.3 What kind of trafficking have you heard of20 Sex (domestic/international) 76.2 67.5 72.5 73.5 Labor (domestic/international) 40.1 34.6 40.4 40.9 Organ (domestic/international) 31.0 15.4 19.5 12.6 Forced marriage 29.7 25.9 13.9 14.6 Child trafficking 55.1 49.5 49.6 46.6 Others Have you ever worked in another country Yes 15.6 14.3 24.4 25.2 No 84.4 85.7 75.6 74.8 Which country or region21 India 57.4 80.8 59.4 77.0 Malaysia 13.9 12.2 16.7 13.8 Korea 0.8 0.0 1.6 0.7 Gulf countries 26.2 0.6 Australia 0.8 0.6 Others 2.5 33.3 18.7 Are any members of your family currently working in another country Yes 21.2 26.3 35.0 34.4 No 78.8 73.8 65.0 65.6 Thinking back over your life, do you think this has ever happened to you Yes 1.4 1.8 3.3 2.6 No 98.6 98.3 96.7 97.4 If yes, what kind of trafficking did you experience22 Sex 9.1 14.3 16.0 Labor 54.5 52.4 56.0 61.3 Organ 9.1 4.0 Forced marriage 18.2 19.0 12.0 29.0 Others 9.1 9.5 12.0 9.7 103 23 Do not add 100 percent in multiple response. Based on what you know about trafficking, how many Nepalese who go abroad for work end up suffering from human trafficking Less than 1% 10.0 7.1 27.6 23.8 10% or less 34.1 36.9 26.5 22.4 25 % or less 25.5 29.6 17.1 19.9 About half (50%) 12.9 13.3 17.3 21.9 More than half 4.2 5.0 11.5 12.0 Don’t know 13.2 7.1 What do you think are the principal reason Nepalese become victims of trafficking for forced labor23 Lack of Information /lack of education 62.5 63.6 37.6 42.4 Poor wages/unemployment 62.0 66.4 70.8 68.8 Careless behavior by the victims 13.7 9.5 6.8 4.1 Weak laws/law enforcement 34.6 28.6 7.9 6.3 Gender discrimination 3.4 1.2 2.0 1.2 Organized crime 4.4 3.8 0.6 1.3 Ethnic discrimination 5.1 2.3 2.6 1.4 Family pressure to earn money 28.1 25.0 45.1 41.9 Peer pressure for nice clothes, cell phones etc. 16.9 11.0 19.1 14.4 Unscrupulous or illegal recruiters 18.5 16.8 11.6 10.6 Unscrupulous or illegal employers 31.9 29.4 5.0 4.9 Other reasons 14.4 19.3 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 104 Section 10: Public Policy and Performance Improved Table 10.1 Satisfaction Level With Government Services Are you satisfied with Government services provided by the following Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) District Hospital Very satisfied 14.5 12.5 29.7 26.7 Somewhat satisfied 59.7 50.5 54.1 58.1 Somewhat unsatisfied 15.4 23.8 6.5 8.6 Not at all satisfied 5.8 10.3 8.6 5.9 No opinion/No experience 4.6 3.0 1.2 0.7 Health Post Very satisfied 17.1 14.1 30.9 26.0 Somewhat satisfied 62.4 56.6 57.0 58.2 Somewhat unsatisfied 14.6 19.2 5.6 8.0 Not at all satisfied 3.1 4.8 5.1 6.2 No opinion / No experience 2.7 5.4 1.5 1.5 Sub-Health Post Very satisfied 10.8 6.9 25.6 29.0 Somewhat satisfied 56.2 51.6 58.5 58.9 Somewhat unsatisfied 12.8 18.7 7.4 6.9 Not at all satisfied 3.6 4.7 5.7 4.0 No opinion/No experience 15.5 18.1 2.8 1.1 Public Primary School Very satisfied 18.1 14.4 39.4 35.3 Somewhat satisfied 59.9 61.4 47.8 52.6 Somewhat unsatisfied 16.9 18.8 7.1 7.0 Not at all satisfied 4.2 3.7 4.9 3.9 No opinion / No experience 0.5 1.7 1.3 0.9 Public Secondary School Very satisfied 25.4 14.5 38.5 33.6 Somewhat satisfied 57.2 59.7 51.4 53.0 Somewhat unsatisfied 14.7 20.3 3.7 7.0 Not at all satisfied 1.8 3.8 4.1 4.9 No opinion / No experience 0.6 1.8 2.3 1.4 District Agriculture Development Office Very satisfied 3.5 2.6 23.0 24.5 Somewhat satisfied 40.1 39.1 59.0 61.6 Somewhat unsatisfied 14.2 21.2 9.0 6.5 Not at all satisfied 5.8 8.9 6.6 6.9 No opinion/No experience 35.9 28.3 2.5 0.4 District Forest Office Very satisfied 3.5 4.2 28.3 22.5 Somewhat satisfied 35.0 34.7 59.4 60.3 Somewhat unsatisfied 13.2 17.6 1.9 5.4 105 Not at all satisfied 7.3 9.1 6.6 9.3 No opinion/No experience 39.7 34.5 3.8 2.5 VDC /Municipality Very satisfied 18.6 16.6 34.4 31.4 Somewhat satisfied 68.7 66.8 54.6 59.1 Somewhat unsatisfied 9.5 13.0 6.5 4.9 Not at all satisfied 1.3 3.2 4.5 3.9 No opinion/No experience 1.5 0.4 0.7 Local Development Office Very satisfied 2.9 55.3 27.8 29.0 Somewhat satisfied 57.8 18.5 61.9 55.1 Somewhat unsatisfied 16.0 3.7 4.8 9.1 Not at all satisfied 2.2 21.1 2.4 5.1 No opinion/No experience 20.5 55.3 3.2 1.7 District Administration Office/ Chief District Office Very satisfied 10.6 13.8 34.8 37.7 Somewhat satisfied 61.9 63.4 51.3 48.9 Somewhat unsatisfied 8.5 10.9 4.4 4.8 Not at all satisfied 2.3 2.3 7.6 7.4 No opinion / No experience 16.3 9.6 1.9 1.3 District Women and Children’s Office Very satisfied 6.7 2.8 26.8 36.7 Somewhat satisfied 31.5 32.8 55.4 54.4 Somewhat unsatisfied 10.3 11.1 3.6 3.8 Not at all satisfied 2.4 3.0 8.9 2.5 No opinion/No experience 48.2 50.3 5.4 2.5 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 106 Section 11: Legislation, Regulation, Etc. Table 11.1 The Government of Nepal’s Management The Government of Nepal’s Management of the Following Matters Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Improving Living Standards for the poor Very well 1.2 0.4 20.0 19.3 Fairly well 26.8 28.8 58.6 60.4 Fairly badly 42.7 39.5 7.8 9.5 Very badly 28.5 31.3 13.6 10.8 Education Very well 12.6 10.0 26.5 27.6 Fairly well 67.3 65.0 60.1 61.2 Fairly badly 17.4 22.1 6.4 7.6 Very badly 2.6 2.8 6.9 3.7 Social security Very well 9.5 8.7 28.8 31.4 Fairly well 67.9 65.3 61.9 61.4 Fairly badly 17.2 19.8 5.5 5.2 Very badly 5.0 5.9 3.9 2.0 Creating Jobs Very well 0.5 0.2 16.8 12.4 Fairly well 7.9 7.7 44.5 50.0 Fairly badly 33.8 35.1 13.7 15.3 Very badly 57.3 57.1 25.1 22.3 Keeping Prices Down Very well 0.4 1.7 6.5 5.8 Fairly well 2.7 16.4 25.2 27.0 Fairly badly 19.5 0.0 18.4 20.7 Very badly 77.3 81.8 49.8 46.4 Narrowing the gap between rich and poor Very well 0.9 0.3 12.4 12.1 Fairly well 15.8 16.6 36.2 38.0 Fairly badly 45.5 47.0 16.6 18.1 Very badly 37.2 36.1 34.8 31.8 Reducing Crime Very well 3.3 3.0 20.8 21.6 Fairly well 59.7 61.1 55.4 58.2 Fairly badly 27.7 25.3 12.0 10.7 Very badly 9.0 10.5 11.8 9.5 Improving Basic Health Services Very well 7.6 11.9 22.5 22.4 Fairly well 71.3 64.1 64.0 64.7 Fairly badly 17.3 19.8 6.8 8.5 Very badly 3.3 4.3 6.7 4.4 107 Fighting Corruption Very well 3.5 3.8 19.2 21.3 Fairly well 30.3 28.5 47.5 51.2 Fairly badly 31.7 36.1 12.8 11.5 Very badly 31.8 26.1 20.5 16.1 Providing clean water and sanitation Very well 5.0 4.8 29.5 26.6 Fairly well 60.6 61.8 48.0 54.8 Fairly badly 27.1 26.8 9.1 9.9 Very badly 7.3 6.6 13.4 8.7 Providing a reliable supply of electricity Very well 3.8 2.4 36.1 30.2 Fairly well 29.4 33.7 48.3 54.1 Fairly badly 37.2 37.6 8.4 8.5 Very badly 29.6 26.3 7.3 7.1 Protecting individuals’ rights and freedoms Very well 4.0 4.9 21.6 20.2 Fairly well 79.5 67.1 64.2 65.4 Fairly badly 11.8 22.1 7.9 8.7 Very badly 3.3 4.9 6.2 5.7 Reducing conflict within society Very well 4.4 3.8 25.2 26.1 Fairly well 68.6 67.0 56.9 59.1 Fairly badly 19.6 22.4 10.2 9.9 Very badly 6.8 6.6 7.7 4.9 Promoting peace and reconciliation Very well 3.2 3.1 24.9 24.0 Fairly well 68.2 64.2 60.6 63.9 Fairly badly 22.7 26.1 8.6 8.3 Very badly 4.2 5.3 5.9 3.7 Ensuring that everyone’s voice is heard in politics Very well 4.9 3.6 27.1 26.7 Fairly well 43.7 40.3 54.3 56.3 Fairly badly 38.6 38.3 9.7 11.0 Very badly 10.5 14.3 8.8 6.1 Regulating Migration Very Well 1.5 1.4 28.1 29.0 Fairly Well 30.0 27.7 57.9 59.2 Fairly Badly 25.3 30.7 6.7 8.0 Very Badly 7.9 9.1 7.3 3.9 Addressing human trafficking Very well 0.8 2.0 23.8 27.9 Fairly well 47.4 44.8 56.4 52.4 Fairly badly 36.3 36.8 9.5 10.5 Very badly 9.2 10.8 10.3 9.2 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 108 Table 11.2 Satisfaction With Government Services Are you satisfied with local government services Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Maintaining local roads Very well 7.1 5.4 16.4 16.4 Fairly well 44.1 42.2 48.5 50.7 Fairly badly 30.3 33.9 11.6 13.1 Very badly 18.5 18.5 23.5 19.8 Maintaining local marketplaces Very well 10.0 4.9 19.1 20.8 Fairly well 43.7 42.6 52.7 56.8 Fairly badly 34.2 38.1 13.8 13.8 Very badly 11.9 14.3 14.4 8.6 Providing good schools Very well 14.5 7.2 26.6 28.7 Fairly well 63.8 67.3 55.9 54.0 Fairly badly 18.1 23.2 9.3 10.1 Very badly 3.1 2.3 8.2 7.2 Providing good health services Very well 7.1 7.0 22.6 26.0 Fairly well 71.0 62.1 61.7 58.3 Fairly badly 19.4 26.9 8.0 9.3 Very badly 2.6 4.0 7.7 6.4 Registering citizens (such as birth certification, death certification) Very well 44.0 47.5 54.3 59.6 Fairly well 48.2 46.3 38.6 34.9 Fairly badly 6.5 5.4 4.2 4.2 Very badly 0.8 0.8 2.9 1.4 Promoting harmony within the community Very well 6.9 6.2 25.3 25.3 Fairly well 76.4 73.8 63.0 62.7 Fairly badly 13.8 17.1 7.7 8.5 Very badly 1.3 2.6 4.0 3.6 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 109 Section 12: Governmental, Non-governmental, and Private Sector Actors’ Service Delivery Improved Table 12.1 Satisfaction with the Improvement of level the Government, Non-government, and Private Sector in Service Delivery Satisfaction Level With Services Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Health Care for you and your family Very satisfied 13.1 9.7 23.0 24.6 Somewhat satisfied 68.6 63.7 53.6 54.6 Somewhat unsatisfied 13.7 21.8 5.7 6.8 Very unsatisfied 4.0 4.5 6.5 5.7 I’ve never accessed that service 0.6 0.3 11.2 8.2 Agriculture extension services Very satisfied 2.7 2.3 14.4 13.4 Somewhat satisfied 38.8 36.3 38.5 40.9 Somewhat unsatisfied 17.2 23.8 6.9 8.2 Very unsatisfied 6.9 6.4 7.3 6.8 I’ve never accessed that service 33.6 31.3 32.8 30.8 Education of your children Very satisfied 14.9 9.9 30.3 28.4 Somewhat satisfied 60.9 55.1 48.3 49.2 Somewhat unsatisfied 14.1 15.5 4.9 6.2 Very unsatisfied 0.8 2.3 3.6 5.4 I’ve never accessed that service 9.1 17.3 12.9 10.9 Protection from crime and violence Very satisfied 6.7 5.3 17.5 16.8 Somewhat satisfied 72.9 61.6 43.9 42.7 Somewhat unsatisfied 12.3 18.1 9.2 8.3 Very unsatisfied 1.9 3.8 5.9 5.4 I’ve never accessed that service 5.9 11.3 23.5 26.7 Resolution of disputes you have with other citizens or the authorities Very satisfied 4.5 3.5 16.6 14.9 Somewhat satisfied 60.5 42.2 46.2 47.6 Somewhat unsatisfied 13.1 13.7 6.4 6.9 Very unsatisfied 1.8 3.1 4.7 3.3 I’ve never accessed that service 19.5 37.6 26.1 27.3 Information on safe migration Very satisfied 2.7 1.5 19.0 18.1 Somewhat satisfied 37.1 32.0 39.3 39.0 Somewhat unsatisfied 18.2 19.2 4.8 5.9 Very unsatisfied 4.9 4.3 2.2 2.0 I’ve never accessed that service 35.9 42.8 34.7 35.0 VDC/CDO 110 24 This table up to VDC/CDO should be analyzed carefully because very few respondent 1-4% of respondents experienced discrimination. Very satisfied 9.0 11.8 21.0 19.4 Somewhat satisfied 73.8 70.8 49.1 51.1 Somewhat unsatisfied 10.9 13.5 5.3 5.3 Very unsatisfied 0.9 1.5 4.5 3.4 I’ve never accessed that service 5.3 2.5 20.1 20.8 Thinking about yourself and your family, in the past twelve months, have you or a family member been unfairly treated because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste when receiving one of those services24 Yes 1.4 2.2 5.0 4.7 No 98.2 97.8 95.0 95.3 Health Care for you and your family n=11 n=26 n=10 n=15 Very often 0.0 0.0 10.0 46.7 Sometimes 45.5 38.5 80.0 40.0 Never 54.5 61.5 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 0.0 0.0 10.0 13.3 Agriculture extension services n=11 n=26 n=3 n=7 Very often 0.0 3.8 0.0 14.3 Sometimes 9.1 15.4 100 85.7 Never 63.6 42.3 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 27.3 38.5 0.0 0.0 Education of your children n=11 n=26 n=9 n=17 Very often 0.0 7.7 22.2 23.5 Sometimes 36.4 3.8 77.8 76.5 Never 63.6 80.8 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 0.0 7.7 0.0 0.0 Protection from crime and violence n=11 n=26 n=9 n=12 Very often 0.0 0.0 11.1 50.0 Sometimes 36.4 15.4 88.9 41.7 Never 45.5 73.1 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 9.1 11.5 0.0 8.3 Resolution of disputes you have with other citizens or the authorities n=11 n=26 n=6 n=20 Very often 0.0 3.8 0.0 30.0 Sometimes 54.5 46.2 100.0 70.0 Never 36.4 26.9 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 9.1 23.1 0.0 0.0 Information on safe migration n=11 n=26 n=4 n=6 Very often 0.0 0.0 25.0 50.0 Sometimes 9.1 0.0 75.0 50.0 111 Never 63.6 34.6 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 9.1 65.4 0.0 0.0 VDC/CDO n=11 n=26 n=6 n=8 Very Often 0.0 11.5 0.0 12.5 Sometimes 45.5 57.7 100.0 87.5 Never 45.5 23.1 0.0 0.0 I do not have much contact with these areas 9.1 7.7 0.0 0.0 And how about the following groups more generally, how much do you think each suffers from discrimination in this country Women A lot 18.1 23.6 22.3 23.3 Some 55.4 55.0 61.7 59.8 Not much at all 26.4 21.3 13.7 16.0 Dalits A lot 35.3 31.1 22.2 20.5 Some 46.9 50.0 61.1 62.6 Not much at all 17.7 18.6 16.7 16.9 Janajati A lot 7.3 6.6 20.3 22.8 Some 48.8 49.8 65.8 63.5 Not much at all 43.2 43.3 13.9 13.7 Madhesi A lot 17.4 11.0 17.5 14.9 Some 40.1 43.5 63.3 62.7 Not much at all 37.8 41.8 19.3 22.4 Muslims A lot 6.2 8.6 13.7 12.4 Some 40.0 38.1 61.1 59.5 Not much at all 40.3 40.3 25.2 28.0 Homosexuals A lot 32.1 35.2 23.8 23.7 Some 40.4 38.8 57.9 58.2 Not much at all 15.1 14.0 18.3 18.0 Brahmin/Chhetri (high caste groups) A lot 1.0 1.1 5.9 6.1 Some 10.3 16.2 45.5 47.8 Not much at all 88.5 82.3 48.6 46.1 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 112 Table 12.2 Feelings About Resilience Statements 25 Non-response rate <1% We would like to ask you about the extent to which you feel that certain statements describe you25. Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) I have people in my life who I can respect To a great extent 68.3 72.3 58.0 56.7 Somewhat 28.2 24.7 36.3 38.9 Very little 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 Not at all 0.5 0.2 2.3 1.4 I share/cooperate with people around me. To a great extent 73.5 74.2 77.1 78.0 Somewhat 25.3 24.5 19.7 20.2 Very little 1.2 1.3 1.8 1.4 Not at all 0.1 0.0 1.1 0.3 My family is supportive towards me To a great extent 71.9 73.7 77.6 80.9 Somewhat 26.8 23.3 18.4 15.4 Very little 1.3 2.9 1.9 2.4 Not at all 0.0 0.2 1.9 1.2 If I am hungry, I can usually get enough food to eat To a great extent 81.0 78.4 74.8 74.7 Somewhat 16.9 18.8 22.8 22.4 Very little 1.9 2.8 1.3 1.7 Not at all 0.1 0.0 1.0 1.2 Spiritual beliefs are a source of strength for me To a great extent 39.6 38.8 52.9 48.1 Somewhat 45.8 44.5 38.9 41.0 Very little 11.4 14.6 4.4 4.6 Not at all 2.7 2.2 3.8 6.3 I am proud of my ethnic background (for example, I am proud of where my family comes from or know a lot about my family’s history) To a great extent 41.8 37.0 59.8 50.6 Somewhat 46.9 50.3 33.4 39.6 Very little 9.9 11.3 4.5 5.7 Not at all 1.2 1.5 2.3 4.2 I talk to my family/partner about how I feel (for example, when I am sad or concerned) To a great extent 45.8 40.3 61.2 61.7 Somewhat 46.4 50.0 33.1 33.9 Very little 7.1 8.5 3.4 2.9 Not at all 0.8 1.2 2.3 1.5 I know where to go if I need help 113 To a great extent 51.3 47.3 61.2 61.4 Somewhat 44.7 42.7 32.8 34.0 Very little 2.9 8.9 3.3 3.4 Not at all 0.9 1.0 2.7 1.2 I feel that I belong in my community To a great extent 66.5 64.1 64.8 65.3 Somewhat 31.4 30.3 29.9 29.8 Very little 1.5 4.7 3.3 3.2 Not at all 0.5 1.0 1.3 1.7 I think it is important to help my community To a great extent 73.1 74.3 76.1 78.3 Somewhat 26.3 24.4 20.2 18.8 Very little 0.6 1.3 2.2 1.7 Not at all 73.1 0.0 1.1 0.7 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 114 Section 13: Peaceful Political Environment Sustained Table 13.1 Willingness to Achieve Political Change 26 Non-response rate <1 percent. People have different ways they are willing to try and achieve political change. How about you? Please tell us how willing you would be to use the following methods to achieve important political change in this country26. Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) Would you vote for the party that you think will best achieve the necessary change Certainly not willing 63.2 61.8 66.4 68.9 Probably not willing 31.8 31.4 25.6 25.2 Probably willing 3.1 4.7 2.0 2.6 Certainly willing 1.5 2.1 3.8 2.7 Would you join others to peacefully protest for important political change Certainly not willing 33.3 38.6 59.1 60.7 Probably not willing 44.6 41.6 30.3 30.7 Probably willing 14.5 13.2 4.0 3.8 Certainly willing 7.1 6.7 6.6 4.8 Would you work for or with an organization or association that advocates necessary political change Certainly not willing 21.8 24.8 48.2 50.1 Probably not willing 39.0 39.3 39.1 37.6 Probably willing 27.2 21.2 4.8 5.0 Certainly willing 11.4 14.8 6.4 5.7 Would you join with others in violent protests if that is necessary to achieve important political change Certainly not willing 2.3 2.8 21.6 31.0 Probably not willing 5.9 5.3 22.1 21.8 Probably willing 15.5 14.6 12.2 8.5 Certainly willing 76.2 77.3 42.9 38.1 Total (%) 100 100 100 100 Total (n) 780 1200 786 1208 115 Section 14:Post-Earthquake Table 14.1 Consequence of Gorkha Earthquake We would like to ask you the Gorkha earthquake that struck Nepal in April of 2015 and affected some areas for weeks after occurring Baseline 2015 Midline 2017 National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) National Sample (%) USAID Sample (%) How seriously, if at all, were you personally affected by the Gorkha earthquake? Would you say you were affected To a great extent 8.6 1.2 22.3 13.2 Somewhat 8.6 6.1 31.1 25.2 Very little 21.0 13.1 14.9 15.3 Not at all 61.8 79.7 31.7 46.3 How seriously was your neighbor affected by the Gorkha earthquake To a great extent 11.3 1.3 Somewhat 12.6 9.2 Very little 24.5 11.7 Not at all 51.5 77.9 What best describes how you personally are recovering from the Gorkha earthquake n=298 n=244 n=532 n=646 Completely recovered 46.6 64.3 45.9 49.5 Mostly recovered 24.5 26.2 17.3 16.3 Recovered only a little 23.8 9.0 31.8 28.9 Haven’t recovered at all 5.0 0.4 5.1 5.3 How much longer do you think it will be before things get back to normal for you n=159 n=87 n=286 n=313 A year or less 28.3 39.1 18.5 22.7 One to two years 17.0 35.6 26.6 27.8 Three to five years 23.3 17.2 25.5 19.5 More than five years 27.0 8.0 20.3 20.4 I will never recover 1.3 39.1 9.1 9.6 Do you think that most people in your neighborhood (city/village) have gotten no help, very little help, some help, most of the help, or all of the help they need to recover and restore their lives after the Gorkha earthquake n=377 n=265 n=750 n=1135 All 4.5 4.2 4.4 5.5 Most 13.0 14.3 10.7 6.9 Some 22.3 18.1 20.4 16.3 Very little 24.7 15.1 21.3 14.3 No help 35.5 47.9 43.2 57.1 Was most of the help received from the Government or private sources n=243 n=137 n=398 n=465 Government 50.6 83.9 66.8 63.2 Private 37.0 11.7 33.2 36.8 Don’t know 12.3 4.4 Do you feel that everyone in your neighborhood (city/village) had equal access to government provided post-earthquake assistance n=243 n=137 n=431 n=496 116 Appendix 7: Survey Questionnaire End-line Survey of Integrated Governance Project (IGP), 2019 Government of Nepal/CAMRIS-Nepal/New ERA Introduction 1) Name and Code of District ________________________________ 2) Name and Code of VDC/Municipality:________________________ 3) Ward Number................................................................................................. 4) Household Number....................................................................................... Interviewer Visits 1 2 Final Visit Date Interviewer’s Name Result* _____/____ / 2076 DD MM YY _________________________ _ _________________________ _ _____/____ / 2076 DD MM YY _________________________ _ _________________________ _ Day Month Year Int. Number Result* Next visit: Date Time ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ ____________________________ Total number of visit *Result Code: 01. Completed 02. Refused 03. Date and Time for Next Visit 04. Respondent not at home 05. Other (Specify) _______________________ Supervisor ____________________________ Name Number Office Editor Number Data Entry Number Household Number:_____ Interviewer Identity Number:______ Region:___ VDC/Municipality Identity Number: ______ 18. Please sow this page notice. 2 0 7 6 117 Namaste, I am [insert name] from New ERA, a research center based in Kathmandu. Our organization is conducting a survey as part of USAID’s Country Development and Cooperation Strategy, focusing on good and effective government strategies. The USAID program is working to reduce extreme poverty in Nepal. As part of this effort, we are collecting information from households and individuals such as yourself. Your participation in this survey is important because your responses will help us evaluate the program and learn how it can be improved. From the 43 selected districts, we will be collecting similar information from 1,000 men and 1,000 women. Before proceeding with the interview, I would like to inform you that we would be asking you questions on sensitive issues, like corruption and human trafficking, among other topics. Your participation in this survey is voluntary. Your views regarding these issues will be important to us. If you are unable or do not want to answer a question, you may decline. All of your responses will be kept confidential. We will not record your name, and your responses will only be used in a statistical summary. I would also like to inform you that some sections of the interview may be recorded during the interview for quality control purposes. If you have any questions about the survey, please call the New ERA Office at 01-4423176/4413603 so we can address your queries 19. Are you willing to take part in the interview? 1. Yes 2. No →Please visit another household 118 SECTION 1: DEMOGRAPHICS Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 22 GEND [ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES. CODE FROM RESPONSE OPTIONS.] Gender Female.......................................................... 1 Male.............................................................. 2 23. AGE How old were you at your last birthday? Competed years (16-65 age).._______ (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 Sub IR 1.1.1 Section 2: Peace Process Supported 24. To begin with, I would like to ask you some questions about the peace process. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 25 As you might have heard, the government signed a Comprehensive Peace Agreement to end the armed conflict in Nepal in 2006. The agreement had several components. I would like to ask you how much progress you think has been made on each of these components. Would you say this component is completed, lots of progress has been made on this component, some progress has been made on this component, or very little progress has been made on this component? 26 PPSPEED In general, do you think that the peace process has moved too slowly, about the right (correct) speed, or too fast? Too slowly .................................................1 About the right (correct) speed............ 2 Too fast ....................................................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 27 ENDCNFC T To what extent has progress been made in ending the conflict? [READ OPTIONS] No progress at all has been made ........1 Very little progress has been made...... 2 Some progress has been made.............. 3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know/ hasn’t heard of it .................................... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 28 RIGHTS To what extent has progress been made in guaranteeing human rights for all of Nepal’s citizens, including social, civil, economic, and cultural rights? [READ OPTIONS] No progress at all has been made ........ 1 Very little progress has been made...... 2 Some progress has been made.............. 3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know /hasn’t heard of it................................................. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 29 RSLMPROB To what extent has progress been made in resolving problems based on class, identity, region, and gender? [READ OPTIONS] No progress at all has been made ........1 Very little progress has been made...... 2 Some progress has been made.............. 3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know /hasn’t heard of it................................................. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 30 STRCSTE To what extent has progress been made in restructuring the state? [READ OPTIONS] No progress at all has been made ........1 Very little progress has been made...... 2 Some progress has been made.............. 3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know /hasn’t 119 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To heard of it................................................. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 31 IMPSCIE To what extent has progress been made in implementing new land reform? [READ OPTIONS] No progress at all has been made ........1 Very little progress has been made...... 2 Some progress has been made.............. 3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know /hasn’t heard of it............................................. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 32 TRCHEAR Have you heard of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission formed after the conflict? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 35 33 TRCVIEW Which of the following best describes your view of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? [READ OPTIONS, Select only one] It has played an important role in reducing conflict in Nepal.................... 1 It’s a good idea,but it’s too soon to tell whether it will reduce conflict in Nepal .................................................... 2 It is mostly for show and has had little effect on the conflict in Nepal ............ 3 It is a bad idea that is as likely to make the conflict worse as to make it better .................................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 34 ESTTRC What is your evaluation of the progress made by the Truth and Reconciliation Commission? [READ OPTIONS] No progress at all has been made ........1 Very little progress has been made...... 2 Some progress has been made.............. 3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know /hasn’t heard of it............................................. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 35 TRCHEAR2 Have you heard of the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons that formed after the conflict? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 38 36 TRCVIEW2 Which of the following best describes your view of the Commission on Investigation of Disappeared Persons? [READ OPTIONS] It has played an important role in reducing conflict in Nepal.................... 1 It’s a good idea, but it’s too soon to tell whether it will reduce conflict in Nepal .................................................... 2 It is mostly for show and has had little effect on the conflict in Nepal ............ 3 It is a bad idea that is as likely to make the conflict worse as to make it better .................................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 37 ESTTRC2 What is your evaluation of the progress made by the Commission on Investigation No progress at all has been made ........1 Very little progress has been made......2 120 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To of Disappeared Persons– would you say…? Some progress has been made..............3 Lots of progress has been made ........... 4 Complete progress has been made...... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know/hasn’t heard of it ............................................. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 38 TRANSMISS_ INTRO People have different ideas about what is required to create and sustain a just and lasting peace. How about you? How important do you consider each of the following for achieving a just and lasting peace in Nepal? 39 TRANMISS Letting the families of missing people know what happened to their loved ones. To what extent do you think it is important? [READ OPTIONS] Not at All Important................................ 1 Not Very Important................................. 2 Somewhat Important ............................... 3 Very Important.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 40 TRANBLM To what extent do you think it is important to provide a true and unbiased account of who was to blame for the conflict? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all important ................................. 1 Not very important.................................. 2 Somewhat important................................ 3 Very important .......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 41 TRANCOMP To what extent do you think it is important to provide financial compensation for those who suffered losses in the conflict? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all important ................................. 1 Not very important.................................. 2 Somewhat important................................ 3 Very Important.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 42 TRANREPAR Providing services including rehabilitation services, psychosocial support, building memorials of the conflict victims. To what extent do you think it is important? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all important ................................. 1 Not very important.................................. 2 Somewhat important................................ 3 Very important .......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 43 TRANHR To what extent do you think it is important to ensure that human rights abuses will not happen again in Nepal? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all important .................................1 Not very important.................................. 2 Somewhat important................................ 3 Very important .......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 44 PUNISH To what extent do you think it is important to punish those responsible for crimes and other human rights violations during the conflict? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all important ................................. 1 Not very important.................................. 2 Somewhat important................................ 3 Very important .......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 45 BLDTIES To what extent do you think it is important to build ties between the participants in the conflict to increase cooperation and trust? Not at all important .................................1 Not very important.................................. 2 Somewhat important................................ 3 Very important .......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 121 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To [READ OPTIONS] (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 46 Now, I will ask your opinions about the recent conflict in Nepal. One hears people describe the recent conflicts in Nepal in many different ways. We are interested in your views on the following statements about that conflict. For each statement, please tell me your level of disagreement or agreement. 47 CONINVST We must conduct investigations into the armed conflict to learn from our mistakes and not make them again. Do you . . . [Read options]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 48 CONOPN It’s better not to open old wounds by talking about what happened in the past. Do you . . . [Read options]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 49 CONLRN I want my children to learn about what happened during the conflict period. Do you . . . [Read options]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 50 CONJUST The conflict caused great pain, but it served an important cause that justified the pain in the long run. Do you . . . [Read options]? Strongly disagree ....................................... 1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 51 CONGOOD In the long run, the conflict has made or will make Nepal a better country. Do you . . . [Read options]? Strongly disagree ....................................... 1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 52 I am going to read some statements that might or might not be applicable for you and your family concerning the conflict period. 53 VICTYPE1 Were you or a family member injured in the conflict? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 54 VICTYPE2 Were you or a family member tortured during the conflict? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 55 VICTYPE3 Did you or a family member experience sexual violence during the conflict? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 56 VICTYPE4 Was a family member killed, or did they disappear in the conflict? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 122 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 57 VICTYPE5 Did you or a family member lose land or have property damaged in the conflict? Yes............................................................... 1 No................................................................ 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 58 VICTYPE6 Were you or a family member displaced as a result of the conflict? Yes............................................................... 1 No................................................................ 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 123 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 59 INNRPEACE Some people tell us that they have put the conflict behind them and achieved inner peace and resolution. Others feel that the conflict remains unresolved and continues to cause them pain. How do you feel in this regard? [READ OPTIONS] Still very much pained by the conflict . 1 Still somewhat pained by the conflict . 2 Somewhat at peace with the conflict.. 3 Fully at peace with the conflict............. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 60 I would like to ask your opinion of those who supported “the other side” from you in the conflict. Please tell me whether you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree for each of the following statements. 61 SIDEBAN Those who were on the other side of the conflict should be banned from holding public office in Nepal. Do you... [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly Disagree......................................1 Somewhat Disagree.................................. 2 Somewhat Agree....................................... 3 Strongly Agree ........................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 62 SIDEALNG We are all Nepali and have to learn to get along. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly Disagree......................................1 Somewhat Disagree.................................. 2 Somewhat Agree....................................... 3 Strongly Agree ........................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 63 SIDEFRGVE We need to forgive those who were on the other side for the sake of peace. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly Disagree......................................1 Somewhat Disagree.................................. 2 Somewhat Agree....................................... 3 Strongly Agree ........................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ Sub IR 1.1.2 Section 3: Local Conflict Mitigated 64. Now, I would like to ask you some questions about the current situation of conflicts in your community. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 65 CNFLCT To begin, how would you describe the current level of conflict in your community? [READ OPTIONS] There are major unresolved conflicts..................................................... 1 People mostly get along, and there are no significant conflicts........................... 2 There are occasional conflicts, but they are primarily minor...................... 3 There are moderate continuing conflicts..................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 71 66 CNFLCTRSLV Are you aware of any efforts in your community to resolve these conflicts? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 71 124 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To Random Assessment 67 CONFLCT COMM Of the following, who is leading these conflict resolution efforts in your community? [READ OPTIONS] Local Community Mediators..................1 Local organizations................................... 2 Political party leaders............................... 3 Local Government Officials (Eg: Ward, rural municipality, municipality).......... 4 Religious Leaders....................................... 5 Methods local communities have traditionally used.................................... 6 None of these............................................ 7 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 68 CONFLCT COMM1 First Order 2, 3, 5, 1, 4, 6, 7, 88, 98 69 CONFLCT COMM2 Second Order 6, 5, 3, 4, 2, 1, 7, 88, 98 70 CONFLCT COMM3 Third Order 1, 2, 4, 5, 3, 6, 7, 88, 98 __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___ IR 1.2 Section 4: Accountability of Institutions Strengthened 71. Some groups in the country are experimenting with new ways to oversee what the government does, including regarding the delivery of services. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 72 SOACCMECH1 Have you heard of social audits? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 75 73 MECHUSE1 Have you ever participated in social audits? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 75 74 MECHWHEN1 Have you participated in social audits in the last 12 months? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 75 SOACCMECH2 And have you heard of public hearings? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 76 MECHUSE2 Have you ever participated in public hearings? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 78 77 MECHWHEN2 Have you participated in public hearings in the last 12 months? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 125 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 78 SOACCMECH3 And have you heard of citizen scorecards? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 81 79 MECHUSE3 Have you ever participated in citizen scorecards? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 81 80 MECHWHEN3 Have you participated in citizen scorecards in the last 12 months? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 81 SOACCMECH4 And have you heard of CIAA Grievance Report? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 84 82 MECHUSE4 Have you ever participated in CIAA Grievance Reports? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 84 83 MECHWHEN4 Have you participated in CIAA Grievance Reports in the last 12 months? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 84 SOACCMECH5 And have you heard of the right to information? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 87 85 MECHUSE5 Have you ever participated in rallies, advocacy forums, campaigns, or other efforts for the right to information? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 87 86 MECHWHEN5 Have you ever participated in rallies, advocacy forums, campaigns, or other efforts for the right to information in the last 12 months? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 87 SOACCMECH6 And have you heard of Hello Sarkar? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 90 88 MECHUSE6 Have you ever participated in Hello Sarkar? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 90 89 MECHWHEN_6 Have you participated in Hello Sarkar in the last 12 months? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 126 Sub IR 1.2.1 Section 5: Legislative/Government Oversight Strengthened 90. Now we would like to ask you some questions about the role of the Government. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 91 GVRNACCN Who do you think should be MOST responsible for making sure that the Government in Nepal does what it is supposed to do for the country and its people? (READ OPTIONS) [Enumerator: Choose one only] The government itself..............................1 Media............................................................ 2 Local organizations................................... 3 The judiciary............................................... 4 Political parties........................................... 5 Commission to Investigate Abuse of Authority (CIAA)................................... 6 Citizens and voters................................... 7 Other (Specify)_______________1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 92 GVRNIFO Where do you get MOST of your Information about Government? [Read Options; select only one] Radio ............................................................1 Television .................................................... 2 Friends and relatives................................. 3 Community leaders.................................. 4 Political party members........................... 5 Newspapers, magazines, or leaflets...... 6 Internet........................................................ 7 Mobine Text/SMS...................................... 8 Local organization..................................... 9 Other (Specify)_______________1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 93. For each of the following statements, please tell me if you strongly disagree, somewhat disagree, somewhat agree, or strongly agree Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 94 MEDIARELY The media’s reporting about government is generally accurate and reliable. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 95 MEDIAINFL The media is controlled too much by the government. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 96 MEDIAFRE The media covers both the government and opposition fairly. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 127 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 97 POLVOTE Even if they think their vote doesn’t matter, a citizen has a duty to vote. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly disagree .......................................1 Somewhat disagree................................... 2 Somewhat agree........................................ 3 Strongly agree ............................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 98 POLTHNK Those who govern this country do not really care what people like you think. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly Disagree......................................1 Somewhat Disagree.................................. 2 Somewhat Agree....................................... 3 Strongly Agree ........................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 99 POLENGE Politics is complicated for you to understand. Do you . . . [READ OPTIONS]? Strongly Disagree......................................1 Somewhat Disagree.................................. 2 Somewhat Agree....................................... 3 Strongly Agree ........................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 100. Now, we would like to ask you some questions about interactions that you might have had with government officials. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 101 CRPTEXP Have you or someone you know experienced an act of corruption in the past twelve months? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer 98 102 Please tell me whether you have personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to one of the following, either to get a service to which you were entitled or to avoid a penalty in the past twelve months. 103 BRIBEPLC In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to the Police? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 104 BRIBEDU In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to someone in the Education System? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 105 BRIBEJUD In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to someone in the Judicial System? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 106 BRIBEMED In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to someone in the Medical and Health System? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 107 BRIBEGOV RN In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to someone in the Government Registry and Permit Offices? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 108 BRIBEUTIL In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to a Utility service provider (such as water, telephone, electricity)? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 128 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 109 BRIBETAX In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to someone in the office of Tax? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 110 BRIBELAN D In the past twelve months, have you personally had to pay a bribe or give a gift to a land service provider? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 111 CRPTSUB How do you think corruption in the national government compares to corruption in your local government? [READ OPTIONS] National government is more corrupt...................................................... 1 Provincial government is more corrupt...................................................... 2 Local government is more corrupt...... 3 Corruption in all three is much the same .......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 112 Now thinking about the role of the local government in your community… 113 GVRNPRT In the past year, have you actively participated in any activities designed to make sure that your local government (Ward/ rural municipality/Municipality or newly elected municipality) does what it is supposed to do? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 Sub IR 1.2.3 Section 6: Electoral Processes Improved Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 114 115 POLVCE To what extent do you think you have a strong voice in political decisions that affect you or your community? Would you say you have? [READ OPTIONS] No voice at all............................................1 A weak voice.............................................. 2 A moderate voice ..................................... 3 A very strong voice .................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know...........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........98 116 POLINT How interested would you say you are in politics? [Read responses] Not at all interested.................................1 Not very interested.................................. 2 Somewhat interested ............................... 3 Very interested.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know...........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........98 117 POLACT1 Have you signed a petition to protest a government decision in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 118 POLACT2 Have you written to or visited a public official about an issue or policy in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 119 POLACT3 Have you participated in a protest march or demonstration in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 129 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 120 POLACT4 Have you worked together with others to solve a problem in my community in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 121 POLACT5 Have you participated in a political party meeting, rally, or another event in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 122 POLREGS Are you registered to vote? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 Not Eligible ................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 133 123 VOTE2013 Did you vote in the recent central election in 2017 ? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 Not Eligible ................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 128 124 Random Assessment 125 VTCONSI D When deciding which party to vote for in the 2017 election, which of the following was the most important consideration for you? [Read Options; select only one] Voting for someone who I think will be a strong leader ................................. 1 Voting for someone from my ethnic or religious group.................................. 2 Voting for someone who other people in my family and/or community voted for.................................................. 3 Voting for someone who stands for the issues I think are important......... 4 Voting for someone who I think is honest....................................................... 5 Voting for someone associated with the same political party........................ 6 Voting for someone who I think will do the most for me personally .......... 7 Voting for someone from my region or district................................................. 8 Voting for someone who will do the most for the country as a whole even if it doesn’t benefit me or my region........................................................ 9 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 126 VTCONSI D1 First Order 5, 4, 9, 6, 3, 1, 7, 2, 8, 88, 98 127 VTCONSI D2 Second Order 9, 6, 1, 4, 7, 8, 2, 5, 3, 88, 98 128 VOTE2017 Did you vote in the provincial or local election in 2017? Yes................................................................ 1 No ................................................................ 2 Not eligible................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 133 130 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 129 Random Assessment 130 VTCONSID When deciding which party to vote for in the 2017 which of the following was the most important consideration for you? [Multiple answers possible] Voting for someone who I think will be a strong leader ................................. 1 Voting for someone from my ethnic or religious group.................................. 2 Voting for someone who other people in my family and/or community voted for............................... 3 Voting for someone who stands for the issues I think are important......... 4 Voting for someone who I think is honest....................................................... 5 Voting for someone associated with the same political party........................ 6 Voting for someone who I think will do the most for me personally .......... 7 Voting for someone from my region or district................................................. 8 Voting for someone who will do the most for the country as a whole even if it doesn’t benefit me or my region........................................................ 9 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 131 VTCONSID1 First Order 5, 4, 9, 6, 3, 1, 7, 2, 8, 88, 98 132 VTCONSID2 Second Order 9, 6, 1, 4, 7, 8, 2, 5, 3, 88, 98 133 ECNCONFD How much confidence do you have in the competence of the Election Commission (ECN) to register voters and manage the election process effectively? [READ OPTIONS] No Confidence at all................................ 1 Little Confidence ...................................... 2 Some Confidence ..................................... 3 A lot of confidence................................... 4 Have never heard of the Election Commission ............................................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 135 134 GVNRPTCON How much confidence do you have that the Election Commission honestly and accurately reports election results? [READ OPTIONS] No confidence at all................................. 1 Little confidence ....................................... 2 Some confidence....................................... 3 A lot of confidence................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 135 ELCTFREE On the whole, how would you rate the freedom and fairness of elections in Nepal? Would you say they are: [READ OPTIONS] Completely free and fair......................... 1 Mostly free and fair, but with minor problems.................................................... 2 Somewhat free and fair, but with major problems........................................ 3 Not at all free and fair............................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know..........88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer.......98 131 IR 1.3 SECTION 7: Civic Participation and Advocacy Increased 136. Now, I would ask you some questions about civil society organizations and your participation. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 137 CSOROLE What do you consider to be the key role of Civil Society Organisations (CSOs)? [Select all that apply] CSOs are defined as any organizations, whether formal or informal, that are not part of the government apparatus that do not distribute profits to their directors or operators, that are self￾governing, and which participation is a matter of free choice. To advocate on behalf of citizen and community interests................................... 1 To provide services to the public (e.g., health, education)........................................ 2 Social networking........................................ 3 Income generation and economic development................................................. 4 Improve peoples’ daily lives...................... 5 Strengthen the political voices of the people............................................................. 6 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 148 138 CSOSATS Are you satisfied with how CSOs fulfill this (these) role(s)? Would you say you are Not Satisfied at all, Not Very Satisfied, Satisfied or Very Satisfied? [READ OPTIONS] Not satisfied at all .......................................1 Not Very Satisfied....................................... 2 Satisfied.......................................................... 3 Very Satisfied................................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 139 More generally, now I would like to ask about how effectively you think organizations such as these perform the following functions in Nepal 140 ADVOCAT E_9 How effectively do you think the organizations advocate the peoples’ interests to the government? Would you say . . . [READ OPTIONS] Not effectively..............................................1 Somewhat effectively.................................. 2 Very effectively ............................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 141 PROVIDE How effectively do you think the organizations provide needed services to their members? Would say . . . [READ OPTIONS] Not effectively..............................................1 Somewhat Effectively.................................. 2 Very Effectively ............................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 142 BELONG How effectively do you think the organizations give members a sense of belonging? Would you say . . . [READ OPTIONS] Not effectively..............................................1 Somewhat Effectively.................................. 2 Very Effectively ............................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 143 ACCOUN T How effectively do you think the organizations hold the government accountable to respond to citizen concerns? Would you say . . . [READ OPTIONS] Not effectively..............................................1 Somewhat Effectively.................................. 2 Very Effectively ............................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 144 IMPLIVE How effectively do you think the organizations improve peoples’ daily lives? Would you say . . . [READ OPTIONS] Not effectively..............................................1 Somewhat Effectively.................................. 2 Very Effectively ............................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 132 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 145 STRENGTH How effectively do you think the organizations strengthen the political voices of the people? Would you say . . . [READ OPTIONS] Not effectively..............................................1 Somewhat Effectively.................................. 2 Very Effectively ............................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 146 ORGCSG Whether or not you are a member, do you think these types of groups’ activities are good or bad for Nepal? Would you say they are very bad, Somewhat bad, somewhat good, or very Good? Very bad ........................................................1 Somewhat bad.............................................. 2 Somewhat good........................................... 3 Very good...................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 Sub IR 1.3.1 Section 8: Civil Society Capacity Strengthened 147. Now I would like to ask you some questions about different organizations/associations and your membership in these types of groups Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 148 ORGBLNG1 Are you a member of a trade union (such as the Taxi Drivers associations)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 149 ORGBLNG2 Are you a member of a professional or business association (Bar, journalists, teachers associations, management association)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 150 ORGBLNG3 Are you a member of a religious or cultural group? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 151 ORGBLNG4 Are you a member of a women or youth group? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 152 ORGBLNG5 Are you a member of a sports club? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 153 ORGBLNG6 Are you a member of a political party? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 154 ORGBLNG7 Are you a member of a parent/teacher or education group? Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 155 ORGBLNG8 Are you a member of a farmers' organization? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 156 ORGBLNG9 Are you a Female Village Community Health Volunteer? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 133 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 157 ORGBLNG10 Are you a member of any sector committees (e.g., health, agriculture, anti-trafficking, etc.)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 158 ORGBLNG11 Are you a member of any User’s group (e.g., forest, water, etc.)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 159 ORGBLNG12 Are you a member of a traditional institution (Velmansha of Tharu, Guthi of Newars)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 160 ORGBLNG12.1 Are you a member of a Co￾operative? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 161 Community-Based Organizations 1. Trade Union 2. Professional or Business Association 3. Religious or Cultural Groups 4. Women or Youth Groups 5. Sports Club 6. Member of Political Party 7. Member of Any parent/teacher or education Groups 8. Farmer’s Organizations 9. FCHVs 10. Sector Committee (Eg Health, agriculture, anti-trafficking) 11. User’s Group (Eg. Forest, water, etc.) 12. Traditional Institutions (Tharu, Velmansha, Newar Guthi) 13. Cooperative 162 ORGBLNG13 Are you a member of any other community-based organization (other than previously mentioned)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 163 ORGTIME With regard to these organization(s), how frequently have you participated in a group meeting or other activity in the past year? Would you say you have never participated, rarely, sometimes or, Often? Never...........................................................1 Rarely ........................................................... 2 Sometimes................................................... 3 Often ............................................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 164 GRPCNCT In the past year, have you received any communications from this (these) organization(s)? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 175 165 GRPCNCT_ MED Please tell me for each of the following, yes or no, is it a way that you received information from these organization(s)? 166 GRPCNCT_MED 1 Flyers / notice board Yes................................................................1 No.................................................................2 134 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 167 GRPCNCT_MED 2 Radio Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 168 GRPCNCT_MED 3 TV Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 169 GRPCNCT_MED 4 Newspapers Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 170 GRPCNCT_MED 5 Social media (e.g. Facebook) Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 171 GRPCNCT_MED 6 Email/letters Yes................................................................ 1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 172 GRPCNCT_MED 7 Phone or Text Message Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 173 GRPCNCT_MED 8 Face to face contact Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 174 ORGREPR Overall, how well do you think these organizations represent your interests? Would you say you think it represents your interest not at all well, not very well, somewhat well, very well? Not at all well ............................................1 Not very well ............................................. 2 Somewhat well........................................... 3 Very Well.................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 175 Sometimes people have problems they cannot solve by themselves, so they request help from a government official or agency. 176 APPRCH If you had a specific issue with the government or a government policy/ service, how would you most likely approach the government? [READ OPTIONS] Individually...................................................1 Through a personal contact................... 2 Through a family member....................... 3 Through a civil society organization Through a political party ......................... 4 Other (Specify)________________ ................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Would not approach the government......................................... 7 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 177 HLPPARLMT Have you requested help from an elected member of Parliament in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 135 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 178 HLPLOCLDR Have you requested help from a local political party leader in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 179 HLPNATBUR Have you requested help from a bureaucrat at the national/provincial level in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 180 HLPLOCBUR Have you requested help from a bureaucrat at the local level in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 181 HLPCSO Have you requested help from a Community-Service Organization in the past two years? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 182 RECNTCNTCT Which of these was the most recent person you contacted? [READ OPTIONS] (If only 1 option “1” is selected from Q. 177-181, go to Q. No 183)or (If option “2” is selected in all the questions from Q. 177 to 181 go to Q. No 184) An elected member of Parliament........ 1 A local political party leader................... 2 A bureaucrat at the national level ........ 3 A bureaucrat at the local level............... 4 A representative of Community￾Service Organization........................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 186 183 OFFCNTCT Now thinking of the most recent person you contacted, how did you contact that official? In person at his/her office .......................1 In person outside of their office............ 2 By standard mail ........................................ 3 By telephone............................................... 4 By email or the internet.......................... 5 Through an intermediary ........................ 6 Other (Specify)_______________1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 186 184 OFFRSPNS And did you receive a response from this government official? Yes................................................................1 No................................................................. 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 186 185 SATRESPNS To what extent were you satisfied with their response to your request? Were you [READ OPTIONS]...? Very unsatisfied..........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied............................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ................................... 3 Very satisfied .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.......... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer....... 98 Sub IR 1.3.4 Section 9: Vulnerable Populations’ Rights Protected 186. For each of the following, please tell me yes or no, do you trust this leader or institution to protect the interest of people like you 136 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 187 INTRSPRT CT1 Do you trust the prime minister to protect the interest of people like you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 188 INTRSPRT CT2 Do you trust the army to protect the interest of people like you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 189 INTRSPRT CT3 Do you trust the police to protect the interest of people like you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 190 INTRSPRT CT4 Do you trust NGOs and other social service organizations to protect the interest of people like you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 191 INTRSPRT CT5 Do you trust the local government to protect the interest of people like you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 192 INTRSPRT CT6 Do you trust community elders etc. to protect the interest of people like you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 193 INTRSPRT CT7 If you were physically harmed or threatened with physical harm or abuse, would you trust a women’s shelter to help you? Yes.................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 194 INTRSPRT CT8 If you were physically harmed or threatened with physical harm or abuse, would you trust a religious leader to help you? Yes.................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 195 INTRSPRT CT9 If you were physically harmed or threatened with physical harm or abuse, would you trust a family member to help you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 196 TRUST6 If you were physically harmed or threatened with physical harm or abuse, would you trust a teacher to help you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 197 TRUST7 If you were physically harmed or threatened with physical harm or abuse, would you trust a health worker to help you? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 198 TRUST8 199 TRUST9 200 TRUST10 201 Now I am going read to some statements. Please answer if you Strongly Disagree, Somewhat Disagree, Somewhat agree or Strongly Agree with the following statements 202 POLMEN On the whole, men make better political leaders than women do. Do you [READ OPTIONS] . . . ? Strongly disagree ......................................... 1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree..........................................3 137 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To Strongly agree ..............................................4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 203 GNDRJOBS When jobs are scarce, men should have more right to a job than women. Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly disagree ......................................... 1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 204 HOMORG HT Homosexuals should not have the same legal rights as others. Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly disagree ......................................... 1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 205 EQLRGHT The Country would be better off if historically marginalized peoples played an equal role with othersin politics and government (For example: Dalit, Janajati, Women, etc). Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 206 FEMRGHT Males and Females should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 207 PMRIGHT Religion, caste, ethnicity, gender should not be an obstacle for any person from Nepal to assume the PM office. Do you [READ OPTIONS] . . . ? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 208 LLGELCT People from all ethnic and cultural groups should be allowed to stand as a candidate for elected positions. Do you [READ OPTIONS] . . . ? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 209 LLGDEMO N People from all communities should be allowed to hold street demonstrations to express their views. Do you [READ OPTIONS] . . . ? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 210 LLGEQUAL All religious, ethnic and minority groups (Dalit, Janajati, Muslim, etc) should have equal access to social, economic, and political opportunities. Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree.......................................... 3 Strongly agree .............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 211 LLGBAN People from all ethnic and cultural groups should be allowed to live in my community. Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly disagree .........................................1 Somewhat disagree..................................... 2 Somewhat agree..........................................3 138 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To Strongly agree ..............................................4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 212 LLGMARY My son or daughter should only marry someone from our cultural or ethnic group. Do you [READ OPTIONS]...? Strongly Disagree........................................ 1 Somewhat Disagree.................................... 2 Somewhat Agree......................................... 3 Strongly Agree ............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 213 TRAFFK There has been a lot of discussion recently about Human Trafficking. Have you heard anything about this? Yes.................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 215 214 TRAFFKN W What kind of trafficking have you heard of? [ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES. MARK ALL THAT ARE MENTIONED] Sex (domestic/international)....................1 Labor (domestic/international)................ 2 Organ (domestic/international)............... 3 Forced Marriage .......................................... 4 Child Trafficking .......................................... 5 Female Trafficking ....................................... 6 Other (Specify)_________________ ..................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 215 WRKCON TRY Have you ever worked in another country? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 217 216 CONTRY WHC Which country? [Enumerator: Do not read options. Check all that apply] India ................................................................1 Malaysia.......................................................... 2 Korea.............................................................. 3 Australia......................................................... 4 Qatar.............................................................. 5 Saudi Arabia.................................................. 6 Other (Specify) .....................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 217 FAMWRK Are any members of your family currently working in another country? Yes..................................................................1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 218 TRAFFKEX “Trafficking is defined as when someone is recruited, transported, or held through the threat or use of force, deception, or the abuse of power for the purposes of exploitation. Exploitation includes prostitution or other forms of sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery or practices similar to slavery, forced marriage and the sale of human organs. Trafficked individuals are treated as possessions and made to do work that they do not want to do through physical force or threats of force against the person or their family. Trafficked individuals are often told lies about the type of work they will do or the amount of money and benefits they will Yes.................................................................. 1 No................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 220 139 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To receive. Trafficking can happen in your community, anywhere in Nepal or in another country.” In thinking back over your life, do you think this has ever happened to you? 219 TRAFFKIN D What kind of trafficking did you experience? [READ OPTIONS] Sex ..................................................................1 Labor.............................................................. 2 Organ ............................................................. 3 Forced Marriage .......................................... 4 Other (Specify)_________________ ..................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 220 TRAFKRSN What do you think are the principal reasons Nepalese become victims of trafficking for forced labor? [ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES. MARK ALL THAT ARE MENTIONED.] Lack of Information / lack of education.1 Poor wages/Unemployment..................... 2 Careless behavior by the victims............ 3 Weak laws/law enforcement.................... 4 Gender discrimination ............................... 5 Organized Crime......................................... 6 Ethnic discrimination.................................. 7 Family pressure to earn money............... 8 Peer pressure for nice clothes, cell phones etc. ................................................ 9 Unscrupulous or illegal Recruiters...... 10 Unscrupulous or illegal Employers...... 11 Poor............................................................. 12 Other (Specify) .....................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer......... 98 IR 1.4 Section 10: Public Policy and Performance Improved 221. Now, we would like to ask you about your satisfaction with government services. For each of the following institutions, please tell me if you are more satisfied or more dissatisfied. If you have no experience with such services from the institution, please tell me that. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 222 SATGOVVI SIT1 In the last 12 months, have you or your family visited the district Hospital/Primary health care center for service? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 224 223 SATGOVSE RV 1 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by the district Hospital/Primary health care center? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 224 SATGOVVI SIT2 In the last 12 months, have you or your family received services (medicals/check￾ups) from the Health Post/urban health clinics? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 226 225 SATGOVSE RV 2 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by from the Health Post/urban health clinics? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied ..................................................4 140 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To No opinion / No experience......................5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 226 SATGOVVI SIT4 In the last 12 months, have you or your family members ever received services from the Public Primary School? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 228 227 SATGOVSE RV4 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by Public Primary School? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 228 SATGOVVI SIT5 In the last 12 months, have you or your family received services from the Public Secondary School? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 230 229 SATGOVSE RV5 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by the Public Secondary School? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 230 SATGOVVI SIT6 In the last 12 months, have you or your family received services from the Agriculture extension service center, sub￾center, District Agriculture Office? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 232 231 SATGOVSE RV6 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by the agriculture extension service center, sub-center, District Agriculture Office? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 232 SATGOVVI SIT7 In the last 12 months, have you or your family received services from the District Forest Office? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 234 233 SATGOVSE RV7 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by the District Forest Office? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 234 SATGOVVI SIT8 In the last 12 months, have you or your family received services from Ward /rural municipality/Municipality? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 236 235 SATGOVSE RV8 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by Ward /rural municipality/Municipality? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 236 In the last 12 months, are you satisfied or not with the development works carried Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied...................................2 141 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To out by the ward/ rural municipality/municipality Somewhat satisfied .......................................3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 142 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 237 SATGOVVI SIT9 In the last 12 months have you or your family receive services from Local Development Office/DDC? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 239 238 SATGOVSE RV9 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by Ward /rural municipality/Municipality? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 239 SATGOVVI SIT10 In the last 12 months have you or your family received services from District Administration Office/ Chief District Office? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 241 240 SATGOVSE RV 10 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by Ward /rural municipality/Municipality? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 241 SATGOVVI SIT11 In the last 12 months, have you or your family received services from District Women and Children’s Office? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 243 242 SATGOVSE RV 11 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by Ward /rural municipality/Municipality? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 243 SATGOVVI SIT12 In the last 12 months, you have or your family ever received services from District Veterinary service/Veterinary extension Service center/Sub-center? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 245 244 SATGOVSE RV 12 To what extent are you satisfied with the services provided by the District Veterinary service/Veterinary extension Service center/Sub-center? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all satisfied .........................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 No opinion / No experience...................... 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 Sub-IR 1.4.1 Section 11: Legislation, Regulation, etc. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 245 How well or badly would you say the Government of Nepal is handling the following matters? Would you say it is handled Very Badly, Fairly Badly, Fairly Well, Very Well 246 POLUMPRV How well do you think Government of Nepal improves the Living Standards for the poor? [READ OPTIONS] Very Badly.......................................................1 Fairly Badly...................................................... 2 Fairly Well....................................................... 3 Very Well........................................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 143 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 247 POLEDU How well do you think the Government of Nepal has improved education? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 248 POLSOCSEC How well do you think the Government of Nepal has improved social security? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 249 POLJBCRT How well do you think the Government of Nepal creates Jobs? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 250 POLPRICE How well do you think the Government of Nepal keeps prices down? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 251 POLGAP How well do you think the Government of Nepal narrows the gap between rich and poor? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 252 POLCRIME How well do you think the Government of Nepal reduces crime? [READ OPTIONS] Very Badly....................................................... 1 Fairly Badly...................................................... 2 Fairly Well....................................................... 3 Very Well........................................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 253 POLHLTHSER How well do you think the Government of Nepal improves basic health services? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 254 POLCORRPT How well do you think the Government of Nepal fights corruption? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 255 POLCLEAN How well do you think the Government of Nepal provides clean water and sanitation? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 144 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 256 POLELEC How well do you think the Government of Nepal provides a reliable supply of electricity needed? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 257 POLPRTCT How well do you think the Government of Nepal protects individuals’ rights and freedoms? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 258 POLCNFLCT How well do you think the Government of Nepal reduces conflict within society? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 259 POLPEACE How well do you think the Government of Nepal promotes peace and reconciliation? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 260 POLHRD How well do you think the Government of Nepal ensures that everyone’s voice is heard in politics? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 261 POLREGMIG How well do you think the Government of Nepal regulates migration? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 262 POLTRAFICK How well do you think the Government of Nepal addresses human trafficking? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 263 What about local government? I do not mean the national government. I mean your local government. How well or badly would you say your local government is handling the following matters? 264 LOCRDS How well do you think the local government maintains local roads? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 145 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 265 LOCMRKT How well do you think the local government maintains local market places? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 266 LOCSCHL How well do you think the local government provides good schooling? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 267 LOCHOSP How well do you think the local government provides good health services? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly .......................................................1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 268 LOCCIT How well do you think the local government provides services like registering citizens (such as birth certification, death certification)? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 269 LOCHARM Y How well do you think the local government promotes harmony within the community? [READ OPTIONS] Very badly ....................................................... 1 Fairly badly ...................................................... 2 Fairly well ........................................................ 3 Very well ......................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 Sub-IR 1.4.2 Section 12: Governmental, Non-governmental and Private Sector Actors’ Service Delivery Improved Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 270 Now, let us talk about some of the services that you received from the government, non-government and private sectors. With reference to your needs being met by the following services, please tell us how satisfied you are with those services 271 SOCSRVHLTH To what extent, are you satisfied with the services from the government or other providers concerning health care for you and your family? [READ OPTIONS] Very unsatisfied ..............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied.................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ........................................ 3 Very satisfied ................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service............................................................5 272 SOCSRVAG To what extent, are you satisfied with the services from the government or other providers concerning agriculture extension services? [READ OPTIONS] Very unsatisfied ..............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied.................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ........................................ 3 Very satisfied ................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service............................................................5 273 SOCSRVEDU To what extent, are you satisfied with the services from the government or other providers concerning the education of your children? Very unsatisfied ..............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied.................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ........................................ 3 Very satisfied ...................................................4 146 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To [READ OPTIONS] (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service............................................................5 274 SOCSRVSEC To what extent are you satisfied with the services from the government or other providers concerning the protection from crime and violence? [READ OPTIONS] Very unsatisfied ..............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied.................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ........................................ 3 Very satisfied ................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service............................................................5 275 SOCSRVJUST To what extent are you satisfied with the services from the government or other providers concerning the resolution of disputes you have with other citizens or the authorities? [READ OPTIONS] Very unsatisfied ..............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied.................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ........................................ 3 Very satisfied ................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service............................................................5 276 SOCSRVTRAF F To what extent are you satisfied with the services from the government or other providers concerning the Information on safe migration? [READ OPTIONS] Very unsatisfied ..............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied.................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ........................................ 3 Very satisfied ................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service............................................................5 277 SOCSRVCDO To what extent are you satisfied with the services from the ward/CDO? [READ OPTIONS] Very unsatisfied .............................................1 Somewhat unsatisfied................................... 2 Somewhat satisfied ....................................... 3 Very satisfied .................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) I’ve never accessed that service...........................................................5 278 DISCPUB Thinking about yourself and your family, in the past twelve months, have you or a family member been unfairly treated because of your gender, ethnic or religious group, or caste when receiving one of those services (health care services, agriculture extension services, accessing education for your children, protection from crime and violence, resolution of disputes with other citizens or the authorities, information on safe migration, accessing services from ward/CDO)? Yes.................................................................... 1 No..................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know...............88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer ...........98 293, 299 279 SOCSRVHLTH _DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste when accessing healthcare services? Yes.................................................................... 1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services........................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know...............88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer ...........98 281 280 SOCSRVHLTH _FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often ....................................................... 1 Sometimes ...................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know...............88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer ...........98 281 SOCSRVAG_ DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste when accessing agricultural extention services? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services........................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know...............88 283 147 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer ...........98 148 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 282 SOCSRVA G_FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often .......................................................1 Sometimes....................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know ............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 283 SOCSRVED U_DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste when accessing education for your children? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services........................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 285 284 SOCSRVED U_FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often .......................................................1 Sometimes....................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know ............ 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 285 SOCSRVSE C_DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste concerning protection from crime and violence? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services........................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 287 286 SOCSRVSE C_FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often .......................................................1 Sometimes....................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 287 SOCSRVJU ST_DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste concerning the resolution of disputes with other citizens or the authorities? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services........................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 289 288 SOCSRVJU ST_FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often .......................................................1 Sometimes....................................................... 2 Never............................................................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 289 SOCSRVTR AFF_DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group, or caste concerning information on safe migration? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services........................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 291 290 SOCSRVTR AFF_FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often .......................................................1 Sometimes....................................................... 2 Never............................................................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 291 SOCSRVC DO_DIS Did you or your family experience unfair treatment because of your gender, ethnic or religious group or caste when accessing services from the Ward/CDO? Yes....................................................................1 No..................................................................... 2 Do not have much contact with these services............................................................ 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 293, 299 149 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 292 SOCSRVCD O_FQ How frequently did you experience this treatment? [READ OPTIONS] Very often .......................................................1 Sometimes....................................................... 2 Never............................................................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 293 DISCRIMWO MEN How much do you think women suffer from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all..............................................1 Some ................................................................. 2 A lot.................................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 294 DISCRIMDAL ITS How much do you think Dalits suffers from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all..............................................1 Some ................................................................. 2 A lot.................................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 295 DISCRIMJAN AJATI How much do you think Janajati suffer from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all..............................................1 Some ................................................................. 2 A lot.................................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 296 DISCRIMMA DHESI How much do you think Madhesi suffer from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all..............................................1 Some ................................................................. 2 A lot.................................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 297 DISCRIMMUS LIMS How much do you think Muslims suffer from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all..............................................1 Some ................................................................. 2 A lot.................................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 298 DISCRIMLGB TI How much do you think homosexuals suffer from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all.............................................. 2 Some ................................................................. 3 A lot.................................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 299 DISCRIMBRA HMIN How much do you think Brahmin/Chhetri suffer from discrimination in this country while accessing the services mentioned above? [READ OPTIONS] Not much at all.............................................. 1 Some ................................................................. 2 A lot.................................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 Resilience Metric Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 300 Now we would like to ask you about the extent to which you feel that certain statements describe you. 301 RESPECT I have people in my life who I can respect. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 150 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 302 RESSHRE I share/cooperate with the people around me. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 303 RESSUPR My family is supportive of me. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 304 RESEAT If I am hungry, I can usually get enough food to eat. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 305 RESSPRTL Spiritual beliefs are a source of strength for me. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all ......................................................... 1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 306 RESETHNC I am proud of my ethnic background (for example, I am proud of where my family comes from or know a lot about my family’s history). Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all ......................................................... 1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 307 RESFEEL I talk to my family/partner about how I feel (for example, when I am sad or concerned). Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all ......................................................... 1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 308 RESHELP I know where to go if I need help. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 309 RESCOMM I feel that I belong in my community. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 310 RESCOMHP I think it is important to help out in my community. Does this describe you? [READ OPTIONS] Not at all .........................................................1 Very little......................................................... 2 Somewhat........................................................ 3 To a great extent.......................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 151 152 IR 1.1 Section 13: Peaceful Political Environment Sustained 311. People have different ways that they are willing to try and achieve political change. How about you? Please tell us how willing you would be to use the following methods to achieve important political change in this country. Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 312 VOTEPRT Would you vote for the party that you think will best achieve the necessary change? [READ OPTIONS] Certainly not willing .....................................1 Probably not willing ...................................... 2 Probably willing.............................................. 3 Certainly willing............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 313 ADVOCATE Would you join others to peacefully protest for important political change? [READ OPTIONS] Certainly not willing ..................................... 1 Probably not willing ...................................... 2 Probably willing.............................................. 3 Certainly willing............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 314 WRKCHNG Would you work for or with an organization or association that advocates necessary political change? [READ OPTIONS] Certainly not willing ..................................... 1 Probably not willing ...................................... 2 Probably willing.............................................. 3 Certainly willing............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 315 VIOLENT Would you join with others in violent protests if that is necessary to achieve important political change? [READ OPTIONS] Certainly not willing .....................................1 Probably not willing ...................................... 2 Probably willing.............................................. 3 Certainly willing............................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.............. 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer........... 98 IR 1.1 Section 14: Post-Earthquake Activities 316. Now, I would like to ask you some question about the situation after Baishakh 12, 2072 Earth Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 317 POSTQKE7 Do you feel that everyone in your neighborhood (city/village) had equal access to government provided post￾earthquake assistance? Yes .....................................................................1 No...................................................................... 2 Not affected by earthquake......................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 320 319 318 POSTQKE8 Is there a particular group that you feel was excluded from receiving assistance? [DO NOT READ OPTION; CODE IN THE FIELD; SELECT ONLY 1; IF THEY PROVIDE MORE THAN ONE RESPONSE, ASK WHICH WAS MOST EXCLUDED] Everyone (or almost everyone)..................1 Janajati ............................................................... 2 Dalit................................................................... 3 The poor.......................................................... 4 Those without political connections......... 5 Those who are marginalized ....................... 6 Those who cannot speak out for themselves.................................................... 7 Women............................................................. 8 Other (Specify) ____________________ ............................................................................ 9 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 153 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 319 POSTQKE10 Overall, how would you say the Government of Nepal responded to the earthquake? Was it [READ OPTIONS]? Very poorly......................................................1 Fairly poorly..................................................... 2 Fairly well ......................................................... 3 Excellently ........................................................ 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 320 Now, I would like to ask you about resource management and distribution status after undergoing the state restructuring process. 321 CURCONF1 Do you think that the central government is equally distributing the budget to all local levels (Gaunpalika/Nagarpalika)? [READ OPTIONS] Strongly disagree ............................................1 Somewhat disagree........................................ 2 Somewhat agree ............................................. 3 Strongly agree ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 322 CURCONF2 Do you think that the provincial government is equally distributing the budget to all local levels (Gaunpalika/Nagarpalika)? [READ OPTIONS] Strongly disagree ............................................1 Somewhat disagree........................................ 2 Somewhat agree ............................................. 3 Strongly agree ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 323 CURCONF3 Do you think that the central government is able to distribute the benefit equally to all local levels (Gaunpalika/Nagarpalika) based on their availability of natural resources (land, water, forests, herbs)? [READ OPTIONS] Strongly disagree ............................................ 1 Somewhat disagree........................................ 2 Somewhat agree ............................................. 3 Strongly agree ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 324 CURCONF4 Do you think that the provincial government is able to distribute the benefit equally to all local levels (Gaunpalika/Nagarpalika) based on their availability of natural resources (land, water, forests, herbs)? [READ OPTIONS] Strongly disagree ............................................ 1 Somewhat disagree........................................ 2 Somewhat agree ............................................. 3 Strongly agree ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 325 CURCONF5 Do you agree that all people are able to practice their religious and cultural rights equally in Nepal after it was declared a secular state? [READ OPTIONS] Strongly disagree ............................................ 1 Somewhat disagree........................................ 2 Somewhat agree ............................................. 3 Strongly agree ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 326 CURCONF6 Do you agree that the constitution of Nepal is inclusive and allows everyone to equally exercise their basic fundamental rights? [READ OPTIONS] Strongly disagree ............................................ 1 Somewhat disagree........................................ 2 Somewhat agree ............................................. 3 Strongly agree ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 327 Now I would like to ask some questions about you and members of your household. 328 FOODSEC At any point during the last month, did you or any other household member go a whole day and night without eating anything because there was not enough food? Yes ..................................................................... 1 No...................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 154 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 329 CLNDRNK How often in the past month have you had to do without clean drinking water? [READ OPTIONS] Never................................................................1 Once or twice................................................. 2 Several times ................................................... 3 All or most of the time................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 330 MEDCARE How often in the past month have you had to do without necessary medical care? [READ OPTIONS] Never................................................................1 Once or twice................................................. 2 Several times ................................................... 3 All or most of the time................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know............... 88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer............ 98 331 CASTE What is your caste/ethnicity? (ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES) Hill Brahmin/Chettri......................................1 Hill/Mountain Janajati..................................... 2 Newari .............................................................. 3 Hill Dalit ........................................................... 4 Terai/Madhesi Brahmin/ Rajput .................. 5 Terai /Medhesi Adivasi janajati.................... 6 Terai/Madhesi Dalit ....................................... 7 Muslim............................................................... 8 Other (Specify) _________________ .....................................................................1000 332 IMPRTCAST How important is your caste/ethnicity to you? Would you say that it is . . . [READ OPTIONS]? It is absolutely important; it is the essence of who you are................................. 1 It is very important, but other things are important, too.................................................. 2 It is one of several important parts of my identity ............................................................... 3 It is only of minor importance..................... 4 It is a label but otherwise of no importance to you at all ................................ 5 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 333 CHSECASTE Which of the following best describes how you feel about being both a Nepali and a member of your ethnic group or caste: [READ OPTIONS] You feel more strongly Nepali than a member of your group or caste.................. 1 You feel equally Nepali and a member of your group or caste................................... 2 You feel more strongly a member of your ethnic group than Nepali..................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 334 MAR What is your marital status? (DO NOT READ RESPONSES) Married ..............................................................1 Divorced/separated ........................................ 2 Widowed........................................................... 3 Never married ................................................. 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 335 RELAT What is your relationship to the head of the household (Main decision-maker)? (DO NOT READ RESPONSES) Head of household..........................................1 Spouse................................................................ 2 Son/daughter.................................................... 3 Son-in-law/daughter-in-law........................... 4 Father/Mother.................................................. 5 Uncle/aunt......................................................... 6 Brother/sister...................................................7 155 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To Not related.......................................................8 Other (Specify) __________________ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 156 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 336 RELIGION What is your religious background? (DO NOT READ RESPONSES) Hindu..................................................................1 Buddhist............................................................. 2 Muslim................................................................ 3 Christian ............................................................ 4 Sikh...................................................................... 5 Other (Specify) __________________ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 337 FAMSIZE How large is your immediate family? (By immediate family, we mean those who share meals coming from the same kitchen)? Number of household members________ (Prog: Fill the blank) (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 338 BORNWRE In what country were you born? Nepal ..................................................................1 India .................................................................... 2 Bangladesh......................................................... 3 Pakistan.............................................................. 4 USA ..................................................................... 5 Japan ................................................................... 6 China .................................................................. 7 Other country (Specify)___________ ......................................................................1000 342 339 BORNDIS Were you born in the district in which you currently live? Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 344 340 BORNWRE2 Please tell me the name of the district in Nepal in which you were born List of 75 districts will be popped up in the tablet to select answer. ____________________..............District (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 341 BORNWRE3 Please tell me the name of the VDC in which you were born List of VDC/Municipality will be popped up according to district selected in the previous question ____________________ ..............................................VDC/Municipality (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 343 342 IMMLIVE How long have you lived in Nepal? ____________________..................... yrs (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 343 MLIVE What was the primary reason for migrating here? Family reasons (e.g., marriage) ....................1 For education/training.................................... 2 Looking for work ............................................ 3 The conflict....................................................... 4 Natural disaster............................................... 5 For an easier lifestyle ..................................... 6 Other (Specify)__________________ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 344 CITCER Do you have a Nepali Citizenship Certificate? Yes ......................................................................1 No.......................................................................2 346 157 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 345 CITCERGET Have you ever tried to get one? Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 346 LANGHOME What language do you primarily speak at home? [ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES. CODE FROM RESPONSE OPTIONS] Khas Nepali.......................................................1 Maithili................................................................ 2 Bhojpuri ............................................................. 3 Tharu.................................................................. 4 Tamang............................................................... 5 Abadhi ................................................................ 6 Kirati................................................................... 7 Hindi ................................................................... 8 Nepal Bhasa (Newari).................................... 9 Other (Specify) __________________ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 347 OTHRLANG What other languages can you speak? [Enumerator: Check all that apply] [ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES. CODE FROM RESPONSE OPTIONS.] Khas Nepali.......................................................1 Maithili................................................................ 2 Bhojpuri ............................................................. 3 Tharu.................................................................. 4 Tamang............................................................... 5 Abadhi ................................................................ 6 Kirati................................................................... 7 Nepal Bhasa (Newari).................................... 8 Hindi ................................................................... 9 English ..............................................................10 Doteli ...............................................................11 Magar................................................................12 None ................................................................13 Other (Specify)___________________ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 348 ABREAD How would you assess your ability to read in your primary language? Would you say you can read very well, you can read with some difficulty but enough to get by; you read only with great difficulty, or can you cannot read at all? [READ OPTIONS] Very well ........................................................... 1 Some difficulty but get by.............................. 2 Only with great difficulty............................... 3 Not at all ........................................................... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 349 EDULEVL What is the highest level of education you have attained? [READ OPTIONS] No formal education ......................................1 rimary education (either complete or incomplete)...................................................... 2 Complete secondary education .................. 3 Secondary technical education .................... 4 Complete higher education.......................... 5 Graduate Degree ............................................ 6 Post-graduate degree ..................................... 7 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 158 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 350 WRKPAY Do you currently work for pay or are you self-employed? Yes, I work for pay .........................................1 No, I don’t work for pay............................... 2 I am Self-Employed.......................................... 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 354 352 355 159 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 352 _ SELFEMPLY2 Why are you not currently working for pay? Student...............................................................1 Homemaker...................................................... 2 Retired ............................................................... 3 Unemployed ..................................................... 4 Other (Specify) __________________ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 358 353 PREMBLD Which of the following best describes your self-employment? [READ OPTIONS] You have a business with more than five paid employees......................................... 1 You have a business with one to five paid employees................................................ 2 You run your business/farminig on your own or with the help of family and friends3 You do not have permanent work but do odd jobs when you can find them............... 4 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 354 FULLPRT Do you operate your business from a permanent building or stall? Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 355 355 MAINERN Do you work full-time or part-time? Full-Time Work for Pay ................................1 Part-Time Work (30 hours or less) for Pay....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 356 MAINOCC Are you the main earner of a cash income in this household? Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 358 357 OCCFOREMP What is your main occupation? (ENUMERATOR: DO NOT READ RESPONSES) Professional/techinical/managerial...............1 Clerical............................................................... 2 Sales and Services............................................ 3 Skilled Manual................................................... 4 Unskilled Manual ............................................. 5 Agriculture........................................................ 6 Other not classified (Specify)_______ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 358 MAINOCC_OT HER1 Are you involved in any kind of foreign employment? Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 360 What is the main occupation of the primary earner in your household? Professional/techinical/managerial............... 1 Clerical............................................................... 2 Sales and Services............................................ 3 Skilled Manual................................................... 4 Unskilled Manual ............................................. 5 Agriculture........................................................ 6 Other not classified (Specify)_______ ......................................................................1000 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 160 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 359 OTHERFOREMP Is the primary earner of the family involved in any kind of foreign employment? Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 360 INCOME Monthly, how much money does your family earn on average in cash/goods (e.g., the value of your crops), including pension but excluding remittance? [READ OPTIONS] No income ........................................................0 Less than Rs. 20,000....................................... 1 Between Rs. 20,000– Rs. 40,000................. 2 Between Rs. 40,001 – Rs. 60,000................ 3 Between Rs. 60,001 – Rs. 80,000................ 4 Between Rs. 80,001 – Rs. 100,000 ............. 5 Between Rs. 100,001 – Rs. 120,000.......... 6 Above Rs. 120,000.......................................... 7 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 PROG: Ask this question only if option one is selected in 223 FAMWRK or 363 OCCFOREPM or 365 OTHERFOREMP 361 INCOME2 How much money does your family earn through remittance per month? [READ OPTIONS] No income ........................................................0 Less than Rs. 20,000....................................... 1 Between Rs. 20,000– Rs. 40,000................. 2 Between Rs. 40,001 – Rs. 60,000................ 3 Between Rs. 60,001 – Rs. 80,000................ 4 Between Rs. 80,001 – Rs. 100,000 ............. 5 Between Rs. 100,001 – Rs. 120,000.......... 6 Above Rs. 120,000........................................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 362 ASSETS For each of the following, please tell me whether you have one or more in your household. 363 ASSETS1 Radio Yes ...................................................................... 1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 364 ASSETS2 Television Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 365 ASSETS3 Bicycle Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 366 ASSETS4 Car Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 367 ASSETS5 Motorbike Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 368 ASSETS6 Generator Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 161 Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 369 ASSETS7 Refrigerator Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 370 ASSETS8 Computer Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 371 ASSETS9 Mobile phone Yes ......................................................................1 No....................................................................... 2 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 Section 16: 372. Before concluding, I would just like to ask you: Q.No. Code Questions Coding Categories Go To 373 USAIDA First, what do you know about USAID? [Enumerator: Check all that apply] Nothing – never heard of it..........................1 It is an American organization ..................... 2 It does (health, agriculture, environment, education, democracy/governance) activities............................................................. 3 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 END 374 USAIDB How did you know about USAID? [Check all that apply] (ENUMERATOR: Ask this question only if option 2 and 3 are selected in the above question) By participating in USAID-funded event(s).............................................................. 1 On radio............................................................. 2 On television ..................................................... 3 On website/social media (Facebook, Twitter) ............................................................. 4 From a friend/neighbor.................................. 5 Posters/Signs/Billboards................................. 6 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t know.................88 (DON’T READ) Doesn’t answer..............98 375 That is all I have to ask you. Thank you for your cooperation! 376 If the interview had to be terminated in between, write the reason for the termination. 377 Thank you once again for your time and patience. If you have anything to ask or tell me, you may ask me now. 378 Enumerator’s remarks (Specify) 162 Appendix 8: Support letter from Ministry of Federal Affairs for Data Collection 163 Appendix 9: Study and Data Collection Team TECHNICAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF OF NEW ERA Core Team Members Nirajan Dhungel Sachin Shrestha Data Quality Check Sajid Shrestha Jyoti Manandhar Administrative Staff Mr. Sujan Bhakta Shrestha Mr. Sanu Raja Shakya Field Managers/Quality Control Staff Ramesh Shrestha Deepak Dhungel Manoj Maharjan FIELD DATA COLLECTION STAFF Aashish Shrestha Deependra Rawal Mon Prasad Adhikari Sarita Shrestha Ajit Thapa Dejina Thapa Muktinath Acharya Shyam Krishna Rajthala Akriti Shrestha Gita Maharjan Nabina Khadka Sita Chaudhary Ambika BK Goma Paudel Nagendra Sah Srijana Timilsina Anisha Singh Jyoti Kumari Khapangi Nilam Kumari Singh Sudip Dhungel Anita Maharjan Kali Bahadur Tharu Nirmal Kumar Chhetri Suman Shrestha Anjila Karki Kamala Pun Nirmala Chaudhary Suman Thapaliya Anjila Pradhan Karan Shrestha Prakash Khanal Sunita Bhujel Ashish Shrestha Khagendra Bist Priyanka Kandel Suraj Shrestha Bandana Chaudhary Kishor Karki Puja Thapa Sushil Basnet Bhawani Adhikari Kishor kumar Chapagain Rabischandra Bhatta Pramananda Yadav Bhim Raj Magar Koshis karki Ram Kumar Acharya Prashant Nepal Bhola Thapa Kshetra Pratap Sherma Ramita Kala Rai Pratika Shrestha Bikal Chaudhary Iyoti Kathayat Rejina Shrestha Prativa Karki Bimala Baniya Mamata Shrestha Sajina Shrestha Tekendra Bogati Bindu Dhungana Manjula Giri Santosh Kumar Yadav Yadav Prasad Pant Bir Bahadur Rai Manoj Kumar Mahato Sanu Kumari Lungeli Yamuna Karki Buddha Raj Tamang Menuka Thamsuhang Sarbagya Rayamajhi Yamuna Maharjan Deepak Kumar Khadka Mina Maya Pakhrin Sarita Mahatara 164 Appendix 10: Disclosure of Any Conflicts of Interest Name Sudhindra Shama Title Report Writing Expert Organization CAMRIS International Evaluation Position? ☐ Team Leader  Team member Evaluation Award Number (contract or other instrument) AID-367-C-15-00001 USAID Project(s) Evaluated (Include project name(s), implementer name(s) and award number{s), if applicable) Nepal Integrated Governance Project Endline Survey 2019 I have real or potential conflicts of interest to disclose. ☐Yes  No If yes answered above, I disclose the following facts: Real or potential conflicts of interest may include, but are not limited to: 1. Close family member who is on employee of the USAID operating unit managing the project(s) being evaluated or the implementing organization(s) whose project(s) ore being evaluated. 2. Financial interest that is direct; or is significant though indirect in the implementing organization{s) whose projects ore being evaluated or in the outcome of the evaluation. 3. Current or previous direct or significant though indirect experience with the project(s) being evaluated, including involvement in the project design or previous iterations of the project. 4. Current or previous work experience or seeking employment with the USAJD operating unit managing the evaluation or the implementing organization(s) whose project{s} are being evaluated. 5. Current or previous work experience with an organization that may be seen as on industry competitor with the implementing organization(s) whose project(s} are being evaluated. 6. Preconceived ideas toward individuals, groups, organizations, or objectives of the particular projects and organizations being evaluated that could bias the evaluation. I certify (1) that I have completed this disclosure form fully and to the best of my ability and (2) that I will update this disclosure form promptly if relevant circumstances change. If I gain access to proprietary information of other companies, then I agree to protect their information from unauthorized use or disclosure for as long as it remains proprietary and refrain from using the information for any purpose other than that for which it was furnished. Signature Date October 24, 2019