Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 1
Baseline Report
Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in 
South Sudan (ACCESS) Project-Upper 
Nile State, South Sudan
USAID/BHA Multi-Year EFSP
Award #: 720BHA21CA00004
World Vision South Sudan
Prepared by:
Research |Consultancy |Program |Training
InfoscopeConsulting Ltd
A Global leader in Research, Design and Evaluations of Humanitarian and Development Actions
Woodvale Grove-Westlands | Pride House 2
nd Floor
P.O. Box 45309-00100 | Nairobi-Kenya
+254-721-795-051
info@infoscope.co.ke
www.infoscope.co.ke
Published May, 2021 © World Vision South Sudan
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES.................................................................................................................................................................4
LIST OF FIGURES...............................................................................................................................................................4
i. Acknowledgements....................................................................................................................................................5
ii. Affirmation...................................................................................................................................................................6
iii. Glossary........................................................................................................................................................................7
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................................9
Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................................... 10
2.0 Emergency Background............................................................................................................................. 12
2.1 Context in Upper Nile................................................................................................................................ 12
2.2 Description of the project......................................................................................................................... 13
2.2.1 Implementation Approach....................................................................................................................... 14
2.3. Survey purpose................................................................................................................................................... 15
2.3.1 Survey objectives................................................................................................................................................ 15
3.0. METHODOLOGY........................................................................................................................................ 15
3.1. Survey Design..................................................................................................................................................... 15
3.2. Sampling methods.............................................................................................................................................. 15
3.2.1 Quantitative sampling methodology...................................................................................................... 15
3.3. Qualitative sampling methodology............................................................................................................... 17
3.3.1 Focus Group Discussions.............................................................................................................................. 17
3.3.2 Key Informant Interviews.............................................................................................................................. 17
3.4. Ethical considerations.................................................................................................................................. 18
3.5. Field data collection............................................................................................................................................ 18
3.6. Data quality control........................................................................................................................................... 18
3.7. Training of Research Assistants, Piloting/Pre-Test and Finalization of Tools............................................ 20
3.8. Data processing and analysis........................................................................................................................... 20
4.0. LIMITATIONS..................................................................................................................................................... 20
5.0 FINDINGS ........................................................................................................................................................... 21
5.1 Introduction......................................................................................................................................................... 21
5.2 Socio-demographic profiles of households.................................................................................................. 21
5.2.1 Marital status of respondents..................................................................................................................... 22
5.2.2 Literacy level................................................................................................................................................... 23
5.2.3 Main sources of income............................................................................................................................... 24
5.2.4. Non-productive and productive assets......................................................................................................... 25
5.2.5. Energy source for the household................................................................................................................... 26
5.3. Food Security...................................................................................................................................................... 26
5.3.1 Sources of food for the households.............................................................................................................. 26
5.4. Purpose 1: Strengthened household livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and nutrition................ 28
5.4.1. Indicator E2: Percentage of targeted households with poor, borderline, and acceptable Food 
Consumption Score (FCS)............................................................................................................................................. 28
5.4.2. Indicator E4: Prevalence of households with moderate or severe Household Hunger Score (HHS) 
Household Hunger Scale (HHS)................................................................................................................................... 30
5.5. Outcome 1.1: Improved household food production and storage....................................................... 31
5.5.1. BL21: Percentage of producers who have applied targeted improved agricultural management 
practices or technologies............................................................................................................................................... 32
5.5.2. Indicator M9: Number of hectares under improved management practices or technology. .......... 33
5.6. Outcome 1.2: Increased household income & economic empowerment of vulnerable groups..... 33
5.6.1. Indicator BL31: Percent of households participating in group based savings, micro-finance or 
lending programs.............................................................................................................................................................. 34
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 3
5.6.2. Indicator BL32: Percent of women and men in a union who earned cash in the past 12 months; 
disaggregated by sex and age........................................................................................................................................ 34
5.7. Outcome 1.3: Strengthened nutrition and IYCF interventions and integrated WASH services.... 35
5.7.1. BL12: Prevalence of children 6-36 months consuming a diet of minimum diversity. ........................ 35
5.7.2. BL13: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months; disaggregated by sex.36
5.7.3. BL27: Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service................................................ 37
5.7.4. BL16: Percent of households using basic drinking water services.......................................................... 37
5.7.5. BL17: Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station..................................... 39
5.8. Purpose 2: Strengthened community cohesion through improved disaster risk management, 
protection and mental health psycho-social support (MHPSS) services............................................................ 40
5.8.1. Indicator E3: Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI)................................................................................ 40
5.9. Outcome 2.2: Strengthened community managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) systems...... 41
5.10. Outcome 2.3: Equitable leadership systems and communal structures supported........................... 42
5.10.1. BL24: Percent of households that believe local government will respond effectively to future 
shocks and stresses; disaggregated by gendered household type........................................................................ 42
5.11. Outcome 2.4: Improved access to community based MHPSS resources and services to 
strengthen community cohesion.................................................................................................................................. 43
5.11.1. M37: Percent of community members participating in collective actions; 
disaggregated by activity participation............................................................................................................ 43
5.12. Outcome 2.5: Strengthened Rapid Response (RR) capacity to save lives and alleviate human 
suffering during rapid onset shocks............................................................................................................................. 43
5.12.1. Custom: Percentage of people reporting improved capacity to respond to and recover from 
sudden onset shocks....................................................................................................................................................... 43
5.13. Purpose 3: Strengthened coordination, systems and learning to support recovery and resilience.
44
5.13.1. BL28: Index of social capital at the household level; disaggregated by gendered household type, 
and social capital component........................................................................................................................................ 44
5.13.2. Custom: Percentage of people reporting improvements in their feelings of well-being and ability 
to cope at the end of the program.............................................................................................................................. 45
5.14. Cross-cutting. Proportion of female and male children aged 12-18 years who have experienced 
violence in the past 12 months (by type) - type to include physical, emotional, sexual,................................ 46
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS................................................................................. 48
6.1. Conclusions..................................................................................................................................................... 48
6.2. Recommendations........................................................................................................................................ 49
7.0 Appendices........................................................................................................................................................... 50
7.1 Appendix 1: Evaluation TOR........................................................................................................................... 50
7.2 Appendix 2: Baseline Values............................................................................................................................ 50
7.3 Appendix 3: Inception Report......................................................................................................................... 50
7.4 Appendix 4: ACCESS Log frame.................................................................................................................... 50
7.5 Appendix 5: Data Collection Tools.............................................................................................................. 50
7.5 Appendix 6: Datasets & Analysis Plan.......................................................................................................... 50
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: List of Payams to be targeted under the project..................................................................................... 14
Table 2: Sample size........................................................................................................................................................ 16
Table 3: Number of Focus Groups conducted......................................................................................................... 17
Table 4: Number of key informants per County..................................................................................................... 17
Table 5: Age categories of household members...................................................................................................... 22
Table 6: Respondents marital status........................................................................................................................... 22
Table 7: School attendance............................................................................................................................................ 23
Table 8: Household sources of income...................................................................................................................... 24
Table 9: Consumptive assets in the households............................................................................................................. 25
Table 10: Productive assets in the households......................................................................................................... 26
Table 11: Which is the main form of cooking energy used in the household?................................................ 26
Table 12: What have been the sources of food for your household in the last 30 days?.............................. 27
Table 13: Starting from March last year, is there month (s) that you had a difficulty in accessing food?... 27
Table 14: Main reason for difficulty in meeting household food needs.............................................................. 28
Table 15: Food Consumption score by category..................................................................................................... 29
Table 16: Household hunger scale............................................................................................................................... 30
Table 17: Producers who applied improved management practices or technologies..................................... 32
Table 18: Area under improved management practices or technologies.......................................................... 33
Table 20: Types of sanitation facilities........................................................................................................................ 37
Table 21: Sources of water for the households in the project area.................................................................... 38
Table 22: Water treatment methods in the project area...................................................................................... 39
Table 23: How they wash their hands by gendered HH type............................................................................... 40
Table 24: Coping mechanisms adopted...................................................................................................................... 41
Table 25: GBV challenges face by women in the community................................................................................ 46
Table 26: Barriers that prevent GBV survivors including women, girls, men and boys from accessing 
support including health support?................................................................................................................................ 47
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Organization of Fieldwork............................................................................................................................ 19
Figure 2: Gendered household type............................................................................................................................ 22
Figure 3: Literacy level of respondents....................................................................................................................... 23
Figure 4: Did you and/or your spouse earn any net income from your livelihoods in the last 12 months?
.............................................................................................................................................................................................. 24
Figure 5: Did you grow crop in your farm last season?.......................................................................................... 32
Figure 6: Percent of men and women in union who earned cash in the past 12 months.............................. 35
Figure 7: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding....................................................................................................... 36
Figure 8: Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station............................................. 39
Figure 9: Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index................................................................................ 42
Figure 10: Percent of HH that believe the local government to effectively respond in the event of shocks
and stresses....................................................................................................................................................................... 43
Figure 11: Percent of people who report improved capacity to respond and recover from sudden onset 
of shocks............................................................................................................................................................................ 44
Figure 12: Index of social capital at the Household level....................................................................................... 45
Figure 13: Percent of people reporting feelings of well-being and ability to cope at the end of the
program.............................................................................................................................................................................. 46
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 5
i. Acknowledgements
The Consulting team would like to take this opportunity to express gratitude to World Vision South 
Sudan for entrusting us with conducting the Baseline Study for the Accelerating Recovery and 
Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) project in Upper Nile State. Many thanks go to the entire 
ACCESS Project staff at the National Office and field level for their technical support during this very 
important assignment.
We acknowledge all the relevant stakeholders including the project participants and partners notably;
WFP, IOM, the National, State and County officers, Payam leaders, Boma chiefs, local leaders, men, 
women, girls, boys and youth. We thank and acknowledge them for their participation and contributions 
without which this report would not be possible. 
We cannot forget the community members in Upper Nile State in particular those in the Counties of 
Renk, Melut, Baliet, Ulang and Nasir for letting us share their personal lives and for their willingness to 
participate in a study of such sensitive nature.
The work of associate Consultants; Johnny Okeny and David Mina was commendable and cannot go 
unnoticed. They worked tirelessly to ensure timely and quality achievement of all their deliverables. We 
also extend our deepest appreciation to the field data collection team. While they were too many of them 
to mention individually, we thank each of them for their dedication to the baseline process. 
Special appreciation goes to WVUS (Support Office) and their staff for the provision of the much-needed 
resources for the implementing of the ACCESS project in Upper Nile State.
To you all whom we might have not mentioned, we kindly request that you accept our sincere message 
of appreciation and God’s blessings.
Jared Mala
Lead Consultant
E-mail: jmala@infoscope.co.ke
Skype: jared.mala
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 6
ii. Affirmation
Except as acknowledged by the references in this paper to other authors and publications, the study 
process, findings, interpretations, conclusions and recommendations consist of work carried out by 
Infoscope Consulting Ltd on behalf of World Vision South Sudan to inform project design in terms of 
strategies based on the lessons learnt and emerging needs, aspirations and priorities of World Vision 
South Sudan and also to inform program management on decisions for program implementation and 
monitoring as well as management and assessment.
This baseline survey is part of the organizational effort towards continuous learning, and garnering 
evidence on recovery and resilience in South Sudan to better serve the most vulnerable populations of 
South Sudan. Findings from this baseline will establish benchmarks for project performance indicators 
against which project success will be measured. The baseline measurements will be used to calculate 
change in these indicators and undertake a statistical test of differences in the indicators at completion of 
the project.
All Primary quantitative and qualitative information collected throughout the baseline process remains the 
property of the communities and families described in this document. Information and data must be used 
only with their consent. 
April, 2021 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 7
iii. Glossary
ACCESS Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan 
BHA Bureau for Humanitarian Assistance 
CBO Community Based Organization
CHEW Community Health Extension worker
CDCs Community Development Committees
CNA Child No Adult
CLTS Community Led Total Sanitation
CoP Chief of Party
COVID Corona Virus Disease
CU5 Children under five
DME Design Monitoring & Evaluation
Doz Dozen
DRM Disaster Risk Management
EFSP Emergency Food Security Program 
FNM Female No Male
FAO Food & Agriculture Organization
FIES Food Insecurity Experience Scale 
FCS Food Consumption Score 
FGD Focus Group discussion
GBV Gender Based Violence
GoSS Government of South Sudan
HH Household
HDC Humanitarian and Development Consortium 
ICL Infoscope Consulting Limited
IDPs Internally Displaced Persons 
IGAs Income Generating Activities
INGO International Non-Governmental Organization
IPC Integrated Food Security Phase Classification
HHS Household Hunger Score 
KII Key Informant Interview
M&F Male and Female
MHPSS Mental Health and Psychosocial Support 
NGO Non-Governmental Organization
MNF Male No Female
NH Nile Hope 
NO National Office 
ODK Open Data Kit
PLW Pregnant and Lactating women 
PMB Population Movement Baseline 
PPS Probability Proportionate to size 
SME Small & Medium Enterprise
SOPs Standard Operating Procedures 
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences 
SSP South Sudan Pounds
rCSI Reduced Coping Strategy Index 
SWEMWBS Short Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale
S4T Saving for Transformation
SO Support Office 
TOR Terms of reference
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 8
UNICEF United Nations Children's Fund
UNS Upper Nile State
USD United States Dollar
USAID United States Agency for International Development
WASH Water Sanitation & Hygiene
WUA Water Users Association
WFP World Food Program
WV World Vision 
WVSS World Vision South Sudan
WVUS World Vision US
 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 9
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
World Vision has been awarded a three-year (36 month) project that seeks to meet the immediate life￾saving food assistance needs of 25,198 vulnerable households. The project will run from December 
2020 – December 2023. WV will support vulnerable communities to promote and sustain their 
resilience to acute shocks and chronic stresses by building their absorptive, adaptive and transformative 
capacities1. 
Prior to implementation, WVSS commissioned Infoscope Consulting Limited to conduct a baseline survey 
in the target counties to establish benchmarks for project outcome/impact indicators against which project 
successes will be measured at the end of the project. The baseline measurements will be used to calculate 
change in these indicators and undertake a statistical test of differences in the indicators at completion of 
the project. The baseline study was conducted using both participatory quantitative and qualitative 
approaches consisting of a documentary review and a primary field data collection and analysis employing; 
review of secondary documents; Household Survey questionnaire; Focus group discussions with project 
participants; Key Informant Interviews with project participants and stakeholders and Observations (field 
visits using checklist).
The following are summarized key findings.
Socio-demographic profile
 Majority of the respondents (59.2%) were IDPs; 35.6% were residents/host while 5.3% were 
returnees. 
 On gendered household type, Male & Female (71.9%); Female No Male (23.2%), Male No Female 
(4.7%) while Child No Adult was a paltry 0.3%. 
 85.3% of the respondents were married. 
 Overall literacy level of respondents in the project area is still below average at 49.6% (males-34%; 
female-66%);
Purpose 1: Strengthened household livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and nutrition.
 59.2% of the households have a poor FCS (0-28), 17.4% at the borderline of the FCS (28.1-42) 
and 23.4% within the acceptable range (above 43).
 82.7% of the households experience moderate hunger, while 17.3% little or no hunger.
Outcome 1.1: Improved household food production and storage
 26.8% of the households have applied improved agricultural management practices or 
technologies.
 A total of 1,411 hectares was under improved management practices or technologies. 
 A total of 1,663 individuals in the households reportedly applied improved management 
practices of technologies, of whom, 846 (53.5%) were male and 817 (46.5%) were female.
Outcome 1.2: Increased household income & economic empowerment of vulnerable group 1,500 HHs
 32.1% of households are participating in group based savings, micro-finance or lending programs.
 32.2% women and men in a union earned cash in the 12 months preceding the survey.
Outcome 1.3: Strengthened nutrition and IYCF interventions and integrated WASH services
 36% of children (6-36 months) with minimum dietary diversity, higher than the national average 
of only 15 percent. Disaggregated by gendered household type as follows; M&F (73.6%), FNM 
(20.2%), MNF (5.8%) and CNA (0.4%).
 
1
ToR WV South Sudan EFSP Baseline SOW-Final, January, 2021
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 10
 16.3% (male-49.9%; female-50.1%) of the children age 0-5.99 months were exclusively breastfed
compared to the national average of 69%. Disaggregated by gendered HH type (M&F- 75.2; FNM￾22.6%; MNF-2.2% and CNA-0.0%).
 12.7% of the households use improved sanitation facilities compared to the South Sudan national 
average of 17%.
 5.7% of the households surveyed had access to basic drinking water services compared to 50% 
national average.
 27.5% of the households surveyed had soap and water at a hand washing station.
Purpose 2: Strengthened community cohesion through improved disaster risk management, protection 
and mental health psycho-social support (MHPSS) services.
 The baseline survey recorded a rCSI of 40.6. On disaggregation by Gendered Household: Female 
and Male Adults (F&M) had 41, Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM) had 37, Adult Male no Adult 
Female (MNF) had 42, Child no Adults (CNA) had 43.
Outcome 2.2: Strengthened community managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) systems
 The survey recorded an index score of 26, meaning reduced capacity to recover from shocks.
Disaggregated by gendered HH type; M&F recorded the highest ability to recover at 34 followed
by FNM at 14 and MNF at 2. Child headed HH had 0 score meaning no capacity to recover.
Outcome 2.3: Equitable leadership systems and communal structures supported
 Only 23.3% of the respondent households believe the government can effectively respond to
shocks and stresses with the majority of such households being those with M&F (50%), followed
by FNM (12.4%) and MNF at 8.8%. None of the child headed HH believed the government can
respond effusively to shocks and stresses.
Outcome 2.4: Improved access to community based MHPSS resources and services to strengthen 
community cohesion
 44.2% of the households were reportedly engaged in community collective actions.
Outcome 2.5: Strengthened Rapid Response (RR) capacity to save lives and alleviate human suffering during 
rapid onset shocks
 33.4% of the HH reported improved capacity to respond and recover from sudden onset of
shocks. On disaggregation by gendered HH type; M&F household recording the highest at 36.4%;
followed by FNM at 32.5%, MNF at 29.3% and CNA at 2%.
Purpose 3: Strengthened coordination, systems and learning to support recovery and resilience.
 Overall social capital index of 25 with M&F householdsrecording the highest at 34 followed by
FNM at 13, MNF at 2 and CNA at 0.
Outcome 3.1: Improved capacity of the community to coordinate, integrate knowledge and learning on 
recovery and resilience.
 Proportion of households with positive mental well-being, i.e. flourishing stands at 22.7% (M&F￾30%; FNM-6.4%;MNF-1.4%andCNA-0) meaning that generally people have a lowof near negative
feeling of well-being about theirlives.
Recommendations
Purpose 1: Strengthened household livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and nutrition.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 11
WV and partners to promote food diversification and promotion of maternal child care
interventions.
WV and partners to promote climate smart practices already being adopted by the community
like; rain water harvesting, small scale irrigation, control of soil erosion including mulching,
construction of gabions and terraces, kitchen gardening and agro-forestry.
Outcome 1.1: Improved household food production and storage
WV and partners to promote improved agricultural management practices or technologies in the 
project area.
Infrastructure; access to markets, water for production, capital for agribusiness and inadequate
land for farming callsfor GoSS intervention and advocacy around resource allocation at all levels.
Outcome 1.2: Increased household income & economic empowerment of vulnerable groups.
WV to consider supporting alternative livelihood initiatives coupled with micro financing in the
form of S4Ts will go a long way in transitioning the community from poverty.
Outcome 1.3: Strengthened nutrition and IYCF interventions and integrated WASH services
WV and partners to promote exclusive breastfeeding through increased sensitization and
awareness creation.
WV and partners to promote optimal IYCN practices among PLW.
WV and partners to promote education of expectant mothers on proper nutrition provision of
diversified dietsfor children including assorted fruits and vegetables that are locally available.
WV to rally partners to increase investment in water infrastructure development e.g. pipeline
system extension to furtherreduce walking distance for women and girls who are mostly involved
in water collection.
WV to rally all partnersin identification of most appropriate watertechnologiesforsurface water.
WV to rally all partners to invest more resources and efforts to increase access to improved
sanitation. The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach and design for behavior change
should be adopted.
WV to rally all partners to introduce more innovation on simple, affordable but quality adoptable
improved sanitation structures for HH using sanitation led marketing approaches.
WV and partners to capacity build water committees on governance issues to ensure proper
water management that will guarantee sustainability.
WV and partners to build capacity of CHEWs, WUAs, CBOs and other community structure
groupsto integrate and sensitize communities on proper hygiene practices at household level.
Purpose 2: Strengthened community cohesion through improved disaster risk management, protection 
and mental health psycho-social support (MHPSS) services.
WV will work closely with community disaster management and peace committees to document
early warnings for both conflict and natural disasters.
Outcome 2.2: Strengthened community managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) systems
WV and partners to support capacity building trainings on DRM, cushioning them from potential 
disasters.
GoSS and partners to support crosssector and multi stakeholder coordination and linkage.
All stakeholders to support peace activities like; Peace Committees and Peace Clubs DPRC
meetings, women leader’s peace meetings, youth leaders meetings, elders dialogue meetings,
Youth peace tournament, peace committee meetings and community resource committees to
bring lasting peace in the area.
GoSS to undertake disarmament exercise to rid the area of illegal arms among civilians.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 12
2.0 Emergency Background
Despite slight improvements in crop production, high levels of food insecurity still persist throughout 
South Sudan with an estimated 6.48 million people classified as in Crisis (IPC Phase 3) or higher 2 .
Household assets and coping strategies continue to erode due to the protracted nature of the crisis,
leading to the weakening of HH resilience to future shocks, with, 66% of HHs resorting to emergency or
crisis coping strategies3. In October 2019, the GoSS declared a disaster emergency in 27 counties due to 
catastrophic flooding, acutely felt in Upper Nile state (UNS), resulting in widespread displacement and loss 
of productive land, affecting over 1 million people4.Nearly 7.5 million persons need humanitarian assistance
of which 54% are children in desperate need of protection5.Of the 78 counties affected, 45 counties are
in extreme need – 30 percent of which are in UNS. A r m e d military conflict has exacerbated
communal conflict, contributing to the breakdown of protective social norms and traditionalmechanisms
of mediation6.
Even though more than half of all females aged 15-24 have experienced some form of gender-based violence
(GBV), casesremain under-reported by survivors due to fear of stigma or re-victimization and reliance on 
traditional justice structures7. Despite the emergence of gender equality legislation and increased women
engagement in public and private spaces, men continue to lead power and decision-making processes8.
Harmful traditional practices are widespread in South Sudan, inclusive of early and forced marriage (EFM)
including levirate marriage and marriage following cattle raids, alongside polygamy, a n d women/girls’
lack of accessto financialresources/property.Widespread acceptance of violence against women (another
form of gender-based violence [GBV]), by both women and men, is indicative of its socialized tolerance9.
Intimate partner violence regularly comprises at least half of all reported GBV incidents10.
The mental health and well-being of the population is severely affected following high rates of exposure
to other distressing events11. A study conducted in eight states of South Sudan reveals that up to 81%of
people have been exposed to a traumatic event, with 40% having developed Post Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD) as a result12. An increase of suicide and suicide attempts has been recorded, especially
among young adults between 19 and 35 years, in the Malakal PoC site and Malakal town, due to lack of
socioeconomic opportunities and feelings of helplessness and hopelessness13.
2.1 Context in Upper Nile
Upper Nile State is one of the states of South Sudan most negatively affected by the crisis, with 53% of its 
population (735,000 people) facing Crisis or worse food insecurity during the upcoming lean season14. All 
12 counties in UNS face critical levels of acute malnutrition, with Renk showing persistently critical levels
of acute malnutrition for the fourth consecutive year15. According to the IPC Acute Malnutrition scale, 
Baliet and Renk are classified as Serious (GAM 10-14.9%), likely to deteriorate further during the lean 
season with Baliet, Melut, Ulang, Nasir and Renk counties projected to be in Critical (GAM 15-29.9%) 
 
2
FEWSNET Outlook. June to September 2020
3 WFP VAM. Food Security andNutrition. July 2019
4 https://reliefweb.int/map/south-sudan/south-sudan-seasonal-floods-analysis-maps-october-2019
5 HumanitarianNeeds Overview, 2020
6
Stabilization and Local Conflicts: Communal and Civil Warin South Sudan, Jana Krause, 2019
7 UNICEF South Sudan Country Office, "Gender-Based Violence," (January 2019).
8 https://www.southsudanpeaceportal.com/wp-content /uploads /2018/03 /Gender_final.pdf
9 https://conflictandhealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-1505-7-4
10 https://www. si da. se /gl obal a sset s/si da/sv e/l a nde r/kri sa naly se r/hca _ sout h_ suda n_ cri si s_2 02 0. pdf
11 https://plan-international.org/publications/girls-crisis-south-sudan
12 Ng, Lopez, Deng, D, 2017
13 HNO, 2020
14 http://www.ipcinfo.org/ipc-country-analysis/details-map/en/c/1152422/?iso3=SSD
15 Ibid
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 13
levels. Nine out of 12 counties in UNS will face IPC Emergency Phase 4 food insecurity in the Jun-Sept. 
period, with the remaining three counties (Renk, Melut, and Fashoda) still in persistent Crisis Phase 3 
levels16.
Excessive flooding from late 2019 to March 2020 affected crop production and livestock in the Sobat 
Corridor. A joint assessment by WV Veterinary staff and Department of Veterinary Services in the State
Ministry of Agriculture (MOA) reported an average number of 1,092 livestock lost due to floods with 17 
cases of livestock diseasesreported in Renk andMelut Counties. Crop pests,such asthe Fall ArmyWorm, 
black beetles and grasshoppers, also affected crop production in UNS in the last production season17. The
loss of livestock due to floods, disease outbreaks and conflict, further diminishes the community’s
livelihoods base making them more vulnerable and food insecure. Most IDPs and host communities
reported slaughtering and eating their livestock as a coping strategy, while others opt to sell their herds 
to meet their immediate food need18
South Sudan recorded its first COVID-19 case in March 2020. Due to travel restrictions and border 
closures intended to reduce the spread of the virus, the pandemic could have huge impact on food 
availability or prices. This situation could hinder household’s ability to afford adequate food for 
consumption, particularly among returnee HHs, as income from casual labor and market disruptions 
combined with rising food prices reduce HH purchasing power 19.
The current national conflict has escalated the ethnic divisions between Dinka, Shiluk and Nuer groups
within Sobat Corridor while violence and frequency of cattle raids have increased, particularly in Ulang 
and Nasir. Human insecurity is intrinsically linked with food insecurity in South Sudan, with inter￾communal clashes accounting for the majority of security risks, resulting in disruption of livelihoods, loss 
of lives and displacement20. Key drivers include disputes over grazing lands, cattle raids, revenge killings, 
and proliferation of arms, especially in areas hosting IDPs and returnees. The lack of economic 
opportunities for young people and other vulnerable groups is also a cause of insecurity21. 
GBV, abuse and exploitation remain the greatest protection risks to women and girls, due to a deeply
patriarchal society which sustains gender inequalities and discrimination. GBV is linked with poor nutrition 
outcomes for women and children, poor livelihoods productivity, and high rates of psychological and 
protection needs22. Men and women alike have been socialized to tolerate GBV, and it is widely viewed 
as acceptable within families. Intimate partner violence comprises at least half of all reported GBV 
incidents23
To address the above issues, WV South Sudan was awarded $15,000,000 by USAID through BHA to 
implement a 36-month project dubbed ‘‘Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan 
(ACCESS) in Upper Nile State’’. The project will support vulnerable communities to promote and 
sustain their resilience to acute shocks and chronic stresses by building their absorptive, adaptive and 
transformative capacities.
2.2 Description of the project
World Vision has been awarded a three-year (December 2020 – December 2023) project that seeks to
 
16 South Sudan IPC Technical Working Group: IPC Acute Food Insecurity & Acute Malnutrition. October 2020 - July 2021
17 http://www.fao.org/ag/locusts/common/ecg/75/en/200414updateE.jpg
18 https://fscluster.org/south-sudan-rep/documents?f%5B0%5D=field_document_sources%3A104
19 WVSS FY20 Final Technical Narrative Proposal, August 2020
20 South Sudan Protection Cluster. Guidance Note on Strengthening Social Cohesion. November 2019
21 Ibid
22 HNO 2019
23 HNO, 2020
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 14
address the erosion of food security in Upper Nile State by integrating essential complementary
interventions to accomplish the Project Goal of accelerating recovery and bolstering resilience in
UNS. This suite of coordinated and complementary interventions will result in the following purposes
being achieved: (1) Strengthened household livelihoods, agricultural productivity and nutrition; (2)
Strengthened community cohesion through improved disaster risk management, protection and Mental 
health and psychosocial support (MHPSS)24 services; and (3) Strengthened coordination, systems, and 
learning, to support recovery and resilience.
The project is prioritizing hard-to-reach and most vulnerable households in Renk, Melut, Baliet, Ulang
and Nasir counties of UNS. The project is targeting 25,198 households (151,188 individuals) either in
IPC Phase 3 or Phase 4 food insecurity, 
Participants will be identified through existing WFP and FAO caseloads in the targeted counties to 
ensure that essential complementary activities “wrap-around” to enhance and leverage the existing
emergency pipeline for achieving greaterresilience of the targeted communities. Table 1 below shows 
the list of Payams targeted under the ACCESS project per County.
Table 1: List of Payams to be targeted under the project
County Payam CurrentWVProgramming
Renk Northern Renk, Chemedi, Gerger
Southern Renk &Jelahak
FAO (main & dry season response); FAO Livelihoods
Resilience of Pastoral and Agro-Pastoral Communities
Program, WFP (cash-based and GFD+)
Melut Bimachuk (Pariak), Paloich, Wunamum,
Goldora, Melut,Thangrial &Panomdit
OFDA (with FAO inputs); FAO (main and dry season
response, FAO Livelihoods Resilience of Pastoral and Agro￾Pastoral Communities Program); WFP (schoolfeeding, lean
season GFD), UNICEF (nutrition)
Baliet
Adong, Abwong, Rom, Wunthow,
Nyongrial, Nyongkuach, Kuel, Gel
Achiel, Akotweng & Akoka
OFDA (with FAO inputs); WFP (school feeding, lean
season GFD)
Ulang Doma, Kurmuot, Ulang&Yomding WFP GFD+
Nasir Nasir, Roam, Maker, Mading, Dingkar,
Jikmir, KiechKuon &Kuerenge-Ke
WFP GFD+
2.2.1 Implementation Approach
The project implementation is adoptingWV’sFragile Context Programmatic Approach (FCPA)
reflecting a multi-sectoral, layered approach to resilience, supporting communities to cope with shocks
along a resilience trajectory. The FCPA provides a pathway for WV to address the root causes of
fragility and deepen sustainable impact of work in these contexts. At the heart of the framework is
the agility to work across the humanitarian, development and peace-building Nexus. This means WV can
constantly adapt to the changing context, shifting seamlessly from meeting immediate humanitarian
needs (survive) to addressing root causes to transform communities (thrive),through agile,multi
sectoral, community based,risk informed programming (adapt).
Project participants will be selected from the WFP food assistance programs that are ongoing in the 
targeted locations. WV will select households that have access to farmland to participate in agricultural 
production activities. Households with knowledge and skills in fishing will be targeted for interventions in 
fisheries. Households with pregnant and lactating mothers and children under age five will be eligible for 
 
24 MHPSS includes any support that people receive to protect or promote their mental health and psychosocial wellbeing
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 15
participation in nutrition interventions. Households with no access to latrines will be selected to 
participate in WASH interventions. WV will target women, girls, boys and men in protection and GBV 
interventions. Those identified to have experienced infringement of their rights will be targeted for MPHSS 
and IGA interventions. WV will use WFP Scope beneficiary lists to verify registered beneficiaries. WV will 
work with food distribution committees conduct physical verification of selected beneficiaries.
Prior to implementation, WVSS commissioned Infoscope Consulting Limited to conduct a baseline survey
in the target counties to establish benchmarks for project outcome/impact indicators against which project 
success will be measured at the end of the project.
2.3. Survey purpose 
The purpose of this baseline survey was specifically to establish benchmarks for project outcome/impact
indicators against which project success will be measured. The baseline measurements will be used to 
calculate change in these indicators and undertake a statistical test of differences in the indicators at 
completion of the project. The focus will be on changes in the indicators pre- and post- implementation, 
but no conclusions about attribution or causation. 
2.3.1 Survey objectives
Specifically, the baseline survey served the following purposes:
 Determine the base values for the project outcome and impact indicators;
 Validate and strengthen project targeting and implementation approach;
 Describe the vulnerability context of the targeted community in relation to socio-economic, 
natural/environmental, and health.
The baseline survey sought to answer the following questions/topics:
 General status of targeted households – Source of food, number of household members, main 
income sources; hunger at HH level, WASH status (access to clean water, access to basic 
sanitation facilities and hygiene practice at HH level), and HH ability to recover from shocks, etc.
 The status/availability of community assets and their utilization.
3.0. METHODOLOGY
3.1. Survey Design
The baseline study was conducted using both participatory quantitative and qualitative approaches 
consisting of a documentary review and a primary field data collection and analysis involving;
 Review of secondary documents.
 Household Survey questionnaire.
 Focus group discussions with project participants.
 Key Informant Interviews with project participants and stakeholders.
 Observations (field visits using checklist).
3.2. Sampling methods
3.2.1 Quantitative sampling methodology
The survey sampling targeted the Payams with WFP registered participants in the targeted counties as 
the sampling frame. The HH survey employed stratified two-stage cluster sampling design with Probability 
Proportional to Size (PPS) for household quantitative survey respondents. This was to ensure that 
households in the different clusters (Payams) have the same probability of selection. Therefore, more 
households were selected from Payams with more WFP registered participants than those with lower 
WFP participants (Table 2). The first stage of sampling involved sampling clusters (clusters) that were to 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 16
serve as the primary units for the survey. The second stage of sampling involved sampling households 
from the selected clusters (Payams) using systematic random sampling. 
Table 2: Sample size
County Population WFP participants Sample size
Renk 189,061 15,909 143
Melut 126,691 11,632 105
Baliet 56,348 8,816 79
Ulang 137,691 27,410 246
Nasir 286,628 19,655 177
Total 796,419 83,420 750
3.2.2. Sample Size Calculation
The formula for calculating sample size for the baseline was predetermined as: 
Where: 
𝑛initial = is the initial sample size required by the surveys for each of the two time points 
𝛿 = 𝑃1, est − 𝑃2, st = minimum effect size to be achieved over the time frame specified by the two surveys 
𝑃1, est = represents a survey estimate of the true population proportion 𝑃1 at baseline [If such an estimate 
is not available from prior surveys, 0.5 will be used] 
𝑃2, st = represents a survey estimate of the true population proportion 𝑃2 at end line 
𝑧1−∝ is the value from the normal probability distribution corresponding to a confidence level 1−𝛽. For 
1−𝛽 = 0.95, the corresponding value is 𝑧0.95= 1.64. 
𝑧1−𝛽 is the value from the normal probability distribution corresponding to a power level of 1−𝛽. 
For 1−𝛽 = 0.80, the corresponding value is 𝑧0.80 = 0.84. 
𝐷est is the estimated design effect (DEFF) of the survey.
The values to be used in calculating FCS and HHS sample size for multistage sampling are:
𝑃1,est 50% (0.5) 
𝑃2,𝑒st 40% (0.4) 
𝑧1−∝ 95% (1.64) 
𝑧1−𝛽 80% (0.84)
𝐷est 2
𝑛initial 610
Non-response adjustments 10%
𝑛final 671
Adjusted sample size 750
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 17
3.3. Qualitative sampling methodology
3.3.1 Focus Group Discussions
In addition to the household survey, a total of fifteen (15) Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) were held 
after preliminary analysis of the quantitative data. The FGDs were selected through purposive sampling 
methodology. The FGDs were conducted with groups of registered WFP participants through the 
collection of a range of opinions and perceptions. To reduce the spread of Covid-19 during FGDs sessions, 
the FGDs were limited to 6 participants and took a maximum 1 hour. 
Every FGD was composed of men, women, and youths (boys and girls) randomly selected among the 
registered WFP participants in the project area. The groups were gender-mixed or gender-segregated and 
included; farmers (men/women), PLW with children U5; youths (boys and girls) and female-headed 
households. The topical issues ranged from; resilience and livelihood (SMEs, fishing, vocational training, 
etc); agriculture productivity, IYCF/nutrition, WASH, IGAs, GBV, SMEs, DRM and social cohesion. 
For purposes of plural investigation, the exercise was conducted with a broad range of representation 
within the community to enable triangulation of findings and incorporate wide - ranging perspectives.
Typically, the FGDs were conducted by a facilitator and a note taker using pre-determined, distinct focus
group guides with relevant themes. The FGDs also served to validate information/data generated by the 
household survey, key informant interviews and observations. 
To reduce the spread of COVID-19 during FGDs sessions we ensured the participants wore face masks 
and were not in close contact with one another for a prolonged period by sitting a distance of at least 1 
meter between each other. In addition, we ensured they washed their hands with soap and water before 
and after the interviews and also avoided shaking hands and touching each other. Table 3 shows the 
number of Focus Group Discussions held per County.
Table 3: Number of Focus Groups conducted
County Number of Focus Group Target
Renk 3 men, women, Youth (boys and girls) 
Melut 3 men, women, Youth (boys and girls) 
Baliet 3 men, women, Youth (boys and girls) 
Ulang 3 men, women, Youth (boys and girls) 
Nasir 3 men, women, Youth (boys and girls) 
Total 15
3.3.2 Key Informant Interviews
The survey planned and conducted twenty seven (27) Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) during field data 
collection exercise. The entire key stakeholders that will be involved in the ACCESS project 
implementation were involved in the study. The interviews were conducted by the consultant team of 
experts utilizing mainly face-to-face and in some instances virtually through phone calls to reduce the risk 
of spreading COVID-19. The KIIs were recorded during the interview process and later transcribed.
Those interviewed comprised: County Commissioners, focal staff from WFP, FAO, UNICEF, IOM, WV, 
County officials, camp and Payam leaders. Others reached with interviews were; directors of line State 
ministries (Agriculture, Health and Water Resources, Livestock and Fisheries), County/State government 
officials, RRC/ROSS Coordinator at County level and Community representatives including; Boma chief, 
Community Development Committees (CDCs) and representatives of food distribution committees at 
Payam level (Table 4).
Table 4: Number of key informants per County
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 18
County Number of key informants
Renk 6
Melut 5
Baliet 5
Ulang 5
Nasir 6
Total 27
3.4. Ethical considerations
The below ethical considerations were adhered to during the survey process:
 Participation in the survey was voluntary. 
 Informed consent was sought before data gathering and consent forms signed by respondents.
 Anonymity, confidentiality and safeguarding of survey data was guaranteed. 
 Quantitative data was obtained from a randomly selected representative sample. 
 There were no risks and benefits for individual participants.
 The culture, norms and traditions of study populations were respected. 
 Views and opinions of the different survey subjects were respected.
 Prior permission was received for taking and use of visual still/moving images.
 Abide by the “Do No Harm” principle especially in the context of COVID-19 was employed.
 Data collection was conducted in conformity to the COVID-19 directives issued by WHO and GoSS
Ministry of Health (MOH).
3.5. Field data collection
Quantitative survey data was captured realtime using android phones installed with ODK app platform 
using open data server. Data were captured offline and later uploaded to WV servers at the end of each
day where possible. Due to the current COVID-19 outbreak, the survey relied on both in-person or face￾to-face means, and in some cases remote/phone interviews for selected key informants who were 
physically inaccessible due to security or other reasons.
The interviews and discussions were conducted mainly in Arabic or in other language preferred by the 
respondents, then translated back to English. Typically, the FGDs were conducted by a facilitator and a 
note taker using pre-determined, distinct focus group guides with relevant themes. To reduce the spread 
of Covid-19 during FGDs sessions, the FGDs were limited to 6 participants and took a maximum 1 hour. 
Key informant interviews were conducted mainly using phone calls to reduce the risk of spreading 
COVID-19. The interviews were conducted using a predetermined guide with open ended questionsfor
specific informants.
The baseline survey team also observed people’s physical condition and activities; asked questions; visited 
homes/shelters/IDP camps etc.; observed children, sanitation facilities, water sources, handwashing 
station, food sources; observed daily lives of women; observed services; make sketches and took
photographs.
3.6. Data quality control
The consultants took cognizance that quality output at every stage is fundamental to the success of the 
entire survey system. Emphasis was on making every team member in this survey a part of the quality 
control processes and methodologies to deliver high standard data according to research standards and 
ethics. The overall role of ensuring quality output during fieldwork and data processing fell under the 
docket of the Lead Consultant, supported by array of staff including Associate Consultants, Data Manager, 
Field Coordinator, County supervisors and Enumerators (Figure 1). The survey recruited 30 Enumerators 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 19
and planned to cover 750 HHs in 5 days across the 5 counties during fieldwork. To ensure that the survey 
yielded credible and high-quality data, the consulting team endeavored to limit chances of errors both 
during data collection and data processing.
Figure 1: Organization of Fieldwork
A range of approaches were used to ensure quality and validity. Solid descriptive data is presented so that 
there is enough internally coherent information in order that others can attach their own interpretations. 
A systematic process of respondent selection was ensured and for transparency, the analytical procedures 
and processes are reported as fully and truthfully as possible. The participatory approach also promoted 
the involvement of a wide range of stakeholders, while employing methods that encourage equal 
expression of views. 
Granted the survey findings could be affected by threats to internal and external validity, care was taken 
to mitigate the threats. To ensure validity of research instruments this study adopted content validity to 
assess how relevant the instruments captured specific study questions. To minimize random error the 
study ensured that all items accurately addressed the questions. To ensure validity, the instruments were 
pre-tested based before the actual study commenced. 
The methodologies were also designed to deliver high standard data according to research standards and 
ethics. The enumerators’ training emphasized the importance of ethical practice, care and attention to 
detail in interviewing and recording responses. 
Strict supervision, guidance and backstopping was done by the Lead Consultant and the entire team. 
During fieldwork, daily reporting meetings were organized to address any data gaps and quality concerns. 
Field Coordinator
Nutrition Specialist
Data Manager WASH Specialist
Consultant
Agriculture Specialist
Lead Consultant-FS&L Specialist
Renk Melut Baliet Ulang Nasir
County supervisors
30 Field Enumerators each conducting 5 interviews for 5 days=Total 750 Households
FGD/KII Facilitators
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 20
The work of the interviewers was regularly checked and any problems were thus rectified in the field. 
Daily data quality checks were done at the end of the day to address quality lapses. Further cleaning with 
logical checks was carried out on the completed data sets prior to analysis.
3.7. Training of Research Assistants, Piloting/Pre-Test and Finalization of Tools
The enumeration team was taken through a detailed training session facilitated by the consultants in strict 
conformity with the WHO and GoSS guidelines on COVID-19. During the training on the survey
objectives, approach and the standard data collection procedures to be implemented during the survey
were reviewed in detail. The instruments review did not only entail the reading and discussing of each of 
the questions, but also included plenary mocking sessions by the enumerators to assess the flow, 
consistency and appropriateness of the phrases and terms used therein. 
The other issues covered during the training included the general background of the project, why the 
survey is being undertaken in the identified target areas, the survey samples (target respondents, sample 
points and sizes), the survey timelines, client expectation of the data collection team, the communication 
protocol during the survey, data quality control during the survey, modalities for handling challenges and 
related issues, logistical plan in the survey, payment terms, and the applicable contracts. 
Pretesting was done externally covering Payams not targeted for support under ACCESS project before 
debrief with all the participants to review the observations, experiences and challenges that might be 
encountered. This exercise informed the final changes made in the data collection tools and/or approach 
implemented during the actual data collection phase.
3.8. Data processing and analysis
Both descriptive and inferential analysis of data from the survey was carried out by use of SPSS and MS 
Excel for quantitative data. Data analysis, whenever appropriate, has been segregated by location and sex. 
The collected data has therefore been collated, analyzed and interpreted in a coherent and systematic 
manner, using detailed data / information analysis method(s). All the indicators under investigation were 
analyzed on gendered consideration as per USAID/BHA guidelines i.e. Male & Adult HH – M&F, Adult 
Male no Adult Female – MNF, Adult Female No Adult Male household – FNM and Child No Adult 
Household - CNA. The qualitative data collected through discussions and key informant interviews were 
coded first before content analysis. Information from the desk review, interviews, discussions, 
observations and survey findings were integrated using question by answer matrices method to facilitate 
comparisons. Responses were coded and analyzed for themes and compared to validate quantitative 
results and identify any possible findings not included in the quantitative results.
The quantitative data obtained from the ODK were exported to both Excel and the Statistical Package for 
Social Sciences (SPSS) version 22.0. The analysis using SPSS software involved summary, presentation 
(tabulation and charts) and descriptive statistics (means, standard deviations, and frequencies). Frequencies 
and percentages were calculated to describe the basic characteristics of the data. 
Cross tabulations has been used to show the relationship between two or more survey questions. In this 
survey, a combination of several research methods were utilized to get the wide view of the labour market 
and thus triangulation was a significant tool. Triangulation facilitated validation of data through cross 
verification from two or more sources.
4.0. LIMITATIONS
In spite of the multiple methods utilized and the data explored in execution of this baseline survey, the 
following limitations are acknowledged:
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 21
The survey had initially sampled 750 HHs, but only 739 HHs were reached due to insecurity and 
difficult context in some Payams along the ‘‘Sobat corridor’’ (Nasir, Ulang & Baliet Counties). The 
sample size further reduced to 730 after data cleaning, which was still within the range.
There was an incident of revenge killings in Ulang County on the second day of data collection, 
which resulted in data halting of fieldwork for 2 days to monitor the situation. Fieldwork 
nevertheless resumed but some locations could not be accessed for fear of repeat of such incident.
All field locations in Nasir are only accessible by river transport which is extremely slow, and this 
delayed data collection.
Ethnic animosity between the communities residing in the study locations meant that some 
enumerators were not welcome to work in certain locations.
COVID-19 pandemic also posed a challenge to face-to-face interviews in some instances hence 
the survey had to rely on virtual phone interviews. 
5.0 FINDINGS
5.1 Introduction
The Baseline Study was for the “Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) 
project” funded by USAID/BHA implemented by World Vision South Sudan in collaboration with 
two sub-grantee partners namely NH and HDC in Upper Nile State, South Sudan. The study sampled 
and interviewed 730 households drawn from 5 Counties namely: Nasir, Ulang, Baliet, Melut and 
Renk. In addition, 15 focus group discussions and 27 key informant interviews were held 
subsequently. This section presents the baseline survey findings based on analysis of both quantitative 
and qualitative data. 
5.2 Socio-demographic profiles of households
About 20% of the respondents were both household head, as well as the caregiver. On gender, the 
majority (91.1%) of caregivers were female, while only 8.9% were male. There were 212 orphaned 
children (male-111; female-102) living in the households as at the time of the survey. On resident 
status; the majority (59.2%) of respondents were IDPs; 35.6% were residents/hosts, while only 
5.3% were returnees. On gendered household type, the majority was composed of male & female 
(71.9%); followed by female no male (23.2%), Male No female was only 4.7% while Child no adult 
was a paltry 0.3%. Figure 2 presents the findings.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 22
Figure 2: Gendered household type
The age categories of household members surveyed is presented in Table 5 below, where those below 
18 years of age comprised the majority (45%); those 18-49.5 years were 21.6%, while those above 50 
years were 27.1%.
Table 5: Age categories of household members
Description N %
Male child (0-23 months) 569 5.4
Female child (0-23months) 532 5.1
Male child (24-59 months) 763 7.3
Female child (24-59 months) 822 7.8
Male youth (5-17.9 years) 1,050 10.0
Female youth (5-17.9 years) 988 9.4
Male adult (18-49.5 years) 1,285 12.2
Female adult (18-49.5 years) 1,640 15.6
Male above 50 years 1,298 12.4
Female above 50 years 1,543 14.7
Total 10,490 100.0
5.2.1 Marital status of respondents
On marital status; 85.3% of the respondents were married, with Nasir County accounting for the 
majority of those who were married (91.4%), followed by Renk (89.8%); Melut (84%); Ulang (81.9%) 
and Baliet (75.9%) in that order. Widows/widowers accounted for7.9%of the respondents interviewed 
while those separated and divorced accounted for 4.1% and 1.4% respectively. Only a paltry 1.2% were 
not married. Table 6 presents the findings. 
Table 6: Respondentsmarital status
Marital 
Status
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
%
Married 139 91.4 208 81.9 44 75.9 100 84.0 132 89.8 623 85.3
Widow/er 6 3.9 22 8.7 9 15.5 11 9.2 10 6.8 58 7.9
Divorced 5 3.3 1 0.4 1 1.7 1 0.8 2 1.4 10 1.4
Separated 1 0.7 18 7.1 3 5.2 6 5.0 2 1.4 30 4.1
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 23
Marital 
Status
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
%
Not 
married 1
0.7
5
2.0
1
1.7
1
0.8
1
0.7
9
1.2
Total 152 100 254 100 58 100 119 100 147 100 730 100
5.2.2 Literacy level
The overall literacy level of respondents in the project area is still below average at 49.6% (males-34%; 
female-66%); meaning that a significant proportion (50.4%) could neither read nor write. Ulang County 
reported the highest literacy level at 61.8%; followed by Baliet (51.7%); Renk (48.3%) and Nasir (46.1%). 
Melut recording the lowest literacy rate at 28.6% possibly attributed to the fact that it had the highest 
number (43.5%) of IDPs. However it’s notable that this figure is slightly higher than national average of 
27% recorded for South Sudan which has the lowest literacy rate in world25. Figure 3 presents the 
findings.
Figure 3: Literacy level of respondents
Of those who ever attended school the results show that 41.4% never completed primary school (male￾18%; female-82%); 20.2% completed primary school while 17.7% completed secondary school (male-34.2%; 
female-65.8%). Only 7.2% (male-43.3%; female-56.7%) and 1.1% (male-25%; female-75%) had completed 
University and vocational training respectively. Table 7 below presents the level of education of 
respondents.
Table 7: School attendance
Education level Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
%
Incomplete Primary 27 38.6 72 45.9 2 6.7 11 32.4 38 53.5 150 41.4
Completed Primary 14 20.0 21 13.4 8 26.7 17 50.0 13 18.3 73 20.2
Incomplete Secondary 8 11.4 10 6.4 3 10.0 2 5.9 6 8.5 29 8.0
Completed Secondary 7 10.0 32 20.4 11 36.7 4 11.8 10 14.1 64 17.7
 
25
https://www.google.com/search?q=south+sudan+literacy+rate&oq=South+sudan+literacy+rate&aqs=chrome.0.0l4j0i22i30l4.122
55j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 24
Education level Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
% Count 
(N)
%
Incomplete University 1 1.4 9 5.7 6 20.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 16 4.4
Completed University 11 15.7 12 7.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 4.2 26 7.2
Vocational Training 2 2.9 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 1.4 4 1.1
Total 70 100 157 100 30 100 34 100.0 71 100.0 362 100
5.2.3 Main sources of income
The baseline survey sought to establish whether the households earned any income from their livelihoods 
in the previous 12 months preceding the survey. From the finding; a total of 34.2% of the households 
reportedly earned income; with Ulang recording the highest proportion of those who earned some 
income from their livelihoods (52.1%). Deeper analysis shows this is attributable to the fact that Ulang 
has a variety of livelihood sources(Table 8). For example, it recorded the highest from sale of agricultural 
crops (43.2%); besides other incomes from sale of livestock products, fishing and trade. The rest of the 
counties recorded below average as presented in Figure 4 below. 
Figure 4: Did you and/or your spouse earn any net income from your livelihoods in the last 12 
months? 
On sources of income sale of cereals and other crops (34.1%); sale of firewood/poles (10.6%), sale of 
livestock and livestock products (9.5 %) sales of fish (9.1%) and sale of charcoal (7.4%) were the main 
source of income for the households. Ulang County recorded the highest income from the sale of 
agricultural crops (43.2%), Table 8 present the findings.
Table 8: Householdsources of income
Sources of income Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Agriculture and sales of cereals 106 25.3 139 32.3 19 11.9 57 33.9 65 18.2 386 25.2
Agriculture and sales of other crops 54 12.9 47 10.9 10 6.3 14 8.3 12 3.4 137 8.9
Livestock and sales of livestock 90 21.5 31 7.2 9 5.7 5 3.0 10 2.8 145 9.5
Sale of animal products 27 6.4 15 3.5 4 2.5 11 6.5 18 5.0 75 4.9
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 25
Casual labour related to agricultural activities 7 1.7 12 2.8 6 3.8 4 2.4 20 5.6 49 3.2
Casual labour related to construction 2 0.5 7 1.6 7 4.4 1 0.6 20 5.6 37 2.4
Skilled labour 13 3.1 7 1.6 11 6.9 0 0.0 17 4.8 48 3.1
Salaried work 2 0.5 9 2.1 4 2.5 5 3.0 21 5.9 41 2.7
Sale of firewood/poles 22 5.3 45 10.5 20 12.6 19 11.3 57 16.0 163 10.6
Sale of charcoal 16 3.8 17 4.0 18 11.3 12 7.1 50 14.0 113 7.4
Sale of grass 15 3.6 42 9.8 16 10.1 10 6.0 34 9.5 117 7.6
Fish and sale of fish 49 11.7 41 9.5 18 11.3 15 8.9 16 4.5 139 9.1
Other petty trading 1 0.2 4 0.9 1 0.6 1 0.6 0 0.0 7 0.5
Kinship/gifts from family friends 5 1.2 1 0.2 3 1.9 0 0.0 0 0.0 9 0.6
Sale of food assistance 4 1.0 1 0.2 8 5.0 1 0.6 1 0.3 15 1.0
Bricks and sales of bricks 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1
Trade (commercial activity 2 0.5 6 1.4 3 1.9 1 0.6 4 1.1 16 1.0
Cash-based transfer 0 0.0 1 0.2 1 0.6 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.1
Services (hairdressing, catering 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 0 0.0 1 0.1
Transport (Bodaboda 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6 1 0.3 2 0.1
No income source 4 1.0 4 0.9 0 0.0 10 6.0 11 3.1 29 1.9
Total 419 100.0 430 100.0 159 100.0 168 100.0 357 100.0 1533 100.0
5.2.4. Non-productive and productive assets 
The type and combination of assets may be used as a proxy indicator for household wealth and is therefore 
related to household food security. Some assets (e.g., radio) are non-productive and relate to living 
standards, whereas others (e.g., bicycle and motorbike) are productive as they may generate income. 
Efforts to establish ownership of consumptive assets (Table 9) revealed that the households in the area 
owned the following assets; chairs (25.2%); tables (24.7%); beds (19.1%). 
Table 9: Consumptive assets in the households
Consumptive 
assets
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Table(s) 64 28.3 123 22.7 45 19.8 85 27.4 140 25.8 457 24.7
Chair(s) 69 30.5 158 29.2 45 19.8 78 25.2 115 21.2 465 25.2
Bed(s) 44 19.5 83 15.3 42 18.5 82 26.5 101 18.6 352 19.1
Cupboard(s) 3 1.3 9 1.7 14 6.2 12 3.9 32 5.9 70 3.8
Radio 14 6.2 42 7.8 23 10.1 15 4.8 72 13.3 166 9.0
TV 1 0.4 11 2.0 4 1.8 3 1.0 21 3.9 40 2.2
Telephone 28 12.4 106 19.6 26 11.5 24 7.7 38 7.0 222 12.0
Bicycle 1 0.4 2 0.4 15 6.6 9 2.9 14 2.6 41 2.2
Motorcycle 0 0.0 0 0.0 8 3.5 0 0.0 5 0.9 13 0.7
Car/Truck 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.3 3 0.6 4 0.2
Other (specify) 2 0.9 7 1.3 5 2.2 1 0.3 2 0.4 17 0.9
Total 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
The Theory of Change (ToC) for asset ownership begins by hypothesizing that the ultimate impact of 
assets on poor people’s lives would be improvements in well-being. It then describes the outcomes that 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 26
poor people strive to achieve through asset ownership, namely increased resilience and increased 
opportunities to improve well-being. Next, it identifies the preconditions necessary for achieving these 
outcomes, including having the ability to prepare for risks, recover from shocks, invest, and access markets. 
Finally, it describes the specific interventions that can create these preconditions26. The most commonly 
owned productive assets included; hoe/Maloda (23.6%); Machete (Panga) at 17.7%, axe (20%), oxen plough 
at 20.5%. Table 10 below illustrates the assets that are owned by respondents.
Table 10: Productive assets in the households
Productive assets Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Hoe/Maloda 118 29.4 139 20.8 45 23.4 70 21.4 101 24.3 473 23.6
Machete/Panga 91 22.6 131 19.6 26 13.5 48 14.7 56 13.5 352 17.6
Boat/canoe 42 10.4 5 0.7 18 9.4 31 9.5 18 4.3 114 5.7
Fishing equipment 66 16.4 94 14.1 13 6.8 40 12.2 34 8.2 247 12.3
Plough (oxen/donkey) 1 0.2 6 0.9 4 2.1 2 0.6 16 3.9 29 1.4
Axe 58 14.4 130 19.4 46 24.0 67 20.5 100 24.1 401 20.0
Rake 13 3.2 68 10.2 17 8.9 23 7.0 38 9.2 159 7.9
Watering can 3 0.7 28 4.2 15 7.8 27 8.3 23 5.5 96 4.8
Treadle foot pump 0 0.0 4 0.6 1 0.5 1 0.3 3 0.7 9 0.4
Shovel/spade 0 0.0 46 6.9 1 0.5 6 1.8 8 1.9 61 3.0
Tractor 1 0.2 1 0.1 0 0.0 3 0.9 0 0.0 5 0.2
Ox/donkey 0 0.0 4 0.6 1 0.5 2 0.6 9 2.2 16 0.8
Track 1 0.2 0 0.0 1 0.5 0 0.0 1 0.2 3 0.1
Wheelbarrow 5 1.2 1 0.1 4 2.1 5 1.5 5 1.2 20 1.0
Sewing machine 2 0.5 2 0.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.2 5 0.2
Others 1 0.2 10 1.5 0 0.0 2 0.6 2 0.5 15 0.7
Total 402 100.0 669 100.0 192 100.0 327 100.0 415 100.0 2005 100.0
5.2.5. Energy source for the household
Table 8 shows the main sources of cooking energy in the project area where wood fuel (71.6%; followed 
by charcoal (28.2%). The other sources like kerosene, gas etc. wasinsignificant. Table 11 presents the 
finding.
Table 11: Which is the main form of cooking energy used in the household?
Productive assets Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Wood fuel/straws 129 84.9 203 79.0 42 73.7 88 74.6 61 41.8 523 71.6
Charcoal 23 15.1 53 20.6 15 26.3 30 25.4 85 58.2 206 28.2
Other (specify) 0 0.0 1 0.4 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.1
Total 152 100.0 257 100.0 57 100.0 118 100.0 146 100.0 730 100.0
5.3. Food Security
5.3.1 Sources of food for the households
The baseline investigated the different sources of food for the households during the last 30 days preceding 
the survey. It was evident that own crop production was the major source of food for majority (26.6%) of 
the households, followed by fishing (19.2%) and own livestock production (14.4%). To exemplify the food 
 
26 Assets Matter to Poor People, Sai Krishna Kumaraswamy, Max Mattern, and Emilio Hernandez, 2020
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 27
insecurity situation; 10.8% of the households relied on food assistance; 7.2% relied on wild foods (plants 
and fruits), while 7.8% relied on market purchase (Table 12).
Table 12: What have been the sources of food for your household in the last 30 days?
Sources of food Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
N % N % N % N % N % N %
Own crop production 101 28.5 125 28.9 20 11.4 46 24.7 59 21.4 351 26.6
Own livestock production 90 25.4 60 13.9 11 6.3 17 9.1 12 4.3 190 14.4
Labor (paid in food) 4 1.1 13 3.0 22 12.5 5 2.7 22 8.0 66 5.0
Fishing 83 23.4 67 15.5 35 19.9 40 21.5 28 10.1 253 19.2
Wild foods (plants, fruits) 21 5.9 41 9.5 12 6.8 3 1.6 18 6.5 95 7.2
Hunting (wild animals) 21 5.9 7 1.6 7 4.0 2 1.1 11 4.0 48 3.6
Gifts, kinship support 13 3.7 5 1.2 3 1.7 3 1.6 3 1.1 27 2.0
Food assistance/aid 7 2.0 32 7.4 31 17.6 44 23.7 28 10.1 142 10.8
Seed stocks 0 0.0 4 0.9 8 4.5 4 2.2 11 4.0 27 2.0
Borrow/taken on credit 1 0.3 31 7.2 3 1.7 13 7.0 16 5.8 64 4.8
Bartered 0 0.0 30 6.9 4 2.3 2 1.1 21 7.6 57 4.3
Market purchase 14 3.9 15 3.5 20 11.4 7 3.8 47 17.0 103 7.8
Other (specify) 0 0.0 2 0.5 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 0.2
Total 355 100.0 432 100.0 176 100.0 186 100.0 276 100.0 1320 100.0
The months of March 2021, April 2021, February 2021 and January 2021 in that order were cited as the 
most difficult in terms of accessing food by the majority of the households in the project area (Table 13). 
North Eastern Cattle and Maize livelihood zone 10 is located in Upper Nile State, along the Nile’s eastern 
flood plain, covering Nasir County and extending southwards along the River Sobat and its tributaries and 
northwest from Nasir to Melut. In this Livelihood Zone, the harvest of maize and other crops is carried 
out from September to October27. 
Table 13: Starting from March last year, is there month (s) that you had a difficulty in accessing 
food?
Month Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
N % N % N % N % N % N %
January 65 13.4 37 5.0 13 11.1 23 17.4 56 15.0 194 10.5
February 76 15.6 66 8.8 15 12.8 18 13.6 43 11.5 218 11.7
March 62 12.8 178 23.8 13 11.1 13 9.8 56 15.0 322 17.3
April 54 11.1 151 20.2 17 14.5 7 5.3 55 14.7 284 15.3
May 34 7.0 82 11.0 10 8.5 2 1.5 28 7.5 156 8.4
June 33 6.8 86 11.5 8 6.8 11 8.3 21 5.6 159 8.6
July 21 4.3 54 7.2 11 9.4 9 6.8 13 3.5 108 5.8
August 12 2.5 18 2.4 6 5.1 22 16.7 21 5.6 79 4.3
September 31 6.4 18 2.4 7 6.0 14 10.6 22 5.9 92 5.0
October 45 9.3 29 3.9 9 7.7 11 8.3 23 6.1 117 6.3
November 33 6.8 16 2.1 5 4.3 1 0.8 19 5.1 74 4.0
December 20 4.1 12 1.6 3 2.6 1 0.8 17 4.5 53 2.9
486 100.0 747 100.0 117 100.0 132 100.0 374 100.0 1856 100.0
 
27 FEWSNET South Sudan Livelihood Zones and Descriptions August 2013
Box 1: - Key Informant – Melut County Agriculture department
The months of February, March, April and a bit of January are the most difficult since the harvest of 
maize, sorghum and other crops is carried out from September to October in this area. So by January 
they still have a little stock left, but from February food now become scarce. 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 28
Crop failure (55.3%) and low off-farm income (23%) were cited as the main reasons for difficulty in meeting 
the household food needs in the project area. Other minor reasons were sale of farm produce immediately 
after harvest to meet other household needs (7.7%), and insecurity due to conflict (Table 14).
Table 14: Main reason for difficulty in meeting household food needs 
This finding was corroborated during focus group discussions with lead farmers in the project area which 
revealed that the main reasons for food insufficiency at the household level were; crop failures, lack of 
seeds for planting, late rainfall, floods, high food prices in the markets and the general economic crisis in 
the country. According to Lead Farmers in Melut County, some of the difficulties household face in meeting 
their food needs include shortage of relief food in IDP camps, coupled with late distribution of food rations, 
damage to crops in the fields by floods, birds eating mature crop seeds in the fields, while rats eating stored 
crops. 
5.4. Purpose 1: Strengthened household livelihoods, agricultural productivity, and 
nutrition.
5.4.1. Indicator E2: Percentage of targeted households with poor, borderline, and 
acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS)
The Food Consumption Score (FCS) is a composite score based on dietary diversity, food frequency, and 
the relative nutritional importance of different food groups. It is a proxy indicator for food intake. A 
questionnaire is used to ask respondents about the frequency of their households' consumption of nine 
food groups over the previous seven days. To calculate the FCS, the consumption frequencies are summed 
and multiplied by the standardized food group weighted. Households are then classified into three groups 
based on their weighted scores--poor, borderline, or acceptable—using the World Food Program's[1] 
recommended cutoff points (or approved, country-specific cutoff points).
Main reason for difficulty County
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Crop failure 66 43.4 175 68.1 46 80.7 65 55.1 52 35.6 404 55.3
Sale of farm produce after harvest 24 15.8 7 2.7 3 5.3 11 9.3 11 7.5 56 7.6
Low off-farm income 22 14.5 44 17.1 5 8.8 34 28.8 63 43.2 168 23.0
Insecurity/conflict 17 11.2 28 10.9 1 1.8 3 2.5 0 0.0 49 6.7
Outbreak of livestock parasites & diseases 4 2.6 0 0.0 1 1.8 2 1.7 18 12.3 25 3.4
Outbreak of livestock parasites & diseases 19 12.5 2 0.8 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 1.4 23 3.3
Others, specify 0 0.0 1 0.4 1 1.8 3 2.5 0 0.0 5 0.7
Total 152 100.0 257 100.0 57 100.0 118 100.0 146 100.0 730 100
Box 2: - Key Informant – FS&L Officer at the County Agriculture in Renk County 
The main challenges in agricultural based livelihood that impact on household food availability and access 
include lack of rains, lack of farming tools, lack of crops and vegetable seeds for planting, cattle rustl ing, 
floods, population displacement due to conflict and inter-communal violence and crop pests and diseases.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 29
The food consumption score is a proxy indicator of household caloric availability. A brief questionnaire 
was used to ask respondents about the frequency of their household's consumption of nine different food 
groups over the previous seven days. To calculate the FCS from these results, the consumption frequencies 
are summed and multiplied by the standardized food group weight (see the food groups and corresponding 
weights below). Households were then further classified as having "poor," Poor "borderline," or 
"acceptable"( > 43) food consumption by applying the WFP’s recommended cut-offs to the food 
consumption score.
Findings from the survey (Table 15) show that 59.2% of the households surveyed have a poor FSC (0-28), 
17.4% at the borderline of the FCS (28.1-42) and 23.4% within the acceptable range (above 43). Nasir 
County had the highest proportion of those with poor FCS at 80.3%, followed by Melut (66.9%); Ulang 
(58%); Baliet (47.4%) and Renk (28.5%) in that order. Mean FCS is (SD=) range 0-99.
Table 15: Food Consumption score by category
FCS Category
Poor Borderline Acceptable p-value Median Mean SD
Caregiver sex Male 170 
(66.1)
42 (16.3) 45 (17.5) <0.0001
Female 250 
(52.3)
88 (18.4) 140 (29.3)
Caregiver Age 
category
17-50 years 379 
(57.2)
115 (17.3) 169 (25.5) 0.834
Above 50 years 41 
(53.9)
15 (19.7) 20 (26.3)
Gendered 
Household
Male & Female 291 
(54.9)
94 (17.7) 145 (27.4) 0.228 18.0 22.3 20.1
Female No Male 106 
(62.7)
28 (16.6) 35 (20.7) 16.0 20.98 19.69
Male No Female 22 
(64.7)
8 (23.5) 4 (11.8) 14.25 16.0 15.68
Child No Adult 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (50.0) 23.25 23.25 32.17
County Nasir 122 
(80.3)
18 (11.8) 12 (7.9) <0.0001
Ulang 149 
(58.0)
41 (16.0) 67 (26.0)
Baliet 27 
(47.4)
9 (15.8) 21 (36.8)
Melut 79 
(66.9)
9 (7.6) 30 (25.4)
Renk 43 
(28.5)
53 (35.1) 55 (36.4)
Level of education Incomplete 
Primary
53 
(35.3)
38 (25.3) 59 (39.4) 0.002
Completed 
Primary
41 
(56.2)
9 (12.3) 23 (31.5)
Incomplete 
Secondary
18 
(62.1)
2 (6.9) 9 (31.0)
Completed 
Secondary
37 
(57.8)
10 (15.6) 17 (26.6)
Incomplete 
University
13 
(81.2)
1 (6.3) 2 (12.5)
Completed 
University
17 
(65.4)
2 (7.7) 7 (26.9)
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 30
Vocational 
Training
3 (75.0) 0 (0.0) 1 (25.0)
TOTAL 17.0 21.73 19.86
Further analysis showed a significant difference in FCS between Counties (Chi square <0.0001 at 95% CI); 
Sex of caregiver (Chi square <0.0001 at 95% CI) and education level of the caregiver (Chi square 0.002 at 
95% CI).
5.4.2. Indicator E4: Prevalence of households with moderate or severe Household 
Hunger Score (HHS) Household Hunger Scale (HHS).
The HHS is a food deprivation scale which estimates the percent of households affected by three different 
severities of household hunger. The HHS, derived directly from the HFIAS, includes only three hunger￾related aspects of insecure food access, as these items were shown to be culturally invariant across 
multiple sociocultural contexts28 , allowing for cross-county comparisons. HHS is different from the other 
household food insecurity indicators as it assesses only the most severe experiences of food insecurity. 
Each of the six questions is scored 0-2, with 0 being "did not occur," 1 being "rarely and sometimes," and 
2 being "often."; HHs categorized as "little to no hunger in the household" (0-1), "moderate hunger in the 
household" (2-3), or "severe hunger in the household" (4-6).
From the survey findings, the majority (82.7%) of households experience moderate hunger, while 17.3%
experience little or no hunger. Ulang and Nasir Counties recorded the highest number of households 
with moderate hunger at 95.7% and 94.7% respectively. The study established a statistically significant 
difference in HHS between Counties (Chi square 0.001 at 95% CI). Table 16 presents the findings.
Table 16: Household hunger scale
HHS Category
Little to 
no hunger 
in the 
household
Moderate 
hunger in 
the 
household
Severe 
hunger in 
the 
household
p-value Median Mean SD
Caregiver sex Male 41 (16.0) 216 (84.0) 0 (0.0) 0.067
Female 56 (11.7) 422 (88.3) 0 (0.0)
Caregiver Age 
category
17-50 years 85 (12.8) 578 (87.2) 0 (0.0) <0.001
Above 50 years 12 (15.8) 60 (78.9) 4 (5.3)
Gendered 
Household
Male & Female 63 (11.9) 467 (88.1) 0 (0.0) 0.139 5 4.7 1.78
Female No Male 26 (15.4) 143 (84.6) 0 (0.0) 5 4.56 2
Male No Female 7 (20.6) 27 (79.4) 0 (0.0) 5 3.94 2.2
Child No Adult 1 (50.0) 1 (50.0) 0 (0.0) 4 4 2.8
County Nasir 8 (5.3) 144 (94.7) 0 (0.0) <0.001
Ulang 11 (4.3) 246 (95.7) 0 (0.0)
Baliet 15 (26.3) 42 (73.7) 0 (0.0)
Melut 49 (41.5) 69 (58.5) 0 (0.0)
Renk 14 (9.3) 137 (90.7) 0 (0.0)
Level of education Incomplete 
Primary
11 (7.3) 139 (92.7) 0 (0.0)
Completed 
Primary
11 (15.1) 62 (84.9) 0 (0.0)
Incomplete 
Secondary
6 (20.7) 23 (79.3) 0 (0.0)
Completed 
Secondary
7 (10.9) 57 (89.1) 0 (0.0)
 
28 Deitchler et al., 2010
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 31
Incomplete 
University
3 (18.8) 13 (81.2) 0 (0.0)
Completed 
University
5 (19.2) 21 (80.8) 0 (0.0)
Vocational 
Training
0 (0.0) 4 (100.0) 0 (0.0)
TOTAL 5.0 4.62 1.87
The findings of KII with FSL Officer in County Department of Agriculture in Nasir County indicate that 
the main reasons for food insecurity are price fluctuations in the market, lack of money to buy enough 
food on the market, lack of income earning opportunities, intermittent population displacement, flooding 
and crop pests and diseases, and communal fighting and conflict. In addition, he mentioned the lack of 
farming tools, the lack of animal drugs, lack of crops and vegetable seeds, lack of fishing equipment, lack of 
fish preservation equipment and supplies and no access to pesticides and insecticides to control crop pests. 
All of the above factors in one way or another have negatively impacted on people access to adequate 
food for their households.
On food production and food insecurity in Ulang County, the findings of KII with a FSL Officer at UNKEA 
Field Office, indicate the constraints to agriculture and livestock production include pests and diseases 
destroying crops in the absence of proper plant protection management practices, not enough fishing gears 
and insecurity in the fishing grounds, lost fishing equipment due to constant population displacement, 
inadequate veterinary service as limited services are provided by VSF-Germany due to funding issues and 
no government veterinary services available and high livestock morbidity and mortality due to pests and 
disease.
5.5. Outcome 1.1: Improved household food production and storage.
This indicator is targeted to reach 11,831 HHs and shall be achieved by facilitating women and men 
farmers’ access to certified seeds, training on improved farming methods, in coordination with FAO29. 
From the findings, the main crops grown in the project area include; sorghum, maize, beans and vegetables 
(pumpkins, okra, tomatoes, eggplants, amaranthus etc). According to the lead farmers the main challenges 
of crop production in 2020 were crop failures, insects destroying crops, floods and inter-communal conflict 
and violence. About a total of 34.8% of the households grew crops in the 2020 agricultural cropping season
(Figure 5). 
 
29 WVSS FY20-MYE- Technical Proposal
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 32
Figure 5: Did you grow crop in your farm last season?
On the question of access to agricultural land, the findings from 2 FGD with 9 lead male farmers in Nasir 
County and 8 lead female farmers in Ulang County revealed that people had access to land for cultivation 
and community members engaged in crop production in 2020. 
On the types of livestock reared in the area, the 2 FGDs with 8 males Lead farmers and 6 females lead 
farmers in Baliet revealed that people rear cattle, sheep, goats and chickens. According to the participants 
to the FGD, the main constraints to livestock production include floods, pests and diseases, cattle raiding, 
limited availability of pasture during the dry season and inadequate veterinary services.
The main fishing resources for the majority of the population in the Counties are the Nile and Sobat rivers
and swamps. Both men and women reportedly engage in fishing activities and according to the findings of 
the fishery sector is most often a secondary source of livelihood, undertaken by mainly the youth the 
populations along the Sobat and Nile rivers corridors as a buffer against the effects of harvest failures, 
agricultural product price volatility, violent conflict and other factors that threaten rural stability, economic 
development and food security. However, through the up-scaling of fishery practices from artisanal to 
commercial-orientated there is considerable potential for the fishery sector in Upper Nile State to play a 
greater role in the economic development and food security situation of the state and the entire country.
This was corroborated during FGD discussions with lead farmers in 3 Counties along the Sobat corridor 
who mentioned some of constraints to fishing among the youth and women as; lack of fishing nets, long 
walking distances to fishing grounds, over-fishing in the rivers and inter-communal conflict.
5.5.1. BL21: Percentage of producers who have applied targeted improved 
agricultural management practices or technologies.
Under this indicator the baseline study investigated whether farmers employed improved management 
practices or technologies in crop and livestock production. Improved agricultural management practices 
and technology include; crop genetics, cultural practices, livestock management, wild-caught fisheries 
management, aquaculture management, natural resource or ecosystem management and pest and disease 
management. Others are soil-related fertility and conservation, irrigation, agriculture water management￾non-irrigation based, climate mitigation and climate adaptation/climate risk management30. 
The survey findings reveal that 26.8% of the households have applied improved agricultural management 
practices or technologies as shown in Table 17 below. 
Table 17: Producers who applied improved management practices or technologies
Category Frequency Percent
Male & Female 134 25.5
 
30 USAID FFP Indicator List
Box 3: - Key Informant – FS&L Officer County Agriculture & Fisheries in Melut County 
Main challenges to the Upper Nile State Fishery Sector: Weak institutional capacity in terms of human 
resources, logistics and coordination; Inadequate information on the fishery sector, including number of 
fisherfolk and fish; Limited organization of fisherfolk at the community level; Limited harvest capacity due 
to basic fishing gears and techniques; Limited ability to transport fish products, due to a lack of motorized 
river transport and no road access during the rainy season; High fish post-harvest losses resulting from 
improper handling throughout the fishery chain; Absence of fishery infrastructure such as market stalls, 
storage facilities, collection points and landing sites; and Fishing season that limits the amount of fish 
harvested for approximately six months per year.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 33
Gendered 
Household
Female No Male 58 34.3
Male No Female 4 11.8
Child No Adult 0 0
Total 196 26.8
County Nasir 30 19.7
Ulang 112 43.6
Baliet 34 59.6
Melut 12 10.2
Renk 8 5.5
Total 196 26.8
During FGDs with 8 Lead farmers (5 males and 3 females) in Renk County it was revealed that some
farmers have been supported by FAO to implement Smart Agricultural practices on maize and vegetable
production. These included the use of certified maize seeds provided by NGOs and the line planting of 
the crop. Similarly, a few farmers reportedly use animal manure to fertilizertheir vegetable gardens.
According to the responses of Lead farmers during FGD in Melut County the main challenges of crop 
production include destruction of crops by domestic animals (goats, sheep and cattle), insects and crop 
pests and diseases, poor cultural practices, limited access to seeds and tools and inundation of crop fields 
by flood waters, inter-communal conflict and unreliable rainfall.
5.5.2. Indicator M9: Number of hectares under improved management practices or 
technology.
A total of 1,411 hectares was under improved management practices or technologies, with maize being 
recording the highest number of hectares under improved management (460 Ha), followed by Sorghum 
(334 Ha), Sesame (163 Ha), Lentils (193 Ha) and Cowpeas (163 Ha). On disaggregation by County; Ulang 
registered the highest number of hectares (762 Ha) under improved management practices, followed by 
Baliet (336 Ha), Nasir (159Ha) and Renk (132 Ha). Melut County recorded the lowest number of hectares 
under improved management practices possibly due to the high number of IDPs respondents participating 
in the study (Table 18).
Table 18-: Area under improved management practices or technologies
Crop Area in Hectares
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Maize 134 164 142 14 6 460
Sorghum 7 190 119 2 16 334
Sesame 6 195 38 2 20 261
Cowpeas 5 120 18 2 18 163
Lentils 7 93 19 2 72 193
Total 159 762 336 22 132 1,411
5.6. Outcome 1.2: Increased household income & economic empowerment of 
vulnerable groups
Under this indicator the project is targeting 1,500 HHs and is focusing on improving vulnerable women, 
men and youth capacity to save money, engage in borrowing, develop business skills, and participate in 
markets for on farm/off-farm products. The project is targeting poor HHs for financial success and 
sustainability using the WV Savings for Transformation (S4T).
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 34
5.6.1. Indicator BL31: Percent of households participating in group based savings, 
micro-finance or lending programs
When asked on whether they save cash, about 32.1% (235) of households admitted doing so and the three 
main venues for saving of their cash were Rotating Credit Schemes (23.4%), Banks (17.0%) and 
Cooperatives (11.9%) as shown. With regards to credit facilities, 25.0% mentioned that they have access 
to credits and about 87.5% of those indicated that a member of their household borrowed money in the 
last 12 months. On the source of credit, Local lenders and Traders/shop keepers accounted for about 
40.8% and 32.1% of the sources of the borrowed money respectively. Some of the banks operating in the 
project area include; Nile Commercial Bank (NCB) with branches in Renk and Malakal; Cooperative Bank 
of South Sudan (Malakal); Ivory bank (Renk & Malakal) and KCB Bank (Malakal).
During FGD with community members across the 5 counties, the participants mentioned that that there 
is no functional community-based Village Loans and Savings Associations and some confessed that they 
have never heard of VSLA. Similarly 8 participants (4 males and 4 females) to the FGD in Jikmir, Nasir 
County said that they were familiar with is the Rotating saving schemes which are mostly operated by 
women. On the challenges of establishing and running the community-based VSLA, the participants 
indicated that because of the current depressed socio-economic conditions occasioned by hyper-inflation, 
people do not have money to establish and run VSLA and furthermore there is no money to support the 
VSLA box. In addition they indicated that they have no idea of how to establish VSLA and also 
acknowledged that they lacked technical skills on VSLA.
When asked on their access to credit, the participants to the FGD in Renk County said they have no 
access to credit and this is because according to them, people in the Payams are all poor and therefore, 
they do not have money to lend to others. In Melut County, the community members mentioned that 
they have limited access to credits and the main sources of credits are traders/shop keepers, relatives and, 
friends. However, most traders are not unwilling to provide loans to clients for fear of defaulting in 
payments.
5.6.2. Indicator BL32: Percent of women and men in a union who earned cash in 
the past 12 months; disaggregated by sex and age.
When asked on whether women and men in a union earned cash in the past 12 months, only about 34.2%
with Ulang County recording the majority (52.1%) of those who earned cash, followed by Baliet (40.4%) 
and Renk (37%). Melut and Nasir recorded the lowest number of those who earned cash at 16.9% and 
12.5% respectively. Figure 6 presents the findings.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 35
Figure 6: Percent of men and women in union who earned cash in the past 12 months
5.7. Outcome 1.3: Strengthened nutrition and IYCF interventions and integrated 
WASH services
Under this indicator the project is 151,188 individuals through provision of nutrition-sensitive 
interventions that is complementing the Community Based Management of Acute Nutrition (CMAM) 
projects supported by GAC, UNICEF and WFP, which are targeting Cu5, PLW and other vulnerable 
populations. M2Ms are also being supported by Community Health Workers (CHWs) in the target 
locations, who serve as an important referral link to the local health system for cases of acute malnutrition. 
In addition the project seeks to improve access to clean and safe water, dignified sanitation, and promote 
healthy hygiene practices by installing 2 SWAT (Surface Water Treatment) systems in the communities 
from the Sobat river for communities living in Nasir and another one from an earth dam that will be 
constructed for the communities that are living in Khor Adar far away from the River Nile 31. On sanitation,
the project has planned to build a total of 45 emergency latrines will be built for eligible most vulnerable 
people, specifically those living with disability, those who have never owned a latrine and households with 
above average. 
5.7.1. BL12: Prevalence of children 6-36 months consuming a diet of minimum 
diversity.
The minimum dietary diversity (MDD) score for children 6-23 months old is a population-level indicator 
designed by the World Health Organization (WHO) to assess diet diversity as part of infant and young 
child feeding (IYCF) practices among children 6-23 months old. This indicator is one of eight IYCF 
indicators developed by the WHO to provide simple, valid, and reliable metrics for assessing IYCF 
practices at the population level32. 
Note that the WHO 2010 document describes 7 food groups, however based on a June 2017 expert 
consultation these have been updated to reflect the inclusion of breast milk as an 8th food group. Therefore 
the criterion for MDD changed from 4 of 7 groups to 5 of 8 groups33. So MDD is the % of children 6-23 
months of age who received foods from ≥ 5 food groups the previous day or night. The indicator is 
 
31 WVSS FY20_MYE Technical Proposal August 31, 2020
32 WHO, 2008
33 WHO/UNICEF 2017
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 36
calculated by dividing the number of children whose diet consisted of at least 5 food groups by the total 
number of surveyed children. Multiply the result by 100 to convert it to percentages.
In this study, the overall children (6-36 moths) with minimum dietary diversity score were found to be 
36%, disaggregated by gendered household type as follows; M&F (73.6%), FNM (20.2%), MNF (5.8%) and 
CNA (0.4%). In South Sudan only 15 per cent of children 6-23 monthsreceived minimum dietary 
diversity and 5 per cent receive the minimum acceptable diet.
5.7.2. BL13: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding of children under six months; 
disaggregated by sex.
Exclusive breastfeeding refers to the percentage of infants of less than 6 months of age who received only 
breast milk with no other solids or liquids, including water during the previous day and night. Exclusive 
breastfeeding for the first 6 months of a baby's life is one of the most effective measures for ensuring a 
child's health and survival. The indicator measures the proportion of children following this recommended 
practice. This indicator value is calculated by dividing the number of children aged 0-59 months who were 
exclusively breastfed by the total number of children aged 0-5.99 months (excluding those where "does 
not know" answer was provided) and multiplying the result by 100.
From the survey 16.3% (male-49.9%; female- 50.1%) of the children 0-5.99 months were exclusively 
breastfed (M&F- 75.2%; FNM-22.6%; MNF-2.2% and CAN-0.0%). According to UNICEF exclusive 
breastfeeding rate in South Sudan stands at 69%, nearly one third of them under six months old are not 
exclusively breastfed34. Ulang County had the highest number of those practicing EB at 49% while Melut 
had the lowest (8.9%). Figure 7 presents the findings.
Figure 7: Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding
FGD with PLW across the 5 counties revealed that many women do not exclusively breastfeed their 
children but instead supplement with cereals since they believe breast milk alone cannot satisfy a child. 
Key informant interview with Nutrition focal point in Renk revealed that complementary feeding is 
provided to children from 6-8 months, however, the diets provided are not nutritionally diverse, heavy 
reliance on fish and very limited vegetables and fruits consumed. 
 
34 UNICEF, August 2020.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 37
5.7.3. BL27: Percent of households with access to a basic sanitation service.
Sanitation is fundamental to human development. Many international organizations use hygienic sanitation 
facilities as a measure for progress in the fight against poverty, disease, and death. Access to proper 
sanitation is also considered to be a human right, not a privilege, for every man, woman, and child. 
Sanitation generally refers to the provision of facilities and services for the safe disposal of human urine 
and feces. Inadequate sanitation is a major cause of disease world-wide and improving sanitation is known 
to have a significant beneficial impact on people's health. Improvements in sanitation can reduce diarrheal 
disease, and can significantly lessen the adverse health impacts of other disorders responsible for death 
and disease among millions of children. 
Diarrhea and worm infections weaken children and make them more susceptible to malnutrition and 
opportunistic infections like pneumonia, measles and malaria. Basic sanitation services are calculated by 
multiplying the proportion of the population using improved sanitation facilities by the proportion of 
improved sanitation facilities which are not shared among two or more households. An improved 
sanitation facility is one that hygienically separates human excreta from human include e.g. VIP latrines, pit 
latrine with slab or compositing toilets and the rest are considered as unimproved.
From the survey findings only about 12.7% of the households use improved sanitation facilities compared 
to the South Sudan national average of 17%. About 49.6% of the sanitation facilities were being shared by 
other households. Table 20 presents the findings.
Table 19: Types of sanitation facilities
Type of sanitation facility Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
1 = Flush to piped sewer system 10.5% 19.5% 24.6% 49.2% 26.7% 24.2%
2 = Flush to septic tank 5.3% 2.7% 17.5% 11.0% 13.7% 7.9%
3 = Flush to pit latrines 30.3% 16.7% 14.0% 7.6% 6.8% 15.9%
4 = Ventilated improved pit latrine 3.9% 1.6% 5.3% 16.9% 0.0% 4.5%
5 = Pit latrine with slab 14.5% 10.9% 24.6% 7.6% 6.2% 11.2%
6 = Composting toilet 3.3% .8% 12.3% 0.0% 4.1% 2.7%
7 = Flush to somewhere else / don’t know 9.2% 1.2% 5.3% .8% 26.7% 8.2%
8 = Pit latrine with no slab/open pit 19.1% 3.9% 19.3% 1.7% 8.2% 8.8%
9 = Bucket toilet 19.1% 0.0% 12.3% .8% 11.6% 7.4%
10 = Hanging toilet/latrine 7.9% 1.2% 3.5% 1.7% 2.7% 3.2%
11 = No Facility/bush/field 52.0% 42.4% 21.1% 19.5% 22.6% 35.1%
12 = Other (Specify) 0.0% .4% 7.0% .8% 1.4% 1.1%
13-Don’t know 0.0% 4.3% 5.3% 3.4% 1.4% 2.7%
From KIIs with a representative of the County Department of Health UNKEA health facility officer in 
Nasir County, it was revealed that most people defecate in the open/bushes. 
5.7.4. BL16: Percent of households using basic drinking water services
SDG target 6.1 calls for achieving universal and equitable access to safe and affordable drinking water 
for all. The indicator used to measure progress is the percentage of the population using safely managed 
drinking water services, which is defined as the population using an improved drinking water source 
(the indicator used for MDG monitoring) which is located on premises, available when needed, and 
free of fecal and priority chemical contamination. In order to meet the criteria for a safely managed
drinking water service, people must use an improved source meeting three criteria:
 it should be accessible on premises,
 water should be available when needed, and
 the water supplied should be free from contamination.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 38
If the improved source does not meet any one of these criteria but a round trip to collect water takes
30 minutes or less, then it will be classified as a basic drinking water service. If water collection from
an improved source exceeds30minutesit is categorized as a limited service.The JMP also differentiates
populations using unimproved sources such as unprotected wells or springs, and populations drinking
surface water collected directly from a river, dam, lake, stream or irrigation canal.
From the survey, only 5.7% of the households had access to basic drinking water services compared
to 50% national average. About 30-50 percent of water facilities are non-functional at any point in
time35. Disaggregated by county the results show that Ulang had the highest access at 36.7%; Renk￾24.5%, Melut-17.5%, Baliet-10.8%andNasir-10.5%.Table 21 belowpresentsthe sourcesof water(both
improved and unimproved) for the households in the project area with public tap being the main
sources for majority of the households at 39.9% and river/stream at 31.9%. Other minor sources
include; piped water into dwelling (7.8%) while the rest were insignificant. This finding was
corroborated by the Key informant interviews which revealed that most of the water systems are
provided by humanitarian agencies, hence the reason for the high number of households using public
tap.
Table 20: Sources of water for the households in the project area
Water source Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Piped into dwelling 1.3% 16.3% 0.0% 5.9% 4.1% 7.8%
Piped into yard/plot 11.8% .4% 0.0% 0.0% 11.6% 4.9%
Public tap 13.2% 35.0% 66.7% 61.9% 47.9% 39.9%
Protected well in dwelling 0.0% .4% 0.0% .8% 4.1% 1.1%
Protected well in yard/plot .7% .4% 1.8% 0.0% .7% .5%
Protected spring 0.0% 0.0% 3.5% 0.0% 0.0% .3%
Protected public well 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% .7% .1%
Tubewell/borehole 3.3% 8.6% 0.0% .8% 0.0% 3.8%
Open well in dwelling 0.0% .4% 1.8% 0.0% 5.5% 1.4%
Open well in yard/plot 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% .5%
Open public well 0.0% .4% 0.0% 0.0% 9.6% 2.1%
Protected spring (closed) 0.0% 0.0% 7.0% 0.0% 0.0% .5%
Unprotected spring (open Spring 0.0% 0.0% 1.8% 0.0% 0.0% .1%
River/stream 64.5% 33.1% 10.5% 27.1% 8.2% 31.9%
Pond/lake 0.0% 4.3% 0.0% 3.4% 2.7% 2.6%
Dam 0.0% .4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.1% .5%
Rainwater harvesting 5.3% .4% 0.0% 0.0% 2.7% 1.8%
 
35 South Sudan Global Water.org
Box 4: - Key Informant – Nasir County Water & Sanitation department
According to KII with a representative of County Water and Sanitation Department, the main sources
of water in Nasir County are rivers and boreholes. There are 3 boreholes for about 25,000 users in
the whole of Kuerenge-Ke Payam in Nasir County, water available from boreholes is not enough for
the population and therefore most of the population fetches water from the river and swamps.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 39
From the finding, 61.9% of the householdsreported that they treat their waterto make itsafe for drinking.
The main water treatment methodsranged from adding chlorine (53.3%), boiling (26.1%) and letting it
stand to settle (12.7%). The rest were insignificant. Table 22 presents the findings.
Table 21: Water treatment methods in the project area
Treatment method County
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk Total
Boil 4.9% 23.4% 24.5% 26.9% 49.4% 26.1%
Add bleach / chlorine 6.6% 64.1% 64.2% 68.7% 43.0% 53.3%
Strain it through a cloth 0.0% 4.2% 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 2.0%
Use water filter (ceramic, sand, composite, etc.) 3.3% 7.3% 3.8% 1.5% 5.1% 5.1%
Solar disinfection 1.6% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.2%
Let it stand and settle 83.6% 1.0% 3.8% 0.0% 0.0% 12.2%
Don’t know 0.0% 0.0% 3.8% 3.0% 1.3% 1.1%
According to the 9 FGD with local community leaders (4 men and 5 women) in Jikmir Payam in Nasir
County, the quality of water from Sobat River is not good; it is brownish in color. On what people do to
make water safe to drink, FGD with 14 local community leaders (8 males and 6 females) in Ulang County
revealed that only a few householdstreat river water by boiling and/or using chlorine tablets provided by
NGOs.
5.7.5. BL17: Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station
Appropriate handwashing behavior refers to hand washing at critical times and appropriate methods (use
running water and soap/ash). Handwashing facilities can consist of a sink with tap water, but can also
include other devicesthat contain, transport or regulate the flow of water. Buckets with taps, tippy-taps
and portable basins are all examples of handwashing facilities. Bar soap, liquid soap, powder detergent and
soapy water all count as soap for monitoring purposes.
Overall 27.5% of the households surveyed had soap and water at a hand washing station, with Melut
recording the highest at 31.9% and Renk the lowest at 24.7%. Figure 8 presents the findings.
Figure 8: Percent of households with soap and water at a handwashing station
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 40
The proportion of caregivers with appropriate hand-washing behavior stands at 56.4%. This poor 
performance of this indicator can largely be attributed to inadequate access to water as shown by the low 
number of HHs that can access improved water sources. On disaggregation by gendered HH type there 
was low uptake on appropriate hand-washing behavior for caregivers, within across the HHs falling below 
the SDG required threshold of 100% for hand washing, during critical times (SDG6.2). Table 23 presents 
the findings.
Table 22: How they wash their hands by gendered HH type
How do you wash your 
hands
M&F FNM MNF CNA Total
Running water with soap 49.1% 55.0% 58.8% 0.0% 50.8%
Running water with ash 5.5% 6.5% 2.9% 0.0% 5.6%
Water in a basin with ash 3.4% 5.9% 8.8% 0.0% 4.2%
Water in a basin and soap 34.5% 8.9% 17.6% 50.0% 27.8%
Water in a basin only 4.8% 15.4% 5.9% 0.0% 7.3%
Running water only 2.3% 7.1% 5.9% 50.0% 3.7%
Water with leaves .2% .6% 0.0% 0.0% .3%
Other(specify) .2% .6% 0.0% 0.0% .3%
Total 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Analysis of qualitative data from FGDs and Key informants reveal that even though literacy level is low 
(28.6%), some community members knew the benefits of washing hands (kills germs and prevents 
diseases), However others said that some people were ignorant of benefits of personal hygiene while 
others said that those who seek treatment from traditional herbalists are sometimes instructed not to 
touch water or to wash themselves for a given period of time. Illiteracy and ignorance were also blamed 
as some of the reasons for low uptake of appropriate hand washing. Some community members washed 
their hands with water only while others with water and soap/ash. …Because of water scarcity in this area, 
some people don’t wash their hands as required…others think soap is only for bathing and not washing hand…so 
people need education to change their attitude…FGD discussant-Southern Renk 
Key informant interview with the WASH focal point at the MoH Renk County revealed that there is need 
for partners to support WASH CLTS program in the area. 
5.8. Purpose 2: Strengthened community cohesion through improved disaster risk 
management, protection and mental health psycho-social support (MHPSS) 
services.
5.8.1. Indicator E3: Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI)
The rCSI is a proxy indicator of household food insecurity that is based on a list of behaviors (coping 
strategies). The index reflects both the frequency of each behavior (i.e. how many days over the last 7 
days the coping strategy was used by any member of the household) and severity (i.e. how serious the 
strategy). The rCSI is based on a list of five food-related coping strategies that the household used in the 
seven days prior to the survey. 
The rCSI raw scores are calculated by multiplying the frequency with which a behavior was used by the 
universal severity weight, then summing the weighted scores for each coping strategy. The maximum raw 
score for the rCSI is 56, i.e. a household that used all five strategies every day for the last 7 days would 
have a raw score of 56. rCSI considers both the frequency and severity of five pre-selected coping 
strategies that the household used in the seven days prior to the survey. The coping strategies were 
weighted as follows; rely on less preferred/expensive foods=1; borrow food/rely on help from 
friends/relatives=2; limit portion at meal times=1; restrict consumption by adults=3; reduce number of 
meals=1. 
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 41
The baseline survey recorded a rCSI of 40.6. On disaggregation by Gendered Household: Female and Male 
Adults (F&M) had 41, Adult Female no Adult Male (FNM) had 37, Adult Male no Adult Female (MNF) had 
42, Child no Adults (CNA) had 43. Table 24 presents the finding.
Table 23: Coping mechanisms adopted
# Coping mechanisms for food security needs Frequency Severity
Rank
Weighted
CS score
.1 Eating less preferred and less expensive food 5.6 1 5.6
.2 Borrowing food/rely on help from friends/relatives 3.6 2 7.2
.3 limit portion at meal times 6.7 1 6.7
.4 restrict consumption by adults 5.5 3 16.5
.5 reduce # of meals 4.6 1 4.6
Coping strategy score 40.6
5.9. Outcome 2.2: Strengthened community managed disaster risk reduction 
(CMDRR) systems
5.9.2. BL23: Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index; disaggregated by 
gendered household type
Understanding the impactsofshocks and stresseson individuals, households, communities and the systems
they live in provides some direction on what data to collect and when. In general, we would like to
understand howhousehold and community response evolvesovertime, whether household or community
resilience has been eroded by repeated events and whether the negative effects are compounded by
multiple, intersecting shocks/stresses. These data are useful throughout the project cycle, including
informing a resilience assessment for project design, targeting emergency and/or development
interventions, monitoring and evaluating projects, and testing key assumptions about resilience36.
Shocks are usually (but not always) acute (rapid onset, typically short duration) events, while stresses
usually (but not always) described as chronic (slow onset, typically protracted duration), which refers to
the onset and duration of the event.Acute shocks and stresses occurrapidly at one point in time,whereas
chronic shocks and stresses occur over relatively longer periods of time – note that this definition is
limited to the event itself and not the effects, which usually persist long afterthe shock orstress37. Stresses
could include factors such as population pressure, climate variability, chronic poverty, persistent
discrimination, and protracted crises like intergroup conflict.
In this study the respondents were asked if their households had suffered any shocks or stresses such as
floods, drought, fire, landslides, etc during the 6 months, preceding the survey. Shock exposure INDEX
has a maximum range of 0-90 where 0 means the household experienced no shocks in the specified time
period, and 90 means the household experienced all 18 shocks. The survey recorded an index of 26
meaning reduced capacity to recover from shocks. Disaggregated by gendered HH type; M&F recorded
the highest ability to recover at 34 followed by FNM at 14 and MNF at 2. Child headed HH had 0 score
meaning no capacity to recover. Figure 9 presetsthe findings.
 
36 Measuring Shocks & Stresses, Resilience Evaluation Analysis and Learning (REAL), USAID, 
37 Adapted Mercy Corps’ Resilience Framework presented in: Our Resilience Approach to relief, recovery and development. 
Mercy Corps. (2016)
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 42
Figure 9: Ability to recover from shocks and stresses index
From FGDs with community members across the 5 counties the main shocks that affected the
communities in the past six months were floods, high food prices and inter-communal violence. Currently
a 50 kg bag of sorghum cost about 154 USD compared to 102 USD during the same period last year
reflecting a price increase of 33%. According to them, those most affected by the shocks are returnees,
IDPs, women headed households and the elderly who are living alone. Similarly Key informant interviews
indicated that in the past six months, the communities suffered from floods which destroyed crops, high
livestock death due to diseases and high food prices.
5.10. Outcome 2.3: Equitable leadership systems and communal structures 
supported
5.10.1. BL24: Percent of households that believe local government will respond 
effectively to future shocks and stresses; disaggregated by gendered 
household type.
When systems are affected by a shock or stress, which are themselves complex, it is difficult to anticipate
the multitude of effects an event islikely to have and in many casesthese are only recognized in hindsight38.
Measuring resilience often relies on both objective and subjective measures. Objective measures are
directly observable measurements of a shock including for example rainfall data, wind speed, seismic
activity, national and community early warning system data (in some cases), food price shocks,
infrastructure/assets destroyed etc. These measures tend to be standardized and are widely applicable –
for example – rainfall deviation from norm is a consistently meaningful measure across all contexts.
The baseline study investigated these in the context of how the communities perceived the capacity and
responsibility of the local authorities to effectively respond in the event of shocks and stresses. From the
study finding (Figure 10), only 23.3% of the respondent households believe the government can effectively
respond to shocks and stresses with the majority of such households being those with M&F (50%),
followed by FNM (12.4%) and MNF at 8.8%. None of the child headed HH believed the government can
respond effusively to shocks and stresses.
 
38 Shimizu and Clark 2015
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 43
Figure 10: Percent of HH that believe the local government to effectively respond in the event of
shocks and stresses
When asked on the main protection issuesthat affect people in the community, FGD with local community
leaders indicated that the main social issues were rape on women and girls, forced early child marriages,
inter-communal conflict, cattle raiding, violence and revenge killings.
5.11. Outcome 2.4: Improved access to community based MHPSS resources and 
services to strengthen community cohesion
5.11.1. M37: Percent of community members participating in collective actions; 
disaggregated by activity participation.
‘Community engagement’ is the process of working collaboratively with groups of people affiliated by
geographic proximity, special concern, community concern or similar situations to address the issues
affecting them. It is a powerful vehicle for bringing about environmental, social and behavioural changesto
improve collective well-being. It often involves partnerships and coalitions that help mobilise resources
and serve as catalysts for changing policies, programs, and practices39. Community engagement matters
since it increases the likelihood that projects or solutions will be supported. Citizens who participate in
authentic and transparent engagement processes are more likely to make a significant commitment to help
make the projects happen.
From the survey findings, 44.2% of the households were reportedly engaged in community collective
actions. Even though this number is below average it is imperative for WV to note that communities are
different. They have different histories, leaders, power structures, priorities, cultures and mix of citizens.
Because of these differences, there is really no single model or recipe for undertaking community
engagement efforts. It would be imperative for WV to strengthen its community engagement efforts in
line with its core values and guiding principles.
5.12. Outcome 2.5: Strengthened Rapid Response (RR) capacity to save lives and 
alleviate human suffering during rapid onset shocks
5.12.1. Custom: Percentage of people reporting improved capacity to respond to 
and recover from sudden onset shocks
Understanding the impactsofshocks and stresseson individuals, households, communities and the systems
they live in provides some direction on what data to collect and when. In general, we would like to
 
39 Community Engagement for collective Actions, A handbook for Practitioners, December 2017
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 44
understand howhousehold and community response evolvesovertime, whether household or community
resilience has been eroded by repeated events and whether the negative effects are compounded by
multiple, intersecting shocks/stresses. These data are useful throughout the project cycle, including
informing a resilience assessment for project design, targeting emergency and/or development
interventions, monitoring and evaluating projects, and testing key assumptions about resilience40.
The baseline also sought to investigate the proportion of people who report improved capacity to respond
and recoverfrom sudden onset ofshocks. From the findings, 33.4% of the HH reported improved capacity
to respond and recover from sudden onset of shocks. On disaggregation by gendered HH type; M&F
household recording the highest at 36.4%; followed by FNM at 32.5%, MNF at 29.3% and CNA at 2%.
Figure 11 presents the finding.
Figure 11: Percent of people who report improved capacity to respond and recover from sudden onset of 
shocks
5.13. Purpose 3: Strengthened coordination, systems and learning to support 
recovery and resilience.
5.13.1. BL28: Index of social capital at the household level; disaggregated by 
gendered household type, and social capital component.
Social Capitalrefersto the nature and extent of one’sinvolvement in variousinformal networks and formal
civic organizations. From chatting with neighbors or engaging in recreational activities to joining
environmental organizations and political parties, social capital in this sense is used as a conceptual term
to characterize the many and varied waysin which a given community’s members interact41. Social capital
helps to disseminate information, reduces opportunistic behavior, and facilitates collective decision￾making.The effectivenesswith which structuralsocial capital, in the form of the associations and networks,
fulfillsthis role depends upon many aspects of these groups, reflecting theirstructure, their membership,
and the way they function.
At the level of households,the density of membership ismeasured by the average number of memberships
of each household in existing organizations (this can be normalized by household size). The SC-IQ data
make it possible to assess the internal diversity of organizations according to nine criteria: kinship,religion,
gender, age, ethnicity/linguistic group, occupation, education, political affiliation, and income level.Diversity
information can be used separately or combined in an index. For example, a “diversity score” can be
 
40 Sagara, B. (2018). Resilience Measurement Practical Guidance Note Series 2: Measuring Shocks and Stresses. Produced by 
Mercy Corps as part of the Resilience Evaluation, Analysis and Learning (REAL) Associate Award.
41 Measuring Social Capital, World Bank Working Paper No. 18, November 2003.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 45
calculated for each organization, ranging from 0 to 9. These scores then averaged over all or the most
important organizations to which households belong.
The baseline survey sought to ascertain the index of social capital by asking respondents about the groups
or organizations, networks, associations to which member of your household belonged. These could be
formally organized groups or just groups of people who get together regularly to do an activity or talk
about things. A list of groups was read out and the respondents would tell if anyone in their household
belongs to such a group, and whether he/she participates actively in the group’s decision making. The
finding recorded an overall social capital index of 25 with M&F household recording the highest at 34
followed by FNM at 13, MNF at 2 and CNA at 0. Figure 11presents the finding.
Figure 12: Index of social capital at the Household level
5.13.2. Custom: Percentage of people reporting improvements in their feelings of 
well-being and ability to cope at the end of the program
When we understand what makes people’s lives go well, see the positive things people bring to situations,
and understand people’s emotional and social needs, projects and services can be better designed to
respond to the many aspectsthat make up people’slives. There is growing interest among political leaders,
local statutory agencies and others in measuring something that really matters – people’s wellbeing. The
study adopted the Short Warwick- Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (SWEMWBS), the Office of
National Statistics (ONS) subjective well-being questions and a question on social trust, which is known
to be a key factor for wellbeing.
SWEMWBS is a scale of seven positively worded items, with five response categories which have been
specifically designed to measure both the feeling and functioning aspects of positive mental well-being, i.e.
flourishing. These questions meet various statistical tests of robustness, and they also have ‘face validity’
as measures of aspects of flourishing within the dynamic model, i.e. on the face of it, the questionsreally
are about wellbeing! For example, good feelings (‘feeling relaxed’), sense of meaning (‘feeling useful’) and
good relationships (‘feeling close to other people’). The SWEMWBS is a shortened version of the longer
Warwick and Edinburgh Mental Well-being Scale (WEMWBS)42.
 
42 http://www.healthscotland.com/understanding/population/ Measuringpositive-mental-health.aspx
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 46
From the findings the proportion households with positive mental well-being, i.e. flourishing stands at
22.7% (M&F-30%; FNM-6.4%; MNF-1.4% and CNA-0%) meaning that generally people have a low of near
negative feeling of well-being about theirlives(Figure 12).
Figure 13: Percent of people reporting feelings of well-being and ability to cope at the end of the program
5.14. Cross-cutting. Proportion of female and male children aged 12-18 years who have 
experienced violence in the past 12 months (by type) - type to include physical, 
emotional, sexual,
About 41% of respondents indicated that there are specific security concerns affecting women and/or girls
in the five targeted counties in Upper Nile State. There are more cases of security concerns for women
and girlsin Nasir (59%) and Ulang (55%) as shown in the table below.
The major challenges faced by women as reported by households in order of frequency are sexual
harassment (61%), Sexual assault (43%), and rape (40%), and verbal harassment (35%), violence in the
home-hitting,slapping, choking, kicking (34%) and no safe place in the community (27%).Table 25 presents
the challengesfaced by women in the community. 
Table 24: GBV challenges face by women in the community
Challenges faced by women in the community
Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk
89 142 14 22 35
1=No safe place in the community 27% 52% 7% 64% 57%
2=Sexual harassment 61% 7% 29% 27% 26%
3=Sexual assault 43% 3% 7% 14% 17%
4=Verbal harassment 35% 5% 14% 36% 0%
5=Rape 40% 7% 7% 0% 3%
6=Violence in the home (hitting, slapping, choking, kicking) 34% 34% 14% 45% 11%
7=Early and forced marriages 19% 8% 21% 23% 20%
8=Kidnapping 3% 0% 0% 0% 0%
9=Risk of attack when travelling outside the community 4% 2% 7% 0% 0%
10=Risk of attack when moving within the community 1% 1% 0% 0% 0%
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 47
11=Trafficking 1% 0% 7% 0% 0%
12=Unable to access services and resources 0% 6% 7% 5% 9%
13=Not enough privacy at home 2% 6% 7% 0% 17%
14=House or dwelling is insecure/has no locks 0% 5% 0% 0% 0%
15=Don’t know 0% 12% 57% 5% 3%
16=Other (specify) 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
Survivors of GBV look for help when they experience violence as mentioned by 57% of the despondence.
More households in Ulang (78%) and Nasir (64%) said that survivors of GBV look for help.
During KII with a Protection Officer from ACROSS Africa Development Organization in Mandeng Field
Office, the officer said that the specific security concerns affecting women and girls in Nasir County are
physical violence, sexual assault and rape, abduction, forced early marriages, inter-communal violence,
intermittent fighting between government troops and the Opposition forces and cattle rustling, denial of
resources, emotional violence and domestic violence/intimate violence.
KII with a WVI staff at Melut Field Office indicated that last year, women and girls worried about their
security and safety due to violence related to the civil war when there was no respect for law and any
men with guns would act unlawfully. According to the WVI staff, there were cases of violence on girls and
women including violence within family, husband and wife or husbands and in-laws about dowry, early
marriage, and sexual violence and community conflicts. Girls and women feel unsafe when they go
collecting firewood in the bush and when solitary in the bush. According to the staff, most of the
perpetrators are armed men and drunken men and boys.
Some of the barriers mentioned (Table 26) by respondents include, fear of being identified as survivors
(63%), distance to health facility (37%), no availability of confidential treatment (25%) and no female staff
(22%).
Table 25: Barriers that prevent GBV survivors including women, girls, men and boys from accessing support 
including health support?
Some reasons or the barriers that prevent 
GBV survivors including women, girls, men 
and boys from accessing support including 
health support
Total Nasir Ulang Baliet Melut Renk
735 152 257 57 118 151
1.Fear of being identified as survivors 63% 81% 78% 35% 46% 44%
2.Distance to health facility 37% 66% 18% 32% 37% 42%
3.No female staff 22% 20% 24% 30% 13% 25%
4.No availability of confidential treatment 25% 48% 21% 11% 5% 32%
5.Lack of trained staff 15% 17% 17% 28% 3% 13%
6.DonΓÇÖt know that they should access the
facility for treatment 2% 0% 1% 7% 5% 2%
7.DonΓÇÖt know where to go 6% 0% 0% 33% 20% 3%
On the question of whether survivors of GBV look for help when they experience violence, a KII with a
Senior National Protection Officer from Non Violence Peaceforce (NP) in Ulang Field Office highlighted
that Survivors of GBV often are awarded by NP to seek relevant help. There is a referral pathway to
report cases to relevant health authorities and services such as psychosocial and medical support are
provided by MSF including awareness raising and capacity building interventions. The Senior National
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 48
Protection Officer alluded that only very fewGBV survivorslook for help at health facilities and from GBV
partners thus many cases go unreported. According to him, there are two main reasonsthat prevent GBV
survivorsforseeking support from the local authorities and these are the fear ofstigmatization from other
women who will judge the survivor as a loose girl/woman and/or a prostitute and secondly such cases
when reported could lead to killing of the perpetrator of the violence by relatives and or/husband of the
survivor. Thus, according to the women and girls they do not want to be party to or the cause of blood
shed of another person. In Melut and Baliet, a KII with a Protection Officer from WVI Melut Office
mentioned that cultural norms are barriers that prevent most GBV survivors from accessing
support/health supportsincluding fear offuturetargeting by the perpetrators.NonethelessotherSurvivors
of GBV look for help when they experienced violence, women and girls most often goesto camp leaders
or Payam Administrators to seek help.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1. Conclusions
Outcome 1.1: Improved household food production and storage
Less than a third (26.8%) of the producers/households are using/applying improved agricultural 
management practices or technologies in the project area. This is evident from the low acreage 3.48 
Hectares under improved management practices or technologies and the low number of individuals 
in the agricultural system who applied improved management practices of technology.
Outcome 1.2: Increased household income & economic empowerment of vulnerable groups.
The culture of group saving and lending is still poor as evident by the small number of households 
(32.1%) participating in the group saving and lending programs in the project area and further point 
to the low (32.2%) number of women and men in a union earned cash in the previous 12 months 
preceding the study.
Outcome 1.3: Strengthened nutrition and IYCF interventions and integrated WASH services
There exist high prevalence of food insecurity in the project area as evident by the high number of
households (59.2%) surveyed having a poor food consumption score. A significantly high number
(82.7%) of the households experience moderate hunger and as a result are adopting negative coping
strategies to mitigate food insecurity.
There exist poorIYCF practices as evident by the lowrate of exclusive breastfeeding (16.3%) among
children 0-6 months and the small number (36%) of children consuming a diet of minimum dietary
diversity.
Water and sanitation services are poor as evident by the low number of households (5.7%) with 
access to basic drinking water services. In addition, open defecation is till rampant and only 12.7%
of the households can access basic sanitation services.
There exists high rate of open defecation (35.1%) due to poor coverage of improved and safe
sanitation facilities for defecation (12.7%) in the project area. 
WASH knowledge attitude and practices is still poor as evident by the low number of households
with soap and water at handwashing stations (27.5%). Moreover, only a few households’ possess 
hand washing station.
Outcome 2.2: Strengthened community managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) systems
 Households in target counties are still prone to shocks or stresses such asfloods, drought as evident
by their reduced capacity to recover from shocks. 
Outcome 2.5: Strengthened Rapid Response (RR) capacity to save lives and alleviate human suffering during 
rapid onset shocks
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 49
 Households in the project area do not possess adequate capacity to respond and recover from
sudden onset of shocks.
6.2. Recommendations
Outcome 1.1: Improved household food production and storage
WV and partners to promote improved agricultural management practices or technologies in the 
project area.
Infrastructure; access to markets, water for production, capital for agribusiness and inadequate
land for farming callsfor GoSS intervention and advocacy around resource allocation at all levels.
Outcome 1.2: Increased household income & economic empowerment of vulnerable groups.
WV to consider supporting alternative livelihood initiatives coupled with micro financing in the
form of S4Ts will go a long way in transitioning the community from poverty.
Outcome 1.3: Strengthened nutrition and IYCF interventions and integrated WASH services
WV and partners to promote exclusive breastfeeding through increased sensitization and
awareness creation.
WV and partners to promote optimal IYCN practices among PLW.
WV and partners to promote food diversification and promotion of maternal child care
interventions.
WV and partners to promote education of expectant mothers on proper nutrition provision of
diversified dietsfor children including assorted fruits and vegetables that are locally available.
WV and partners to promote climate smart practices already being adopted by the community
like; rain water harvesting, small scale irrigation, control of soil erosion including mulching,
construction of gabions and terraces, kitchen gardening and agro-forestry.
WV to rally partners to increase investment in water infrastructure development e.g. pipeline
system extension to furtherreduce walking distance for women and girls who are mostly involved
in water collection.
WV to rally all partnersin identification of most appropriate watertechnologiesforsurface water.
WV to rally all partners to invest more resources and efforts to increase access to improved
sanitation. The Community-Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach and design for behavior change
should be adopted.
WV to rally all partners to introduce more innovation on simple, affordable but quality adoptable
improved sanitation structures for HH using sanitation led marketing approaches.
WV and partners to capacity build water committees on governance issues to ensure proper
water management that will guarantee sustainability.
WV and partners to build capacity of CHEWs, WUAs, CBOs and other community structure
groupsto integrate and sensitize communities on proper hygiene practices at household level.
Outcome 2.2: Strengthened community managed disaster risk reduction (CMDRR) systems
WV and partners to support capacity building trainings on DRM cushioning them from potential 
disasters.
GoSS and partners to support crosssector and multi stakeholder coordination and linkage.
All stakeholders to support peace activities like; Peace Committees and Peace Clubs DPRC
meetings, women leader’s peace meetings, youth leaders meetings, elders dialogue meetings,
Youth peace tournament, peace committee meetings and community resource committees to
bring lasting peace in the area.
GoSS to undertake disarmament exercise to rid the area of illegal arms among civilians.
WV will work closely with community disaster management and peace committees to document
early warnings for both conflict and natural disasters.
Baseline Report-Accelerating Recovery and Resilience in South Sudan (ACCESS) Project in Upper Nile State 50
7.0 Appendices
7.1 Appendix 1: Evaluation TOR
ToR_WV South 
Sudan EFSP Baseline SOW_Final -Jan 22, 21.docx
7.2 Appendix 2: Baseline Values
ACCESS Baseline 
Values-final-180521.xlsx
7.3 Appendix 3: Inception Report
South Sudan MYEFSP 
- ACCESS - 72BHA21CA0004 - Baseline Inception Report - 20 April 2021.pdf
7.4 Appendix 4: ACCESS Log frame
ACCESS 
Project_Logframe Review_31 March 2021_31ac921a-d2e6-4bba-b5e5-eb2d9e76db88.pdf
7.5 Appendix 5: Data Collection Tools
 
7.5 Appendix 6: Datasets & Analysis Plan