Grha Phase II Final Evaluation Report (Draft) 10june21 Revised 28july21

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT
Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance to Conflict Affected IDP

Women and Girls in Rakhine State, Myanmar 2020-2021
Photo credit: LWF Myanmar Sittwe Project Office

Prepared by:
Dream Light Consultancy Team
Submitted to:
The Lutheran World Federation (LWF)
Myanmar Program
May, 2021
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
FINAL EVALUATION REPORT ...................................................................................................................... 1
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................................................... 3
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS.................................................................................................................... 6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................ 7
1. INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................. 18
1.1 Background ........................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
1.2 Summary of the project ................................................................................................................................................................ 18 Del
1.3 Scope of the evaluation study .................................................................................................................................................... 20
1.4 Justification of the final evaluation study ............................................................................................................................. 20
1.5 Objectives of the final evaluation assessment .................................................................................................................... 22
2. METHODOLOGY.............................................................................................................................................. 22
2.1 Overview of the final evaluation approach .......................................................................................................................... 22
2.2 Sample size and demographic data of survey respondents.......................................................................................... 23
2.3 Demographic information of survey respondents............................................................................................................ 24
2.4 Preparation for final evaluation study and evaluation framework........................................................................... 26 Del
2.5 Data collection tools and process ............................................................................................................................................. 27
2.6 Data entry and analysis process ............................................................................................................................................... 27 Del
2.7 Survey challenges and limitations ........................................................................................................................................... 28
3. DISCUSSION ON SURVEY FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 28
3.1 Discussion on Ultimate Outcomes ........................................................................................................................................... 28 Del
In table 3.1 (a), the results report that most of the respondents (89.85%, 124/138) state that they
perceived some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their households over
the last year. As of gender disaggregation, 92.73% (51/55M) of male respondents agree on the statement
“In the areas of my life that the project has supported, I am able to express that the living conditions for
myself and my household have improved over the last year” while 87.95% (73/183F) of the female
respondents state that they agree on the statement............................................................................................................... 30
3.2 Discussion on Intermediate Outcomes .................................................................................................................................. 30
3.3 Discussion on Immediate Outcomes ....................................................................................................................................... 42
3.4 Discussion on Outputs .................................................................................................................................................................. 61
4 FINAL EVALUATION ....................................................................................................................................... 64
4.1 Relevance ............................................................................................................................................................................................ 64
4.2 Effectiveness...................................................................................................................................................................................... 67
4.3 Efficiency............................................................................................................................................................................................. 68 Del
4.4 Impact .................................................................................................................................................................................................. 68
4.5 Sustainability .................................................................................................................................................................................... 69
5. GENDER RESPONSIVE ANALYSIS .............................................................................................................. 70
6. RECOMMENDATIONS.................................................................................................................................... 71
7. CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................................................................. 73
Table 4.2 Performance Management Framework .................................................................................. 76
ANNEXES ............................................................................................................................................................... 84
Annex 1 Questionnaires for beneficiary household survey ................................................................................................. 84
Annex 2 Pre-test results for level of understanding of respondents in SGBV .............................................................. 93
Annex 3 Pre-test results for level of understanding of respondents in SRHR ............................................................. 94
2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Description of the sample size for baseline survey of GRHA Phase II 24
Programme
Table 2.2 List of individual respondents in IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships 24
Table 2.3 List of individual respondents in Host Community Villages 24
Table 2.4 List of individual respondents who will benefit shelter activities in Ohn Taw Gyi 25
(South) and Nget Chaung-2
Table 2.5 List of participants who participated in the Focus Group Discussions in IDP 25
Camps
Table 2.6 List of participants who participated in the Focus Group Discussions in Host 25
Community Villages
Table 2.7 (a) Gender of respondents in IDP camps (n=184) 25
Table 2.7 (b) Gender of respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138) 26
Table 2.8 (a) Age of respondents in IDP camps (n=184) 26
Table 2.8 (b) Age of respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138) 26
Table 2.9 (a) Household size of the respondents in IDP camps (n=184) 26
Table 2.9 (b) Household size of the respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138) 26
Table 3.1 (a) Table 3.1 (a) Description of the respondents in IDP camps presenting their 29
opinion on the statement: “In the areas of my life that the project has
supported, I am able to express that the living conditions for myself and my
household have improved over the last year (n=184)
Table 3.1 (b) Table 3.1 (b) Description of the respondents in Host communities presenting 29
their opinion on the statement: “In the areas of my life that the project has
supported I am able to express that the living conditions for myself and my
household have improved over the last year (n=138)
Table 3.2 (a) List of respondents who consider that their basic WASH needs are met in IDP 31
Camps (n=184)
Table 3.2(b) List of respondents who consider that their basic WASH needs in their 31
households such as assess to enough water, soap, and other hygiene
supplies are met in Host Communities (n=138)
Table 3.3(a) Description of the respondents in IDP camps presenting the situation of the 32
sanitation facilities such as adequate and safe access to latrines, space to
bathe, and spaces for washing clothes in their households (n=184)
Table 3.3(b) Description of the respondents in Host Communities presenting the situation 33
of the sanitation facilities such as adequate and safe access to latrines, space
to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes in their households (n=138)
Table 3.4 Description of average time required to reach the water sources, collect water 33
(including queuing), and bring it back home (in the host communities) (n=138)
Table 3.5 (a) Description of the respondents who demonstrates positive attitudes on the 34
statements mentioned in the table supposing towards ending SGVB in IDP
Camps (n=184)
Table 3.5 (b) List of respondents demonstrating positive attitudes on the statements 35
mentioned in the table supposing towards ending SGVB in Host Community
(n=138)
Table 3.6 Description of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I 36
am able to access to enough and improved quality of NFIs that I received and
I feel satisfied to use these distributed NFIs” (n=20)
Table 3.7 Description of respondents who express agree with the statement – “I feel 37
safe when I am in my shelter” in targeted IDP Camps (Nget Chaung-2 & Ohn
Taw Gyi (South)) (n=30)
Table 3.8 Description of targeted host community residents who agree or strongly agree 38
with the statement “those living in the IDP camps are welcome in their
community” (n=138)
Table 3.9 (a) Description of the respondents (IDP women) in joint households who make 38
significant household decisions jointly or by themselves (n=17; Analyzed only
women from male-headed households)
3
Table 3.9(b) Description of the respondents (Host community women) in joint households 39
who make significant household decisions jointly or by themselves (n=17;
Analyzed only women from male-headed households)
Table 3.10(a) Description of respondents who express agree with the statement – “At the 40
last 2 CMC meetings I participated in members of my group (WDG & YWDG)
brought issues to the CMC” in IDP Camps (n=23)
Table 3.10(b) Description of respondents who express agree with the statement – “At the 41
last 2 VDC meetings I participated in members of my group (Women and Girls)
brought issues to the VDC” in Host Community (n=6)
Table 3.11 Description of targeted community residents who have primarily access water 42
for cooking, bathing and cleaning (n=138)
Table 3.12 Table 3.12: Description of average level of satisfaction upon receiving among 43
women and girls with the usefulness of the dignity kits received “Opinion
expressing on the statement “I feel satisfied upon receiving the dignity kits and
it is useful among women and girls in IDP camps” (n=113)
Table 3.13(a) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SGBV on the 44
statements (a case of sexual or gender-based violence) mentioned in the table
in IDP Camps (n=184)
Table 3.13(b) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SGBV on the 45
statements (a case of sexual or gender-based violence) mentioned in the table
in Host Community (n=138)
Table 3.14(a) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SRHR on the 47
statements (a case of sexual and reproductive rights) mentioned in the table
Table 3.14(b) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SRHR on the 48
statements (a case of sexual and reproductive rights) mentioned in the table
Table 3.15 Table 3.15: Description of average level of satisfaction among PSNs (M/F) 50
upon receiving the quality of NFIs (n=20)
Table 3.16 Description of respondents who express the situation of the shelters in 51
targeted IDP Camps (Nget Chaung-2 & Ohn Taw Gyi (South)) in Sittwe and
Pauktaw Townships (n=30)
Table 3.17 Description of respondents who express the situation of the shelters in 51
targeted IDP Camps (Nget Chaung-2 & Ohn Taw Gyi (South)) in Sittwe and
Pauktaw Townships (n=30)
Table 3.18 List of respondents upon awareness on level of confident in the CMC to 52
monitor and advocate on human rights concerns (n=184)
Table 3.19 List of respondents who express their level of confidence in the CMC to 53
monitor and advocate on human rights concerns on the statement: “I would
feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive and fairly respond to human rights
issues in camps”. (n=184)
Table 3.20 Description of the respondents who indicate that they agree on the statement: 54
“Disrepair of pathways within camps prevent me from accessing income
generation activities, schooling, or social activities”. (n=69)
Table 3.21(a) Description of the respondents in IDP camps (Ah Nauk Ywe Camp) who 55
indicate that they agree on the statement: “Disrepair of pathways between the
camps and host community prevent me from accessing income generation
activities, schooling, or social activities” (n=23)
Table 3.21(b) Description of the respondents in host community (Ah Nauk Ywe village) who 56
indicate that they agree on the statement: “Disrepair of pathways between the
camps and host community prevent me from accessing income generation
activities, schooling, or social activities” (n=23)
Table 3.22(a) List of respondents (women and girls) in WDGs and YWDGs who feel 57
confident to express their opinions in a group setting in IDP camps (n=23)
Table 3.22(b) List of respondents (women and girls) in host communities (only women and 57
girls) who feel confident to express their opinions in a group setting in host
communities (n=83)
confident to express their opinions in a group of other men and women in IDP
camps (n=23)
4
Table 3.23(b) List of respondents (women and girls) in host communities (only women and 58
girls) who feel confident to express their opinions in a group of other men and
women in IDP camps (n=83)
confident to participate in CMC in IDP camps (n=23)
Table 3.24(b) List of respondents (women and girls) who feel confident to participate in VDC 59
in Host Community (Only women who are members of VDC in Host
Community) (n=6)
Table 3.25 Table 3.21 Description of the women respondents trained in the Myanmar 60
language and basic numeracy skills who demonstrate improved capacity in
these areas by the end of the project (n=2700)
Table 4.1 Analysis of the project indicators against SMART criteria 65
Table 4.2 Performance measurement framework of the project 76
5
ABBREVIATION AND ACRONYMS
CCCM Camp Coordination and Camp Management
CLWR Canadian Lutheran World Relief
CMC Camp Management Committee
DRC Danish Refugee Council
FGD Focus Group Discussions
FHH Female-Headed Household
GAC Global Affairs Canada
GRHA Gender Responsive and Humanitarian Assistance
IDP Internally Displaced People
INGOs International Non-Government Organizations
KIIs Key Informant Interviews
LWF Lutheran World Federation
M&E Monitoring and Evaluation
MHH Male-Headed Household
NFIs Non-Food Items
Oxfam GB Oxfam Great Britain
PSNs People with Special Needs
PWDs People with Disabilities
SGBV Sexual and Gender Based Violence
SRHR Sexual and Reproductive Health and Right
UNFPA United Nations Population Fund
VDC Village Development Committee
WASH Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WDGs Women Development Groups
YWDGs Youth Women Development Groups
6
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction of the project
LWF-Myanmar is responding to the critical and urgent needs of IDPs and host communities,
particularly the direct beneficiaries of 84,917 (24,438 Male/60,478 Female) that represent 55,462
IDPs (14,458 Male/41,004 Female) and 29,455 hosts (9,980 Male/19,475 Female) in 8 IDP Camps
and 6 host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships in Rakhine State, Myanmar. This project
has been funded by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canadian Lutheran World Relief (CLWR).
Specifically, the targeted project beneficiaries are from 8 IDP camps (Basara, Thae Chaung, Ohn
Taw Gyi, Khaung Doke Khar-1, Khaung Doke Khar-2 in Sittwe Township and Nget Chaung-1, Nget
Chaung-2, and Ah Nauk Ywe in Pauktaw Township) and 6 host communities (Basara, Thae Chaung,
Khaung Doke Khar, Kyat Taw Pyin, and Aung Daing Villages in Sittwe Township & Ah Nauk Ywe
Village in Pauktaw Township). The duration of the project, “Gender Responsive Humanitarian
Assistance to Conflicted Affected IDP Women and Girls in Rakhine State (GRHA Phase II) Project”
is one year started from April 2020 to March 2021. LWF-Myanmar plans to address urgent basic
needs by increasing access to clean drinking water, NFIs, gender-sensitive shelter, improved
pathways, and dignity kits. The project will build the skills and capacities of Muslims and Rakhine to
prepare them to claim their rights systematically in a peaceful manner. It will support the
empowerment of women, girls, and PSNs by raising awareness of their rights, improving leadership,
literacy and language skills, and supporting the involvement of women, men, boys and girls from
host and IDP communities in community decision making processes. Thus, the overall expected
project result is to reduce suffering and increase human dignity for conflict affected IDPs and host
communities, particularly women and girls, in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, Rakhine State in
Myanmar.
Objective of the final evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and
sustainability of the project interventions. The analysis provided on progress made against all
project indicators. It has also identified important lessons and drawn recommendations for
consideration in designing the next phase of the project or future gender responsive project.
Specifically, the final evaluation survey carried out to assess the identified indicators, focusing on
the activities - WASH, SRHR, NFIs, Shelters, Life skills improvement, and Camp management in 8
IDPs camps and 6 host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships in Rakhine State. As a result,
the final evaluation survey report will be used by LWF Myanmar and donors as benchmark
information for monitoring project performance, measuring project achievements at the project
objectives and results levels, evaluating project end-line impacts, and using as a reference
for next grant proposals. Moreover, it will be used by the project team as a reference for results-
based M&E and periodically tracking progress made as a result of project interventions.
Methodology
Purposive sampling was used among the IDPs Camps and Host Villages, particularly supposed to
identify as the households in each of the IDP camps and host villages. Among them, the sample
households at the longhouse level were selected randomly. Total sample size for household’s survey
was 322 respondents for 8 IDPs and 6 Host Communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships to
ensure the representation of all beneficiaries of the project. Specifically, 184 (71 males and 113
females) respondents in 8 IDP camps and 138 (55 males and 83 females) respondents in 6 host
communities participated in the household level survey. In addition, 30 beneficiaries who will benefit
the shelter activities in 2 IDP camps (Ohn Taw Gyi (South) IDP Camp in Sittwe and Nget Chaung-2
IDP Camp in Pauktaw) were also separately interviewed that represent the 29 Longhouses in these
two IDP camps. For the qualitative interview, 56 FGDs were conducted at the IDP camps and host
villages. In addition, some INGOs working in the Rakhine State for IDP camps and host communities
were also interviewed in order to have better understanding of the situation, however, we could have
7
done 3 INGOs such as UNFPA, Oxfam GB and DRC. The end-line survey team conducted the field
survey from 21st to 28th July 2020 and qualitative assessment were carried out by the 56 FGDs,
including women, girls, men and boys in 8 IDP camps and 6 host communities’ villages. In addition,
the interview with INGOs was conducted by Skype and phone on 29th July 2020 at LWF Office in
Sittwe. Additionally, the case studies were developed for each component to be able to support the
project interventions, determining the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and
sustainability. The same survey process and methodologies were used for all surveyed
communities in different two townships (IDP camps and host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships).
Limitations
As we have already known about the COVID-19 pandemic, this was one of the challenges that
delayed the assessment process against the planned schedule, meaning there was a limitation of
the time and travel restrictions as well as the meeting of not more than 5 people in one place. In
addition, Rakhine State is a conflict-affected area and it is sensitive to go and visit from one place to
another within Rakhine State. In this regard, submission of the travel authorization letter to the
Rakhine State Government is a mandatory process to go and visit the IDP camps and host villages
and it takes three weeks to issue the approval letter from the Government. Thus, there were
challenges, including political issues, COVID-19 pandemic issues, and security issues that might be
at risk of doing baseline assessment. Beyond this COVID-19 pandemic issue, nationwide
unexpected political situation has happened since 1st February, 2021 (Military have defeated the
Civilian Government on 1st February 2021). As consequences, the travel restrictions have been
made and we didn’t receive the travel authorization letter to go and visit the IDP camps and host
community villages even though the project team submitted the travel authorization letter to the local
government. As per the suggestion of the project team, the enumerators from the IDP camps and
host community villages were recruited to collect the data at the field level. Before the data collection
at the field level, we have arranged to train the recruited enumerators in terms of survey questions
at household level, focus group discussion, and key informant interviews. However, we have visited
some IDP camps (Nget Chanung 1 & 2) in Pauktaw Township and some host community villages
(Muslim and Rakhine Host Community Villages) where we can easily visit there. In this, we could
have conducted interview with key informants from the institutions via Skype and Phone as it was
difficult to organize in-person meeting.
Findings
Ultimate Outcomes
- 66.19% (47/71M) and 74.34% (84/113F) of respondents from IDP camps agree that they
report some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their
households over the last year
- 92.73% (51/55M) and 87.95% (73/83F) of respondents from Host Communities agree that
they report some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their
Intermediate Outcomes
Intermediate outcome: 1100
Indicator: % and # of women, girls, men and boys, who consider that their basic WASH needs are
met
- 70.42% (50/71M) and 70.8% (80/113F) in IDP camps who agree that they are able to access
enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep myself and my household clean and
healthy
- 96.36% (53/55M) in Host Communities who agree that they are able to access enough water,
soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep themselves and their household clean and healthy.
- 88.73% (63/71M) of males agreed on the statement “I have adequate and safe access to
latrines, space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes” while 90.27% (102/113F) of female
respondents agreed on this statement
8
latrines, space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes” but only 97.57% (81/83F) agreed
on this statement

Indicator: % and # of women and girls, men and boys, demonstrating positive attitudes towards
ending SGBV
§ About 69.01% (49/71M) and 68.14% (77/113F) of respondents in average in IDP camps could
be considered that they were aware of the SGBV, meaning they (women and girls, men and
boys) who demonstrated the positive attitudes towards ending SGBV.
§ About 74.55% (41/55M) and 67.47% (56/83F) of respondents in average in host communities
could be considered that they were aware of the SGBV, meaning they (women and girls, men
and boys who demonstrated the positive attitudes towards ending SGBV.
Intermediate outcome: 1200.1:

Indicator: % and # of PSNs (M/F) who report increased quality of life through the use of distributed
NFIs
- 58.33% (7/12M) and 87.5% (7/8F) of PSNs agree that they are able to access to enough and
improved quality of NFIs that they received and feel satisfied to use these distributed NFIs.
Intermediate outcome: 1200.2:

Indicator: % and # of targeted IDP households who report feeling safe in their shelters
(disaggregated by MHH and FHH)
§ 72% (18/25MHH) males and 55.56% (5/9FHH) of females in IDP camps could be considered
that they felt safe when they were in their shelter

Indicator: % and # of targeted host community residents (m/f) who agree or strongly agree with the
statement 'those living in the IDP camps are welcome in our community'
- 78.18% (43/55M) and 85.54% (71/83F) respondents who agree or strongly agree with the
statement “those living in the IDP camps are welcome in our community”
Indicator: % and # of IDP and host community women in joint households who make significant
household decisions jointly or by themselves.
§ 35% (7/20) of women in joint households who make significant household decisions jointly in
average on all types of decisions in IDP camps
§ 60% (12/20) of women in joint households who make significant household decisions jointly
in average on all types of decisions in host community
Indicator: # of % of monthly CMC (IDP camp) and VDC (host community) meetings where WDG or
YDG members provided meaningful input into decision making processes
§ 70.83% (17/24) of women and girls’ respondents agree that women and girls from WDG and
YWDG participated in the last 2 CMC meetings in which they provided the meaningful input
into the CMC
§ 83.33% (20/24) of the women and girls’ respondents (respondents agree that women and
girls from members of VDC) participated in the last 2 VDC meetings in which they provided
the meaningful input into the VDC
II. Immediate outcomes

Immediate outcome: 1110.3:
Indicator: % and # of targeted host community residents (M/F) who have access to a protected
water source
§ 92.72% (51/55M) and 92.77% (77/83F) of respondents in targeted host communities
expressed that they have access to “tube well or borehole” and it could be considered that
they have access to a protected water source.
Immediate outcome 1110.2:
9
Indicator: Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5-high]) among women and girls with the
usefulness of the dignity kits received
- 36.28% (41/113F) of the respondents state that they feel satisfied at Level 5 (High) which represents
81-100%; 22.21% (25/113F) of the respondents are at Level 4 (Above Average) that represents 61-
80% of satisfaction; 30.09% (34/113F) of the respondents are at Level 3 (Average) that represents 41-
60% of satisfaction; and 11.5% (13/113F) of respondents are at Level 2 (Below Average) that
represents 21-40% of satisfaction respectively.
Immediate outcome: 1120:

Indicator: % and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) and host community members (M, F) who demonstrate
a good understanding of SGBV
§ 76.06% (54/71M) of males and 75.22% (85/113F) of females in average in IDP camps
expressed that they could be considered that they were aware of the SGBV, meaning they
(women and girls, men and boys) demonstrated a good understanding of SGBV.
§ 78.18% (43/55M) of males and 73.49% (61/83F) of females in average in host communities
could be considered that they were aware of the SGBV, meaning they (women and girls, men
and boys) demonstrated a good understanding of SGBV.
Immediate outcome: 1120.2:

Indicator: % and # of targeted women and girls who demonstrate a good understanding SRHR
§ Overall, the respondents (women and girls) in IDP camps who gave correct answers on the
statements were about 76.11% (86/113) in average and thus perhaps the findings could be
considered that women and girls had a good understanding of SRHR.
§ Overall, the respondents (women and girls) in the host communities who gave correct
answers on the statements were about 83.13% (69/83) in average and thus perhaps the
findings could be considered that women and girls had a good understanding of SRHR.
Indicator: % of target IDPs (M,F) and host community members (M,F) who report increased
awareness, skills and capacities regarding understanding gender, the rights of women and girls, and
SGBV
§ About 48% (3166/6548) responded to all of the topics related to SGBV (used in the post-test)
at “Level 5: Unacceptable”. About 26% (1701/6548) respondents responded to all of the
topics related to SGBV (used in the post-test at “Level 4: Poor”). About 20% (1317/6548)
respondents responded to all of the topics related to SGBV (used in the pre-test) at “Level 3:
Fair”. About 6% (365/6548) respondents responded to all of the topics related to SGBV (used
in the post-test) at “Level 2: Good”.
§ About 39% (3092/6548) responded to all of the topics related to SRHR (used in the post-test)
at “Level 5: Unacceptable”. About 22% (1413/6548) respondents responded to all of the
topics related to SRHR (used in the pre-test at “Level 4: Poor”. About 21% (1375/6548)
respondents responded to all of the topics related to SRHR (used in the post-test) at “Level
3: Fair”. About 18% (1187/6548) respondents responded to the selected topics related to
SRHR at “Level 2: Good”.
Immediate outcome: 1210
Indicator: Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5-high]) among PSNs (M/F) with the quality
of NFIs received, (baseline value is not available for this indicator)
- 33.33% (4/12M) of the male respondents state that they feel satisfied upon receiving the
quality of NFIs among PSNs at Level 5 (High) which represents 81-100% while 37.5% (3/8F)
of female respondents are also at Level 5 (High);
- 25% (3/12M) of the male respondents state that they feel satisfied upon receiving the quality
of NFIs among PSNs at Level 4 (Above Average) that represents 61-80% of satisfaction
while 37.5% (3/8F) of female respondents are also at Level 4 (Above Average);
- 41.67% (5/12M) of the male respondents state that they feel satisfied upon receiving the
quality of NFIs among PSNs at Level 3 (Average) that represents 41-60% of satisfaction
while 25% (2/8F) of the female respondents
10
Immediate outcome: 1220:
Indicator: % and # of shelter beneficiaries (M/F) who express satisfaction with the privacy and safety
of their housing
§ 76% (19/25M) of males and 66.67% (6/9F) of females expressed satisfaction with the privacy
and safety of their housing
§ 80% (20/25M of males and 66.67% (6/9F of females in targeted IDP camps agreed that they
felt safe in their shelter from the elements (rain, wind, etc.) and unwanted intruders.
Immediate outcome: 1310

Indicator: % and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) who express confidence in the CMC to monitor and
advocate on human rights concerns
§ 78.87% (56/71M) males and 83.19% (94/113F) of females in IDP camps who expressed that
they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights concerns.
§ 81.69% (58/71M) of males and 82.30% (93/113F) of females in average answered that they
were aware of basic human rights concerned and thus more than 70% of the males and
females in IDP camps perceived a good understanding of the basic human rights concerned.
Indicator: # of targeted IDPs and host community members (M/F) who indicate that poor pathways
are a barrier to economic, educational or social activities
§ 96.29% (26/27M) and 95.23% (40/42F) of respondents who indicated that poor pathways
were a barrier to economic, educational or social activities
§ 100% (8/8M) of males agreed on the statement “Disrepair of pathways between the camps
and host community prevent me from accessing income generation activities, schooling, or
social activities” and 100% (15/15F) of females also agreed on this statement.
§ 100% (6/6M) of males agreed on the statement “Disrepair of pathways between the camps
and host community prevent me from accessing income generation activities, schooling, or
social activities” but only 100% (17/17F) of females agreed on this statement.
Immediate outcome 1320:

Indicator: % and # of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to express their
opinions in a group setting
§ 76.59% (36/47) of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs in IDP camps feel confident to
express their opinions in a group setting (Ages of 18-25)
§ 84.31 (43/51) of women and girls in host communities felt confident to express their opinions
in a group setting (Ages of 25-55)
§ 82.97% (39/47) of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs responded that they feel confident
to express their opinions in a group setting while 25% (6/24) of women and girls in these
groups were less confident to express their opinions. (Ages of 18-25)
§ 86.27% (44/51) of women and girls in host community villages responded that they feel
confident to express their opinions in a group setting while (Ages of 25-55)
Indicator: % and # of women and girls in WDGs and YWGs who feel confident to participate in
community decision making processes
- 85.1% (40/47) of women and girls in WDGs and YWGs in IDP camps feel confident to
participate in community decision making processes
- 87.5% (7/8) of women in VDC feel confident to participate in VDC in host communities
Indicator: % and # of women trained in the Myanmar language and basic numeracy who
demonstrate improved capacity in these areas by the end of the project
§ For the writing skills in Myanmar, 5% (124/2700) of women could not write in Myanmar
language and basic numeracy as their level of language proficiency was at “Level 10:
Unacceptable” accordingly. 9% (246/2700) of women were at “Level 9: Very Poor”, meaning
that their level of language proficiency in writing were very poor. Likewise, 28% (743/2700)
of women were also very poor in writing skills of Myanmar as their level was at “Level 8: Very
Poor”. It has been found that 23% (631/2700) of women were at “Level 7: Poor” and 25%
(674/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”. However, it has been found that 10%
11
(273/2700) of women were in progress of their writing skills in Myanmar as their level was at
“Level 5: Fair”.
§ For the reading skills in Myanmar, 5% (130/2700) of women could not read in Myanmar
(727/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”. However, it has been found that 7% (185/2700)
of women were in progress of their reading skills in Myanmar as their level was at “Level 5:
Fair”.
§ For the writing skills in Muslim, 50% (1346/2700) of women could not write in Muslim
Poor”. However, it has been found that 6% (168/2700) of women were at “Level 7: Poor” and
20% (543/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”.
§ For the reading skills in Muslim, 43% (1173/2700) of women could not write in Myanmar
20% (537/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”. However, it has been found that 1%
(21/2700) of women were in progress of their reading skills in Muslim as their level was at
Final Evaluation
Relevance
The project has been highly relevant to women and girls IDP Rohingya in camps, as it focuses on
reducing their suffering and increasing their dignity including building their capacities by learning
Myanmar language and basic numeracy, understand SGBV, their rights and the referral paths for
SGBV; learning on SRHR and preparedness to hazards. The project included actions to fulfill a
strong claim, lighting for accessing WASH facilities. Also, the project has been relevant for person
with special needs (PSN) and person with disabilities with specific actions: the provision of assistive
devices and non-food items (NFIs) to dignify their lives. The project is currently in its secondary
phase, in relation to women and girls’ development through awareness and knowledge on SGBV,
SRHR, women leadership and gender, women’s rights and language and numeracy skills. The
project was designed based on initial community consultation processes and excellent knowledge
of the context. The high levels of flexibility enabled the project to adapt activities, such as the
substitution of rehabilitation of housing into sole reconstruction of 29 longhouses and few women
and girl centers for other infrastructures facilitating access and mobility for the most vulnerable IDPs.
In general indicators are adequate, but few would have needed some adjustment
to be completely SMART. The project was relevant and appropriate for the IDPs and host
communities’ villages where it was developed and there is strong consensus within the study that
has been carried out that help support this statement. This project is highly relevant to the difficult
and unequal social position of women and girls in both Rakhine and Rohingya communities.
However, the project was highly relevant to include both IDPs and Host Community Members in the
Phase II supposed to consider the conflict of interest (Do No Harms) principle towards all-inclusive
IDPs and host communities, including Muslim and Rakhine population.
Effectiveness
12
The project was designed with the intermediate outcomes and immediate outcomes that looked at
increasing utilization of WASH, SRHR, and protection services and dignity and safety of Rohingya
IDPs and Host Community Residents, particularly PSNs, women and girls, and improved quality of
life and emergency preparedness through increased equitable community participation in leadership
and decision-making process at camp management and village development committee level in 8
IDP camps and 6 host community villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships. The expected
results/outcomes are split into six results or outcomes. Overall, the project was effective at the level
of outputs, achieving the established targets. At the results level (Intermediate outcomes) the
majority of indicators show the achievement of the results. The level of effectiveness was satisfactory
in increasing dignity and safety of IDPs and improving quality of life and emergency preparedness
(equitable community participation leadership and decision-making processes at the camp level and
host community level).
Efficiency
Based on the experiences from the intervention of the first phase, the second phase could have well
undertaken the project implementation to have high quality outputs and outcomes by taking care of
the quality inputs such as distribution of NFIs to PSNs, provision of dignity kits to women and girls,
repair and/or reconstruction of longhouses in IDP camps, and renovation of ponds for protected
drinking water, installation of hand pumps and building capacities for leadership at camp
management in IDP camps and village development committee level in host community villages,
and awareness and skills improvement for better understanding of basic human rights, SGBV and
SRHR. Shelter (Longhouses) were reconstructed as well as the women and girls’ centers in which
the design have had improvement and the service providing company (awarded the contract) used
a better quality of materials for construction and considering the environmental-friendly design for
safety and security purposes. In terms of day-to-day management, including operational planning,
implementation, budget management, personnel management, logistics, risk management,
coordination, information management, reporting, and deadlines, almost all of these operational
activities were efficiently performed to reach the overall and specific objectives of the project. Thus,
we could consider that the project was highly efficient in intervention of the project activities to meet
the quality and timeliness of the project deliverables and the project could have efficiently undertaken
to be worthwhile the inputs and outputs as well.
Impact
The impact of the project was not felt equally in all the 8 IDP camps and 6 host community villages
in Sittwe and Pauktaw Township as there are significant differences among them in terms of
accessibility and physical and human resource conditions. As of the training, awareness and skills,
Pauktaw camps and host community villages had lower impact respect to the inputs. However, the
full impact of the project in particular for the women and girls’ capacities to help them to face
challenges and building dignity) is yet to be realized and it has been affected by the duration of the
project, meaning the length of the project is too short. Unlike the first phase of the project, the second
phase could have done significant improvements to facilitate the achieved results for sustainability
over the longer term. However, yet there is no uniformity in how the project has impacted the targeted
beneficiaries because tailored trainings to the requirement of the different audiences were
necessary. In terms of easily access to protected water sources and enough water, the results have
achieved against the targets during the project implementation period and it was a fairly good impact
of the project during a short duration. Overall, the full impact of the project (specifically related to
women and girls’ capacities to help them to face challenges and building dignity) is yet to be realized,
due to the short period of the project and thus additionally there is no uniformity in how the project
has impacted the targeted beneficiaries. In addition, it has found the co-benefit of the repairs of the
pathways between the IDP camps and the host community villages that this intervention has
benefitted the communities through injections of cash for works beyond the improvement of the
infrastructure for them. In the third phase, the external factors especially necessary preventive
measures against COVID-19 pandemic should be considered to mitigate the risks that might reduce
the quality of the project results and interrupt the intervention of the project.
13
Sustainability
This section analyses what likely to happen to the positive effects of the programme after the external
assistance comes to an end and to what extent the outputs can be expected to be sustainable over
the longer term (supposed to be 5-10 years) and the role of the targeted beneficiaries of women and
girls as proactive community leaders transformed into permanent change. In addition, how the
community action groups taking ownership of the concepts and approaches and how they will
continue to function after their community graduates in which it should be considered what
characteristics make the outputs sustainable or unsustainable.
LWF has a unique position and strategic advantage, recognition and acceptance from IDPs and their
associated host community residents and local Government. This has allowed the organization to
build strong ownership in the field of community organization structures. A strong asset is its
developmental and rights-based approach, seeking to close the gap between the government
/service providers and the IDPs. The strong empowerment approach and the focus on providing
relevant gender appropriate capacity building opportunities will allow IDPs and their associated host
community members included in the second phase of the project to maintain project outcomes. The
capacity to continue running or maintaining community organization structures is a focus of LWF’s
work which ensures sustainability.
Learning and outcomes of this approach can be replicated at village level once closure of camps
finally is realized. The weakness that might interrupt the sustainability have been identified in the
consistency of understanding (among all staff, top to bottom) of the strategy and the sustainability
approach of LWF in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Supposed that LWF Myanmar might have developed
a practical exit strategy and the communities should be aware of it and truly understand and buy into
it, and whether it might be working and this is important for the sustainability over the longer term.
Gender Responsive Analysis

LWF Myanmar conducted a gender analysis that disaggregated data and explored how harmful
sociocultural norms, practices and unequal power dynamics between men and women contribute to
inequalities in accessing services. At the project level, monthly progress monitoring and activity
tracking sheet showed the gender disaggregated data. Likewise, it has also found the gender
disaggregated data for output and outcome level tracking to measure the indicators.
As of the improvement in the second phase, the gender disaggregated data of PSNs have been
collected and monthly updated upon completion of the activities undertaken. In terms of the
participation of women and men, a core set of activities of the project was the provision of knowledge
and skills to the targeted persons of concern, women and girls (18-25 years) in which the project
have provided regular capacity building trainings in terms of language and basic numeracy as well
as the women empowerment trainings such as leadership training to improve their participation and
representation at the camp and host community level, basic human rights and gender, SGBV and
SRHR.
Overall, it has found a significant improvement considering the gender disaggregated data
addressing the participation of women and men in the activities and events (capacity building
trainings) and their knowledge and skills have also improved in the second phase of the project. In
this regard, the improvement of gender responsiveness has also seen at different level of outcomes
and outputs and it could be considered the good practices to keep going in the next phases of the
project intervention. Therefore, the second phase of the project have well undertaken highlighting
the gender responsive programme concept, objectives and goals.
Recommendation
I. Gender Considerations
14
I-1. Enhance gender disaggregation in capacity building trainings in designing and implementing
Future programs should enhance the gender disaggregation in capacity building trainings in
designing and implementing to ensure the quality of the training at all levels to achieve to some
extend the expected changes that reflect the gender responsive context.
Actions:
§ Undertake a capacity assessment in order to have evidence of existing knowledge and skills
and attitudes towards people’s understanding as a baseline for preparing the design
§ Set up the criteria to identify the stakeholders/participants who should be included in order
to consider gender, age, education, etc.
§ Design trainings based on the audiences’ knowledge and capacities with the appropriate
methods and tools
o Considering the continuity/consistency to participate in a series of trainings (E.g.
Foundation course, Follow-up course, and Advanced courses)
o Standardize the LWF’s practice of pre-test and post-test
§ Get commitments for sustainability (E.g. Sharing knowledge and skills obtained from the
trainings and promote to replicate it (if applicable)
§ Continue to contribute to the aid community in Rakhine with communication materials and
training tools in Rakhine and Rohingya languages (visualize knowledge products)
I-2. Keep progressing the good practices of the gender responsive actions
Improvement of the gender responsive practices have been found in the second phase of the GRHA
project and these should be promoted and later these can be customized as the local products in
the context of Rakhine.
Actions:
§ Utilize the good practices and disseminate to a wider community, especially Rohingyas and
their associated host communities in Rakhine State
§ Promote these practices through the events, including community dialogue, awareness
raising/sensitization event, conducting community workshop at camp/host community level
I-3. Increase female facilitator/coordinator at camp and host community level

It is necessary to have closer monitoring oversight and mentoring of CBIWs. Improve operations!
Actions:
§ Recruit more Gender Protection Facilitator/Coordinators at Camp/Host Community Level
§ Recruit Trained Case Management Staff, with Psychosocial skills and able to deal with,
manage, follow up and refer appropriately survivors of SGBV cases to the relevant case
management agency through the referral process
I-4. Increase project management staff facilitating and monitoring at camp and host community level
To keep going on reinforcing a gender responsive culture inside this project as well as mainstreaming
in through the organization, regular training/mentoring of all staff needs to be in place.
Actions:
§ Increase presence of Project management staff in the IDP camps and its associated Host
Community Villages
§ Day-to-day awareness of SGBV and SRHR camp context and its associated host community
context to adapt and strengthen trainings and activities with relevant information
I-5. LWF Gender strategy for Rakhine to help mainstream gender across all projects
LWF Myanmar has taken great strides towards the incorporation of gender responsive programming,
but requires, a gender specific strategy to give direction to staff and delegate operational
responsibility to relevant staff.
Actions:
15
§ Contextualize the gender strategy to the particularities of the Rakhine context (cultural,
religious, governmentally and conflict imposed, barriers) that perpetuate gender inequalities
§ Take into consideration the LWF gender guidelines and develop LWF Rakhine gender
strategy, with an action plan to ensure gender responsiveness in all projects
§ Develop a staff checklist for assessing gender responsiveness
§ Ensure places reserved for survivors of GBV related cases to be selected as part of the
Persons of Special Needs of the GRHA project and other Livelihoods or Education Projects
as well as the Empowerment and Right-Based Projects
II. Programmatic
II-1. Donors should understand the complexity of the Rakhine IDP camps
The project has been a good attempt to combined humanitarian response with the development
tools and future programs should continue building the IDPs capacities and their associated Host
Community Residents and searching for durable solutions. This is because Rakhine IDP camps
humanitarian and development needs overlap in the nexus for social cohesion while searching for
durable solutions.
Actions:
§ Design the programs, including short, medium, and long terms for continuous development
(sustainability) which simplify and reduce operational costs in searching and consolidating
teams, baselines and evaluations/end-line evaluations.
II-2. Upgrade the monitoring system done at the community level (pre- and post-testing)
It needs to upgrade existing monitoring system much consistent with the situation as it doesn’t make
sense to have different persons attending the training – use creative incentives for attendance.
Actions:
§ Review the existing monitoring system much relevant to the community
§ Explore better community monitoring mechanisms
§ Tracking/collection of SGBV cases reported by LWF to relevant case management agency
II-3 Consider the mitigation of risks against COVID-19 pandemic crisis

It is necessary to consider the COVID-19 pandemic crisis that might impact the socio-economic of
the local community, especially the IDP camps because the population density is crowded.
Actions:
§ Prepare necessary preventive measures against COVID-19 pandemic imposed by the
government (Ministry of Health and Sports) and disseminate the information to reach at the
community level
§ Provide continuous support to have access enough WASH facilities related to pandemic
preventive measures
Conclusions
Overall, the project “Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance to Conflict Affected IDP Women
and Girls in Rakhine State (GRHA)” appropriately met its programmatic approaches and goals,
combination of humanitarian concept and development tools, specifically it also met its aims and
delivered fully the planned activities in regards to increasing utilization of WASH, SRHR,
NFIs/Shelters, protection services and dignity and safety of Rohingya IDPs and Host Communities
(included in second phase), in particular for PSNs, women and girls; and improved quality of life and
emergency preparedness though increased equitable community participation in cam leadership
and decision-making processes in 8 IDP camps and 6 Host Community Villages in SIttwe and
Pauktaw Townships. In addition, the project results serve as a useful input for future intervention
involving young women, adolescent girls, in addition findings of the evaluation reinforce the need to
also target young boys and men to fully reach a gender responsive operation.
16
In sum, it has found a significant improvement considering the gender disaggregated data
the gender responsive programme concept, objectives and goals. LWF has a unique position and
strategic advantage, recognition and acceptance from IDPs and their associated host community
residents and local Government. This has allowed the organization to build strong ownership in the
field of community organization structures. A strong asset is its developmental and rights-based
approach, seeking to close the gap between the government /service providers and the IDPs. The
strong empowerment approach and the focus on providing relevant gender appropriate capacity
building opportunities will allow IDPs and their associated host community members included in the
second phase of the project to maintain project outcomes.
17
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background
Humanitarian situation in Myanmar, one of the least developed countries in the world, is
characterized by complex humanitarian needs and challenges in the context of armed conflicts,
displacement, ethnic violence, statelessness, repressive policies and systematic discrimination as
well as reoccurring natural disasters. Relevance to the project context, the Rakhine State has
continued to deteriorate following initial waves of violence in 2012 and 2013 that caused 145,000
Rohingya Muslims to flee. Muslims both IDP and hosts remain almost entirely dependent on
humanitarian assistance as a result of protracted displacement, isolation, systematic deprivation of
rights, and lack of access to livelihoods opportunities and to essential services. Continued
displacement also amplifies SGBV, human trafficking/irregular migration, family separation, physical
insecurity, and severe psychological distress. In this context, women and girls face challenges
accessing services. Muslim IDP camps and host communities are facing severe restrictions and
remain unserved by government resources. The camps are overcrowded and unsafe, but Muslim
IDPs have no option to return to their places of origin or relocate elsewhere. Ethnic Rakhine host
communities have no access to safe water and face significant barriers in accessing key public
services due to unsafe, or nonexistent, roads and pathways.
As the lead camp management agency, LWF is managing eight Muslims IDP camps in Sittwe and
Pauktaw since 2013, and its current work in 34 new displacement sites and 45 conflict-affected host
communities (including those targeted) in Rakhine to strengthen resiliency, quality education,
sustainable livelihoods, community empowerment and build social cohesion and peaceful co-
existence. In this context, the project entitled, “Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance (GRHA
Phase II) in Rakhine State, Myanmar 2020” is working with Muslims in eight IDP camps and six host
communities as well as Rakhine host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, Rakhine State.
LWF-Myanmar’s ongoing intervention in the same 8 IDP camps, funded by Canadian Lutheran
World Relief (CLWR) and Global Affairs Canada (GAC), is meeting critical needs of IDPs in the areas
of Shelter, NFIs, WASH, and SRHR as well as the Coordination and Camp Management
strengthening the capacity of the women and girls in improved access to representation and raising
their voices.
LWF Myanmar conducted rapid gender analysis and assessments in the selected IDP camps and
host villages for identification of actual gaps to ensure gender responsive programming. The study
shows that both camps and host communities continue to require urgent humanitarian assistance.
Camps are overcrowded with sub-standard shelter and WASH facilities, lack of access to adequate
education and healthcare, significant fender inequality, and more. Host communities face many of
the same issues as the camps. Women and girls ages 18-25 are most marginalized due to strong
division of labor along age and gender lines, the leadership of men in all major decisions and the
controlling assets in the household. Additionally, feel unsafe and unsecure due to overcrowding and
poor design of shelters particularly in terms of meeting the privacy needs of women and children.
Similar disparities are also seen in terms of access to information and access to services. The project
proposes to address these gender gaps and support the empowerment of IDP and host community
women and girls by meeting both their practical and strategic needs through a number of different
interventions.
1.2 Summary of the project

LWF-Myanmar is responding to the critical and urgent needs of IDPs and host communities,
particularly the direct beneficiaries of 84,917 (24,438 Male/60,478 Female) that represent 55,462
IDPs (14,458 Male/41,004 Female) and 29,455 hosts (9,980 Male/19,475 Female) in 8 IDP Camps
and 6 host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships in Rakhine State, Myanmar. This project
has been funded by Global Affairs Canada (GAC) and Canadian Lutheran World Relief (CLWR).
Specifically, the targeted project beneficiaries are from 8 IDP camps (Basara, Thae Chaung, Ohn
Taw Gyi, Khaung Doke Khar-1, Khaung Doke Khar-2 in Sittwe Township and Nget Chaung-1, Nget
18
Chaung-2, and Ah Nauk Ywe in Pauktaw Township) and 6 host communities (Basara, Thae Chaung,
Khaung Doke Khar, Kyat Taw Pyin, and Aung Daing Villages in Sittwe Township & Ah Nauk Ywe
Village in Pauktaw Township). The duration of the project, “Gender Responsive Humanitarian
Assistance to Conflicted Affected IDP Women and Girls in Rakhine State (GRHA Phase II) Project”
is one year started from April 2020 to March 2021.
LWF-Myanmar plans to address urgent basic needs by increasing access to clean drinking water,
NFIs, gender-sensitive shelter, improved pathways, and dignity kits. The project will build the skills
and capacities of Muslims and Rakhine to prepare them to claim their rights systematically in a
peaceful manner. It will support the empowerment of women, girls, and PSNs by raising awareness
of their rights, improving leadership, literacy and language skills, and supporting the involvement of
women, men, boys and girls from host and IDP communities in community decision making
processes. Thus, the overall expected project result is to reduce suffering and increase human
dignity for conflict affected IDPs and host communities, particularly women and girls, in Sittwe and
Pauktaw Townships, Rakhine State in Myanmar. The project intervention is 12 months and the
expected result will be achieved through the following outputs:
WASH and SRHR

i) Rehabilitated 3 ponds in which rain water harvesting ponds improved to reduce
contamination and supply safe water in Ah Nauk Ywe Rohingya host community in
Pauktaw Township
ii) Installed 12 hand pumps in order to access safe water in host communities in Sittwe
Township
iii) Distributed dignity kits (soap, underwear, and sanitary pads) to 4,342 girls and women
(aged 18-25) in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps
iv) Conducted awareness raising and orientation sessions on SGBV to 6,442 women and
girls and 151 male youth leaders (aged 18-25) in IDP camps and host communities
v) Conducted orientation sessions on SRHR (including menstrual hygiene management,
family planning, and the rights of women and girls) to 6,442 women and girls (aged 18-
25) in IDP camps and host communities
Shelter/NFIs
i) Distributed NFIs to 1130 male/1481 female PSNs (identified as highly vulnerable people,
including person with disabilities, older persons at risk, orphan children and single-
headed households) in 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
ii) Upgraded and repaired 29 long houses in Sittwe and Pauktaw in order to be safe,
dignified and gender responsive
Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCMC) and Village Development Committee (VDC)
i) Trained 88 male/32 female of CMC leaders in leadership and rights-based empowerment
skills in 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw
ii) Improved pathways of 4,200 ft, particularly from Jetty to IDP camps in Nget Chaung 1 &
2 and Ah Nauk Ywe IDP camps in Pauktaw Township
iii) Improved pathways of 22,400 ft, particularly in order to access to schools and market
centers in 6 host villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
iv) Trained 950 women leaders in host communities and IDP camps through providing
training on leadership and rights-based empowerment to women and girls in Sittwe and
Pauktaw IDP camps and host villages
v) Rehabilitated or constructed 18 women’s and girls’ centers in IDP camps and host
villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
vi) Provided trainings on the Myanmar language and basic numeracy literacy and 2,700
women received the trainings in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps
vii) Conducted regular meetings by women groups (host communities and IDP camps) at
each block level in 8 iDP camps and 6 host villages (8 camp level women’s groups, 14
YDGs, 352 YWDGs (15-25)
19
1.3 Scope of the evaluation study
Rakhine State is characterized by complex humanitarian needs and challenges in the context of
armed conflicts, displacement, ethnic violence, statelessness, trafficking, repressive policies, and
systematic discrimination, as well as reoccurring natural disasters. The combination of protracted
displacement, isolation, systematic deprivation of rights, and lack of access to livelihoods
opportunities and to essential services (such as health and education) keep those living in the camps
almost completely dependent on humanitarian assistance to meet basic needs. Conditions in the
camp are overcrowded and unsafe, but Muslims IDPs have no option to return to their places of
origin or relocate elsewhere. This protracted displacement amplifies such rusks as SGBV, human
trafficking/irregular migration, family separation, physical insecurity, and severe psychological
distress. In this context, women and girls face particular challenges accessing services due to
movement restrictions, low levels of literacy, language barriers, and a lack of awareness regarding
their rights and entitlements.
As the lead camp management agency (CMA), LWF is managing 8 Muslims IDP camps in Sittwe
and Pauktaw since 2013, continually providing assistance to 46,275 Muslim IDPs, including 22,267
Male/23,578 Female residing in these camps. In line with the Myanmar Humanitarian Response
Plan and the needs specific to Rakhine State, LWF-Myanmar has designed a 12-month gender
responsive humanitarian assistance project to address identified urgent humanitarian needs in the
areas of Shelter, NFOs, WASH, SRHR, and CCCM.
LWF received funding from Canadian Lutheran World Relief (CLWR) and Global Affairs Canada
(GAC) to respond the critical and urgent needs. LWF Myanmar implemented a one-year project
called Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance to Conflict Affected IDP Women and Girls in
Rakhine State (GRHA) Phase II starting 1st April, 2020 through to 31st March 2021. This period is
the second phase to the project, as the first phase ended in March of 2020. The second phase has
focused on addressing urgent basic needs by increasing access to clean drinking water, NFIs,
gender-sensitive shelter, improved pathways, and dignity kits.
The project aims to build the skills and capacities of Muslims and Rakhine to prepare them to claim
their rights systematically in a peaceful manner. Also aiming to support the empowerment of women,
girls, and PSNs by raising awareness of their rights, knowledge and response to gender-based
violence and sexual and reproductive health improving leadership, literacy and language skills, and
supporting the involvement of women, men, boys and girls from host and IDP communities in
community decision making processes. Thus, the overall expected project result is reduced suffering
and increased human dignity for Muslim IDPs, particularly women and girls, in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships, Rakhine State, Myanmar.
1.4 Justification of the final evaluation study

The baseline study of GRHA Phase II was been done in August 2020, determining the sample size
at the household levels to survey was 322 respondents for 8 IDP camps and 6 host communities in
Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships in order to ensure the representation of all beneficiaries of the
project. Specifically, 184 (80 males and 104 females) respondents in 8 IDP camps and 138 (55
males and 83 females) respondents in 6 host communities participated in the household level
survey. The survey found a need for continued WASH, shelter and community learning support. The
baseline study also found a continued need for SGBV programming, a new set of activities unique
to Phase II, as positive attitudes to ending SGBV, as well as knowledge on the subject was low.
Additionally, the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic has also reported further needs in the area, as well
as an adequate assessment and evaluation to ensure effectiveness of programming in potential
future phases.
Therefore, the final evaluation is planned to be conducted on the same sample size to determine the
20
effect of the project and will assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of
the project interventions. It will also identify important lessons and draw recommendations for future
interventions. For the final evaluation, the gender analysis has been incorporated to determine if/how
the project addressed gender equity and lessons for the future.
Final evaluation data/information on all outcomes and outputs, and quantitative and qualitative
indicators has been collected. Different types of indicators require different types of information,
which require different methods for collection and then use. Well documentation and storing of the
endline information, data and findings will be critical for assessing program’s achievements through
comparisons against baseline. Correct and valid final evaluation information collected for practicing
proper system of estimating attributable changes due to program, interventions and activities.
The final evaluation survey focused on all the variables that indicate outcome and output indicators
that are reflected the following components of the project, including “ultimate outcome,
intermediate outcome, and immediate outcome on all identified components of the project –
WASH and SRHR, NFIs and Shelters, and Camp Management”.
Outcome Project Description of required outcomes

component and
outputs
Ultimate All components of Reduced suffering and increased human dignity for
outcome the project conflict affected IDPs and host communities, particularly
women and girls, in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships,
Rakhine State, Myanmar
Intermediate WASH and SRHR Increased utilization of WASH, SRHR, and protection
outcome activities services for conflict affected IDPs and host communities,
1100 particularly women and girls, in the eight targeted IDP
camps and six host communities
Immediate WASH activities Improved access to safe WASH facilities and services
outcome among women and girls in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP
1110 camps and host communities
Immediate SRHR activities Increased awareness and understanding of SRHR, the

outcome rights of women and girls, gender equality, and effective
1120 responses to SGBV in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps
and host communities
Intermediate NFIs and Shelter Increased dignity and safety of IDPs, particularly PSNs,
outcome women, and girls within the 8 targeted IDP camps
1200
Immediate Basic necessities Increased access to basic necessities for highly

outcome vulnerable people in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps
1210
Immediate Basic necessities Increased access to safe, dignified, gender responsive

outcome (IDP HHs facilities) housing for IDP households in 3 camps in SIttwe and
1220 Pauktaw Townships
Intermediate Camp management Improved quality of life and peaceful co-existence though
Outcome increased equitable community participation in camp and
community leadership and decision-making processes in
21
1300 8 IDP camps and 6 host communities of Sittwe and
Pauktaw Townships
Immediate Improved life skills Improved living camp coordination, camp coordination
outcome (coordination and and enhanced peaceful co-existence between Rohingya
1310 communications IDPs and host communities
among IDPs and
host communities)
Immediate Improved of life Increased leadership capacity among women and girls
outcome skills in women’s to promote inclusive representation in local institutions
1320 involvement in within Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps and host
decision making communities
process (leadership
skills)
1.5 Objectives of the final evaluation assessment

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and
sustainability of the project interventions. The analysis provided on progress made against all
project indicators. It has also identified important lessons and drawn recommendations for
consideration in designing the next phase of the project or future gender responsive project.
Specifically, the final evaluation survey carried out to assess the identified indicators, focusing on
the activities - WASH, SRHR, NFIs, Shelters, Life skills improvement, and Camp management in 8
IDPs camps and 6 host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships in Rakhine State. As a result,
the final evaluation survey report will be used by LWF Myanmar and donors as benchmark
information for monitoring project performance, measuring project achievements at the project
objectives and results levels, evaluating project end-line impacts, and using as a reference
for next grant proposals. Moreover, it will be used by the project team as a reference for results-
based M&E and periodically tracking progress made as a result of project interventions.
2. METHODOLOGY
2.1 Overview of the final evaluation approach

The survey has been designed to cover the outputs and outcomes (ultimate, intermediate and
immediate outcomes) of this endline survey in “Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance in
Rakhine State (GRHA Phase II) Project”. Under the objective and expected output, a list of data was
collected with clear indication of data sources and data collection methodologies. Based on the data
list, a questionnaire for beneficiary survey and checklists for each community in key informant
interview and group discussion was developed. The checklists prepared to collect data and facilitate
the discussion as well as leading questions (key questions to be asked), including list of secondary
data to be collected. To gather information and data to meet the objectives of the final evaluation
study, different data collection methods were used, including a) consultation with the beneficiaries
in IDP camps and household interview for the host communities in villages, b) beneficiary survey
questionnaire in IDPs and household survey in host communities in the villages, c) key informant
interview using checklists, and d) collection of secondary data. The survey methodologies included
both quantitative and qualitative inquiry techniques – semi-structured interview, structured
interviewed, key informant interview, and focus group interview. Additionally, the case studies were
developed for each component to be able to support the project interventions, determining the
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability. The same survey process and
22
methodologies were used for all surveyed communities in different two townships (IDP camps and
host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships).
Total 322 respondents were interviewed at the household level in 8 IDP camps and 6 host villages
in order to represent the target beneficiaries of the project. In addition, 30 participants who were
benefitted from the shelter activities under this project were also interviewed in order to evaluate the
performance and achievements from the implementation of the project activities. Total 56 focus
group discussions were also conducted with different stakeholder groups involved in the project. The
consideration of the sample size incorporated in the following sections.
2.2 Sample size and demographic data of survey respondents

The survey primarily classified the respondents from IDP camps and host villages, including Women
and Girls (aged 18-25/25-55), Female Headed Household (FHH), Male Headed Household (MHH),
WDGs & YWDGs members, PWDs and PSNs, CMC members (IDP camps), VDC members (Host
communities) and others IDP and host community individuals residing in the camps and host villages
(women, girls, men and boys). FDGs members included all key actors, including women, girls, men,
boys from different groups (WDGs, YWDGs, YDGs, MHH, FHH, PWDs & PSNs, CMC, and VDC)
from both IDP camps and host communities.
Purposive sampling was used among the IDPs Camps and Host Villages, particularly supposed to
identify as the households in each of the IDP camps and host villages. Among them, the sample
households at the longhouse level were selected randomly. Total sample size for household’s survey
was 322 respondents for 8 IDPs and 6 Host Communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships to
ensure the representation of all beneficiaries of the project. In addition, those beneficiaries who
benefitted the shelter activities in 2 IDP camps (Ohn Taw Gyi (South) IDP Camp in Sittwe and Nget
Chaung-2 IDP Camp in Pauktaw) were also separately interviewed that represent the 29
Longhouses in these two IDP camps. For the qualitative interview, 56 FGDs were conducted at the
IDP camps and host villages. Moreover, some INGOs working in the Rakhine State for IDP camps
and host communities were also interviewed in order to have better understanding of the situation,
however, we could have done 3 INGOs such as UNFPA, Oxfam GB and DRC.
As of the sampling, according to the project proposal, the survey took “individual” as unit because
each activity counts individual as beneficiary and the total beneficiaries are 84,917 (24,438
Male/60,478 Female) that represent 55,462 IDPs (14,458 Male/41,004 Female) and 29,455 hosts
(9,980 Male/19,475 Female) in 8 IDP Camps and 6 host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships in Rakhine State, Myanmar. To calculate the sample size of the project beneficiaries,
Krejcie and Morgan’s sample size determining method (Robert V. Krejcie (University of Minnesota,
Duluth) & Daryle W. Morgan (Taxas A. & M. University)) was used by the following formula.
s = X2NP(1 – P) ÷ d2(N – 1) + X2P (1 – P)
Where,
s = required sample size.
X2 = the table value of chi-square for 1 degree of freedom at the desired confidence level
(3.841).
N = the population size.
P = the population proportion (assumed to be .50 since this would provide the maximum
sample size).
d = the degree of accuracy expressed as a proportion (.05).
However, the calculated sample size table was used to determine the sample size and the total
sample size was 322 respondents, excluding the 30 respondents who will benefit the shelter
activities. (Note: If the respondents who benefitted the shelter activities will include, the total
respondents will be 356.)
23
Table 2.1 Description of the sample size for baseline survey of GRHA Phase II Programme
Targeted project FHH MHH Women & WDG YWGs PWDs PSN CMC VDC Total
areas (Sittwe & Girls (Age 18 - respondents
Pauktaw) 25)
8 IDPs Camps 32 32 24 16 16 16 16 32 - 184
6 Host Communities 24 24 18 12 12 12 12 - 24 138
Total 56 56 42 28 28 28 28 32 24 322
Note: 56 FGDs were conducted in 8 IDP camps and 6 host community villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships. Additional 34 respondents from selected IDP camps (Ohn Taw Gyi (South) and Nget Chaung-2)
for shelter activities were also interviewed, using the specific indicators for those beneficiaries.
2.3 Demographic information of survey respondents

The baseline survey team visited 8 IDP camps and 6 host communities’ villages in Sittwe and
Pauktaw Townships - 8 IDP camps (Basara, Thae Chaung, Ohn Taw Gyi, Khaung Doke Khar-1,
Khaung Doke Khar-2 in Sittwe Township and Nget Chaung-1, Nget Chaung-2, and Ah Nauk Ywe in
Pauktaw Township) and 6 host communities (Basara, Thae Chaung, Khaung Doke Khar, Kyat Taw
Pyin, and Aung Daing Villages in Sittwe Township & Ah Nauk Ywe Village in Pauktaw Township).
The endline survey team conducted the field survey from 21st to 28th July 2020 and qualitative
assessment were carried out by the 56 FGDs, including women, girls, men and boys in 8 IDP camps
and 6 host communities’ villages. Additional 30 respondents from the selected IDP camps (Ohn Taw
Gyi (South)in Sittwe and Nget Chaung-2 in Pauktaw who are benefited from the shelter activities
were also interviewed. Discussions like interview have been done with the project staff from LWF
Project Office in Sittwe, Rakhine State to have robust understanding of the project implementation
and monitoring approaches and the project documents, including project progress and completion
reports have also been provided.
Table 2.2 List of individual respondents in IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
MHH FHH Women WDG YWDG/ PWD PSN CMC Total
Name of IDP & Girls YDG
Camps (18-25) M F M F M F M F M F T
Basara 3 4 3 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 15 23
Thae Chaung 4 3 2 2 1 1 2 1 2 1 2 2 11 12 23
Ohn Taw Gyi (S) 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 15 23

Khaung Dote 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 15 23
Khar-1
Khaung Dote 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 15 23
Khar-2
Nget Chaung-1 4 3 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 11 12 23
Nget Chaung-2 4 4 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 14 23
Ah Nauk Ywe 4 4 2 2 1 2 1 1 1 1 2 2 9 14 23
Total 28 34 21 16 8 10 9 9 9 8 16 16 71 113 184
Table 2.3 List of individual respondents in Host Community Villages

Name of Host MHH FHH Women & PWD PSN VDC Other Total
Sr.
Community Villages Girls (18- beneficiaries
No.
25/25-55) M F M F M F M F M F T
Basara 3 3 3 0 1 0 1 1 1 4 6 8 15 23
Thae Chaung 3 3 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 4 6 8 15 23
Khaung Dote Khar 3 4 3 0 1 1 1 1 1 2 5 7 16 23
Kyat Taw Pyin 3 3 3 1 0 1 1 1 1 4 6 8 15 23
Aung Daing 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 2 12 11 23
Ah Nauk Ywe 3 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 5 2 12 11 23
Total 18 19 18 3 4 4 6 8 6 24 27 55 83 138
Table 2.4 List of individual respondents who will benefit shelter activities in Ohn Taw Gyi (South) and Nget Chaung-2
# of Respondents Total
Name of IDP Camps
M F M F T
Ohn Taw Gyi (S) 7 7 7 7 14
24
Nget Chaung-2 18 2 18 2 20
Total 25 9 25 9 34
Table 2.4 shows the list of individual respondents who will benefit shelter activities and these
respondents were randomly selected from the targeted 29 long houses from Ohn Taw Gyi (South)
and Nget Chaung-2 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships.
Table 2.5 List of participants who participated in the Focus Group Discussions in IDP Camps
Women & YDG
WDG/ MHH/FHH PSN CMC
Name of Camps Township Girls (Age 18-25
YWG
18-25/25-55) M F M F M F M F
Basara Sittwe 5 5 2 2 1 3 1 2 3 2
Thae Chaung Sittwe 6 3 1 2 3 1 1 1 2 2
Khaung Dote Khar-1 Sittwe 4 4 2 4 2 2 1 2 3 1
Khaung Dote Khar-2 Sittwe 5 7 0 6 3 2 1 2 2 2
Ohn Taw Gyi (S) Sittwe 7 9 3 5 4 2 1 1 2 2
Nget Chaung-1 Pauktaw 7 8 2 4 1 6 1 1 1 3
Nget Chaung-2 Pauktaw 2 8 6 6 2 4 6 6 2 2
Ah Nauk Ywe Pauktaw 8 6 5 2 3 2 2 1 2 3
Total 44 50 21 31 19 22 14 16 17 17
Table 2.6 List of participants who participated in the Focus Group Discussions in Host Community Villages
Women & Other
MHH/FHH PSN/PWS VDC
Name of Host Community’s Girls (Age beneficiaries
Township
Villages 18-25/25-
M F M F M F M F
55)
Basara Sittwe 3 0 7 2 0 1 2 5 0
Thae Chaung Sittwe 5 2 4 2 2 2 2 3 2
Khaung Dote Khar Sittwe 4 5 0 4 3 1 2 2 1
Kyat Taw Pyin Sittwe 7 3 3 2 3 1 1 2 3
Aung Daing Sittwe 4 3 4 6 6 2 2 2 2
Ah Nauk Ywe Pauktaw 5 2 5 3 2 1 2 5 0
Total 28 15 23 19 16 8 11 19 8
Before starting the field survey, the endline assessment team communicated with LWF’s GRHA II
Project team and prepared the inception report based on the existing project documents as well as
the terms of reference and then submitted to the LWF’s project team. In this regard, the inception
report was revised according to the comments from the project team. In addition, there was a
meeting with project team via Skype and received the suggestions to have more understanding
about the project concept and field situation. Then, the endline assessment team also met with the
project team in Sittwe before getting started the field work. General demographic information in terms
of the respondents also included in the survey questionnaires for individual survey and the following
is the general demographic information of the surveyed respondents in 8 IDP camps and 6 host
community villages. In this regard, the respondents were divided into two groups, including IDP
camps and host community villages – 184 respondents for 8 IDP camps and 138 respondents for 6
host community villages.
Table 2.7 (a) Gender of respondents in IDP camps (n=184)

Sr. No Description Number Percent (%)
1 Male 71 38.59%
2 Female 113 61.41%
Total 184 100%
Table 2.7 shows the gender disaggregated information of the respondents from IDP camps and
there were 184 respondents from 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships and 71
25
respondents (38.59%) were the male respondents while 113 (61.41%) respondents were female in
the interview.
Table 2.7 (b) Gender of respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138)

Sr. No Description Number Percent (%)
1 Male 55 39.86%
2 Female 83 60.14%
Total 138 100%
Table 2.8 shows the gender disaggregated information of the respondents from IDP camps and
there were 138 respondents from 6 Host communities in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships and 55
respondents (39.86%) were the male respondents while 83 respondents (60.14%) were female in
the interview.
Table 2.8 (a) Age of respondents in IDP camps (n=184)

Sr. No Age group Percent (%)
1 13-17 2%
2 18-60 58%
3 61 & above 40%
Table 2.8 (a) shows the age group of respondents participated in the individual/household level
interview in IDP camps. Most of the respondents were the averaged aged group between 18 and 60
years old and 58% were occupied by this group while the other respondents’ aged group were 2%
(this is the minimum aged range from 13-17 years old in this survey) and 40% were in the maximum
range of age (60 & above).
Table 2.8 (b) Age of respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138)

Sr. No Age group Percent (%)
1 13-17 4%
2 18-60 66%
3 61 & above 30%
Table 2.8 (b) shows the age group of respondents participated in the individual/household level
interview in the Host communities. Most of the respondents were the averaged aged group between
18 and 60 years old and 66% were occupied by this group while the other respondents’ aged group
were 4% (this is the minimum aged range from 13-17 years old in this survey) and 30% were in the
maximum range of age (60 & above).
Table 2.9 (a) Household size of the respondents in IDP camps (n=184)
Sr. Description Number Sr. Description No. of family Percent (%)
No No. members
1 Minimum size of the family 1 1 Male 471 45.95
2 Maximum size of the family 13 2 Female 554 54.05
3 Average size of the family 6 Total 1025 100
Table 2.9 (b) Household size of the respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138)
Sr. No Description Number Sr. No. Description No. of family Percent
members (%)
1 Minimum size of the family 1 1 Male 321 46
2 Maximum size of the family 14 2 Female 374 54
3 Average size of the family 5 Total 696 100
2.4 Preparation for final evaluation study and evaluation framework

The preparatory phase included: i) desk review of documents such as project documents, gender
analysis/need assessment reports, HHs data and any other documents related to the scope of the
baseline survey; ii) start-up meeting amongst the endline survey team and LWF Myanmar Sittwe
staff and the team; iii) design and finalization of questionnaires/checklists, field work plan and
26
methodology, and iv) meeting with LWF Myanmar to agree on the final endline survey framework
and tool, sampling size and method (purposive sampling to represent all diverse categories),
data/information analysis (sector-wise, disaggregated from all relevant aspects, and camp-wise) and
interpretation, and reporting.
2.4.1 Evaluation framework

The primary objective of this final evaluation was to provide relevant findings, conclusions and
recommendations to LWF Myanmar, CLWR and GAC regarding the performance of the “Gender
Responsive Humanitarian Assistance to Conflict Affected IDP Women and Girls in Rakhine State
(Phase II)” project. LWF Myanmar is particularly interested in learning from its lessons that can be
applied in the next phase of the project or future gender responsive projects. The final evaluation
will also include an endline in order to compare with the baseline conducted in July/August 2020.
The evaluation framework focused on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and
impact of the intervention of the project. On each key considerable indicator, the evaluation
provided the answers to the identified questions and the appropriateness were considered and
added to these questions under each key indicator. (Note: Evaluation framework adapted the idea
and concept from OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC); which the team has updated
to 5 objectives in accordance with the new DAC guide from December 2019, which expands
including the coherence objective to be relevance to the scope and context of the project.)
2.4.2 Development of evaluation methods and tools

In this preparation stage, reviewing the project documents has been done to develop the relevance
of the methods and tools for conducting the final evaluation of the project before implementing the
field works. In this regard, the questionnaires at the household level, focus group discussions, key
informants, and success stories for each targeted beneficiary group such as WASH, SRHR, GBV,
and Shelters. To meet the objectives, outputs and outcomes of the project, the specific evaluation
criteria have been developed to identify the performance of the project implementation by aligning
the scope of the evaluation framework, including relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability
and impacts of the project intervention and it has based on the findings from the baseline assessment
conducted in July/August 2020. Details have been discussed in the following sections in terms of
methods and tools to be used in this final evaluation of the project.
2.5 Data collection tools and process

In this project final evaluation study, relevant final evaluation study tools were used for different
categories of the respondents, including quantitative questionnaires, focus group discussions, key
informant interview, and field observation. In the preparation phase, the assessment team collected
the project documents to review, developed the survey methodology in consultation with the project
team of LWF, discussed with the project team for stakeholder analysis for survey respondents as
well as the key actors or organizations who are working in Rakhine State, and prepared the inception
report. The baseline assessment tools such as questionnaires for survey respondents, focus groups
discussions and key informant questions are attached in the Annexes.
The final evaluation study team arrived at Sittwe in Rakhine State on 26th April, 2021 and conducted
a meeting with the LWF’s GRHA Project Team on 26th April, 2021 and presented the data collection
process, including tools and methods to be used and prepared the necessary documents to be used
in the field survey. The field data collection was conducted from 27th April to 5th May, 2021 at the IDP
camp and host village level, including household survey and focus group discussions.
2.6 Data entry and analysis process

The assessment used both quantitative and qualitative methods for the collection of the data at the
field level. In this regard, the use of qualitative inquiry method helped support the quantitative data
in the presentation of the findings. Collected raw data were cleaned and coded to put into the data
27
entry format by using the Microsoft Excel tool. The qualitative data were prepared by transcribing
the notes to be analyzed.
In terms of data analysis, the content analysis method was applied for the qualitative information
while the Microsoft Excel analysis tool was used for the quantitative data analysis. As of the
quantitative results, tabulation and charts were used to present the findings in order to write up the
report. Presentation of the findings was based on the results that came from the analysis of the field
data and information.
2.7 Survey challenges and limitations

As we have already known about the COVID-19 pandemic, this was one of the challenges that
delayed the assessment process against the planned schedule, meaning there was a limitation of
the time and travel restrictions as well as the meeting of not more than 5 people in one place. In
addition, Rakhine State is a conflict-affected area and it is sensitive to go and visit from one place to
another within Rakhine State. In this regard, submission of the travel authorization letter to the
Rakhine State Government is a mandatory process to go and visit the IDP camps and host villages
and it takes three weeks to issue the approval letter from the Government. Thus, there were
challenges, including political issues, COVID-19 pandemic issues, and security issues that might be
at risk of doing baseline assessment. Beyond this COVID-19 pandemic issue, nationwide
unexpected political situation has happened since 1st February, 2021 (Military have defeated the
Civilian Government on 1st February 2021). As consequences, the travel restrictions have been
made and we didn’t receive the travel authorization letter to go and visit the IDP camps and host
community villages even though the project team submitted the travel authorization letter to the local
government. As per the suggestion of the project team, the enumerators from the IDP camps and
host community villages were recruited to collect the data at the field level. Before the data collection
at the field level, we have arranged to train the recruited enumerators in terms of survey questions
at household level, focus group discussion, and key informant interviews. However, we have visited
some IDP camps (Nget Chanung 1 & 2) in Pauktaw Township and some host community villages
(Muslim and Rakhine Host Community Villages) where we can easily visit there. In this, we could
have conducted interview with key informants from the institutions via Skype and Phone as it was
difficult to organize in-person meeting.
3. DISCUSSION ON SURVEY FINDINGS

The final evaluation assessment was conducted in 8 IDP camps and 6 Host Communities in Sittwe
and Pauktaw Townships, Rakhine State in Myanmar and the assessment was done from April to
May 2021 comprised of data analysis and write-up report. The purpose of this evaluation was to
assess relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the project interventions in
which it has been expected that the analysis would provide on progress made against all project
indicators, focusing the sectors – WASH, SRHR, NFIs, Shelters, Life skills improvement, and Camp
management. The discussion begins two parts, starting the presentation of analysis and findings
and then discussing the final evaluation based on the baseline information whether which areas
have been improved or not as well as reached out the outcomes of the project or not.
3.1 Discussion on Ultimate Outcomes

Indicator: % and # of target Rohingya IDPs (M, F) and Host Community Members (M, F) who report
some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their households over the
last year,
End-line value:
Value % in IDP camps:
28
- 66.19% (47/71M) and 74.34% (84/113F) of respondents from IDP camps agree that they
report some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their
Value % in Host Communities:

- 92.73% (51/55M) and 87.95% (73/83F) of respondents from Host Communities agree that
they report some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their
Table 3.1 (a) Description of the respondents in IDP camps presenting their opinion on the statement: “In the
areas of my life that the project has supported, I am able to express that the living conditions for myself and
my household have improved over the last year”. (n=184, M=71, F=113)
Sr. No. No. and % of respondents
Description
Male Female Total
1 Strongly disagree 0 0 0
2 Disagree 5 (7.04%) 13 (11.5%) 18 (9.78%)
3 Neither agree nor disagree 20 (28.17%) 15 (13.27%) 35 (19.02%)
4 Agree 47 (66.19%) 84 (74.34%) 131 (71.19%)
5 Strongly agree 0 0 0
6 Not applicable 0 0 0
7 Not sure/Don’t know 0 0 0
8 Refuse to answer 0 0 0
perceived some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their households
over the last year. As of gender disaggregation, 66.19% (47/71M) of male respondents agree on the
statement “In the areas of my life that the project has supported, I am able to express that the living
conditions for myself and my household have improved over the last year” while 74.34% (84/113F)
of the female respondents state that they agree on the statement.
Further analysis has been done to investigate which specific areas that they felt satisfaction for the
improvement by themselves and their household. Most of the respondents mentioned that they have
some improved access to enough water, soap and other hygiene supplies as well as the safe access
to latrines and spaces for washing clothes. In addition, it has found that there is significant
improvement for better understanding on SGBV and SRHR. Some improvements have also been
noted the participation of women and girls in the meetings in CMC as they felt confident to participate
in the meetings and they have been given a bit space to express their opinions rather than before.
However, most of the respondents reported that they felt stressful for both physically and mentally
due to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and the Rakhine State (in most of the townships) was severely
affected by this crisis during the project implementation period (especially, the second wave of the
pandemic crisis was severe from mid-August 2020 until January, 2021). Therefore, even though the
result from the responses in final evaluation is fairly good that reflect the outcomes of the project
intervention, it still needs to improve living conditions for both individual and household.
Table 3.1 (b) Description of the respondents in Host communities presenting their opinion on the statement:
“In the areas of my life that the project has supported I am able to express that the living conditions for myself
and my household have improved over the last year”. (n=138, M=55, F=83)
Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 0 0 0
4 Agree 51 (92.73%) 73 (87.95%) 124 (89.85%)
29
perceived some or significant improvement in living conditions for themselves and their households
over the last year. As of gender disaggregation, 92.73% (51/55M) of male respondents agree on the
statement “In the areas of my life that the project has supported, I am able to express that the living
conditions for myself and my household have improved over the last year” while 87.95% (73/183F)
of the female respondents state that they agree on the statement.
Further analysis has been done to investigate which specific areas that they felt satisfaction for the
improvement by themselves and their household. Most of the respondents mentioned that they have
improved access to enough water, soap and other hygiene supplies as well as the safe access to
latrines and spaces to bathe and spaces for washing clothes. However, the situation between the
IDP camps and host community villages because the host community villages already have
adequate and safe access to latrines and spaces to bathe and spaces for washing clothes. In
addition, it has found that there is significant improvement for better understanding on SGBV and
SRHR. Some improvements have also been noted the participation of women and girls in the
meetings in VDC as they felt confident to participate in the meetings and they have been given a bit
space to express their opinions rather than before.
However, most of the respondents reported that they felt stressful for both physically and mentally
due to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis and the Rakhine State (in most of the townships) was severely
affected by this crisis during the project implementation period (especially, the second wave of the
pandemic crisis was severe from mid-August 2020 until January, 2021). Therefore, even though the
result from the responses in final evaluation is fairly good that reflect the outcomes of the project
intervention, it still needs to improve living conditions for both individual and household.
3.2 Discussion on Intermediate Outcomes
3.2.1 Intermediate outcomes for WASH
1100
% and # of women, girls, men and boys, who consider that their basic WASH needs are met
Assessment Indicator #1 for Basic WASH Needs

Baseline value:
- 67.5%(54/80M) and 69.23%(72/104F) for IDPs and 76.36%(42/55M) and 66.27%(55/83F)
for Host Communities
End-line value:
- 70.42% (50/71M) and 70.8% (80/113F) in IDP camps who agree that they are able to
access enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep myself and my household
clean and healthy
- 96.36% (53/55M) in Host Communities who agree that they are able to access enough
water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep themselves and their household clean and
healthy.
Baseline value:
- 66.25%(53/80M) and 33.63%(34/104F) and thus it has found that the end-line results are
higher percentage than the baseline in IDP camps
30
- 67.27%(37/55M) and 65.06%(54/83F) and thus it has found that the end-line results are
higher percentage than the baseline in host communities, meaning it has significant
improvements
-
End-line value:
latrines, space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes” while 90.27% (102/113F) of
female respondents agreed on this statement
latrines, space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes” but only 97.57% (81/83F) agreed
on this statement

Baseline value:
- 74.55% (41/55M) of male and 78.29% (60/83F) in IDP camps who agree that they take time
less than 15 minutes to reach the water resources, collect the water (including queuing),
and bring it back home.
End-line value:
- 78% (78/83F) of females and 89.09% (49/55M) in IDP camps who agree that they take time
less than 15 minutes to reach the water resources, collect the water (including queuing),
and bring it back home.
Assessment indicator #1 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessing the respondents’ answer on the statement: “I am able to access enough water, soap,
and other hygiene supplies to keep myself and my household clean and healthy”.
Table 3.2(a) List of respondents who consider that their basic WASH needs are met in IDP Camps (n=184,
M=71, F=113)
Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 21 (29.58%) 33 (29.2%) 54 (29.35%)
3 Neither agree nor disagree 0 0 0
4 Agree 50 (70.42%) 80 (70.8%) 130 (70.65%)
According to the findings in table 3.2 (a), 70.42% (50/71M) of males agreed on the statement “I am
able to access enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep myself and my household
clean and healthy” and 70.8% (80/113F) also agreed on this statement. As a result, 70.65%
(130/184) of males and females agreed on the statement and thus this could be considered that they
could be able to access enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep themselves and
their household clean and healthy in IDP camps. According to the results in Table 3.2 (a), a few
percentages of the respondents (about 29.35% (21/71M and 33/113F) responded that it could be
considered that they still need to be able to access the basic WASH needs, particularly for enough
water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep themselves and their household clean and healthy
in the IDP camps. In the baseline, the results showed 67.5%(54/80M) and 69.23%(72/104F) and
thus it has found that the end-line results are a few percent higher than the baseline in IDP camps.
Table 3.2(b) List of respondents who consider that their basic WASH needs in their households such as access
to enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies are met in Host Communities (n=138, M=55, F=83)
Sr. No. of respondents
No. Description
Male Female Total
31
2 Disagree 2 (3.64%) 4 (4.82%) 6 (4.35%)
4 Agree 53 (96.36%) 79 (92.77%) 132 (95.65%)
According to the findings in Table 3.2 (b), 96.36% (53/55) of males agreed on the statement “I am
able to access enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep myself and my household
clean and healthy” and 92.77% (79/83F) also agreed on this statement. As a result, 95.65%
(132/138) of males and females agreed on the statement and thus this could be considered that they
could be able to access enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep themselves and
their household clean and healthy in the host communities. According to the results in Table 3.2 (b),
a few percentages of the respondents (about 6% (2/55M and 4/83F) responded that it can be
considered they still need to be able to access the basic WASH needs, particularly for enough water,
soap, and other hygiene supplies to keep themselves and their household clean and healthy in the
host communities. In the baseline, the results showed 76.36%(42/55M) and 66.27%(55/83F) and
thus it has found that the end-line results are higher percentage than the baseline, meaning it can be
considered it has improved in accessing to the enough water, soap, and other hygiene supplies in
the host communities.

Respondents’ answer on the statement: “I have adequate and safe access to latrines, space to
bathe, and spaces for washing clothes”.
Table 3.3(a) Description of the respondents in IDP camps presenting the situation of the sanitation facilities
such as adequate and safe access to latrines, space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes in their
households (n=184, M=71, F=113)
Sr. No. and % of respondents
No.
Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 3 (4.23%) 7 (6.19%) 10 (5.43%)
4 Agree 63 (88.73%) 102 (90.27%) 165 (89.67%)
5 Strongly agree 5 (7.04%) 4 (3.54%) 9 (4.89%)
In terms of assessing the needs of the sanitation facilities in IDP camps in Table 3.3 (a), 88.73%
(63/71M) of males agreed on the statement “I have adequate and safe access to latrines, space to
bathe, and spaces for washing clothes” while 90.27% (102/113F) of female respondents agreed on
this statement, and thus it could be considered that they could be able to have access basic WASH
needs, especially adequate and safe access to latrines, spaces to bathe, and spaces for washing
clothes. According to the result, 89.67% of the respondents (165/184 males and females) considered
that they were able to access to basic WASH needs in terms of sanitation facilities such as adequate
and safe access to latrines, spaces for bathe, and spaces for washing clothes. During the FGDs,
women and girls’ respondents stated that the female family members have difficulties while dressing,
bathing and sleeping and thus they responded that the shelter rooms did not provide a dignified and
gender responsive space for them. In the baseline, the results showed 66.25%(53/80M) and
33.63%(34/104F) and thus it has found that the end-line results are higher percentage than the
baseline in IDP camps, meaning it has significant improvements.
32
Table 3.3(b) Description of the respondents in Host Communities presenting the situation of the sanitation
facilities such as adequate and safe access to latrines, space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes in their
households (n=138, M=55, F=83)
Sr. No. of respondents
No. Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 4 (7.27%) 2 (2.41%) 6 (4.35%)
4 Agree 51 (92.73%) 81 (97.59%) 132 (95.65%)
In terms of assessing the needs of the sanitation facilities in the host communities in Table 3.3 (b),
92.73% (51/55M) of males agreed on the statement “I have adequate and safe access to latrines,
space to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes” but only 97.57% (81/83F) agreed on this statement,
and thus it could be considered that they could be able to have access basic WASH needs, especially
adequate and safe access to latrines, spaces to bathe, and spaces for washing clothes. According
to the result, 95.65% of the respondents (132/138 males and females) considered that they were
able to access to basic WASH needs in terms of sanitation facilities such as adequate and safe
access to latrines, spaces for bathe, and spaces for washing clothes. In the baseline, the results
showed 67.27%(37/55M) and 65.06%(54/83F) and thus it has found that the end-line results are
higher percentage than the baseline in host communities, meaning it has significant improvements.

Average time required to reach the water source, collect water (including queuing), and
bring it back home
Table 3.4 Description of average time required to reach the water sources, collect water (including queuing),
and bring it back home (in the host communities) (n=138, M=55, F=83)
No. Description
Male Female Total
1 Less than 15 minutes 49 (89.09%) 78 (93.98%) 127 (92.03%)
2 15 to 30 minutes 6 (10.91%) 5 (6.02%) 11 (7.97%)
3 30 to 45 minutes 0 0 0
4 45 to 60 minutes 0 0 0
5 60 to 90 minutes 0 0 0
6 More than 90 minutes 0 0 0
According to the results in Table 3.4, 78% (78/83F) of females and 89.09% (49/55M) of males
answered that they took time less than 15 minutes to reach the water resources, collect the water
(including queuing), and bring it back home. In addition, 6.02% (5/83F) of females and 10.91%
(6/55M) of males responded that they took time 15 to 30 minutes to reach the water resources, collect
the water (including queuing), and bring it back home. Therefore, more than 70% of the respondents
(60/83F and 41/55M) mentioned that they took time less than 15 minutes to reach the water sources,
collect water (including queuing), and bring it back home and as a result, the water sources were
closed to their households. In compared to the baseline information, it has been found an increase
of the condition that made them more easily and accessible to the water resources within a short
period of time. However, most of the respondents state that they have limited availability of water
during a few months in dry season (April, May) in every single year.
33
3.2.2 Intermediate outcomes for SGBV
1100.3
% and # of women and girls, men and boys, demonstrating positive attitudes towards
ending SGBV
Assessment measurable indicator for SGBV

Table 3.5 (a) Description of the respondents who demonstrates positive attitudes on the statements mentioned
in the table supposing towards ending SGVB in IDP Camps (n=184, M=71, F=113)
Sr. No. and % of respondents answered No. and % of respondents
No. “Yes (Agree)” answered “No (Disagree)”
Description
Male Female Total Male Female Total
1 Is it acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: He 23 44 67 48 69 117
suspects that she has been unfaithful 32.39% 38.94% 36.41% 67.61% 61.06% 63.59%
2 Is it acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: She 25 30 55 46 83 129
neglects the children 35.21% 26.55% 29.89% 64.79% 73.45% 70.11%
spends money without permission 19.72% 22.12% 21.19% 80.28% 77.88% 78.81%
4 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): If a man beat 36 65 101 35 48 83
his wife, that is a private issue between them 50.7% 57.52% 54.89% 49.3% 42.48% 45.11%
5 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): If a woman 20 35 55 51 78 129
tells me her husband is beating her, there is 28.17% 30.97% 29.89% 71.83% 69.02% 70.12%
nothing I can do
6 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): A wife or 40 69 109 31 44 75
daughter should tell a camp leader or someone 56.33% 61.06% 59.24% 43.66% 38.94% 40.76%
she trusts if she is being beaten
7 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): Help and 64 102 166 7 12 19
support should be available to women and girls 90.14% 90.27% 90.22% 9.86% 10.62% 10.33%
who are experiencing violence
Note: The correct answers for the statements in Table 3.5 (a) are: 1. No, 2. No, 3. No, 4. No, 5. No,
6. Yes, 7. Yes. The results on the indicator that women and girls, men and boys who demonstrate
positive attitudes towards ending SGBV. According to the results, the respondents who responded
the correct answers have been counted because there is a mix of both correct “Yes” and “No”
answers in these lists that would demonstrate good understanding about the SGBV in this analysis.
Table 3.5 (a) shows the respondents who demonstrate positive attitudes in terms of SGBV that
supposed towards the ending of SGBV in IDP camps in which the possible statements (7 statements)
were identified to be able to assess the awareness of the respondents about the SGBV. To assess
the knowledge and awareness of the respondents (both male and female) about the SGBV,
assessment criteria were developed by setting up different cases covering the basic knowledge in
the context of SGBV.
1. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the first question “Is it
acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: He suspects that she has been unfaithful” were
67.61% (48/71M) and the female respondents were 61.06% (69/113F).
2. Male respondents who a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the second question “Is it
acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: She neglects the children” were 64.79% (46/71M)
and the female respondents were 73.45% (83/113F).
3. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the third question “Is it
acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: She spends money without permission” were 80.28%
(57/71M) and the female respondents were 77.88% (88/113F).
4. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the fourth question “If a
man beat his wife, that is a private issue between them” were 49.3% (35/71M) and female
respondents were 42.48% (48/113F).
5. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the fifth question “If a
woman tells me her husband is beating her, there is nothing I can do” were 71.83% (51/71M)
and female respondents were 69.02% (78/113F).
6. Male respondents who answered a correct answer as “Yes (Agree) on the sixth question “A
wife or daughter should tell a camp leader or someone she trusts if she is being beaten” were
56.33% (40/71M) and female respondents were 61.06% (69/113F).
34
7. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree) on the seventh question “Help
and support should be available to women and girls who are experiencing violence” were
According to the result, male respondents about 69.01% (49/71M) and female respondents about
68.14% (77/113F) in average could be considered that they were aware of the SGBV, meaning they
(women and girls, men and boys) in IDP camps who demonstrated the positive attitudes towards
ending SGBV. In the baseline, the results showed 29%(23/80M) and 27%(28/104F) and thus it has
found that the end-line results are higher percentage than the baseline in IDP camps, meaning it has
found the improvement of the IDPs (M,F) in their knowledge about SGBV.
Table 3.5 (b) List of respondents demonstrating positive attitudes on the statements mentioned in the table
supposing towards ending SGVB in Host Community (n=138, M=55, F=83)
Sr. No. and % of respondents No. and % of respondents
No. answered “Yes (Agree)” answered “No (Disagree)”
Description
1 Is it acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: He 16 39 55 39 44 83
suspects that she has been unfaithful 29.09% 46.99% 39.86% 70.91% 53.01% 60.14%
neglects the children 29.09% 36.14% 33.33% 70.91% 63.86% 66.67%
spends money without permission 40% 38.55% 39.13% 60% 61.45% 60.87%
4 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): If a man 22 29 51 33 54 87
beat his wife, that is a private issue between 40% 34.94% 36.96% 60% 65.06% 63.04%
them
5 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): If a woman 9 17 26 46 66 112
tells me her husband is beating her, there is 16.36% 20.48% 18.84% 83.64% 79.52% 81.16%
nothing I can do
6 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): A wife or 50 63 113 5 20 25
daughter should tell a camp leader or someone 90.9% 75.9% 81.88% 9.09% 24.09% 18.12%
she trusts if she is being beaten
7 Answer “Agree (Yes)/Disagree (No): Help and 48 72 120 7 11 18
support should be available to women and girls 87.27% 86.75% 86.96% 12.72% 13.25% 13.04%
who are experiencing violence
Note: The correct answers for the statements in Table 3.5 (b) are: 1. No, 2. No, 3. No, 4. No, 5. No,
6. Yes, 7. Yes. The results on the indicator that women and girls, men and boys who demonstrate
positive attitudes towards ending SGBV. According to the results, the respondents who responded
the correct answers have been counted because there is a mix of both correct “Yes” and “No”
answers in these lists that would demonstrate good understanding about the SGBV in this analysis.
Table 3.5 (b) shows the respondents who demonstrate positive attitudes in terms of SGBV that
supposed towards the ending of SGBV in the host communities in which the possible statements (7
statements) were identified to be able to assess the awareness of the respondents about the SGBV.
To assess the knowledge and awareness of the respondents (both male and female) about the
SGBV, assessment criteria were developed by setting up different cases covering the basic
knowledge in the context of SGBV.
1. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the first question “Is it
acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: He suspects that she has been unfaithful” were
70.91% (39/55M) and the female respondents were 53.01% (44/83F).
2. Male respondents who a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the second question “Is it
acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: She neglects the children” were 70.91% (39/55M)
and the female respondents were 63.86% (53/83F).
3. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the third question “Is it
acceptable for a man to beat his wife if: She spends money without permission” were 60%
(33/55M) and the female respondents were 61.45% (51/83F).
4. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the fourth question “If a
man beat his wife, that is a private issue between them” were 60% (33/55M) and female
35
5. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree) on the fifth question “If a
woman tells me her husband is beating her, there is nothing I can do” were 83.64% (46/55M)
and female respondents were 79.52% (66/83F).
6. Male respondents who answered a correct answer as “Yes (Agree) on the sixth question “A
wife or daughter should tell a camp leader or someone she trusts if she is being beaten” were
7. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree) on the seventh question “Help
and support should be available to women and girls who are experiencing violence” were
(women and girls, men and boys) in the host communities who demonstrated the positive attitudes
towards ending SGBV. In the baseline, the results showed 44% (24/55M) and 46% (38/83F) and
thus it has found that the end-line results are higher percentage than the baseline, meaning it has
found the improvement of the Host Communities (M, F) in their knowledge about SGBV.
(Note: In this end-line survey, the respondents were different (both male and female) as well as the number of
male respondents (in the baseline survey, there were 80 males and 84 females while final survey could have
been done 71 male and 113 females). Due to the difficulties for both political situation and COVID-19, we
couldn’t have accompanied with the respondents throughout the survey at the household levels. It might be a
challenge to have needed to explanation on the meaning of that question even though we have carefully given
orientation/training to the enumerators. I supposed that most of the respondents perceived about SGBV and
we could see the results according to the pre-test and post-test done by LWF Project Team in Sittwe Office.)
3.2.3 Intermediate outcomes for Shelters/NFIs
1200
1200.1 % and # of PSNs (M/F) who report increased quality of life through the use of
distributed NFIs
Baseline value:
- 29.41% (5/17M) and 46.15% (6/13F) of PSNs who agree that they are able to access to
enough and improved quality of NFIs that they received and felt satisfied to use these
distributed NFIs.
End-line value:
- 58.33% (7/12M) and 87.5% (7/8F) of PSNs agree that they are able to access to enough and
improved quality of NFIs that they received and feel satisfied to use these distributed NFIs.
Table 3.6: Description of respondents who agree or strongly agree with the statement “I am able to access to
enough and improved quality of NFIs that I received and I feel satisfied to use these distributed NFIs” (n=20,
M=12, F=8)
No. Description
Male Female Total
1 Strongly disagree 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
2 Disagree 3 (25.00%) 0 (0.00%) 3 (15.00%)
4 Agree 7 (58.33%) 7 (87.5%) 14 (70.00%)
5 Strongly agree 2 (16.67%) 1 (12.5%) 3 (15.00%)
6 Not applicable 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
7 Not sure/Don’t know 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
8 Refuse to answer 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
According to the result in Table 3.6, most of the PSN respondents (70% (14/20 M/F) who received
the NFIs state that they have improved access to the quality of NFIs that have been distributed by
the project. As of gender disaggregation, 58.33% (7/12M) of the male respondents agree on the
statement “I am able to access to enough and improved quality of NFIs that I received and I feel
satisfied to use these distributed NFIs” while 87.5% (7/8F) of the female respondents state that they
agree on the statement. The results report that 70% of the PSN respondents that they have access
36
to the quality of distributed NFIs and acknowledge the usefulness of these NFIs. In the baseline, the
results showed 29.41% (5/17M) and 46.15% (6/13F) and thus it has found that the end-line results
are higher percentage than the baseline, meaning it has found a significant improvement.
(Note: We couldn’t have asked to identify those male respondents were less likely to answer positively
than female respondents. For that, it could be a lesson learnt to do such a kind of analysis for the next
phase of the project for those who would do that.)
1200.2 % and # of targeted IDP households who report feeling safe in their shelters
(disaggregated by MHH and FHH)
Table 3.7 Description of respondents who express agree with the statement – “I feel safe when I am in my
shelter” in targeted IDP Camps (Nget Chaung-2 & Ohn Taw Gyi (South)) (n=34, MHH=25, FHH=9)
(Note: All these respondents were selected for shelter beneficiaries from targeted IDP camps (Nget Chaung-2
in Pauktaw Township and Ohn Taw Gyi (South) in Sittwe Township.)
No. Description
Male Female Total
1 Strongly disagree 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
2 Disagree 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0(0.00%)
3 Neither agree nor disagree 7 (28%) 4 (44.44%) 11 (32.35%)
4 Agree 18 (72%) 5 (55.56%) 23 (67.65%)
5 Strongly agree 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
6 Not applicable 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
8 Refuse to answer 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
Table 3.7 shows the information of the respondents who express agree with the statement “I feel
safe when I am in my shelter” in the targeted IDP camps (Nget Chaung-2 and Ohn Taw Gyi (South)
in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, aiming to be able to assess the perceptions of the respondents
who will benefit the shelter activities of the project. According to the result, male respondents who
agree the statement “I feel safe when I am in my shelter” were 72% (18/25MHH) and female
respondents who agree were 55.56% (5/9FHH). Whereas the male respondents who disagree the
statement “I feel safe when I am in my shelter” were 28% (7/25MHH) and female respondents who
disagree were 44.44% (4/9FHH). According to the qualitative analysis, the reasons why they felt
safe that the provided the construction of the shelters and the quality of the shelters were good and
they helped them support for facilities such as the privacy and spaces for living, bathing and cooking
as well as the roofing. Before providing supports by the project, the shelters were under the condition
of partially damages especially for the partitions, walls and roofs and as a consequence they felt
unsafe, in particular, for the rainy season and these situations impacted their livings. After the project
has provided the reconstruction of shelters, they felt safe for their livings and they mentioned that the
provision of the shelters for those who have really needed were effective and efficient. As of the
gender responsiveness aspect, the results showed that female expressed that they were reluctant
to answer whether they felt much safer in their shelter and, so 44.44% of female answered “Neither
agree nor disagree” for this indicator and as a result it was a little bit change for female respondents
from 46.15% to 55.56%. However, in the focus group discussions, they expressed more about that
they felt much safer and more privacy due to the provision of the project, especially for the
reconstruction works included the partition in the shelter in order to improve the privacy and safety.
Therefore, more than 50% of the respondents from the targeted IDP camps expressed they feel safe
living in their shelters, meaning the shelters have improved safety and security because the privacy
and spaces for living, bathing and cooking, especially for the big family members in compared to the
result of the baseline assessment. In this regard, the project was effective in providing the
beneficiaries and it has been in acceptance of receiving the positive immediate outcome. In the
baseline, the results showed 29.41% (5/17M) and 46.15% (6/13F) and thus it has found that the end-
line results are higher percentage than the baseline, meaning it has found a significant improvement.
37
3.2.4 Intermediate outcomes for CCCM
1300
% and # of targeted host community residents (m/f) who agree or strongly agree with the
statement 'those living in the IDP camps are welcome in our community',
Baseline value:
End-line result in Host Community:

Table 3.8 Description of targeted host community residents who agree or strongly agree with the statement
“those living in the IDP camps are welcome in their community” (n=138, M=55, F=83)
Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 11 (20%) 13 (15.66%) 24 (17.39%)
4 Agree 43 (78.18%) 71 (85.54%) 114 (82.61%)
According to the result in Table 3.8, male respondents who agree the statement “those living in the
IDP camps are welcome in their communities” were 78.18% (43/55M) and female respondents who
agree were 85.54% (71/83F). As a result, more than 75% of the respondents answered that they
agree on the statement “those living in the IDP camps are welcome in our community”, meaning that
the host communities were welcome to the IDPs who live in their areas. With regard to the information
resulted from the FGDs, most of the host communities’ members expressed their attitudes that they
were welcome to those IDPs who settle in their areas where most of the IDP camps are quite closed
to the host communities. In the baseline, the results showed 56.36% (31/55M) and 61.45% (51/83F)
and thus it has found that the end-line results are higher percentage than the baseline, meaning it
has found a significant improvement.
% and # of IDP and host community women in joint households who make significant
household decisions jointly or by themselves.
End-line result in IDPs:
- 35% (7/20) of women in joint households who make significant household decisions jointly in
average on all types of decisions in IDP camps
End-line result Host Community Members:

- 60% (12/20) of women in joint households who make significant household decisions jointly
in average on all types of decisions in host community
Table 3.9 (a) Description of the respondents (IDP women) in joint households who make significant household
decisions jointly or by themselves (n=20; Analyzed only women from male-headed households)
No. and % of respondents who answered that who
normally makes the decisions about most of the activities
Description (Type of decisions) in the household in IDP camps (joint households) Total
Respondent Husband Respondent and
herself husband jointly
What food to buy and consume 10 (50%) 5 (25%) 5 (25%) 20 (100%)
Large purchases, such as furniture or mobile phones 6 (30%) 6 (30%) 8 (40%) 20 (100%)
38
Whether the household should take out a loan, from 20 (100%)
6 (30%) 6 (30%) 8 (40%)
what source, and how much to borrow
Approving a marriage 6 (30%) 8 (40%) 6 (30%) 20 (100%)
When to visit your relatives or friends 9 (45%) 5 (25%) 6 (30%) 20 (100%)
How many children to have 6 (30%) 5 (25%) 9 (45%) 20 (100%)
How to educate your children 6 (30%) 5 (25%) 9 (45%) 20 (100%)
Whether to see a doctor if a child is sick 9 (45%) 5 (25%) 6 (30%) 20 (100%)
Whether to see a doctor if you are sick 10 (50%) 5 (25%) 5 (25%) 20 (100%)
% and # of respondents on all types of decisions
for significant household decisions in joint 7 (35%) 6 (30%) 7 (35%) 20 (100%)
households (in Average)
Table 3.9 (a) shows the information of the respondents (IDP women) in joint households who make
significant household decisions jointly or by themselves. Total 20 (only women from male-headed
households) respondents in IDP camps were surveyed in order to assess their role in the decision-
making processes in their households, especially highlighted the women’s role in decision-making
process in joint households. To assess this indicator of the project, relevant measurable
criteria/indicators and types of decision were developed and the assessment was done by the
relationship with the measurable criteria/indicators and the types of decision based on the
perceptions of the respondents.
As a result, most of the husband in male-headed households make decisions by themselves for the
significant household decisions. According to the results, the situation of the decision-making varies
depending on the types of decisions, for example, some types of decisions such as “Making decision
on what food to buy and consume” is considered by the husband and “Making decision on whether
the household should take out a loan, from what source, and how much to borrow” and “Making
decisions on whether to see a doctor if you are sick” were considered by the respondent and husband
jointly. In general, significant household decisions in joint households were made by the husband
while a few percent of the respondents (women from male-headed households in joint households)
involved in significant household decision by jointly or themselves. In average on all types of
significant household decisions in joint households, women’s involvement in decision making by
jointly or themselves is significantly low presenting 35% (by jointly) and 35% (by themselves) in IDP
camps. (Note: it has found the improvement engaging in the decision making by jointly in compared
to the baseline information from 29.41% to 35%, meaning it can be determined the progress of the
women empowerment in decision making and leadership program provided by the project.)
Table 3.9(b) Description of the respondents (Host community women) in joint households who make significant
household decisions jointly or by themselves (n=20; Analyzed only women from male-headed households)
No. and % of respondents who answered that who
normally makes the decisions about most of the activities
Total
Description (Type of decisions) in the household in IDP camps (joint households)
(No. & %)
Respondent Husband Respondent and
herself/himself husband jointly
What food to buy and consume 13 (65%) 3 (15%) 4 (20%) 20 (100%)
Large purchases, such as furniture or mobile phones 0 (0.00%) 4 (20%) 16 (80%) 20 (100%)
Whether the household should take out a loan, from 0 (0.00%) 7 (35%) 13 (65%) 20 (100%)
what source, and how much to borrow
Approving a marriage 0 (0.00%) 12 (60%) 8 (40%) 20 (100%)
When to visit your relatives or friends 3 (15%) 5 (25%) 12 (60%) 20 (100%)
How many children to have 0 (0.00%) 1 (5%) 19 (95%) 20 (100%)
How to educate your children 0 (0.00%) 1 (5%) 19 (95%) 20 (100%)
Whether to see a doctor if a child is sick 8 (40%) 2 (10%) 10 (50%) 20 (100%)
Whether to see a doctor if you are sick 11 (55%) 0 (0.00%) 9 (45%) 20 (100%)
% and # of respondents on all types of decisions 4 (20%) 4 (20%) 12 (60%) 20 (100%)
for significant household decisions in joint
households (in Average)
Table 3.9(b) shows the information of the respondents (IDP women) in joint households who make
significant household decisions jointly or by themselves. Total 20 (only women from male-headed
households) respondents in the host communities were surveyed in order to assess their role in the
decision-making processes in their households, especially highlighted the women’s role in decision-
making process in joint households. To assess this indicator of the project, relevant measurable
criteria/indicators and types of decision were developed and the assessment was done by the
39
relationship with the measurable criteria/indicators and the types of decision based on the
perceptions of the respondents.
According to the results, the situation of the decision-making varies depending on the types of
decisions, however, it is significant that making decisions jointly by the respondent (women in joint
household) and husband is the highest percent such as “Making decision on how to educate your
children” and “Making decision on whether to see a doctor if you are sick”. Overall, significant
household decisions jointly by respondent and husband in joint households are significant in host
communities in average on all types of significant household decisions in joint households. As a
result, 60% (12/20) of the respondents (women from male-headed households) answered that
husband and wife jointly made decisions for significant household activities while 20% (4/20) of the
respondents responded that the husband made decisions by themselves and 20% (4/20) of the
respondents made decision by herself. As already discussed, the situation of the decision-making
on significant household decisions in joint households varied based on the types of decision, however
the most common result was joint household decision-making by the husband and wife, for examples,
procurement of expensive items, family planning, education for children, health care, and a visit to
relatives. (Note: it has found the improvement engaging in the decision making by jointly in compared
to the baseline information from 58.82% to 60%, meaning it can be determined the progress of the
women empowerment in decision making and leadership program provided by the project.)
# of % of monthly CMC (IDP camp) and VDC (host community) meetings where WDG or YDG
members provided meaningful input into decision making processes
Baseline result in IDP camps:
- 73.91% (17/23) of women and girls’ respondents agree that women and girls from WDG
and YWDG participated in the last 2 CMC meetings in which they provided the
meaningful input into the CMC.
End-line result in IDP camps:
- 70.83% (17/24) of women and girls’ respondents agree that women and girls from WDG and
YWDG participated in the last 2 CMC meetings in which they provided the meaningful input
into the CMC
Baseline result in Host Communities:

- 83.33% (5/6) women and girls’ respondents (respondents agree that women and girls
from members of VDC) participated in the last 2 VDC meetings in which they provided
the meaningful inputs into the VDC.
End-line result in Host Communities:
- 83.33% (20/24) of the women and girls’ respondents (respondents agree that women and
girls from members of VDC) participated in the last 2 VDC meetings in which they provided
the meaningful input into the VDC
Table 3.10(a) Description of respondents who express agree with the statement – “At the last 2 CMC meetings
I participated in members of my group (WDG & YWDG) brought issues to the CMC” in IDP Camps (n=24)
Sr. No. Description No. of respondents (WDGs) Percent (%)
1 Strongly disagree 0 0.00%
2 Disagree 5 20.83%
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2 8.33%
4 Agree 17 70.83%
5 Strongly agree 0 0.00%
6 Not applicable 0 0.00%
7 Not sure/Don’t know 0 0.00%
8 Refused to answer 0 0.00%
Total 24 100%
40
In this assessment, women and girls from WDG and YWDG were surveyed to be able to assess the
involvement of women and girls who provided the meaningful inputs in the CMC meetings. It aims
to enhance the participation of women and girls in coordination and camp management committee.
According to the survey results in Table 3.10(a), the respondents who agree with the statement “At
the last 2 CMC meetings I participated in members of my group (WDG & YWDG) brought issues to
the CMC in IDP camps” were 70.83% (17/24F) while the respondents who disagree were 20.83%
(5/24F). 8.33% (2/24F) of the respondents answered “Neither agree nor disagree”. (Note: Among
the 24 respondents in IDP camps, 8.33% (2/24F) of the women and girls answered “Neither agree
nor disagree” in terms of their engagement and participation in the camp management and
coordination meetings for at least 2 times.) In the baseline, the results 73.91% (17/23) women
and girls and thus it has found that the end-line results are lower percentage than the
baseline. The reason is that the qualitative analysis (focus group discussion) has shown the active
participation of the women and girls in the discussion than the previous baseline study in the camps
and they could have discussed more and they seemed feeling happy to participate in the discussion.
In addition, they have provided the information that is relevant to the context, meaning they have
received a good practice in engaging in the meetings and they have been trained well by the support
of the project in terms of capacity building training such as leadership training and enhanced by
giving a space to participate and raise their voices in the meetings. Moreover, they are more likely
familiar with the meetings and discussions according to their active participation in the focus group
discussions. Thus, these positive attitudes show that women and girls in WDG and YWDG have
improved their attitudes in participating in the meetings at the camp level by providing the meaningful
inputs to the CMC.
Table 3.10(b) Description of respondents who express agree with the statement – “At the last 2 VDC meetings
I participated in members of my group (Women and Girls) brought issues to the VDC” in Host Community
(n=24)
Sr. No. Description No. of respondents (WDGs) Percent (%)

2 Disagree 3 12.5%
4 Agree 20 83.33%
Total 24 100%
In this assessment, women and girls from VDC in the host community villages were surveyed to be
able to assess the involvement of women and girls who provided the meaningful inputs in the VDC
meetings. It aims to enhance the participation of women and girls in coordination and camp
management committee in the implementation of the project. According to the survey results in Table
3.10(b), the respondents who agree with the statement “At the last 2 VDC meetings I participated in
members of my group (women from VDC members in host community) brought issues to the VDC”
were 83.33% (20/24F) while the respondents who disagree were 12.5% (3/24F). 4.17% (1/24F) of
the respondents answered “Neither agree nor disagree”. Note: Among the 24 respondents in IDP
camps, 8.33% (2/24F) of the women and girls answered “Neither agree nor disagree” in terms of
their engagement and participation in the camp management and coordination meetings for at least
2 times.) In the baseline, the results 83.33% (5/6) women and girls and thus it has found that the
end-line results are the same as the baseline.
(Note: In the host community villages, there is no formally organized WDG or YWDG like in the IDP camps.
Thus, this analysis was done by selecting the participants (Women and Girls) who involved in the VDC in the
Host Communities. (If needed, all women and girls respondents from host communities can be analyzed to
express the diverse perceptions on the result.)
41
3.3 Discussion on Immediate Outcomes
3.3.1 Immediate outcome for 1110
1110
% and # of targeted host community residents (M/F) who have access to a protected water
source,
Baseline value:
- 78.18% (43/55M) and 86.75% (72/83F) who have primarily access to water for cooking,
bathing and cleaning
End-line value:
- 92.72% (51/55M) and 92.77% (77/83F) who have access to a protected water source.
Table 3.11 Description of targeted community residents who have primarily access water for cooking, bathing
and cleaning (n=138, M=55, F=83)
Sr. Description No. and % of respondents who No. and % of respondents who answered
No. answered “Yes” “No”
1 Tube well or borehole 51 77 128 4 6 10

92.72% 92.77% 92.75% 7.27% 7.23% 7.25%
2 Protected shallow well 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
3 Piped water/public tap 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
4 Protected spring 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
5 Harvested rain water 22 25 47 33 58 91
40% 30.12% 34.06% 60% 69.87% 65.94%
6 Surface water source (pond) 20 25 45 35 58 93
36.36% 30.12% 32.61% 63.63% 69.87% 67.39%
7 Unprotected/open shallow well 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
8 Cart with small tank/drum 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
9 Tanker-truck 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
10 Not applicable 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
11 Not sure/Don’t know 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
12 Refused to answer 0 0 0 55 83 138
100% 100% 100%
(Note: Respondents who answered the first four questions (Question No. 1-5) could be considered
that those have access a protected water source.)
In this assessment indicator, Table 3.11 shows the targeted host community respondents who have
primarily access water for cooking, bathing and cleaning in order to assess the situation of the host
communities whether they have access to a protected water source. According to the results in Table
3.11, male respondents who answered they have access to “tube well or borehole” were 92.72%
(51/55M) and female respondents who answered were 92.77% (77/83F). Male respondents who
answered that they have access to “harvested rain water” were 40% (22/55M) and female
respondents who answered were 30.12% (25/83F). In addition, male respondents who answered
that they have access to “surface water source (pond)” were 36.36% (20/55M) and female
respondents who answered were 30.12% (25/83F). According to the findings, the people in the host
communities have access to three types of water sources such as “tube well or borehole”, “harvested
rain water”, and “surface water source (pond)” in which most of the respondents in this survey
answered that they have access to “tube well or borehole”. In this assessment, possible sources of
water were identified and 138 (55 male and 83 female) respondents from the host communities were
asked to answer either “yes” or “no” on each possible water source that they are able to access.
Thus, 89.09% (49/55M) and 81.93% (68/83F) of them responded that they have primarily access to
42
“tube well or borehole” and this is the highest percent among other possible water sources that they
host communities have access to. As a result, 84.78% (117/138) of respondents in the host
communities have access to the protected water source. In addition, a few percent of the respondents
answered that they have access surface water source (only ponds that harvested rain water during
the rainy season), however it was not a protected water source and it was found in Ah Nauk Ywe
Muslim village in Pauktaw Township.
According to the project activities, the project has undertaken the major activities, including
rehabilitation, protecting ponds and installing hand pumps in which the project has provided 3 ponds
to be rehabilitated and protected that aimed to reduce contamination and supply safe water in Ah
Nauk Ywe Rohingya host community village in Pauktaw Township. In addition, 16 hand pumps have
been installed in Sittwe Township although the project target was to provide the 12 hand pumps and
as a result, the project has provided the installation of hand pumps more than 100% achieved. In the
quantitative analysis, the water sources have been identified whether the beneficiaries (respondents)
have access to the protected water sources (i.e., the protected water source is here defined as the
sources of water especially the rain water collected ponds that have been rehabilitated and protected
to avoid the contamination and it covers the installation of hand pumps). As of the installation of hand
pumps, it also aimed to improve to have access to the protected water sources in the host community
villages. As a result of the quantitative analysis in the end-line, 92.72% (51/55M) and 92.77%
(77/83F) of the host community respondents from Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships expressed that
they have improved access to the protected water sources. Overall, 92.75% (128/138) of
respondents in the host communities have access to the protected water source in the endline while
the baseline results showed 83.33% (115/138), as a result, it has found significant improvement after
the project has provided the rehabilitation, protecting ponds and installing hand pumps to the
beneficiaries. In addition, according to the qualitative analysis (focus group discussion), the provision
of these activities, rehabilitation and protection of the rain water harvested ponds and installation of
hand pumps was very useful and helpful them because they felt that they have improved access to
the protected water sources (as defined the protected water sources under this activity).
Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5-high]) among women and girls with the
usefulness of the dignity kits received
Table 3.12: Description of average level of satisfaction upon receiving among women and girls with the
usefulness of the dignity kits received “Opinion expressing on the statement “I feel satisfied upon receiving the
dignity kits and it is useful among women and girls in IDP camps” (n=113)
Average level of satisfaction among among women and girls with the usefulness of the dignity kits received
Description (Opinion expressing on the statement "I feel satisfied upon receiving the dignity kits and it is useful among
women and girls)
1 2 3 4 5
(Low) (Below Average) (Average) (Above Average) (High)
1-20% 21-40% 41-60% 61-80% 81-100%
Female (Women and Girls) 0 13 34 25 41
11.5% 30.09% 22.12% 36.28%
Note: The level of satisfaction has been defined as 5 levels, including Level 1 (Low) represents between 1-
20% of satisfaction; Level 2 (Below Average) represents 21-40% of satisfaction; Level 3 (Average) represents
41-60% of satisfaction; Level 4 (Above Average) represents 61-80% of satisfaction; and Level 5 (High)
represents 81-100% of satisfaction.
In table 3.12, the results show the level of satisfaction upon receiving among women and girls with
the usefulness of the dignity kits and they express their level of satisfaction on the statement “I feel
satisfied upon receiving dignity kits and it is useful among women and girls in IDP camps”. In this
regard, the level of satisfaction has been defined as the level of satisfaction has been defined as 5
levels, including Level 1 (Low) represents between 1-20% of satisfaction; Level 2 (Below Average)
represents 21-40% of satisfaction; Level 3 (Average) represents 41-60% of satisfaction; Level 4
(Above Average) represents 61-80% of satisfaction; and Level 5 (High) represents 81-100% of
satisfaction. As a result, 36.28% (41/113F) of the respondents state that they feel satisfied at Level
5 (High) which represents 81-100%; 22.21% (25/113F) of the respondents are at Level 4 (Above
Average) that represents 61-80% of satisfaction; 30.09% (34/113F) of the respondents are at Level
43
3 (Average) that represents 41-60% of satisfaction; and 11.5% (13/113F) of respondents are at Level
2 (Below Average) that represents 21-40% of satisfaction respectively.
3.3.2 Immediate outcomes for 1120
1120
% of target IDPs (M,F) and host community members (M,F) who report increased awareness,
skills and capacities regarding understanding gender, the rights of women and girls, and
SGBV
(Note: The data that has been collected in the post-test by LWF Project Team are used in this
analysis to be consistent the information in compared to the baseline information as the pre-test
information was used in the baseline assessment report.)
According to the secondary data from LWF, LWF conducted a post-test in the project targeted IDP
camps and 6548 respondents were surveyed in the post-test in which the rating scale was used to
test the knowledge of the respondents and the rating scale was defined as “Level 1: Excellent, Level
2: Good, Level 3: Fair, Level 4: Poor, and Level 5: Unacceptable” on each identified topic about
SGBV and SRHR. As of the respondents, total 6548 respondents (males and female) were surveyed
in the post-test despite total number 6442 respondents were surveyed in the pre-test.
According to the post-test results (See Table in Annex 2), it has found that most of the respondents
(about 48% or 3166/6548) responded to all of the topics related to SGBV (used in the post-test) at
“Level 5: Unacceptable”. About 26% (1701/6548) respondents responded to all of the topics related
to SGBV (used in the post-test at “Level 4: Poor”). About 20% (1317/6548) respondents responded
to all of the topics related to SGBV (used in the pre-test) at “Level 3: Fair”. About 6% (365/6548)
respondents responded to all of the topics related to SGBV (used in the post-test) at “Level 2: Good”.
According to the pre-test results (See Table in Annex 3), it has found that most of the respondents
(about 39% or 3092/6548) responded to all of the topics related to SRHR (used in the post-test) at
“Level 5: Unacceptable”. About 22% (1413/6548) respondents responded to all of the topics related
to SRHR (used in the pre-test at “Level 4: Poor”. About 21% (1375/6548) respondents responded to
all of the topics related to SRHR (used in the post-test) at “Level 3: Fair”. About 18% (1187/6548)
respondents responded to the selected topics related to SRHR at “Level 2: Good”.
% and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) and host community members (M, F) who demonstrate a
good understanding of SGBV1
Table 3.13(a) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SGBV on the statements (a case of
sexual or gender-based violence) mentioned in the table in IDP Camps (n=184, M=71, F=113)
No. “Yes “ answered “No”
Description
1 A husband has sex with his wife, even when she 59 90 147 12 25 37
says she does not want to have sex 83.09% 79.65% 79.89% 16.90% 22.12% 20.11%
2 A girl is raped while walking alone night wearing 60 88 148 11 25 36
a short skirt 84.51% 77.88% 80.43% 15.49% 22.12% 19.57%
3 A man beats another man because he stole his 37 50 87 34 63 97
blanket and mat 52.11% 44.25% 47.28% 47.89% 55.75% 52.72%
4 A husband takes money that his wife has 58 88 146 13 25 38
earned without her consent or agreement 81.69% 77.88% 79.35% 18.31% 22.12% 20.65%
5 A 15-year-old girl is told that she has to marry a 56 88 144 15 25 40
man because her father has arranged for her 78.87% 77.88% 78.26% 21.13% 22.12% 21.74%
marriage
6 A wife frequently berates and insults her 54 92 146 17 21 38
husband because he is not providing for the 76.06% 81.42% 79.35% 23.94% 18.58% 20.65%
family
1 Understanding will be demonstrated by asking respondents to agree or disagree with a number of statements regarding SGBV
44
7 A teacher beats a girl because she is late to 26 37 63 45 76 121
class 36.62% 32.74% 34.24% 63.38% 67.26% 65.76%
8 A wife is beaten by her husband because she 65 94 159 6 19 25
will not listen to him 91.55% 83.19% 86.41% 8.45% 16.81% 13.59%
Note: The correct answers for the statements in Table 3.13 (a) are: 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. No, 4. Yes, 5. Yes, 6.
Yes, 7. No, 8. Yes. The results on the indicator that women and girls, men and boys who demonstrate a good
understanding of SGBV. According to the results, the respondents who responded the correct answers
because there is a mix of correct “Yes” and “No” answers in this list that would demonstrate good
understanding about the SGBV in this analysis.
In Table 3.13 (a), the results show awareness of the respondents, including males and females in
IDP camps in which the eight possible cases were identified to be able to assess the understanding
of the respondents about the SGBV.
1. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the first statement “A
husband has sex with his wife, even when she says she does not want to have sex” were
2. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the second statement “A
girl is raped while walking alone night wearing a short skirt” were 84.51% (60/71M) and female
3. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree)” on the third statement “A
man beats another man because he stole his blanket and mat” were 47.89% (34/71M) and
female respondents were 55.75% (63/113F).
4. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the fourth statement “A
husband takes money that his wife has earned without her consent or agreement” were
5. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree) on the fifth statement “A 15-
years old girl is told that she has to marry a man because her father has arranged for her
marriage” were 78.87% (56/71M) and female respondents were 77.88% (88/113F).
6. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the sixth statement “A wife
frequently berates and insults her husband because he is not providing for the family” were
7. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree)” on the statement “A teacher
beats a girl because she is late to class” were 63.38% (45/71M) and female respondents
were 67.26% (76/113F).
8. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the eighth statement “A
wife is beaten by her husband because she will not listen to him” were 91.55% (65/71M) and
(women and girls, men and boys) in IDP camps demonstrated a good understanding of SGBV.
During the FGDs, we have learned that some of the respondents from CMC and WDGs in both Sittwe
and Pauktaw received the trainings on SGBV that were provided by the SCI and MSF. The baseline
results showed 64% (51/80M) 68% (70/104F) in average could be considered that they were aware
of the SGBV, meaning they (women and girls, men and boys) in IDP camps demonstrated a good
understanding of SGBV and this baseline results are less than the end-line result that it has found
an improvement.
Table 3.13(b) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SGBV on the statements (a case of
sexual or gender-based violence) mentioned in the table in Host Community (n=138, M=55, F=83)
No. “Yes” answered “No”
Description
45
1 A husband has sex with his wife, even when she 48 59 107 7 24 31
says she does not want to have sex 87.27% 71.08% 77.54% 12.73% 43.64% 22.46%
2 A girl is raped while walking alone night wearing a 42 59 101 13 24 37
short skirt 76.36% 71.08% 73.19% 23.64% 28.92% 26.81%
3 A man beats another man because he stole his 17 20 37 37 64 101
blanket and mat 30.91% 24.09% 26.81% 67.27% 77.11% 73.19%
4 A husband takes money that his wife has earned 45 64 109 10 19 29
without her consent or agreement 81.82% 77.11% 78.98% 18.18% 22.89% 21.01
5 A 15-year-old girl is told that she has to marry a 43 59 102 12 24 36
man because her father has arranged for her 78.18% 71.08% 73.91% 21.82% 28.92% 26.09
marriage
6 A wife frequently berates and insults her husband 46 64 110 9 19 28
because he is not providing for the family 83.64% 77.12% 73.19% 16.36% 34.55% 20.29%
7 A teacher beats a girl because she is late to class 17 17 34 38 66 104
30.91% 20.48% 24.64% 69.09% 79.52% 75.36%
8 A wife is beaten by her husband because she will 43 52 95 12 31 43
not listen to him 78.18% 62.65% 68.84% 21.82% 37.35% 31.16%
Note: The correct answers for the statements in Table 3.10 (b) are: 1. Yes, 2. Yes, 3. No, 4. Yes, 5. Yes, 6.
Yes, 7. No, 8. Yes. The results on the indicator that women and girls, men and boys who demonstrate a good
understanding of SGBV. According to the results, the respondents who responded the correct answers
because there is a mix of correct “Yes” and “No” answers in this list that would demonstrate good
understanding about the SGBV in this analysis.
In Table 3.13 (b), the results show awareness of the respondents, including males and females in
the host communities in which the eight possible cases were identified to be able to assess the
understanding of the respondents about the SGBV. According to the results in Table 3.13 (b),
1. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the first statement “A
husband has sex with his wife, even when she says she does not want to have sex” were
2. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the second statement “A
girl is raped while walking alone night wearing a short skirt” were 76.36% (42/55M) and female
3. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree)” on the third statement “A
man beats another man because he stole his blanket and mat” were 67.27% (37/55M) and
4. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the fourth statement “A
husband takes money that his wife has earned without her consent or agreement” were
5. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree) on the fifth statement “A 15-
year old girl is told that she has to marry a man because her father has arranged for her
marriage” were 78.18% (43/55M) and female respondents were 71.08% (59/83F).
6. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the sixth statement “A wife
frequently berates and insults her husband because he is not providing for the family” were
7. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “No (Disagree)” on the statement “A teacher
beats a girl because she is late to class” were 69.09% (38/55M) and female respondents
were 79.52% (66/83F).
8. Male respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes (Agree)” on the eighth statement “A
wife is beaten by her husband because she will not listen to him” were 78.18% (43/55M) and
(women and girls, men and boys) in the host communities demonstrated a good understanding of
SGBV. During the FGDs, the respondents were flexibility to discuss about the SGBV and they shared
their knowledge that they knew about. As a result, most of the women and girls (especially aged
between 18-25) have the proper knowledge about SGBV. The baseline results showed 51%
46
(28/55M) and 49% (40/83F) in average could be considered that they were aware of the SGBV,
meaning they (women and girls, men and boys) in host communities demonstrated a good
understanding of SGBV and this baseline results are less than the end-line result that it has found
an improvement.
% and # of targeted women and girls who demonstrate a good understanding SRHR2
Table 3.14(a) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SRHR on the statements (a case of
sexual and reproductive rights) mentioned in the table in IDP Camps (n=113)
Sr. No. of Respondents who No. of Respondents who
No. answered “Yes” (Agree) answered “No” (Disagree)
Description
In No. Percent (%) In No. Percent (%)
1 An adolescent girl is ready to bear children once she has 24 21.24% 89 78.76%
had her first period
2 Once a woman uses a contraceptive, she will have a more 23 20.35% 90 79.65%
difficult time getting pregnant in the future
3 A man should have the final word about decisions in his 40 35.40% 73 64.60%
home, including the number of children
4 A woman should be able to refuse sex with her partner 75 66.37% 38 33.63%
5 Both a husband and a wife should be tested regularly for 92 81.42% 21 18.58%
STIs and HIV
6 It is up to the man to decide if condoms should be used 88 77.88% 25 22.12%
7 A couple should decide together if they want to have children 78 69.03% 35 30.97%
8 Using clean, reusable cloths during menstruation is ok 71 62.83% 42 37.17%
9 A woman can suggest using condoms just like a man can 83 73.45% 30 26.55%
10 Using ‘the pill’ can help to prevent the spread of STIs 28 24.78% 85 75.22%
11 A real man produces a male child 15 13.27% 98 86.73%
12 A person with AIDS always looks unhealthy 17 15.04% 96 84.96%
13 If a couple has not been able to have a child, the issue is 25 22.12% 88 77.88%
with the woman
14 If a woman is healthy, she does not need to visit a doctor 16 14.16% 97 85.84%
before giving birth
15 It is the father’s right to decide when a girl should be married 21 18.58% 92 81.42%
16 It is ok to talk to a doctor about problems or pain I am 76 67.26% 37 32.74%
experiencing during sex
Note: The correct answers for the statements in Table 3.14 (a) are: 1. No, 2. No, 3. No, 4. Yes, 5. Yes, 6. No,
7. Yes, 8. Yes, 9. Yes, 10. No, 11. No, 12. No, 13. No, 14. No, 15. No, 16. Yes. The results on the indicator
that women and girls who demonstrate a good understanding of SRHR. According to the results, the
respondents who responded the correct answers because there is a mix of correct “Yes” and “No” answers in
this list that would demonstrate good understanding about the SRHR in this analysis.
Table 3.14(a) shows the respondents who demonstrate a good understanding of SRHR in IDP camps
in which the possible cases (17 cases) were identified to be able to assess the understanding of the
respondents about the SRHR.
1. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 1st statement “An adolescent girl
is ready to bear children once she has had her first period” were 78.76% (89/113).
2. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 2nd statement “Once a woman
uses a contraceptive, she will have a more difficult time getting pregnant in the future” were
79.65% (90/104).
3. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 3rd statement “A man should
have the final word about decisions in his home, including the number of children” were
64.60% (73/113).
2 Und12erstanding will be demonstrated by asking respondents to agree or disagree with a number of statements regarding SRHR
47
4. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 4th statement “A woman should
be able to refuse sex with her partner” were 66.37% (75/113).
5. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 5th statement “Both a husband
and a wife should be tested regularly for STIs and HIV” were 81.42% (92/113).
6. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 6th statement “It is up to the man
to decide if condoms should be used” were 77.88% (88/113).
7. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 7th statement “A couple should
decide together if they want to have children” were 69.03% (78/113).
8. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 8th statement “Using clean,
reusable cloths during menstruation is ok” were 62.83% (71/113).
9. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the statement “A woman can
suggest using condoms just like a man can” were 73.45% (83/113).
10. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 10th statement “Using “the pill” can
help to prevent the spread of STIs” were 75.22% (85/113).
11. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 11th statement “A real man produces
a male child” were 86.73% (98/113)
12. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 12th statement “A person with AIDS
always looks unhealthy” were 84.96% (96/113).
13. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 13th statement “If a couple has not
been able to have a child, the issue is with the woman” were 77.88% (88/113).
14. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 14th statement “If a woman is
healthy, she does not need to visit a doctor before giving birth” were 85.84% 97/113).
15. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 15th statement “It is the father’s right
to decide when a girl should be married” were 81.42% (92/113).
16. The respondents who gave a correct answer “Yes” on the 16th statement “It is Ok to talk to a
doctor about problems or pain I am experiencing during sex” were 67.26% (76/113).
According to the findings we could learn, overall, the respondents (women and girls) in IDP camps
who gave correct answers on the statements were about 76.11% (86/113) in average and thus
perhaps the findings could be considered that women and girls had a good understanding of SRHR.
Aligning with the results from FGDs, married women from WDGs and YWDGs mentioned that both
husband and wife discussed and decided for family planning, for example, how many children would
be taken as well as the birth spacing. However, there was a difficulty when conducting FGDs for
SRHR because most of the respondents were reluctant or unhappy to answer SRHR related topics.
Moreover, it has found that there was a weakness in opportunities for women and girls to participate
in SRHR trainings and awareness raising on SRHR and thus they have limited knowledge about the
components of SRHR such as MHM, family planning, contraceptive methods, and awareness on
antenatal care. The baseline results showed 54% (56/104) of women and girls in average could be
considered that they were aware of the SRHR, meaning they (women and girls, men and boys) in
IDP camps demonstrated a good understanding of SRHR and this baseline results are less than the
end-line result that it has found an improvement.
Table 3.14(b) List of respondents demonstrating a good understanding of SRHR on the statements (a case of
sexual and reproductive rights) mentioned in the table in Host Communities (n=83)
Sr. No. of Respondents who No. of Respondents who
No. answered “Yes” (Agree) answered “No” (Disagree)
Description
Number Percent (%) Number Percent (%)
1 An adolescent girl is ready to bear children once she has 9 10.84% 74 89.16%
had her first period
2 Once a woman uses a contraceptive, she will have a more 10 12.05% 73 87.95%
difficult time getting pregnant in the future
3 A man should have the final word about decisions in his 21 25.30% 62 74.70%
home, including the number of children
4 A woman should be able to refuse sex with her partner 62 74.70% 21 25.30%
5 Both a husband and a wife should be tested regularly for 76 91.57% 7 8.43%
STIs and HIV
48
6 It is up to the man to decide if condoms should be used 52 62.65% 31 37.35%
7 A couple should decide together if they want to have 80 96.39% 3 3.61%
children
8 Using clean, reusable cloths during menstruation is ok 65 78.31% 18 21.69%
9 A woman can suggest using condoms just like a man can 11 13.25% 72 86.75%
10 Using ‘the pill’ can help to prevent the spread of STIs 14 16.87% 69 83.13%
11 A real man produces a male child 5 6.02% 78 93.98%
12 A person with AIDS always looks unhealthy 9 10.84% 74 89.16%
13 If a couple has not been able to have a child, the issue is 13 15.66% 70 84.34%
with the woman
14 If a woman is healthy, she does not need to visit a doctor 17 20.48% 66 79.52%
before giving birth
15 It is the father’s right to decide when a girl should be 18 21.69% 65 78.31%
married
16 It is ok to talk to a doctor about problems or pain I am 76 91.57% 7 8.43%
experiencing during sex
Note: The correct answers for the statements in Table 3.14 (b) are: 1. No, 2. No, 3. No, 4. Yes, 5. Yes, 6. No,
7. Yes, 8. Yes, 9. Yes, 10. No, 11. No, 12. No, 13. No, 14. No, 15. No, 16. Yes. The results on the indicator
that women and girls who demonstrate a good understanding of SRHR.
According to the results, the respondents who responded the correct answers because there is a
mix of correct “Yes” and “No” answers in this list that would demonstrate good understanding about
the SRHR in this analysis.
Table 3.14(b) shows the respondents who demonstrate a good understanding of SRHR in host
community villages in which the possible cases (17 cases) were identified to be able to assess the
understanding of the respondents about the SRHR.
1. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 1st statement “An adolescent girl
is ready to bear children once she has had her first period” were 89.16% (74/83).
2. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 2nd statement “Once a woman
uses a contraceptive, she will have a more difficult time getting pregnant in the future” were
87.95% (73/83).
3. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 3rd statement “A man should
have the final word about decisions in his home, including the number of children” were
74.70% (62/83).
4. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 4th statement “A woman should
be able to refuse sex with her partner” were 74.70% (62/83).
5. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 5th statement “Both a husband
and a wife should be tested regularly for STIs and HIV” were 91.57% (76/83).
6. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “No” on the 6th statement “It is up to the man
to decide if condoms should be used” were 62.65% (52/83).
7. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 7th statement “A couple should
decide together if they want to have children” were 96.39% (80/83).
8. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the 8th statement “Using clean,
reusable cloths during menstruation is ok” were 78.31% (65/83).
9. The respondents who gave a correct answer as “Yes” on the statement “A woman can
suggest using condoms just like a man can” were 86.75% (72/83).
10. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 10th statement “Using “the pill” can
help to prevent the spread of STIs” were 83.13% (69/83).
11. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 11th statement “A real man produces
a male child” were 93.96% (78/83)
12. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 12th statement “A person with AIDS
always looks unhealthy” were 89.16% (74/83).
13. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 13th statement “If a couple has not
been able to have a child, the issue is with the woman” were 84.34% (70/83).
14. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 14th statement “If a woman is
healthy, she does not need to visit a doctor before giving birth” were 79.52% (66/83).
49
15. The respondents who gave a correct answer “No” on the 15th statement “It is the father’s right
to decide when a girl should be married” were 78.31% (65/83).
16. The respondents who gave a correct answer “Yes” on the 16th statement “It is Ok to talk to a
doctor about problems or pain I am experiencing during sex” were 91.57% (76/83).
According to the findings we could learn, overall, the respondents (women and girls) in the host
communities who gave correct answers on the statements were about 83.13% (69/83) in average
and thus perhaps the findings could be considered that women and girls had a good understanding
of SRHR. The baseline results showed 61% (50/83) of women and girls in average could be
considered that they were aware of the SGBV, meaning they (women and girls, men and boys) in
host communities demonstrated a good understanding of SRHR and this baseline results are less
than the end-line result that it has found an improvement.
3.3.3 Immediate outcomes for 1210

1210
Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5-high]) among PSNs (M/F) with the quality of
NFIs received, (baseline value is not available for this indicator)
Table 3.15: Description of average level of satisfaction among PSNs (M/F) upon receiving the quality of NFIs
(n=20, M=12, F=8)
Average level of satisfaction among PSNs (M/F) with the quality of NFIs received
(I feel satisfied upon receiving the NFIs and I confirm that the quality of NFIs is good (among
PSNs)
Description
1 2 3 4 5
(Low) (Below Average) (Average) (Above Average) (High)
Male 0 0 5 (41.67%) 3 (25.00%) 4 (33.33%)

Female 0 0 2 (25.00%) 3 (37.5%) 3 (37.5%)
Total 0 0 7 (35.00%) 6 (30.00%) 7 (35.00%)
Note: The level of satisfaction has been defined as 5 levels, including Level 1 (Low) represents
between 1-20% of satisfaction; Level 2 (Below Average) represents 21-40% of satisfaction; Level 3
(Average) represents 41-60% of satisfaction; Level 4 (Above Average) represents 61-80% of
satisfaction; and Level 5 (High) represents 81-100% of satisfaction.
In table 3.15, the results show the level of satisfaction upon receiving the quality of NFIs among PSNs (M/F)
and they express their level of satisfaction on the statement “I feel satisfied upon receiving the NFIs and I
confirm that the quality of NFIs is good (among PSNs)”. In this regard, the level of satisfaction has been defined
as the level of satisfaction has been defined as 5 levels, including Level 1 (Low) represents between 1-20% of
satisfaction; Level 2 (Below Average) represents 21-40% of satisfaction; Level 3 (Average) represents 41-60%
of satisfaction; Level 4 (Above Average) represents 61-80% of satisfaction; and Level 5 (High) represents 81-
100% of satisfaction. As a result,
- 33.33% (4/12M) of the male respondents state that they feel satisfied upon receiving the quality of
NFIs among PSNs at Level 5 (High) which represents 81-100% while 37.5% (3/8F) of female
respondents are also at Level 5 (High);
- 25% (3/12M) of the male respondents state that they feel satisfied upon receiving the quality of NFIs
among PSNs at Level 4 (Above Average) that represents 61-80% of satisfaction while 37.5% (3/8F)
of female respondents are also at Level 4 (Above Average);
- 41.67% (5/12M) of the male respondents state that they feel satisfied upon receiving the quality of
NFIs among PSNs at Level 3 (Average) that represents 41-60% of satisfaction while 25% (2/8F) of
the female respondents
3.3.4 Immediate outcome 1220
1220
% and # of shelter beneficiaries (M/F) who express satisfaction with the privacy and safety of
their housing
50
1220.1: % and # of shelter beneficiaries (M/F) who express satisfaction with the privacy and safety
of their housing
- 76% (19/25M) of males and 66.67% (6/9F) of females expressed satisfaction with the privacy
and safety of their housing
Table 3.16 Description of respondents who express the situation of the shelters in targeted IDP Camps (Nget
Chaung-2 & Ohn Taw Gyi (South)) in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships (n=34, M=25, F=9)
No. and % of respondents answered No. and % of respondents answered “No”
Description “Yes”
Does your shelter provide you adequate levels 19 6 25 6 3 9
of privacy for sleeping, changing, and other 76% 66.67% 73.53% 24% 33.33% 26.47%
tasks?
According to the results in Table 3.16, the surveyed respondents presented their perceptions on
whether their shelters provide them adequate levels of privacy for sleeping, changing, and other
tasks. In this regard, male respondents who answered as “Yes” on the question “Does your shelter
provide you adequate levels of privacy for sleeping, changing, and other tasks” were 76% (19/25M)
and female respondents who also answered as “Yes” were 66.67% (6/9F) in targeted IDP camps.
Whereas the male respondents who answered “No” on the question “Does your shelter provide you
adequate levels of privacy for sleeping, changing, and other tasks?” were 24% (6/25M) and female
respondents who answered “No” on the question were 33.33% (3/9F). As a result, more than 65%
of the respondents (76% (19/25M) of males and 66.67% (6/9F) of females) expressed that they felt
satisfaction with the privacy and safety of their housing in the targeted IDP camps (Nget Chaung-2
in Pauktaw Township and Ohn Taw Gyi (South) in Sittwe Township.
According to the responses of the beneficiaries, 29 longhouses have been completely reconstructed
in Nget Chaung-2 in Pauktaw Township and Ohn Taw Gyi (South) camps in Sittwe Township in which
76% (19/25M) and 66.67 (6/9F) expressed that they felt safe and improved privacy living in the
house. This is because the project provided the reconstruction of the shelters considering the design
with the aspect of safety and privacy such as the privacy and spaces for living, bathing and cooking
as well as the roofing and partitions. Before providing supports by the project, the shelters were under
the condition of partially damages especially for the partitions, walls and roofs and as a consequence
they felt unsafe, in particular, for the rainy season and these situations impacted their livings. After
the project has provided the reconstruction of shelters, they felt safe for their livings and they
mentioned that the provision of the shelters for those who have really needed were effective and
efficient. According to the focus group discussions, they expressed more about that they felt much
safer and more privacy due to the provision of the project, especially for the reconstruction works
included the partition in the shelter in order to improve the privacy and safety. Therefore, it can be
determined that the targeted IDP camps in Nget Chaung (2) in Pauktaw Township and Ohn Taw Gyi
(South) in Sittwe Township that benefitted shelter activities of the project reach the level of
satisfaction addressing the adequate levels of privacy for sleeping, changing, and other tasks in
compared to the baseline information.
Table 3.17 Description of respondents who express the situation of the shelters in targeted IDP Camps (Nget
Chaung-2 & Ohn Taw Gyi (South)) in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships (n=34, M=25, F=9)
No. and % of respondents answered No. and % of respondents answered “No”
Description “Yes”
Do you feel safe in your shelter from the 20 6 26 5 3 8
elements (rain, wind, etc.) and unwanted 80% 66.67%% 76.47% 20% 33.33% 23.53%
intruders?
According to the results in Table 3.17, the surveyed respondents presented their perceptions on
whether their shelters provide them feeling safe in their shelters from the elements (rain, wind, etc.)
and unwanted intruders. In this regard, male respondents who answered as “Yes” on the question
51
“Do you feel safe in your shelter from the elements (rain, wind, etc.) and unwanted intruders?” were
80% (20/125M) and female respondents who also answered as “Yes” were 66.67% (6/9F) in targeted
IDP camps. Whereas the male respondents who answered “No” on the question “Do you feel safe in
your shelter from the elements (rain, wind, etc.) and unwanted intruders?” were 20% (5/25M) and
female respondents who answered “No” on the question were 33.33% (3/9F). As a result, more than
65% of the respondents (80% (20/25M of males and 66.67% (6/9F) of females) expressed that they
felt satisfaction with the privacy and safety of their housing in the targeted IDP camps (Nget Chaung-
2 in Pauktaw Township and Ohn Taw Gyi (South) in Sittwe Township. The baseline results showed
35.29% (6/17M) of males and 30.77% (4/13F) of the respondents that they felt satisfaction with the
privacy and safety of their housing in the targeted IDP camps (Nget Chaung-2 in Pauktaw Township
and Ohn Taw Gyi (South) in Sittwe Township and thus the baseline results are lower than the end-
line results.
1310
% and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) who express confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate
on human rights concerns,
Baseline value:
- 66.25% (53/80M) and 64.42% (67/104F) of respondents in IDP camps who expressed that
they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights concerns
End-line value:
- 78.87% (56/71M) and 83.19% (94/113F) of respondents in IDP camps who expressed that
they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights concerns.
Table 3.18 List of respondents expressing their level of confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on
human rights concerns (n=184, M=71, F=113)
No. Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 12 (16.9%) 9 (7.96%) 21 (11.41%)
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2 (2.82%) 6 (5.31) 8 (4.35%)
4 Agree 56 (78.87%) 94 (83.19%) 150 (81.52%)
5 Strongly agree 1 (1.41%) 4 (3.54%) 5 (2.72%)
6 Not applicable 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
8 Refuse to answer 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
Total 71 (38.59%) 113 (61.41%) 184 (100%)
According to the results in Table 3.18, the surveyed respondents expressed their awareness on the
human right concerns and level of their confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate on the
human rights concerns in the IDP camps. In this regard, 78.87% (56/71M) of males have confidence
but only 83.19% (94/113F) of females express their confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate
on human right concerns. The baseline results showed 66.25% (53/80M) and 64.42% (67/104F) of
respondents in IDP camps who expressed that they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and
advocate on human rights concerns while 78.87% (56/71M) and 83.19% (94/113F) of respondents
in IDP camps who expressed that they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human
rights concerns, thus the baseline results are lower percentage than the end-line results.
# and % of IDPs (M/F) on the human right issues in which they expressed in CMC to raise
their voices
Baseline value:
- 77% (62/80M) of males and 82% (85/104F of females in average answered that they were
aware of basic human rights concerned and thus most of the respondents, including both
52
males and females in IDP camps perceived a good understanding of the basic human rights
concerned.
Final evaluation result:
- 81.69% (58/71M) of males and 82.30% (93/113F) of females in average answered that they
were aware of basic human rights concerned and thus most of the respondents, including
both males and females in IDP camps perceived a good understanding of the basic human
rights concerned.
Table 3.19 List of respondents who express their level of confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate on
human rights concerns on the statement: “I would feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive and fairly
respond to human rights issues in camps”. (n=184, M=71, F=113)
Description
1 Movement restriction 49 87 136 22 26 48
69.01% 76.99% 73.91% 30.99% 23.01% 26.09%
2 Lack of access to basic services (health and 41 67 108 30 46 76
education) 57.75% 59.29% 58.69% 42.25% 40.71% 41.30%
3 Lack of income and employment opportunities 60 101 161 11 12 23
84.51% 89.38% 87.5% 15.49% 10.62% 12.5%
4 Sexual and gender-based violence 62 105 167 9 8 17
87.32% 92.92% 90.76% 12.68% 7.08% 9.24%
5 Domestic violence against women and girls 63 87 150 8 26 34
98.59% 76.99% 81.52% 11.27% 23.01% 18.48%
6 Unfair wages for both men and women in labor 54 85 139 17 28 45
work 76.06% 75.22% 75.54% 23.94% 24.78% 24.46%
7 Early/child marriage 62 96 158 9 17 26
87.32% 84.96% 85.87% 12.68% 15.04% 14.13%
8 Lack of access to post-primary and higher 57 101 158 14 12 26
education 80.28% 89.38% 85.87% 19.72% 10.62% 14.13%
9 Lack of land and property rights 62 95 157 9 18 27
87.32% 84.07% 85.32% 12.68% 15.93% 14.67%
10 Undermine to return back to place of 66 102 168 5 11 16
displacements 92.96% 90.27% 91.30% 7.04% 9.73% 8.69%
11 Poor shelter situation – lack of privacy and 60 100 160 11 13 24
safety 84.51% 88.49% 86.96% 15.49% 11.50% 13.04%
12 Security threats/risks 57 93 150 14 20 34
80.28% 82.30% 81.52% 19.72% 17.69% 18.48%
According to the results in Table 3.19, the surveyed respondents expressed their awareness on the
human rights concerns in the IDP camps. In terms of the result, the respondents who answered
“Yes” on the statement “I would feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive and fairly respond to
human rights issues in camps” upon the topics related to the human rights issues (Table 3.19) would
be considered that they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights concerns.
1. Males who agree on the statement ““I would feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive and
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 1st topic “Movement restrictions” were
69.01% (49/71M) but only 76.99% (87/113F) of females agreed this statement.
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 2nd topic “Lack of access to basic
services (health and education)” were 57.75% (41/71M) but only 59.29% (67/113F) of
females agreed on this statement.
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 3rd topic “Lack of income and
employment opportunities” were 84.51% (60/71M) and females who agreed were 89.38%
(101/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 4th topic “Sexual and gender-based
violence” were 87.32% (62/71M) and females who agreed were 92.92% (105/113F).
53
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 5th topic “Domestic violence against
women and girls” were 98.59% (63/71M) and females who agreed were 76.99% (87/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 6th topic “Unfair wages for both men
and women in labour work” were 76.06% (54/71M) and females who agreed were 75.22%
(85/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 7th topic “Early/child marriage” were
87.32% (62/71M) and females who agreed were 84.96% (96/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 8th topic “Lack of access to post-
primary and higher education” were 80.28% (57/71M) and females who agreed were 89.38%
(101/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 9th topic “Lack of land and property
rights” were 87.32% (62/71M) and females who agreed were 84.07% (95/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 10th topic “Undermine to return back
to place of displacements” were 92.96% (66/71M) and females who agreed were 90.27%
(102/104F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 11th topic “Poor shelter situation – lack
of privacy and safety” were 84.51% (60/71M) and females who agreed were 88.49%
(100/113F).
fairly respond to human rights issues in camps” on the 12th topic “Security threats/risks” were
80.28% (57/71M) and females who agreed were 82.30% (93/113F).
According to the result, 81.69% (58/71M) of males and 82.30% (93/113F) of females in average
answered that they were aware of basic human rights concerned and thus most of the respondents,
including both males and females in IDP camps perceived a good understanding of the basic human
rights concerned. The baseline results showed that 77% (62/80M) of males and 82% (85/104F) of
females in average answered that they were aware of basic human rights concerned and thus most
of the respondents, including both males and females in IDP camps perceived a good understanding
of the basic human rights concerned and thus the baseline result is lower than the end-line result,
meaning it has found an improvement.
# of targeted IDPs and host community members (M/F) who indicate that poor pathways are
a barrier to economic, educational or social activities
End-line value for IDP Camps:

- 96.29% (26/27M) and 95.23% (40/42F) of respondents who indicated that poor pathways
were a barrier to economic, educational or social activities
Baseline value for IDP Camps:
- 90.9% (30/33M) and 86.11% (31/36F) of respondents who indicated that poor pathways were
a barrier to economic, educational or social activities
54
Table 3.20 Description of the respondents who indicate that they agree on the statement: “Disrepair of
pathways within camps prevent me from accessing income generation activities, schooling, or social activities”.
(n=69, M=27, F=42)
No. Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 0 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
4 Agree 26 (96.29%) 40 (95.23%) 66 (95.65%)
5 Strongly agree 1 (3.70%) 2 (4.76%) 3 (7.14%)
6 Not applicable 0 0 0.00%
7 Not sure/Don’t know 0 0 0.00%
8 Refuse to answer 0 0 0.00%
According to the Table 3.20, the result shows the perceptions of the surveyed respondents who
indicate that poor pathways are a barrier to economic, educational or social activities in which 69
respondents (27 males and 42 females) were interviewed in order to assess in order to assess the
perceptions of the targeted IDPs who will benefit the pathways activities of the project in IDP camps
(Nget Chaung-1 & 2 and Ah Nauk Ywe Camp) in Pauktaw Township. As a result, 96.29% (26/27) of
the males agreed on the statement “Disrepair of pathways within camps prevent me from accessing
income generation activities, schooling, or social activities” but only 95.23% (40/42) of females
agreed on it. Thus, almost all of the respondents (both males and females) perceived that the
pathways are a barrier to economic, education or social activities. The baseline results showed that
90.9% (30/33M) and 86.11% (31/36F) of respondents who indicated that poor pathways were a
barrier to economic, educational or social activities and the end-line results are higher than the
baseline, meaning it has an improvement. In addition, most of the respondents from focus group
discussions expressed that they agreed “Poor pathways are a barrier to economic, educational or
social activities” and they responded according to their experiences. Repairs of the pathway within
IDP camp and village were useful and helpful to them to have improved access to economic activities
(e.g., selling and buying goods), educational activities (e.g., easy access to schooling activities
especially for the young students), and social activities (e.g., visiting, engaging in social activities to
help each other for health or events like religious and/or cultural activities. Thus, the beneficiaries
felt satisfaction with this activity “repair of pathways between IDP camps and host community” and
this benefitted them and they expressed that poor pathway made them a barrier to economic,
educational or social activities.)
Table 3.21(a) Description of the respondents in IDP camps (Ah Nauk Ywe Camp) who indicate that they agree
on the statement: “Disrepair of pathways between the camps and host community prevent me from accessing
income generation activities, schooling, or social activities” (n=23, M=8, F=15)
Description
Male Female Total
1 Strongly disagree 0 0 0.00%
2 Disagree 0 0 0.00%
3 Neither agree nor disagree 0 0 0.00%
4 Agree 8 (100%) 15 (100%) 23 (100%)
5 Strongly agree 0 0 0.00%
Table 3.21(a) shows the perceptions of the surveyed respondents who indicate that poor pathways
are a barrier to economic, educational or social activities in which 23 respondents (8 males and 15
females) were interviewed in order to assess in order to assess the perceptions of the targeted IDPs
who will benefit the pathways activities of the project in IDP camp (Ah Nauk Ywe Camp) in Pauktaw
Township. As a result, 100% (8/8M) of males agreed on the statement “Disrepair of pathways
55
between the camps and host community prevent me from accessing income generation activities,
schooling, or social activities” and 100% (15/15F) of females also agreed on this statement. Thus,
all of the respondents (both males and females) perceived that the pathways were a barrier to
economic, educational or social activities. According to the observation, the current situation of the
pathways from the jetty to Ah Nauk Ywe Camp as well as the Camp to host village was not good,
especially in the rainy season and it was very difficult to use for people, meaning that this pathway
was needed to repair. The baseline results showed that 100% (11/11) of males agreed on the
statement “Disrepair of pathways between the camps and host community prevent me from
accessing income generation activities, schooling, or social activities” and 100% (12/12) of females
also agreed on this statement and the result from the end-line are the same as baseline.
Table 3.21(b) Description of the respondents in host community (Ah Nauk Ywe village) who indicate that they
agree on the statement: “Disrepair of pathways between the camps and host community prevent me from
accessing income generation activities, schooling, or social activities” (n=23, M=6, F=17)
No. Description
Male Female Total
1 Strongly disagree 0 0 0.00%
2 Disagree 0 0 0.00%
4 Agree 6 (100%) 17 (100%) 23 (100%)
5 Strongly agree 0 0 0.00%
Table 3.121(b) shows the perceptions of the surveyed respondents who indicate that poor pathways
are a barrier to economic, educational or social activities in which 23 respondents (6 males and 17
females) were interviewed in order to assess in order to assess the perceptions of the targeted host
community who will benefit the pathways activities of the project in host community (Ah Nauk Ywe
village) in Pauktaw Township. As a result, 100% (6/6M) of males agreed on the statement “Disrepair
of pathways between the camps and host community prevent me from accessing income generation
activities, schooling, or social activities” but only 100% (17/17F) of females agreed on this statement.
Thus, almost all of the respondents (both males and females) perceived that the pathways were a
barrier to economic, educational or social activities. According to the observation, the current
situation of the pathways from the jetty to Ah Nauk Ywe host village as well as the host village to
IDP camps was not good, especially in the rainy season and it was very difficult to use for people,
meaning that this pathway was needed to repair. The baseline results showed that 100% (11/11M)
of males agreed on the statement “Disrepair of pathways between the camps and host community
prevent me from accessing income generation activities, schooling, or social activities” but only
91.67% (11/12F) of females agreed on this statement and the results of the end-line are almost the
same. Thus, it has found an improvement that the host communities’ opinion on the achievement of
the project intervention on the activities “repair of the pathways between the IDP camps and host
communities”.

1320
% and # of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to express their opinions
in a group setting,
Baseline value:
- 65.22% (15/23) of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs in IDP camps feel confident to
express their opinions in a group setting
- 81.93% (68/83) of women and girls in host communities felt confident to express their
opinions in a group setting
End-line value:
56
§ 76.59% (36/47) of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs in IDP camps feel confident to
express their opinions in a group setting (Ages of 18-25)
§ 84.31 (43/51) of women and girls in host communities felt confident to express their opinions
in a group setting (Ages of 25-55)
Table 3.22(a) List of respondents (women and girls) in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to express their
opinions in a group setting in IDP camps (n=47) (Respondents ages from 15-25)
Sr. No. Description No. of respondents (Women and Percent (%)
Girls)
2 Disagree 11 23.4%
4 Agree 36 76.59%
Total 47 100%
Table 3.22(a) shows the respondents (women and girls) involved in WDGs and YWDGs who express
their opinion that they are satisfied to be members of these groups and confident to participate in
this group setting to express their voices in IDP camps. In this regard, 47 respondents of women
and girls from WDGs and YWDGs were interviewed to be able to assess their opinions how they
feel to express their voices in the group setting. As a result, 76.59% (36/47) of women and girls in
WDGs and YWDGs responded that they feel confident to express their opinions in a group setting
while 23.4% (11/47) of women and girls in these groups were less confident to express their opinions.
In the baseline, the results showed that 65.22% (15/23) of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs
in IDP camps feel confident to express their opinions in a group setting and the baseline results are
lower percentage than the end-line that mean there is a significant improvement.
Table 3.22(b) List of respondents (women and girls) in host communities (only women and girls) who feel
confident to express their opinions in a group setting in host communities (n=51) (Respondents from ages 25-
55)
Sr. No. Description No. of respondents (Women and Girls) Percent (%)
1 Strongly disagree 0 0
2 Disagree 8 15.69%
4 Agree 43 84.31%
Total 51 100%
Table 3.22(b) shows the respondents (women and girls) involved in the host communities who
express their opinion that they are satisfied to be members of these groups and confident to
participate in this group setting to express their voices in the host community villages (i.e., there is
no specific women development group or youth group in the host community villages). In this regard,
83 respondents of women and girls from host communities were interviewed to be able to assess
their opinions how they feel to express their voices in the group setting. As a result, 84.31% (43/51)
of women and girls in host community villages responded that they feel confident to express their
opinions in a group setting while 15.69% (8/51) of women and girls in these groups were less
confident to express their opinions. In the baseline, the results showed that 81.93% (68/83) of women
and girls in host communities felt confident to express their opinions in a group setting and the
baseline results are lower percentage than the end-line that mean there is a significant improvement.
57
Table 3.23(a) List of respondents (women and girls) in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to express their
opinions in a group of other men and women in IDP camps (n=47) (Respondents ages from 15-25)
Girls)
2 Disagree 6 12.77%
4 Agree 39 82.97%
Total 47 100%
Table 3.23(a) shows the respondents (women and girls) involved in WDGs and YWDGs who express
their opinion that they are satisfied to be members of a group of other men and women in IDP camps
and they feel confident to participate in this group setting to express their voices. In this regard, 47
respondents of women and girls from WDGs and YWDGs were interviewed to be able to assess
their opinions how they feel to express their voices in the group setting of other men and women. As
a result, 82.97% (39/47) of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs responded that they feel confident
to express their opinions in a group setting while 12.77% (6/47) of women and girls in these groups
were less confident to express their opinions. A few percent 4.26% (2/47) of women and girls in
WDGs and YWDGs) responded that they have strongly agree. Therefore, the respondents (women
and girls) from WDGs and YWDGs could be identified by themselves their involvement in a group
setting that they are confident to express their opinions in the groups. In the baseline, the results
showed that 52.17% of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs responded that they feel confident
to express their opinions in a group setting while 34.78% of women and girls in these groups were
less confident to express their opinions and the baseline results are lower percentage than the
results of end-line.
Table 3.23(b) List of respondents (women and girls) in host communities (only women and girls) who feel
confident to express their opinions in a group of other men and women in IDP camps (n=51) (Respondents
ages 25-55)
Girls)
2 Disagree 7 13.73%
4 Agree 44 86.27%
Total 51 100%
Table 3.23 (b) shows the respondents (women and girls) involved in the host communities who
express their opinion that they are satisfied to be members of these groups and confident to
participate in this group setting to express their voices in the host community villages. In this regard,
51 respondents of women and girls from host communities were interviewed to be able to assess
their opinions how they feel to express their voices in the group setting. As a result, 86.27% (44/51)
of women and girls in host community villages responded that they feel confident to express their
opinions in a group setting while 13.73% (7/51) of women and girls in these groups were less
confident to express their opinions. Therefore, the respondents from WDGs and YWDGs could be
identified by themselves their involvement in a group setting that they are confident to express their
opinions in the groups. In the baseline, the results showed that 83.13% of women and girls in host
58
community villages responded that they feel confident to express their opinions in a group setting
while 10.48% of women and girls in these groups were less confident to express their opinions and
the baseline results are lower percentage than the results of end-line.
(Note: For the Host Communities, there is no specific groups for women and girls such as WDGs or YWDGs
in IDP Camps. However, the respondents of women and girls were interviewed as beneficiaries and these can
be analyzed to present the relevance to this indicator.)
% and # of women and girls in WDGs and YWGs who feel confident to participate in
community decision making processes
- 85.1% (40/47) of women and girls in WDGs and YWGs in IDP camps feel confident to
participate in community decision making processes
- 87.5% (17/24) of women in VDC feel confident to participate in VDC in host communities
Table 3.24(a) List of respondents (women and girls) in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to participate in
CMC in IDP camps (n=47) (Respondents’ ages 15-25)

2 Disagree 7 14.89%
4 Agree 40 85.1%
Total 47 100%
Table 3.24(a) shows the respondents (women and girls) involved in WDGs and YWDGs that they
feel confident to participate in CMC in IDP camps and it aims to assess the role of women and girls
in WDGs and YWDGs in the decision-making process in terms of camp management activities. In
this regard, 47 respondents of women and girls from WDGs and YWDGs were interviewed to be
able to assess perceptions how they feel to participate in CMC. As a result, 85.1% (40/47) of women
and girls in WDGs and YWDGs responded that they feel confident to participate in CMC while
14.89% of women and girls in these groups were less confident to participate in CMC. Therefore,
the respondents (women and girls) from WDGs and YWDGs could be determined that they feel
confident to participate in CMC in IDP camps in a group setting. In the baseline, the results
showed that 78.26% (18/23) of women and girls in WDGs and YWGs in IDP camps feel
confident to participate in community decision making processes and the baseline results
are lower percentage than the results of end-line.
Table 3.24(b) List of respondents (women and girls) who feel confident to participate in VDC in Host
Community (Only women who are members of VDC in Host Community) (n=24)

2 Disagree 0 0.00%
4 Agree 7 87.5%
Total 8 100%
Table 3.24(b) shows the respondents (women involved in VDC who express their opinion that they
are satisfied to be members of a VDC in host community villages and they feel confident to
participate in this committee to express their voices. In this regard, 6 respondents of women from
59
VDC were interviewed to be able to assess their opinions how they feel to participate in the VDC.
As a result, 87.5% (7/8) of women in VDC responded that they feel confident to participate in VDC,
meaning that their involvement was as the members of the VDC, not as the decision makers and
thus their participation could be considered as showing up in it even though they actively engage
with the male participants. In the baseline, the results showed that 66.67% (4/6) of women in VDC
feel confident to participate in VDC in host communities and the baseline results are lower
percentage than the results of end-line.
(Note: For the Host Communities, there is no specific groups for women and girls such as WDGs or YWDGs
in IDP Camps. However, the respondents of women and girls were interviewed as beneficiaries. In this
analysis, only women where are the members of VDC were analyzed to present the relevance to this
indicator.)
% and # of women trained in the Myanmar language and basic numeracy who demonstrate
improved capacity in these areas by the end of the project
Table 3.25 Description of the women respondents trained in the Myanmar language and basic numeracy skills
who demonstrate improved capacity in these areas by the end of the project (n=2700)
Note: Results are from the post-test conducted by LWF Project Team
Sr. # and % of Respondents on Language Proficiency (Level 1 to 10)
Description Total
No. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Writing in
1 9 0% 273 10% 674 25% 631 23% 743 28% 246 9% 124 5% 2700
Myanmar
Reading in
2 13 0% 185 7% 727 27% 629 23% 690 26% 326 12% 130 5% 2700
Myanmar
Writing in
3 543 20% 168 6% 320 12% 323 12% 1346 50% 2700
Muslim
Reading in
4 10 0% 21 1% 537 20% 199 7% 266 10% 494 18% 1173 43% 2700
Muslim
Where; Level 1: Excellent, Level 2,3: Good, Level 4,5: Fair, Level 6,7: Poor, Level 8,9: Very Poor, Level 10: Unacceptable
According to the results in Table 3.25, total 2700 women respondents in 8 IDP camps were surveyed
to assess their language skills in Myanmar and basic numeracy as well as the Muslim language in
which 10 rating scales were defined in order to assess their level.
§ For the writing skills in Myanmar, 5% (124/2700) of women could not write in Myanmar
(674/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”. However, it has been found that 10%
(273/2700) of women were in progress of their writing skills in Myanmar as their level was at
§ For the reading skills in Myanmar, 5% (130/2700) of women could not read in Myanmar
(727/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”. However, it has been found that 7% (185/2700)
of women were in progress of their reading skills in Myanmar as their level was at “Level 5:
Fair”.
§ For the writing skills in Muslim, 50% (1346/2700) of women could not write in Muslim
20% (543/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”.
60
§ For the reading skills in Muslim, 43% (1173/2700) of women could not write in Myanmar
20% (537/2700) of women were at “Level 6: Poor”. However, it has been found that 1%
(21/2700) of women were in progress of their reading skills in Muslim as their level was at
3.4 Discussion on Outputs
Intermediate outcomes for WASH 1100

3.4.1 Intermediate Outcome 1100: WASH and SRHR - Increased utilization of WASH, SRHR, and
protection services for conflict affected IDPs and host communities, particularly women and girls, in
the 8 targeted IDP camps and 6 host communities
3.4.1.1 Immediate Outcome 1110: Improved access to safe WASH facilities and services among
women and girls in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps and host communities
Output 1111: Rainwater harvesting ponds improved to reduce contamination and supply safe
water in Ah Nauk Ywe host community in Pauktaw, target: 3 ponds to be rehabilitated
3 ponds have been rehabilitated and renovated in Ah Nauk Ywe Rohingya host community in
Pauktaw Township. The completion of the project activities has reached out 100% against the
targets.
Output 1112: Hand pumps installed to access safe water in host communities in Sittwe
Township, target: 12 hand pumps
As per this output, 12 hand pumps have been installed to be able to easily access safe water in the
host communities in Sittwe Township, specifically it has done 3 pumps in Basara, 2 pumps in Thae
Chaung, 2 pumps in Kaung Dote Khar, 3 pumps in Kyet Taw Pyin host community village and 2
pumps in Aung Daing host community village respectively, benefitting 2442 (1197M/1245F). In
addition, the budget has been revised and then additional 4 hand pumps have also been installed.
Total 16 hand pumps have been completed and the achievement towards the target is over 100%.
Output 1113: Dignity kits (soap, underwear, and sanitary pads) distributed to girls and
women (aged 18-25) in IDP camps, target: 4,342 girls and women (age 18-25)
Total 5272 dignity kits have been distributed to Youth Women Development Groups (YWDGs) and
Women Development Groups (YWDs), benefitting 5272 women and girls in IDP camps and host
community villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships.
3.4.1.2 Immediate Outcome 1120: Increased awareness and understanding of SRHR, the rights of
women and girls, gender equality, and effective responses to SGBV in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP
camps and host communities
Ooutput 1121: Orientation sessions on SGBV awareness (including prevention and response
mechanisms), gender, and the rights of women and girls, are provided to women and girls in
IDP camps and host communities, target: 6,442 women and girls and 151 male youth leaders
(age 18-25)
Total 6,294 (6150F/143M) women and girls and male youth leaders (ages 18-25) of Rohingya IDPs
have received the capacity building trainings on the subject matters of gender, the rights of women
and girls, SGBV, benefitting the 6,294 people, including 6150 females and 143 males and that
achieved 97% towards the targets 6,442F/151M.
61
Output 1122: Orientation sessions on SRHR (including menstrual hygiene management
(MHM), family planning, and the rights of women and girls) provided to women and girls in
targeted IDP camps and host communities, target: 6,442 women and girls (age 18-25)
Total 6,548 (6,400F/148M) women and girls (ages 18-25) have been trained to have better
understanding on SRHR, MHM, family planning and women rights in which the pamphlet for SRHR
knowledge products have been disseminated in IDP camps and host community villages in Sittwe
and Pauktaw Townships. The completion of this output reached out at 97% towards the targets.
Output 1122.1: GAC SRHR Key Performance Indicator

Total 288 SRHR and SGBV public engagement activities have been conducted and completed by
GAC-funded partners which are focused on SRHR delivered by CSOs and the completion of the
activities under this output has reached out 100%.
3.4.2 Intermediate Outcome 1200: NFIs and Shelters - Increased dignity and safety of IDPs,
particularly PSNs, women, and girls within the 8 targeted IDP camps
3.4.2.1 Immediate Outcome 1220: Increased access to safe, dignified, gender-responsive housing
for IDP households in 3 camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
Output 1211: NFIs distributed to highly vulnerable people (person with disabilities, older
persons at risk, orphan children and single-headed households) in 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and
Pauktaw townships, target: 1,130 M/1,418 F PSNs
1130M/ 1481F PSNs have received the good quality of NFIs in 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships, benefitting 2611 PSNs in 8 IDP camps in SIttwe and Pauktaw Townships. The
completion of the activities under this output has reached out 100%.
Ouptput 1221: Longhouses reconstructed to be safe, dignified and gender-responsive in 3

IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw townships, target: 29 longhouses
29 longhouses (14 longhouses in Nget Chaung-2 and 15 longhouses in Ohn Taw Gyi (South) have
been completely reconstructed to be safe, dignified and gender responsive in 3 IDP camps in Sittwe
and Pauktaw Townships and. Overall, it has already achieved 100% for completely reconstructed
and repaired.
3.4.3 Intermediate Outcome 1300: Camp management and social cohesion– Improved quality of
life and peaceful coexistence though increased equitable community participation in camp and
community leadership and decision-making processes in 8 IDP camps and 6 host communities of
Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
3.4.3.1 Immediate Outcome 1310: Improved living conditions, camp coordination and enhanced
peaceful coexistence between Rohingya IDPs and host communities
Output 1311: Training on human rights, service monitoring and advocacy skills to CMC
leadership in 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, target: 88M/32F
88M/32F of CMC leaders have been trained in leadership and rights-based empowerment skills in
8 IDP camps in SIttwe and Pauktaw Townships in which the targeted beneficiaries 120 (88M/32F)
have been provided the trainings for three times. The completion of this activity under this output
has reached out 100%.
Output 1312: Pathways improvement from Jetty to IDP camps in Nget 1& 2 and Ah Nauk Ywe
IDP camps in Pauktaw Township, target: 4,200 ft
1,800 feet long of pathways have been repaired from Jetty to IDP camps in Nget Chaung 1&2 and
Ah Nauk Ywe IDP camps in Pauktaw Township (it has been done 1800 ft between Nget Chaung 1
& 2 and Ah Nauk Ywe host community village) in Pauktaw Township. The completion has been
62
reached out 43% during the project intervention period of Phase II. Cash for work activities have
been undertaken to create the job opportunities that benefitted local communities in the project area.
Output 1313: Improve pathways to access schools and market centers in 6 host villages,
target: 22,400 ft
1,790 feet long of pathways have been repaired to have improved access to schools and market
centers in 6 Host Community Villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, specifically 200 ft
completed in Ah Nauk Ywe, 430 ft completed in Basara, 550 ft completed in Khaung Doke Khar
(Host community village), 290 ft completed in Aung Daing (Host community village), 320 ft completed
in Kyet Taw Pyin (Host community village). The completion in this project period (Phase II) have
reached out at 8%. Cash for work activities have been undertaken to create the job opportunities in
terms of road-soil filling and stone paying activities that benefitted the local communities in the project
area.
(Note: The target 22,400ft, however it has been done about 1,790ft achievements in the Sittwe and
Pauk Taw village due to the result of the budget calculation. The improved pathways to access
schools and market centers have been completed about 1,790ft, specifically 430ft in Basara host
community village, 290ft in Aung Dain host community village, 320ft in Kyauk Taw Pyin host
community village, 550ft in Khaung Doke Khar host community village, and 200ft in Ah Nauk Ywe
host community village respectively. Before starting the implementation, the project staff has
conducted need assessment and it has been done based on the result of the assessment pathway
design, BOQ and budget calculation. The approval budget only covered the length of 1790ft because
the situation of the local market price increased (i.e., the manual labour price is about 10,000 MMK
and skilled labour is about 13,000 MMK per day) according to the Covid-19 pandemic crisis in
Myanmar.)
Output 1314: Improve pathways to access schools and market centers in 6 host villages,
target: 13,800 ft
5,690 feet long of pathways have been repaired to have improved access to schools and market in
6 Host Community Villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, specifically 460 ft completed in Ohn
Taw Gyi (South) IDP camp, 400 ft completed in Thae Chaung, 132 feet completed in Basara, 1800
ft completed in Nget Chaung (1), 1800 ft in Nget Chaung (2), 1000 ft completed in Ah Nauk Ywe, 45
ft completed in Aung Daing, 50 ft completed in Kyet Taw Pyin. The completion in this period (Phase
II) have reached out at 41%. Cash for work activities have been undertaken to create the job
opportunities in terms of road-soil filling and stone paying activities that benefitted the local
communities in the project area.
(Note: The target 13,800ft, but according to budget calculation 5,690ft achievements in the Sittwe
and Pauk Taw camp and village. The improve pathway within IDP camps and host completed total
5,690ft, are 460ft Ohn Taw Gyi south camp, 400ft Thae Chaung camp, 135ft Basare camp, 1800ft
Naget Chaung-1 camp, 1800ft Naget Chaung-2 camp, 45ft Kyauk Taw Pyin host, 50ft Aung Dain
host and 1000ft Ah Nauk Ywe camp. Before started implementation, the project staff has conducted
need assessment, based on the results of assessment pathway design, BOQ and calculation
budget. approval budget is cover the 5690ft, because local market prize situation is the increase,
(the manual labour prize is 10,000MMK and skill labour is 13,000MMK per a days for one person
and also material), according to Covid-19 and Myanmar situation.)
3.4.3.2 Immediate Outcome 1320: Increased leadership capacity among women and girls to
promote inclusive representation in local institutions within Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps and host
communities
Output 1321: Training on leadership and rights-based empowerment provided to women and
girl leaders in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps and host villages, target: 950 women leaders
in host communities and IDP camps
63
Total 950 (533 IDPs/417 Host Community Residents) women leaders in Host-communities and IDP
camps have been trained in leadership and rights-based empowerment skills in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships. The completion for this activity under this output has reached out at 100% towards the
target.
Output 1322: Women and girls centers constructed and operated in IDP camps and host
villages, target: 18 women’s and girls’ centers to be rehabilitated and reconstructed
Total 18 Women’s and Girls’ Centers have been rehabilitated and reconstructed to operate in IDP
camps and Host Community Villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, specifically 12 new women
and girls center construction, 2 women and girls center repairs in which 4 women and girls center
have already completed in the Phase I. In addition, the project has provided furniture to the 12
women and girls centers. The completion for this activity under this output has reached out at 100%
towards the target.
Output 1323: Regular classes on the Myanmar language and basic numeracy literacy
provided to women in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps, target: 2,700 women
Total 2,656 women have received the trainings on the Myanmar language and basic numeracy
literacy in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships. However, the completion for this activity under this output
has reached out at 98% towards the target 2700. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic crisis, the activities
have been delayed to complete, meaning to reach out the target.
Output 1324: Women and young women’s community leadership groups supported at each
block level in 8 IDP and 6 host villages, target: 8 camp level women’s groups, 14 YDGs, 352
YWDGs (15-25)
8 Camp Level Women’s Groups, 14 YDGs, 352 YWDGs (15-25) in both of IDP Camps and Host
Community Villages) have been practiced to have a regular meeting at the camp and block level in
8 IDP camps and 6 Host Community Villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships. Total 5351
(5248F/103M) have benefitted regularly attended the meetings at each block level.
4 FINAL EVALUATION
4.1 Relevance
IS THE PROJECT INTERVENTION DOING THE RIGHT THINGS?

As of seeking the relevance of the project intervention, this section focuses and analyses to what
extend the programme comply with the LWF priorities, policies and strategies. Specifically, it will
analyse to what extent the activities were suited to the priorities and policies of the target groups,
recipients and donor in terms of the project interventions. This will be done by reviewing the
identification and consultation process of the project, the design of the proposal, consistency towards
indicators, outcomes and specific objectives, results and budget; and the flexibility for adapting to
needs. In addition, further analyses work to find how the choice and quantity of inputs (financial,
including quality assurance/coaching, data capture, and project management processes was
appropriate and how effectively the risks have been assessed and managed, and how the project
has assisted communities to prevent and mitigate the socio-economic impact of COVID-19 during
the project intervention period.
In terms of the LWF Myanmar’s programme interventions, it has been an evidence that at the early
stage of the project identification that there was a good understanding of the context as LWF has
been working in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps since the previous over six years; and its position
as camp management agency was crucial collecting the needs of IDPs. Moreover, feasibility studies
have been conducted to have more information on IDPs needs through several consultations with
the communities during the implementation of the Livelihoods project, using the various participatory
methods, including focus group discussion and participatory rural appraisals. A consultative process
with women and girls of the target area (including an initial capacity assessment of women and girls)
64
should have identified their level of knowledge and helped to tailor trainings curricula, materials and
approaches for building their capacities and monitor/track their learning. That initial capacity
assessment would have helped to evaluate women and girls learning after project ended. However,
the first phase of the project has had the experiences learnt from the project interventions and thus
the pre-test and post-test to assess their capacity and level of knowledge before starting the second
phase of the project and end of the project. This was helpful to have better achievement of the project
towards the expected outcomes of the project.
As of the context of project proposal, it is the focus of the humanitarian context integration with the
systemized development approaches and tools attempting to highlight the needs relevant to the
current context of Rakhine State where the humanitarian and development needs are combined in
the IDP camps established 8 years ago as well as the host community residents closed to the IDP
camps. In the second phase of the project, the host community residents, including both Muslim and
local Rakhine villages have been added to have a wider humanitarian and development landscape
in Rakhine State. In this regard, the proposal design can be considered consistent with the ultimate
outcome with regard to the intermediate and immediate outcomes. The first intermediate outcome
was to increase utilization of WASH, SRHR, and protection services for Rohingya IDPs, particularly
women and girls. The second intermediate outcome was to increased dignity and safety of IDPs,
particularly PSNs, women, and girls. The third intermediate outcome was to improved quality of life
and emergency preparedness though increased equitable community participation in camp
leadership and decision-making.
At the activities level as per the logical framework, the first phase of the project has learnt lessons
missing some relevant activities to help support the project implementation such as capacity
assessment of the women and girls (like training needs assessment) for designing the training and
curriculum development as well as putting the relevant subject matters within the scope of the project
objectives. Based on these lessons from the first phase of the project intervention, the second phase
has considered to put the right activities to meet the requirement of the project achievements. Thus,
the second phase of the project can be considered getting the next steps to go to the specific
objectives of the project that cover to achieve the different levels of outcomes. In addition, the project
has been highly relevant to women and girls IDP Rohingya in camps, as it focuses on reducing their
suffering and increasing their dignity including building their capacities by learning Myanmar
language and basic numeracy, understand SGBV, their rights and the referral paths for SGBV;
learning on SRHR and preparedness to hazards. The project included actions to fulfill a strong claim,
lighting for accessing WASH facilities. Also, the project has been relevant for person with special
needs (PSN) and person with disabilities with specific actions: the provision of assistive devices and
non-food items (NFIs) to dignify their lives.
Further analysis has been done by using the SMART Indicators in order to assess the relevance of
the project interventions against outcomes of the project. An indicator is SMART when it has all of
these tributes: Specific, Measurable, Achievable and Attributable, Relevant and Time-Bound,
Timely, Trackable, and Targeted.
Table 4.1 Analysis of the project indicators against SMART criteria

Project Outcomes Indicator SMART Criteria
Ultimate Outcome
Reduced suffering and increased -% and # of target Rohingya IDPs (M, F) and Host Good
human dignity for conflict affected Community Members (M, F) who report some or
IDPs and host communities, significant improvement in living conditions for
particularly women and girls, in themselves and their households over the last
Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships, year
Rakhine State, Myanmar
Intermediate Outcome 1100
1100 WASH and SRHR - Increased % and # of women, girls, men and boys, who Good. It would be more relevant if
utilization of WASH, SRHR, and consider that their basic WASH needs are met WASH facilities were provided
protection services for conflict affected more related to necessary COVID-
IDPs and host communities, 19 preventive measures such as
particularly women and girls, in the 8 mask, hand sanitizers, soaps, etc)
65
targeted IDP camps and 6 host as it should be considered the
communities severe impacts of this pandemic
crisis during the project
GAC SRHR Key Performance intervention period.
Indicator average time required to reach the water source, Good
collect water (including queuing), and bring it
back home
% and # of women and girls, men and boys, Good.
demonstrating positive attitudes towards ending
SGBV
1200 NFIs and Shelters - Increased % and # of PSNs (M/F) who report increased Good.
dignity and safety of IDPs, quality of life through the use of distributed NFIs
particularly PSNs, women, and girls % and # of targeted IDP households who report Good.
within the 8 targeted IDP camps feeling safe in their shelters (disaggregated by
MHH and FHH)
1300 Camp management and % and # of targeted host community residents Good. It would be more relevant to
social cohesion– Improved quality (m/f) who agree or strongly agree with the have included the activities such
of life and peaceful coexistence statement 'those living in the IDP camps are as sensitization events to promote
though increased equitable welcome in our community' co-existence between the IDPs
community participation in camp and and Host Community Residents
community leadership and decision- % and # of IDP and host community women in Good.
making processes in 8 IDP camps joint households who make significant household
and 6 host communities of Sittwe decisions jointly or by themselves.3
and Pauktaw Townships # of % of monthly CMC (IDP camp) and VDC Good.
(host community) meetings where WDG or YDG
members provided meaningful input into decision
making processes
Immediate Outcome 1110
1110 Improved access to safe WASH % and # of targeted host community residents Good.
facilities and services among women (M/F) who have access to a protected water
and girls in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP source
camps and host communities Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5- Good. It would be more relevant
high]) among women and girls with the usefulness
of the dignity kits received
1120 Increased awareness and % of target IDPs (M, F) and host community Medium. It would be more relevant
understanding of SRHR, the rights of members (M, F) who report increased awareness, to be able to identify the
women and girls, gender equality, skills and capacities regarding understanding knowledge, skills and practices as
and effective responses to SGBV in gender, the rights of women and girls, and SGBV sub-indicators rather than mixing
Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP camps and all of these.
host communities % and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) and host Good.
community members (M, F) who demonstrate a
good understanding of SGBV4
% and # of targeted women and girls who Good. It would be relevant to have
demonstrate a good understanding SRHR5 included men and boys at the
outcome level.
1210 Increased access to basic Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5- Good. It would be more relevant to
necessities for highly vulnerable high]) among PSNs (M/F) with the quality of NFIs be able to identify the measurable
people in Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP received indicator of the quality of NFIs at
camps the activity level.
1220 Increased access to safe, % and # of shelter beneficiaries (M/F) who Good.
dignified, gender-responsive housing express satisfaction with the privacy and safety of
for IDP households in 3 camps in their housing
Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
1310 Improved living conditions, % and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) who express Good.
camp coordination and enhanced confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate
peaceful coexistence between on human rights concerns
Rohingya IDPs and host % and # of targeted IDPs and host community Good.
communities members (M/F) who indicate that poor pathways
are a barrier to economic, educational or social
activities
3 Decisions include woman’s own health care, making major household purchases, and visiting her family, relatives, or friends.
5 Understanding will be demonstrated by asking respondents to agree or disagree with a number of statements regarding SRHR
66
1320 Increased leadership capacity % and # of women and girls in WDGs and Good.
among women and girls to promote YWDGs who feel confident to express their
inclusive representation in local opinions in a group setting
institutions within in Sittwe and % and # of women and girls WDGs and YWGs Good.
Pauktaw IDP camps and host who feel confident to participate in community
communities decision making processes
% and # of women trained in the Myanmar Good. It would be more relevant to
language and basic numeracy who demonstrate have included men and boys to
improved capacity in these areas by the end of reflect the gender responsive at
the project the outcome level as well as the
activities level.
Regarding the duration of the project, the length of the project was too short to cover all of the
activities within the one-year timeline of the interventions. In addition, the current situation facing the
crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic should be considered and the possible necessary preventive
measures to manage and mitigate the risks of this crisis throughout the project phase. On the other
hand, the short duration of the project could have negatively impacted to achieve impact results that
relate to building capacities of women and girls and increasing better understanding on SGBV and
SRHR, gender equality of the IDPs and Host Community Members. To mitigate the language barrier
issues and camp coordination, it was good to consider the recruitment of the local host as camp
management coordinator who literates Rakhine, Muslim and Myanmar languages.
As of the budget, the budget is considerably adequate for the field intervention, which directly
involves beneficiaries. The project has been flexible to adapt to the needs of the project. Continuous
communication among CLWR and LWF Myanmar was a key element in the relationship and flexibility
of justified changes. The project was highly relevant to adolescent girl IDPs but failed to serve their
needs appropriately, because trainings and awareness sessions were not tailored for adolescent
girls. In addition, adolescent girls become invisible children hidden away once puberty arrives, as a
cultural practice among Rohingya communities. Both Rohingya and Rakhine communities have
strongly defined norms. In both communities, men are positioned as superior and women are seen
as inferior – stemming from Islamic and Buddhist religious and cultural beliefs such as purdah in
Rohingya communities and Hpon in Buddhist. This project is highly relevant to the difficult and
unequal social position of women and girls in both Rakhine and Rohingya communities. However,
the project was highly relevant to include both IDPs and Host Community Members in the Phase II
supposed to consider the conflict of interest (Do No Harms) principle towards all-inclusive IDPs and
host communities, including Muslim and Rakhine population.
4.2 Effectiveness
IS THE INTERVENTION ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTIVES?
In this section, the discussion focused the extent to which activities have contributed to achievement
of the country results framework outcomes, and GRHA Phase-II specific objectives and results,
including the three intermediate outcomes and the expected ultimate outcome. The project was
designed with the intermediate outcomes and immediate outcomes that looked at increasing
utilization of WASH, SRHR, and protection services and dignity and safety of Rohingya IDPs and
Host Community Residents, particularly PSNs, women and girls, and improved quality of life and
emergency preparedness through increased equitable community participation in leadership and
decision-making process at camp management and village development committee level in 8 IDP
camps and 6 host community villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships. The expected
results/outcomes are split into six results or outcomes. In Table 4.2 describing the final evaluation
performance management framework (below), the evaluation results addressing the baseline,
targets, analysis, and the actual data for each outcome (ultimate outcome, intermediate outcome,
immediate outcome) showed how the intervention has been achieved its overall and specific
objectives. In addition, the detailed analysis at the outcome level and discussion have been done in
Section 3 of this evaluation report. (Note: Detailed information are provided in Table 4.2 (pp.76).
67
4.3 Efficiency
HOW WELL ARE RESOURCES USED?
In this section, the analysis focused to what extent the quality and timeliness of the project inputs
was delivered.
Quality of the inputs and outputs

SRHR.
The evaluation results reported that the distribution of NFIs to PSNs highly efficient that they received
a quality of distributed NFIs and these were useful to them. Likewise, the provision of dignity kits to
women and girls were also efficient that they received the quality products that were highly useful to
improve their quality of life. The distribution of the NFIs and dignity kits have been done in a timely
manner consistent with the project timeframe. Even though there was a severe case of COVID-19
pandemic crisis in August, 2020 until January, 2021 in Rakhine State, the project could have
undertaken the activities to be in line with the timeframe.
Shelter (Longhouses) were reconstructed as well as the women and girls’ centers in which the design
have had improvement and the service providing company (awarded the contract) used a better
quality of materials for construction and considering the environmental-friendly design for safety and
security purposes. Total 29 have already completed and it has achieved 100%. This was a barrier
affecting the timeline of the project implementation due to the unexpected external factors – unstable
political situation and pandemic crisis. In addition, the budget has been revised and additional
provision of furniture to the women and girls’ centers could have been undertaken upon the results
of the budget revision. Thus, the project could have efficiently undertaken to be worthwhile the inputs
and outputs.
In terms of day-to-day management, including operational planning, implementation, budget

management, personnel management, logistics, risk management, coordination, information
management, reporting, and deadlines, almost all of these operational activities were efficiently
performed to reach the overall and specific objectives of the project. Thus, we could consider that
the project was highly efficient in intervention of the project activities to meet the quality and
timeliness of the project deliverables.
4.4 Impact
WHAT DIFFERENCE IS THE INTERVENTION MAKING?

This section analyses to what extent have project participants benefitted from processes, activities,
and outputs as well as the project participants would likely carry forward the achieved results and
the approach and achieved results could be replicated and thus the impact is likely to be sustainable
over the longer term. In addition, there would be a recommendation that the third phase of the project
would likely to consolidate the achievements. The impact of the project was not felt equally in all the
8 IDP camps and 6 host community villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw Township as there are significant
differences among them in terms of accessibility and physical and human resource conditions. As
of the training, awareness and skills, Pauktaw camps and host community villages had lower impact
respect to the inputs. However, the full impact of the project in particular for the women and girls’
68
capacities to help them to face challenges and building dignity) is yet to be realized and it has been
affected by the duration of the project, meaning the length of the project is too short. Unlike the first
phase of the project, the second phase could have done significant improvements to facilitate the
achieved results for sustainability over the longer term. However, yet there is no uniformity in how
the project has impacted the targeted beneficiaries because tailored trainings to the requirement of
the different audiences were necessary. In terms of easily access to protected water sources and
enough water, the results have achieved against the targets during the project implementation period
and it was a fairly good impact of the project during a short duration. This is because the the project
has undertaken the major activities, including rehabilitation, protecting ponds and installing hand
pumps in which the project has provided 3 ponds to be rehabilitated and protected that aimed to
reduce contamination and supply safe water in Ah Nauk Ywe Rohingya host community village in
Pauktaw Township. In addition, 16 hand pumps have been installed in Sittwe Township although the
project target was to provide the 12 hand pumps and as a result, the project has provided the
installation of hand pumps more than 100% achieved. In the quantitative analysis, the water sources
have been identified whether the beneficiaries (respondents) have access to the protected water
sources (i.e., the protected water source is here defined as the sources of water especially the rain
water collected ponds that have been rehabilitated and protected to avoid the contamination and it
covers the installation of hand pumps). As of the installation of hand pumps, it also aimed to improve
to have access to the protected water sources in the host community villages. As a result of the
quantitative analysis in the end-line, 92.72% (51/55M) and 92.77% (77/83F) of the host community
respondents from Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships expressed that they have improved access to the
protected water sources. Overall, 92.75% (128/138) of respondents in the host communities have
access to the protected water source in the end-line while the baseline results showed 83.33%
(115/138). In addition, it has found the co-benefit of the repairs of the pathways between the IDP
camps and the host community villages that this intervention has benefitted the communities through
injections of cash for works beyond the improvement of the infrastructure for them. In the third phase,
the external factors especially necessary preventive measures against COVID-19 pandemic should
be considered to mitigate the risks that might reduce the quality of the project results and interrupt
the intervention of the project.
4.5 Sustainability
WILL THE BENEFIT LAST?

This section analyses what likely to happen to the positive effects of the programme after the external
assistance comes to an end and to what extent the outputs can be expected to be sustainable over
the longer term (supposed to be 5-10 years) and the role of the targeted beneficiaries of women and
girls as proactive community leaders transformed into permanent change. In addition, how the
community action groups taking ownership of the concepts and approaches and how they will
continue to function after their community graduates in which it should be considered what
characteristics make the outputs sustainable or unsustainable. LWF has a unique position and
second phase of the project to maintain project outcomes. The capacity to continue running or
maintaining community organization structures is a focus of LWF’s work which ensures
sustainability. Learning and outcomes of this approach can be replicated at village level once closure
of camps finally is realized. The weakness that might interrupt the sustainability have been identified
in the consistency of understanding (among all staff, top to bottom) of the strategy and the
sustainability approach of LWF in Rakhine State in Myanmar. Supposed that LWF Myanmar might
have developed a practical exit strategy and the communities should be aware of it and truly
69
understand and buy into it, and whether it might be working and this is important for the sustainability
over the longer term.
5. GENDER RESPONSIVE ANALYSIS

LWF Myanmar conducted a gender analysis that disaggregated data and explored how harmful
sociocultural norms, practices and unequal power dynamics between men and women contribute to
inequalities in accessing services. However, the organization has not examined how inequalities
experienced by women, harmful sociocultural norms and practices, and unequal power dynamics
between women and men affect the existing project goals and objectives. In this regard, LWF has
started to build the capacity of program staff to respond to the gender dimensions of this project
even before the commencement of this project, receiving a training form CLWR on gender
responsive programming, however there is still scope for mainstreaming gender in the whole
Rakhine staff structure. It is noticeable that the steps taken to develop a countrywide Women
Empowerment Toolkit that incorporates materials on gender responsive trainings shared by CLWR.
At the project level, monthly progress monitoring and activity tracking sheet showed the gender
disaggregated data. Likewise, it has also found the gender disaggregated data for output and
outcome level tracking to measure the indicators. As of the improvement in the second phase, the
gender disaggregated data of PSNs have been collected and monthly updated upon completion of
the activities undertaken. However, it has not found yet the disaggregated data on YWDG training
and their participation in the CMC meetings and VDC meetings because a larger group of beneficiary
groups of women and girls (18-25) as well as men and boys in which the indicators only focused on
the participation of women and girls and the analysis has also been done the participation of them
who reported that they felt confident to present their issues in the group setting and/or CMC/VDC
meetings.
In terms of the participation of women and men, a core set of activities of the project was the provision
of knowledge and skills to the targeted persons of concern, women and girls (18-25 years) in which
the project have provided regular capacity building trainings in terms of language and basic
numeracy as well as the women empowerment trainings such as leadership training to improve their
participation and representation at the camp and host community level, basic human rights and
gender, SGBV and SRHR. As discussed above, women and girls from the WDG and YWDG
received regular trainings that have been provided by the project and they were the beneficiaries.
Both baseline and final evaluation of the project (second phase of the project), the gender
disaggregated data have been analyzed at the outcome level and the analysis (final evaluation) in
“Immediate outcome 1310: Improved living conditions, camp coordination and enhanced peaceful
coexistence between Rohingya IDPs and host communities” and one of its indicators “% and # of
targeted IDPs (M,F) who express confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights
concerns” and the results showed – “78.87% (56/71M) and 83.19% (94/113F) of respondents in IDP
camps who expressed that they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights
concerns”.
Table - List of respondents expressing their level of confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate
on human rights concerns (n=184, M=71, F=113)
No. Description
Male Female Total
2 Disagree 12 (16.9%) 9 (7.96%) 21 (11.41%)
3 Neither agree nor disagree 2 (2.82%) 6 (5.31) 8 (4.35%)
4 Agree 56 (78.87%) 94 (83.19%) 150 (81.52%)
5 Strongly agree 1 (1.41%) 4 (3.54%) 5 (2.72%)
6 Not applicable 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
8 Refuse to answer 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%) 0 (0.00%)
70
Total 71 (38.59%) 113 (61.41%) 184 (100%)
According to the results in Table, the surveyed respondents expressed their awareness on the
human rights concerns in the IDP camps. In this regard, 78.87% (56/71M) of males have confidence
but only 83.19% (94/113F) of females express their confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate
on human right concerns.
IDPs (M/F) on the human right issues in which they expressed in CMC to raise their voices:
- 81.69% (58/71M) of males and 82.30% (93/113F) of females in average answered that they
were aware of basic human rights concerned and thus most of the respondents, including
both males and females in IDP camps perceived a good understanding of the basic human
rights concerned.
Table - List of respondents who express their level of confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate
on human rights concerns on the statement: “I would feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive
and fairly respond to human rights issues in camps”. (n=184, M=71, F=113)
Description
1 Movement restriction 49 87 136 22 26 48
69.01% 76.99% 73.91% 30.99% 23.01% 26.09%
2 Lack of access to basic services (health and 41 67 108 30 46 76
education) 57.75% 59.29% 58.69% 42.25% 40.71% 41.30%
3 Lack of income and employment opportunities 60 101 161 11 12 23
84.51% 89.38% 87.5% 15.49% 10.62% 12.5%
4 Sexual and gender-based violence 62 105 167 9 8 17
87.32% 92.92% 90.76% 12.68% 7.08% 9.24%
5 Domestic violence against women and girls 63 87 150 8 26 34
98.59% 76.99% 81.52% 11.27% 23.01% 18.48%
6 Unfair wages for both men and women in labor 54 85 139 17 28 45
work 76.06% 75.22% 75.54% 23.94% 24.78% 24.46%
7 Early/child marriage 62 96 158 9 17 26
87.32% 84.96% 85.87% 12.68% 15.04% 14.13%
8 Lack of access to post-primary and higher 57 101 158 14 12 26
education 80.28% 89.38% 85.87% 19.72% 10.62% 14.13%
9 Lack of land and property rights 62 95 157 9 18 27
87.32% 84.07% 85.32% 12.68% 15.93% 14.67%
10 Undermine to return back to place of 66 102 168 5 11 16
displacements 92.96% 90.27% 91.30% 7.04% 9.73% 8.69%
11 Poor shelter situation – lack of privacy and 60 100 160 11 13 24
safety 84.51% 88.49% 86.96% 15.49% 11.50% 13.04%
12 Security threats/risks 57 93 150 14 20 34
80.28% 82.30% 81.52% 19.72% 17.69% 18.48%
According to the results in Table, the surveyed respondents expressed their awareness on the
human rights concerns in the IDP camps. In terms of the result, the respondents who answered
“Yes” on the statement “I would feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive and fairly respond to
human rights issues in camps” upon the topics related to the human rights issues (Table 3.19) would
be considered that they felt confident in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights concerns.
Overall, it has found a significant improvement considering the gender disaggregated data
the gender responsive programme concept, objectives and goals.
6. RECOMMENDATIONS
71
This section comprises of the recommendations based on the final evaluation analysis and findings,
highlighting the identification of two sections, including Gender Consideration and Programmatic.
I. Gender Considerations
I-1. Enhance gender disaggregation in capacity building trainings in designing and implementing
Future programs should enhance the gender disaggregation in capacity building trainings in
designing and implementing to ensure the quality of the training at all levels to achieve to some
extend the expected changes that reflect the gender responsive context.
Actions:
§ Undertake a capacity assessment in order to have evidence of existing knowledge and skills
and attitudes towards people’s understanding as a baseline for preparing the design
§ Set up the criteria to identify the stakeholders/participants who should be included in order
to consider gender, age, education, etc.
§ Design trainings based on the audiences’ knowledge and capacities with the appropriate
methods and tools
o Considering the continuity/consistency to participate in a series of trainings (E.g.
Foundation course, Follow-up course, and Advanced courses)
o Standardize the LWF’s practice of pre-test and post-test
§ Get commitments for sustainability (E.g., Sharing knowledge and skills obtained from the
trainings and promote to replicate it (if applicable)
§ Continue to contribute to the aid community in Rakhine with communication materials and
training tools in Rakhine and Rohingya languages (visualize knowledge products)
I-2. Keep progressing the good practices of the gender responsive actions
Improvement of the gender responsive practices have been found in the second phase of the GRHA
project and these should be promoted and later these can be customized as the local products in
the context of Rakhine.
Actions:
§ Utilize the good practices and disseminate to a wider community, especially Rohingyas and
their associated host communities in Rakhine State
§ Promote these practices through the events, including community dialogue, awareness
raising/sensitization event, conducting community workshop at camp/host community level
I-3. Increase female facilitator/coordinator at camp and host community level

It is necessary to have closer monitoring oversight and mentoring of CBIWs. Improve operations!
Actions:
§ Recruit more Gender Protection Facilitator/Coordinators at Camp/Host Community Level
§ Recruit Trained Case Management Staff, with Psychosocial skills and able to deal with,
manage, follow up and refer appropriately survivors of SGBV cases to the relevant case
management agency through the referral process
I-4. Increase project management staff facilitating and monitoring at camp and host community level
To keep going on reinforcing a gender responsive culture inside this project as well as mainstreaming
in through the organization, regular training/mentoring of all staff needs to be in place.
Actions:
§ Increase presence of Project management staff in the IDP camps and its associated Host
Community Villages
§ Day-to-day awareness of SGBV and SRHR camp context and its associated host community
context to adapt and strengthen trainings and activities with relevant information
I-5. LWF Gender strategy for Rakhine to help mainstream gender across all projects
72
LWF Myanmar has taken great strides towards the incorporation of gender responsive programming,
but requires, a gender specific strategy to give direction to staff and delegate operational
responsibility to relevant staff.
Actions:
§ Contextualize the gender strategy to the particularities of the Rakhine context (cultural,
religious, governmentally and conflict imposed, barriers) that perpetuate gender inequalities
§ Take into consideration the LWF gender guidelines and develop LWF Rakhine gender
strategy, with an action plan to ensure gender responsiveness in all projects
§ Develop a staff checklist for assessing gender responsiveness
§ Ensure places reserved for survivors of GBV related cases to be selected as part of the
Persons of Special Needs of the GRHA project and other Livelihoods or Education Projects
as well as the Empowerment and Right-Based Projects
II. Programmatic
II-1. Donors should understand the complexity of the Rakhine IDP camps
The project has been a good attempt to combined humanitarian response with the development
tools and future programs should continue building the IDPs capacities and their associated Host
Community Residents and searching for durable solutions. This is because Rakhine IDP camps
humanitarian and development needs overlap in the nexus for social cohesion while searching for
durable solutions.
Actions:
§ Design the programs, including short, medium, and long terms for continuous development
(sustainability) which simplify and reduce operational costs in searching and consolidating
teams, baselines and evaluations/end-line evaluations.
II-2. Upgrade the monitoring system done at the community level (pre- and post-testing)
It needs to upgrade existing monitoring system much consistent with the situation as it doesn’t make
sense to have different persons attending the training – use creative incentives for attendance.
Actions:
§ Review the existing monitoring system much relevant to the community
§ Explore better community monitoring mechanisms
§ Tracking/collection of SGBV cases reported by LWF to relevant case management agency
II-3 Consider the mitigation of risks against COVID-19 pandemic crisis

It is necessary to consider the COVID-19 pandemic crisis that might impact the socio-economic of
the local community, especially the IDP camps because the population density is crowded.
Actions:
§ Prepare necessary preventive measures against COVID-19 pandemic imposed by the
government (Ministry of Health and Sports) and disseminate the information to reach at the
community level
§ Provide continuous support to have access enough WASH facilities related to pandemic
preventive measures
7. CONCLUSIONS
Overall, the project “Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance to Conflict Affected IDP Women
and Girls in Rakhine State (GRHA)” appropriately met its programmatic approaches and goals,
combination of humanitarian concept and development tools, specifically it also met its aims and
delivered fully the planned activities in regards to increasing utilization of WASH, SRHR,
NFIs/Shelters, protection services and dignity and safety of Rohingya IDPs and Host Communities
(included in second phase), in particular for PSNs, women and girls; and improved quality of life and
emergency preparedness though increased equitable community participation in cam leadership
73
and decision-making processes in 8 IDP camps and 6 Host Community Villages in SIttwe and
Pauktaw Townships.
At the activities level as per the logical framework, the first phase of the project has learnt lessons
missing some relevant activities to help support the project implementation such as capacity
assessment of the women and girls (like training needs assessment) for designing the training and
curriculum development as well as putting the relevant subject matters within the scope of the project
objectives. Based on these lessons from the first phase of the project intervention, the second phase
has considered to put the right activities to meet the requirement of the project achievements. Thus,
the second phase of the project can be considered getting the next steps to go to the specific
objectives of the project that cover to achieve the different levels of outcomes. In addition, the project
has been highly relevant to women and girls IDP Rohingya in camps, as it focuses on reducing their
suffering and increasing their dignity including building their capacities by learning Myanmar
language and basic numeracy, understand SGBV, their rights and the referral paths for SGBV;
learning on SRHR and preparedness to hazards. The project included actions to fulfill a strong claim,
lighting for accessing WASH facilities. Also, the project has been relevant for person with special
needs (PSN) and person with disabilities with specific actions: the provision of assistive devices and
non-food items (NFIs) to dignify their lives.
SRHR.
Shelter (Longhouses) were repaired and reconstructed as well as the women and girls’ centers in
which the design have had improvement and the service providing company (awarded the contract)
used a better quality of materials for construction and considering the environmental-friendly design
for safety and security purposes. Total 14 longhouses out of 29 have already completed, however
the remaining 15 longhouses have been in progress (approximately 85% completed), meaning that
the reconstruction process has been a little bit delayed due to the political situation and COVID-19
pandemic crisis in which the procurement processes have also been impacted. This was a barrier
affecting the timeline of the project implementation due to the unexpected external factors – unstable
political situation and pandemic crisis.
In terms of day-to-day management, including operational planning, implementation, budget

management, personnel management, logistics, risk management, coordination, information
management, reporting, and deadlines, almost all of these operational activities were efficiently
performed to reach the overall and specific objectives of the project. Thus, we could consider that
the project was highly efficient in intervention of the project activities to meet the quality and
timeliness of the project deliverables.
The impact of the project was not felt equally in all the 8 IDP camps and 6 host community villages
in Sittwe and Pauktaw Township as there are significant differences among them in terms of
accessibility and physical and human resource conditions. As of the training, awareness and skills,
Pauktaw camps and host community villages had lower impact respect to the inputs. However, the
full impact of the project in particular for the women and girls’ capacities to help them to face
challenges and building dignity) is yet to be realized and it has been affected by the duration of the
project, meaning the length of the project is too short.
74
Unlike the first phase of the project, the second phase could have done significant improvements to
facilitate the achieved results for sustainability over the longer term. However, yet there is no
uniformity in how the project has impacted the targeted beneficiaries because tailored trainings to
the requirement of the different audiences were necessary. In terms of easily access to protected
water sources and enough water, the results have achieved against the targets during the project
implementation period and it was a good impact of the project during a short duration. In the third
phase, the external factors especially necessary preventive measures against COVID-19 pandemic
should be considered to mitigate the risks that might reduce the quality of the project results and
interrupt the intervention of the project.
In sum, it has found a significant improvement considering the gender disaggregated data
the gender responsive programme concept, objectives and goals. LWF has a unique position and
second phase of the project to maintain project outcomes.
75
Table 4.2 Performance Management Framework
Baseline assessment of the GRHA Phase II project was conducted in 8 IDP camps and 6 host community villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships, Central Part of Rakhine State from July to August 2020. The results of the baseline assessment have been discussed in the Section
3 of this report (3. Discussion of Survey Findings). According to the indicators of the project for each outcome, the baseline survey was done by
conducting the different groups of beneficiaries of the project, covering the main category of the project such as WASH, SGBV and SRHR,
Shelters/NFIs, and Camp Management and Coordination. According to the results of the baseline assessment, the baseline indicators were
updated by putting the baseline data set in the performance measurement framework of the project and reviewed the targets accordingly.
Project Outcomes Indicator BASELINE DATA TARGETS ACTUAL DATA ANALYSIS OF ENDLINE RATING
Ultimate Outcome
Reduced suffering and -% and # of target Rohingya IDPs N/A 80% M/ 80% F - 71.19% (39497) of - 71.19% (131/184) of IDPs had some or significant >80% achieved to
increased human dignity (M, F) and Host Community Rohingya IDPs IDPs had some or improvement in living conditions for themselves reach the target
for conflict affected IDPs Members (M, F) who report some significant and their households in the last year
and host communities, or significant improvement in living improvement of their - 66.19% (47/71M) and 74.34% (84/113F) of
particularly women and conditions for themselves and their lives respondents from IDP camps
girls, in Sittwe and Pauktaw households over the last year (66.19%M/74.38%F)
Townships, Rakhine State, - 89.85% (124/138) of Host community had some
Myanmar 80% M/ 80%F 89.85% (26465) of or significant improvement in living conditions for
host community Host community themselves and their households in the last year
residents members had some - 92.73% (51/55M) and 87.95% (73/83F) of
improvement of their respondents from Host Communities
lives
1100 WASH and SRHR - % and # of women, girls, men 67% (54/80) M/51% (53/104)F 75% M/70% F 79.89% (IDPs) 80% (57/71)M / 80.5% (91/113) F (IDP Camps) >90% achieved to
Increased utilization of and boys, who consider that their (IDP Camps) reach the target
WASH, SRHR, and basic WASH needs are met 94.55% (52/55)M / 96.4% (80/83) F (Host
protection services for 72% (40/55) M/66% (55/83)F 95.65% (Host) Communities)
conflict affected IDPs and (Host Communities)
host communities, average time required to reach Less than 15 minutes Average <30 92.03% (Less than 15 Less than 15 minutes
particularly women and girls, the water source, collect water 60% (41/55)M/80% (60/83)F minutes in host minutes (Considered 89.09 (49/55)M / 89.09% (78/83)F
in the 8 targeted IDP camps (including queuing), and bring it communities 3% increased in easily
and 6 host communities back home And 15-30 minutes access to collection of 15-30 minutes
18% (10/55)M/17%(14/83)F water by reducing time 10.9% (6/55)M / 6.02% (6/83)F
GAC SRHR Key taken)
Performance Indicator % and # of women and girls, men 29% (23/80)M/27% (28/104)F 20% increase Overall, 68.47% of 69.01% (49/71)M / 68.14% (77/113)F (IDPs) >100% achieved
and boys, demonstrating positive (IDPs) from baseline IDPs (126/184), the target.
attitudes towards ending SGBV Considered increased (demonstrated
44% (24/55) M/46% (38/83) F 40.76% from baseline 74.55% (41/55)M / 67.47% (56/83)F positive attitudes
(Host communities) (Host Communities) towards ending
sGBV)
1200 NFIs and Shelters - % and # of PSNs (M/F) who report N/A 90% PSNs (M/F) 70% of PSNs received 58.33% (7/12M) and 87.5% (7/8F) of PSNs 77.8% achieved to
Increased dignity and increased quality of life through the who received NFIs NFIs (14 PSNs out of reach the target
safety of IDPs, particularly use of distributed NFIs 20) In the endline, 20 PSNs (12M/8F) were (reported satisfied
PSNs, women, and girls interviewed and overall 70% of PSNs (14/20) receiving good
within the 8 targeted IDP 58.33% (7/12M) and answered that they agree that they were able to quality of NFIs and
camps 87.5% (7/8F) of PSNs access the quality of NFIs and they felt satisfied to useful)
use these distributed NFIs.
% and # of targeted IDP 29% MHH (5/17)/46% (6/13) 80% FHH/90% 67.65% (23/34) of 72% (18/25) MHH / 55.56% (5/9) FHH of 90%MHH/
households who report feeling safe FHH of households felt safe MHH of MHH/FHH of households felt safe (in which 34 respondents 61.7FHH of HHs
households who benefitted the shelter activities in 10
76
in their shelters (disaggregated by receiving shelter households received longhouses from two IDP camps, Ohn Taw Gyi receiving shelter
MHH and FHH) support shelter support (South) (Sittwe Tsp.) and Nget Chaung-2 support
(Considered increased (Pauktaw Tsp.)
>30% from baseline)
1300 Camp management % and # of targeted host 56% (31/55)M/61% (51/83)F 80%F/80%M 82.61% of targeted 78.18% (43/55)M / 85.54% (71/83)F Host >100% achieved to
and social cohesion– community residents (m/f) who Host community residents host host communities who community residents who agree with the reach the target
Improved quality of life and agree or strongly agree with the community agree statement “those living in the IDP camps are
peaceful coexistence statement 'those living in the IDP residents (114/138) of M&F welcome in their community.
though increased equitable camps are welcome in our
community participation in community'
camp and community % and # of IDP and host 29.41% (5/17) of women in joint 65% of 35% (7/20) of women 35% (7/20) of women in joint households who make 50% achieved
leadership and decision- community women in joint households reported (IDPs) women report reported participating significant household decisions jointly in average (participation of
making processes in 8 IDP households who make significant participating jointly in all 3 decisions on all types of decisions in IDP camps women in jointly in
camps and 6 host household decisions jointly or by either jointly or (Considered 5.6% of all 3 decisions) in
communities of Sittwe and themselves.6 alone in all 3 women in IDP camps 60% (12/20) of women in joint households who IDP camps
Pauktaw Townships decisions increased from the make significant household decisions jointly in
baseline average on all types of decisions in host community
>50% achieved
58.82% (10/17) of women in 60% (12/20) of women (participation of
joint households reported in host communities women in jointly in
(Host communities) reported participating all 3 decisions) in
jointly in all 3 decisions host communities)
(Considered 1.2% from
the baseline)
# of % of monthly CMC (IDP camp) 2 at least and 73.91% (17/23) 8 and 100% of 70.83% (17/24) of 70.83% (17/24) of women and girls’ respondents 25% achieved to
and VDC (host community) of CMC (IDP camp) CMC or VDC WDGs and YWDGs in agree that women and girls from WDG and YWDG reach the target.
meetings where WDG or YDG meetings in the IDP camps (2 at least) participated in the last 2 CMC meetings in which
members provided meaningful last month they provided the meaningful input into the CMC
input into decision making
processes 83.33% (20/24) of 83.33% (20/24) of the women and girls’
2 at least and 83.33% (5/6) WDGs and YWDGs respondents (respondents agree that women and
of VDC (Host communities) (women and girls) in girls from members of VDC participated in the last
host communities (at 2 VDC meetings in which they provided the
least 2) meaningful input into the VDC
1110 Improved access to % and # of targeted host 78% (43/55)M/86% (72/83) F 90% of targeted 84.78% (117/138) of 92.72% (51/55)M /92.77% (77/83)F of targeted 90% achieved to
safe WASH facilities and community residents (M/F) who Of targeted host community host community targeted host host community members had access to a reach the targets.
services among women have access to a protected water members members (M/F) community residents protected water source
and girls in Sittwe and source had access to a
Pauktaw IDP camps and protected water Male respondents who answered they have
host communities access to “tube well or borehole” were 92.72%
(Considered 6.8% (51/55M) and female respondents who
increase from the answered were 92.77% (77/83F). Findings
baseline) report that the people in the host communities
have access to three types of water sources
such as “tube well or borehole”, “harvested
rain water”, and “surface water source (pond)”
in which most of the respondents in this survey
answered that they have access to “tube well
or borehole”.
77
Average level of satisfaction (1-5 N/A Average of 4 36.28% of women and - 36.28% (41/113) F of the respondents reported >100 achieved
scale [1-low; 5-high]) among among women girls (reached at Level that they feel satisfied at Level 5 (High) which (36.28% of women
women and girls with the and girls 5 (High) of satisfaction represents 81-100% and girls felt
usefulness of the dignity kits satisfied upon
received 22.21% of women and - 22.21% (25/113) F of the respondents are at receiving dignity
girls (reached at Level Level 4 (Above Average) that represents 61-80% kits and useful to
4 (Above average) of of satisfaction them)
satisfaction
- 30.09% (34/113) F of the respondents are at
Level 3 (Average) that represents 41-60% of
satisfaction
1120 Increased awareness % of target IDPs (M, F) and host N/A 50% of targeted Considered 6% at - 48% (3166/6548) responded to all of the topics About 30 %
and understanding of community members (M, F) who IDPs (M, F) and Level 5: Unacceptable, related to SGBV (used in the post-test) at “Level 5: achieved (targeted
SRHR, the rights of women report increased awareness, skills hosts 3% at Level 4: Poor, Unacceptable”, 26% (1701/6548) had at “Level 4: women and girls of
and girls, gender equality, and capacities regarding (M,F) report and 3% at Level 3: Fair Poor”, 20% (1317/6548) had at “Level 3: Fair”, and IDPs and Host
and effective responses to understanding gender, the rights of improvement decreased from the 6% (365/6548) had at “Level 2: Good”. (SGBV) reported
SGBV in Sittwe and women and girls, and SGBV pre-test regarding (The result showed 54% at Level 5, 23% at Level improvement).
Pauktaw IDP camps and SGBV. Thus, 6% at 4, and 17% at Level 3” in the pre-test. No other
host communities Level 2: Good levels (Level 1 & 2) have been found in the pre-
increased from the pre- test. However, it has been found 6% at Level 2 in
test. the post-test and other levels such as Level 3,4&5
has reduced the %, meaning the respondents in
IDPs camps increased awareness, skills and
Considered 9% at capacities regarding understanding gender, the
Level 5: Unacceptable, rights of women and girls and SGBV.)
4% at Level 4: Poor,
and 2% at Level 3: Fair - 39% or 3092/6548) reported to all of the topics
and 3% at Level 2: related to SRHR (used in the post-test) at “Level 5:
Good decreased from Unacceptable”, 22% (1413/6548) had at “Level 4:
the pre-test regarding Poor”, 21% (1375/6548) had at “Level 3: Fair”, and
SRHR. 18% (1187/6548) had at “Level 2: Good”. (SRHR).
The result showed 48% at Level 5, 18% at Level 4,
and 19% at Level 3” and 15% at Level 2 in the pre-
test. Findings showed all levels such as Level 2,
3,4&5 has reduced the % from the pre-test,
meaning the respondents in IDPs camps increased
awareness, skills and capacities regarding
understanding gender, the rights of women and
girls and SRHR.)
- Post-test results reported that target IDPs (M,F)

and host-community members (M,F) had
increased in compared with the pre-test results
addressing an increase in awareness, skills and
capacities regarding understanding gender, the
rights of women and girls, and SGBV and SRHR.
% and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) 64% (51/80) M/68%(70/104) F 20% increase 75.5% (139/184) of 76.06% (54/71)M /75.22% (85/113)F (IDP >50% achieved in
and host community members (M, (IDP camp) from baseline targeted IDPs Camps) IDP camps
F) who demonstrate a good (Considered 9.8%
understanding of SGBV7 increased from the
baseline)
78
51% (28/55) M/49% (40/83) F 75.4% (104/138) of >100% achieved in
(Host communities) targeted host 78.18% (43/55)M /73.49% (61/83)F (Host host communities
(Considered 26.2% Community Members)
increased from the
baseline)
% and # of targeted women and 54% (56/104) of targeted 20% increase 76.11% 76.11% (86/113) of targeted women and girls >100% achieved in
girls who demonstrate a good women and girls from baseline (Considered 22% (IDP Camps) IDP camps
understanding SRHR8 (IDP camp) increased from
baseline) in IDPs
61% (50/83) of targeted 83.13% (Considered 83.13% (69/83) of targeted women and girls (Host >100% achieved in
women and girls 22.13% increased Community Members) host communities
(Host communities) from baseline)
1210 Increased access to Average level of satisfaction (1-5 N/A Average of 3.5 4 33.33% (4/12)M / 37.5% (3/8)F of PSNs who >100% achieved
basic necessities for highly scale [1-low; 5-high]) among PSNs among PSNs reported their satisfaction upon receiving the (satisfaction upon
vulnerable people in Sittwe (M/F) with the quality of NFIs (M/F) quality of NFIs at Level 5 (High) that represents 81- receiving the
and Pauktaw IDP camps received 100% of satisfaction quality of NFIs
among PSNs)
25% (3/12)M / 37.5% (3/8)F of PSNs who reported
their satisfaction upon receiving the quality of NFIs
at Level 4 (Above Average) that represents 61-
80% of satisfaction
41.67% (5/12)M / 25% (2/8)F of PSNs who

reported their satisfaction upon receiving the
quality of NFIs at Level 3 (Average) that represents
81-100% of satisfaction
1220 Increased access to % and # of shelter beneficiaries 35% (6/17) M/38% (5/13) F in 60% of shelter 73.52% (25/34) of 76% (19/25)M /66.67% (6/9)F of females >100% achieved
safe, dignified, gender- (M/F) who express satisfaction with IDP (satisfaction with privacy beneficiaries shelter beneficiaries expressed satisfaction with the privacy and safety (satisfaction with
responsive housing for IDP the privacy and safety of their & safety) (M/F) express (M,F) expressed of their housing privacy and safety)
households in 3 camps in housing satisfaction satisfaction
Sittwe and Pauktaw (Considered 36.8% >100% achieved
Townships increased from the 80% (20/25)M/ 66.67% (6/9) F in targeted IDPs (felt satisfaction
baseline) (feel satisfaction in shelter from elements (rain, living in shelter
wind, etc.) and unwanted intruders from elements
35% (6/17) M/30% (4/13) F in 76.47% (26/34) of (rain, wind, etc)
targeted IDPs (feel shelter beneficiaries (Note: 34 respondents who benefited the shelter and unwanted
satisfaction in shelter from (M,F) expressed activities from Ohn Taw Gyi (South) and Nget intruders)
elements (rain, wind, etc.) and satisfaction Chaung-2 IDP Camps) were surveyed in which 25
unwanted intruders (Considered 43% males and 9 females participated in the survey).
increased from the
baseline)
1310 Improved living % and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) 66% (53/80) M/64% (67/104) 70% M/F 81.5% (150/184) of 78.87% (56/71) M/ 83.19% (94/113) F report >100% achieved
conditions, camp who express confidence in the F report confidence report confidence M&F reported confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate (Felt confident in
coordination and enhanced CMC to monitor and advocate on (IDP camp) confidence (IDPs) on human rights concerns (IDP camp) the CMC to monitor
peaceful coexistence human rights concerns and advocate on
8 Understanding will be demonstrated by asking respondents to agree or disagree with a number of statements regarding SRHR
79
between Rohingya IDPs 77% (62/80)M/ 82 % (85/104) 81.69% (58/71)M/ 82.30% (93/113) F reported human rights
and host communities F reported they were aware of they were aware of basic human rights concerned concerns)
basic human rights concerned (good understanding of basic human rights) in
in IDPs IDPs
% and # of targeted IDPs and host 90.9% (30/33) M/86% (31/36) 90% F/M 96.29% of M and 96.29% (26/27M) and 95.23% (40/42F) of Almost 100%
community members (M/F) who F identified poor pathway as a Identify poor 95.23% of F (IDPs) respondents who indicated that poor pathways achieved (Identified
indicate that poor pathways are a barrier in IDP Camps (NC- pathways were a barrier to economic, educational or social poor pathways as a
barrier to economic, educational or 1&2 and Anah Ywe) as a barrier activities barrier)
social activities
100% (11/11)M/ 100%
(12/12)F in IDP camp (Ah 100% (8/8)M/ 100% (15/15)F in IDP camp (Ah
Nauk Ywe) report disrepair of Nauk Ywe) reported that disrepair of pathways
pathways between IDP camp between the camps and host community prevent
and Host community also them from accessing income generation activities,
make barrier schooling, or social activities >100% achieved
(Identified despair
100% (11/11)M/ 91.67% 100% (Host 100% (6/6)M/ 100% (17/17)F in Host Community of pathways made
(11/12)F in Host Community Community Villages) Members (Ah Nauk Ywe) reported that disrepair them prevent for
(Ah Nauk Ywe) report of pathways between the camps and host accessibility to
disrepair of pathways community prevent them from accessing income communicate
between IDP camp and Host generation activities, schooling, or social activities between IDP
community also make barrier camps and Host for
various purposes
(Ah Nauk Ywe
Host)
1320 Increased leadership % and # of women and girls in 65.22% (15/23) of women of (70% 15-25/25- 76.59% of women and 76.59% (36/47) of women of 15-25 Participants in 100% achieved
capacity among women WDGs and YWDGs who feel 15-25 55) of girls of 15-25 WDGs and YWDGs in IDP camps feel confident to (felt confident to
and girls to promote confident to express their opinions Participants in the WDGs & participants in the participants in WDGs express their opinions in a group setting express their
inclusive representation in in a group setting YWDGs (IDP camp) WDGs and and YWDGs in IDPs opinions in a group
local institutions within in YWDGs setting in IDP
Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP and VDC in IDPs camps))
camps and host 81.93% (68/83) of women 25- and host 84.31% of women and 84.31% (43/51)) of women of 25-55 in host
communities 55 of participants in the VDC communities girls of 25-55 communities felt confident to express their opinions >100% achieved
(Host communities) participants in host in a group setting (felt confident to
communities express their
opinions in a group
setting in host
community)
% and # of women and girls WDGs 78.26% (18/23) of women of (60% 15-25 / 85.1% of women and 85.1% (40/247) of women and girls of 15-25 >100 achieved (felt
and YWGs who feel confident to 15-25 80% 25-55) of girls of 15-25 in WDGs Participants in WDGs and YWGs in IDP camps confident to
participate in community decision Participants in the WDGs & participants in the and YWDGs in IDPs feel confident to participate in community decision participate in
making processes YWDGs (IDP camp) WDGs and (Increased from making processes community
YWDGs in IDPs baseline) decision making
and Host processes) in IDP
Communities camps
66.67% (4/6) of women 25-55 87.5% of women and 87.5% (7/8) of women of 25-55 of participants in >100% achieved
of participants in the VDC girls of 25-55 VDC feel confident to participate in VDC in host (felt confident to
(Host communities) participants in VDC in communities participate in
host communities community
(Increased from decision making
baseline) processes in host
communities)
80
% and # of women trained in the N/A 80% of trained For the writing skills in Myanmar, 5% (124/2700) of
Myanmar language and basic women women could not write in Myanmar language and
numeracy who demonstrate demonstrate basic numeracy as their level of language
improved capacity in these areas improved proficiency was at “Level 10: Unacceptable”
by the end of the project capacity accordingly. 9% (246/2700) of women were at
“Level 9: Very Poor”, meaning that their level of
language proficiency in writing were very poor.
Likewise, 28% (743/2700) of women were also
very poor in writing skills of Myanmar as their level
was at “Level 8: Very Poor”. It has been found that
23% (631/2700) of women were at “Level 7: Poor”
and 25% (674/2700) of women were at “Level 6:
Poor”. However, it has been found that 10%
(273/2700) of women were in progress of their
writing skills in Myanmar as their level was at
For the reading skills in Myanmar, 5% (130/2700)

of women could not read in Myanmar language and
basic numeracy as their level of language
proficiency was at “Level 10: Unacceptable”
accordingly. 12% (326/2700) of women were at
“Level 9: Very Poor”, meaning that their level of
language proficiency in writing were very poor.
Likewise, 26% (690/2700) of women were also
very poor in writing skills of Myanmar as their level
was at “Level 8: Very Poor”. It has been found that
23% (629/2700) of women were at “Level 7: Poor”
and 27% (727/2700) of women were at “Level 6:
Poor”. However, it has been found that 7%
(185/2700) of women were in progress of their
reading skills in Myanmar as their level was at
Outputs
1111 Rain water harvesting # of ponds that have been N/A 3 ponds 3 ponds rehabilitated 3 ponds have been rehabilitated and renovated in 100% achieved
ponds improved to reduce improved rehabilitated Ah Nauk Ywe Rohingya host community in
contamination and supply Pauktaw Township
safe water in Ah Nauk Ywe
Rohingya host community
in Pauktaw Township
1112 Hand pumps installed # of solar street lights installed in N/A 12 hand pumps 16 hand pumps 16 hand pumps have been installed to be able to >100% (133%
to access safe water in high-risk areas of three IDP camps easily access safe water in the host communities achieved)
host communities in Sittwe in Pauktaw Tsp in Sittwe Township
Township
1113 Dignity kits (soap, # Dignity kits (soap, underwear, N/A 4,342 girls and 5272 girls and women 5272 girls and women (aged 18-25) received the >100% (121%
underwear, and sanitary and sanitary pads) distributed women (aged 18- (aged 18-25) dignity kits provided by the project achieved)
pads) distributed to girls 25)
and women (aged 18-25) in
Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP
camps
1121. Orientation # of Rohingya IDPs sensitized on N/A 6,442 women 6294 (6150F/143M) 6294 (6150F/143M) women and girls and 151 97% achieved
sessions on SGBV gender, the rights of women and and girls and 151 women and girls and male youth leaders (ages 18-25) of Rohingya
awareness (including girls, SGBV male youth IDPs received the capacity building trainings on
81
prevention and response leaders (ages 18- male youth leaders the subject matters of gender, the rights of women
mechanisms), gender, and 25) (ages 18-25) and girls, SGBV
the rights of women and
girls, are provided to
women and girls in IDP
camps and host
communities
1122 Orientation sessions # of Rohingya IDPs trained on N/A 6,442 women 6548(6400F/148M) 6548(6400F/148M) women and girls (ages 18-25) 97% achieved
on SRHR (including SRHR, MHM, family planning and and girls (ages women and girls (ages have been trained to have better understanding
menstrual hygiene women rights 18-25) 18-25) on SRHR, MHM, family planning and women
management (MHM), rights
family planning, and the
rights of women and girls)
provided to women and
girls in targeted IDP camps
and host communities
GAC SRHR Key # of advocacy and public N/A 288 SRHR and 288 SRHR and SGBV 288 SRHR and SGBV public engagement 100% achieved
Performance Indicator engagement activities completed SGBV public public engagement activities have been conducted and completed by
by GAC-funded partners which are engagement activities GAC-funded partners which are focused on
focussed on SRHR delivered by activities SRHR delivered by CSOs
CSOs
1211 NFIs distributed to # of PSNs who have received NFIs N/A 1,130M/ 1,481F 1130M/1481F PSNs 1130M/ 1481F PSNs have received the quality of 100% achieved
highly vulnerable people PSNs NFIs in 8 IDP camps in Sittwe and Pauktaw
(person with disabilities, Townships
older persons at risk,
orphan children and single-
headed households) in 8
IDP camps in Sittwe and
Pauktaw townships
1221 Longhouses # of longhouses upgraded and N/A 29 longhouses 29 longhouses 29 longhouses upgraded and repaired to be safe, 100% achieved
reconstructed to be safe, repaired to be safe, dignified and dignified and gender responsive in 3 IDP camps
dignified and gender- gender responsive in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
responsive in 3 IDP camps
in Sittwe and Pauktaw
townships
1311 Training on human # of CMC leaders trained in N/A 88M/32F 88M/32F 88M/32F of CMC leaders have been trained in 100% achieved
rights, service monitoring leadership and rights-based leadership and rights-based empowerment skills
and advocacy skills to empowerment skills in 8 IDP camps in SIttwe and Pauktaw Townships
CMC leadership in 8 IDP
camps in Sittwe and
Pauktaw
1312 Pathways # of feet of pathways improved N/A 4,200 ft 1800 ft 1,800 feet long of pathways have been repaired 43% achieved
improvement from Jetty to from Jetty to IDP camps in Nget Chaung 1&2 and
IDP camps in Nget 1& 2 Ah Nauk Ywe IDP camps in Pauktaw Township
and Ah Nauk Ywe IDP
camps in Pauktaw
Township
1313 Improve pathways # of feet of pathways improved N/A 22,400 ft 1790 ft 1,790 feet long of pathways have been repaired to 8% achieved
to access schools and have improved access to schools and market
market centers in 6 host centers in 6 Host Community Villages in Sittwe
villages and Pauktaw Townships
1314 Improve pathways to # of feet of pathways improved N/A 13,800 ft 5690 ft 5,690 feet long of pathways have been repaired to 41% achieved
access schools and market have improved access to schools and market in 6
centers in 6 host villages
82
Host Community Villages in Sittwe and Pauktaw
Townships
1321 Training on # of host and IDP women trained in N/A 950 women 950 women leaders in 950 women leaders in host-communities and IDP 100% achieved
leadership and rights- leadership and rights-based leaders in host host communities and camps have been trained in leadership and rights-
based empowerment empowerment skills communities and IDP camps based empowerment skills in Sittwe and Pauktaw
provided to women and girl IDP camps Townships
leaders in Sittwe and
Pauktaw IDP camps and
host villages
1322 Women and girls # of women’s and girls centres N/A 18 18 18 Women’s and Girls’ Centers have been 100% achieved
centers constructed and rehabilitated or constructed rehabilitated and reconstructed to operate in IDP
operated in IDP camps and camps and Host Community Villages in Sittwe
host villages and Pauktaw Townships
1323 Regular classes on # of women who have received N/A 2,700 women 2656 women 2656 women have received the trainings on the 98% achieved
the Myanmar language and training on the Myanmar language Myanmar language and basic numeracy literacy (received training
basic numeracy literacy and basic numeracy literacy in Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships on Myanmar
provided to women in language and basic
Sittwe and Pauktaw IDP numeracy literacy)
camps
1324 Women and young # of women’s groups (host N/A 8 camp level 8 Camp Level Women’s Groups, 14 YDGs, 352 98% achieved
women’s community community, IDP Camp) that are women’s groups, 5351(5248F/103M) YWDGs (15-25) in both of IDP Camps and Host (regularly meeting
leadership groups regularly meeting at the camp and 14 YDGs, 352 Community Villages) have been practiced to have at the camp and
supported at each block block level YWDGs (15-25) a regular meetings at the camp and block level in block level)
level in 8 IDP camps and 6 8 IDP camps and 6 Host Community Villages in
host villages Sittwe and Pauktaw Townships
83
ANNEXES
Annex 1 Questionnaires for beneficiary household survey
Final Evaluation Questions for GRHA Phase II Project
I. General information for respondents
A. Basic Demographic Information

Sr. Description Respondent Information
A1. Name of Respondent
A2. Age of Respondent
A3. Gender of Respondent
A4. Location
A5. IDP or Host Community Member
PSN (who received NFIs) – Indicate
A6. Male (Please tick here) Female (Please tick here)
(Male/Female)
A7. Position of Respondent HH Head Family Member Others (If apply)
1. Respondent Itself/(HH Head)
2. Husband
3. Wife
4. Son
A8. Relationship to HH Head 5. Daughter
6. Son-in-law
7. Daughter-in-law
8. Farther-in-law
9. Mother-in-law
A9. Number of Current Family Members Male: Female: Total:
A10. Will the person/HH benefit from the shelter reconstruction activities?
Are you a member of -
1. CMC
A11. 2. VDC
3. WDG
4. YWDG
II. Ultimate Outcomes/Overall Project Outcomes
Indicator: % and # of target Rohyngya IDPs (M, F) and Host Community Members (M, F) who report some or significant improvement in
living conditions for themselves and their households over the last year
Question 1:
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “In the areas of my life that the project has supported I am able to express that
the living conditions for myself and my household have improved over the last year”?
1. Strongly disagree
2. Disagree
3. Neither agree nor disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
[Don’t read these options aloud]
97. Not applicable
98. Not sure/ Don’t know
99. Refused to answer
Question 2 (Qualitative):
If you feel have improved by yourself and your households in the last year, can you tell us what areas have been improved? How?
Sr. Areas of improved conditions in the last year Please explain how yourself and your households have
No improved!
1 Improved access to enough water, soap, and other
hygiene supplies
2 Adequate and safe access to latrines, space to bathe,
and spaces for washing clothes
3 Women and girls received dignity kits and these help
them useful
4 Better understanding on SGBV and SRHR
5 Adequate levels of privacy for sleeping, changing and
other tasks and feeling safe when living in the shelter
6 Improved participation of women and girls in meetings
and decisions making in CMC and VDC
7 Improved language proficiency in Myanmar
84
III. Sector Focus Questions
B. Sector 1: WASH & SRHR
Indicator 1100.1: % and # of women, girls, men and boys, who consider that their basic WASH needs are met
Question B.1
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I am able access to access enough water, soap, and other hygiene
supplies to keep myself and my household clean and healthy”
7. Disagree
9. Agree
10. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Question B.2
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I have adequate, and safe access to latrines, space to bathe, and spaces
for washing clothes”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Respondents should respond with Agree or Strongly Agree to both questions above for them to be counted as considering their
basic WASH needs being met.
Question B3
Indicator 1100.2: Average time required to reach the water source, collect water (including queuing), and bring it back home
How long does it take to walk to the drinking water source, collect the water (including queuing), and bring it back again?
Sr. Description Tick
1 Less than 15 minutes
2 15 to 30 minutes
3 30 to 45 minutes
4 45 to 60 minutes
5 60 to 90 minutes
6 More than 90 minutes
97. Not applicable
98. Not sure/ don’t know
Following the collection of answers, the team should calculate the average amount of time spent collection water based on these
responses.
Question B31: Did you have any difficulties to be able to access to water as a result of the boreholes and pond rebab? If yes, could you
tell us about what changes you faced?
Question B32: Could you tell us a bit about whether you are more easily access to water or not?
Indicator 1110.1: % and # of targeted host community residents (M/F) who have access to a protected water source
Question B4
How do you primarily access water for cooking, bathing and cleaning?
1) tube well or borehole
2) protected shallow well
3) piped water/public tap
4) protected spring
5) harvested rain water
6) surface water source (river, stream, pond, puddles, unprotected spring)
7) unprotected/ open shallow well
85
8) cart with small tank/drum
9) tanker-truck
97. Not applicable
Once responses have been collected, the team should tabulate the M/F responses who indicated options 1 – 4 which count as those
who have access to “protected water sources”.
Indicator 1110.2: Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5-high] among women and girls with the usefulness of the
dignity kits received
Question B5
To what extent how do you express the level of your satisfaction upon receiving the dignity kits and their usefulness among women and
girls? (Note: Please rate your level of satisfaction on “1-low; 5-high).
Statement Level of Satisfaction (Please Tick)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel satisfied upon receiving the dignity kits and it is useful among women
and girls.
Note: This question should be asked women and girls (who received support of dignity kits).
Indicator 1120.2: % and # of targeted IDPs (M, F) and host community members (M, F) who demonstrate a good understanding of
SGBV
Question B.6
Introduce this question by providing the definition of SGBV used in the project. E.g., Sexual and Gender Based violence is “any harmful
act that is perpetuated against a person’s will and that is based on socially defined gender differences.”
1. Yes 98. Don’t know Correct
Answer the following questions with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’
0. No 99. Refused to Answer
Is the following a case of sexual or gender-based violence:
Answer
B61 A husband has sex with his wife, even when she says she does not want 1
to have sex
B62 A girl is raped while walking alone night wearing a short skirt 1
B63 A man beats another man because he stole his blanket and mat 0
B64 A husband takes money that his wife has earned without her consent or 1
agreement
B65 A 15-year-old girl is told that she has to marry a man because her father 1
has arranged for her marriage
B66 A wife frequently berates and insults her husband because he is not 1
providing for the family
B67 A teacher beats a girl because she is late to class 0
B68 A wife is beaten by her husband because she will not listen to him 1
[For calculation, a respondent indicates a good understanding of SGBV if they answer 6 out of 7 questions correctly]
Indicator 1100.3: % and # of women and girls, men and boys, demonstrating positive attitudes towards ending SGBV (GAC Indicator)
Question B.7
1. Yes (Agree) 98. Don’t know Correct
Answer the following question with ‘Yes’ or ‘No’
0. No 99. Refused to Answer
Is it acceptable for a man to beat his wife if:
(Disagree) Answer
B71 He suspects that she has been unfaithful 0
B72 She neglects the children 0
B73 She spends money without permission 0
Answer the following questions with ‘Agree’ or ‘Disagree’:
B74 If a man beats his wife, that is a private issue between them 0
B75 If a woman tells me her husband is beating her, there is nothing I 0
can do
B76 A wife or daughter should tell a camp leader or someone she 1
trusts if she is being beaten
B77 Help and support should be available to women and girls who are 1
experiencing violence
[For calculation, a respondent demonstrates a positive attitude toward ending SGBV if they answer 6 out of 7 questions correctly]
Indicator 1120.1: % of target IDPs (M, F) and host community members (M, F) who report increased awareness, skills and capacities
regarding understanding gender, the rights of women and girls, and SGBV
Question B.8 To what extent can you express that you feel satisfied on increased awareness, skills and capacities regarding
understanding gender, the rights of women and girls, and SGBV?
No. Description Tick (level of awareness on SGBV)
86
1 2 3 4 5
(Excellent) (Good) (Fair) (Poor) (Unsecure)
B81 Sex definition
B82 Gender definition
B83 Power Definition
1). Economic Power
2). Physical Power
3). Social Power
4). Political Power
5). Aged Power
B84 Sharing Story
B85 GBV Definition/ Basic Gender Concept
B86 Types of GBV
1). Physical Gender based violence/harassment
2). Psychosocial or emotional
violence/harassment
3). Economic violence/ harassment
4). Sexual violence/harassment
B87 True Stories Sharing Exercise related each
violence/ harassment
B88 Dialogue of child marriage
B89 Dialogue of GBV and Domestic violence
B810 Child Trafficking
B811 Consequences of GBV to Survivor (GBV tree)
B812 Psychosocial or emotional
1.Fatal
2.Non-fatal
a) Physical
b) Social
B813 GBV Guiding Principles
1). Non-Discrimination
2). Confidentiality
3). Safety and Security
4). Respect
B814 Referral Pathway Systems
B815 Hotline numbers sharing
B816 Related Agency or organizations
Note: Level 1: Excellent, Level 2: Good, Level 3: Fair, Level 4: Poor, and Level 5: Unacceptable
Question B.9
To what extent can you express that you feel satisfied on increased awareness, skills and capacities regarding understanding gender, the
rights of women and girls, and SRHR?
Sr. Description of the topics (SRHR) Level of understanding on SRHR (Tick)
No.
1 2 3 4 5
(Excellent) (Good) (Fair) (Poor) (Unacceptable)
B91 Introduction to SRHR
a) Reproductive health definition
b) Health effected
c) SRHR services
B92 Maternal Health Danger signs
a) Unnormal menstruation much
b) Shock
c) Headache too much and unclear eyes
d) Weak, illness
e) Stomachache or abdomen ache
f) Fast breathing and difficult to breath
B93 Danger Sign during maternal period
87
a) Unnormal menstruation much
b) If un pain after 6 hours of amniocentesis.
c) If un able to deliver baby after 12 hours of pain.
d) If un clear afterbirth within a hour of birthing.
B94 Birth Preparedness and complication readiness plan
a)10 facts
Barriers and delays to accessing maternal health
B95 services.
(3) types of delays
a) Delaying making decision to go health department
on time.
b) Delaying to go health department.
c) Delaying to get quality treatment.
Six Cleans and Clean Delivery Kits (CDK)
B96
Demonstration
a) Space
b) Clean Scissor or light knife to cut umbilical cord.
c) Clean glove
d) Umbilical cord clip
e) Clean cotton diaper
f) Clean clothes for woman
Family Planning and modern
B97
methods of birth spacing
B98 Menstruation cycle
B99 Dignity Kits
B910 72hour poster on CMR
Indicator 1120.3: % and # of targeted women and girls who demonstrate a good understanding SRHR
Question B.10. Understanding Sexual and Reproductive Rights (Adult Survey)
I will read a list of statements that about the relationships between men and women and their respective rights. Please tell me if you
agree or disagree with these statements.
[Read list of statements]

1. Agree 98. Don’t know Correct
Answer the following questions with ‘Agree’ or ‘Disagree’
0. 99. Refused to Answer
Is the following a case of sexual or gender-based violence:
Disagree Answer
B101 An adolescent girl is ready to bear children once she has had her first 0
period
B102 Once a woman uses a contraceptive, she will have a more difficult time 0
getting pregnant in the future
B103 A man should have the final word about decisions in his home, including 0
the number of children
B104 A woman should be able to refuse sex with her partner 1
B105 Both a husband and a wife should be tested regularly for STIs and HIV 1
B106 It is up to the man to decide if condoms should be used 0
B107 A couple should decide together if they want to have children 1
B108 Using clean, reusable cloths during menstruation is ok 1
B109 A woman can suggest using condoms just like a man can 1
B1010 Using ‘the pill’ can help to prevent the spread of STIs 0
B1011 A real man produces a male child 0
B1012 A person with AIDS always looks unhealthy 0
B1013 If a couple has not been able to have a child, the issue is with the 0
woman
B1014 If a woman is healthy, she does not need to visit a doctor before giving 0
birth
B1015 It is the father’s right to decide when a girl should be married 0
B1016 It is ok to talk to a doctor about problems or pain I am experiencing 1
during sex
B1017 A woman with pregnant should be aware of three delays for her health, 1
including delay to make decision to go to the health care center, delay
to reach to the health care center, and delay to get quality health care
[For calculation, a respondent demonstrates a good understanding of SRHR if they answer 14 out of 16questions correctly]
C. Sector 2: Shelter & NFIs
88
Indicator 1200.1: % and # of PSNs (M, F) who report increased quality of life through the use of distributed NFIs
Question C.1
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I am able to access to enough and improved quality of NFIs that I received
and I feel satisfied to use these distributed NFIs”. (Note: This question should be asked PSNs who have received NFIs through the
project.)
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Indicator 1200.2: % and # of targeted IDP households who report feeling safe in their shelters (disaggregated by MHH and FHH)
(Note: This question should only be asked Shelter beneficiaries.)

Question C.2
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I feel safe when I am in my shelter”
7. Disagree
9. Agree
10. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Question C.2.1
To what extent can you also tell us a bit more about how you feel safe living in your shelters? Why?
Question C.2.2
To what extent can you also tell us a bit more about why not you feel safe living in your shelters?
Indicator 1210.1: Average level of satisfaction (1-5 scale [1-low; 5-high] among PSNs (M/F) with the quality of NFIs received
Question C.3
To what extent how do you express the level of your satisfaction upon receiving the NFIs and their quality among PSNs? (Note: Please
rate your level of satisfaction on “1-low; 5-high).
Statement Level of Satisfaction (Please Tick)
1 2 3 4 5
I feel satisfied upon receiving the NFIs and I confirm that the quality of
NFIs is good (among PSNs).
Note: This question should be asked PSNs (who received support of quality of NFIs).
Indicator 1220.1: % and # of shelter beneficiaries (M/F) who express satisfaction with the privacy and safety of their housing
Question C.4
Q1: Does your shelter provide you adequate levels of privacy for sleeping, changing, and other tasks.
A1: yes / no
Q2: Do you feel safe in your shelter from the elements (rain, wind, etc.) and unwanted intruders.
A2: yes / no
If the answers to all questions are YES, the indicator is met (i.e., shelter beneficiaries (M/F) are satisfied with the privacy and safety
of their shelters”).
D. Camp Management and Coordination

Indicator 1300.1: % and # of targeted host community residents (M/F) who agree or strongly agree with the statement “those living in
the IDP camps are welcome in our community”
Question D.1
89
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Those living in the IDP camps are welcome in our community.”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Indicator 1300.2: % and # of IDP and host community women in joint households who make significant household decisions jointly or by
themselves9
Question D.2
In your household, who normally makes the decisions about
most of the activities listed below?
1 – Respondent herself
2 – Husband
3 – Respondent and husband jointly
4 – Another HH member
5 – Respondent and another HH member jointly
6 – Someone outside the HH
97 – Not applicable
98 – Not sure/ Don’t know
Type of decision: 99 – Refused to answer
What food to buy and consume
Large purchases, such as furniture or mobile phones
Whether the household should take out a loan, from what
source, and how much to borrow
Approving a marriage
When to visit your relatives or friends
How many children to have
How to educate your children
Whether to see a doctor if a child is sick
Whether to see a doctor if you are sick
Indicator 1300.3: # of monthly CMC (DIP camp) and VDC (host community) meetings where WDG or YDG members provided
meaningful input into decision making processes
Question D3
This question should only be asked to WDG or YDG members who participate in CMC or VDC meetings.
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “At the last 2 CMC/VDC meetings I participated in, members of my group
(WDG or YDG) brought issues to the attention of the CMC/VDC.”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
99. Refuse to answer
Indicator 1310.1: % and # of targeted IDPs (M/F) who express confidence in the CMC to monitor and advocate on human rights
concerns
Question D4
Introduction: The project team should also develop a locally accepted and understood definition of “human rights issues” that should be
stated at the beginning of this question to ensure that beneficiaries understand what is being asked.
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I would feel confident in the CMC’s ability to receive and fairly respond to
human rights issues in camps”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
90
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Question D5
How many can express their voices in the decision-making forum in CMC in your camp? You can count “Yes” or “No” to answer the
following statement. Yes = 1, No = 0
D51 Movement restriction Tick
D52 Lack of access to basic services (health and educations)
D53 Lack of income and employment opportunities
D54 Sexual and Gender based violence
D55 Domestic violence against women and girls
D56 Unfair wages for both men and women in labor works
D57 Early/child marriage
D58 Lack of access to post-primary and higher education
D59 Lack of land and property rights
D510 Undermine to return back to place of displacements
D511 Poor shelter situation – lack of privacy and safety
D512 Security threats/risks
D513 Others
Indicator 1310.2: % and # of targeted IDPs and host community members (M/F) who indicate that poor pathways are a barrier to
economic, educational or social activities
Question D6
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Disrepair of pathways within camps prevent me from accessing income
generation activities, schooling, or social activities.”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Question D7
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “Disrepair of pathways between the camp and host community prevent
me from accessing income generation activities, schooling, or social activities.”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
[It is also important to desegregate M/F in Host Communities and M/F in IDP camps.
If the response is Agree or Strongly Agree for either of the above questions the respondent should be recorded as indicating poor
pathways are a barrier.]
[Note: Questions D6 & D7 should be focused more on the answers of those who live close to one of the pathways that we have
improved or not.]
Question D8
Indicator 1320.1: % and # of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to express their opinions in a group setting
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I feel confident sharing my opinion in a group of other women”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
91
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Question D9
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I feel confident sharing my opinion in a group of other men and women”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
[If the response is Agree or Strongly Agree for either of the above questions the respondent should be recorded as indicating they feel
confident expressing their opinions in group settings, but we should keep track of whether it’s with only other women or with both men
and women for the analysis of this indicator.}
Indicator 1320.2: % and # of women and girls in WDGs and YWDGs who feel confident to participate in community decision making
processes.
Question D10
To what extent do you agree with the following statement: “I feel confident participating in community decision making processes.”
2. Disagree
4. Agree
5. Strongly agree
97. Not applicable
Indicator 1320.3: % and # of women trained in the Myanmar language and basic numeracy who demonstrate improved capacity in
these areas by the end of the project
“LWF Project Team have completed for those who benefited from language training. So, the question for this indicator will not be
included in this evaluation survey”.
92
Annex 2 Pre-test results for level of understanding of respondents in SGBV
Number of respondents = 6548
Level of understanding on SGBV
Sr.
Description of the topics (SGBV) Level-1 Level-2 (No. Level-3 (No. Level-4 (No. Level-5 (No. Total
No.
(No. & %) & %) & %) & %) & %)
1 Sex definition 2700 41% 1489 23% 2359 36% 6548
2 Gender definition 2100 32% 2180 33% 2268 35% 6548
3 Power Definition 1600 24% 2231 34% 2717 41% 6548
1). Economic Power 743 11% 3231 49% 2574 39% 6548
2). Physical Power 743 11% 3231 49% 2574 39% 6548
3). Social Power 743 11% 3231 49% 2574 39% 6548
4). Political Power 0 0% 1531 23% 5017 77% 6548
5). Aged Power 2600 40% 1487 23% 2461 38% 6548
4 Sharing Story 983 15% 991 15% 1200 18% 3374 52% 6548
5 GBV Definition/ Basic Gender Concept 1300 20% 1983 30% 3265 50% 6548
6 Types of GBV 1300 20% 1983 30% 3265 50% 6548
1). Physical Gender based

1650 25% 1487 23% 3411 52% 6548
violence/harassment
2). Psychosocial or emotional
1680 26% 1520 23% 3348 51% 6548
violence/harassment
3). Economicviolence/ harassment 991 15% 1983 30% 3574 55% 6548
4). Sexual violence/harassment 1300 20% 2100 32% 3148 48% 6548
True Stories Sharing Exercise related

7 986 15% 920 14% 1300 20% 3342 51% 6548
each violence/ harassment
8 Dialogue of child marriage 1487 23% 1800 27% 3261 50% 6548
Dialogue of GBV and Domestic

9 1350 21% 1003 15% 1150 18% 3045 47% 6548
violence
10 Child Trafficking 1200 18% 1100 17% 1600 24% 2648 40% 6548
Consequences of GBV to Survivor

11 1487 23% 1487 23% 3574 55% 6548
(GBV tree)
12 Psychosocial or emotional 1487 23% 1487 23% 3574 55% 6548
1.Fatal 1487 23% 1487 23% 3574 55% 6548
2.Non-fatal 1487 23% 1487 23% 3574 55% 6548
a) Physical 742 11% 1116 17% 1116 17% 3574 55% 6548
b) Social 1487 23% 1850 28% 3211 49% 6548
13 GBV Guiding Principles 742 11% 1300 20% 1116 17% 3390 52% 6548
1). Non-Discrimination 742 11% 1116 17% 1116 17% 3574 55% 6548
2). Confidentiality 742 11% 1116 17% 1116 17% 3574 55% 6548
3). Safety and Security 1487 23% 1487 23% 3574 55% 6548
93
4). Respect 972 15% 1300 20% 1116 17% 3160 48% 6548
14 Referral Pathway Systems 594 9% 650 10% 1786 27% 3518 54% 6548
15 Hotline numbers sharing 1487 23% 1487 23% 1156 18% 2418 37% 6548
16 Related Agency or organizations 1487 23% 1487 23% 1600 24% 1974 30% 6548
Annex 3 Pre-test results for level of understanding of respondents in SRHR

Number of respondents = 6548
Level of understanding on SRHR
Sr.
Description of the topics Level 1: Level 5:
No Level 2: Good Level 3: Fair Level 4: Poor Total
(SRHR) Excellent Unacceptable
. (No. & %) (No. & %) (No. & %)
(No. & %) (No. & %)
1 Introduction to SRHR 1800 27% 1200 18% 1200 18% 2348 36% 6548
a) Reproductive health
1800 27% 1200 18% 1200 18% 2348 36% 6548
definition
b) Health effected 1280 20% 1280 20% 1200 18% 2788 43% 6548
c) SRHR services 1042 16% 1010 15% 922 14% 3574 55% 6548
Maternal Health Danger
2 1220 19% 1112 17% 1300 20% 2916 45% 6548
signs
a) Unnormal menstruation
1600 24% 1200 18% 1600 24% 2148 33% 6548
much
b) Shock 1220 19% 1112 17% 1300 20% 2916 45% 6548
c) Headache too much
1220 19% 1112 17% 1300 20% 2916 45% 6548
and unclear eyes
d) Weak, illness 1220 19% 1112 17% 642 10% 3574 55% 6548
e) Stomachache or
1220 19% 1112 17% 642 10% 3574 55% 6548
abdomen ache
f) Fast breathing and
1302 20% 1220 19% 452 7% 3574 55% 6548
difficult to breath
Danger Sign during
3 0% 1492 23% 1650 25% 3406 52% 6548
maternal period
a) Unnormal menstruation
1220 19% 1112 17% 1800 27% 2416 37% 6548
much
b) If un pain after 6 hours
0% 1492 23% 1482 23% 3574 55% 6548
of amniocentesis.
c) If un able to deliver
baby after 12 hours of 0% 1800 27% 1600 24% 3148 48% 6548
pain.
d) If un clear afterbirth
0% 1600 24% 1600 24% 3348 51% 6548
within a hour of birthing.
Birth Preparedness and
4 complication readiness 0% 991 15% 1983 30% 3574 55% 6548
plan
a)10 facts 0% 991 15% 1983 30% 3574 55% 6548
Barriers and delays to
accessing maternal health
5 0% 1600 24% 2100 32% 2848 43% 6548
services.
(3) types of delays
a) Delaying making
decision to go health 1487 23% 1490 23% 1500 23% 2071 32% 6548
department on time.
b) Delaying to go health
1487 23% 1490 23% 1500 23% 2071 32% 6548
department.
c) Delaying to get quality
1487 23% 1490 23% 1156 18% 2415 37% 6548
treatment.
Six Cleans and Clean
6 Delivery Kits (CDK) 1600 24% 2100 32% 1156 18% 1692 26% 6548
Demonstration
94
a) Space 1600 24% 1490 23% 1156 18% 2302 35% 6548
b) Clean Scissor or light
1800 27% 1600 24% 1300 20% 1848 28% 6548
knife to cut umbilical cord.
c) Clean glove
1800 27% 1600 24% 1300 20% 1848 28% 6548
d) Umbilical cord clip 1487 23% 1490 23% 1156 18% 2415 37% 6548
e) Clean cotton diaper 1800 27% 1600 24% 1300 20% 1848 28% 6548
f) Clean clothes for woman
2100 32% 1490 23% 1156 18% 1802 28% 6548
Family Planning and
7 modern methods of birth 1200 18% 1200 18% 1983 30% 2165 33% 6548
spacing
8 Menstruation cycle 2100 32% 1800 27% 2100 32% 548 8% 6548
9 Dignity Kits 2100 32% 1800 27% 2100 32% 548 8% 6548
10 72hour poster on CMR 995 15% 985 15% 1800 27% 2768 42% 6548
95

Grha Phase II Final Evaluation Report (Draft) 10june21 Revised 28july21

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Grha Phase II Final Evaluation Report (Draft) 10june21 Revised 28july21

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FINAL EVALUATION REPORT

Gender Responsive Humanitarian Assistance to Conflict Affected IDP

Photo credit: LWF Myanmar Sittwe Project Office

Objective of the final evaluation

Intermediate outcome: 1100

Intermediate outcome: 1200.1:

Intermediate outcome: 1200.2:

Intermediate outcome: 1300

II. Immediate outcomes

Immediate outcome: 1120:

Immediate outcome: 1120.2:

Immediate outcome: 1310

Immediate outcome 1320:

Gender Responsive Analysis

I-3. Increase female facilitator/coordinator at camp and host community level

II-3 Consider the mitigation of risks against COVID-19 pandemic crisis

1.2 Summary of the project

WASH and SRHR

1.4 Justification of the final evaluation study

Outcome Project Description of required outcomes

Immediate SRHR activities Increased awareness and understanding of SRHR, the

Immediate Basic necessities Increased access to basic necessities for highly

Immediate Basic necessities Increased access to safe, dignified, gender responsive

1.5 Objectives of the final evaluation assessment

2.1 Overview of the final evaluation approach

2.2 Sample size and demographic data of survey respondents

2.3 Demographic information of survey respondents

Ohn Taw Gyi (S) 3 5 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 8 15 23

Table 2.3 List of individual respondents in Host Community Villages

Table 2.7 (a) Gender of respondents in IDP camps (n=184)

Table 2.7 (b) Gender of respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138)

Table 2.8 (a) Age of respondents in IDP camps (n=184)

Table 2.8 (b) Age of respondents in Host Community Villages (n=138)

2.4 Preparation for final evaluation study and evaluation framework

2.4.1 Evaluation framework

2.4.2 Development of evaluation methods and tools

2.5 Data collection tools and process

2.6 Data entry and analysis process

2.7 Survey challenges and limitations

3. DISCUSSION ON SURVEY FINDINGS

3.1 Discussion on Ultimate Outcomes

Value % in Host Communities:

3.2 Discussion on Intermediate Outcomes

3.2.1 Intermediate outcomes for WASH

Assessment Indicator #1 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessment Indicator #2 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessment Indicator #3 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessment indicator #1 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessment indicator #2 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessment indicator #3 for Basic WASH Needs

Assessment measurable indicator for SGBV

End-line result in Host Community:

End-line result Host Community Members:

Baseline result in Host Communities:

1 Strongly disagree 0 0.00%

1 Strongly disagree 0 0.00%

3.3.1 Immediate outcome for 1110

Male Female Total Male Female Total

1 Tube well or borehole 51 77 128 4 6 10

Male Female Total Male Female Total

3.3.3 Immediate outcomes for 1210

Male 0 0 5 (41.67%) 3 (25.00%) 4 (33.33%)

3.3.4 Immediate outcome 1220

3.3.5 Immediate outcome 1310