sajhedari bikaas project - nepal development research ... · sajhedari bikaas project partnership...
TRANSCRIPT
Page |
Sajhedari Bikaas Project Partnership for Local Development
Assessing Local Governance in
Earthquake Recovery Districts of Nepal
Baseline Assessment
September 2016
Page | 1
Sajhedari Bikaas Project
Partnership for Local Development
Assessing Local Governance in Earthquake Recovery Districts
of Nepal: Baseline Assessment
September 2016
Assessment conducted by,
Nepal Development Research Institute for the Sajhedari Bikaas Project
(Under Contract DUNS No.557770222)
This study is made possible by the generous support of the American people through the United States Agency
for International Development (USAID). The content provided is the responsibility of Nepal Development
Research Institute (NDRI) and does not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.
Page | 2
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ...................................................................................................................................................... 2
Tables ........................................................................................................................................................................... 4
Figures ......................................................................................................................................................................... 5
Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................. 7
Acknowledgements................................................................................................................................................... 8
Chapter 1: Introduction .................................................................................................................... 9 1.1 Project Background ................................................................................................................................... 9 1.2 Program Interventions ............................................................................................................................... 9 1.3 Objectives ................................................................................................................................................ 10
Chapter 2: Methodology ............................................................................................................... 11 2.1 Area of Study .......................................................................................................................................... 11 2.2 Sampling Strategy ................................................................................................................................. 12
2.1.1 Sample Design ................................................................................................................................... 12 2.1.2 Sample Size Distribution:.................................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Data Collection Technique .................................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study .................................................................................... 14
2.4.1 Questionnaire Design ........................................................................................................................ 14 2.4.2 Pilot-Study ........................................................................................................................................... 15
2.5 Training of Field Researchers and their Mobilization...................................................................... 16 2.6 Data Processing and Analysis .............................................................................................................. 16 2.7 Quality and Validity of Data............................................................................................................... 17 2.8 Limitations ................................................................................................................................................. 17 2.9 Ethical Issues ............................................................................................................................................. 17
Chapter 3: Results and Discussion ................................................................................................ 18 3.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents ........................................................................ 18
3.1.1 Age ....................................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.2 Caste/ethnicity ................................................................................................................................... 18 3.1.3 Household Head ................................................................................................................................ 19 3.1.4 Marital Status ..................................................................................................................................... 20 3.1.5 Literacy Status .................................................................................................................................... 21 3.1.6 Primary Occupation .......................................................................................................................... 22 3.1.7 Current Shelter ................................................................................................................................... 23 3.1.8 Physical Disability .............................................................................................................................. 23 3.1.9 Awareness about Different Organizations and their Effectiveness ......................................... 24 3.1.10 Top Five Effective Organizations ................................................................................................. 27
3.2 Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) Members................................................................................................ 29 3.2.1 Respondents as WCF Members ...................................................................................................... 29 3.2.2 WCF Members’ Involvement in VDC Planning Process ............................................................... 30
3.3 Community Development Projects (CDPs) .......................................................................................... 31 3.3.1 Awareness of CDPs ........................................................................................................................... 31 3.3.2 Participation in CDP Activities ......................................................................................................... 32 3.3.3 Perception of CDP Activities and Services .................................................................................... 34 3.3.4 Types of CDPs and Cost ................................................................................................................... 35 3.3.5 Criteria for Selection of CDP .......................................................................................................... 35 3.3.6 Public Hearings .................................................................................................................................. 36
3.4 VDC Service Delivery ............................................................................................................................ 38 3.4.1 Types of Services Received through VDC ..................................................................................... 38 3.4.2 Effectiveness of Services Delivered through VDCs ..................................................................... 38
Page | 3
3.4.3 Reason for Ineffective Services Provided by VDC ..................................................................... 39 3.4.4 Prioritization of Infrastructure or Service Improvements ............................................................ 40 3.4.5 Level of Satisfaction with VDC Service Delivery ......................................................................... 40 3.4.6 VDC Staff Presence ........................................................................................................................... 41 3.4.7 Perception of the Utilization of Funds in VDCs ............................................................................ 42 3.4.8 Sources Utilized for Gathering Information on the Transparency of the use of VDC Funds 43
3.5 Conflict Mediation .................................................................................................................................. 44 3.5.1 Disputes Confronted .......................................................................................................................... 44 3.5.2 Type of Disputes Experienced ........................................................................................................ 45 3.5.3 Dispute Resolving Mechanisms ........................................................................................................ 46
3.6 Gender Based Violence (GBV) ............................................................................................................ 47 3.6.1 Perception of GBV and HH decision making ............................................................................... 47
3.7 Recovery and Reconstruction ................................................................................................................ 49 3.7.1 Knowledge about Mobile Service Camp (MSC) ......................................................................... 49 3.7.2 Types of Services received through Mobile Service Camps ..................................................... 49 3.7.3 Infrastructure/Services Damaged and Affected ......................................................................... 50 3.7.4 Extent of Damage of Infrastructure/Services and Their Restoration Levels .......................... 51
Chapter 4: Summary of key findings............................................................................................. 53 4.1 Key Findings............................................................................................................................................. 53
Demographic Features..................................................................................................................................... 53 WCF Membership and Participation in VDP ............................................................................................... 53 Community Development Projects .................................................................................................................. 54 VDC Service Delivery ...................................................................................................................................... 54 Conflict Mediation ............................................................................................................................................ 54 Gender Based Violence .................................................................................................................................. 55 Recovery and Reconstruction .......................................................................................................................... 55
Annex ........................................................................................................................................................................ 56
Page | 4
Tables
Table 1: Project indicators ............................................................................................................................................. 10
Table 2: Salient features of study districts ................................................................................................................. 11
Table 3: Population and sample size by caste/ethnicity and district ................................................................... 12
Table 4: Total sample in VDC by district .................................................................................................................... 13
Table 5: Data collection type ....................................................................................................................................... 14
Table 6: Pre-test survey sample in Chhampi VDC .................................................................................................... 16
Table 7: Age distribution of respondents in percentages ....................................................................................... 18
Table 8: Percentage of respondents by caste/ethnicity ......................................................................................... 19
Table 9: Percentage of respondent’s relationship to head of household ............................................................ 19
Table 10: Percentage of educational status by respondent type ......................................................................... 21
Table 11: Percentage of educational status of respondents by caste/ethnicity ................................................ 21
Table 12: Percentage of occupational status by respondent type ....................................................................... 22
Table 13: Percentage of respondent’s shelter by caste/ethnicity ......................................................................... 23
Table 14: Percentage of disability by age group and respondent type ........................................................... 24
Table 15: Percentage of respondent’s knowledge about different organizations who said yes ................... 26
Table 16: Percentage of respondent’s perception on level of effectiveness about different organizations 26
Table 17: Percentage of age distribution of WCF members ................................................................................. 29
Table 18: Percentage of WCF respondents who said yes to participation, made suggestion and voice their opinion ............................................................................................................................................................................... 30
Table 19: Percentage of response by caste/ethnicity ............................................................................................. 30
Table 20: Respondents perception on level of agreement on CDP activities by respondent type ................ 35
Table 21: Type of CDPs stated to cost too much money in percentage .............................................................. 35
Table 22: Percentage of responses for services accessed through VDC ............................................................. 38
Table 23: Explanations provided for ineffective VDC service delivery .............................................................. 39
Table 24: Percentage of level of satisfaction with VDC service delivery ........................................................... 41
Table 25: Presence of VDC secretary and VDC staff in VDC office .................................................................... 41
Table 26: Percentage of responses on sources used for information about VDC level public spending ...... 43
Table 27: Conflict faced by age classification ......................................................................................................... 44
Table 28: Type of conflict experienced by respondents in percentage .............................................................. 45
Table 29: Percentage among conflict experienced by respondent type ............................................................ 45
Table 30: Percentage of conflict resolving mechanism adopted by respondent ............................................... 46
Table 31: Summary based on Likert scale for GBV and HH decision making ................................................... 47
Table 32: Percentage of services damaged and respondent affected by the damage ................................. 50
Page | 5
Figures
Figure 1: Open Data Kit (ODK) framework for data collection ............................................................................ 15
Figure 2: Number of field researchers ........................................................................................................................ 16
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents as household heads by age group and respondent type ................... 20
Figure 4: Percentage of respondent's marital status ................................................................................................ 20
Figure 5: Percentage of respondent's primary occupational status ...................................................................... 22
Figure 6: Shelter of respondents in percentage ........................................................................................................ 23
Figure 7: Physical disability by respondent type...................................................................................................... 23
Figure 8: Percentage of respondents’ knowledge about different organizations ............................................. 25
Figure 9: Percentage of response for top five effective organizations ............................................................... 27
Figure 10: Percentage of respondent’s as member of WCF .................................................................................. 29
Figure11: Percentage of respondents who have heard about CDP (a) by respondent type (b) ................... 31
Figure 12: Percentage of respondent's awareness on role of CDP and benefits from them (a) by respondent type (b) ........................................................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who were beneficiary of CDP (a) by respondent type (b) ............... 32
Figure 14: Percentage of respondent participation in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) ................ 32
Figure 15: Voicing opinion in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage .................................. 33
Figure 16: Opinion acknowledged by meeting representative (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage 33
Figure 17: Respondents perception on level of agreement for CDP's in percentage ....................................... 34
Figure 18: Selection criteria for CDP (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage .............................................. 36
Figure 19: Public hearing event in VDC (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage ......................................... 36
Figure 20: Participation of respondents in public hearing (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage .......... 37
Figure 21: Level of effectiveness of the VDC service delivery in percentage .................................................... 39
Figure 22: Top three priority areas for improvement .............................................................................................. 40
Figure 23: VDC funds spent according to priority (a) by respondent type (b) in percentages ...................... 42
Figure 24: VDC fund transparency (a) by respondent type (b) ............................................................................ 43
Figure 25: Conflict faced by respondent types ........................................................................................................ 44
Figure 26: Awareness of mobile service camp .......................................................................................................... 49
Figure 27: Type of MSC received................................................................................................................................ 49
Figure 28: Responses in percentage for the types of services received through IMSC and SMSC ................ 50
Figure 29: Type of building damaged in percentage under the others category ............................................ 51
Figure 30: Percentage of damage extent and levels of infrastructure restoration ........................................... 52
Page | 6
Annexes
Annex 1: List of field researchers ................................................................................................................................. 56
Annex 2: Value Calculation Index ................................................................................................................................ 58
Annex 3: List of local organizations ............................................................................................................................. 61
Annex 4: Household questionnaire ............................................................................................................................... 62
Annex 5: Qualitative tools ............................................................................................................................................. 71
Annex 6: Workshop minutes and training agenda ................................................................................................... 75
Annex 7: Work plan ....................................................................................................................................................... 79
Annex 8: Data outputs .................................................................................................................................................... 81
Page | 7
Abbreviations
ASC Agriculture Service Center
CAC Citizen Awareness Center
CBS Central Bureau of Statistics
CDP Community Development Project
CMC Community Mediation Center
DDRC District Disaster Relief Committee
DMC Disaster Management Committee
FGD Focus Group Discussion
GBV Gender Based Violence
GPS Global Positioning System
HH Household
IMSC Integrated Mobile Service Camp
IPFC Integrated Plan Formulation Committee
KII Key Informant Interview
LSC Livestock Service Center
MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
MSC Mobile Service Camp
ODK Open Data Kit
PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment
PMC Project Management Committee
RAR Recovery and Reconstruction
RLG Radio Listeners Group
SB Sajhedari Bikaas
SMSC Sectoral Mobile Service Camp
SPSS Statistical Package for Social Sciences
SSIPs Small-Scale Infrastructure Projects
SSPL Syntegrate Services Pvt. Ltd.
TLO Tole Lane Organization
USAID United States Agency for International Development
VDC Village Development Committee
VDP Village Development Planning
VWASHCC Village Water Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Committee
WCF Ward Citizen Forum
Page | 8
Acknowledgements
This baseline study report on Assessing Local Governance in Earthquake Recovery Districts of Nepal was
prepared by the Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) under the leadership of Prof. Dr. Punya P.
Regmi, and thematic experts Purushottam Ghimire – Governance; Dr. Raj Man Shrestha-Data
Management; Dr. Umesh Bhattarai-Conflict Mediation; Dr. Manjeshwori Singh-Gender and Social Inclusion;
Prof. Dr. Tara Nidhi Bhattarai-Disaster Risk Reduction; and Research Associates, Ms. Anita Khadka and Ms.
Kriti Shrestha. NDRI is highly indebted for the contributions made by this team. The findings shed light on
strengthening governance in affected districts, and assists Sajhedari Bikaas (SB), USAID and the
Government of Nepal in providing evidence-based interventions.
NDRI is grateful to SB for awarding this project in assessing governance mechanisms in the earthquake-
affected areas. NDRI would also like to acknowledge SB for their continuous technical backstopping in
designing survey tools, as well as for their coordination and facilitation during workshops, trainings, field
data collection and with data analysis. NDRI highly appreciates the remarkable contribution from
Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd (SSPL) for designing the Android-based tools utilized for mobile phones; their
participation during workshops, training, and creative use in handling data issues; and providing us with
clean datasets for further analysis. We also owe a special thanks to experts from SB and USAID for their
much-appreciated understanding, advice and assistance while developing tools for the baseline
assessment.
This research would not have been completed without our outstanding cohort of field supervisors whose
guidance during field surveys to field enumerators was highly commendable. Effective coordination from
the local agencies during field work in the study districts was also praiseworthy, without whom the work
would have been strenuous. The commitment from all field enumerators during data collection despite the
challenging monsoon weather was also greatly appreciated. Our gratitude also goes to all the
respondents for their voluntary participation, and to key informants, district and VDC officials for their
participation in group discussions despite their hectic schedule.
NDRI would also like to acknowledge Ms. Rupa Bhandari for her administrative role and support with
logistics throughout the project. NDRI also expresses its appreciation to all its staff who directly or
indirectly contributed to the project.
Dr. Jaya K. Gurung
Executive Director
Page | 9
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 Project Background
Sajhedari Bikaas (SB), a USAID-funded project aims to empower communities to direct their own
development through strategic interventions. These include:
a) Improving the enabling environment by addressing the causes of conflict, and providing a more
effective short-term resolution mechanism;
b) Strengthening inclusion and participation of communities and marginalized groups in the local
planning process;
c) Supporting the economic empowerment of marginalized groups; and,
d) Strengthening more accountable and transparent local government.
SB intends to reinforce the relationship between local government bodies which include VDCs and
Municipalities, and citizens who benefit from their services, while simultaneously working to maintain
transparency, accountability and responsiveness at the local level. SB has been operational in six mid-west
and far-west districts of Nepal since 2012, and its interventions are carried out through local civil society
organizations and government collectively, with technical and financial support provided by SB
staff/USAID.
After the destructive earthquakes in April and May 2015, the most affected districts (14 in total) received
immediate relief in the form of food and nonfood items, but not in the amounts needed to meet local
requirements. Moreover, the prolonged delay with recovery and reconstruction activities as managed by
the Government of Nepal demonstrates weaknesses with government structures to effectively manage
medium and large-scale disasters. Realizing the need to augment the capacities of local government in a
number of areas, USAID requested SB to extend its support to six of the highly affected districts which
include: Dhading, Dolakha, Gorkha, Lamjung, Makwanpur and Ramecchap.
Through this baseline survey, SB is looking to assess local governance and governance-led recovery
processes in these districts. The baseline information established in this study will provide a benchmark for
designing and implementing evidence-based interventions for future planning, operational and capacity
development support. SB’s micro-grant program in particular is expected to be a major incentive for
introducing community-led development and reconstruction activities which will be implemented through
local bodies.
1.2 Program Interventions
The recommendations from the Post-Disaster Needs Assessment (PDNA) and the outputs generated from
this baseline survey will support SB’s interventions in 106 VDCs and one municipality in the six earthquake-
affected districts. Communities in these districts will be placed at the center of the recovery/reconstruction
effort to ensure local ownership and sustainability of their projects, in line with SB’s governance and
community-led approach. Planned interventions for these districts/municipality include:
Facilitate the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development’s (MoFALD) Post-Disaster Planning
Process
Enhance the working capacity of District Disaster Relief Committees (DDRC)
Page | 10
Rapidly roll-out locally-managed, small-scale infrastructure projects (SSIPs) and other community
initiatives
Coordinate Integrated/Sectoral Mobile Service Camps (I/SMSC)
Reinforce and institutionalize citizen oversight, social accountability, and public reporting processes
Support mitigation of grievances and disputes
1.3 Objectives
The overall purpose of this study is to establish baseline information on local governance and recovery
status in the study districts based on 13 indicators devised for the project (Table 1). Seven indicators
related to local governance have been extracted from SB’s original districts. Six custom indicators specific
to recovery and reconstruction were also developed, as shown in Table 1. These indicators were designed
to assess the existing governance situation in the six earthquake-affected districts, and to understand the
government-led recovery process in the area. The specific objectives of this study are as follows:
To understand the responsiveness of government to citizens’ needs
To understand the satisfaction level of citizens with the service delivered by the VDCs
To enumerate the recovery efforts in the six districts.
Table 1: Project indicators
Governance Indicators from SB
Proportion of households that have experienced conflicts in the past year that have used peaceful means to solve the conflict
A.1.01
Proportion of Ward Citizen Forum members who indicate that they can provide meaningful input to the village development plans
B.2.03
Proportion of citizens who feel that the administration of funds in the VDC is transparent C.1.01
Proportion of citizens who indicate that they actively participate in the decisions around VDC community development projects
C.2.01
Percentage change in positive citizen views on VDC service delivery D.1.01
Percentage change in positive citizen views on the effective implementation of community development projects
D.2.03
New Indicators for the Six Recovery Districts
Percentage of target population that views GBV as less acceptable after participation in, or being exposed to USG programming.
E.1.03
% of population that has accessed government services outside of the district headquarters in the last six months through integrated mobile service campaign.
F.1.01
% of population affected by loss of health center services as result of disasters, or other crises have been restored their services
F.1.02
% of population whose access to water and sanitation services was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been restored
F.1.03
% HHs whose access to irrigation facilities was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been restored
F.1.04
% of HHs whose access (trail/road) was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been restored
F.1.05
Official's perspective on effective implementation of community development projects; of relief and recovery activities.
F.1.06
Page | 11
CHAPTER 2: METHODOLOGY This chapter elaborates on how the baseline survey was organized, designed and conducted. It also
presents details on the selection of the study areas and survey approaches such as estimating sample size,
its distribution, tools developed, field data collection, data processing approaches, data quality assurance,
limitations, and ethical considerations.
2.1 Area of Study
The study was carried out in the six earthquake-affected districts of Gorkha, Lamjung, Dhading,
Makwanpur, Dolakha and Ramechhap. 106 VDC’s and one municipality were surveyed and 9,189
respondents interviewed. The salient features of the study area are shown in Table 2 and Map 1.
Table 2: Salient features of study districts
Districts Gorkha Lamjung Dhading Makwanpur Dolakha Ramechhap
Area in km2 3,610 1,692 1,926 2,426 2,191 1,547
Population 271,061 167,724 336,067 420,477 186,557 202,646
Population density
per sq.km. 75.08 99.13 174.49 173.32 85.15 130.99
Average HH size 4.07 3.99 4.55 4.88 4.08 4.61
Literacy rate 66.3 71.1 62.9 67.9 62.8 62.2
Sex Ratio 80.68 82.68 88.55 96.68 87.40 85.47
No. of Survey VDCs 21 12 21 18 18 18
* Data archived from CBS, 2011.
Map 1: Area of Study
Total Sample Respondents
Ramechhap 1,500
Dolakha 1,477
Dhading 1,529
Makwanpur 1,450
Gorkha 1,853
Lamjung 1,380
TOTAL 9,189
Total Sample households
= 3,063
Page | 12
2.2 Sampling Strategy This section discusses the sampling strategy which comprises the method of sample size determination and
its distribution in sample districts according to caste/ethnicity at the VDC level.
2.1.1 Sample Design
To ensure the findings are statistically valid, a 95% confidence level and 5% confidence interval was
employed for the sample size determination in each district. The sample generated for this study was
9,114 individuals, where this sample frame provided by SB included its disaggregation according to caste
and ethnicity within each district (Table 3). A sample of 9,114 individuals was designed in such a way that
three respondents were to be interviewed from a household i.e. 3,038 households were estimated to meet
the target sample of 9,114 individuals. The three respondents to be interviewed from a household were
categorized as male, female and youth. Youth for this study could be anyone between 16 and 40 years of
age, while other respondents (male and female) could be 16 years and above. Analysis has been carried
out based on these three types' individuals, where there is no repetition involved. Considering the risk of
getting incomplete questionnaires, an additional 25 HHs (75 individuals) were surveyed, bringing the total
figure to 9,189 individuals interviewed.
Table 3: Population and sample size by caste/ethnicity and district
S.N Caste/Ethnicity Hill/Mountain
Brahmin/Chhetri
Hill/Mountain
Janajatis
Newar Hill
Dalits
Religious Minority
Total
1 Ramechhap N 22,451 38,964 6,626 5,864 - 73,905
n 378 381 364 361 - 1,484
2 Dolakha N 24,134 31,831 3,027 4,699 - 63,691
n 379 80 341 356 - 1,456
3 Dhading N 47,672 56,256 16,004 18,516 202 138,650
n 382 382 376 377 - 1,517
4 Makwanpur N 16,442 101,312 5,048 4,182 - 126,984
n 376 383 357 352 - 1,468
5 Gorkha N 26,289 33,926 9,748 14,614 1258 85,835
n 379 380 370 375 295 1,799
6 Lamjung N 8,582 24,308 1,023 6,361 184 40,458
n 368 379 280 363 - 1,390
7
Total N 14,5570 28,6597 41,476 54,236 1644 529,523
n 2,262 2,285 2,088 2,184 295 9,114
2.1.2 Sample Size Distribution:
The data for computing baseline indictors were collected from a sample of 9114 individuals, which was
distributed in 106 sample VDCs and one Municipality. Access to road, concentration of disadvantage
groups (DAG), highly damaged VDCs by earthquake and no overlapping of work by international and
national agencies in the area were set out as criteria for the selection of VDCs by SB. Of this total sample
of VDCs, 23 were of remote locations. A sample of 9,114 individuals was distributed using a simple
proportionate sampling procedure in the VDCs. The number of VDCs surveyed in Ramechhap, Dolakha,
Dhading, Makwanpur, Gorkha and Lamjung were 18, 18, 21, 18, 21 and 11 respectively. A proportion of
the population based on caste/ethnicity was estimated for each sample VDC according to total population
in a district. A final sample of respondents was then drawn with the known proportion with respect to
district, VDC and caste/ethnicity. The final sample population thus resulted in the number of individuals
surveyed (Table 4) according to district, VDC and caste/ethnicity. A simple random sampling technique
was employed for selecting the households from the surveyed VDCs.
Page | 13
Table 4: Total sample in VDC by district
S.N Gorkha Lamjung Dhading Makwanpur Dolkha Ramechhap
VDC Sample
HH
VDC Sample
HH
VDC Sample
HH
VDC Sample
HH
VDC Sample
HH
VDC Sample
HH
1 Bakrang 15 Rainas municipality 297 Aginchok 14 Ambhanjyang 44 Alampu 9 Betali 38
2 Bhumlichok 17 Bansar 18 Chainpur 29 Bhaise 22 Babere 23 Bethan 26
3 Borlang 35 Bichaur 23 Chhatredeurali 22 Bharta Pundyadevi 7 Bigu 13 Dadhuwa 26
4 Bungkot 50 Dhodeni 20 Darkha 13 Budhichaur 4 Chankhu 10 Dhimipokhari 17
5 Chairung 28 Dudhpokhari 14 Dhola 17 Chhatiwan 78 Chilankha 26 Doramba 25
6 Chhoprak 35 Gauda 18 Jiwanpur 30 Chitlang 79 Jhyanku 27 Goswara 24
7 Darbung 22 Ilampokhari 16 Jyamrung 30 Dandakharka 9 Jiri 99 Gunsi 3
8 Dhawa 22 Kolki 13 Kalleri 37 Dhiyal 12 Kalinchau 16 Gupteshwar 43
9 Ghyalchok 44 Nauthar 22 Khalte 27 Fakhel 17 Khare 18 Khandadevi 23
10 Harmi 44 Pachok 14 Khari 15 Faparbari 51 Khopachangu 15 Khimti 35
11 Jaubari 16 Phaleni 8 Kumpur 44 Kankada 15 Lamindanda 33 Lakhanpur 48
12 Makising 13 Maidi 36 Makwanpurgadhi 58 Lapilang 27 Namadi 25
13 Mankamana 33 Mulpani 11 Manthali 8 Marbu 15 Phulasi 40
14 Namjung 17 Nalung 33 Markhu 22 Namdu 56 Priti 35
15 Phujel 31 Naubise 45 Raigaun 31 Sundrabati 14 Rasnalu 20
16 Shrinathkot 16 Phulkharka 13 Raksirang 15 Sunkhani 39 Tharpu 9
17 Taklung 25 Ri 13 Sukaura 7 Suri 29 Tilpung 31
18 Tandrang 22 Salang 20 Thingan 10 Syama 15 Tokarpur 27
19 Tanglichok 15 Salyankot 18
20 Taple 85 Salyantar 29
21 Thalajung 13 Satyadevi 9
TOTAL 21 600 11 463 21 506 18 489 18 485 18 495
Note: Highlighted in blue are Remote VDCs
Page | 14
2.3 Data Collection Technique
The team collected quantitative data through the individual survey, and qualitative data through focus
group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs). The different types of data were collected to
triangulate responses from individuals and government officials about recovery efforts, government
responsiveness, citizen needs and their overall satisfaction with the services provided.
The mobile-based individual questionnaire consisted of mostly closed-answer questions and a few open-
ended questions. Four types of group discussions (24 FGDs in total) and five KIIs with VDC officials (30)
were conducted in each district as summarized in Table 5.
Table 5: Data collection type
Data type Survey type Sample
Quantitative Individual Questionnaire Survey 9,189 individuals
Qualitative
Focus Group Discussion 4 per districts
- District officials
- Female group
- Mixed group
- Youth group
Key Informant Interview 5 per district
- VDC secretary/VDC officials
2.4 Questionnaire Development and Pilot Study
2.4.1 Questionnaire Design
The survey instruments including the questionnaires for the HH survey and the interview guides for FGD and
KIIs were designed collectively by a team of experts from SB and NDRI with experience in: Community
Development Projects (CDPs); VDC service delivery; the function of a Ward Citizen Forum (WCF); Conflict
Mediation (CM); Gender Based Violence (GBV); and on Recovery and Reconstruction (RR). These tools
were further refined after a one-day workshop organized by SB at NDRI on May 25, 2016. The minutes
of the workshop are provided in Annex 6. These tools were later approved by USAID after their careful
review. The household questionnaire had 51 questions and was categorized into nine sections (A to H,
Annex 4).
The approved survey instruments were translated into Nepali before field researchers were deployed.
After the development of the tools, household questionnaires were designed and uploaded to a mobile
interface developed by Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd. (SSPL). Open Data Kit (ODK) was used for mobile
data collection which uses the Android platform which supports a wide variety of prompts (text, number,
location, multimedia, barcodes) and can be used without network connectivity1. The questionnaires were
also integrated with GPS to view the data collected in real-time. The general framework adopted in ODK
collect is as follows:
1https://opendatakit.org/use/collect/
Page | 15
Figure 1: Open Data Kit (ODK) framework for data collection
2.4.2 Pilot-Study
A pilot survey was carried out to pre-test the household questionnaire using mobile phones. Since the major
focus of this survey is in earthquake-affected areas, an area with similar features was selected for the
pilot.
Chhampi VDC in Lalitpur (Map 2) district
(now Karyabinayak Municipality) was
chosen for the pilot study because of its
similarities to the survey area, i.e.,
remoteness, damage, diverse population
(caste/ethnicities/marginalized groups).
Six field supervisors and an expert from
NDRI tested the survey tools on May 30,
2016. A total of 13 respondents were
interviewed in the pilot area. The
respondents represented a variation in
caste/ethnicity and respondent types for
the main HH survey (Table 6).
The pre-test was used to observe and
document the clarity of the questionnaire
in Nepali, relevance of questions, ease
or reluctance of the respondents in
answering the questions, efficiency of
data collection using mobile phones, and
time taken to complete a questionnaire.
Issues encountered during the pre-test
were addressed and modified
accordingly in the final questionnaire.
The data from the pilot survey is not
included in this baseline survey report.
Build
Creating
Forms
Collect
Android app
Download
forms/collect
data
Upload data&
send it to server
Aggregate
Store
Export Data in
excel
Map 2. Pilot Area – Chhampi VDC
Page | 16
Table 6: Pre-test Survey Sample in Chhampi VDC
Respondent Male Female Youth-Male Youth-Female
Brahmin/Chhetri 2 3 - -
Marginalized group (Dalit) - 3 3 2
Total respondents =13
2.5 Training of Field Researchers and their Mobilization
A total of 55 field researchers were recruited for the survey, of which six were field supervisors and 49
were field enumerators. Field researchers were selected according to different parameters including
gender, caste/ethnicity, relevant educational qualifications, ability to speak the local language, whether
they were a resident of the survey district, and prior experience with conducting field surveys. A relatively
equal gender ratio of field researchers was ensured, 49 % female, and 51% male (Figure 2). Before their
training, six field supervisors participated in a one-day workshop to introduce the project and tools to be
employed, and to discuss their responsibilities for field planning to maintain data quality. This was
followed by a two-day training session on May 27-28 for all field researchers before the pilot study.
The two-day training focused on various
aspects of field research such as survey ethics,
project description, research methodology,
sample selection, questionnaire content and
survey techniques. SSPL trained the
participants on data collection through the
mobile platform and its submission protocols.
Training on ensuring utmost care to maintain
data quality while using mobile phones for
data collection was given to field researchers.
Field researchers carried out multiple mock
interviews in order to practice and become
familiar with the survey and interview guides.
The training was facilitated by NDRI thematic
experts, SB and SSPL. Following the training,
field data collection was carried out from June
4-16 under the leadership of field supervisors. Prior to field deployment, all field researchers were
provided with the following documents:
1. A list of district allocation to field researchers (Annex 1)
2. A list of local organizations (Annex 2)
3. Tools in both Nepali and English (Annex 4 & 5)
4. Field maps
5. Flow chart of the14-step planning process
2.6 Data Processing and Analysis
Data entry was carried out using Android mobile phones, and SSPL exported the data into MS-Excel and
SPSS formats. Before exporting data in the desired formats, the data stored in the central server was
reviewed by a team from SSPL to ensure it was complete. Data was checked to ensure it was complete
and then data was masked with appropriate coding in SPSS. After the complete coding and cleaning of
5
1
6
23
26
49
0 20 40 60
Male
Female
Total
Total number of reserachers
Enumerators Supervisors
Figure 2: Number of field researchers
Page | 17
datasets, NDRI analyzed the data using SPSS 20 software, which was used to produce frequency tables
and cross-tabulation aligning the analysis with respect to project indicators. The outputs generated were
used for preparing reports.
Qualitative data collected from the field was translated into English from Nepali and was used to validate
with quantitative data where relevant.
2.7 Quality and Validity of Data
The data collection for each district consisted of one supervisor and eight numerators. These supervisors
were well-trained on data collection methods, including planning, enumerator distribution, household
selection, respondent selection, and monitoring data collection. The supervisors were responsible for
ensuring the completion of the data collection process, solving problems encountered in the field, and with
closely monitoring the data collected in a timely manner. Data quality was maintained as the survey was
conducted using a mobile interface, and where appropriate, a skip logic system to ensure that all questions
were addressed properly. The data collection process was monitored by SSPL through a mobile GPS once
the questionnaire was completed. Data was immediately sent to a central server located at the SSPL office
whenever internet became available. NDRI kept track of all validations through GPS, regular inspection by
using supervisors, and applying on-the-spot monitoring of the study teams.
2.8 Limitations
The concept of governance can be complex and at times challenging to define as there are several factors
involved with assessing the governance situation within a particular area. This study focuses on seven key
indicators pertinent to local governance, and six key indicators for assessing government-led recovery
processes as outlined in SB’s project log frame. Thus, the analysis presented is restricted to these project
indicators.
2.9 Ethical Issues
The voluntary participation of respondents was ensured for the survey, FGD and KIIs. Prior to conducting
any of the interviews, consent was obtained from the respondents verbally. Respondents were also made
aware of the purpose of the study and of the interview process; that they were not being evaluated
based on the responses given and that only cumulative responses would be analyzed; and, assured that
any information provided would be kept anonymous. Consent was sought from all three types of
respondents (i.e., male, female and youth) during HH surveys, and from FGD and KII participants. The
individuals’ right to privacy, anonymity and confidentiality was maintained throughout the survey work,
with interviews lasting an average of 30 minutes.
Page | 18
CHAPTER 3: RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION 3.1 Socio-demographic Characteristics of Respondents
This chapter provides an overview of the social and demographic traits of the study population (e.g.,
caste/ethnicity, age group, marital status, literacy level, occupational status, shelter status after the
earthquake, and physical disability). The results are presented in aggregate and disaggregated by male,
female and youth. This information is useful in identifying and analyzing the data according to the
demographics of the study population. The three types of respondents in this study were male, female and
youth (both female and male), which accounted for 35.8%, 34.9% and 29.3% respectively.
3.1.1 Age
The age distribution of the respondents of the baseline survey is illustrated in Table 7, which ranged from
16 to 95 years. The age group of respondents under the categorization of male, female and youth
ranged from 16 to 95 years, 16 to 91 years and 16 to 40 years respectively. The mean age of male and
female respondents was 50 and 46 years, and 23 years for youth respondents. A significant proportion of
respondents were in the active age group of 16 to 59 years (85%), including all youth respondents and
83 % female and 74% male respondents.
Table 7: Age distribution of respondents in percentages
Age group in years Male Female Youth
16 -29 9.1 8.6 83.2
30-39 12.9 20.7 15.8
40-49 26.6 29.8 1.0
50-59 25.5 23.6 0.0
60 & above 25.9 17.3 0.0
Mean 50 45 23
Mode 45 50 16
3.1.2 Caste/ethnicity
Caste/ethnicity in this study was classified into five categories: Hill Brahmin/Chhetri, Hill Mountain Janajati,
Newar, Hill Dalits and Others / Religious Minority as shown in Table 8. The respondents were distributed
equally across the first categories of caste/ethnicity (approximately 25% each) except for the "others"
category which represents a smaller percentage (3.2%). All Muslim respondents were in the "others"
category.
Page | 19
Table 8: Percentage of respondents by caste/ethnicity
Respondent type
Hill
Brahmin/Chhetri
Hill Mountain Janajati
Newar Hill Dalits Others/
Religious Minority
Total
Male N 826 857 736 766 109 3,294
% 25.1 26.0 22.3 23.3 3.3 100
Female N 791 822 712 767 113 3,205
% 24.7 25.6 22.2 23.9 3.5 100
Youth N 685 675 629 629 72 2,690
% 25.5 25.1 23.4 23.4 2.7 100
Total N 2302 2,354 2,077 2,162 294 9,189
% 25.1 25.6 22.6 23.5 3.2 100
3.1.3 Household Head
Among the total number of respondents (N=9,189), 33% were household heads, 31% were sons or
daughters of the household heads, and 29% were husbands or wives of the household head, as shown in
Table9. Most household heads were male (90%) while only 1 in 10 households were headed by a female.
The percentage of female headed households in the baseline study was comparatively lower than the
national average being 25.7%.2
Table 9: Percentage of respondents’ relationship to head of household
Respondent type
Head of
Household Husband/
Wife Son/
Daughter Brother/
Sister Parent
Other Relative
Total
Male N 2,732 79 439 10 23 11 3,294
Row % 82.9 2.4 13.3 .3 .7 .3 100
Column % 89.6 3.0 15.7 13.0 25.8 2.2 35.8
Female N 301 2,533 144 5 62 160 3,205
Row % 9.4 79.0 4.5 .2 1.9 5.0 100
Column % 9.9 94.8 5.1 6.5 69.7 31.9 34.9
Youth N 16 59 2,219 62 4 330 2,690
Row % .6 2.2 82.5 2.3 .1 12.3 100
Column % .5 2.2% 79.2 80.5 4.5 65.9 29.3
Total N 3,049 2,671 2,802 77 89 501 9,189
Row % 33.2 29.1 30.5 .8 1.0 5.5 100
The relationship of household heads by age group was analyzed according to the respondent type as
shown in Figure 3. It indicates that 89% of the male headed households are 40 years of age or above.
The female heads of households were older, with 43.9% 60 years of age or above.
2 CBS, 2011. National Population and Housing Census. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramshah Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.
Page | 20
Figure 3: Percentage of respondents as household heads by age group and respondent type
3.1.4 Marital Status
The distribution of marital status by respondent type is displayed in Figure 4. Approximately 75% of the
respondents were married, including more than 90% of male and female respondents. Similarly, only 3%
of respondents were divorced or separated among which a higher percentage of female respondents
(6%) were either divorced or separated. The minimum age of marriage of male, female and youth
respondents was found to be 18, 16 and 16 years respectively.
Figure 4: Percentage of respondent's marital status
1.4%
9.7%
29.2% 29.7% 29.9%
1.0%
11.3%
19.6%
24.3%
43.9%
31.3%
56.3%
12.5%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 60 & above
Male
Female
Youth
.1%
60.7%
39.1%
5.5%
3.3%
91.2%
1.7%
4.6%
93.7%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Divorced / Separated
Unmarried
Married
Male Female Youth
Page | 21
3.1.5 Literacy Status
As an important determinant of economic security, literacy status in this study was categorized into three
types: illiterate, literate but no formal education, and literate with formal education. The baseline result
depicted that the major proportion of the sampling population were literate with formal education
(42.4%). However, this percentage was 1.5 times lower than the national average (65.9%). Female
literacy rates have always been lower than that of males in Nepal, which is also evident in this study
(Table 10). The percentage of literate female respondents with formal education was only 16%, which is
significantly below the national average of 57.4%. Furthermore, nearly half of the female respondents
were illiterate. Among male respondents, only a third of them have formal education. This is
approximately half the national average. Youth in this baseline study were significantly more literate
(83%).
Table 10: Percentage of educational status by respondent type
Respondent type
Illiterate Literate but no
formal education Literate with
formal education Total
Male N 773 1,363 1,158 3,294
% 23.5 41.4 35.2 100
Female N 1,491 1,199 515 3,205
% 46.5 37.4 16.1 100
Youth N 50 417 2,223 2,690
% 1.9 15.5 82.6 100
Total N 2,314 2,979 3,896 9,189
% 25.2 32.4 42.4 100
The literacy status of respondents analyzed by caste and ethnicity are shown in Table 11. Hill Brahmin/
Chhetri represented the highest category for formally literate respondents (31%) in contrast to Hill Dalits
(20%), followed by Hill Mountain Janajati (27%), Newar (20%) and Hill Brahmain/Chhetri (18.4%)
groups. Informal education levels according to caste/ethnicity was similar across all caste/ethnicities,
ranging between 22% and 26%.
Table 11: Percentage of educational status of respondents by caste/ethnicity
Caste/Ethnicity Illiterate Literate but no
formal education
Literate with formal
education
Hill Brahmin/Chhetri 18.4 22.3 31.2
Hill Mountain Janajati 27.1 26.4 24.1
Newar 20.0 24.3 22.9
Hill Dalits 31.3 22.8 19.5
Others/Religious Minority 3.2 4.3 2.4
Total 2314 2979 3896
Page | 22
3.1.6 Primary Occupation
Figure 5 shows that agriculture
is the primary occupation of
nearly half of the respondents.
Roughly 16% were students,
and 10% classify themselves as
housewives/house-maker
A disaggregation of
respondents by occupation
(Table 12) showed gender
disparity in occupational
sectors such as
industry/business, service and
labor. A similar percentage of
male (61%) and female (62%)
respondents were engaged in
agriculture. In contrast, 48% of
youth were students, and 20%
were involved in agriculture
activities. After agriculture, most
men were involved in industry/business (11%) while 25% of female respondents lead lives as
housewives/homemakers. Nearly 9% of male and youth respondents worked in the service sector but the
percentage of female respondents in this sector was very discouraging (1.5%).
Table 12: Percentage of occupational status by respondent type
Occupation Male Female Youth
Agriculture 60.8 61.7 20.3
Industry/Business 10.6 7.4 6.7
Service 8.8 1.5 9.2
Labor 9.1 .9 6.6
Student 2.9 2.3 47.7
Housewife/house-maker .6 25.5 4.3
Retired 3.1 .1 .0
Foreign employment 2.2 .1 2.0
Unemployed 1.8 .4 3.1
Others .1 .0 .0
Total 100 100 100
N 3,294 3,205 2,690
0.1%
1.2%
1.4%
1.7%
5.5%
6.4%
8.3%
10.4%
15.8%
49.3%
0 10 20 30 40 50
Others
Retired
Foreign employment
Unemployed
Labor
Service
Industry/Business
Housewife/house-…
Student
Agriculture
Percentage
Figure 5: Percentage of respondents’ primary occupational status
Page | 23
3.1.7 Current Shelter
More than half of the respondents (55.2%)
were still living in temporary shelters, while
42.5% were living in their own houses
(Figure 6). This could be due to delays in the
government-led reconstruction process or
varying degrees of poverty among
respondents.
Analysis based on caste/ethnicity in Table
13 indicated no major differences in terms of
caste/ethnicity for the type of shelter
reported by respondents.
Table 13: Percentage of respondent’s shelter by caste/ethnicity
Shelter Hill
Brahmin/Chhetri
Hill Mountain
Janjati Newar Hill Dalits
Others/ Religious Minority
Total
Temporary shelter
N 1,177 1,311 1,058 1,335 1,88 5,069
% 23.2 25.9 20.9 26.3 3.7 100
Own house
N 1,081 966 988 772 100 3,907
% 27.7 24.7 25.3 19.8 2.6 100
Rent
N 33 53 28 43 6 163
% 20.2 32.5 17.2 26.4 3.7 100
Relatives
N 7 21 3 9 0 40
% 17.5 52.5 7.5 22.5 0.0 100
Other
N 4 3 0 3 0 10
% 40.0 30.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 100
3.1.8 Physical Disability
According to the Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS)3,
the overall disability population in Nepal is about
2%, with physical disability being the most common at
more than one third of total disabilities recorded. In
this study, a small percentage of respondents were
physically disabled, or 1.3% of the total number of
respondents (n=120). Among these disabled
respondents, the ratio of disability in males was 1.36
times higher compared to females (Figure 7) which
corresponds with CBS national data.
The prevalence of disability among male (55%) and
female (44%) respondents by age group was
greater for those aged 60 and above as shown in
3 CBS, 2014. Population Monograph of Nepal, Volume 2. Central Bureau of Statistics, Ramshah Path, Kathmandu, Nepal.
.1%
.4%
1.8%
42.5%
55.2%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other
Relatives
Rent
Own house
Temporary shelter
Male,
44.2%
Female, 32.5%
Youth, 23.3%
Figure 6: Shelter of respondents in percentage
Figure 7: Physical disability by respondent type
Page | 24
Table 14. Moreover, disabilities among male and female respondents were found to have existed pre-
earthquake at 74% and 62% respectively. Disabilities among youth were most prominent, primarily for
the age group of 16-29 years (71%) with 50% occurring pre-earthquake, or at birth (50%). Of the total
number of disabled respondents (n=120), 16.7% of them became disabled after the earthquake, with
females totaling 65%, and males 35%.
Table 14: Percentage of disability by age group and respondent type
Respondent type Age classification
Total 16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥60
Male N 3 4 9 8 29 53
Row % 5.7 7.5 17.0 15.1 54.7 100
Column % 13.0 28.6 40.9 53.3 63.0 44.2
Female N 0 2 13 7 17 39
Row % 0.0 5.1 33.3 17.9 43.6 100
Column % 0.0 14.3 59.1 46.7 37.0 32.5
Youth N 20 8 0 0 0 28
Row % 71.4 28.6 0 0 0 100
Column % 87.0 57.1 0 0 0 23.3
Total
N 23 14 22 15 46 120
Row % 100 100 100 100 100 100
Column % 19.2 11.7 18.3 12.5 38.3 100
3.1.9 Awareness about Different Organizations and their Effectiveness
Figure 8 reveals the respondents’ knowledge regarding the various local level organizations (i.e.
committees, offices, units, groups, etc.) in the community. The majority of the respondents (>90%) were
aware of the roles and responsibilities of organizations such as the VDC office, VDC Health Post, and
Women’s Group. Nearly half of the respondents were aware of organizations like the Agriculture Service
Center (ASC), Village Water, Sanitation and Hygiene Coordination Committee (VWASHCC), and Livestock
Service Center (LSC). Only 25% of the respondents were aware of Community Mediation Centers (CMCs),
with only 33% of them aware of their roles and responsibilities.
Group discussions held with female and youth groups also showed a similar pattern of knowledge of roles
and responsibilities of organizations such as VDC office, VDC Health Post, Women’s Group and Police Unit.
Although these respondents had also heard about other organizations like the Disaster Management
Committee (DMC), Project Management Committee (PMC), Integrated Plan Formulation Committee (IPFC)
and CMC, they had little understanding of their functions. This could be due to their lack of involvement in
community activities or the government’s unsuccessful effort to publicize them in a manner easily
understandable.
Page | 25
Figure 8: Percentage of respondents ‘knowledge about different organizations
Table 15 illustrates the knowledge of organizations disaggregated by respondent types (among males
=3,294, females=3,205 and youth=2,690). On average, 42% male, 28% female and 30% youth
respondents were aware of the listed organizations. Overall, males surveyed were most aware of these
organizations followed by youth and female respondents.
Table 16 displays information about the effectiveness level of each organization from the respondents'
perspective. The bar chart shows that the majority of organizations were rated as effective, with health
posts and Women's Groups seen as most effective. The small sample of respondents familiar with radio
listeners (n=240) explains the outlier rankings in terms of effectiveness.
CMCs, a key service reignited by SB, were rated as effective by 66% of the total respondents (Table 16).
However, only 24% were aware of them (Figure 8). Most of the key informants see CMCs functioning at a
satisfactory level. It is still too early to measure the effectiveness of CMCs, as many have been recently
formed. FGD participants said that most people resolve conflicts without using CMCs, even those who are
aware of their existence.
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Radio Listeners Group
Tole Lane Organizations
Disaster Management Committee
Project Monitoring Committee
Citizen Awareness Center
Users group
Community Mediation Center
Ward Citizen Forum
Youth Groups
Livestock Service Center
Agricultural Service Center
Police Unit
Women or Mothers group
VDC Office
VDC health post
2.6%
8.4%
11.8%
11.8%
14.1%
17.8%
20.2%
23.7%
34.8%
43.1%
47.2%
47.4%
51.4%
82.5%
95.0%
96.8%
97.1%
Page | 26
Table 15: Percentage of respondent’s knowledge about different organizations who said yes
Organization No. who said yes % who said yes
Male Female Youth Male Female Youth
Ward Citizen Forum 1,407 774 1,015 44.0% 24.2% 31.8%
Citizen Awareness Center 692 359 584 42.3% 22.0% 35.7%
VDC Office 3,230 3,044 2,621 36.3% 34.2% 29.5%
Youth Groups 1,477 1,036 1,445 37.3% 26.2% 36.5%
Radio Listeners Group 114 48 78 47.5% 20.0% 32.5%
Community Mediation Center 890 611 674 40.9% 28.1% 31.0%
Women or Mothers group 3,106 3,041 2,583 35.6% 34.8% 29.6%
Agricultural Service Center 1,849 1,513 1,358 39.2% 32.1% 28.8%
Livestock Service Center 1,725 1,374 1,238 39.8% 31.7% 28.5%
Integrated Plan Formulation Committee 406 144 219 52.8% 18.7% 28.5%
Disaster Management Committee 491 262 335 45.1% 24.1% 30.8%
Project Monitoring Committee 623 301 370 48.1% 23.3% 28.6%
Users group 783 521 552 42.2% 28.1% 29.7%
VDC health post 3,213 30,93 2,621 36.0% 34.6% 29.4%
Tole Lane Organizations 465 314 308 42.8% 28.9% 28.3%
Police Unit 2,726 2,605 2,247 36.0% 34.4% 29.7%
Village WASH Coordination Committee 1,716 1,432 1,209 39.4% 32.9% 27.7%
Table 16: Percentage of respondent’s perception on level of effectiveness about different
organizations
Organization Very effective
Effective Ineffective Not effective at all
Refused Don’t know/Can’t say
Total
Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)
52 2,208 485 33 20 398 3,196
1.6% 69.1% 15.2% 1.0% .6% 12.5% 100.0%
Citizen Awareness Center (CAC)
11 915 327 36 16 330 1,635
.7% 56.0% 20.0% 2.2% 1.0% 20.2% 100.0%
VDC Office 384 7,018 1,057 82 29 325 8,895
4.3% 78.9% 11.9% .9% .3% 3.7% 100.0%
Youth Groups (YG) 72 2,443 1,038 127 15 263 3,958
1.8% 61.7% 26.2% 3.2% .4% 6.6% 100.0%
Radio Listeners Group (RLG)
6 81 68 32 5 48 240
2.5% 33.8% 28.3% 13.3% 2.1% 20.0% 100.0%
Community Mediation Center (CMC)
95 1,432 247 38 16 347 2,175
4.4% 65.8% 11.4% 1.7% .7% 16.0% 100.0%
Women or Mothers group 655 7,187 538 99 22 229 8,730
7.5% 82.3% 6.2% 1.1% .3% 2.6% 100.0%
Agricultural Service Center (ASC)
66 3,195 1,007 92 33 327 4,720
1.4% 67.7% 21.3% 1.9% .7% 6.9% 100.0%
Livestock Service Center (LSC)
86 2,751 1,064 99 18 319 4,337
2.0% 63.4% 24.5% 2.3% .4% 7.4% 100.0%
Page | 27
Organization Very effective
Effective Ineffective Not effective at all
Refused Don’t know/Can’t say
Total
Integrated Plan Formulation Committee
(IPFC)
16 474 167 16 1 95 769
2.1% 61.6% 21.7% 2.1% .1% 12.4% 100.0%
Disaster Management Committee (DMC)
27 653 255 34 6 113 1,088
2.5% 60.0% 23.4% 3.1% .6% 10.4% 100.0%
Project Monitoring Committee (PMC)
23 795 349 49 5 73 1,294
1.8% 61.4% 27.0% 3.8% .4% 5.6% 100.0%
Users group 39 1,327 326 43 10 111 1,856
2.1% 71.5% 17.6% 2.3% .5% 6.0% 100.0%
VDC health post 480 7,296 967 100 11 73 8,927
5.4% 81.7% 10.8% 1.1% .1% .8% 100.0%
Tole Lane Organizations (TLOs)
71 810 123 17 6 60 1,087
6.5% 74.5% 11.3% 1.6% .6% 5.5% 100.0%
Police Unit (PU) 265 6,040 900 162 26 185 7,578
3.5% 79.7% 11.9% 2.1% .3% 2.4% 100.0%
Village WASH Coordination Committee
(VWASHCC)
141 2,596 1,310 165 8 137 4,357
3.2% 59.6% 30.1% 3.8% .2% 3.1% 100.0%
3.1.10 Top Five Effective Organizations
Respondents were asked to list the top five organizations that were deemed very effective from their
perspective from the list provided in the questionnaire. Figure 9 shows the top five organizations. These
are: women or mothers’ groups; VDC offices, VDC health posts, Police Units and agriculture service centers
(20%, 19%, 18%, 12% and 6% respectively). The organizations that were not ranked in the top five most
effective (RLG, IPFC, PMC and DMC) are not known to the respondents. This could be because these
organizations were the most recently introduced at the village level.
Figure 9: Percentage of response for top five effective organizations
0.1
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.1
1.2
1.3
2.8
3.5
4.0
4.3
4.6
6.1
11.9
18.0
19.0
20.4
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22
RLG
IPFC
PMC
DMC
TLO
USERS GROUP
CAC
CMC
VWASHCC
LSC
WCF
YG
ASC
PU
VDC HEALTH POST
VDC OFFICE
WOMEN GROUP
<1%
1
-5%
5
-20
%
Percentage of response
Page | 28
The top five organizations perceived to be effective are services regularly sought out by the community.
The reason for Women's Groups being most effective is that this is the preferred platform for numerous
programs or projects introduced by government and non-government organizations, especially for
women's empowerment, income generation, capacity development, and similar activities, etc.
Page | 29
3.2 Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) Members
3.2.1 Respondents as WCF Members
Among the total number of respondents
surveyed, only 3.8% of them were
WCF members (n=351). Of those who
were members, the majority were Hill
Brahmin/Chhetri (37.9%); followed by
Hill Mountain Janjati (27.9%); Newar
(16.5%); Hill Dalits (16%); and, a minor
percentage belonged to religious
minority (1.7%). More youth and female
respondents were members of WCF,
compared to male respondents (Figure
10).
The distribution of WCF membership
based on age group is shown in Table
17. Overall, 39% of WCF members
belonged to the age group of 16-29 years, followed by 21% belonging to that of 40-49 years. Among
the 39% of WCF members between the ages of 16-29, a substantial percentage of respondents were
youth (85.4%).
Table 17: Percentage of age distribution of WCF members
Respondent type
Age Classification Total
16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 ≥60
Male Count 7 17 25 26 16 91
Row % 7.7 18.7 27.5 28.6 17.6 100
Colum % 5.1 33.3 33.8 44.8 51.6 25.9
Female Count 13 22 48 32 15 130
Row % 10 16.9 36.9 24.6 11.5 100
Colum % 9.5 43.1 64.9 55.2 48.4 37
Youth Count 117 12 1 0 0 130
Row % 90 9.2 0.8 0 0 100
Colum % 85.4 23.5 1.4 0 0 37.0
Total 137 51 74 58 31 351
39.0 14.5 21.1 16.5 8.8 100
In addition to the respondents who are WCF members, the survey also asked about their family members
serving as WCF members. Overall, 3.1% of the respondents have family serving as members of a WCF.
The majority of WCF members were males (61%) followed by females (24%) and youth (15%). WCF
members were also more often to be household heads (57%), or spouses of household heads (23%), with
sons/daughters of household heads at just 16%. Youth involvement in WCFs was said to be low by most of
the participants across the study districts. This is likely due to employment opportunities sought abroad or
migration to urban areas for higher education.
25.9%
37.0% 37.0%
60.5%
24.8%
14.7%
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
Male Female Youth
Respondent as WCF member Family member as WCF member
Figure 10: Percentage of respondent as member of WCF
Page | 30
3.2.2 WCF Members’ Involvement in VDC Planning Process
Table 18 illustrates WCF members’ responses to questions about their participation in the VDC planning
process, suggestions made by them, and whether their voices were heard by respondent type. Overall,
22% of WCF respondents (n=78) in the baseline survey participated in VDC planning processes. Of these
respondents, more males (53%) were found to have participated in the planning process compared to
females (28%) and youth (19%). Furthermore, most of these respondents who participated in the VDC
planning process were Brahmin/Chhetri (45%), Mountain Janajati and Newar (19%), and Hill Dalits (17%)
as shown in Table 19. None of the religious minority respondents who are WCF members were found to
have participated in VDC planning processes.
Table 18: Percentage of WCF respondents who said “yes” to participation, made suggestions and felt
their suggestions were heard
Respondent Type Participated Made suggestion Suggestion heard
Male
41 31 24
52.6% 53.4% 52.2%
Female
22 15 12
28.2% 25.9% 26.1%
Youth
15 12 10
19.2% 20.7% 21.7%
Total
78 58 46
22.2% 74.4% 79.3%
Among those respondents who participated in VDC planning processes (n=78), 75% said they raised
questions or provided suggestions during VDC planning meetings (Table 18). Similar to the trends noted
above, male respondents were more likely to make suggestions (53%), while only 25% of female and
21% of youth respondents reported doing so. Nearly half of the respondents who made suggestions were
from a higher caste/ethnicity group (48%) compared to Hill Mountain Janajati (19%), Hill Dalits (17%)
and Newars (16%). Hill Dalits who participated in Village Development Planning (VDP) (n=13) were found
to have raised their voice (n=10) during these meetings (Table 19). Among the total respondents who had
raised their voice at VDP sessions (n=58), 79% (n=46) stated that their voices were heard by meeting
representatives. Male respondents were most positive about their issues being heard (52%) compared to
female and youth respondents who were half as confident about speaking up (Table 18). Based on
caste/ethnicity, 52% of Hill Brahmin/Chhetri respondents felt that their voices were being heard, followed
by Hill Mountain Janajati (22%), Hill Dalits (15%) and Newars (11%) (Table19).
Table 19: Percentage of response by caste/ethnicity
Caste/ethnicity
Participated Made Suggestion Suggestion heard
Hill Brahmin/Chhetri N 35 28 24
% 44.9% 48.3% 52.2%
Hill Mountain Janajati N 15 11 10
% 19.2% 19.0% 21.7%
Newar N 15 9 5
% 19.2% 15.5% 10.9%
Hill Dalits N 13 10 7
% 16.7% 17.2% 15.2%
Total 78 58 46
Page | 31
3.3 Community Development Projects (CDPs)
3.3.1 Awareness of CDPs
Numerous CDPs are implemented at the VDC level, and the current level of awareness of CDPs at the VDC
level is relatively good. The survey showed that about 38 % of total respondents (n=3,446) had heard
about CDPs. Of these respondents, 43 % were male, 24% female and 33% youth as shown in Figure 11.
Figure11: Percentage of respondents who have heard about CDPs (a) by respondent type (b)
Of those who had heard of CDPs, about 77% (n=2,651) understood the roles of CDPs in their community
and their potential benefits. The majority were male respondents (46 %) followed by youth (34%) and
females (20 %) as illustrated in Figure 12.
Figure12: Percentage of respondent's awareness on purpose of CDPs and benefits from them (a) by respondent type (b)
42.8% 32.9% 34.7% 29.1%
24.1% 40.5% 40.8% 43.2%
33.2% 26.6% 24.5% 27.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
76.9%
17.4%
.3% 5.4%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
46.2% 32.9% 33.3%
25.4%
20.3% 36.1% 41.7%
37.8%
33.5% 30.9% 25.0% 36.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
37.5%
42.4%
.5%
19.6%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
Page | 32
3.3.2 Participation in CDP Activities
Among those who had heard about CDPs, more than half of the respondents (57%, [n=1,965]) reported
that they had benefitted from these implemented in their community in the last year, while about 38%
reported that the opposite. Those who reported being beneficiaries of CDPs were male (46%)
respondents, followed by youth (32 %) and female (23%) respondents as shown in Figure 13.
Figure 13: Percentage of respondents who benefitted from CDPs (a) by respondent type (b)
Similarly, among CDP-aware respondents, nearly 35% (n=1,188) had participated in meetings related to
CDPs in the last year. Following the same gender pattern as above, male respondents were most likely to
have attended a CDP meeting, followed by 21% youth and 18% females as shown in Figure 14 .
Figure 14: Percentage of respondent participation in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b)
As shown in Figure 15, among the respondents who had participated in CDP meetings (n=1,118), the
majority (71%) reported having voiced their opinion or made suggestions (n=840). Male respondents
57.0%
37.6%
.7% 4.7%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
34.5%
63.9%
.1% 1.5% a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
45.5% 40.6% 26.1% 29.6%
23.0% 23.8% 47.8% 36.4%
31.6% 35.6% 26.1%
34.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
61.4%
33.1% 30.2%
17.5%
27.1% 100.0% 39.6%
21.1% 39.8%
30.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
Page | 33
were more likely to voice their opinion, followed by youth (19%) and females (17%). Most FGD
participants mentioned that the participation of women, youth and marginalized groups in CDP meetings
had increased due to growing awareness of gender equity and social inclusion. However, it is still rare for
women and individuals from marginalized groups to raise their voices, and those who did tended to be
more educated (e.g. teachers, local leaders, or other elites from the VDC), but even their voices were
reported as less heard.
Figure 15: Voicing opinion in CDP meetings (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
Among the respondents who voiced their opinion (n=840), two thirds felt that their voices (suggestions)
were heard by meeting respresentatives. Again, male respondents (64 %) were more likely to report
being heard than youth (19 %) and female(18%) respondents, as shown in Figure 16.
Figure 16: Opinion acknowledged by meeting representatives (a) by respondent type (b) in
percentage
70.7%
28.8%
.2% .3%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
66.9%
27.0%
.7%
5.4%
a) Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
64.9% 53.8%
16.3% 19.9%
100.0%
25.0%
18.8% 26.3%
75.0%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
63.3% 68.7% 83.3%
62.2%
17.8% 12.3% .0%
20.0%
18.9% 18.9% 16.7% 17.8%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
Page | 34
3.3.3 Perception of CDP Activities and Services
The general perception of the respondents on the CDP project was measured based on a four-point scale:
Strongly Agree, Agree, Disagree and Strongly Disagree (Figure 17). Among respondents who were
aware of CDPs (38%), the majority agreed with all statements except for statement of "CDPs cost too
much money". More than 50% of these respondents agreed on CDP implementation by local users’
groups/local companies/beneficiaries, support provided by CDP, that its contract be publicly announced
and projects are developed based on community need. About 38% of the respondents disagreed with the
statement that CDPs are high-cost.
Though 43% of the respondents agreed that CDP funds are transparently managed, another 32% also
doubted CDP transparency. An FGD with the youth group yielded negative views on this issue. They
neither believed in the transparency of the budget nor in the clarity of public or social audits of the CDPs.
People with power and position are seen to be controlling all resources, development activities and funds.
A youth from Dolakha stated, "We cannot rebuild any development project ourselves so we have to trust
others to do it for us. We have no choice".4
Nearly a quarter of respondents did not know about the pubic audit process, announcement of contracts
and expenses for CDPs. Respondents did not strongly agree or disagree with the statements.
Figure 17: Respondents’ perception of level of agreement for CDP's in percentage
Perception of CDP activities and services was also analyzed by respondent type as shown in Table 20. It
shows that male respondents are generally more aware of CDP activities followed by youth and female
respondents, where they all agree with all statements except for CDP being too expensive.
4Youth from Dolakha district during FGD.
7.5%
2.8%
3.8%
8.9%
3.8%
3.5%
1.8%
63.8%
43.1%
44.1%
66.5%
51.4%
53.8%
25.8%
12.0%
32.1%
20.2%
15.9%
18.6%
21.8%
38.0%
.8%
2.2%
1.4%
1.0%
1.2%
1.5%
5.1%
.9%
1.2%
1.6%
.8%
1.5%
1.5%
1.8%
15.1%
18.6%
29.0%
6.9%
23.5%
17.9%
27.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Implemented by local user’s group/local companies/beneficiaries.
Funds transparently managed
Have public audit
Helped community
Contract publicly announced and procured
Designed based on citzen needs
Cost too much money
Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Strongly Disagree Refused Don’t Know
Page | 35
Table 20: Respondents perception of level of agreement on CDP activities by respondent type
Statement Male Female Youth Remarks
Implemented by local user’s group/local companies/beneficiaries.
993 484 721 Agree
67.4% 58.4% 63.1%
Funds transparently managed 734 316 434
Agree 49.8% 38.1% 38.0%
Have public audit 742 299 478
Agree 50.3% 36.1% 41.8%
Helped our community a lot 1,007 539 747
Agree 68.3% 65.0% 65.4%
Generally publicly announced and procured
817 384 569 Agree
55.4% 46.3% 49.8%
Designed based on need of citizens 870 399 569
Agree 59.0% 48.1% 51.3%
Cost too much money 597 268 446
Disagree 40.5% 32.3% 39.0%
3.3.4 Types of CDPs and Cost
Among respondents who strongly agreed or agreed that CDPs are high-cost, they found road construction
to be the most expensive (38%), followed by drinking water supply projects (20%) and construction of
buildings (15%) as shown in Table 21. Irrigation projects were not viewed as costing too much money.
Table 21: Type of CDPs stated to cost too much money in percentage
CDPs
Responses
n Percent
Road construction 812 37.6%
Culvert, Bridge construction 271 12.6%
Constructing buildings 330 15.3%
Fixing Electric poles 103 4.8%
Drinking water supply 424 19.6%
Irrigation 74 3.4%
Training / Seminar / Workshop 144 6.7%
Total 2,158 100%
3.3.5 Criteria for Selection of CDP
More than half of the respondents (52%, n=1,792) stated that the participatory project planning process
or the 14-steps planning process was used as the criteria for selection of CDP, while about a quarter
(25%) said that CDP was selected randomly or on ad-hoc basis as shown in Figure 18 (a). Around 22%
were unsure about the selection criteria.
The majority of FGD participants and key informants affirmed that development projects in their
community are selected on the basis of need within in the community. They also stated that before
launching any CDPs in a community, the projects are first discussed at the community level and then sorted
through consensus for selection and implementation. Community members' awareness about the CDP
process was reported to have increased after the earthquake, where more people have started to show
Page | 36
their interest in development activities. The participation of women and marginalized groups was also said
to have increased as compared to before the earthquake.
Figure 18: Selection criteria for CDP (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
3.3.6 Public Hearings
Nearly half of the respondents (49%, N=4,490) reported that a public hearing was carried out in their
VDC during the planning process (Figure 19, a) while 37% were unsure about any public hearing. Among
those who reported that a public hearing was conducted, 44% were male, 28% female and 29% youth
(Figure 19, b).
Figure 19: Public hearing event in VDC (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
43.6% 37.7% 24.3% 25.3%
27.4% 32.6% 52.9% 45.1%
29.0% 29.7% 22.9% 29.6%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't Know/Can't
Say
b) Male Female Youth
48.9%
13.0% .8%
37.3%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
52.0%
24.5%
.4%
1.4%
21.7%
0% 20% 40% 60%
Participatory Project Planning Process /
Followed 14 steps …
Ad-Hoc basis
Other
Refused
Don’t know/Can’t say
a)
48.3%
44.0%
69.2%
25.0%
29.0%
21.2%
20.3%
15.4%
50.0%
33.6%
30.5%
35.8%
15.4%
25.0%
37.4%
0% 30% 60% 90%
Participatory Project Planning …
Ad-Hoc basis
Other
Refused
Don’t know/Can’t say
b) Male Female Youth
Page | 37
Among those who reported that a public hearing was carried out (N=4,490), 69% had participated in the
event (Figure 20, a), and of those who had participated 46 % of were male, 27% female and 28% youth
(Figure 20, b).
Figure 20: Participation of respondents in public hearing (a) by respondent type (b) in percentage
69.2%
15.5%
.2% 15.1%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
45.6% 44.4% 37.5% 33.6%
26.6% 26.4% 37.5% 32.2%
27.8% 29.2% 25.0% 34.2%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Yes No Refused Don't
Know/Can't Say
b) Male Female Youth
Page | 38
3.4 VDC Service Delivery
3.4.1 Types of Services Received through VDC
After the April 25 earthquake, 42% of the respondents received an earthquake victim identity card
(EVIC). Among respondents who had received an EVIC, 55% were male and 28% were female. Based on
caste/ethnicity, these cards were found to have been distributed almost equally except for religious
minorities (3%). However, most of the other services from the VDC were not used by survey respondents
(Table 22). Death certificates, recommendation for divorce, migration certificates, employment-related
services and community mediation were the least accessed services over the past year (<1%). Though
there were thousands of human causalities as a result of the earthquake, only 0.6% of respondents had
requested death certificates from the VDC.
Table 22: Percentage of responses for services accessed through VDC
VDC Services Responses
n Percent
Birth certificate 275 2.5
Marriage certificate 147 1.3
Death certificate 68 .6
Recommendation for citizenship 227 2.1
Recommendation for divorce 14 .1
Migration certificate / recommendation 19 .2
Social security allowances (PLWD) 194 1.8
Development services 138 1.3
Employment related services 52 .5
Earthquake victim Identity card 4,537 41.6
Community mediation 51 .5
Personal house reconstruction grant agreement 958 8.8
None 4,226 38.8
Total 10,905 100
3.4.2 Effectiveness of Services Delivered through VDCs
The level of effectiveness of service delivery by VDCs was measured using the following categories: very
effective, effective, less effective and not effective at all. The respondents who received services through
their VDC last year (post-earthquake) rated all these services as “effective.” More than 85% of the
respondents rated VDC services as “effective” for services such as birth certificates, marriage certificates,
death certificates and citizenship recommendation certificates. Nearly 80% of the respondents rated
services like divorce recommendations, migration certificates, social security allowances, EVICs and
community mediation as “effective”. Employment related services, development services and personal
house reconstruction grants were said to be “effective” by 60% to 68% of the respondents as shown in
Figure 21. Among respondents who received support for a personal house reconstruction grant agreement,
a third rated the services to be “ineffective”. Similarly, a quarter of respondents rated the development
services of VDCs to be “ineffective”.
Page | 39
Figure 21: Level of effectiveness of the VDC service delivery in percentage
3.4.3 Reason for Ineffective Services Provided by VDC
Respondents were asked for reasons why ineffective services were being provided by their VDCs. These
responses are shown in Table 23. The majority noted the delay in providing services (33%) as the main
reason in 2015, and the non-responsive attitude of VDC officials (14%). Political influence (13%) and
discrimination (12%) were other reasons provided. Other reasons stated by respondents for VDC officials’
non-responsive attitude include inadequate capacity, VDC secretaries assigned to more than one VDC, and
lack of staff in VDC offices. Key informants and FGD participants also expressed similar views as reasons
for service delays.
Table 23: Explanations provided for ineffective VDC service delivery
Reasons
Responses
n Percent
Delay in providing services 703 32.4
VDC officials’ non-responsible attitude 302 13.9
Corruption 171 7.9
There is political influence in the services provided 290 13.3
Discrimination (nepotism, favoritism) 260 12.0
Inadequate capacity of VDC officials 122 5.6
Lack of VDC staff 71 3.3
Lack of VDC resources 72 3.3
Lack of a VDC office building 27 1.2
More than one secretary assigned to a VDC 105 4.8
VDC secretaries overburden 20 .9
Frequent transfer of VDC secretaries 30 1.4
Total 2,173 100
5.8%
6.8%
8.8%
6.6%
7.1%
21.1%
12.4%
6.5%
17.3%
3.8%
3.9%
1.1%
86.2%
87.8%
85.3%
87.7%
78.6%
78.9%
76.2%
68.1%
61.5%
78.0%
78.4%
61.0%
5.8%
4.8%
4.4%
3.5%
14.3%
8.8%
25.4%
17.3%
15.7%
15.7%
30.6%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Birth certificate
Marriage certificate
Death certificate
Recommendation for citizenship
Recommendation for divorce
Migration certificate
Social security allowances
Development services
Employment related services
Earthquake victim identity card
Community mediation
Personal House reconstruction agreement
Very effective Effective Ineffective Not effective at all Refused Don’t know/Can’t say
Page | 40
3.4.4 Prioritization of Infrastructure or Service Improvements
Respondents were asked to list the top three issues that they thought needed improvement in their VDC as
shown in Figure 22. The majority of respondents (64%) rated drinking water as a top priority followed by
roads (17 %) and health services (8%). Similarly, for the second priority, the highest rating was given for
roads (35%) followed by health services (27%) and drinking water (17%). For the third priority, schools
(31%) were prioritized followed by health services (23%) and later roads (22 %).
Figure 22: Top three priority areas for improvement
3.4.5 Level of Satisfaction with VDC Service Delivery
Consumer satisfaction was measured for the various public services delivered by VDCs. Their perception of
the services was measured using the following categories: extremely satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, and
extremely dissatisfied as shown in Table 24. This study showed that dissatisfaction existed with the majority
of services delivered. About 60% to 69% of respondents were dissatisfied with services such as drinking
water, electricity coverage, roads and ECD centers. Furthermore, half of the respondents were dissatisfied
with the services received from health centers as opposed to 40% of the respondents who were satisfied
with the services received. About 49% of the respondents were dissatisfied with school services as opposed
to 44% of the respondents who seemed satisfied.
Despite the majority stating that the development services provided by the VDC were effective, Table 24
shows that respondents were dissatisfied with all of these services. This could be due to the amount of
damage caused by the earthquake, leaving many services yet to be restored as indicated in Figure 30,
and similarly as stated for improvement in Figure 22. This stresses the need for immediate improvements of
such services in affected areas.
63.7%
8.4%
16.8%
5.6%
.4%
3.0%
2.2%
17.1%
26.7%
35.2%
15.0%
.9%
4.2%
.8%
7.4%
23.4%
22.1%
31.0%
3.7%
9.2%
3.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
Drinking water
Health services
Roads
Schools
ECD centers
Electricity/cell phone coverage
Others
Third Priority Second Priority First Priority
Page | 41
Table 24: Percentage of level of satisfaction with VDC service delivery
Services Extremely satisfied
Satisfied Dissatisfied Extremely
dissatisfied Refused
Don’t know/Can’t say
Total
Drinking water
51 1,585 4,909 1,535 6 10 8,096
.6% 19.6% 60.6% 19.0% .1% .1% 100.0%
Health Services
56 2,102 2,854 295 7 16 5,330
1.1% 39.4% 53.5% 5.5% .1% .3% 100.0%
Roads
13 1,911 4,274 548 7 10 6,763
.2% 28.3% 63.2% 8.1% .1% .1% 100.0%
Schools
28 2,051 2,296 284 9 15 4,683
.6% 43.8% 49.0% 6.1% .2% .3% 100.0%
ECD Center
2 37 299 106 0 8 452
.4% 8.2% 66.2% 23.5% 0 1.8% 100.0%
Electricity Coverage
1 208 938 337 0 11 1,495
.1% 13.9% 62.7% 22.5% 0 .7% 100.0%
Others
2 8 265 298 0 1 574
.3% 1.4% 46.2% 51.9% 0 .2% 100.0%
3.4.6 VDC Staff Presence
As government civil servants, VDC secretaries and staff play a large role in managing VDC affairs. This
includes project planning and implementation, financial management, governance, etc. As such all
development projects proposed for a community directly involves the VDC office. Theoretically, these staff
must always be present and available as without them, very little moves forward. Four categories have
been used to determine the level of VDC staff presence. These are: “always, often, rare and never” as
shown in Table 25.
VDC secretary: Half of the survey respondents stated that their VDC secretary was rarely present, while
nearly a quarter responded “often.” This report was gathered from 55% male, 49% female and 49%
youth respondents.
VDC staff: Only a quarter of the respondents said VDC staff were always present. One third said they
were often present, and 23% said they were rarely present in their office. The irregular presence of the
VDC secretary and staff in this survey indicates the main reason for delays in providing services to
communities (Table 23), and for their overall ineffectiveness.
Table 25: Presence of VDC secretary and VDC staff in VDC office
Presence of
Always Often Rare Never Refused Don’t
know/Can’t say Total
VDC Secretary
N 556 2187 4685 166 24 1571 9189
% 6.1% 23.8% 51.0% 1.8% .3% 17.1% 100.0%
VDC Staff
N 2332 3107 2104 90 42 1514 9189
% 25.4% 33.8% 22.9% 1.0% .5% 16.5% 100.0%
The unavailability or lack of staffing of VDC officials and the inconvenience it caused to the public also
corresponds with the qualitative data collected from the survey districts. An inadequate number of VDC
staff and the responsibilities that VDC secretaries were overburdened with after the earthquake were
Page | 42
stated as prime reasons for delays in service provision and/or inefficient service delivery. VDC staff were
reported to be among the busiest civil servants during the relief and recovery periods.
3.4.7 Perception of the Utilization of Funds in VDCs
Though respondents reported effective services being provided by VDC offices, a major percentage
(38%) were doubtful about the VDC’s utilization of funds for priority projects (Figure 23, a). About 39%
were unaware of how VDC funds were being utilized in their community, which could be due to
respondents being less aware of development projects and public hearings, as well as low participation in
general as explained earlier. A comparison based on respondent type showed that the majority of male
respondents (48%) agreed on the utilization of funds as meeting the needs and priorities of VDCs
compared to female and youth respondents, as shown in Figure 23, b.
.
Figure 23: VDC funds spent according to priority (a) by respondent type (b) in percentages
Figure 24 (a) shows a small percentage of respondents (16%) who believed that VDC funds were being
utilized transparently. Half of these respondents who mostly agreed with this statement were male,
followed by 26% youth and 23% female respondents. Moreover, a large number of the respondents
(41%) believed that VDC funds were not being utilized transparently in their community, while 42% didn’t
know, or weren’t sure.
There are several government-approved mechanisms in place that work to improve transparency and
accountability at the VDC level, and keep the public informed on how public spending is utilized. However,
these mechanisms including public hearings, public audits, and social audits are often not followed
properly. Despite the presence of a proper legal framework and established mechanisms to monitor
development activities in a community, the low level of public awareness and participation in these
activities (e.g. public hearing in Figure 19 and 20) by respondents could not be determined in this study,
nor if a fully transparent and accountable system is in place. Responses such as political influence within
VDCs, nepotism/discrimination and corruption shown in Table 23 may be the causes for the lack of
transparency or trust in the way projects are implemented.
21.1%
38.1%
1.7%
39.1%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
47.7%
38.0%
24.7%
27.9%
24.1%
30.6%
47.4%
44.4%
28.2%
31.4%
27.9%
27.8%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
b) Male Female Youth
Page | 43
Figure 24: Transparency with VDC funding (a) by respondent type (b)
3.4.8 Sources Utilized for Gathering Information on the Transparency of the use of VDC
Funds
Transparency over the use of funds is a major issue in Nepal. This study shows that public hearings (46%)
were the most practical way of learning about how public funds are spent at the VDC level. VDC notice
boards (21%), followed by public audits (17%) as shown in Table 26 are also useful ways of getting
information out to the public. Citizen charters and social audits were the least referred to sources by
respondents. Under the “others” category, information was also spread to the public via the ward
coordinator, relatives, other villagers, VDC office or secretary, village representative, during meetings
(undefined) or VDC council meetings, or via local radio.
Table 26: Percentage of responses on sources used for information about VDC level public spending
Sources Responses
n Percent
Public audit 391 16.9%
Social audit 141 6.1%
Public hearing 1055 45.6%
Citizen Charter 191 8.3%
VDC notice board 496 21.4%
Others 35 1.5%
Total 2315 100.0%
15.5%
40.9%
1.7%
41.9%
a)
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say 50.8%
38.1%
27.8%
28.4%
22.8%
29.6%
42.4%
44.2%
26.4%
32.3%
29.7%
27.4%
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%
Yes
No
Refused
Don't Know/Can't Say
b) Male Female Youth
Page | 44
3.5 Conflict Mediation
3.5.1 Disputes Confronted
The baseline results indicate very little
conflict occurred after the earthquake. Only
2.2% (n=201) of the total respondents
experienced conflict. Based on the
respondent types, the majority of
respondents who experienced conflict were
male (43%) respondents (Figure 25).
Conflicts based on caste/ethnicity ranged
from 20% to 29% for all groups except for
other/religious minorities which was only 2%.
Hill Dalit respondents (29%) faced conflict
over the year, followed by 26% Hill
Brahmin/Chhetri, 22% Hill Mountain Janajati and
21% Newar. Among Hill Dalits, male respondents faced more conflict (47%) compared to a quarter of
female and youth respondents respectively (Annex 8: E1).
Conflict faced by age group revealed that most respondents belonged to an age group of 40-49 years
(29%) followed by 27% for the 16-29 age group (Table 27). Male respondents in the age group of 40-
49, 50-59 and 60 years faced the highest number of disputes compared to the other respondents. About
56% of female respondents in the age group of 30-39 years faced more conflict than male (26%) and
youth (18%) respondents. Furthermore, youth faced the highest percentage (67%) of conflict, especially
those in the age group of 16-29 years. Overall, senior respondents (60 years) faced the least conflict
over the past year.
Table 27: Conflict faced by age classification
Respondent type Age classification Total
16-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 >60
Male N 6 9 33 21 18 87
Row % 6.9 10.3 37.9 24.1 20.7 100
Column % 11.1 26.5 56.9 67.7 75.0 43.3
Female N 12 19 23 10 6 70
Row % 17.1 27.1 32.9 14.3 8.6 100
Column % 22.2 55.9 39.7 32.3 25.0 34.8
Youth N 36 6 2 0 0 44
Row % 81.8 13.6 4.5 0.0 0.0 100
Column % 66.7 17.6 3.4 0.0 0.0 21.9
Total N 54 34 58 31 24 201
Total % 26.9 16.9 28.9 15.4 11.9 100
Male, 43.3%, N=87
Female, 34.8%, N=70
Youth, 21.9%, N=44
Figure 25: Conflict faced by respondent types
Page | 45
3.5.2 Type of Disputes Experienced
Among the 2.2% (n=201) of respondents who experienced disputes after the earthquake, a significant
percentage of respondents experienced interpersonal disputes (36%), while 23% experienced resource-
based conflict, and 16% caste/ethnicity based conflict. Analysis of resource-based disputes (n=46) shows
that the majority of respondents (54%, n=25) experienced water-use conflict as pertaining to drinking
water. This could be due to the number of damaged water sources after the earthquake, as 49% of the
respondents have stated this to be the case (Figure 30). Along with this, conflict regarding the distribution
of earthquake relief items (i.e. unfair distribution, ID cards, relief materials) were also reported (30%).
Identity-based conflict and gender-based violence (GBV) were found to be the least experienced by the
respondents as shown in Table 28.
Table 28: Type of conflict experienced by respondents in percentage
Type of conflict Yes No Refused Don't
Know/Can't Say
Total
Gender Based Violence N 9 168 2 22 201
% 4.5 83.6 1.0 10.9 100
Identity Based Conflict N 6 173 2 20 201
% 3.0 86.1 1.0 10.0 100
Caste/Ethnicity Based Conflict N 33 158 1 9 201
% 16.4 78.6 .5 4.5 100
Political Conflict N 8 173 1 19 201
% 4.0 86.1 .5 9.5 100
Interpersonal Conflict N 73 117 2 9 201
% 36.3 58.2 1.0 4.5 100
Resource Based Conflict N 46 141 0 14 201
% 22.9 70.1 0 7.0 100
Other N 0 152 0 48 200
% 0 76 0 24 100
Table 29: Percentage among conflict experienced by respondent type
Conflict type
Male Female Youth
Gender Based Violence
N 2 4 3
% 22.2 44.4 33.3
Identity Based Conflict
N 4 0 2
% 66.7 0.0 33.3
Caste/Ethnicity Based Conflict
N 16 10 7
% 48.5 30.3 21.2
Political Conflict
N 3 1 4
% 37.5 12.5 50.0
Interpersonal Conflict
N 24 27 22
% 32.9 37.0 30.1
Resource Based Conflict
N 24 12 10
% 52.2 26.1 21.7
Table 29 depicts conflict experienced by respondent type. Among the largest proportion of respondents
who experienced interpersonal disputes, females ranked first with 37%, followed by males with 33%, and
youth at 30%. Female respondents were also found to have experienced more GBV (44%) than youth
Page | 46
(33%) and male (22%) respondents. None of the female respondents were found to have experienced
identity-based disputes (Table 29). Half of the male respondents experienced resource-based conflict,
followed by a quarter of female and youth (22%) respondents. Male respondents generally experienced
the following kinds of conflict: identity-based (67%), resource-based (52%) and caste/ethnicity-based
(49%). Youth being quite active politically were found to have experienced more political-based conflict
compared to male (38%) and female (13%) respondents. Overall, despite several grievances and
dissatisfaction with the government’s inability to expedite recovery work, conflicts in the study area have
not surfaced at the level of resentment.
3.5.3 Dispute Resolving Mechanisms
Respondents who have faced disputes over the past year (n=175) were found to have used at least one
dispute resolving mechanism (180 responses). Table 30 shows that the most common strategy used by
respondents to overcome their conflict was to do nothing, as stated by 59% of the respondents. Besides,
doing nothing to resolve their problem, there were other respondents (12%) who mostly sought community
leader/ religious leaders/ locally important person to serve as a mediator. These leaders were found to
have strong control over mostly political (38%) and caste/ethnicity based disputes (30%) as shown in
Annex 8:E2. Seeking the support of police/army/armed police force was another popular mechanism used
for resolving disputes, especially with regard to gender based violence cases (33%), resource-based cases
(17%) and interpersonal cases (6%) as shown in Annex 8:E2. District Development Committee (DDC) /
District Administration Office (DAO/VDC was also used to resolve disputes for almost all types of conflicts,
except GBV cases. Though many other mechanisms were utilized, the baseline data reflects the
respondents' faith in government institutions and their preferences for peaceful means for resolving their
disputes.
Table 30: Percentage of conflict resolving mechanisms adopted by respondent
Conflict type N Response
% of cases (n=175)
Did nothing 103 57.2 58.9
Court/Lawyer 5 2.8 2.9
Police/army/armed police force 16 8.9 9.1
Community leader/religious leaders/ locally important person
21 11.7 12.0
Community Mediation Center (CMC) 5 2.8 2.9
Community Based Organizations (CBOs): WCFs/CACs) 5 2.8 2.9
DDC/VDC/DAO 14 7.8 8.0
Local Peace Committee (LPC) 1 0.6 0.6
Informal community process (informal mechanism/social practice)
1 0.6 0.6
I/NGOs/Human rights organizations 1 0.6 0.6
Others 5 2.8 2.9
Refused 2 1.1 1.1
Don't know/Can't say 1 0.6 0.6
Total 180
Page | 47
3.6 Gender Based Violence (GBV)
3.6.1 Perception of GBV and HH decision making
To understand the gender disparity in terms of GBV and HH decision making, twelve statements were
formulated and evaluated based on respondents' extent of agreement or disagreements (i.e. strongly
agree, agree, disagree and strongly disagree). A Likert scale was used for this analysis. For this, responses
were calculated as a composite score or sum from four scale items. An interval of 0.75 was created by
using a ratio of maximum-minimum (4-1) value of rank assigned for four scales by the total number of
classes (4). This interval value was used according to the four classes outlined below:
Rank Scale for Negative Statement Class interval
1 Strongly agree 1.00-1.75
2 Agree 1.76-2.50
3 Disagree 2.51-3.25
4 Strongly disagree 3.26-4.00
The class interval created was used as a base for further analysis of all the statements in this section. The
following conclusions are summarized for each statement with the estimated Likert value as shown in Table
31. Outputs for each statement are included in Annex 8: Section F.
Table 31: Summary based on Likert scale for GBV and HH decision making
S.N Statement Likert
Value
Overall
result
1. A woman should always give all her income to her husband. 2.80 Disagree
2. A man should always give all his income to his wife. 2.68 Disagree
3. A woman does not need her husband's permission to do paid work 2.66 Disagree
4. If a wife does not obey her husband, he has the right to punish her. 2.85 Disagree
5. Under no circumstances, should a man beat his wife. 1.97 Agree
6. Rape is a social crime punishable by law. But when a woman is raped
she is to blame
2.78 Disagree
7. Both females and males should decide together about important
decisions that affect their family.
1.59 Strongly
agree
8. A man should decide how many children his wife should bear. 2.94 Disagree
9. It is okay for a wife to seek community mediation if she has problems
in the house.
2.23 Agree
10. A woman should ask the permission of her family member/husband to
travel.
2.03 Agree
11. A woman does not need to take permission of her family or her
husband to take part in social events/activities
2.67 Disagree
12. A woman should obey/follow all the traditional practices even if it is
harmful.
2.85 Disagree
Table 31 indicates the extent of agreement / disagreement among respondents with the 12 statements
defined in the survey. Overall, responses for 9 out of 12 statements were found to be positive with
respondents strongly agreeing on the statement where Both females and males should decide together about
Page | 48
important decisions that affect their family (Statement 7). Male respondents more strongly agreed with this
statement than females and youth. Among the 9 positive responses, respondents were found to strongly
agree with statement no. 7; 2 with statement nos. 5 and 9, while disagreeing with statement nos. 1, 2, 4, 6,
8, and 12 as shown in Table 31.
Youth overall responded positively to statements nos. 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12, followed by male respondents to
statements nos. 5, 6, 7, 9. This implies that respondents, especially youth, are aware of gender sensitive
issues though the degree of agreement or disagreement was not very strong. This is likely due to the high
rate of literacy among youth; many of whom are students (Table 10 and Table 12) compared to lower
level of literacy among male and female respondents. It also could be due to youth exposure to various
community groups and activities in their communities. Youth who participated in an FGD also expressed
that though many people disagree with statement 12, in practice, women were said to follow traditional
practices.
Negative responses were observed for statement nos. 3, 10 and 11. Male respondents disagreed with
statement 3, A woman does not need her husband's permission to do paid work. This is likely due to Nepal’s
patriarchal society (83 % of male respondents are HH heads as shown in Table 9) where men still like to
hold authority over women. Furthermore, the majority of respondents also agree with statement 10, A
woman should ask the permission of her family member/husband to travel, where youth in particular were
found to support the idea. Respondents agreed that women should seek permission to travel, but
disagreed with statement 11, A woman does not need to take permission from her family or her husband to
take part in social events/activities. Surprisingly female respondents agreed with the need to seek
approval.
Group discussions among youth and women
groups revealed that youth, and women in
particular, do not think it is necessary to ask
their husband’s permission to hold a paid
job; rather one should just inform them. Also,
despite unemployed husband not allowing
their wives to work, poor females were
reported to be working anyway.
Almost all participants in group discussions
believed that local citizens and police should
take more responsibility for addressing GBV issues. These participants are very aware of which agencies
are able to provide support and how to report GBV cases. However, the families of the victims themselves
were hesitant to report these cases out of fear of being socially stigmatized, despite not having any
barriers to reporting such cases.
Frequent rallies, meetings and programs related to GBV organized in the VDC were reported to have
raised awareness levels as shared by FGD participants in Bungkot VDC of Gorkha district. They discussed
a rape case involving a 17-year old girl who was reported to authorities. The offender was arrested and
the victim was given shelter by the support group Maiti Nepal. This illustrates that awareness programs
developed for communities can make a difference in protecting people.
"I have to work for my children, for our living even
though my husband does not allow me to do it. It is
because he does not work at all and most of the time he
is drunk. Please suggest me how can I get him to abstain
from his habitual drinking of alcohol. He abuses me and
my children verbally and physically, when he is drunk."
A woman from Dhading district
Page | 49
3.7 Recovery and Reconstruction
3.7.1 Knowledge about Mobile Service
Camp (MSC)
Mobile service camps (MSC) are very popular in
Nepal, especially in remote areas where people
cannot afford or access certain facilities provided
by the government. The baseline study showed that
only 29% of the respondents know about MSCs. Of
the total respondents who know about MSCs
(n=2,636), a third are male (Figure 26).
Mobile service camps are categorized into integrated (IMSC),
sectoral (SMSC) or both. Of these three groups, more than half of
the respondents were found to have received services through
sectoral mobile camps. Secondly most benefitted from services by
attending IMSCs and SMSCs. Only 12% of respondents received
services through IMSCs as shown in Figure 27. Analysis based on
respondent type indicates that SMSCs were most popular. A large
percentage of female respondents (65%) benefitted from SMSCs.
Many youth also received services through both mobile camps
(42%) compared to 35% male and 16% female respondents.
3.7.2 Types of Services received through Mobile Service Camps
Of the total respondents (N=9,189), only 4% and 9% of respondents responded to the service received
through IMSCs (n=342) and SMSCs (n=864) respectively. Among these percentages, at least two different
services were received per respondent from IMSCs compared to two-thirds of responses for SMSCs. Figure
28 shows that a considerable percentage of respondents (80%) benefitted from health services through
both camps (i.e., 39% and 53% of all responses for IMSCs and SMSCs respectively). Secondly, more than
half of the respondents received agriculture extension services through IMSCs, which is half of those who
received services through SMSCs. Thirdly, 43% of the respondents received livestock services through
IMSCs compared to 19% services received through SMSCs. Overall, the most beneficial services were
health, agriculture extension, and livestock services. Services for all other amenities accounted for <10% of
services received, except for citizen certificates where 11% of the respondents received this service
through IMSCs. Land registration (2%) and payment of revenue (0.6%) were the least useful for both
camps.
20.5%
32.0%
34.0%
0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0%
Female
Youth
Male
Figure 26: Awareness of mobile service camps
Figure 27: Type of MSC received
IMSC 12%
SMSC 54%
Both IMSC & SMSC 34%
Page | 50
Figure 28: Responses in percentage for the types of services received through IMSCs and SMSCs
3.7.3 Infrastructure/Services Damaged and Affected
When the baseline study was carried out in the earthquake-affected districts, damage to infrastructure in
these areas was still evident. The projects SB was likely to focus on was categorized into six types: health,
water and sanitation, irrigation, road/trail repair, education, and community development.
The results of the baseline study in terms of services damaged showed education facilities to be the most
affected as reported by 85% of respondents. About 78% of the respondents said water and sanitation
facilities had been damaged, followed by 68 % who said health centers were damaged. About 38%
mentioned that roads had also been affected. Irrigation facilities (20%) and CDPs (12%) were reported to
be the least affected (Table 32). Despite this categorization, respondents were found to be substantially
affected by all damaged infrastructure. Almost all (96%) of the respondents stated that they were
affected by damaged water and sanitation facilities, followed by irrigation, road/trail destruction as
illustrated in Table 32.
Table 32: Percentage of services damaged and respondent affected by the damage
Services damaged Services damaged Affected
Health
N 6206 5176
% 67.6% 84.6%
Water and Sanitation
N 6954 6596
% 75.7% 95.6%
Irrigation
N 1837 1660
% 20.0% 93.2%
Road/trail
N 3504 3177
% 38.2% 91.9%
Education
N 7783 5064
% 84.7% 89.4%
Community Development Project
N 1085 899
% 11.8% 87.9%
1.1%
1.5%
3.3%
5%
15.5%
18.1%
53.3%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%
Other services from IMS
Banking and Finance services
Social security allowances
Citizen certificate
Livestock services
Agriculture extension services
Health services
SMSC_n=864
0.99%
1.13%
1.42%
2.98%
5.39%
20.85%
26.38% 38.87%
0% 10% 20% 30% 40%
Land registration
Banking and Finance services
Social security allowances
Birth registration
Citizen certificate
Livestock services
Agriculture extension services
Health services
IMSC_n=342
Page | 51
Besides destruction to major infrastructure, 1.8% (n=161) of the respondents stated damage to buildings
within the "others" category. Nearly 60% of the respondents reported monasteries/mosques/temples to
have suffered the most damage, followed by damage to VDC offices (17%) and houses (4%) as shown in
Figure 29. Cottage industries, electricity authority offices, female Dalit associations, police stations were
also reported to be destroyed by 0.6% of respondents for each category.
Figure 29: Type of building damaged in percentage under the others category
3.7.4 Extent of Damage of Infrastructure/Services and Their Restoration Levels
Education centers, water and sanitation services, and health facilities, as reported above, were said to
have been completely damaged by 55%, 49% and 43% of the respondents respectively. Irrigation
facilities were said to be fully damaged by a third of the respondents, whereas 88% reported partial
damage to road/trails as shown in Figure 30. Almost all infrastructures were said to be partially
damaged, with the extent of damage ranging from 45% to 67%, and roads/trails 88%.
A year after the earthquake, little progress has been made with the recovery effort, with much
infrastructure still damaged. As shown in Figure 30, very few respondents answered that infrastructure
projects in their communities were completely restored (<10%). Respondents nevertheless reported that
partial restoration of community infrastructure had taken place. Education centers and roads/trails were
said to be partially restored by 74% of the respondents. Other infrastructure such as health, CDPs,
irrigation and water and sanitation were found to be moderately restored (Figure 30). Moreover, a third
of the respondents stated no effort had been made with restoration despite complete damage to water
and sanitation facilities.
According to VDC officials and key informants, the delay in the reconstruction process was due to
government’s inability to rebuild. They also believed it was due to weak coordination between donor
agencies/NGO/INGO and government. Furthermore, they stated that these entities should work in
together to focus on projects which would yield long term benefits to the community. The delays with
construction work were said to be caused by the fact that the National Reconstruction Authority (NRA) was
slow moving in getting established, and that no other organization had been given the mandate for
reconstruction. As it stands, the NRA only exists to support other government agencies, which has caused
1.2%
1.9%
3.7%
3.7%
10.6%
16.8%
58.4%
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Post Office
Cooperative
Community
Club
House
VDC Office
Monastry/Mosque/Temple
Percentage of damage
Page | 52
confusion among the various stakeholders. In addition, considerable time was also required to complete
administrative work and make bank arrangements to distribute government grants to earthquake victims.
Figure 30: Percentage of the extent of damage and levels of infrastructure restoration
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Health
Water & Sanitation
Irrigation
Road/trail
Education
CDP
43.4%
48.9%
32.1%
10.7%
54.6%
28.6%
55.2%
50.4%
64.8%
88.0%
44.8%
65.6%
4.4%
5.5%
4.3%
10.1%
6.4%
5.6%
68.8%
57.9%
59.0%
74.3%
74.1%
63.7%
24.3%
35.5%
32.7%
14.2%
18.4%
23.9%
Completely damaged Partially damaged
Completely restored / reconstructed Partially restored restored / reconstructed
Not restored or left as it is
Page | 53
CHAPTER 4: SUMMARY OF KEY
FINDINGS 4.1 Key Findings
Demographic Features
The baseline survey sample had an equal distribution of respondents based on caste/ethnicity, i.e.,
25% Hill Brahmin/Chhetri; 26% Hill Mountain Janajati; 23% Newar; 24% Hill Dalit and 3%
Religious Minority. The age of respondents ranged from 6 to 95 years, with most between the
ages of 16 and 59.
The majority of household heads were men (90%) and almost 75% of the respondents were
married.
Formal education among all respondents was 42%, with female literacy at 16%.
Most respondents reported agriculture as their occupation. Students and housewife/home-makers
were next on the list. Very few people reported as being retired and working in a foreign
country.
A year after the earthquake, slightly more than half of the respondents were still living in
temporary shelters.
Only a few respondents had a physical disability (1.3%), with more male respondents reporting a
disability than female respondents. Most cases of disability were found to have occurred before
the earthquake.
Most respondents were aware of the functions of VDC health posts, VDC offices,
Women’s/Mother’s groups, and Police Units (80-90%) and said these were effective. The function
of organizations/committees such as RLG, IPFC, TLO, DMC, PMC and CAC were least known by
respondents (3-18%).
WCF Membership and Participation in VDP
Only a third of the respondents knew about the roles and responsibilities of a WCF. More than
half the respondents perceive WCFs to be effective.
A small percentage of respondents were members of a WCF (3.1%), with membership slightly
higher among family members by 0.8%.
Membership among respondents was greater for male (61%) respondents, followed by female
(25%) and youth (15%) respondents.
Among the small percentage of respondents serving as WCF members, their participation in VDPs
was found to be low (20%). Only half of the WCF male members were active in their role.
Respondents who participated in VDPs were found to be more curious or offer suggestions during
these meetings (74%), with male respondent being the most vocal. Those who made suggestions
strongly felt that their voices were heard (79%) by meeting representatives.
Page | 54
Community Development Projects
Only one third (N=3,446) of the respondents had heard of CDP, and among them a quarter did
not understand CDP roles and responsibilities. Respondent participation in CDP meetings (35%,
N=1,188) was generally low. Yet, those who participated in them had expressed their concerns
and suggestions (71%). Only half of these respondents felt their suggestions were acknowledged
by representatives running the meetings.
Male respondents tended to have more knowledge of CDPs, participate in then, voiced their
opinion more often than females and youth.
Among respondents who had heard of CDPs (N=3,446), 64% agreed with the views on project
implementation by local users’ groups/companies/beneficiaries. 43% agreed with the
transparency of managing funds. 44% agreed on the public audit process carried out for CDPs.
54% agreed on project design based on local needs. 52% were aware of the 14-step planning
process in selection of development projects. 38% of the respondents disagreed with the idea that
CDPs being implemented were too expensive.
VDC Service Delivery
A year after the earthquake, a large number of respondents were able to access government-
issued earthquake victim identity cards, followed by a grant agreement to rebuild their homes.
Respondents rated all basic services provided through the VDC as effective. A majority however
were dissatisfied with the services provided by VDCs such as drinking water, health, roads, schools,
ECD centers, electricity/cell phone coverage. These services were mostly damaged by the
earthquake and their restoration is a key priority for respondents. Respondents also felt that the
reasons for ineffective service delivery had to do with slow government processes, unresponsive
VDC officials, and political influence in the services provided.
The two most common responses to the question of whether the VDC secretary and staff are
present in their offices were rare and often available respectively.
Most respondents agreed that CDP funds were being managed transparently, and projects
designed were based on local needs. Only a small proportion of the respondents were confident
about VDC funds being utilized as per the needs and priorities of the VDC.
Public hearings were reportedly the best mechanism where people could learn about the use of
public funds transparently.
Conflict Mediation
A substantial percentage of respondents (95%) have not experienced any conflict a year
following the earthquake in the study areas. Only 2.2% experienced conflict. Male respondents
experienced more conflict compared to females and youth.
Interpersonal conflict, resource based conflict and caste/ethnicity based conflict were among the
major types of conflict experienced by the respondents. Several mechanisms used to resolve these
included working with government institutions such as the DDC/VDC/DAO, police/army/armed
police force, however most respondents did nothing to resolve their grievances.
Page | 55
Gender Based Violence
The baseline results showed that most respondents were somewhat aware of gender inequality in
terms of decision making within a household, and gender based violence. Respondents were found
to have taken a conservative stance on topics such as allowing females to travel independently, or
their participation in social activities, events and employment without first obtaining the consent of
their family (or husband if married).
Recovery and Reconstruction
Widespread damage to infrastructure and services was observed, with health (68%), water and
sanitation (76%), and education facilities (85%) being among the most affected.
All infrastructure was found to be partially damaged (>50% responses) except for education
facilities which were stated to be completely damaged by 55% of the respondents.
Most of the reported damaged infrastructure is undergoing repairs.
People were found to be greatly affected by the damaged infrastructure and lack of services
(ranging from 85% to 96%). Damage to water and sanitation services was found to have major
impact on respondents (96%).
Page | 56
Annex
Annex 1: List of field researchers
District Supervisor Supervisor_Ph. No. Enumerator Type Enumerator_Ph.No.
Ramechhap Baksur Roka Magar
9849037840 Appechha Neupane F 9860929017
Tara Devi Khatiwada F 9841980709
Shanti Thapa F 9841118095
Shrijana Tamang F 9842711617
Sailesh Koirala M 9849914355
Pramod Acharya M 9845278183
Tulasi Neupane M 9864031190
Bishnu Gosain M 9843176770
Dolakha Anuj Baniya
9803878280 Anuj Pokharel M 9841429243
Ganesh P. Regmi M 9818755080
Roshan Lawati M 9841886232
Buddhi Naryan Shrestha
M 9841607426
Lokendra Gywali M 9841132348
Kalpana Dangol F 9841125095
Kiran Rupa Magar F 9860429574
Nisha Sharma F 9841761080
Dhading Khem Raj Khanal
9849613984 Shobha Bhattarai F 9849122927
Jhalak Gyawali M 9848186800
Meera Tamang F 9849595542
Goma Pradhan F 9843334026
Mangkel Rai M 9849195561
Santosh Kharel M 9841308461
Anuj Gurung M 9841606238
Sanjib Adhikari M 9843148300
Makwanpur Kalpana Kaspal
9841725792 Assita Gole F 9860447934
Nanu Babu Khanal F 9849465628
Rama Karki F 9841488458
Seema Gurung F 9803685810
Nabin Shrestha M 9841118398
Suresh Khanal M 9849614860
Jagat P. Sharma M 9846583729
Rabindra Kishore Sharma
M 9841519572
Gorkha Ram P. Devkota
9841820832 Tara Devi Rawal F 9841448891
Tek Maya Gurung F 9846261096
Apsara Khadka F 9840096526
Sumitra Rimal F 9841951869
Pramila Khadka Sunuwar
F 9846111786
Page | 57
District Supervisor Supervisor_Ph. No. Enumerator Type Enumerator_Ph.No.
Ashok Rai M 9842285264
Krishna Tiwari M 9841977521
Raju Giri M 9849009887
Sailendra Dawadi M 9849065794
Lamjung Sunmaya Gurung
9841488986 Krishan P. Upadhya M 9847639777
Sunil Khanal M 9816911644
Arpan Chauhan M 9844606226
Krishna Gurung M 9841649145
Lil Bdr. Gurung M 9841261058
Muna K.C F 9849672374
Roji K.C. F 9843647280
Sanju Satyal F 9860754069
Page | 58
Annex 2: Value Calculation Index
Indicators Baseline Survey Calculation Procedure Remarks
Governance Indicators
Indicator A1.01: Proportion of households that have experienced conflict in the past year that have used peaceful means to solve the conflict
Baseline: 31.3 %
Total no. of respondents who used peaceful means/ Total number of respondents who have experienced conflict in the past year (N=201) *100 (Values for this indicator are based on multiple responses keeping the sum of percentages at 100 %.)
The values are calculated by including only those who mentioned 9 types of peaceful means i. e. Court/lawyer, police/army/armed police force, Community leader/religious leader/locally important person, CMC, CBO's: WCF/CAC, DDC/VDC/DAO, LPC, Informal comm. Process, I/NGO's/Human Rights.
Indicator B.2.03: Proportion of Ward Citizen Forum members who indicate that they can provide meaningful input to the village development plans
Baseline: 13.1%
No. of WCF members who think their suggestions have been heard in the VDC planning process meetings / Total number of WCF members in the sample *100
Indicator C.1.01: Proportion of citizens who feel that the administration of funds in the VDC is transparent
Baseline: 15.5%
No. of respondents who feel that use of VDC funds in their community is transparent/ Total number of respondents *100
Indicator C.2.01: Proportion of citizens who indicate that they actively participate in the decisions around VDC community development projects.
Baseline: 70. 7%
No. of respondents who make suggestions or voice their opinions regarding the CDPs in meetings/ Total number of respondents who had participated in the CDPs meetings *100
Filtered based on only those who had participated in the CDPs meeting (Yes=1,188).
Indicator D.1.01: Percentage improvement in positive citizen views on VDC service delivery
Baseline: 80.4% No. of respondents who think that VDC offices have provided services very effectively or somewhat effectively in the past one year/ Total number of respondents *100
Percentage is calculated by combining ‘Very effective’ and ‘Somewhat effective’ responses to this question
Indicator D.2.03: Percentage Percentage calculated for each statement. Percentage of respondents who have
Page | 59
Indicators Baseline Survey Calculation Procedure Remarks
improvement in positive citizen views on the effective implementation of community development projects
Baseline: 58.9% i.e. calculated by (adding' very effective & effective) in each statement/ total no. of respondents who had heard about CDPs*100
Final percentage is calculated as average % of all 7 statements
positive views in 4 or more statements out of 7regarding the effective implementation of CDPs.
Filtered based on only those who said that they had heard about CDP (Yes=3,446)
Indicator 34: Percentage of target population that views GBV as less acceptable after participating in or being exposed to USG programming
Baseline: 64%
Percentage calculated for each statement separately as total number of respondents who have positive views (either sum of strongly agree and agree or sum of disagree or strongly disagree) to the statement/Total number of respondents*100
Taking average % for positive views on all 12 statements.
Percentage of respondents who have positive views in any 5 or more than 5 statements out of 12 regarding the GBV.
Recovery Indicators
F1: % of population who has accessed government services outside of district head quarter in the last six months through Integrated Mobile Service Camp
Baseline: 28.7%
Total no. of responses who has accessed government services through IMSC (sum of both Integrated and Sectorial)/ Total number of respondents *100
Values for this indicator are based on multiple responses keeping the sum of percentages at 100%.
F2: % of population affected by lost health centers as a result of disaster or other crises have been restored their services
Baseline: 4.4%
Total no. of respondent affected by lost health centers - respondents who said that their infrastructures have been completely restored/Total number of respondent who said yes to damage of health centers*100
F3: % of population whose access to water and sanitation services was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been restored?
Baseline: 36%
Total no. of respondent affected by damage to water and sanitation services who said that their infrastructures has not been completely restored/Total number of respondent who said yes to damage of water and sanitation services *100
F4: % of HHs whose access to irrigation facilities was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been
Baseline: 32.7%
Total no. of respondent affected by damage to irrigation facilities, who said that their infrastructures has not been
Percentage is not calculated at household level.
Page | 60
Indicators Baseline Survey Calculation Procedure Remarks
restored completely restored/Total number of respondent who said yes to damage of irrigation facilities*100
F5: % of HH whose access (trail/road) was impacted by the earthquake, and has not been restored
Baseline: 14.2%
Total no. of respondent affected by damage to road/trails who said that their infrastructures has not been completely restored/Total number of respondent who said yes to damage of road/trails *100
Percentage is not calculated at household level.
F6: Official perspective on effective implementation of community development projects, of relief and recovery activities
Baseline: 33.3% Total no. of KII (n=30) who perceived as implementation of CDPs on relief and recovery activities is effective/Total number of KII (N=30) *100
Value for this indicator calculated on the basis of responses of KII conducted with officials. the response as effective are considered in the calculation
Page | 61
Annex 3: List of local organizations
Organization District Supervisors Name of Staff Designation Ph. No. Email
Janachetana
Avibriddhi Bikas
Adhyayan Samiti
(COPPADES)
Lamjung Sunmaya
Gurung,
9849037840
Office Besisahar , Lamgunj 066-520769 [email protected]
Dikendra R Kandel Executive Chairman 9851041576 [email protected]
Bijaya Gurung Project Coordinator 9856029822 [email protected]
Rachana Khanal Finance Officer 9849545792 [email protected]
System
Development
Service Center-
(SDSC)
Gorkha Ram P.
Devkota,
9841820832
Office Bahara, Gorkha 064-420894 [email protected]
Kamala Lamichane Executive Director 9856040726 [email protected]
Sandeep Thapa Project Coordinator 9860811006 [email protected]
Suchana Thapa Finanace Officer 9841078447 [email protected]
Action Nepal Dhading Khem Raj
Khanal,
9849613984
Office Nilkantha, Dhading 010-521012 [email protected]
Bhim Prasad
Dhungana
President 010-521012 [email protected]
Dinesh Duwadi Project Coordinator 9841717733 [email protected]
Bindu Deuja Finance Officer 9841916591 [email protected]
Janabhawana
Youth Club (JYC)
Ramechhap Baksur Roka
Magar,
98490377840
Office Manthali-2, Ramechhap 048-540467 [email protected]
Kumar Kandel President 9741044764 [email protected]
Tula Prasad Kandel Project Coordinator 9844073905 [email protected]
Kailash Subedi Admin and Finance Officer 9844208930 [email protected]
Deepjyoti Samaj
Sudhar Sangh
(DJSSS)
Dolakha Anuj Baniya,
9803878280
Office Sundrawati-2, Dolakha 049-690086 [email protected]
Dambar Prasad
Sedai
President 9841715206 [email protected]
Ishwori Prasad Sedai Project Coordinator 9844465408 [email protected]
Gauri Basnet Finance Officer 9844067030 [email protected]
m
Womenn,
Children and
Environment
Development
Center
(WOCHEND)
Makwanpur Kalpana
Kaspal,
9841725792
Pramila Mahat
Chairperson, Hetauda-11,
Makwanpur
057-
691405,9845
598822, 057-
520127
Udav Baniya Executive Director [email protected]
Page | 62
Annex 4: Household questionnaire
Baseline Survey in Recovery Districts
Household Questionnaire Form
Nepal Development Research Institute/Sajhedari Bikaas
This survey is conducted by the Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) on behalf of Sajhedari Bikas (SB). The
main purpose of this project is to assess the recovery status, government response to citizen needs and the satisfaction
level of citizen with service delivery of local government bodies in six highly affected districts by April 25 and May 12
earthquake of 2015. This survey will measure the perception from a youth, man and a woman in a household.
Therefore, this one-on-one interview is carried out with you to support us in understanding and identifying your issues
related to local governance. There is no correct answer to the questions we are asking and we do not intend to disclose
your name without your permission. The responses provided by you will be kept confidential and will only be used in
analyzing the context in your area. The outputs gained from this research will further support SB for the evidence
based interventions in the affected districts through its strategic governance approaches. NDRI and SB are very
thankful to you for supporting us in filling out this form.
A. Introduction
1. Surveyors Name |_____________________________|
2. Surveyors ID
No. |____|____|
3. District 36=Gorkha 37=Lamjung 30=Dhading 31=Makwanpur
22=Dolakha 21=Ramechhap |____|
4. VDC /Municipality
Name |_______________________________|
5. Ward
No. |____|
6. Questionnaire No. |____|___| 7. Household No. |____|____|____|
8. Date of interview dd/mm/2016 |_______|________|________|
9. Time of interview hr : minutes |___|___|: |___|___|
10. GPS coordinates Latitude |_____|_____|_____| Longitude |_____|_____|_____|
B. Respondents Information
11. Name of Target
Respondent |_______________________________|
12. Type of target
respondent
1=Male
2=Female
3= Youth
13. Relationship of
respondent to
household head
1=HH head 3=Son/daughter 5=Parent
2= Wife/Husband 4=Brother/Sister 6=Other relative |____|
14. Age |___|___| 15. Gender
1=Male |___|
2=Female|___|
3=Others|___|
16. Marital
Status
1=Married
2=Unmarried
3=Divorced
|____|
17.
Current stay of respondent after earthquake?
Temporary shelter (tent, camp etc.) 1
Own house 2
Rent 3
Relatives 4
If Others specify I__________________________|
18. What is your caste/ethnicity?
Hill Brahmin/Chhetri 1
Hill Mountain Janjati 2
Newar 3
Hill Dalits 4
Religious Minority (Muslim) 5
Page | 63
Others 6
If Others specify I__________________________|
19. Do you have any physical disability?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.20.
No 2 ► If 2, go to Q.21.
Refused 98 ► If 2, go to Q.21.
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 2, go to Q.21.
20. When did this happen?
After earthquake (April 25, 2015) 1
Before earthquake 2
By birth 3
Refused 98
Don't Know/Can't Say 99
21. What is your level of education?
Illiterate 1
Literate but no formal education 2
Formal education 3
22. What is your main occupation?
Agriculture 1
Industry/Business 2
Service 3
Labor 4
Student 5
Housewife/house-maker 6
Retired 7
Unemployed 8
Others ► If 9 specify 9
Others specify |__________________________|
23. Do you know the roles and responsibilities of the following organizations and how effective are these
organizations? If yes, write the effectiveness criteria defined as follows:
1 = Very effective, 2 = Effective, 3= Less Effective, 4 = Not effective at all 5= Refused 6 = Don't Know)
S.N. Organization Yes=1 No=2 Refused=98 Effectiveness
1 Ward Citizen Forum (WCF) |____| |____| |____| |____|
2 Citizen Awareness Center (CAC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
3 VDC Office |____| |____| |____| |____|
4 Youth Groups (YG) |____| |____| |____| |____|
5 Radio Listeners Group (RLG) |____| |____| |____| |____|
6 Community Mediation Center (CMC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
7 Female or Mothers group |____| |____| |____| |____|
8 Agricultural Service Center (ASC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
9 Livestock Service Center (LSC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
10 Integrated Plan Formulation Committee (IPFC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
11 Disaster Management Committee (DMC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
12 Project Monitoring Committee (PMC) |____| |____| |____| |____|
13 Users group |____| |____| |____| |____|
14 VDC health post |____| |____| |____| |____|
15 Tole Lane Organizations (TLOs) or Tole
Development Organization
|____| |____| |____| |____|
Page | 64
16 Police Unit (PU) |____| |____| |____| |____|
17 Village WASH Coordination Committee
(VWASHCC)
|____| |____| |____| |____|
24. Please mention the top five very effective organizations from the list above?
|________________________________________| 1 |
|________________________________________| 2 |
|________________________________________| 3 |
|________________________________________| 4 |
|________________________________________| 5 |
25. Are you currently a member of Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to section C
No 2 ► If 2, go to Q.26
Refused 98 ► If 98, go to Q.26
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 99, go to Q.26
26. Is anyone in your household a member of WCF?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to section C
No 2 ►If 2, go to section D
Refused 98 ►If 98, go to section D
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ►If 99, go to section D
C. B.2.03_Ward Citizen Forum (WCF)(for WCF members only)
27. Statements 1=Yes 2=No 98=Refused
99=Don't
know
a. Have you participated in the VDC
planning process?
|____| |____| |____| |____|
► If 1, go
to Q.27.b
► If 2 , go
to section D
► If 2 , go
to section D
► If 2 , go
to section D
b. Do you ask any questions or made any
suggestions during meetings for VDP?
|____| |____| |____| |____|
► If 1, go
to Q.27.c
► If 2 , go
to section D
► If 2 , go
to section D
► If 2 , go
to section D
c. Do you feel the meeting representative
listened to your suggestions for VDP? |____| |____| |____| |____|
D. C.2.01 & C.2.02_Community Development Projects (for WCF members and HH members)
28. Please give your opinion on following statements.
Statements _CDPs 1=Yes 2=No 98=
Refused
99=Don't
know
a. Have you heard about the Community Development
Projects (CDPs) in your community?
|____| |____| |____| |____|
► If 1,
go to
Q.28.b
► If 2,
go to
section E
► If , 98
go to
section E
► If , 99
go to
section E
b. Have you understood the roles of CDPs at your
community and benefits you can reap from them? |____| |____| |____| |____|
c. Have you been a beneficiary of any CDPs
implemented at your community in the last one year? |____| |____| |____| |____|
d. Have you participated in any of the meetings related |____| |____| |____| |____|
Page | 65
to CDP in the last one year?
► If 1,
go to
Q.28.e.
► If 2,
go to
Q.29
► If , 98
go to
Q.29
► If , 99
go to
Q.29
e. Did you make any suggestions or voiced your opinion
regarding the CDP during the meetings you attended?
|____| |____| |____| |____|
► If 1,
go to
Q.28. f.
► If 2,
go to
Q.29
► If , 98
go to
Q.29
► If , 99
go to
Q.29
f. Do you feel the meeting representative listened to your
suggestions? |____| |____| |____| |____|
g. Are the CDPs project selected based on the needs and
priority of the community/WCF/VDCs? |____| |____| |____| |____|
29. Please give your opinion on following statements.
Statements
1=
Strongly
Agree
2=
Agree
3=
Disagree
4=
Strongly
Disagree
98=
Refused
99=
Don’t
Know
a. The CDPs are generally implemented by
local user’s group/local
companies/beneficiaries. |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
b. The funds for CDPs are transparently
managed |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
c. In general, CDPs have public audit |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
d. CDPs have helped our community a lot |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
e. The contract for CDPs are generally
publicly announced and procured |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
f. CDPs are designed based on the needs
of citizens. |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
g. In general, the CDPs cost too much
money
|___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
►If 1
go to
Q.30
►If 2
go to
Q.30
►If 3
go to
Q.31
►If 4
go to
Q.31
►If 98
go to
Q.31
►If
99 go
to
Q.31
30. If you strongly agree (1 in Q.29) or agree (2 in Q.29) that the CDPs in general cost too much money, could you
mention what kinds of CDPs have high costs than needed? (Multiple Choice)
Road construction 1
Culvert, bridge construction 2
Constructing buildings 3
Fixing electricity poles 4
Drinking water supply 5
Irrigation 6
Training and workshop 7
Refused 98
Don’t know/Can’t say 99
Others ► If 8 specify 8
Others specify |__________________________|
31. What are the criteria of selection of CDP project?
Followed 14 steps planning process 1
Randomly/Ad-hoc basis 2
Refused 98
Page | 66
Don't Know 99
Others ► If 3 specify 3
Others Specify |__________________________________|
32. Is public hearing carried out in your VDC during the planning process?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.33
No 2 ► If 2, go to Section E
Refused 98 ► If 98, go to Section E
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 99, go to Section E
33. If yes in Q.32, was public hearing carried out in your VDC last year? If yes, did you participate in this hearing
program?
Type 1=Yes, 2=No, 98=Refused,
99=Don't know
a. Public hearing ► If 1, go to Q.33.b
b. Participation in public hearing
E. D.1.01 & D. 2.03_VDC Service Delivery (for WCF members and HH members)
34. During the last year (after April, 2015), what services have you received through the VDC office? How effective
do you think your VDC office has been in providing services in the last one year (after April 25, 2015)? Please
write the effectiveness criteria defined as follows: (Multiple Choice)
1 = Very effective, 2 = Effective, 3= Less Effective, 4 = Not effective at all 5= Refused 6 = Don't Know)
Services Code Effectiveness
code
Skip section of
level of
effectiveness
Birth certificate 1 ► If less
effective (3)
and not at all
effective (4), go
to Q.35.
Marriage certificate 2
Death certificate 3
Recommendation for citizenship 4
Recommendation for divorce 5
Migration certificate 6
Social security allowances [Single female, senior citizen, Person
living with disabilities (PLWD)
7
Development services (recommendation for water supply,
electricity etc.)
8
Employment related services (Knowledge, information, skills etc.) 9
Earthquake victim identity card 10
Community mediation 11
Recommendation for buying and selling of land 12
None 13
Others ► If 14 specify 14
Others specify|___________________________________________|
35. If you think your VDC office has not been that effective (3) or not at all effective (4), why do you think so?
Delay in providing services 1
VDC officials non responsible attitude 2
Corruption 3
There is political influence in the services provided 4
Discrimination (Nepotism, favoritism) 5
Inadequate capacity of VDC officials 6
Lack of staff in VDC 7
Lack of resources in VDC 8
Page | 67
No office building in VDC 9
VDC secretaries assigned to more than one VDC 10
One VDC secretaries overburden with responsibilities 11
Frequent transfer of VDC secretaries 12
Refused 98
Don’t know/Can’t say 99
Others ► If 13, specify 13
Others specify |_______________________________________|
36. In the last year (After April, 2015), what would you say are the main infrastructure or service issues needing
improvement in your VDC and list at least top three issues?
Issues Code Rank
Drinking water 1 |____|
Health services 2 |____|
Roads 3 |____|
Schools 4 |____|
ECD centers 5 |____|
Electricity/cell phone coverage 6 |____|
Others ► If 7 specify 7 |____|
Others specify |_______________________________|
37. In particular, how would you rate your level of satisfaction with the VDC’s delivery of the following services in
your area?
Issues 1=Extremely
satisfied
2=
Satisfied
3=Dissatisfied 4=Extremely
Dissatisfied
98=Refused 99=Don’t
know/Can’t
say
Drinking water |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____|
Health services |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____|
Roads |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____|
Schools |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____|
ECD centers |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____|
Electricity/cell
phone coverage |____| |____| |_____| |____| |____| |____|
Others►
specify |_________________________________________________|
38. Availability of staff in VDC office 1=Always 2=Often 3=Rare 4=Never 98=Refused
99=Don't
know
a. Over the past year, how often is
VDC secretary available at the VDC
office? |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
b. Over the past year, how often is VDC
officials available at the VDC office? |___| |___| |___| |___| |___| |___|
39. Do you feel that VDC funds are spent or used as per needs and priority of the VDC?
Yes 1
No 2
Refused 98
Don’t know/Can’t say 99
40. Do you feel that the use of VDC funds in your community is transparent?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.41
No 2 ► If 2, go to section F
Page | 68
Refused 98 ► If 98, go to section F
Don’t know/Can’t say 99 ► If 99, go to section F
41. What sources do you refer to in order to gather information on transparency of VDC funds?
Public audit 1
Social audit 2
Public hearing 3
Annual Review Meeting -aflif{s ;ldIff uf]i7L _ 4
VDC notice board 5
Refused 98
Don’t know/Can’t say 99
Others ►If 6, specify 6
Others Specify |_______________________________________|
F. A.1.01_Conflict and Mediation (for WCF members and HH members)
42. In the last (after April, 2015) year, have you or your household members experienced any conflict/disputes?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.43.
No 2 ► If 2, go to section G
Refused 98 ► If 98, go to section G
Don’t know/Can’t say 99 ► If 99, go to section G
43. If yes, what type of conflict did you and your family faced in the last one year (after April 2015)?
Type Code Remarks
Gender-Based Violence 1 |_______________________________|
Identity Based Conflict 2 |_______________________________|
Caste Based Violence 3 |_______________________________|
Political Conflict 4 |_______________________________|
Interpersonal Conflict 5 |_______________________________|
Resource-Based Conflict 6 |_______________________________|
Refused 98 |_______________________________|
Don't know/Can't say 99 |_______________________________|
Others 7 |_______________________________|
If others (7) specify|_____________________________________________________|
44. How did you manage or resolve the conflict (Multiple Choice)
Resolving mechanism Code Remarks
Did nothing 1 |__________________|
Court/Lawyer 2 |__________________|
Police/army/armed police force 3 |__________________|
Political party/political youth group 4 |__________________|
I/NGO's/Human rights organizations 5 |__________________|
DDC/VDC/DAO 6 |__________________|
Community leader/religious leaders/ locally important person 7 |__________________|
Community Based Organizations (CBOs: WCF/CAC) 8 |__________________|
Community Mediation Center (CMC)►If 9, go to Q.45. 9 |__________________|
Local rowdy or villain (gundas) 10 |__________________|
Badhar/Bhalmansa (informal mechanism/social practice) 11 |__________________|
Locally armed groups 12 |__________________|
Local Peace Committee (LPC) 13 |__________________|
Refused 98 |__________________|
Don't know/Can't say 99 |__________________|
Page | 69
Others 14
If others (14) specify |____________________________________________________|
45. If CMC (10) in Q.44, how satisfied are you with the services provided by the CMC?
Extremely satisfied 1
Satisfied 2
Dissatisfied 3
Extremely dissatisfied 4
Refused 98
Don't know/Can't say 99
46. If dissatisfied (3) and extremely dissatisfied (4) in Q.45, please specify the reason?
|_________________________________________________|
G. E.1.03 F:_Gender Based Violence (GBV)(for WCF members and HH members)
47.
Statements
1=
Strongly
Agree
2=
Agree
3=
Disagree
4=
Strongly
Disagree
98=
Refused
99=
Don’t
Know
a. A woman should give all her income to
her husband. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
b. A man should give all her income to her
wife. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
c. A woman does not need her husband's
permission to do paid work |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
d. If a wife does not obey her husband, he
has the right to punish her. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
e. Under no circumstances, should a man
beat his wife. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
f. Rape is a crime punishable by law. But
when a woman is raped she is to blame |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
g. Both female and male should decide
together about important decisions that
affect their family. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
h. A man should decide how many children
his wife should bear. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
i. It is okay for a wife to seek community
mediation if she has problems in the
house. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
j. A woman should ask the permission of
her family member/husband to travel. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
k. A woman does not need to take the
permission of her family or her husband
to take part in social events/activities |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
l. A woman should obey/follow all the
traditional practices even if it is harmful. |___| |__| |___| |___| |___| |___|
H. F1.01_Recovery: Service Delivery after disaster or Earthquake in outside district headquarters (for WCF
members and HH member)
48. Do you know about Mobile Service Camps?
Yes 1 ► If 1, go to Q.49
No 2 ► If 2, go to Q.50
Refused 98 ► If 2, go to Q.50
Page | 70
Don't Know/Can't Say 99 ► If 2, go to Q.50
49. If yes (1) in Q.45, what type of following services did you received?
Type of service Code
Integrated Mobile Service Camp 1
Sectoral Mobile Service Camp 2
50. Have you received any of the following services before six months (till Dec 2015) (Multiple Response)
Type Code Code
Citizen certificate 1 1
Land registration 2 2
Payment of revenue 3 3
Birth registration 4 4
Death registration 5 5
Agriculture extension services 6 6
Livestock services 7 7
Banking services 8 8
Health services 9 9
Conflict mediation services 10 10
Social security allowances (Single female, senior citizen) 11 11
Others 12 12
If others, specify |________________|
51. Were the following services in your area/VDC damaged during the Earthquake? If yes, are the services
restored and were you affected by the damage of the following services?
Type of services
Damaged Restored Effect
1=
Yes,
2=No
► If 2,
go to
50b
3=
Fully
4=
Partly
99=
Don't
Know
98=
Refused
1=
Yes,
2=No
3=
Fully
4=
Partly
99=
Don't
Know
98=
Refused
1=Yes
2= No
a. Basic health center
services |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
b. Water and sanitation
services |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
c. Irrigation facility |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
d. Road/trail |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
e. Education facility |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
f. Community
Development Project |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
g. Others (specify) |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |__| |___| |___|
*****END*****
Page | 71
Annex 5: Qualitative tools
Focus Group Discussion Guide
Female/Youth/Mixed Group
Nepal Development Research Institute/Sajhedari Bikaas
Date: |__|__|_____|
District: |_____________________| VDC: |___________________| Ward No.: |___||___|
C.2.01 & C.2.02_Community Development Project (CDP)
1. Do people in your community participate in any meetings of CDPs? (Ask for different phase of CDPs meeting in VDC, identification of CDPs, planning, implementation,)
~ If yes, how are CDPs selected?
~ Do participants in these meeting raise their voice? (type of people who raise their voice)
~ Do females raise their voice in these meeting? (How often, type of female who raise their voice, ease to ask or share their ideas or queries, Level of participation of female) How inclusive are these participation?
~ How often are these meetings called?
~ Are your suggestions incorporated?
~ What initiatives are taken by VDC to ensure active participation of females or a public as a whole?
2. How effectively are CDPs implemented?
~ If not effectively implemented, what can be done by government and non-government bodies for effective implementation of CDPs?
3. What are the processes adopted by VDCs to perform public hearing recently? How are they conducted and when?
~ Are the public satisfied with the level of transparency?
~ If no, how can it be improved? 4. What do you think about the fund transparency for CDPs?
~ If not, why?
~ Is there any hearing program (public hearing/auditing etc.) for this? How are they conducted and when?
~ Do female/youth/citizens in your community participate in this?
5. What is the position/status of youth, female and marginalized groups in the WCF?
6. What do you understand by GESI?
7. Why should GESI be addressed? (ask for their perception on female participation in any
planning and decision making process)
8. What are the current practices for GESI responsiveness in WCF?
9. What positive changes brought by considering GESI? (Improved the participation of female,
youth, and the marginalized groups in the overall VDC-level decision-making process)
D.1.01 & D. 2.03_VDC Service Delivery
10. Are you familiar with the VDC service delivery mechanism? (Ask for their awareness in documents required before seeking services from a VDC)
~ How difficult or easy do you (as female/youth/other citizen) find to receive benefits provided by VDC? and Why? (e.g. ask for social security allowances, PLWD, senior citizen, single female, marriage certificate, birth certificate, citizenship certificate etc.)
~ What should be done to improve service delivery?
~ What do you expect from your VDC office?
A.1.01_Conflict Mediation
1. What sorts of disputes have you experienced in the last year in your community?
~ Conflicts related to GBV/Caste based conflict/Political conflict/Resource based conflict/Identity based conflict/Interpersonal conflict?
~ What is the level of those conflicts in your community?
~ Overall are you concerned about the level of conflict in your community? What worries you
Page | 72
most? 2. How do you manage/resolve your conflicts in your community?
~ Ask for institutions used to resolve those conflicts? 3. What are the most reliable/peaceful means for resolving your conflict? Why? 4. Using those peaceful means of settling conflict, whether they have increased or decreased last
year, and why? (Reasons for preferring or not preferring peaceful means) 5. In your opinion, how to make CMCs sustainable in the long run?
E.1.03 F _Gender Based Violence
1. What type of GBV exists in your community? Has there been increase/decrease in GBV cases after Earthquake?
~ Are these cases referral/reported? How effective are these organizations in resolving GBV issues? If not, specify the reason?
~ Who do you feel is responsible for addressing GBV?
~ Do you know where to report such cases or the essential phone numbers (1111, 100, and 1098) where you could call?
~ If no, what are challenges that prevent people from reporting GBV?
~ What are the measures that need to be adopted to address GBV?
~ What are the significant changes brought about in people’s perspective towards GBV after being exposed to USG program? (Zero tolerance towards GBV, aware about GBV)
F1.01_Recovery and Reconstruction
1. What major services (health center, road/trail, water, irrigation etc.) are damaged in your community and to what extent?
~ What is the scale of damaged services now?
~ What are the efforts of restoration/reconstruction in your community?
~ What are the major institutions supporting in these activities?
~ Do you trust that you will receive the benefits you deserve?
~ To what extent do you trust the government will provide the resources to make the necessary repairs?
~ What are the reasons for delay in restoring efforts?
~ How effective or ineffective do you think are these restoration or reconstruction projects implemented in your community? Specify the reason for effectiveness and ineffectiveness.
*****END*****
Page | 73
Key Informant Interview Guide
VDC Officials
Nepal Development Research Institute/Sajhedari Bikaas
This interview is conducted by Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI) on behalf of Sajhedari Bikas (SB). The
main purpose of this project is to assess the recovery status, government response to citizen needs and the satisfaction
level of citizen with service delivery of local government bodies in six highly affected districts by April 25 and May
12 earthquake of 2015. Therefore, this one-on-one interview is carried out with you to support us in understanding
and identifying issues related to local governance, efforts or initiatives taken by government so far in your area after
earthquake and its associated challenges. Your responses in our analysis will remain anonymous and will not be
attributed to you personally or in any way that it could identify you. The outputs gained from this research will further
support SB for the evidence based interventions in the affected districts through its strategic governance approaches.
NDRI and SB are very thankful to you for supporting us in filling this form.
Name of VDC Officer: |___________________________| District: |______________________|
VDC: |____________________________| Ward No.: |___________________|
1. D.1.01_D.2.03_ F1.01_Please describe the Community Development Projects (CDPs) and Relief and Reconstruction Projects (RRPs) in your VDC over the last year (after earthquake of April 25, 2015)?
~ Who supported that project? (Ask for financial support, involvement of multiple partners in the project, targeted beneficiaries etc.)
~ What is the state of those projects now? (Ongoing or completed, opportunities and challenges in those project from the local governance perspective)
~ Please give your perception on how effective/ineffective implementation of those community development projects especially related to relief and recovery activity? What was effective, not effective and why?
~ Also, specify reason for satisfaction and dissatisfaction for above projects.
CDPs project on following sectors Effectiveness (1=Strongly, 2=Effective, 3=Less, 4=Not at all)
Satisfaction (1=Strongly, 2=Satisfied, 3=Less, 4=Not at all)
Gender Based Violence (GBV)................................ |______| |______|
Conflict Mediation..................................................... |______| |______|
Ward Citizen Forum (WCF).................................... |______| |______|
Conflict Awareness Center (CAC).......................... |______| |______|
Relief and Reconstruction........................................ |______| |______|
2. C.2.01_How are citizens including female /marginalized/differently able) invited to participate in meetings about CDPs?
~ How active are citizens in development prioritization and implementation? Are their interests/demands listened to? Why/why not?
~ To what extent are citizens engaged? If engaged, during what phases are citizens engaged (such as identifying needed projects, designing projects, informing about already planned projects, feedback on ongoing projects)?
3. F1.01_Please describe your role in recovery and reconstruction projects after earthquake in your VDC/area?
~ Is it different than your role in development activities before the earthquake?
~ Are you able to manage yourself with given responsibility?
4. F1.01_How do you perceive these reconstruction efforts in your VDC to date?
~ Are they fulfilling the most pressing needs that were requested by community members or not? Please explain. If yes, how do you know/whether citizens were consulted or not?
~ Is the reconstruction occurring at an appropriate pace? [Moderator probe length of time—moving too slows, moving quickly, etc. Reasons for those speeds?]
Page | 74
~ Are you satisfied with the support and coordination of development agencies with the support that are delivered after earthquake?
~ Are you satisfied with the current service delivery mechanism in your VDC? What are the areas of improvement?
5. F1.01_What have been the strengths and weakness of the recovery planning and execution after earthquake? [Moderator asks about decision-making processes, actual construction, etc.]
Strengths: |_________________________________|
|_________________________________|
Weakness: |_________________________________|
|_________________________________|
~ What challenges have you faced personally in the process?
6. E.1.03 F: _What are the significant changes brought about in people’s perspective towards GBV after being exposed to USG program? (Zero tolerance towards GBV, aware about GBV)
*****END*****
Page | 75
Annex 6: Workshop minutes and training agenda
Workshop Minutes
Meeting Date and Venue
Project Name: Baseline and Endline surveys in Recovery district
Meeting Date: 25/05/2016
Meeting Location: Meeting Hall, Nepal Development Research Institute (NDRI), Pulchowk, Lalitpur
Meeting Start time: 09:00 A.M.
Meeting End time: 05:00 P.M.
Meeting Agenda
To acquaint field supervisors and all team members of NDRI, SB and Syntegrate Pte. Ltd.
about the project
Description
A mini-workshop on the project 'Baseline and Endline surveys in Recovery District' was organized by
Sajhedari Bikaas (SB) on 25th May, 2016 at NDRI. This one-day workshop was aimed at bringing
together the eminent personnel from SB, Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd. (SSPL), USAID and NDRI to
discuss about the ongoing project more specifically focusing on tools for data collection. This workshop
was also intended to connect experts from all participated organizations with field supervisors
recruited for the project. The key outcomes of the workshop are documented at the end of this
document. The workshop was basically structured into two sessions as follows:
a. Inaugural /Introduction Session:
At the first part, the meeting was commenced\d by an introductory session, facilitated by Dr. Jaya K.
Gurung, an Executive Director of NDRI. Dr. Gurung explained about NDRI, its core working areas and
its interest to all participants and how NDRI has been providing consulting or research services to its
client. In this endeavor, he also highlighted about first ever partnership of NDRI with Sajhedari Bikaas
(SB) and how NDRI research activities blends with SB's expectations of the project. He further stated
out the agenda of the event and thanked all the participants for their presence at the end.
At the second part, Mr. Basanta Pokharel (DCOP) congratulated NDRI for their first partnership with
SB. He explained about SB's project, which is basically an inclusively local governance project. He also
stated that SB does not work in isolation rather it desires to establish linkages between the local bodies
and for whom the activities are being implemented. He further explained about ongoing project, which
is a USAID-funded project. He also highlighted the differences between past SB projects with the
current project carried out by NDRI, where this project not only seeks to assess local governance as in
previous studies but also to evaluate the government lead recovery process in the project district. This
thereby, will form as a base for strengthening local governance lead recovery project which in turn
might be used as a model to replicate its activities in similar geographical and local areas. He also
discussed about the indicators developed to establish the baseline figures and the role of supervisors
for their instant ability to assess indicators based result during their field activities. The crucial role and
responsibilities of sectoral experts in the project for their ability to provide insightful recommendations
was also expressed by Mr. Pokharel at the end.
Page | 76
b. Technical Session
The technical session kicked off with a detailed description about the project objective, methodology,
data collection strategy and orientation on quantitative and qualitative tools of the project. This session
was facilitated by Mr. Sudan Shivakoti, an M & E manager of the project. He highlighted on
engagement of all members in tool development in the workshop to ensure that everything is
incorporated and explained to field supervisors.
At the first part of the session, Dr. Manjeshwori Singh explained about the project funded by SB,
followed by a detail description on the project objective, its indicators for assessing local governance
and recovery and what the project intends to gain at the end. Mr. Shivakoti further explained about
how the indicators developed for the project has been aligned with SB framework to the field
supervisors. The second part of the session was presented with sampling strategies and techniques
adopted in the research by Dr. Raj Man Shrestha. He also illustrated all the techniques with an
example laid out for Gorkha district. Furthermore, he discussed about the analytical methods such as,
measuring household level satisfaction index, descriptive statistics, Likert scale etc. that will be used in
analyzing data from the field. After the methodology section, the techniques for data collection were
presented by Mr. Sudeep Shrestha, a Chief System Integrator of SSPL. System working modality, data
quality, power back up system, monitoring of field activities through mobile based application was
elaborated by Mr. Shrestha. A practical mobile based primary data collection system was jointly
demonstrated by Mr. Shrestha and Dipesh Raj Sharma, a System Analyst of SSPL to all the
participants.
After the presentation, the major spotlight of the workshop was laid on orientation on tools developed
for household, focus group discussion and key informant interview. The orientation activities were
facilitated by experts of NDRI which was divided into respective sections of their expertise in
questionnaire form. An intensive discussion was carried out among all participants, where each and
every questions were perused in both English and Nepali languages. Few utmost questions and options
were revised, edited and added through a rigorous discussion. All the suggestions and feedback
provided was noted and necessary amendment was carried out at once. This workshop was led by an
active participation by not only team members but also by field supervisors. The workshop ended by
closing remarks from Dr. Gurung, where he thanked all participants once again for their extensive
dedication in the event.
Meeting Key Outcomes
Household questionnaire and checklist for FGD and KII were thoroughly revised in both English
and Nepali language.
Field supervisors were acquainted through a comprehensive and rigorous discussion on tools and
also from the analytical perspective.
NDRI will provide a copy of14 step planning process document to supervisors for their in-depth
understanding of the process.
NDRI will provide final tools incorporating suggestions from all team members to SB and
Syntegrate Pte. Limited.
Training for field researchers was postponed through consensus on 27th May due to strike called
by Transport Association of Nepal
Page | 77
Attendees
S.N. Name Designation Affiliation Telephone No. E-mail
1. Basanta Pokharel DCOP PACT 9808087796 [email protected]
2. Mahesh Nepal Senior Field Director PACT [email protected]
3. Naryan Silwal Program Manager PACT 9851109845 [email protected]
4. Nirak Sunar Program Manager PACT 9841489658 [email protected]
5. Sudan Shivakoti M & E Manager PACT 9851102082 [email protected]
6. Suresh Thapa Senior Regional Program Manager PACT 9851085404 [email protected]
7. Dipesh Raj Sharma System Analyst Syntegrate Services Pte Ltd 9851033153 [email protected]
8. Sudeep Shrestha Chief System Integrator Syntegrate Services Pte Ltd 9851026799 [email protected]
9. Dr. Jaya K. Gurung Executive Director NDRI 9851101675 [email protected]
10. Dr. Manjeshwori Singh GESI Expert NDRI 9841558702 [email protected]
11. Dr. Purushottam Ghimire Governance Expert NDRI 9841278600 [email protected]
12. Dr. Raj Man Shrestha Statistician NDRI 9851150659 [email protected]
13. Dr. Umesh K. Bhattari Conflict Expert NDRI 9851156254 [email protected]
14. Anita Khadka Research Associate NDRI 9841158797 [email protected]
15. Anuj Baniya Supervisor NDRI 9803878280 [email protected]
16. Baksur Roka Magar Supervisor NDRI 9849037840 [email protected]
17. Kalpana Kaspal Supervisor NDRI 9841725792 [email protected]
18. Khem Raj Khanal Supervisor NDRI 9849613984 [email protected]
19. Ram P. Devkota Supervisor NDRI 9841820832 [email protected]
20. Sun Maya Gurung Supervisor NDRI 9841488986 [email protected]
Page | 78
Workshop Agenda
Project: Baseline and Endline Surveys in Recovery District
Date: 25 May, 2016
Venue: NDRI Hall
Facilitator: Dr. Manjeshwori Singh
Time Activities Responsible person
Sess
ion
A
Introduction
09:00-9:30 A.M Registration All participants
09:30-9:40 A.M. Introduction All participants
09:40-9:50 A.M. Welcome remarks Dr. Jaya K. Gurung (NDRI)
09:50-10:20 A.M Project description and SB expectations Basanta Pokherel (DCOP)
Sess
ion
B
Technical Session
10:20-10:35 A.M. Baseline survey description Dr. Manjeshwori Singh (NDRI)
10:35-10:50 A.M. Project methodology/sampling strategy/survey districts/ VDCs Dr. Rajman Shrestha (NDRI)
10:50-11:10 A.M. Data collection approach using Android Mobile Phones Sudeep (Syntegrate Inc.)
11:05-01:00 P.M Orientation on household questionnaire Section C,D,F Dr. Puroshottam Ghimire (NDRI)
Lunch Break (1:00-2:00 P.M.)
02:00-02:20 P.M. Orientation on household questionnaire Section E Dr. Umesh Bhattarai (NDRI)
02:20-02:40 P.M. Orientation on household questionnaire Section G Dr. Manjeshwori Singh (NDRI)
02:40-03:00 P.M. Orientation on household questionnaire Section H Anita Khadka (NDRI)
03:00-03:20 P.M Orientation on Key Informants Interview tool Dr. Puroshottam Ghimire (NDRI)
03:20-03:40 P.M. Orientation on Focus Group Discussion tool Dr. Puroshottam Ghimire (NDRI)
03:40-04:40 P.M. Data analysis plan Dr. Rajman Shrestha
04:40-04:55 P.M. Feedback collection NDRI
04:55-05:00 P.M. Closing Remarks Dr. Jaya K. Gurung (NDRI)
Page | 79
Annex 7: Work plan
RFP # 14 - Baseline and Endline Surveys in Recovery Districts
Baseline Survey, 2016
S.N WORK PLAN FOR BASELINE SURVEY April, 2016 May, 2016 June, 2016 July, 2016
3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
1 Signing of Contract 11
2 Preliminary Meeting and orientation on SB recovery districts by SB to NDRI 21
3 Desk review of all the documents related to project such as indicator matrix, survey tools, list of SB intervention VDCs, list of local NGO's in the VDCs.
4 Designing the detailed work plan, sampling strategy and tools in English and Nepali, data collection methodology after reviewing all the documents
4.1 Meeting with Syntegrate Services Pte. Ltd and discussion on mobile based survey (21 April)
4.2 Finalize survey tools (HH questionnaire, FGD & KII) after consulting with SB, PACT and USAID experts
4.3 Translate tools in Nepali language
D1: Submission of final survey tools in electronic format i.e. for HH questionnaires, FGD & KII guides in both English and Nepali language
5 Recruitment of field researchers
5.1 Vacancy announcement (15 to 19 May)
5.2 Screening and short listing of field researchers (20 May)
5.3 Interview of field researchers (22 to 23 May)
5.4 Finalization of field researchers (24 May)
6 Meeting with SB to discuss on workshop, training agenda, pre-testing of tools and also on data analysis plan (23 May)
Page | 80
RFP # 14 - Baseline and Endline Surveys in Recovery Districts
Baseline Survey, 2016
S.N WORK PLAN FOR BASELINE SURVEY April, 2016 May, 2016 June, 2016 July, 2016
3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
D2: Submission of data analysis plan to SB (23 May)
7 One-day workshop for finalizing survey tools in consultation with SB M&E team, USAID, PACT and Recovery Program Team (25 May)
8 Conduction of 2-day training program for field researchers about project and tools developed (27 to 28 May)
9 Design and finalize survey tools in an Android Mobile Phone by Syntegrate Inc. and submission of the instruments to NDRI
10 One-day pre-testing of tools in Chhampi VDC by field supervisor under the leadership of NDRI expert (30 May)
11 Pre-test feedback collection and incorporate changes in questionnaire (31 May)
12 Field planning and logistics management for baseline survey (1 to 3 June)
13 Field survey (4 to 16 June)
14 Undertake data processing (data masking, coding, cleaning) by SSPL and submit to NDRI (June 19)
D 3: Prepare preliminary outputs (findings) and submit files in both SPSS and MS Excel format to SB (8th July)
15 Submission of first draft report of baseline survey to SB
Page | 81
Annex 8: Data outputs
A. Socio-demographic characteristics
B. Ward Citizen Forum
C. Community Development Project
D. VDC service delivery
E. Conflict Mediation
F. Gender Based Violence
Data outputs for section A,B,C,D,E and F is attached in second report as
Annex 8: Data Outputs