ATTACHMENT_J_12__SUCCESS_TPM_Report__Rumbek_CEC.pdf

THIRD PARTY MONITORING REPORT

FOR THE SUCCESS PROGRAM

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT CENTER IN RUMBEK

October 2017 This monitoring report was made possible by the support of American People through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of Management Systems International, a Tetra Tech Company.

ATTACHMENT J. 12: SUCCESS TPM Report _Rumbek CEC

THIRD PARTY MONITORING

REPORT FOR THE SUCCESS

PROGRAM

CIVIC ENGAGEMENT CENTER IN RUMBEK

October 2017

Contracted under AID–668–I–13–00001, Task Order One

USAID Monitoring and Evaluation Support Project

DISCLAIMER

This monitoring report is made possible by the support of the American people through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The contents are the sole responsibility of the Management Systems International and do not necessarily reflect the views of USAID or the United States Government.

PROJECT DATA TABLE

Program Name Systems to Uphold the Credibility and Constitutionality of Elections in South Sudan (SUCCESS)

Agreement Information Cooperative Agreement # AID 668-A-13-00004

Office/Region/Country USAID/South Sudan Technical Office: Democracy and Governance

– Juba, South Sudan

Prime Managing Contractor Democracy International (DI)

Sub-contracting Partners N/A

Key Program Dates SUCCESS beginning and end dates FY2014-FY2018

Monitoring and Verification Provider

Management Systems International (MSI)

TPM Team Members:

Biringwa Baya Walla, Manager Mike Salla, M&E Officer Kiden Sarah, M&E Officer

SUCCESS Mission Site Visits Rumbek town - Rumbek Counties

Field Data Collection Dates October 30 to November 1, 2017

CONTENTS

CONTENTS

ACRONYMS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Overview of Rumbek Findings

Operation and Management of Civic Engagement Cetner Center Sustainability Plan Sub-grants Attached to CEC Successes and Challenges Availability and usage of ARCSS

Conclusions Recommendations

INTRODUCTION

Purpose Background Methodology Scope

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings

Operation and Management of Civic Engagement Center Sustainability Plan Sub-grants Attached to CEC Success and Challenges Availability and Usage of ARCSS

Conclusions Recommendations

Annex 1: Monitoring Tool

Annex 2: Photo Table

Annex 3: Map of Rumbek County

ACRONYMS

ADS Automated Directive Systems

ARCSS Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan

CEC Civic Engagement Center

CPA Comprehensive Peace Agreement

CSO Civil Society Organization

DG Democracy and Governance

DI Democracy International

GBV Gender Based Violence

IPs Implementing Partners

IT Information Technology

NGO Non-Governmental Organizations

SUCCESS Systems to Uphold the Credibility and Constitutionality of Elections in South Sudan

TPM Third Party Monitoring

TPM&V Third Party Monitoring and Verification

UC User Committee

USAID United States Agency for International Development

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

USAID/South Sudan Office of Democracy and Governance (DG) commissioned this Third Party Monitoring and Verification (TPM&V) exercise to monitor the Civic Engagement Center (CEC) project in Rumbek, supported under the USAID Systems to Uphold the Credibility and Constitutionality of Elections in South Sudan (SUCCESS) project implemented by Democracy International (DI).

The five focus issues considered were: (1) operation and management of the CEC; (2) availability and usage of the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan (ARCSS); (3) the sustainability of CEC; (4) sub-grants attached to the CEC; and (5) success and challenges facing the CEC. In addition, the Third Party Monitoring (TPM) team monitored selected contextual information and USAID agency branding compliance. To understand the CEC activities in Rumbek, the TPM team conducted interviews with CEC management, beneficiaries, and community leaders. The team also conducted direct observations and collected photo evidence.

The Rumbek CEC is effectively managed and provides needed services to Rumbek communities. A mandatory User Committee (UC) has been formed for the center, and it is equipped with the skills to manage the CEC after DI support ends. However, the UC still has a lot work to do if the sustainability plan is to be achieved. The current CEC activities in Rumbek have been a success; however, the current CSOs and the UC need to explore how the CEC can table, discuss and positively contribute to reducing intercommunal tension and fighting in Rumbek.

Overview of Rumbek

Rumbek was the capital of the former Lakes State. It is located about 377 kilometers from Juba. During the South Sudan liberation struggle, Rumbek served as the capital of SPLA/M. Following the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), Rumbek was initially chosen to be the administrative capital of the Government of South Sudan. Later, Juba was selected to be the permanent capital. Historically, Rumbek was home to one of the best secondary schools in what was then Sudan. Most South Sudanese leaders studied in Rumbek Secondary School. For example, General Joseph Lagu and Dr. John Garang were both graduates from Rumbek Secondary School. The current fighting has not affected Rumbek, but frequent communal fighting has become the norm in Rumbek and the surrounding areas. In the last communal fight, during the first half of September 2017, CEC staff were not able to report to work for several days.

Findings

Operation and Management of Civic Engagement Cetner Center

• The main activities conducted in Rumbek CEC provide access to information to community members.

• According to the UC, the most frequent CEC users are CSOs, NNGOs, INGOs, students, members of state parliament, and the general public.

• Women and men have equitable access to the Rumbek CEC services.

• The Rumbek CEC is effectively managed.

• While in Rumbek, the TPM team confirmed that UC has developed a written plan and schedule of activities.

• The Rumbek CEC project facility is clearly branded and marked.

Sustainability Plan

• The CEC in Rumbek has adopted a sustainability plan as part of the overall strategic plan. The plan outlines the main outcomes and measures that need to be taken to assure sustainable operations. The main postulates of the sustainability framework are the same and include effective income generation, and colocation with local civil society organizations (CSO) to host them.

• During 2017, the UC of Rumbek CEC has also adopted a specific Resource Mobilization Plan, which outlines key objectives of resource mobilization consisting of adequate funding at the county and state level, predictable voluntary funding, and earmarked funding. However, the plan is very general in nature, and does not lay out specific milestones or action that need to be taken.

• The Rumbek CEC is still hosted in a rented facility (a private house) and has difficulty finding a host CSO. This is further exacerbated with the fact that CEC runs on very limited resources.

• CEC also plans to introduce user fees at the level of 100 SSP ($0.59) per hour of internet usage.

At the time of the field visit, UC has not set specific date when the planned user fees will be introduced. Thus the TPM Team was not able to verify the exact period when these fees will be introduced.

• Interviews with selected community members and beneficiaries validate that the community in Rumbek supports CEC activities.

Sub-grants Attached to CEC

• There are no sub-grants linked to Rumbek CEC.

• The center operates a ‘concept note money’ support scheme for CSOs, which is meant to facilitate their work. Concept note is a plan of activity that CSOs submit to DI for funding and covers conduct of events at the CEC. This is usually a one-time event per CSO.

• There is a general feeling among CSOs that ‘concept note money’ scheme is insufficient. This is coupled with the lack of capacity among CSOs to write concept notes, as attested during TPM interviews.

Successes and Challenges

• The main successes highlighted during interviews include beneficiaries that undertook successful online studies, as well as those who found jobs online through the use of CEC services.

• The most critical challenges facing Rumbek CEC are:

o Insecurity due to intercommunal fighting.

o Issues related to electric power, since current generator belongs to the owner of the house rented by DI for CEC use.

• Despite equal access, participation of women remains a challenge, with only approximately 24% of users per week being women (77 out of 320).

Availability and usage of ARCSS

The TPM team observed that there were no ARCSS copies available in Rumbek CEC.

Conclusions

In line with the findings, the TPM Team concludes:

• Rumbek CEC has been successful in providing community with access to information, especially related to peace and civil society-state dialogues. However, rampant intercommunal fighting is a threat to the operation of the CEC in Rumbek due to the inability of staff to access the office.

• With only approximately 25% of participants being women, there are still gender disparities regarding equal participation of females and males at the CEC, including access to CEC services.

However, CEC is taking steps to mitigate this situation through a women’s leadership forum.

This forum brings together women leaders to discuss issues that affect women’s participation in the public arena.

• Rumbek CEC is operational and effectively managed with the UC formed and equipped with basic skills.

• The CEC may continue to operate well after DI support ends. However, running costs may still pose challenges, if the planned sustainability measures are not achieved.

• At this point it is very difficult to assert the financial viability CEC, due to a set of factors, the most important being the frequency of utilization of CEC internet services.

o Presuming an average monthly operational cost of approximately 170,000 SSD ($1,000), and the introduction of fees, the most conservative analysis (1h charge per user) reveals that CEC can cover around 75% of its monthly cost.

o A more optimistic scenario (2h charge per user) could enable potential 150% coverage of monthly cost, presuming that CEC is able to attract clients at the level that was verified by the team (320 clients/week).

• Lack of consistent power supply and dependency on rented generator poses a challenge for the overall operation of CEC

• The team observed that the Rumbek CEC is compliant with USAID branding and marking policy as per the ADS 320.

• Unless the Rumbek CEC has an alternative location after DI’s departure, it will be a challenge for the center to continue operations.

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the TPM team recommends:

• There is need for additional effort to narrow gender gaps in equal participation of females and males at the CEC, including access to CEC services. Specifically, the women’s leadership forum is recommended to consider expanding awareness efforts with focus on countering perception the CEC is a male only facility and to organize specific basic personal computer training for women.

• CSOs operating in Rumbek CEC should explore ways to table and discuss rampant intercommunal fighting in Rumbek.

• The UC should start preparing clients for the introduction of subscription and usage fees to avoid a potential collapse of the Center after DI project ends.

INTRODUCTION

Purpose

This report provides data on implementation of Community Engagement Center (CEC) project in Rumbek and provides data on agency compliance and selected contextual indicators. The report suggests some recommendations.

Background

South Sudan is a young nation at a crossroads. Civil war threatens to undermine progress toward political transition and stability in a country that has long suffered the effects of conflict. Deep ethnic divisions, unresolved drivers of conflict, little government accountability to the South Sudanese citizens, and weak civic engagement are major factors of continued violence in South Sudan. Against this background, the Systems to Uphold the Credibility and Constitutionality of Elections in South (SUCCESS) program was conceptualized. The SUCCESS program would assist democratic processes in anticipation of general elections scheduled for 2015. It was hoped, therefore, that through the SUCCESS program there would be transfer of applicable knowledge to the electoral commission;

constitutional and legislative bodies; political parties; and civil society. Further, the program is intended to promote and consolidate engagement of citizens and civil society in democratic political processes.

Originally, SUCCESS had the following three program components:

• Component 1: Increased capacity of South Sudanese institutions to lead processes that citizens accept as legitimate.

o 1.1: Electoral support, o 1.2: Constitutional development, and o 1.3: Conflict mitigation.

• Component 2: Political parties within and outside of power more credibly represent core constituents.

o 2.1: Political party development, o 2.2: Legislative outreach, and o 2.3: Conflict mitigation.

• Component 3: South Sudanese citizens more aware of and involved in political processes.

o 3.1: Civil society advocacy support and capacity development, o 3.2: Civic education, and o 3.3: Conflict mitigation.

However, because of the increased violence in the country, SUCCESS program objectives 1 and 2 are on hold. Consequently, the current overall goal is to empower South Sudanese citizens to contribute to inclusive peace, increased government accountability to the general public, and national cohesion. Based on this rationale, the current development hypothesis for the SUCCESS program states: “If South Sudanese CSOs and citizens are provided with the knowledge and capacity to constructively engage in political processes (including peace implementation) based on key issues of interest to South Sudanese, then South Sudanese citizens will be more empowered and engaged in political processes (including peace building efforts), hence holding democratic stakeholders accountable for good governance and peace implementation.”

This hypothesis suggests SUCCESS targets two main beneficiaries: South Sudanese citizens and South Sudanese civil society organizations (CSOs). As a practical result, SUCCESS mainly focuses on political processes in the country.

Methodology

To prepare for the field visit the Third Party Monitors (TPMs) reviewed the monitoring and evaluation plan for the SUCCESS program and program reports. During the monitoring and verification exercise, the TPM team interviewed the CEC management team, members of the CEC UC, and selected members of the community in Rumbek. The TPM team also conducted observations of the CEC supported by photo evidence. The primary data was collected using Fulcrum application software loaded on smartphones. Both qualitative and quantitative data analyses were applied. Excel was used to aid quantitative data analysis. Qualitative data was analyzed using data reduction, display, conclusion drawing, and verification. Data was condensed for the sake of manageability and transposed to make sense in terms of the issues being addressed.

Scope

The SUCCESS program was launched in October 2013. But since then the USAID/South Sudan Democracy and Governance (DG) Team has not able to monitor the implementation of the program due to travel restrictions related to insecurity. Thus, USAID South Sudan DG Team would like to verify how the CEC is managed; what sub-grants are being implemented; what are the success and challenges that face CECs; and if the program compiles with ADS 201 branding requirements. This report was commissioned by the USAID Program Office at the request of DG technical team.

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Findings

Operation and Management of Civic Engagement Center

The main activities conducted in Rumbek CEC serve to provide access to information to community members. According to the CEC manager, most activities are related to peace activities such as civil society-State dialogues. In addition, the CEC also hosts CSO trainings on project management and administration. The CEC manager reported that 32 CSOs operate in Rumbek, engaged in various activities. Besides organizing a monthly CSO forum and cultural events at the CEC, CSOs are also engaged in advocacy for women. Specifically, CSOs advocate for the inclusion of women in governance, against early marriage, and for raising awareness on issues related to gender-based violence (GBV). While in Rumbek, the TPM team observed that the CEC was busy with many beneficiaries.

According to the UC, the most frequent CEC users are CSOs, NNGOs, INGOs, students, Members of Parliament, and the general public. The UC members interviewed noted that beneficiaries usually use the CEC for accessing information, looking for jobs, and taking online courses.

UC members reported that there were 320 beneficiaries per week on average. Of the total beneficiaries, 243 beneficiaries were male and 77 were female. Photo # 3 in annex 2 shows the TPM team meeting with beneficiaries.

Both women and men have equitable access to services in the Rumbek CEC. However, according to the CEC manager, there are still gender disparities affecting equal participation of men and women at the CEC. To bridge the gap, the CEC prioritizes women activities. In particular, the CEC organized a women’s leadership forum. This forum brings together women leaders to discuss issues that affect women’s participation in the public arena. In addition, women also participate in monthly meetings of the CSOs. The CSO forum is an important event where important issues are discussed and collaborative decisions are made.

The Rumbek CEC is effectively managed. The CEC management reported the formation of the UC (photo # 1, annex 2) to manage the day-to-day activities of the center. According to the CEC manager, DI trained the Rumbek UC members in proposal writing, grant management, and resource mobilization. Further, the committee is trained in coalition building and networking, including organizational security risk management and conflict resolution. Currently, the UC has clear TORs and is capable of managing the CEC’s activities. There are 9 members on the UC. Of the 9 UC members, 2 are female. According to the UC members interviewed, the position of Deputy Chair is held by a woman. To strengthen effective management of the Rumbek CEC, UC has introduced usage guides.

Specifically, the UC allocates one hour for every user group. Two computers are dedicated to studies. In this case, users can use the study computers for two hours. The CEC management has also introduced a security procedure at the center where all CEC users are tracked through a registration book. As the CEC Team reported, this measure is also meant to prevent and/or people with unwanted behaviors.

The UC also writes weekly reports that include security and political issues.

While in Rumbek, the TPM Team confirmed that the UC has developed a written plan of activities. In addition, the UC will develop a strategic plan, a code of conduct, a complaint management procedure, and a capacity building plan for UC members. The UC has already developed an HR policy, a resource mobilization strategic plan, a financial resource policy, an asset management policy, a facility usage regulations, and a strategic plan.

As shown in photo # 3 in annex 2, the Rumbek CEC project facility is clearly branded and marked. The CEC manager reported that Rumbek CEC uses radio, newspapers, and the DI website to publicize the activities and successes of the project.

Sustainability Plan

Rumbek CEC is currently in a rented house, has no standalone sustainability plan, but has adopted a sustainability framework and resource mobilization plan. The main postulates of sustainability are effective income generation, and colocation with Civil Society Organizations (CSO).

The UC has also developed sustainability indicators for the center. First, the UC has developed a vision statement which states the overall goals of the CEC: “A transformed community capable of understanding their rights and responsibilities and able to participate in addressing issues affecting their lives in Rumbek.” Secondly, the UC has developed a written strategic finance plan. Third, the UC developed a written sustainability document accompanied by a plan of action. Finally, the TPM team confirmed strong community and government support for the Center.

CEC plans to introduce internet and computer user fees. As of the time when the report was written, the total average cost for running CEC was approximately 17,000 SSP ($1,000). In discussion with the CEC management, the TPM team was told that the CEC, as part of their sustainability planning, intends to introduce user fees for services. The average hourly fee for internet usage in private facilities is around 200 SSP ($1.18), while the CEC management plans to charge on average 100 SSP ($0.59) per hour of usage, which is half of the market price. The timing of when they plan to start with the charge was not defined, but CEC management needs to take into account that it needs to prepare users for introduction of fees.

The TPM team interviewed selected community opinion leaders and confirmed community support of the CEC. The community leaders interviewed reported they know what activities take place at the CEC. Specifically, the leaders mentioned peace dialogues, public debates on peace, GBV, CSO meeting space, peace awareness from cattle camps, and free internet. The leaders interviewed support these activities. They believe these activities are good for the Rumbek community because the activities create awareness and the ability to participate in the community.

Sub-grants Attached to CEC

There are no sub-grants linked to Rumbek CEC.

Success and Challenges

According to the CEC manager, the documented success stories in Rumbek are related to beneficiaries undertaking successful online studies and finding jobs online. However, there are challenges facing Rumbek CEC. The issues of electric power and insecurity due to intercommunal fighting are critical. The current CEC generator belongs to the owner of the house DI rented for the CEC. In addition, some CSOs feel that concept note money meant to facilitate their work is insufficient.

Some CSOs lack the capacity to write concept notes. Concept note money is a plan of activity CSOs submits to DI for review and funding to conduct event(s) at the CEC. This is one time event CSOs organize at the CEC. Women’s participation has also been challenging. To mitigate these challenges, the CEC has developed a strategy to build CSOs capacity to encourage more women’s activities.

Availability and Usage of ARCSS

The TPM team observed that there were no ARCSS copies available in Rumbek CEC. The Rumbek CEC manager confirmed the center did not receive any copies of the ARCSS.

Conclusions

In line with the findings, the TPM team concludes:

The Rumbek CEC has been successful in providing the community with access to information. This is especially strong in activities related to peace activities like civil society-State dialogues. In addition, the community can take online courses and search for jobs online.

There are still gender disparities affecting the equal participation of men and women at the CEC, including equal access to CEC services. However, there are efforts to bridge the gap. Specifically, the creation of the women’s leadership forum was commendable.

The Rumbek CEC is operational and effectively managed. A UC has been formed and is equipped with basic skills, including writing project proposals, grants management, resource mobilization, leadership, coalition building and networking, communication, organizational security risk management and conflict. Consequently, the UC has developed operational policy documents to guide its work.

The TPM team observed that the Rumbek CEC is fully compliant with USAID branding and marking policy as required in ADS 201. The Center is clearly branded and all the office equipment is clearly marked.

Unless the Rumbek CEC has an alternative location to relocate to after DI phases out, it will be challenging for the center to continue operations. While the current sustainability effort may work in the long run, there is need for an immediate solution. Without an operational CEC in Rumbek after the end of the DI project, the vision, “A transformed community capable of understanding their rights and responsibilities and able to participate in addressing issues affecting their lives in Rumbek” may not be sustained.

The TPM team did a quick analysis of financial sustainability of the CEC, taking into account the proposed fee of 100 SSP per hour of use, and average number of users during one week. The two scenarios presented below, presume a minimum of one hour and a maximum of two hours of usage per person/per day, and account for a weekly total of 320 users as verified by the TPM team.

TABLE 1: ANALYSIS OF FINANCIAL SUSTAINABILITY OF THE CEC

Rumbek CEC projections Fee Users/Week Weekly revenues Monthly revenues

Potential coverage of cost

Min (1h/user) 100 320 32,000 128,000 75%

Max (2h/user) 200 320 64,000 256,000 150%

Recommendations

Based on the conclusions, the TPM Team recommends:

The CEC must increase efforts to narrow gender gaps in the equal participation of men and women, including access to CEC services. The current efforts, especially the women’s leadership forum, should continue. Specifically, the women’s leadership forum is recommended to consider expanding awareness efforts with focus on countering perception the CEC is a male only facility and to organize specific basic personal computer training for women.

CSOs operating in Rumbek CEC should explore ways to table and discuss rampant intercommunal fighting in Rumbek. This can take place in form of dialogues with larger involvement of community members and major religious actors who enjoy respect in the community.

The UC should seriously start taking steps towards ensuring that the Rumbek CEC does not collapse. The UC should plan to introduce subscription fees, and this should be made known to clients well before the DI project ends. In addition, DI should consider budgeting for cost of running the CEC for a set period of time (i.e. 3-6 months), once the new fee for service scheme is introduced and tested.

ANNEX 1: MONITORING TOOL

S/N Data points Answer Type Means of Verification Data Source

Basic Data State Dropdown M Observation County Dropdown M Observation Town Dropdown M Observation Name of the CSO Text Interview Main area of activity Text Interview/Review GPS Integer Photo evidence

Question 1: Are the CECs functional and effectively managed that will result to sustainability of the CECs?

Functionality 1 Is the CES functional? Y/N Observation/Interview CSO staff 2 If yes, skip to question 4. If no, why this facility is not functional? Text Interview CSO staff 3 How long has this CEC been nonfunctional? And end interview. Integer Interview CSO staff Management 4 Is there user committee formed for this CEC facility? Y/N Interview CSO staff 5 How many members form user committee? Integer Interview/Review CSO staff & Minutes 6 Does user committee have Terms of Reference? Y/N Interview/Review CSO staff & ToR doc 7 Is CEC user committee members trained? Y/N Interview/Review CSO staff & minutes 8 Which organization facilitated training of CEC user committees? Text Interview CSO staff 10 What are the main topics covered in the training? Text Interview/Review CSO staff & minutes 11 If no, check with IP why user committee members were not trained? Text Interview IP representative Management Effectiveness 12 Does user committee have a written plan of activities? Text Interview/Review CSO staff & activity plan 13 What activities has user committee planned to implement? Text/integer Interview/Review CSO staff & minutes 14 What activities did user committee implement? Text/integer Interview/Review CSO staff & minutes 15 If none of the activities planned were implemented, explain why? Text Interview CSO staff & minutes Ownership CEC land and building and Sustainability of the activities

16 What is the status of CEC building?

MC

Owned Rented Others specify

Interview/Review CSO staff & documents e.g. ownership papers, rent contracts

17 Does user committee have sustainability plan this CEC? Y/N Interview/Review CSO staff & plan document

If yes, check the following 4 sustainability indicators. If no, skip to question 19.

Vision statement that clearly states what CEC wants to sustain, Written strategic finance plan, Written sustainability document with plan of action, Community/government support

Y/N Interview/Review CSO staff & project document

Community support 19 Do you have any idea of what activities take place at the CEC? Y/N Interview Opinion leader 20 If yes, do you support these activities? Text Interview Opinion leader 21 If no, where do you think is the problem? Text Interview Opinion leader 22 In your opinion, are the activities good for your community? Text Interview Opinion leader 23 If yes, why. And if no, why? Interview Opinion leader

Question 2: How are the CEC used?

24 Is the CEC being used at the moment? Yes/No Observations CSO staff & TPM 25 If no, why is the CEC not being used? Text Interview CSO staff 26 If yes, who uses the CEC? Text Interview/observations CSO staff /observations 27 What kind of activities takes place at the CEC? Text/Integer Interview CSO staff

Question 3: What sub-grantees being implemented by the CECs?

28 Are there sub-grant project being implemented at this CEC? Yes/No Interview CSO staff 29 If no, Confirm with project IP to know why? Text Interview IP representative 30 If yes, what sub-grant project is being implemented at this CEC? Text/Integer Interview CSO staff 31 Which sub-grantee is implementing the sub-grant at the CEC? Text Interview CSO staff 32 If yes list activities implemented at the CEC? Text/integer Interview/Review CSO staff

Question 4: What are success stories or/and challenges CECs face?

33 Is there any success story if any documented about this CEC? Yes/No Interview CSO staff 34 If yes, what is the success story all about? Text Interview CSO staff 35 Are there any challenges facing this CEC? Yes/No Interview CSO staff 36 If yes, list the challenges facing the CEC? Text Interview CSO staff 37 Is there any strategy to manage the challenges? Text Interview CSO staff 38 If yes, explain how challenges are being managed at the CEC? Text Interview CSO staff

Question 5: Are copies of ARCSS distributed at the CECs?

39 Did this CEC receive any copies of ARCSS? YES/NO Interview CSO staff 40 If no, were you informed when ARCSS copies will be delivered to this CEC? Integer Interview CSO staff 41 If no to question xx, end of the questions CSO staff 42 If yes how many copies were delivered to the CEC? Integer Interview CSO staff

43 Of the copies delivered, did CEC give copies its beneficiaries? Yes/No Interview CSO staff 44 If yes how many copies of ARCSS were given out to beneficiaries? Integer Interview CSO staff 45 How many copies of ARCSS still remain at the CEC? Integer Interview CSO staff Agency Compliance Gender 46 How do project activities address gender gaps? Text Interview IP representative 47 What practical steps are being taken to empower women? Text Interview and review. IP representative 48 Do women and men had equitable access to services? Text Observation TPM 49 Do women participate in decision making? Text Interview/Spot check IP representative 50 If yes, explain how? Text Interview IP representative 51 If no, explain how? Text Interview IP representative Branding and Marking 52 Is the project facility branded and marked? Text Interview/observation IP representative 53 If no, why is the project not branded and marked? Text Interview IP representative

54 What are other means of publicizing the success of the project?

Radio, TV, News Paper, Social media, Others (please note)

Interview IP representative

55 If social media is used as means of publicizing project success, what specific social media is used?

Website, Tweeter, Facebook, Online forums, Others (please, note)

Interview IP representative

56 Has conflict recently affected this project site/area? Y/N Interview IP representative

57 How has conflict or tense social dynamics affected service delivery? (can check more than 1)

Ability of school staff to work or get to work, Access of project service, Others (please, note)

Interview IP representative

58 Tell me about any effects this project has on reducing conflict in this area? Text Interview IP representative

59 Do you feel safe working at this project site? Y/N Interview

IP

representative/Communi ty member

60 If yes, why? And if no why? Text Interview

IP

representative/communi ty member

61 What are the available staple foods in the market? Maize/sorghum grain/flour Interview/ Opinion leader &

Legumes (local beans/janjaro/cow peas etc) Groundnuts or sesame Greens Meat (chicken or beef) Oil (including locally processed oil)

Observation observation at the nearest market in the area

62 What is the main source(s) of livelihood for this community?

Farming, Cattle keeping, Fishing, Petty trade, Others (please, note)

Interview IP representative/ Opinion leader

Thank you

ANNEX 2: PHOTO TABLE

Rumbek Civic Engagement center:

TPM meeting with the user committee

TPM meeting with beneficiaries (Students, local government officials, NNGOs, general public, job seekers etc.)

Signboard

ANNEX 3: MAP OF RUMBEK COUNTY