2020 Torit and Magwi county Multisector

Household Survey

April 2020

Acknowledgement: This report was made possible thanks to the kind contribution of UNICEF, the Italian Agency for Development Cooperation, and the Food Agency Organisation

© AVSI, 2019 - all rights reserved

Outline1) Survey methodology

2) Education as the main concern of families

3) Need for a response supporting all levels of pre-primary and primary education

4) Education and FSL they sustain one another

5) Protection needs and overall crime/conflict mitigation must be read together

6) Gender and power must be read together too

Multi sources presentation: white background signals information based on multisector survey, yellow school surveys, green external sources

2

Background and Rationale of AVSI surveying effort

AVSI is a development-oriented and community based NGO. It developed an internal M/E multi-sector framework for a number of reasons:

✓ to asses the conditions of entire communities (sub-county: payams), to improve targeting and tailoring and to orient our response toward entire communities (not just direct beneficiaries)

✓ to gain a holistic, multi-sectoral understanding of recent developments (last 12 months) in the following fields (need to cover them all in one survey to cross answers to get solid findings and identify linkages):

• Human development – Livelihood, Resilience, Food Security, Health, Hygiene, Education, Protection and Gender• Economy – Agriculture, Livestock Farming, Markets, Assets• Peace and Governance – Natural Resources, Safety, Migration, Community Participation & Local Governance and

Humanitarian Aid

✓ to encourage a more nexus/resilience-oriented mindset: focusing not only on needs but also on opportunities to strengthen (positive copying strategies, community self-reliance, and advanced market participants to use as pulling factors)

✓ to nourish genuine accountability: surveys are validated trough one-day meetings with county and payam representatives as a means to promote an evidence-based dialogue with the community

3

MethodologyQuestionnaire:

• with a core on mainly on WFP/FAO-led Food Security and Nutrition Monitoring System (FSNMS) survey

• and a mix of questions from renowned regional resilience-oriented surveys: 1) UNICEF MICS (Multi Indicator Cluster Survey) survey; 2) Consortium for Improving Agriculture-based Livelihoods in Central Africa (CIALCA) Baseline Survey; 3) the Secure Livelihood Research Consortium (SLRC) Survey; 4) the RGAP Smallholder Household Survey and; 5) a study on natural resource management compiled by the Association on Strengthening Agricultural Research in Eastern and Central Africa (ASARECA).

Two-stage cluster sampling:

• 1st stage - selection of villages (based on probability proportional to population size (PPS) and stratification).

• 2nd stage - selection of households (based on “improved random-walk” method)

Where and When:

• In order to provide Payam level reference estimates, in Torit a total of 40 villages (clusters) and 345 households were surveyed, and in Magwi* 36 villages (clusters) and 275 households – well above FSNMS survey standard that is based on 80 to 120 households per county. Interviews took place between the 23th of January and the 13rd of February 2020

4

Torit and Magwi* County

5NB: Indicative map does not represent administrative boundaries but provides a reference of the villages covered by the different payams. Their size is not proportional or an indication of the inhabiting population.

*only 2/3 of Magwi were surveyed

Main Problems: Education by far the most important issue… in Torit

❑ Education is the main requests coming from the families of Torit county

❑ Food/hunger and insecurity are less of an issue, while improvement of health and agriculture becomes more requested compared to 2019

❑ Different payams have very different needs (directly reflecting differences in aid coverage)

6

2020 Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY

Education 33% 40% 32% 19% 28% 33% 50% 33% 40% 32%

Water Supply 28% 12% 16% 25% 22% 4% 8% 10% 10% 16%

Health 0% 20% 26% 7% 17% 21% 19% 19% 23% 16%

Agriculture 22% 0% 16% 17% 7% 13% 4% 10% 27% 13%

Food/ Hunger 0% 16% 0% 2% 9% 22% 15% 19% 0% 8%

Security 17% 8% 5% 7% 7% 8% 4% 5% 0% 6%

Peace and reconciliation 0% 0% 0% 15% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 3%

Is there ONE specific issue which you would like the administration to address, which ONE?

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

Education WaterSupply

Health Agriculture Food/Hunger

Security

2019 vs 2020

2019

2020

Note: In red the second most cited issue

T O

R I

T

Main Problems: Education by far the most important issue… and in Magwi

❑ Education is the main requests coming from the families of Magwi county

❑ Food/hunger and insecurity are less of an issue, while improvement of health and agriculture becomes more requested compared to 2019

❑ Different payams have very different needs (directly reflecting differences in aid coverage)

7

Is there ONE specific issue which you would like the administration to address, which ONE?

% of HHs by support most demanded Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo OwinykibulMagwi

CentreCOUNTY

Education 35% 29% 28% 23% 54% 33% 30% 40% 38% 36%

Agriculture 15% 18% 8% 27% 15% 13% 20% 0% 12% 15%

Health 20% 6% 20% 19% 3% 13% 10% 20% 19% 14%

Water supply 5% 35% 8% 19% 10% 0% 10% 30% 15% 13%

Security 10% 6% 20% 4% 3% 23% 10% 0% 12% 10%

Food/Hunger 5% 6% 12% 4% 5% 3% 0% 0% 4% 5%

Roads 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 10% 10% 0% 2%

Peace and reconciliation 0% 0% 0% 4% 3% 3% 10% 0% 0% 2%

M A

G W

I

Overall context: EES’ s reversal of fortune

8

The state of education in EES used to be remarkably better compared to the restof the country; in the last years, however, it has worsened very rapidly

Historical background: By number and categories of schools, as well as thequality of physical and human infrastructure, EES had historically (West part),or gained during the early 2010s (East part), a good position in educationcompared to the rest of the country*-- thanks to the long-standing presenceof religious organizations supporting education and the recent inflow ofnearby English-speaking teachers from Uganda and Kenya

Recent developments: EES’s advantages turned into liabilities with the crisisof 2015/2016. Cuts to public funding for education, the depreciation of theSSP, and humanitarian assistance focus on emergency has left behind EES, andmay continue to do so unless the reopening of non-functioning schoolsbecomes a priority (as important as the refurbishing of functioning schools).

Source: Education Cluster National Assessment 2017

*for instance, in the rural Ikwoto county there are 4 Secondary schools, 2 offering boarding

In 2017 schools reopened in several counties of SSD, but not in EES schools,

where they continued to shut down

Fast forward to 2020

9

The time of reckoning is approaching. The HNO 2020 identifies EES as the statewith the severity of needs is highest, most likely due to the coming back ofreturnees.

Source: Education Cluster National Assessment 2017

Education: the strongest request coming from the community

10

❑There is a marked geographical gap in Torit, whereby outside of Torit Town education infrastructure is still very deficient: schools not operating (see Ifwoto and Iyire), not offering more than lower primary (see Imurok, Himodongue, Kudo, Iyire)

❑An important figure to keep in mind when thinking about the impact of COVID-19: in Torit: 4% of hhs talk in English when at home; children literacy in English is at risk

54%

56%

78%

44%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reading basic sentence

Basic reading comprehension

Basic numerical comprehension

Basic numerical skills (additions)

Cognitive capacity of children above 10 enrolled in P4 or above

Primary Education supply Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire COUNTY

% of HHs with a school at less than 30-minute walk

67% 65% 77% 71% 81% 54% 71% 42% 59% 68%

Only P1 to P3 6% 0% 5% 2% 0% 29% 20% 0% 9% 6%

Up to P4 13% 6% 25% 0% 0% 7% 10% 10% 27% 8%

Up to P5 0% 35% 10% 0% 9% 7% 10% 0% 9% 8%

Up to P6 0% 18% 5% 8% 15% 14% 20% 0% 0% 10%

Up to P7 0% 6% 20% 2% 11% 7% 20% 0% 0% 7%

Up to P8 81% 35% 35% 77% 65% 36% 20% 90% 50% 58%

P8 and some secondary 0% 0% 0% 12% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 4%

Recent improvement works in the school

52% 11% 23% 54% 31% 19% 23% 27% 50% 36%

Functioning PTA in the school 0% 4% 0% 1% 2% 11% 10% 0% 8% 3%

Closer school not operating 44% 18% 23% 9% 14% 23% 26% 12% 38% 20%

reason not open - no teachers 30% 60% 83% 14% 75% 33% 57% 67% 40% 48%

reasons not open - school damaged 50% 20% 17% 71% 25% 33% 29% 33% 40% 37%

reason not open - other reasons 20% 20% 0% 14% 0% 33% 14% 0% 20% 15%

T O

R I

T

Education: the strongest request coming from the community

11

❑ By far, improved education is the greatest request coming from families, it is one of the main reasons why returnees are not coming back, (and the withdrawing of children education is the most common copying strategy)

❑ An important figure to keep in mind when thinking about the impact of COVID-19: in Magwi: 3% of hhs talk in English when at home; children literacy in English is at risk

❑ There is a marked geographical gap in Magwi, whereby outside of Magwi Town education infrastructure is still very deficient: schools not operating (see Pajok, Obbo, Owinkibul), not offering more than lower primary (see Agoro, Owinkibul)M

A G

W I

Primary Education supply Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo OwinykibulMagwi

CentreCOUNTY

% of HHs with a school at less than 30-

minute walk 57% 42% 52% 61% 57% 81% 83% 33% 89% 65%

Only P1 to P3 8% 0% 13% 0% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 2%

Up to P4 8% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 33% 0% 2%

Up to P5 0% 13% 7% 11% 0% 0% 11% 33% 3% 5%

Up to P6 33% 25% 20% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 6%

Up to P7 33% 13% 27% 26% 7% 7% 16% 0% 6% 14%

Up to P8 17% 50% 33% 53% 89% 93% 68% 0% 78% 67%

P8 and some secondary 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 0% 5% 0% 13% 4%

Improvement works made recently in the

school29% 42% 27% 35% 40% 49% 52% 20% 58% 41%

Closer school not operating 35% 11% 33% 10% 15% 62% 43% 44% 14% 28%

reasons not operating - school damaged 57% 50% 33% 0% 29% 74% 30% 25% 0% 44%

reason not operating - no teachers 43% 50% 44% 100% 43% 22% 50% 75% 40% 41%

reason not operating - other reasons 0% 0% 22% 0% 29% 4% 20% 0% 60% 14%

63%

87%

88%

100%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Reading basic sentence

Basic reading comprehension

Basic numerical comprehension

Basic numerical skills (additions)

Cognitive capacity of children above 10 enrolled in P4 or above

EES Schools: the basic 2013-2020 comparison (by Payam)

12

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

% of school in the urban payams (2013) % of school in the urban payams (2020)

Concentration of PS schools in urban areas amid the crises

Budi Ikwoto Kapoeta East Kapoeta North

Kapoeta South Lopa-Lafon Magwi* Torit

COUNTIES% of school in the

urban payams (2013)

% of school in the urban

payams (2020)

Budi 0.25 33%

Ikwoto 35% 38%

Kapoeta East 50% 65%

Kapoeta North 45% 33%

Kapoeta South 42% 66%

Lopa-Lafon 26% 37%

Magwi* 43% 60%

Torit 27% 60%

Total

COUNTIESTotal # of schools (2013)

# of schools functioning

(2020)

% of functioning schools (2020)

Budi 42 34 81%

Ikwoto 70 38 54%

Kapoeta East 24 21 88%

Kapoeta North 9 6 67%

Kapoeta South 13 9 69%

Lopa-Lafon 39 26 67%

Magwi* 107 73 68%

Torit 67 37 55%

Total 371 244 66%

❑ There are two marked things occurring in the period 2013-2020 period:❑ A drastic reduction in the number of schools

❑ A marked concentration of schools in urban areas, especially in the counties with urban/administrative centres: Magwi, Torit and Kapoeta South. Ikwotos county is the exception

EES School Assessment – in the context of AVSI book distribution

13

❑ Out of 244 schools open we received 192 assessments, 80%.❑ The same concentration is visible with regard to primary and nurseries

PRIMARY County Torit County Magwi County Ikwoto County Kapoeta South

County # of Schools Payam # of Schools Payam # of Schools Payam # of Schools Payam # of Schools

Budi 15 Himodonge 3 Iwire 8 Bira 2 Katiko 2

Ikwoto 34 Hiyala 6 Lobone 6 Chahari 2 Morukuron 1

Kapoeta East 20 Kudo 1 Magwi 11 Ikwoto 13 Town 6

Kapoeta North 6 Nyong 15 Nimule 24 Imotong 4

Kapoeta South 9 Grand Total 25 Obbo 7 Katire 3 Grand Total 9

Lopa/Lafon 24 Pajok 1 Lomohidang 3

Magwi 59 paluonganyi 1 Lomohidang N 3

Torit 25 Palwar 1 Losite 4

Grand Total 192 Grand Total 59 Grand Total 34

County # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries Payam # of Nurseries

Budi 6 Himodonge 2 Iwire 2 Bira 1 Katiko 2

Ikwoto 20 Hiyala 3 Lobone 2 Chahari 2 Morukuron 0

Kapoeta East 17 Kudo 1 Magwi 3 Ikwoto 7 Town 5

Kapoeta North 6 Nyong 10 Nimule 15 Imotong 2

Kapoeta South 7 Grand Total 16 Obbo 3 Katire 3 Grand Total 7

Lopa/Lafon 5 Pajok 0 Lomohidang 2

Magwi 27 paluonganyi 1 Lomohidang N. 2

Torit 16 Palwar 1 Losite 1

Grand Total 104 Grand Total 27 Grand Total 20

NURSERIES

EES School Assessment – in the context of AVSI book distribution

14

❑ There is also a county geographical gap in EES, and those paying the price are particular the community of Lopa/Lafon❑ Incidentally, Lopa/Lafon proves very well that edu support is crucial to promote both students

and teacher attendance

CountyAverage of Percentage of children attending

school daily

Average of Percentage of teachers attending

school daily

Budi 63% 70%

Ikwoto 70% 72%

Kapoeta East 75% 80%

Kapoeta North 58% 60%

Kapoeta South 77% 69%

Lopa/Lafon 45% 52%

Magwi 70% 71%

Torit 76% 86%

Grand Total 68% 71%

CountyAverage of In 2019,

received GESS support?

Average of In 2019, received IMPACT

support

Average of In 2019, recieved recreational

material?

Average of In 2019, Received teaching

material?

Average of In 2019, teacher received

training on education practices?

Budi 73% 80% 20% 53% 60%

Ikwoto 97% 76% 50% 85% 62%

Kapoeta East 45% 60% 40% 85% 55%

Kapoeta North 67% 67% 83% 67% 83%

Kapoeta South 78% 100% 44% 100% 89%

Lopa/Lafon 58% 54% 17% 21% 38%

Magwi 73% 78% 36% 59% 56%

Torit 88% 76% 44% 60% 80%

Grand Total 74% 73% 38% 64% 60%

EES School Assessment – in the context of AVSI book distribution

15

❑ Tuition fees is another aspect that gets too little attention compared to its important for families

CountyAverage of School fee

per term (SSP)Budi 481 Ikwoto 515 Kapoeta East 1,936 Kapoeta North 1,100 Kapoeta South 2,159 Lopa/Lafon 188 Magwi 2,682 Torit 738 Grand Total 1,567

Payam (order from highest average)

Average of School fee per term (SSP)

Nimule 4,264 Town 3,175 Town 2,750 Magwi 2,597 Narus 2,296 Korkamuge 2,000 Obbo 1,539 Pajok 1,500 Lobone 1,050 Iwire 1,021 Palwar 1,000 Kuron 1,000 Nyong 985

Education: need for a comprehensive response

16

❑ (in spite of much focus on adolescents education) the strongest barriers are faced by young children 4 to 9 years of age, rather than children between 10 and 15 years of age

❑… among the main reasons for why children between 4 and 9 are not school… is that their younger brother and sisters are not in school (as caring for younger children is the main activity conducted at home by 6 to 11 years of age children when not in school -- for 40% of them is reported to be a full day occupation)

❑ Supporting Early Child Education helps to support lower primary education, which ultimately is needed to make sure that the support to completing primary education reaches the general population, including some vulnerable (rather than an elite)

54% 52% 39% 28% 23%

13%

6%

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250%

Main Occupation of Children at home (6 to 11 years of age)

Caring for younger childrenWashing dishes/cleaning the house/washing clothesGetting water for the houseCooking or preparing ingredients (grinding ingredients)They do not contributeCaring for elderly/sickControl the fields against birds

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Schooling outcomes

- of which (adolescents) attending regularly Adolescents (10 to 15years) school enrollment

- of which (children) attending regularly Children (4 to 9 years) school enrollment

Barriers to school-entry were severe after the conflicts, and are still visible (except for Ikwotowhere AVSI operates since early 2000)

• The “inverted pyramid” visible in the enrollment of the 1st school-Term 2017, after the 2016 clashes, was an alarmingsign of the worsening conditions for young children/pupils in lower-primary grades. Ikwoto showed good resilience

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

TORIT TOWN

Male Females

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

MAGWI TOWN

Male Females

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P8

P7

P6

P5

P4

P3

P2

P1

IKWOTO COUNTY

Male

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8TORIT

Females Males-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8MAGWI CNTY

Females Males-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8KAPOETAS CNTY

Females Males

-80 -60 -40 -20 0 20 40 60 80

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

P6

P7

P8IKWOTO CNTY

Females Males

• Two years later, on April 2019, in most counties fresh intake continues to be “too small” (not enough to counterbalancethe high dropout). The relatively privileged position of Ikwoto County in EES is still very visible – se AVSI)

Dropout among fresh students is very significant

18

0%

10%

20%

30%

P 1 P 2 P 3 P 4 P 5 P 6 P 7 P 8

DROPOUT RATES IN 2017 1 ST VS. 2 ND SCHOOL-TERM

5 PEACE TORIT SCHOOLS

4 PEACE MAGWI SCHOOLS

6 PEACE IKWOTO SCHOOLS

18%

9%

11%

8% 9%8%

9%

11%

17%

9%

12%

10%

11% 13%13%

16%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

DROPOUT RATES IN 2017 1ST VS. 2ND SCHOOL-TERM

Males Females

• Dropout rates in 2017 (between 1st and 2nd school-term): is highest among fresh students (P1), even when comparedwith female students in upper-primary classes

10%

20%

30%

40%

P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 P6 P7 P8

DROPOUT RATES in 2018 (start of III school term VS end of III school term/seating at final exam)

Males Females

• Dropout rates at end of 2018: Unlike Torit, Ikwoto does not show a very high dropout, in spite of the high enrollment.Among male pupils, dropout rates continue to be highest for P1 students; among female students adolescents are atgreater risk of dropout compared to young female children

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

GREATER IKWOTO

GREATER MAGWI/NIMULE

KAPOETA

TORIT/HATIRE road

DROPOUT RATES in 2018 (start of III school term VS end of III school term/seating at final exam)

females male

Over-aged students → young children out of school → reduced chances to increase overall schooling

In P4 the bulk of pupils are 13-14 years of age; presumably, children enter school atan age between 10-11. In Ikwoto children enter school approximately 2 years earlier

TORIT 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+

P4 4.4% 9.7% 13.3% 23.9% 23.9% 17.7% 1.8% 2.7% 1.8% 0.0% 0.9%

P5 0.0% 2.8% 10.2% 22.2% 30.6% 17.6% 8.3% 6.5% 0.9% 0.0% 0.9%

P6 0.0% 0.0% 7.8% 10.4% 21.7% 21.7% 14.8% 13.0% 7.0% 1.7% 1.7%

P7 0.0% 0.0% 0.9% 5.3% 14.9% 18.4% 25.4% 20.2% 13.2% 0.9% 0.9%

P8 0.0% 0.0% 0.8% 0.8% 6.6% 9.9% 24.8% 30.6% 14.0% 6.6% 5.8%

MAGWI 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+

P4 0.0% 4.9% 18.0% 24.6% 36.1% 13.1% 3.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P5 0.0% 3.2% 23.8% 19.0% 36.5% 6.3% 7.9% 0.0% 3.2% 0.0% 0.0%

P6 0.0% 0.0% 3.1% 17.2% 10.9% 34.4% 31.3% 1.6% 1.6% 0.0% 0.0%

P7 0.0% 0.0% 7.9% 1.6% 14.3% 34.9% 27.0% 7.9% 6.3% 0.0% 0.0%

P8 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 18.3% 41.7% 21.7% 0.0% 3.3%

IKWOTO 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20+

P4 19.8% 9.4% 30.2% 24.0% 11.5% 0.0% 2.1% 1.0% 0.0% 2.1% 0.0%

P5 2.0% 7.1% 19.2% 13.1% 27.3% 13.1% 11.1% 6.1% 1.0% 0.0% 0.0%

P6 1.1% 2.2% 13.3% 13.3% 25.6% 21.1% 15.6% 3.3% 1.1% 1.1% 2.2%

P7 1.0% 2.0% 6.1% 14.3% 21.4% 17.3% 17.3% 10.2% 2.0% 1.0% 6.1%

P8 0.0% 0.0% 1.3% 6.6% 10.5% 19.7% 25.0% 22.4% 14.5% 0.0% 0.0%

Data gathered on April 2017

MAGWI 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+)

P4 2% 7% 10% 26% 21% 20% 10% 1% 1% 1% 0%

P5 1% 2% 2% 13% 20% 33% 14% 10% 5% 2% 0%

P6 3% 4% 4% 4% 16% 15% 24% 11% 14% 5% 1%

P7 0% 0% 0% 6% 10% 13% 32% 21% 13% 2% 4%

P8 0% 0% 1% 2% 4% 10% 29% 20% 25% 10% 0%

TORIT 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+)

P4 2% 6% 35% 27% 17% 4% 6% 0% 4% 0% 0%

P5 0% 2% 8% 19% 27% 27% 13% 2% 2% 0% 0%

P6 3% 3% 5% 5% 20% 18% 18% 10% 10% 8% 3%

P7 0% 0% 2% 0% 6% 15% 34% 28% 13% 2% 0%

P8 0% 0% 0% 0% 4% 10% 29% 17% 21% 10% 10%

KAPOETA EAST 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+)

P4 16% 5% 28% 9% 30% 7% 0% 2% 2% 0% 0%

P5 2% 4% 18% 16% 20% 24% 4% 11% 0% 0% 0%

P6 0% 2% 7% 9% 16% 18% 27% 9% 5% 5% 2%

P7 4% 2% 0% 0% 9% 13% 22% 18% 13% 4% 13%

P8 0% 0% 0% 7% 2% 12% 24% 17% 26% 7% 5%

IIKWOTO 10(-) 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20(+)

P4 9% 16% 24% 17% 15% 8% 6% 2% 2% 1% 0%

P5 4% 7% 12% 24% 18% 21% 7% 4% 2% 1% 0%

P6 3% 1% 8% 16% 19% 18% 16% 9% 4% 3% 2%

P7 1% 0% 4% 8% 18% 18% 14% 21% 8% 6% 1%

P8 0% 1% 1% 4% 11% 16% 23% 17% 15% 8% 3%

Dat

aga

ther

edo

nO

cto

ber

20

18

Academic results of P8 students in 2018

20

• Even when it comes to academic results, Ikwoto county’s results are outstanding, (although similar, Kapoetas’ resultsare obtained in mostly urban schools, witch have significantly more resources per child and possibly host pupils frommore well off families)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

GREATER IKWOTO - Males

GREATER IKWOTO - Females

KAPOETA - Males

KAPOETA Females

GREATER MAGWI/NIMULE - Males

GREATER MAGWI/NIMULE - Females

TORIT/HATIRE road - Males

TORIT/HATIRE road Females

Academic results of P8 students - III school-term 2018 (34 schools with functioning P8; 1,148 students)

Did not complete III school term Failed final exam Promoted

Education: affordability is the first issue, the second is distance (lack of functioning

schools)

21

M A G W I

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

To help the family in the filed/cattle/agriculture

There are not enough teachers

The school conditions are too bad

The kid refuse to go to class

School is too distant

Pregnancy/Marriage

Not money to pay materials, fees, uniforms

Insecurity

He/she is in the age when she/he needs to work

He/she is in the age when has to help the family at home

Child is disabled or other impairments that prevent him or her

Because there is no food in the schools

Reasons for not attending schools

Adolescents between 10 and 15 Children between 4 and 9

T O R I T

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

To help the family in the filed/cattle/agriculture

There are not enough teachers

The school conditions are too bad

The kid refuse to go to class

School is too distant

Pregnancy/Marriage

Not money to pay materials, fees, uniforms

Insecurity

He/she is in the age when she/he needs to work

He/she is in the age when has to help the family at home

Child is disabled or other impairments that prevent him or her

Because there is no food in the schools

Reasons for not attending schools

Adolescents between 10 and 15 Children between 4 and 9

0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%

CRISIS Withdrew children from school

STRESS Borrowed money for food

STRESS Sold Household assets

STRESS Went to friends to eat

CRISIS Consumed seeds held for cultivation

CRISIS Sold productive assets

CRISIS Reduced essential non-food items

STRESS Spent savings or sold more animals

Coping strategies

TORIT MAGWI

Returnees: a crucial issue

22

❑ EES, and in particular Magwi, is witnessing the most important influx of returns in the whole country

❑Going forward, UNHCR planned for a reduction in South Sudanese refugee presence in Uganda of 70,000 in 2020, and 100,000 in 2021… Covid19 may make increase these figures.

Source: UNHCR – Jan 2020

Cumulative spontaneous refugee returnees

IOM DATA: https://displacement.iom.int/reports/south-sudan-%E2%80%94-mobility-tracking-report-7-november-2019?close=true

Those who have not returned yet tell us even more: FSL and Education are key

23

❑ Newly arrived/returnee people do not settle if they do not find the right conditions. Only 50% of newly arrived in the last 12 months is sure that will stay

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Intention to relocate further in the next months (Returnees/IDPs)

No, I have the intention to stay here For the time being I do not know Yes I want to leave this place Yes, I think / hope to go back from where I came

❑ Since 2018 there is a population of floating returnees that is trying to resettle but, evidently, does not find the support to be successful in their endeavour. Torit households estimate that 40% of people left after the clashes of 2016. Most people (81%) think that half or less of these families have returned permanently. Interestingly, a large share of the population (45%) believes that half or more came back in some moment but later left again. In brief we can estimate that up to a third of households in refugee camps have sent back some family member over the course of the last 4 years, members who later were forced/preferred to go back to the refugee camps. Main reasons are→

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

%

Reasons why people who come back (retournees) do not mange/prefer not to stay

Insecurity Insufficient edcuation services

hunger both hunger and insecurity

“The vast majority of civilian movements continue to be linked primarily – not to changes in the political situation – but to careful considerations of where they and their families have the safest access to services and the best chances of survival. They often involve the splitting up of households or moving back and forth between displacement and locations of return or relocation”. No Simple Solution (2019) https://oxfamilibrary.openrepository.com/bitstream/handle/10546/620857/bp-no-simple-solutions-women-displacement-south-sudan-030919-en.pdf

Social and children vulnerability❑ By far the most important source of social vulnerability is children far from or without

their parents

❑ 1/3 of pupils are reported by their caregivers as withdrawn or consistently sad (not shown)

% of HHs by social vulnerability condition Agoro Omeo Iwire Palwar Lobone Pajok Obbo OwinykibulMagwi

CentreCOUNTY

Child(ren) from other families, without

mother or father 62% 42% 53% 32% 52% 59% 78% 60% 67% 56%

Elderly who need assistance and/or cannot

work 10% 5% 7% 6% 8% 19% 4% 20% 25% 12%

Disable* person(s) who need assistance 10% 5% 10% 10% 2% 11% 22% 30% 19% 11%

Widow or woman without the financial

support of any male10% 0% 7% 13% 8% 8% 13% 10% 8% 9%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

COUNTY

Types of child vulnerability

Orphans Children far from their parents

Children forcibly separated from their family members Children head of household

Children victims of sexual or other severe abuses Children formerly involved in criminal/war activities

Special children Working Children

Reasons for child vulnerability Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi IyireCOUN

TY

Death of parents 40% 33% 29% 50% 42% 58% 48% 19% 57% 44%

Conflicts 35% 13% 12% 22% 26% 13% 36% 29% 40% 25%

Divorce 30% 21% 6% 15% 18% 25% 16% 19% 17% 18%

Need to move of location 10% 13% 0% 19% 12% 0% 4% 10% 3% 9%

Kidnapping 5% 8% 0% 2% 8% 8% 20% 24% 10% 9%

…it is linked to general crimes – the case of abduction in Torit: it seems to be spreading

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

Bur

Himodonge

Nyong

Hiyalla

Imurok

Kudo

Lowoi

Iyire

COUNTY

Types of hazard and crimes experienced in the last year (2019)

Theft Verbal threatHouse breaking Theft of livestockBurned house Abduction or disappearance of family memberPhysical attack/assault MurderLand grabbing/dispossession Sexual assault or rape

0% 50% 100% 150% 200% 250% 300% 350%

Bur

Himodonge

Nyong

Hiyalla

Imurok

Kudo

Lowoi

Iyire

COUNTY

Types of hazard and crimes experienced in the last year (2020)

Theft MurderVerbal threat Physical attack/assaultHouse breaking Serious physical harm to childViolation of the right to freedom of movement or expression Abduction or disappearance of family memberSexual assault or rape Theft of livestock

…and women protection too reflects the overall security/protection/abuse conditions

% of HHs reporting threats to

women (and types)Ifwotu Bur Himodonge Nyong Hiyalla Imurok Kudo Lowoi Iyire

COUN

TYPresence of specific threats to

women and girls 64% 57% 31% 57% 68% 81% 53% 64% 72% 61%

Domestic violence 36% 50% 27% 22% 50% 67% 40% 62% 55% 42%

Physical assault / beating 8% 21% 0% 25% 38% 52% 47% 42% 50% 32%

Forced marriage 16% 21% 19% 22% 31% 22% 10% 31% 15% 22%

Rape 28% 0% 4% 34% 10% 7% 7% 8% 15% 16%

Denied resources /opportunities

/ services 20% 25% 15% 15% 12% 15% 10% 15% 10% 15%

Sexual exploitation 8% 11% 8% 16% 14% 11% 13% 19% 8% 13%

Sexual assault 8% 4% 0% 18% 16% 7% 17% 8% 18% 12%

Psychological / emotional abuse 0% 11% 0% 6% 5% 19% 7% 12% 15% 8%

Gender amongpupils

Male Female

Paid registration fees 60% 52%

Absent two or more days previous week 29% 27%

Sick last month 44% 51%

Plan to attend next school-term 75% 75%

Convienced a friend to attend school 76% 82%

Think school has improved 78% 82%

Proud to attend school 94% 92%

Feel happy at school 96% 95%

Feel safe at school 80% 79%

Learned new activities this term 88% 88%

Made new friends this term 92% 94%

Had a fight at school this term 15% 20%

Think play enough at school 46% 34%

Has enough toys to play at school 20% 24%

Has at least one pen/pencil and one notebook 73% 71%

Happy with latrines conditions 36% 35%

Think that latrines are used mostly by student 74% 74%

Think that classrooms condition improved in the last term 62% 61%

Share problems with friends 85% 85%

Think more should be done to redce violence at school 79% 76%

Know that HIV is a sexually transmittable disease 69% 66%

Think that girls swhould attend school as much as boys 67% 72%

Know that washing hands helps prevent disease 96% 94%

Washed hands at school yestaday 47% 45%

There is drinking water near classroms 46% 48%

Receive suport from teachers to face problems 82% 85%

Share problems with teacher 81% 84%

Witnessed teachers sending pupils back home 34% 38%

Eat two or more meals yesterday 22% 24%

Walk more than 30 minutes per day to go to school 62% 61%

Live with parents 82% 78%

Mother or father completed more than 3 years of education 51% 50%

Has any book at home 37% 31%

Has a mosquito net at home 49% 46%

• Many variables do no show asignificant divide

• A more precarious school attendanceof girls is suggested by the smallerpercentage of girls having payed feesand the higher incidence of sicknessfor girls

• More often than boys, girls reportnot playing enough while at school

• More often than boys, girls reporthaving a fight at school

• Less often than boys, girls reporthaving any book at home

• More often than boys, girls thinkthat females should attend school asmuch as males.

Gen

der

, WA

SHFa

cilit

ies

& E

qu

ipm

ent

PSS

Gender and powerFood security, association and voice of female-headed families

Female-

headed

families

Non

female-

headed

families

Food consumptionacceptable 46% 56%borderline 34% 26%poor 20% 18%

Member of a decision making / public bodies

No particular role 55% 39%Teacher 6% 16%Nyampara or Mukungu 11% 26%Sector leader 2% 7%Landlord 9% 5%Administrative authority 4% 9%Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group 4% 9%

Direct contact with leaders

Nyampara or Mukungu 32% 49%Sector leader 0% 8%Administrative authority 9% 13%Landlord 6% 5%Chairman of farmer groups supported by NGO 2% 3%Chairman of informal farmer groups 2% 14%Opinion leader 17% 15%

Participation Attended public meeting 88% 96%

Humanitarian support

Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds and or tools 38% 38%Health /medicines 11% 16%Food in the Schools 2% 17%Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) 9% 15%Food distribution or food in exchange for work 2% 13%Veterinary service 6% 10%Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) 9% 5%Advise from extension service 2% 4%Cash and or cash in exchange for work 2% 3%Fishing gear 2% 3%School fees /uniforms 0% 2%

Member of an income generation association

Informal group of farmers 13% 55%Farmer group supported by NGO 21% 16%Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving

Group 11% 4%

Cooperative/SME 4% 6%Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community-

based organization, Youth group Health4% 8%

Others 4% 3%Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group 4% 8%Income Generation Association group (IGA) 2% 3%

In Torit, female-headed families (17%)suffer:

Slightly worse food security conditions thannon-female headed HHs

They are rather less involved in decisionmaking bodies and participate less incommunity meetings

They are also visibly less involved in thesupport provided by the humanitariansystem, with the significant exception ofsupport to Farming and Saving

Gender and power

In Magwi is, female-headed families (7%)suffer less from political and supportexclusion.

Food security and associationism and voice of female headed families

Female-

headed

families

Non

female-

headed

families

Food consumptionacceptable 36% 63%borderline 50% 26%poor 14% 11%

Member of a decision making / public bodies

No particular role 40% 45%Teacher 13% 20%Nyampara or Mukungu 13% 19%Sector leader 7% 2%Landlord 0% 2%Administrative authority 13% 6%Chairman or committee member of informal farmer group 13% 12%

Direct contact with leaders

Nyampara or Mukungu 40% 33%Sector leader 33% 9%Administrative authority 0% 11%Landlord 0% 3%Chairman of farmer groups supported by NGO 0% 3%Chairman of informal farmer groups 0% 14%Opinion leader 7% 14%

Participation Attended public meeting 100% 95%

Humanitarian support

Agricultural inputs i.e. seeds and or tools 40% 31%Health /medicines 13% 18%Food in the Schools 20% 21%Nutrition (e.g. Blanket supplementary feeding, etc) 0% 13%Food distribution or food in exchange for work 0% 9%Veterinary service 13% 7%Non Food Items (kitchen sets, blankets, Khanga) 0% 3%Advise from extension service 0% 2%Cash and or cash in exchange for work 0% 1%Fishing gear 0% 0%School fees /uniforms 0% 6%

Member of an income generation association

Informal group of farmers 27% 72%Farmer group supported by NGO 20% 13%Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA)/ Credit and Saving Group 7% 13%Cooperative/SME 7% 10%Women group; Church group; Self-help group; Community-based

organization, Youth group Health20% 20%

Others 0% 1%Common Interest group/Seed Multiplication group 7% 4%Income Generation Association group (IGA) 0% 1%

Recommendations for Response

Recommendations (1/2): multisectoral FSL centered response

31

As the main partner of FAO in EES and the State FSL cluster lead, AVSI calls for a flexible,resilience-oriented (nexus) response, mixing : 1) quick actions for asset rebuilding eliciting co-financing (one-off, well-targeted cash to complete sheltering, training and ploughs for oxenowners, etc.) and the shoring up of school feeding schemes through local purchasing; 2) withlonger-term initiatives aimed at spreading efficient and productive farming andprocessing/conservation of nutrient and vitamin-rich food, and the establishment of localservices and input providers to be linked to state/national actors. In brief, such response shoulddeal with the most significant pulling factors (Livelihood, Assets and Education), whileincreasing the resilience of food systems vin the face of price and environmental shocks (Foodvariety, Environmental and Productive farming practices), with self-reinforcing initiatives (ex.supporting farming of nutrient-rich food and strengthening of school feeding programs troughlocal purchases – NUT/EDU/FSL). Moving from integrated to synergic approaches.

Recommendations (2/2): Extending Education response

32

❑ As one of the main partner of UNICEF in EES, and the state Education Cluster lead, AVSI calls forextending education response to underserved communities (i.e. Lopa, non-urban areas in Magwi, andTorit – in Nord and East Kapoeta AVSI is already doing it with ECW and SSHF), favoring areas wherepotential for come back for returnees is higher (i.e. Ikotos & Magwi), with an explicit focus on attendingneeds of early child /lower primary education as much as primary competition, and an attention tocontaining the cost of education for families through MoU with schools bound to development planand ceiling of school fees❑ AVSI has showed will and capacity to balance costs and approaches to serve urban as well as semi-urban and rural areas, showing significant impact. Moreover, AVSI is capable to provide a consistentand continuous response (“parachuted” partners and/or short term programs cannot have; in 2017AVSI was the only partner in education in Magwi)❑ Through the integration with other interventions AVSI aims to provide also a robust response tocross cutting issues such as protection and female education

Main reason for not attending schools

33

No money to pay materials, fees, uniform

CWD

Insecurity

No food in school

Helps parents at home

Need to work

Preg

School is far

Child refuses

Bad school conditions

Few teachers

Help in farm

Inclusive education, increase female

teachers to support female education

Continue link with livelihood programs

and proper target of schools

Target less reachable school, find way to reduce school fees, target schools in order to link them to other program (or to

qualify to)

Thank You

Bruno Baroni

Head of M&E

bruno.baroni@avsi.org