post distribution monitoring report july – august...

POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING REPORT JULY – AUGUST 2015

UNICEF Child Cash Grant Programme in Jordan | PDM Report July - August 2015 iv

A Window of Hope: Post Distribution Monitoring Report (July – August 2015)

Nesreen Barakat, Rani Khoury, and Genevieve Davies

© 2015 by United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), Jordan 2015UNICEFJordan Country OfficeOctober 2015

UNICEF is partnering with UNHCR Jordan Office in this innovative Child Cash grant programme that leverages on the existing UNHCR cash assistance system which is exceptionally secured through biometric identity verification system that is unrivalled in terms of cost-effectiveness and efficiency.

The UNICEF Child Cash Grant programme was implemented with the generous contributions from the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO), and the Governments of Canada, Kuwait and the Netherlands.

“A Window of Hope”, Post-Distribution Monitoring Report (July – August 2015) of UNICEF Child Cash Grant programme in Jordan has been prepared to facilitate the exchange of knowledge and to stimulate discussion. The findings, interpretations and conclusions expressed in this paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF.

The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

Design: Teamwork CommunicationsPhotographs: UNICEF Jordan/Herwig; ‘To Excel Consulting Associates’

UNICEF Child Cash Grant Programme in Jordan | PDM Report July - August 2015 v

“A Window of Hope”, Post-Distribution Monitoring Report (July – August 2015) of UNICEF Child Cash Grant programme in Jordan was conducted by To Excel Consulting Associates and authored by Nesreen Barakat, Rani Khoury, and Genevieve Davies under the supervision and guidance of Jawad Aslam, Social Policy Specialist and Matteo Valenza, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer at UNICEF Jordan Country Office.

The authors and UNICEF would like to thank the 500 families receiving the UNICEF Child Cash Grant for their feedback on the programme. Their contributions allowed UNICEF to better understand their living conditions and how the Child Cash Grant may have positively impacted their lives.

The coordination of this research would not have been possible without the hard work and dedication of data collection team of Market Research Organisation. Particular thanks goes to Roula Bassil and Nadine Khoury for their excellent management of the data collection process, as well as to the To-Excel Research Team for compiling this analysis. Also, thanks to UNICEF field monitors Rada Naji, Shatha al Fayez, Jamal Qaitoqua, Mohannad el Nimer and Tamam Adi who played a central role in ensuring data quality and monitoring the administration of the questionnaire on the field.

UNICEF would like to acknowledge UNHCR Jordan Office for innovative partnership in the Child Cash Grant programme for the most vulnerable Syrian refugee families with children in the host communities in Jordan. We are particularly grateful to Andrew Harper (Representative), Paul Stromberg (Deputy Representative), Volker Schimmel (Head of Field Office Amman), Kate Washington (VAF Coordinator), Hiba Azaizeh (Assistant Field Officer), Haneen Abu-Sunbul (Field Associate, Cash-Data Management) and other team members for their critical support and guidance.

The report has immensely benefited from the input provided by the participants in the wide consultations that were held individually, collectively and both internally and with external partners in Jordan. The authors would like to thank all colleagues and partners for their excellent guidance, comments and support, in particular: Arthur van Diesen (Regional Social Policy Advisor), Claire Mariani (Cash Transfer Programme Specialist), Samman Thapa (Social Policy Specialist) at the UNICEF Regional Office for the Middle East and North Africa; Michiru Sugi (Chief, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation) and Farhod Khamidov (Monitoring and Evaluation Officer) at the UNICEF Jordan Country Office. We are grateful to Robert Jenkins (Representative), UNICEF Jordan Country Office, for his leadership in initiating the Child Cash Grant programme to assist children in the most vulnerable Syrian refugee families living in non-camp settings in Jordan.

UNICEF is very grateful for the generous contribution from the United Nations Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF), European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection Department (ECHO), and the Governments of Canada, Kuwait and the Netherlands to the Child Cash Grant programme in Jordan.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

1

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

2

UNICEF’s unconditional Child Cash Grant (CCG) programme, initiated in February 2015, targets the most vulnerable children and their families out of the 84% of Syrian refugees living in host communities in Jordan.1

Between February and August 2015, UNICEF assisted around 56,000 girls and boys from 15,000 of the most vulnerable Syrian refugee families every month.

In the context of declining humanitarian assistance and mounting financial pressure,2 the CCG provides a grant of JD 20 (USD 28) per child per month with the aim that, in addition to the assistance being provided by UNHCR, it will enable families to cover their children’s basic needs. The money is intended to provide a safety net, preventing the families from resorting to the use of negative coping strategies that impact children’s wellbeing.

UNICEF is partnering with UNHCR for the innovative CCG that leverages on the existing UNHCR cash assistance system which is exceptionally secured through a biometric identity verification system and is unrivalled in terms of cost effectiveness and efficiency. The programme utilises the UNHCR Inter-Agency Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF) in order to identify its target group.

This report presents the findings of the second round of Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM), conducted in August 2015 after seven instalments of the CCG had been made. It is based on a case study, focus group discussions and questionnaire responses from a geographically representative sample of 500 beneficiary families out of approximate 15,000 families who are currently receiving the CCG each month. Whilst every effort was made to keep the sampled families consistent throughout the rounds of data collection, 31 replacements were made between PDM round 1 and 2 to compensate for families who could not be contacted, had relocated, or were unwilling to participate in the second round of data collection.

The trends emerging from the second round of PDM data continue to be positive overall, though results are mixed in some areas. 91% of families reported that the CCG made an improvement to the overall wellbeing of the family, up from 89% in PDM round 1 of data collection, with families noting that the improvement is due to their increased ability to pay the rent, to buy better quality foods and clothes for their children. The most significant factor limiting the success of the CCG is the gradual reduction, and for some families suspension, of WFP vouchers since the CCG began. Of the families that said they did not experience an improvement in overall wellbeing, 60% attributed this to the reduced level of WFP assistance.

1 UNHCR (2015) “Factsheet: UNHCR Jordan Overview January 2015”2 Ibid, see section “Survival in a situation of increased pressure.”

UNICEF Child Cash Grant Programme in Jordan | PDM Report July - August 2015 3

3 FGD 3, Participant 7, p.5.

Distribution and awareness levels surrounding the CCG are very high, having risen from the already high levels observed in PDM round 1, with almost all of the sampled families aware of the intended purpose and amount of the CCG. The weakest area in terms of awareness is regarding the duration of the CCG, with only 65% indicating that they know of the six month duration of the grant, though this shows a marked improvement from 8% in round 1 of the PDM. The notification and distribution mechanisms prove to be effective, with only 14% experiencing problems when withdrawing the grant. Of those 14%, long queues at overcrowded ATMs was cited as the most significant issue they face, with one FGD participant stating that on one occasion he waited for 4 hours, before having to leave.3

Rent continues to be the dominant expense for most families, followed by utilities and food. Regardless, 88% of families reported that they were able to use the CCG to cover at least one child-specific need. The majority of families spent the CCG on fresh foods for their children, school-related expenses and medicines for children, with education-related expenses overtaking children’s medicine as the fifth largest expenditure in this round. This is a reflection of the impact of seasonality on family expenditure, as data collection occurred shortly before the start of the new school year.

The findings from this PDM continue to validate the underlying programme rationale: that increasing family income will improve overall living conditions for children, translating into a reduction in the use of negative coping strategies which are negatively impacting children’s wellbeing. Data from the sample group indicates that this has happened to a large extent, with the improvement in living conditions converting into 50% of families reporting avoidance of the use of at least one negative coping strategy that they had previously relied on. However, this shows a decrease from 57% in round 1. As the economic situation worsens, families are finding themselves less able to avoid the use of negative coping strategies, and this is demonstrated by a reduction in avoidance across all strategies, despite receiving the CCG. The number of families decreasing the quantity and quality of food consumed as a coping strategy has risen significantly, as has the spending of savings, borrowing, and asking for money showing that these strategies are being re-adopted by some families. FGD participants indicated that an increasing number of families are considering returning to Syria due to the economic hardships faced in Jordan.

The impact of the CCG on the psychological wellbeing of caregivers and children, and on the empowerment of children, was notable in the first round of data collection and this has been continually demonstrated. Many FGD

participants discussed the positive benefits of the CCG in reducing their stress levels and enabling them to better care for their children. Children are commonly aware of the CCG and its intended purpose, and as a result are asserting their needs to their parents.

The findings in this report have been triangulated where possible, and many are supported by external research and assessments.

MAIN FINDINGSIncome patterns

• The number of families indicating that WFP vouchers provide a main source of income for their families is down from 97% to 90%.

• The number of families reporting paid labour as a main source of income is also down, from 14% to only 2%, highlighting a narrowing of income sources among the sample population. An intensified inspection campaign by Jordanian authorities on illegal workers may be a significant factor in this reduction.

• Reporting of children contributing to family income is down to less than 1%, although evidence from FGDs suggest that the level of child labour across the sampled families is being consistently under-reported.

Expenditure patterns

• The level of reported expenditure on rent has remained consistent, constituting the largest expense for almost all families. Reporting of education-related expenditure has increased (to 47% of families reporting spending on it), whilst expenditure on health care for both adults (16%) and children (19%), transportation (31%), debt repayment (32% ) and food (73%) have all decreased from PDM round 1 to round 2.

• Regarding UNICEF CCG, only 12% of families indicated that they did not use it to cover any child-specific expenses, although this shows a slight increase from 7% in PDM round 1. Of the 88% who used the CCG to cover at least one child-specific expenditure, the majority of families indicated spending on fresh foods for children (65%), school-related expenses (56%) and medicines for children (53%).


• 87% of families were able to cover expenses for their children that they were not able to afford before receiving the CCG. This finding was more pronounced for families living under abject poverty (94%) compared to those living under absolute poverty (82%).

• Buying clothes (62%), fresh fruit and vegetables, meat and poultry (48%) and paying for medical treatments (42%) were the main expenses that families were now able to cover.

The use of negative coping mechanisms

• 50% of families have been able to stop or avoid using at least one negative coping strategy, whilst 50% have not been able to stop or avoid the use of any coping strategies. This shows a 7% increase in adoption of negative coping strategies, from round 1.

• Reduction in quantity (93%) and quality (94%) of food are by far the most commonly adopted strategies by sampled families. Given the suspension of WFP assistance for many families after this data was collected, and the harmful impact this strategy can have on child welfare, this is a worrying trend.

Improvement in overall living conditions

• 86% of respondents felt that the CCG had either significantly or moderately helped them to fulfil their children’s needs. 73% of the families living under abject poverty felt that the CCG had helped

significantly, compared to 47% of those living under absolute poverty.

• 91% of the sampled families feel they have experienced an improvement in their family’s overall living conditions. 57% said that they are now able to pay the rent, 45% were able to increase the quality of food their children are eating and 42% are able to buy clothes for their children.

• 9% feel that they have not experienced an improvement in their family’s overall living conditions. Of these, 61% said that it was due to the suspension of WFP assistance, 32% said that the amount is not enough (up from 20% in PDM 1) and 31% said that the landlord had raised their rent (respondents were allowed to give more than one answer).

Impact on psychological wellbeing of families and child empowerment

• Focus group discussions highlighted the effect of the CCG on child empowerment. Participants described how children, understanding the purpose of the cash grant, ask for more from their parents and assert their needs.

• Many FGD participants indicated that they have experienced reduced stress and improved psychological wellbeing as a result of their increased ability to provide for their children due to the CCG. Many indicated that if the CCG were stopped, it would cause significant distress and force them to adopt more negative coping strategies.


CCG Child Cash Grant

FGD Focus Group Discussion

JCO Jordan Country Office

M&E Monitoring and Evaluation

MRO Market Research Organisation

NFI Non-Food Items

ODI Overseas Development Institute

PDM Post Distribution Monitoring

SPN Special Protection Needs

TOC Theory of Change

UNHCR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund

USC Unaccompanied and Separated Children

WFP World Food Programme

ACRONYMS


Figure 1 Theory of change

Figure 2 Distribution of PDM sample according to governorate and poverty level

Figure 3 Main limitations and mitigating factors

Figure 4 Sample of distribution by poverty level, gender and average number of children

Figure 5 Age and gender distribution of sampled children

Figure 6 Education status of sampled children

Figure 7 Sources of income

Figure 8 Main economic contributors

Figure 9 Number of instalments of CCG received

Figure 10 Awareness of CCG duration

Figure 11 Main expenditure items on which combined cash assistance (incl. UNHCR) is spent (% of mentions by respondents), PDM 2

Figure 12 Main expenditure items on which combined cash assistance is spent, PDM 1 and 2 compared

Figure 13 Main expenditure items on which combined cash assistance is spent (mean), PDM 2

Figure 14 Child-specific expenditures on which UNICEF CCG is spent, PDM 2

Figure 15 Child-specific expenditures on which UNICEF CCG is spent, PDM 1 and 2 compared

Figure 16 Largest single expenditures from UNICEF CCG according to poverty level

Figure 17 Average spend per child on education, health, food and other items, PDM 2

Figure 18 Extent to which UNCIEF CCG covered the needs of children, PDM 2

Figure 19 Most common coping mechanisms currently in use, PDM 2

Figure 20 Coping strategies stopped/avoided since receiving UNICEF CCG, PDM 2

Figure 21 Coping strategies stopped/avoided since receiving UNICEF CCG, PDM 1 and 2 compared

Figure 22 UNICEF CCG contribution to improvement in overall living conditions, PDM 2

LIST OF FIGURES


Acknowledgements v

Executive Summary 1

1. Background 9

1.1 Programme Overview 10

1.2 Purpose of Post-Distribution Monitoring 11

1.3 Monitoring and Evaluation Framework 13

2. Methodology 15

2.1 Process 16

2.2 Limitations 19

2.3 Ethical Considerations 19

3. PDM Analysis 21

3.1 Sample Characteristics 22

3.2 Education 23

3.3 Income 24

3.4 Awareness of CCG and Effectiveness of Distribution Mechanism 25

3.5 Expenditure Patterns 26

3.6 Child-specific Expenditure 29

3.7 Use of Coping Mechanisms 34

3.8 Child Empowerment 37

3.9 Improvement in Overall Living Conditions 38

4. Concluding Remarks 39

Annex I: Case Study, The Abdallah Family 42

Annex II: Post-Distribution Monitoring Questionnaire 46

Annex III: Focus Group Discussion Guide 58

Annex IV: Case Study Guide 63

CONTENTS

9

1. BACKGROUND

10

1.1 PROGRAMME OVERVIEW

The United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) Jordan Country Office (JCO) initiated an unconditional Child Cash Grant (CCG) programme in February 2015 to assist children in the most vulnerable Syrian refugee families living in non-camp settings in Jordan. Under this humanitarian programme, a monthly cash transfer equal to JD20 per child per month is transferred to eligible families living in host communities, thereby aiming to provide the means to meet the children’s basic needs and prevent vulnerable families from resorting to negative coping strategies. The intention of the CCG is to cover the basic needs and expenses specific to children, through contributing to increased income for the most vulnerable refugee families.

The programme utilises the Inter-Agency Vulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF) in order to identify its target group. The VAF employs a cross-component beneficiary model to predict the expenditure level of households. The underlying rationale is that the higher the expenditure level (when considered in relation to a number of other vulnerability-affecting factors), the stronger the household. Lower levels indicate that a household is more vulnerable and less able to meet its basic needs.4 As well as providing assistance to the highly and severely vulnerable families living in absolute and abject poverty, UNICEF targets families hosting unaccompanied and separated children (USC) and families that have special protection needs (SPN) also, regardless of their poverty level.

The distribution of the CCG is based on UNHCR’s existing cash assistance mechanism, which uses the Cairo-Amman Bank’s ATM network with biometric (iris scan) identification technology. Such a methodology ensures minimum operational costs and fraudulent opportunity, while maximising the actual share of donor funding received by beneficiaries. In accordance with UNHCR’s approach, eligible families receive a notification via SMS to withdraw the amount allocated from UNICEF.

UNICEF’s CCG programme has come at a crucial time for the beneficiaries. The level of humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees in Jordan and other host countries is in decline, making day to day life increasingly difficult for families living both in host communities and in camps. The World Food Programme (WFP) has been reaching a large number of Syrian refugees throughout Jordan since it began distributing vouchers in 2012, but due to a continued lack of funding, August 2015 saw WFP

4 UNHCR (2014) “Vulnerability Assessment Framework”


assistance in communities at their lowest level so far. Assistance to 229,000 highly vulnerable families will be suspended as of September, in order to prioritise the severely vulnerable in camps and communities with the limited funds remaining.5 Given the number of warnings that have been issued by WFP over recent months indicating that their level of funding is at crisis point, alongside the continual reduction in the value of vouchers distributed since December 2014, this comes as little surprise. However, this will have a heavy impact on the families concerned, the majority of whom are already living under the absolute poverty line. This comes after the Government of Jordan suspended free healthcare to Syrian refugees in Jordan as of December 2014, due to the exorbitant cost on the Jordanian economy of providing such a service.

The majority of families benefitting from the CCG are also reliant on assistance from the WFP. This significant loss in income will impact upon the families’ ability to allocate financial resources in the way that the CCG demands, and likely will limit the potential for the programmes objectives to be achieved going forward.

In addition, refugees have limited opportunity to generate income through paid labour. In order to legally engage in the labour market, Syrian refugees must obtain a work permit from the Jordanian authorities, and whilst this is not impossible, the costs involved make this prohibitively expensive for the vast majority of families. Whilst many engage in the labour market illegally due to the financial pressures they face, there has been a perceived tightening of control in recent months. This is likely to impact the illegal labour market in several ways, making it more difficult to obtain work of this nature as well as creating fear among those who are engaged due to the severe consequences of getting caught. This too serves to have a negative impact on family income, potentially causing further reductions.

Such developments in a context of dwindling humanitarian resources pose serious risks to the livelihoods of these vulnerable refugee families. In response to the declining level of assistance and increased hardship faced by refugees in Jordan as well as Lebanon, Turkey and other host countries, a large and increasing number is opting instead to travel to Europe, creating what has been labelled ‘a migrant crisis’. Despite pledges by western governments to increase the number of ‘migrants’ allowed to reside in their countries, the numbers amount to a mere drop in the ocean. Given the associated expenses of making such a journey, however, the most vulnerable are unlikely to be able to do so and will remain where they are.

The disastrous consequences on Syrian refugee children are illustrated by reports of mothers living in host communities tying scarves around their children’s bellies so that they don’t wake up feeling hungry.6 25% of respondents to a WFP survey in January 2015 indicated that they are considering withdrawing their children from school as a result of the decrease in humanitarian support.7 This is a significant concern at this point, with the new school year due to start imminently, and the possibility that many will not return due to the financial burden it places on their family at this time. Compounding the long-term effects of the reduction in WFP vouchers on Syrian refugee children, 13% of respondents indicated that they were considering moving into camps or back to Syria.8

1.2 PURPOSE OF POST DISTRIBUTION MONITORING (PDM)A core element of UNICEF’s CCG is the independent third-party monitoring of the programme which enables UNICEF to effectively and efficiently monitor progress at the activity, output and outcome levels. The third-party monitoring consists of a bi-monthly PDM questionnaire administered via household visits as well as qualitative data collection in the form of focus group discussions (FGDs) and case study interviews (case study 2 is given in Annex I).

The purpose of monitoring is to provide the programme management with regular (bi-monthly) data to determine whether the CCG programme is progressing as planned, whether the programme is achieving its intended results at the output level and whether any trends can be observed at the outcome level.

More specifically, the PDM focuses on tracking immediate intended and unintended results such as spending patterns, especially those related to child needs and negative coping mechanisms. However, higher level results (i.e. long term outcomes) concerning possible behavioural change such as a decrease in child labour, cannot be accurately measured through this data collection, nor can they be exclusively attributed to the CCG due to the nature of the environment in which this programme operates (i.e. its relative contribution to the overall assistance provided by UNHCR, WFP and other actors) and also due to the fact that changes

5 WFP (2015) “Jordan Country Office: PRRO and EMOPS Situation Report No. 3, 1-31 August 2015.http://reliefweb.int/report/jordan/jordan-country-office-prro-and-emop-situation-report-3-1-31-august-2015 6 Ibid, 77 WFP (Jan. 2015)8 Ibid, 8


Figu

re 1

: The

ory

of c

hang

e fo

r UN

ICEF

Unc

ondi

tiona

l Chi

ld C

ash

Gra

nt fo

r Syr

ian

Refu

gees

in Jo

rdan

in n

on- c

amp

sett

ings

.


9 The TOC is a dynamic document and therefore may be subject to change over the lifetime of the programme. The TOC from the South African Child Support Grant influenced the development of the TOC for this programme. Available from:http://www.unicef.org/southafrica/SAF_resources_csg2012s.pdf

in behaviours take time to manifest. Monitoring results will shed light on perceived trends of change, supplemented by qualitative evidence, whereas the end of programme evaluation will fully tackle this issue.

1.3 MONITORING AND EVALUATION FRAMEWORKA Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) framework was developed for UNICEF’s CCG programme enabling the development of relevant monitoring tools that are in synergy with the programme’s intended purpose and results. Alongside the development of M&E tools, a Theory of Change (TOC) was developed upon which the framework relies. The basis of the framework, the resultant TOC is produced overleaf.9

While the TOC approach is generally geared towards long-term development projects, its use for this humanitarian cash transfer programme was motivated by the protracted nature of the Syrian refugee crisis and the general perceived shift in status from emergency to protracted crisis. The TOC thus allows for longer term planning, anticipating progress towards long-term poverty reduction, pro-poor and inclusive economic growth for all family members.

It is anticipated that UNICEF’s CCG will improve the living conditions of the most vulnerable children living in non-camp settings through its contribution to the humanitarian assistance already being received by

vulnerable Syrian refugee families. The programme’s long term outcome is expected to be a reduced reliance on negative coping mechanisms – particularly those involving children – by vulnerable refugee families. This would in turn be achieved after the materialisation of the programme’s short term outcome which is an increased level of expenditure on child-specific needs.

The main outputs of the programme are:

• Establishment of an eligibility criteria and prioritisation mechanism, through which the most vulnerable children from Syrian refugee families living in non-camp settings can be targeted.

• Eligible Syrian refugee families receive 20JD/child/month through an easily accessible and safe delivery mechanism, distributed to the registered head of the family who should be aware of the purpose of UNICEF’s CCG.

The activities leading to these outcomes are listed in the TOC above. It should be noted that many activities depend on joint programming between UNHCR and UNICEF, and rely heavily on UNHCR’s existing programme architecture. Additionally, the contribution of WFP assistance to the minimum expenditure basket of the target population is a critical factor within the programme architecture. Therefore, as well as providing the programme’s chain of results, the TOC includes the possible effects of other programming. This assists in the facilitation of monitoring progress, and with this in mind, monitoring tools were designed in such a way as to cover all aspects or levels of results.

15

2. METHODOLOGY

16

2.1 PROCESSThe bi-monthly third party monitoring is composed of a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, carried out on a bi-monthly basis. The PDM questionnaire is the source of quantitative data, administered to a sample of 500 Syrian refugee families spread across all governorates of Jordan in a representative manner. From this random sample, a number of beneficiaries were selected and invited to participate in the focus group discussions, which constitute the main source of qualitative information. The use of both quantitative and qualitative data maximises the robustness of findings, through a process of triangulation. Moreover, qualitative information both complements and supplements quantitative data which often suffers from information gaps when used alone. Therefore, this report represents the findings of the second round of monitoring; the results of 500 household PDM questionnaires, three focus group discussions and one case study.

Figure 2 on the next page illustrates the distribution of the PDM questionnaire sample for the second round of data collection across the 12 governorates of Jordan, according to the poverty status of the family: abject, absolute or resilient.10 33% of the families within the sample had special protection needs of varying kinds, and 2% of families were hosting unaccompanied and separated children.

The PDM questionnaire tool (Annex II) was developed on the basis of the TOC model for the programme. Such a process ensures that the PDM questions are relevant, concise and cover all levels of the programme from activity to long-term outcome. The questionnaire from the first round of PDM data collection underwent minor modifications for the second round in order to gain further information and maximise the quality of data obtained in relation to a number of key issues. Firstly, further questions were added to probe the participants’ understandings of and attitudes toward informal education mechanisms. These changes are reflected in questions D4e –D4j in the PDM questionnaire tool provided in Annex II. Secondly, an additional section was integrated at the end of the questionnaire to gain a deeper understanding of the reasons why some families included in the sample are not receiving the CCG from UNICEF. This section (QN1 – QN11) probes for details regarding whether or not the refugee family has ever received the CCG, whether they understand why they are not receiving, whether they were informed of a decision to stop the CCG, and whether or not they have made an appeal. As both of these issues affect only a small number of families within the sample, the number of responses to these questions are low.

10 The poverty status of refugee families is determined by UNHCR


Figure 2: Map of sample distribtution across governorate and poverty level


Prior to data collection, the research team contacted each case from the sample from PDM 1 to verify their continued participation and to confirm their location. While the longitudinal assessment aimed to cover the same families in each survey round, inevitably a proportion of the families either could not be contacted, had relocated, or were unwilling to participate in the second round. These cases had to be replaced, along with a couple of cases from PDM 1 who were included in the sample but reported in the PDM questionnaire that they did not have any children under the age of 18 years of age. These issues led to an attrition rate of 6% between the two rounds of data collection. Where replacement families were incorporated, the main priority was to include a new recipient family residing in the same area, so that the sample would remain geographically representative throughout the rounds of data collection. UNHCR provided an additional sample set based on geographic location in order to make these replacements. As far as possible, the same research teams revisited the same beneficiaries, to ensure that enumerators would be able to make observations of trends, and in order to maximise the level of trust and familiarity on the part of the beneficiaries.

The second round of data collection was conducted between 5th and 18th August 2015. In parallel to the quantitative data collection, the research team

conducted three FGDs to supplement the quantitative data with qualitative data. These FGDs involved the following targeted groups:

• Female-headed families living under absolute poverty11 – Amman

• Male-headed families living under abject poverty – Amman

• Male-headed families with special protection needs12 – Irbid

The select FGD participants were identified through the data provided by UNHCR, as well as during household visits. These groups have been selected in accordance with the key eligibility criteria of the programme, based on the VAF.

During the data collection, it emerged that 5 families within the sample were not receiving the UNICEF CCG. Of these 5, 4 families said that they had never received cash assistance from UNCIEF and 1 that that they had received the CCG but that it had been stopped. This respondent had not been informed of the decision to stop the grant, and did not know why this had happened.

11 These families are living above the abject poverty line but below the absolute poverty line. 12 Regardless of poverty status.


2.2 LIMITATIONSThe main limitations of the data presented in this report are produced in figure 3 alongside any mitigating factors:

Figure 3: Table of main limitations and mitigating factors

Limitations Mitigating factors

The data collected relies on self-reporting by Syrian refugee families. This may result in an under-estimation of coping strategies, such as child labour, which respondents maynot recognize as negative and therefore not report, or are alternatively widely recognised as negative and therefore stigmatized.

Every round of the PDM relies on self-reported data. Therefore, while the overall numbers may be deflated, the trend should remain consistent. This will ensure that conclusions regarding the efficacy of the programme in reducing negative coping strategies are accurate.

The protracted crisis situation entails fast paced change within the monitoring cycle. The changing effect of external circumstances may make programme progress comparisons less reliable, as cause/effect becomes more difficult to ascertain.

Where possible, an additional layer of questioning has been added into the data collection tools, examining possible external causes of responses. The incorporation of such considerations into the TOC further supports such analysis. From this perspective, the use of focus groups, enabling more free-wheeling discussion, is important.

Nature of qualitative data collection means that many measures are subjective, according to beneficiaries’ perception.

Questions throughout the PDM have been made as clear as possible to avoid any ambiguity, and enumerators are trained on all key concepts so that sound explanations may be given where necessary.

As questionnaires and focus groups are targeted towards head of households, different perspectives of other family members may be missing from the narrative.

Separate FGDs are held to capture perspectives of both male and female heads of families, and FGD participants are encouraged to give perspectives of others in their family.

Additionally, as was highlighted above, there has been an attrition rate of 6% between the two rounds of data collection. On this basis, we must be cautious with regards to the interpretation of change between the two rounds, particularly where the change being discussed is small and may have occurred as a result of change within the sample rather than as an outcome of the CCG. Nevertheless, despite the small change in the sample, certain large trends from the two rounds of data collection can be clearly inferred from the data, which are not a result of sample differences, but more a result of beneficiaries’ spending behaviour over time and within a changing humanitarian context.

2.3 ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONSAll research activities undertaken in this monitoring exercise have been conducted in accordance with To-Excel’s ethical standards for research integrity and UNICEF’s ‘Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis’.13 Full consideration has been given to the principles of respect, beneficence and non-malfeasance, and justice in the formulation and generation of this research.

13 UNICEF (2015) «UNICEF Procedure for Ethical Standards in Research, Evaluation, Data Collection and Analysis» Division of Data, Research, and Policy


Before conducting the PDM questionnaire or FGD with any participant, their informed consent was obtained, or re-obtained for those who participated in round 1. Enumerators made sure that participants fully understood the research purpose and process, as well as their rights in responding, before administering the survey. Researchers maintained a respectful and friendly attitude towards all research participants, and observed their behaviour throughout to ensure that participants were not put under stress or pressure. All enumerators were fully trained in advance on the ethical standards of To-Excel and UNICEF, and supervised throughout the field work to ensure that these standards were upheld at all times. Strict requirements of data access, storage and security were outlined to all members of the research team.

In order to protect the identity of the participants of the FGD whilst allowing UNICEF to hear the discussion unfold in real time, additional measures were taken to separate the UNICEF staff from participants, through a live audio feed of the discussion into a separate room. This enabled UNICEF staff to listen into the FGD without having their presence impact confidentiality or the willingness of the participants to speak freely.

21

3. PDM ANALYSIS

22

3.1 SAMPLE CHARACTERISTICSDespite the changes to the sample that occurred between PDM 1 and PDM 2, effort was made to keep the sample as representative as possible in terms of geographical location, gender of family head as registered with UNHCR, and poverty level, though in some areas a slight variation can be noticed. The representation of cases living under abject poverty increased to 42% from 40%. The variation within the sample has had minimal impact on the average family size or number of children within the family compared to PDM 1, as demonstrated by figure 4.

20% of the sampled families have a disability within the family. Of this 20%, 56% have one child or more under the age of 18 with a disability. The average number of family members remains consistent at 5.7 people, with an average of 3.5 members under the age of 18.The average number of children per family varies considerably between families living under abject and absolute poverty, from 4.9 to 2.6 respectively. Therefore, whilst families living under abject poverty constitute 42% of families within the sample, children under abject poverty constitute 58% of children within the sample. Figure 5 (below) shows the breakdown of children within the sample according to age and gender.

42%

57%

1%

Abject Poverty Absolute Poverty Resilient

6%

17%

45%

24%

8%

Age of sampled children

1-0 year

4-2 years

11-5 years

15-12 years

17-16 years

55%male children

45%female children

Figure 4: Distribution of sample by poverty level, gender and family size

Average number of members/children per family

Total Abject Absolute

Average # members 5.7 7.1 4.7

Average # children 3.5 4.9 2.6


3.2 EDUCATIONEducation remains to be a high priority for Syrian refugee families living in Jordan (demonstrated in figure 6 below), where 81% of school-aged children in the sample are enrolled in schools, 97% of which attend formal schools and only 3% informal schooling. Knowledge of informal education centres is low, with 49% of families whose children are not attending formal education stating that they do not know what informal education centres are. Among those who are aware, a lack of formal certification from the informal institution was highlighted as a significant problem for the refugee families, and a significant factor in the decision not to pursue education through informal mechanisms.

FGD4, P5: “I would sent both of my children to formal school where they get a formal certification, or nothing. Imagine you are educated but you don’t have a certification, would you be able to get a job? If you want to work in a private company, they will not hire you unless you have a certification.”

Nevertheless, this means that 19% of school-aged children are not receiving any education, with the most significant obstacles to education being the high cost of transportation to and from schools, lack of available seats in nearby public schools, and the children’s diminished engagement/motivation to learn. This has been supported by qualitative data from the FGDs, with many of the participants perceiving transportation costs to be a significant barrier to education.

Figure 5: Age and gender distribution of sampled children

42%

57%

1%


6%

17%

45%

24%

8%


1-0 year

4-2 years

11-5 years

15-12 years

17-16 years

55%male children

45%female children

42%

57%

1%


6%

17%

45%

24%

8%


1-0 year

4-2 years

11-5 years

15-12 years

17-16 years

55%male children

45%female children

Figure 6: Education status of sampled children

Education Status ofSampled Children

of total no. of children (1772)

of school-aged children (1233)

of children in education (1005)

% of school-aged children in sample 70% - -

% of children in education 57% 81% -

% of children attending formal school 55% 79% 97%

% of children attending informal school 2% 3% 3%

% of children attending public school 52% 74% 91%

% of children attending private school 3% 5% 6%


0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

WFP vouchers Other Paid labour

Sources of Income: PDM 2

Abject Absolute

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UN cashassistance

(UNHCR andUNICEF)

WFP vouchers Other Paid labourUN cashassistance

(UNHCR andUNICEF)

Variation in income sources: PDM 1 and 2

PDM 1 PDM 2

Figure 7: Sources of income

3.3 INCOMEFor almost all of the families in the sample, cash assistance from UNHCR and UNICEF remains the main source of income. A decrease in reliance on WFP vouchers can been observed, falling from 97% of the sample in PDM 1 to 90% in PDM 2. Since WFP assistance has been

consistently falling over the past period, this decrease in reliance on WFP vouchers has been anticipated. The data highlights that the decrease in WFP assistance has not been offset by an increase in paid labour or an increase in income from other sources, raising concerns over the economic vulnerability of Syrian refugees in times of declining humanitarian assistance.

In fact, the data shows a significant decline in the share of families indicating paid labour as one of their main sources of income. There can be many reasons for this including the seasonal nature of agricultural labour, the sector in which many of the Syrian refugees work, as well as the sharp slow-down in the construction sector, the other main sector employing large numbers of Syrians. Moreover, Government of Jordan have intensified their crackdown on illegal refugee workers across the Kingdom, where the Ministry of Labour threatened to apprehend and deport any guest worker who does not have a valid work permit.14 Given such a policy, Syrian refugee are becoming increasingly wary of indicating that they receive income from paid labour, as well as engaging in paid labour despite financial pressures.

And this has been reflected by the changes in data regarding the main economic contributors to the family between the first and second rounds of PDM, with the proportion of families indicating that ‹no one’ in the family contributes economically through paid labour rising from 8% to 47%.

FGD 5, P3: “I used to work and thank God it was great. However, it has been a while since I last worked. I used to work in a clothes shop, but stopped 3 months ago. I used to receive JD 500 per month. [I stopped] because I am a refugee and forbidden to work. I was about to [be caught by the authorities], but I ran away from the back door of the shop.”

14 Jordan Times (Sept 2015) “Labour Ministry urges guest workers to renew their permits” http://www.jordantimes.com/news/local/labour-ministry-urges-guest-workers-renew-their-permits

Figure 8: Main economic contributors to the family

Main economic contributor to family Total Abject Absolute

Father 33% 36% 30%

Mother 18% 17% 19%

Other Adult 1% 0% 1%

Child over 16 1% 2% 1%

Child under 16 0% 0% 1%

No one 47% 46% 48%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

WFP vouchers Other Paid labour

Sources of Income: PDM 2

Abject Absolute

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

UN cashassistance

(UNHCR andUNICEF)

WFP vouchers Other Paid labourUN cashassistance

(UNHCR andUNICEF)

Variation in income sources: PDM 1 and 2

PDM 1 PDM 2


The number of families reporting that their children provide a main source of income remains extremely low, falling from 3% in PDM 1. However, information from the FGDs strongly suggest that the level of child labour among the sampled families is being under-reported in the PDM. When discussing whether or not their children work, two participants in FGD 3 disclosed that their children do in fact work to contribute to family income:

FGD 3, P6: “My son used to go to school and work at the same time. The UNHCR cash assistance was not enough for the rent. Now with the UNICEF cash grant, I am able to pay the rent. He is still working, but less hours than before.”

FGD3, P4: “Yes my children work too. I wish that [they could stop working] but even with the UNICEF cash grant, they still need to work because the cash is not enough. One of my children is 15 and the other is 16 years old. They work after school in the vegetable markets for 2-3 hours. I don’t want my children to work, but I’m obliged to.”

The extent to which this may or may not be under-reported is difficult to determine. Participants may feel more comfortable and able to discuss this highly sensitive subject in a group discussion with the support of their peers than they do in isolation, accounting for the discussion regarding children engaging in paid activities in this FGD. Several other FGD participants

admitted that if their children were older, they feel they would be forced to ask them to work to support the family due to the economic hardship they are facing.

3.4 AWARENESS OF THE CCG AND EFFECTIVENESS OF DISTRIBUTION MECHANISMDistribution and awareness levels surrounding the CCG are very high, having risen from the already high levels in PDM 1. 99% of the sampled families verified that they are receiving the additional amount from UNICEF on top of their usual UNHCR cash assistance, and all sampled cases were aware that the CCG is from UNICEF and amounts to JD 20 per child per month. 99% of families also indicate that they are receiving notification SMSs informing them that the money is available for withdrawal, and 99% indicated their awareness of the purpose behind the CCG – to meet the basic needs of their children. Despite this level of knowledge, 12% of families reported that they do not spend the CCG on the needs of their children due to the other financial pressures they face.

Figure 9: Number of instalments of CCG

received

Figure 10: Awareness of CCG duration

%1

%7 One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

More than six

%35

Aware of CCG Duration

Unaware of CCG Duration

%65%41

%6

%11

34%

%1

%7 One

Two

Three

Four

Five

Six

More than six

%35

Aware of CCG Duration

Unaware of CCG Duration

%65%41

%6

%11

34%


The figures regarding the number of instalments of the CCG received continue to demonstrate a discrepancy. Given that the first payment for the programme was made in March, we would expect to see that the majority of beneficiaries have received 5 payments at the time of data collection, as is demonstrated. However, possible confusion regarding the double payment of the CCG in May could mean that the number who have received the maximum number of instalments is greater (up to 75%). 18% of the sampled families indicated that they have received 3 instalments or fewer, indicating that they have been brought into the programme at a later stage.

Although the vast majority indicate that they are satisfied with the distribution mechanism, 14% indicate that they have experienced problems withdrawing the CCG. Of those who experienced problems, the most common issue was that there is a long queue at the ATM (37%), followed by the iris scanner not working (31%) and the ATM machine being out of order (15%). These latter two issues may indicate that refuges have not been properly acquainted with the system and therefore are experiencing problems when trying to use it.

FGD 3, P7: “Once I went to the bank and I had to wait for 4 hours because of the crowd, and at the end I had to leave, I couldn’t stay there any longer. Due to the [restricted] time period, people all go to the bank at the same time and it becomes very crowded and becomes hard to withdraw the money. Adding to this, I once had to go to the bank more than once because the iris machine was down. The problem is, I can’t keep coming and going because I need an hour and a half to reach the bank.”

Again, despite the level of satisfaction stated, the FGDs revealed that there is a preference for ATM cards (although only 2% of sampled families have this facility) among CCG recipients over the iris scan technology. Many highlighted that it would be better if another member of the family were able to collect the CCG from the ATM; some even expressed fear at the possibility that illness or other factors may prevent them from collecting the grant in the future.

FGD 3, P2: “…one concern is that if the father got sick then there is no one else who can get the cash for him...If the father got sick and he can’t go to the bank, how will he then withdraw the money from the bank?”

FGD 3, P1: “…I got an injury in my leg and have been operated on, so when I had to go to the bank people carried me on a chair to reach the bank….If the grant from UNICEF will continue, maybe it is better to get an ATM card instead of the iris scan so that my wife can go withdraw the money…”

FGD 3, P3: “…it is a very safe and secure way. But what if for example I got sick, who will then go get the money from the bank?”

Despite these minor issues reported, the iris scanning technology has proven its efficiency and effectiveness, through eliminating any potential for fraudulent activity, and providing a reliable and secure means of collecting the CCG. This is supported by PDM data, which shows that 86% of cases do not experience any problems withdrawing the grant.

3.5 EXPENDITURE PATTERNSFigure 11 below shows the main expenditure items on which the combined cash assistance from UNICEF and UNHCR was spent, broken down by poverty level. Figure 12 compares the average expenditure figures from PDM 1 and PDM 2. Rent remains the largest single expenditure for nearly all sampled families, closely followed by utilities and food.


Savings

10% 0% 30% 20% 50% 40% 70% 60% 81% 90% 100%

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

Rent

Utilities

Food

Comunications

Medicine (children)

Transportation

Medicine (adults)

Education

Healthcare services (adults)

Healthcare services (children)

Debt payo�

Other children expenditures

Savings

Rent

Utilities

Food

Comunications

Medicine (children)

Transportation

Medicine (adults)

Education



Debt payo�


Absolute

Abject

PDM1

PDM2

Figure 11: Main expenditure items on which combined cash assistance is spent (%of respondents reporting), PDM 2

Figure 12: Main expenditure items on which combined cash assistance is spent (% of respondents reporting), PDM 1 and 2 compared

Savings

10% 0% 30% 20% 50% 40% 70% 60% 81% 90% 100%

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

Rent

Utilities

Food

Comunications

Medicine (children)

Transportation

Medicine (adults)

Education



Debt payo�


Savings

Rent

Utilities

Food

Comunications

Medicine (children)

Transportation

Medicine (adults)

Education



Debt payo�


Absolute

Abject

PDM1

PDM2


With the exceptions of rent where reported spending has been maintained at the same level, and education-related expenditure where reported spending has increased, all other areas show a reduced number of families reporting spending, particularly in relation to healthcare services for both adults and children, medicines for adults, transportation costs and repayment of debts. This decline in expenditure is consistent with the decline in income from WFP and paid labour, demonstrated in figure 7, as well as the increase in reported spending on education which may force families to shift spending from other areas.

The increased reporting of education-related expenditure reflects the fact that this round of data collection coincided with the start of the new school year, when many families will invest in bags, books and stationary for their children, as well as having to cover transportation fees which have frequently been cited in FGDs as a significant expense for the families concerned.

FGD 4, P2: In winter expenditure is different. For example, in winter we need to pay for the bus because they can’t go walking to school.

FGD 4, P3: “For each of my kids, I pay JD 15 per month for bus fee and I have 4 children who go to school.”

FGD 4, P5: “I pay JD 20 per month for each child for transportation. The UNICEF cash grant received which is JD 20 will go directly on the bus fee in winter, and will have no more money to cover other basic needs.”

FGD 5, P1: “I have one daughter for whom I pay JD 15 for bus transportation. I would not stop paying for her transportation [without the CCG]. But other families who have 4 or more children, yes I believe they would stop paying it.”

Case Study 2: The Abdullah Family

‘All three of the qualifying children are in school and during the school term a significant part of the CCG is spent on transportation to and from school, as well as miscellaneous education related expenses such as books, stationary and pocket money. Usually, education related expenses consume the majority of their UNICEF CCG, costing them around JD 30 per month.’

Figure 13: Main expenditure items on which combined cash assistance is spent

RentUtilities

Food

CommunicationEducation

0 1 2 3 4 5

Shar

e of

Ben

e�ci

arie

s In

dica

ting

Spen

ding

on

Item

Size of expenditure (mean of bene�ciary ranking)

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%


When expenditure is analysed according to the mean of beneficiary ranking, education-related expenditure comes in as the fifth largest expenditure item, overtaking medicines for children as the fifth largest expenditure item in round 1. The top 4 expenses, however, show no significant change. Whilst food remains the third largest expenditure in this round of data collection, many participants in the FGDs expressed concerns regarding their ability to meet their families’ food needs in the coming months, and how this will affect their capacity to spend the CCG on the needs of their children. In fact, statements made by FGD participants (shown below) indicate how families have already altered their spending of UNICEF’s CCG due to reduction in WFP assistance.

FGD 4, P3: “We did [benefit from the CCG], but what is the point if they stopped the food coupons? The food coupons were better honestly.”

FGD 5, P6: “Stopping the food coupons affected how we use the UNICEF cash grant. We are now more pressured than before. We can’t work, actually we are forbidden to work. The value of the coupons that I used to receive was JD 140, and then it got reduced to JD 90 and then it became JD 60 and now they stopped it. Our situation now is very difficult.”

FGD 5, P5: “The main problem almost all Syrians are facing today is the reduction in food coupons. The coupons were of big help to Syrian families. For example, at the beginning we used to receive JD 24 per person, then JD 15 and then JD 10, and now it

stopped. Those receiving from UNHCR and UNICEF are now using the UNICEF cash grant to pay for things that are not related to their children.”

This development illustrates how the effects of UNICEF’s CCG and the realisation of the intended objectives greatly hinges on the level of other humanitarian support being extended to refugees. For example, the considerable data variation on spending patterns across both PDM rounds was primarily driven by the reduction in food assistance. Moreover, the information above shows how expenditure patterns are dynamic, not static, and largely depend on seasons, available labour opportunities and other such issues. For example, the increased spending on education expenses was due to the beginning of the new academic year, for which preparations coincided with the time of data collection.

3.6 CHILD-SPECIFIC EXPENDITUREThe share of families using UNICEF’s CCG to cover child-specific expenditures dropped from 93% in the first PDM round to 88% in this second round, partly illustrating the effect of declining humanitarian assistance from other sources. Of the 88% who used the CCG to cover at least one child-specific expenditure, the majority of families indicated spending on fresh foods for children (65%), school-related expenses (56%) and medicines for children (53%).

Figure 14: Child-specific expenditures on which UNICEF CCG is spent, PDM 2

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

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

Absolute

Abject

Children's clothes and shoes

Children's Medicine

Fresh Foods

Tuition fees

Infant/children's milk and food

Doctors fees for children

Transportation to school

Diapers/sanitation products

Transport to healthcare facilities

Recreation and toys

Infant needs (eg pram)

No spending on these items

PDM1

PDM2


Children's Medicine

School-related expenses

Fresh Foods

Tuition fees






Recreation and toys





Due to the exceptionally high reporting of payment of school fees in PDM 1 in relation to the economic vulnerability of the families within the sample, and the fact the Government of Jordan provides free state schooling for Syrian refugees children, further explanation of this expense category was given when tackling this question in round 2. For the purpose of clarity, ‘school fees’ was changed to ‘tuition fees’ so that respondent would understand that this refers only to tuition costs and not general school expenditure. This clarification is likely to account for the reduction in this expense category, rather than a reduction in school expenses persey.

A notable increase in spending can be observed in relation to expenditure on fresh food for children, which again may be a reflection of the reduction in WFP support to families across the sample. Education related expenditure also shows a significant increase, likely partly due to the clarification of the different education related expense categories as explained above, as well as due to the impending return to school at the time of data collection.

The seasonality of spending patterns and behaviour is further illustrated from the data above. As can be noticed, the share of families using UNICEF’s CCG to purchase clothing items for their children showed a marked drop between the first and second round. This can be attributed to the fact that data collection in the first round took place shortly before the Eid, the time in which families purchase ‘Eid clothes’ for their children.

FGD 3, P3: “I mostly use it [the CCG] for education and then clothes and food. For example, I couldn’t buy bananas before I received the cash grant, but now I can buy more fruits. Also I can buy clothes for them, especially my daughters. Also, as you know, they reduced the food coupons, so now I use the UNICEF cash for buying food.”

FGD 5, P6: “Last month I got them pyjamas…Now that school will start again soon, I got them notebooks and stationary.”

Figure 15: Child-specific expenditures on which UNICEF CCG is spent, PDM 1 and 2 compared

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

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

Absolute

Abject


Children's Medicine

Fresh Foods

Tuition fees






Recreation and toys



PDM1

PDM2


Children's Medicine


Fresh Foods

Tuition fees






Recreation and toys





Figure 16, above, shows that fresh foods, medicines and school related expenditures account for the largest single expenditures for the sampled families. Families living under absolute poverty show greater reported expenditure on fresh foods, which reflects the fact that these families are more likely to have had their WFP assistance suspended. When comparing with data from the first round, the effect of WFP’s cut in assistance becomes even more clear. While less than 1% of families interviewed in the first round indicated fresh food to be their highest single expenditure from the UNICEF

CCG, this share surged to over 25% of the sample in this round. The seasonality of expenditure patterns is also demonstrated, considering that education related expenses grew from around 5% to more than 20% of the sample, between the two rounds of data collection.

Families were asked to breakdown their expenditure of the CCG into the main expense categories, the results of which are shown in terms of average spend per child in figure 17 on the next page.

0% 0%

1%

6%

2%

5%

25%

0%2%

Largest single expenditure from UNICEFCCG - Absolute Poverty

23%

30%

6%

Largest single expenditure from UNICEFCCG - Abject Poverty

14%

25%

19%

5%5%8%

25% 1%0%

School fees

School related expenditures

Doctors fees

Infant/ children's milk

Fresh foods


School transportation

Transportation to healthcare facilities

Medicine

Infant/children's food

Clothes and shoes

Figure 16: Largest single expenditures from UNICEF CCG according to poverty level

0% 0%

1%

6%

2%

5%

25%

0%2%


23%

30%

6%


14%

25%

19%

5%5%8%

25% 1%0%

School fees


Doctors fees


Fresh foods




Medicine


Clothes and shoes


This data demonstrates that education related expenditure has increased by 14.8% from PDM 1 to PDM 2, and food expenditure has increased even further by 25.1%. Expenditure on other items, which includes clothes and shoes, was likely to be unusually high during the first round of data collection as it was taking place at the beginning of Ramadan, when families traditionally buy these items for their children before the Eid, and therefore has shown a downward trend into PDM 2 reducing by 11.2%. Health related expenditure showed the least change, remaining relatively consistent between PDM 1 and 2 with only a 5% increase. Expenditure levels show a shift toward education-related expenses and away from other non-food items.

When these expenditures are combined, the data shows an increase in child expenditures from JD 25.76 in PDM round 1 to JD 27.87 in PDM round 2, representing an increase of around 8%. In light of the declining humanitarian assistance, this may first

seem to be counterintuitive but the overall increase in expenditures may have resulted from an increased reliance on borrowing or use of savings (discussed in the next section). Another important factor that may have driven this increase is the remittances that Syrians receive from abroad, the level of which tends to be greater during the month of Ramadan.

Similarly, when comparing the general reduction in reported expenditure levels with the exception of some areas (mainly food and education), as discussed in the previous section, to the increase in estimated expenditure per child of around 8%, the two sets of data may be perceived as contradictory. However, it is likely that spending was spread more thinly across a wider range of items/expenses in the first round of data collection, while in the second round spending has been concentrated on fewer items, enabling the families to spend more on these items due to the economic demands, such as the start of the school year, that they face.

Figure 17: Average spend per child on education, health, food and other items.

7.03

5.89 6.096.75

8.07

6.18

7.62

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Education Health Food Other

Ave

rage

exp

endi

ture

per

chi

ld (J

D)

Area of expenditure

PDM 1

PDM 2

0% 0%

1%

6%

2%

5%

25%

0%2%


23%

30%

6%


14%

25%

19%

5%5%8%

25% 1%0%

School fees


Doctors fees


Fresh foods




Medicine


Clothes and shoes


On average, 57% of the sample felt that that the CCG had contributed significantly to covering the basic needs of children, 28% moderately, 12% slightly and only 2% felt it did not cover the basic needs of children at all. This data is disaggregated according to poverty level in figure 18, above.

Since receiving the CCG, 87% of families were able to cover expenses for their children that they were not able to afford before. This finding was more pronounced for families living under abject poverty, of which 94% said they had been able to cover expenses which they were not able to afford before, versus 82% for those living under abject poverty. Buying clothes (62%), buying fresh fruit and vegetables, meat and poultry (48%) and paying for medical treatments (42%) were the main expenses that families were able to cover.

FGD 3, P1: “I think it is good enough, we receive around $30 per child, which is good I guess.”

FGD 3, P4: “I use the UNICEF cash to pay the rent, and don’t use it for my children.”

FGD3, P7: “No it’s not enough, but yet it helped us a lot. Receiving a small amount of money is better than nothing.”

FGD 4, P2: “It was not enough, but yet it was good assistance.”

FGD 4, P4: “No, it is not enough. For me, I still don’t need to pay for education, my daughter is only 5 years old. But if I want to enrol her in a kindergarten, I need to pay JD 30 a month other than the initial payment…Also, she needs a pack of milk a month, before I used to get it with the coupons. From where shall I get all this money?”

FGD 5, P6: “It did help, but it didn’t cover all my children’s needs, it only covered part of it.”

Figure 18: Extent to which UNICEF CCG covered basic needs of children

73%

47%

21%

33%

5%17%

1% 3%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Abject Absolute

Extent to which UNICEF CCG covered basicneeds of children by poverty level

Not at all

Slightly

Moderately57%28%

12%

2%

Extent to which UNICEF CCG coveredbasic needs of children

Moderately

Slightly

Not at all


3.7 USE OF COPING MECHANISMSFigure 19 shows the most commonly reported coping mechanisms as well as the ranking of each of these mechanisms. Reducing food intake and choosing cheaper food options continue to be the most commonly used coping mechanisms, which are being adopted by a large majority of the sampled families,

with 93% reporting reducing their families’ food intake and 94% reporting buying cheaper less preferred foods, despite receipt of the CCG. This shows an increase in the reported use of these strategies from PDM round 1, where 88% of families reported reducing their food intake and 84% reported choosing cheaper and less preferred food options. FGDs mirrored this finding, with reduction of food consumption being the most commonly discussed strategy that families are using.

FGD 3, P7: “Back in Syria my children used to eat 4 times a day, and before the cash grant we used to eat 2 times a day, and now after the cash grant we eat 3 times a day.”

FGD 4, P2: “It’s ok to get my children only bread and tomatoes to eat but I must pay the rent.”

FGD 4, P4: “[My daughter] needs a pack of milk per month. Before, I used to get it from the food coupons. The price of milk in JD 12. From where can I buy her milk, if I only have JD 10 left for the whole month?”

Case Study 2: The Abdullah Family‘Although he has been able to keep the family in school, Yousef has accumulated a debt of over JD 6000 through borrowing money from friends and family. He has now exhausted this coping strategy. The family are still being forced to buy lower quality food than they are used to, and reduce spending on necessary medical expenses.’

Figure 19: Most common coping mechanisms currently in use

Choosing CheaperFood Options

Reducing FoodIntake

ReducingAccomodation Costs

Borrowing Money

Depleting SavingsReducing Health

Expenditures

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Shar

e of

ben

e�ci

arie

s in

dica

ting

spen

ding

on

item

Priority of adopted coping mechanism (mean of bene�ciary rankingfrom �rst adopted mechanism (1) to last (3)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


Five instalments into the programme, 50% of sampled families stated that they have avoided at least one negative coping strategy as a result of receiving the CCG, compared to 57% of families in round 1. This indicates decreased effectiveness of UNICEF’s CCG in helping families avoid falling into negative coping

mechanisms, in light of decreases in other assistance. The most commonly avoided strategies were selling of food vouchers (16%) and borrowing money (12%). However, all coping strategies show a clear downward trend in the reported stopping/avoidance of negative coping strategies, illustrated in figures 20 and 21 below.

Figure 20: Coping Strategies stopped/avoided since receiving UNICEF CCG

Figure 21: Coping strategies stopped/avoided since receiving the UNICEF CCG, PDM 1 and 2 compared

16%

13%

9%

3%

8%

2%

3%

15%

10%

6%

2%

5%

4%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Absolute

Abject

16%

12%

8%

3%

7%

3%

4%

31%

26%

16%

12%

8%

9%

7%

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

PDM 1

PDM 2

89% 91%

11% 9%

PDM 1 PDM 2

Yes

No

Selling food voucher

Borrowing money

Dropping children out of school

Asking for money

Reducing health expenditure

Return to Syria

Let children work


Borrowing money


Asking for money


Return to Syria

Let children work

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

16%

13%

9%

3%

8%

2%

3%

15%

10%

6%

2%

5%

4%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Absolute

Abject

16%

12%

8%

3%

7%

3%

4%

31%

26%

16%

12%

8%

9%

7%

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

PDM 1

PDM 2

89% 91%

11% 9%

PDM 1 PDM 2

Yes

No


Borrowing money


Asking for money


Return to Syria

Let children work


Borrowing money


Asking for money


Return to Syria

Let children work

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%


When comparing the data on coping strategies between PDM 1 and 2, it can be observed that the share of families indicating the depletion of savings as a coping mechanism has increased from 13.4% to 27%, which can go some way to explaining the increase in spending observed in the preceding section. The level of borrowing has also increased, though to a lesser extent, from 49% to 52% in round 2.

Families reporting that they have been able to avoid selling WFP vouchers has decreased from 31% in round 1 to 16% in round 2. This may be because families are readopting this strategy in response to declining levels of assistance, though may also be due to the fact that families no longer receiving vouchers can no longer report that they are avoiding the use of this strategy. Families reporting that they have avoided borrowing money has also decreased from 26% in round 1 to 12% in round 2 showing increased use of this strategy, which may have been the main enabling factor for the increased reported spending on children in this round. The number of families reporting avoiding ‘asking for money’ has reduced significantly from 12% to 3%, which may indicate an increase in begging as a strategy to generate income for the family, or increased reliance on financial assistance from family and friends which they do not expect to repay. Again, this could be a source of the additional income being channelled towards spending on children’s food and education indicated in this round of data collection. Additionally, avoidance of children working has also declined from 7% to 4%, which indicates a concerning trend of possible re-adoption of strategies that negatively affect children.

When asked about coping mechanisms in the FGDs two main issues arose that are not reflected in this data. Firstly, the FGDs suggest that the use of child labour (discussed in section 4.3 Income) is being under-reported, although the extent to which this is happening cannot be determined.15 This would also offer an expectation as to why the findings in this PDM with regard to child labour are significantly lower than the level estimated by UNICEF and Save the Children 16

and CARE.17 Whilst the reported instance of child labour in the PDM monitoring has decreased from round 1 to round 2, the level of discussion around the occurrence of child labour in the FGDs has increased.

Secondly, although the PDM data shows little change in the number of families considering a return to Syria as a coping strategy, the FGD participants revealed that there are many families considering this strategy due to the increasingly difficult living conditions in Jordan.

FGD 3, P6: “If the cash assistance from UNHCR stops, I believe that most Syrians will go back to Syria and they will die there.”

FGD 5, P4: “I think everyone is thinking about immigration nowadays.”

FGD 5, P1: “Yes, I might go to Syria if the UNICEF cash assistance stopped because the living situation here is too hard to deal with.”

15 Further information on the estimated level of child labour can be found in the ILO study, “ILO response to Syrian Refugee Crisis in Jordan”. 16 Save the Children and UNICEF (2015), “Small Hands, Heavy Burdens: How the Syrian Conflict is Driving More Children Into the Workforce”.17 CARE (2015), “Five Years Into Exile”.


3.8 CHILD EMPOWERMENTThe empowerment of children emerged as an unintended consequence of the CCG as was observed in the first round of PDM, and then confirmed in this second round. Throughout the 5 FGDs conducted to this point, many participants highlighted that their children are aware of the UNCIEF CCG and its intention to cover their basic needs, and are asserting their needs to their parents when the SMS notification from UNICEF arrives.

FGD 3, P2: “Once my children knew, they asked me to buy them ice cream…. They don’t ask for much.”

FGD 3, P3: “The child in general is aware and understands the living situation. We are dealing with educated children, children who go to school and are aware of their circumstances. My children know about the JD 20 and are aware of it. For example, when I buy a small toy for my child, he knows that it is from the JD 20. Also when they go to school, I give them 25 piasters as a pocket money and they know it is from the JD 20.”

FGD 4, P1: “My children got so excited when they knew about the cash grant. They keep waiting for the text message to arrive and once it does, they come running to me and start asking to go to the market to get them what they want. This happened specifically during the Eid Holiday.”

FGD 4, P3: “My daughter gets so excited when I receive the text message and on the way to the bank she keeps praying to God to get some extra money.”

FGD 5:P1: “Yes they know. My daughter always asks me to save her the JD 20 received.”

FGD 5, P7: “My children wait for the text message to arrive.”

FGD 5, P6: “My son always asks me for things and I tell him that I’ll get him what he wants once I receive the UNICEF [and UNHCR] money.”


3.9 IMPROVEMENTS IN OVERALL LIVING CONDITIONS The majority of survey respondents (91%) indicated that UNICEF’s CCG has led to an improvement in their families’ overall living conditions, attributing the improvement to their increased ability to pay rent, increased quality of food, and increased ability to buy clothing items for their children.

Of those who felt an improvement, 57% said that they are now able to pay the rent, 45% were able to increase the quality of food their children are eating and 42% are able to buy clothes for their children. Of those who did not feel an improvement, 61% said that it was because they had stopped receiving food vouchers, 32% said that it was because the amount is not enough and 31% said that the landlord had raised their rent (respondents were allowed to give more than one answer). The number of respondents stating that they did not feel the amount of the CCG was enough has increased significantly from 20% in round 1 to 32% in round 2.

As was observed in PDM 1, several families commented during the FGDs on the positive psychological impact that the CCG has had on them and their families, and the stress that their current situation induces. This has been further reiterated in the second round of FGDs, albeit to a lesser extent than in FGDs 1 and 2.

FGD 5, P3: “[if the CCG stopped] it will have a very negative impact on us. Our emotional situation will deteriorate.”

FGD 5, P4: “Yes, I’ll become very stressed out. Even if the JD 80 is not of a big amount, yet it helped me a lot. It will have a negative impact.”

FGD 5, P1: “I need to ensure a good future for my children. My situation in Syria was very good, but now I have no future for us in Jordan, but must secure a good future for my children. That’s my priority.”

FGD 5, P6: “We are receiving money, so it definitely improved my emotional situation.”

Case Study 2: The Abdullah Family

‘…receiving the CCG has reduced his [father] stress and the psychological burden of providing for his family. “We are living below the poverty line”, he says, “but we have been mentally more stable with the UNICEF CCG. The younger ones don’t understand if we have enough money or not. So when we got the money and I bought them some clothes, I felt more comfortable after that” he says. “There is a big difference since the grant started to come and God willing, it will keep coming.”

16%

13%

9%

3%

8%

2%

3%

15%

10%

6%

2%

5%

4%

4%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20%

Absolute

Abject

16%

12%

8%

3%

7%

3%

4%

31%

26%

16%

12%

8%

9%

7%

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

PDM 1

PDM 2

89% 91%

11% 9%

PDM 1 PDM 2

Yes

No


Borrowing money


Asking for money


Return to Syria

Let children work


Borrowing money


Asking for money


Return to Syria

Let children work

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Figure 22: UNICEF CCG contribution to improved overall living conditions

39

4. CONCLUDING REMARKS

40

The data from PDM 2 demonstrates that the CCG is continuing to achieve many of its intended short term outcomes, although the results are mixed in a number of key areas. The CCG awareness and distribution mechanisms are proving to be very effective, with almost all beneficiaries aware of the amount and intended use of the grant, receiving the notifications and collecting the money with relative ease. The main area of weakness in this regard is in relation to the duration of the CCG, where the level of knowledge is considerably lower though has shown a marked improvement between PDM 1 and 2 as a result of the monitoring process.

Despite receiving the CCG, the data shows a narrowing of income sources for many families. The number of families reporting income from the WFP has reduced from 97% to 90% between PDM 1 and 2 (and will decline further into PDM 3), in conjunction with a decline in the reporting of paid labour as a major income source from 15% of families, to only 2% of families. The number of families reporting that ‘no one’ is making an economic contribution to the family has risen from 8% in PDM 1 to 47% in PDM 2. This decline could be as a result of the seasonal nature of work in the informal sector, as well as an intensified crack-down by the Government of Jordan on illegal workers.

This has been reflected through decreased reporting of expenditure levels among the sampled families. From the first to the second round of data collection, reported expenditure has dropped in all areas, with the exceptions of rent which has remained constant, and education-related expenditure which has shown a significant increase, particularly when considered in conjunction with transport to school. It is likely that this increase is a result of the start of the new school year, preparations for which coincided with the time of data collection. Education remains a high priority for the sampled families, with 81% of all school-aged children enrolled in education of some kind, despite the associated expenses that many families are facing, such as transportation, clothes, books and stationary. The surge in necessary education-related expenditure is likely to have caused a reallocation of resources away from other key areas in order to meet these seasonal expenses.

Specifically regarding the UNICEF CCG, only 12% of families indicated that they did not use it to cover any child-related expenses. The majority are spending the CCG on fresh foods for children (65%), school-related expenses (56%) and medicines for children (53%). Whilst a higher share of refugees are spending on food, the magnitude of education-related expenses (when including transportation) is greater. The level of reported expenditure on clothes and shoes has decreased dramatically from round 1, whilst reported


expenditure on education-related expenses has risen significantly. This highlights the seasonal nature of expenditure patterns, which are fluid and change according to need. In this respect, the unconditional nature of the CCG is a significant benefit to the refugee families, as it allows them to determine their own needs and allocate their financial means accordingly.

The CCG has been effective in increasing the allocation of family spending toward child-specific needs, with 87% of families stating that since receiving the CCG they were able to cover expenses for their children that were not a priority or that they could not afford before. This finding was more pronounced for families living under abject poverty, of which 94% said they had been able to cover expenses which they could not before, versus 82% for those living under absolute poverty, highlighting the likelihood that families living under abject poverty were likely to be spending less on the specific needs of their children prior to receiving the CCG.

In relation to the use of negative coping strategies, the CCG continues to have a significant impact on reducing their adoption, with 50% of families reporting that they were able to stop or avoid at least one negative coping strategy as a result of receiving the CCG. However, this shows a decline in avoidance from 57% in round 1. As economic circumstances for refugees deteriorate, so too does their capacity to avoid the use of negative coping strategies that have the potential to negatively impact upon their children. The avoidance of negative coping strategies shows a clear downward trend, indicating re-adoption of these strategies. Reducing the quantity and quality of food consumed are the most commonly adopted strategies, showing a significant increase from round 1 of data collection, as highlighted above. The

reduction of WFP assistance has had a clear impact in this regard. This trend is highly concerning, given the complete suspension of WFP vouchers to many as of September, and the potential of these strategies to have a significant negative impact on children.

More positively, 91% of families reported that they had experienced an overall improvement in their families’ living conditions as a result of receiving the CCG, attributing this improvement to their increased ability to pay the rent, to increase the quality food consumed by their children and to buy them clothes. This shows an increase, from 89% in round 1, showing that the sampled families are placing greater value on the CCG in the face of declining levels of assistance and reduced ability to generate their own income. Several FGD participants commented on their improved psychological wellbeing as a result of the CCG, as well as that of their children who are well informed and happy to be receiving it.

These results demonstrate the vulnerability of the programme to its external environment. As assistance levels from other organisations decline, most notably the WFP, the ability of the programme to achieve its intended outcomes becomes increasingly limited. To minimise the impact on children of the declining level of humanitarian assistance that families are experiencing, it is important to maintain the UNICEF CCG at the current level or even higher, due to the fact that a greater proportion of family resources will need to be allocated toward food in the coming months. In the absence of vouchers from the WFP, the quality and quantity of food consumed by children, the reduction of which is already the most commonly adopted coping strategy by the sampled families, is likely to decline further to the detriment of children’s wellbeing.


ANNEX ICASE STUDY 2:THE ABDULLAH FAMILY


Like most Syrians forced to flee the war, the Abdullah family was not planning on staying long in Jordan when they left their home of Dara’a in southern Syria in September of 2012. As an economically stable, middle class family in Syria, they lived off their savings when they first arrived, renting an apartment in Jerash for JD 185 per month, and did not receive any financial assistance for the first 5 months. Although they were able to live in relatively good conditions at first, they quickly exhausted their available funds and assets while they waited with hope to return home.

“The grant started just in time,” says Yousef, the primary caregiver and UNHCR registered head of the family. He lives together with his wife Layan, his elderly mother Ne’mah and his six children, daughters Lema (20), Yasmine (19) and Mariam (13) and sons Tawfiq (21), Sohaib (15) and Mohammed (12). The transition to financial instability took a significant physical and psychological toll. “I spent two weeks at home, unable to move when the money ran out,” he said. Yousef eventually came to terms with the situation but the stress of taking care of his family with no means to

INTERVIEW CONDUCTED 3RD AUGUST, 2015

IRBID, JORDAN

THE ABDULLAH FAMILY1

1 All names in this Case Study have been changed to protect the identity of the family.


generate his own income continues to be a heavy burden. “We came with enough money but soon after, we went almost a year without any coupons,” Yousef said, referring to the widely distributed vouchers from the WFP, which they have been receiving since 2013.

21-year-old Tawfiq came to Jordan ahead of his family and has applied for immigration to Europe, though has not yet had a response from the authorities. He is the only member of the family who takes a small income (a day rate of JD 5-6) intermittently when work is available in local restaurants. Otherwise, the family now relies entirely on assistance from UNHCR, UNICEF and the WFP and more recently, the Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) who have provided them with rent-free accommodation in Irbid. Before receiving accommodation from NRC, they spent their combined UN cash assistance on rent, utilities, medicine and medical care, and food in order of amount and importance. Since they were assisted by the NRC in July, they no longer have to cover rent. However, the family anticipate that they will have to allocate more money toward food in the coming months, as they received an SMS from the WFP earlier this month indicating that they will no longer be receiving food vouchers.

The family been receiving the UNICEF child cash grant (CCG) since the program began in February. As they have 3 children under the age of 18, they take JD 60

per month. They spend the CCG differently each month according to their needs, though they are mostly able to cover at least some child-specific expenditures. In July, the cash grant was spent mainly on electricity (JD 15-20) and water (JD 12 per three square meter), which they explain are more expensive for them in their new house, as well as pocket money for the children, supplies for the home and children’s clothing. Due to the fact that school has not been in session, they have not had to spend on education-related expenses this month. All three of the qualifying children are enrolled in school and during the school term a significant part of the CCG is spent on transportation to and from school, as well as miscellaneous education expenses such as books, stationary and pocket money. Usually, education related expenses consume the majority of their UNICEF CCG, costing them around JD 30 each month. The rest is divided between medical care, food and other child-related expenses like clothing. When asked what the older children hope for, they all answer first, to go to university and then second, to return to their homeland. Lema and Yasmine have both completed the Syrian equivalent of the Tawjihi since living in Jordan (graduating the final year of secondary school) called E’etelaf Syria, but the Ministry of Education in Jordan does not recognize this as an equivalent to national requirements, so the girls would not be able to attend University in Jordan if they enrolled.


Yousef, who has lost three siblings to the violence in Syria is steadfast in his commitment to his family’s wellbeing, emphasizing the importance of education. Removing them from school in order to find work or to save on education costs is a negative coping strategy he refuses to adopt. Despite the positive impact of the rent relief from NRC, the family’s move to Irbid has come with additional transportation costs as the children’s school is far from home. “I am not willing to sacrifice their education. I want them to go to school even if I have to sell my kidney.”

Although he has been able to keep the children in school up to now, Yousef has accumulated a debt of over JD 6000 through borrowing money from friends and family. He has now exhausted this coping strategy. The family are still being forced to buy lower quality food than they are used to and reduce spending on necessary medical expenses.

Yasmine, now 19 years old, likes to draw and holds up a picture of a butterfly depicting the Syrian flag. The two bedroom home she shares with the rest of her family is unfinished and sparsely decorated but Yousef is able to buy some art supplies for her and the rest of the children.

12-year-old Mohammed has to be coaxed to come join us for the interview. “He’s the most affected. He is withdrawn and very sensitive. I see him taking on the weight and responsibility of everything around him,” his father says. The boy sits quiet and slouching, with his head down for most of the conversation. “I’ve been able to give him a little pocket money once in a while and this makes him happy,” says Yousef. “We only came here to be safe. If we went back, we would lose our limbs.” Their home in Dara’a was completely destroyed in a fire started from nearby bombing.

The family’s descent into poverty was gradual but drastic. Yousef worked as a driver before the war and took home a decent income of between JD 1000-1200 transporting vegetables into Saudi Arabia. “I want to work in order to avoid all this assistance.” Legal limitations on refugees have forced Yousef to remain unemployed, but receiving the CCG has reduced his stress and the psychological burden of providing for his family. “We are living below the poverty line,” he says, “but we have been mentally more stable with the UNICEF [child cash grant]. The younger ones don’t understand if we have enough money or not. So when we got the money and I bought them some clothes, I felt more comfortable after that,” he says.

“There was a big difference since the grant started to come and God willing, it will keep coming,” says Yousef.


ANNEX IIPOST-DISTRIBUTION MONITORING QUESTIONNAIRE


UNICEF - Unconditional Child Cash Grant programme for Syrian families in Jordan

Bi-Monthly Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Questionnaire – ROUND (2)

Serial Number: ..............................................

IntroductionHello, my name is .................................................................................... and I am working as a Field Researcher for To-Excel Consulting. Today, we are conducting research on behalf of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF). We are in the process of conducting interviews among Syrians in Jordan. This research is to examine the use and effectiveness of the UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant, which is being delivered to recipients through the UNHCR Cash Grant delivery mechanisms. You have been selected for this interview as you are in receipt of the UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant.

Consent and ConfidentialityAll of the answers that you give in this questionnaire will be treated with upmost confidentiality. There are no right or wrong answers, and your responses will only be used for analysis by UNICEF. Your answers will in no way impact upon the level of assistance you receive from the United Nations. In addition, you have the right not to disclose your name, address and personal details. Please note that you have the right to refrain from answering any of the questions which you do not wish to answer. However, your cooperation and transparency in answering the questions will allow us to better understand your circumstances and measure the impact for recipients of the UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant. The interview will take around 30 to 40 minutes. Do you agree to participate in this research?

Interviewer: (If participant approves please go ahead with questionnaire. If not, thank him/her and end the interview.)

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Respondent name

2Outside UNHCR List1UNHCR ListMethod of SelectionM1.

UNHCR File No.M2.

0 7Phone/ Mobile numberM3.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................Full address

DAY MONTH YEAR

2 0 1 5Interview DateS1.

10Ma’an07Balqa04Amman01Irbid

GovernorateS2. 11Mafraq08Tafilah05Zarqa02Ajloun

12Aqaba09Karak06Madaba03Jarash

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................DistrictS3.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................AreaS4.

030201Supervisor IDS5.

Interviewer IDS6.

HOUR :

MINUTESInterview start time(24 hrs.)S7.


Section (1) – General information

First, I have some general questions to ask you

Interviewer: (Record gender without asking)

D1. Gender of Respondent

Male 1

Female 2

Ask all

D2. How old are you?

Record age in years ........................................................................ years old

Ask all

D3. How many members are there in your family including yourself?

Record number ................................................................................................................................

Ask all

D3a. And how many of them are children under 18?

Record number ................................................................................................................................

I would like to ask couple of questions about your children

Ask all

D4a/D4b. Name, gender and age of each child starting with the youngest

Ask for each child

D4c. Does your child (child name) receive any kind of education whether formal or informal?

Ask only about children who receive education (if (yes) in D4c)

D4d. Is it formal education at school or informal education?

Ask only about children who receive formal education (if (1) in D4d)

D4d.1 does your child (Child name) go to a public or private school?

Ask for each child

D4e. Does your child (child name) work?

Child’s Name

D4a.Gender D4b.

Age

D4c.Receive

Education

D4d.Type of

Education

D4d.1Type of School

D4e.Work

Male Female Yes No Formal Informal Public Private Yes No Occasionally

1 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

3 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

4 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

5 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

6 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

7 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

8 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3

9 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 1 2 3


Ask only about children who DO NOT receive any education OR who receive informal education (if (2) in D4c or (2) in D4d:

D4f. What is/are the reason(s) that your child/children are not enrolled in schools?

(Don’t read - Multiple responses allowed) (Rank maximum 3 responses – (1) most important and (3) least important)

D4f.1D4f.2

Ranking

No space in governmental schools 01

High transportation costs to reach the school 02

School fees are too high 03

Violence at school / tension at school 04

Low quality of teaching 05

Poor physical infrastructure 06

Dangers for the kids on the way to school 07

Child lost engagement / motivation to learning 08

Child was out of school for too long and could not enrol in formal education 09

Other (specify) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 97

Ask only about children who DO NOT receive any education (if (2) in D4c)

D4g. What is/are the reason(s) that your child/children are not attending informal education?

(Don’t read - Multiple responses allowed) (Rank maximum 3 responses – (1) most important and (3) least important)

D4g.1D4g.2

Ranking

The entity delivering informal education does not release a certification 01

I do not trust the entity delivering informal education 02

Fees are too high 03

Violence at school / tension at the premises of the entity delivering informal education 04



Dangers for the kids on the way to the entity delivering informal education 07


High transportation costs to reach the entity delivering informal education 09

Child was out of school for too long and could not enroll in informal education 10

Other (specify) 97

I don’t know what informal education is [Skip to Interviewer instruction] 99


Ask only about children who DO NOT receive any education (if (2) in D4c)

D4h. did you know that UNICEF supports centres providing free informal education for all out-of-school children?

Yes 1

No 2

D4i. Would you send your child to one of these centres?

Yes 1

No 2

If answered (No) in D4i, ask:

D4j. why not? (Don’t read - Multiple responses allowed)

The entity delivering informal education does not release a certification 01

I do not trust the entity delivering informal education 02

Fees are too high 03

Violence at school / tension at the premises of the entity delivering informal education 04



Dangers for the kids on the way to the entity delivering informal education 07


High transportation costs to reach the entity delivering informal education 09

Dangers for the kids to reach the entity delivering informal education 10

Child was out of school for too long and could not enroll in informal education 11

Other (specify) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 97

Ask all

D5. Who is the head of the family, as registered in the UNHCR?

Father 1

Mother 2

Other (Specify) .............................................................................. 97

Ask all

D6. Is there any family member who has a disability?

Yes 1

No 2

If answered “yes” in D6, ask:

D7. And out of those who have a disability, how many are of children under 18 years old?(Don’t read – one response allowed)

One child 01

Two 02

Three 03

Four 04

More than four children 05

None 06


Ask all

D8. Who are the main economic contributors in the family?

(Multiple responses allowed)

Father 01

Mother 02

Other adult 03

Child over 16 04

Child under 16 05

None 06

Ask all

D9. What are your main sources of income? (Probe: any other sources?)

(Don’t read – Multiple responses allowed)

UN cash assistance 01

WFP vouchers 02

Remittances 03

Cash or vouchers from another NGO 04

Paid Labour 05

Small business 06

Asking for money 07

Other (Specify ......................................................................................................... 97

Section (2) Awareness of the Child Cash Grant

Ask all

Q1. Have you received any additional amount to your monthly UNHCR cash grant?

Yes 1

No 2 (Go to N1 at the end of this questionnaire)

If answered “yes” in Q1, ask:

Q2. How many times have you received this additional amount till today?

One time 01

Two times 02

Three times 03

Four times 04

Five times 05

six times 06

More than six times 07

Ask all

Q3. Are you aware that the additional amount is a Child Cash Grant from UNICEF specified for children?

Yes 1

No 2


If answered “yes” in Q3 ask:

Q4. How did you hear about the Child Cash Grant from UNICEF?

(Don’t read– multiple responses allowed)

When registered at the UNHCR 01

When visited UNHCR 02

From family/friends/neighbors 03

From NGOs/CBOs 04

Via text (SMS) message 05

Other (Specify) ......................................................................................................... 97 Ask all

Q5. Are you aware that the Child Cash Grant from UNICEF is JD 20 per child per month?Yes 1No 2

Ask all

Q6. Are you actually receiving the Child Cash Grant from UNICEF at a rate of JD 20 per child per month?

Yes 01

Receiving incorrect amount 02

Did not receive from UNICEF at all 03 (Go to N1 at the end of this questionnaire)

Ask all

Q7. And are you aware that the Child Cash Grant from UNICEF will initially run for a period of 6 months?

Yes 1

No 2

Section (3) Cash delivery mechanism

Let’s talk about cash delivery mechanism

Ask all

Q8. First, how do you withdraw the Child Cash Grant monthly payment from the bank?Iris scan 01ATM card 02

Ask all

Q9. Did you face problems while withdrawing the cash?Yes 1No 2


Q10. What are these problems? (Don’t read – multiple responses allowed)

01I don’t know how to use the ATM Machine02The machine is out of service most of the time03The ATM machine is far from my residence04I don’t feel safe using the ATM machine05The machine swallowed the Card06The iris scan didn’t work07It took too much time to receive the ATM card08The head of family is not always available to withdraw the money09The allowed period of time to withdraw the cash grant is not sufficient10Long line to reach the ATM machine/have to go to the bank more than once to able to withdraw the money because of the crowds

11There is only one ATM in the whole area97Other (Specify ) ...........................................................................................................................................


Ask all

Q11. Do you usually receive a text (SMS) message on your mobile from UNHCR or UNICEF to alert you that the payment is ready for you to withdraw from the bank?

Yes 1

No 2

Section (4) Child Cash Grant expenditure

Now, I want to ask you about the total Cash Grant that you receive from UNHCR and UNICE together.

Ask all

Q12.I’m going to read you a list of different expenditures that people who receive the Cash Grant spend it on. For each one, please tell me if you spend the Cash Grant on it or not? Here, I mean the cash grants received from both UNICEF and UNHCR

Q13. Now, could you give the five biggest expenses that consume your total Cash Grant received from UNHCR and UNICEF starting (1) with the largest expense?

Q13.(1) biggest expense (5) lowest expenseQ12.Expenditure

01Rent

02Electricity, water bills and gas

03Telecommunication and mobile subscription

04Food

05Education for children

06Health care services adults

07Medicine adults

08Health care services for children

09Medicine for children

10Transportation

11Debts

12Emergency savings

13Other children expenditures

97Other (specify )...........................................................................................................................................

I would like to ask you now specific questions about your children expenditures

Ask all

Q14.As I read each of the following items, please let me know if you spend the Child Cash grant received from UNICEF on it or not? Note here that I am referring only to the 20 JD per month per each child that you receive from UNICEF

Ask only about the main expenditure (a, b, c, and d)

Q15. And for each expense you mentioned, could you please tell me the estimated amount of money you spend on it monthly?

Ask only about the expenditure mentioned in Q14

Q16. Out of the specific children expenditures you chose (read out from Q14), could you please tell me which one of these expenditures do you mostly spend the Child Cash Grant assistance on each month? Note here that I am referring only to the 20 JD per month per each child that you receive from UNICEF. (One response allowed)


Q16.Mostly spent on each month

Q15. Amount in JDQ14. Child Cash Grant expenditures

a. Education expenditures

0101School fees

0202School transportation

0303Other school related expenses (books, stationary, uniform, pocket money…etc)

b. Heath care expenditures

0404Transportation to health care facilities

0505Doctor fees

0606Medicine

c. Food expenditures

0707Infant/ Children milk

0808Infant/ Children food

0909Fresh produce (vegetables, fruits, meat, etc.)

d. Other expenditures on children

1010Children clothes and shoes

1111Diapers/ girls sanitation products

1212Toys

1313Infants needs such as a trolley/ cot

1414Recreation for children

99I didn’t spend it on any of the above(Record 99 then go to Q17)

Ask all

Q17. How far has the JD 20 per child per month helped to cover the basic needs of children?Significantly 1Moderately 2Slightly 3Not at all 4

Ask all

Q18. Since receiving the Child Cash Grant, were you able to cover expenses for your children that were not a priority before?

Yes 1

No 2


Q19. What were these expenses? (Open-ended – precoded) (Multiple responses allowed)

Buy clothes/underwear/shoes 01

Pay for medical treatments/paying for doctors’ visits/buy medicine for the children 02

Buy more quantities of food for the children 03

Buy fruits and vegetables/buy meat and poultry for the children 04

Buy milk for infants and children/buy more milk 05

Buy diapers 06

Pay for school transportation /pay for school bus 07

Pay for school expenses/school allowance 08

Pay for education 09

Buy toys 10

Other (Specify) 97


Section (5) Coping Mechanism

Now, let’s move to another subject. I’d like to ask you some questions about your living conditions.

Ask all

Q20. Now that you have started receiving the additional amount from the UNICEF Child Cash Grant, did this help in improving your family’s overall living condition?

Iris scan 01

ATM card 02

Ask Q21 then skip to Q231Yes

Ask Q22 and continue2No, not at all If answered “yes” in Q20, ask:

Q21. Could you please tell me how did the additional Child Cash Grant amount from UINCEF improve your family’s overall living condition? (Don’t read – record first three answers - multiple responses allowed)

01Moved to a better house/ area 02Able to pay the rent03No more in need of sharing costs with the host family04Able to pay your debts/less debts05Less in need of remittances06Less in need of cash assistance from NGOs/CBOs07Less in need to sell properties/assets08No more need to sell food voucher09Less in need to borrow money10The children stopped working11The children stopped asking for money (begging) 12Improvement in food quality/food quantity for the children13Ability to buy clothes/underwear/shoes14Ability to buy milk for infants and children/ability to buy more quantities of milk15Ability to buy diapers16Ability to give allowance for the children17Ability to pay water and electricity bills18Ability to buy medicine/to pay for doctors’ visits/ to pay for medical services19Improvement in the overall house condition/buying home appliances such as an oven20Ability to pay for transportation21Ability to pay for children’s’ education97Other (Specify) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

If answered “no” in Q20, ask:

Q22. Why didn’t the Child Cash Grant improve your family’s overall living conditions?

(Don’t read – multiple responses allowed)

01The landlord increased the rent

02We stopped receiving food vouchers/or reduction in the value of food vouchers

03We stopped receiving non cash/food assistance from humanitarian organizations

04We stopped receiving cash assistance from the UNHCR

05We stopped receiving cash assistance from NGOs/CBOs

06It causes problems between the family members

07We stopped receiving supported health care

08The amount is not enough/the amount is small/it is not enough to cover basic expenses

09Received the cash grant only once

97Other (specify) ...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Ask all

Q23. I’m going to read a list of possible measures that are usually used to cope with economic hardship. Which of these coping measures are you currently using, if any?(Read out – multiple responses allowed)

(If the chosen coping measures were two or more, then ask the respondent to rank them starting at (1) with the strategy they adopted first – a maximum of three) - Ask all

Q24. Could you please rank the coping measures you just mentioned using a scale from 1 to 3? 1 means first adopted strategy, and 3 is the last adopted strategy?

(Read out ONLY the strategies the respondent chose in Q23 and record the ranking number next to each one)

Ask all

Q25. Other than the measures that you are using currently, which of the following measures were you using before receiving the cash grant and have now stopped or avoided using it after receiving the cash grant?

(If answered “yes” read out the measures that were NOT mentioned in Q23 plus the items (q,r,s)

Q25.measures Stopped/

avoided

Q24.3 top

measures

Q23.Current coping

measures

0101a. Reduce accommodation costs by any means

0202b. Reducing food intake (portion size or no. of meals)

0303c. Choosing less preferred but cheaper food options

0404d. Receiving cash assistance from family members (remittances)

0505e. Receiving humanitarian assistance from NGOs/CBOs

0606f. Selling properties/assets

0707g. Selling food voucher

0808h. Working more than one job

0909i. Borrowing money

1010j. Using your savings

1111k. Asking for money

1212l. Dropping children out of school

1313m. Let your children work (child labor)

1414n. Let your children ask for money

1515o. Reduction of essential expenditure on health

1616p. Reduction of essential expenditure on education

17q. (ask only for Q25) immigrate to another country for residency

18r. (ask only for Q25) Move back to the refugee camp

19s. (ask only for Q25) Return to Syria

979797t. Other (don’t read) (Specify) ..........................................................................................................

99Did NOT avoid any strategies (don’t read)

Additional Question Sheet for participants NOT receiving cash from UNICEF

QN1. Have you ever received (in the last 8 months) an amount from UNICEF over what you usually receive from UNHCR?

Yes 01 Go to QN3

No 02 Continue

QN2. Have you ever received an SMS from UNICEF indicating that you are eligible to receive a cash grant dedicated to meeting the basic needs of your children?

Yes 01 Go to QN8

No 02 End interview

QN3. Were you informed about the decision to stop the assistance?

Yes 01 Continue

No 02 Go to QN6


QN4. What were the reasons behind stopping the assistance?

(Don’t read – Multiple responses allowed)

Shortage of funding 01

Improvement in your living conditions in comparison to the other refugee families 02

You have not withdrawn the last cash grant amount 04

Other (Specify) ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 97

Don’t know the reasons why 99

QN5. How were you informed of the decision to stop the assistance?

SMS 01

Home visit from UN staff 02

Other (Specify) .................................................................................................. 97

QN6. Are you aware that you can appeal against the decision to suspend your assistance?

Yes 01 Continue

No 02 Go to S8 and end the interview

QN7. Are you aware of the procedure to be taken to make an appeal?

Yes 01 Continue


QN8. Did you file an appeal?

Yes 01 Continue


QN9. Do you think the appeal process is fair?

Yes 1 Go to QN11

No 2 Continue

Don’t know 8 Go to QN11

QN10. Why not?...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

QN11. Do you think the appeal process is time consuming?

Yes 01

No 02

HOUR :

MINUTESInterview start time(24 hrs.)S8.

Thank the respondent

Interviewer:

S9. Please record any other comments or observations, such as describing the house condition, the family/children condition, the house area, observations on the respondent…etcPlease also record if you have noticed any changes, whether better or worse, to respondent/family’s overall situation.

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

...............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


ANNEX IIIFOCUS GROUPDISCUSSION GUIDE


UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant Programme for Syrian Families in Jordan

Bi-Monthly Post-Distribution Monitoring (PDM) Qualitative Data Collection Tool – ROUND (1)

Focus Group Discussion Guide

General Information

Focus Group Session ( )

1. Date and time Date :

Time:

2. Region 1.Amman2. Irbid3. Mafraq4. Jerash

5. Ajlun6. Balqa7. Zarqa8. Karak

9. Ma’an10. Tafileh11. Aqabah12. Madaba

3. Number of Participants

4. Gender Male [ .............. ], Female [ .............. ]

5. Category of Participants for this FGD 1. Under Abject Poverty2. Under Absolute Poverty3. HH Hosting Unaccompanied and Separated

Children4. HH with special Protection Needs

6. Moderator name

7. Assistant(s)

Research Purpose Focus Group Discussions (FGD) will be conducted to better understand the perceptions of the Syrian refugeestowards the monthly Child Cash Grant that they receive from UNICEF, alongside gathering information on grant use, expenditure patterns and adoption of coping mechanisms. The results will elicit qualitativeinformation that will be used for Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) and the design of the Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for the Child Cash Grant.Short to medium term outcomes of the UNICEF Child Cash Grant will be analysed through FGD.

Focus Groups SelectionThe selection of focus group participants will be purposive and stratified, in that individuals will be invited to participate in each discussion based on their vulnerability status determined by their family’s level of poverty, gender, number ofchildren and need for protection. Focus group discussions will be held in groups of 10 maximum, allowing all participants the chance to have their opinions heard. Each focus group will last a maximum of60 to 90 minutes. The UNHCR has provided a sample of families according to the selection criteria above and within the provided overall sample for the UNICEF PDM.


Discussion Guide

Introduction

I would like to thank you all for coming,

My name is ............................................................................. from To –Excel Consulting Associates; we are here today to discuss the benefits and effects of the Child Cash Grant of JD 20 per month per child that you receive from the UNICEF.Your input will help us in designing a demand driven cash programme that will satisfy your emergency needs while providing social protection to your children. You are kindly requested to provide answers about the topic based on your current experience and personal opinion of this grant. Do not worry about giving your opinion with full transparency; all names will be kept anonymous. There are no right or wrong answers, and you are free to ask for clarification at any time if you do not understand the question. Also, please be assured that the answers you give today will not have any implications for receiving the cash grant.

Our discussion will take about 60 to90 minutes at the most. We want this to be a group discussion, so feel free to participate without waiting to be called on. However, we would appreciate it if only one person speaks at a time. Be assured that all of you will have equal opportunity to express your opinions and please be respectful to opposing attitudes/statements expressed by another participant. There is a lot we want to discuss, so at times I may move the discussion along a bit.

The discussion taking place will be kept confidential, and your names will be kept anonymous. You can withdraw from the discussion at any time.

• Ask all participants to turn their phones on silent – indicating that they are allowed to leave temporarily if there is an urgent call.

• If audio recorded please inform the participants.

• Ask participants to introduce themselves before you start

Questions

The moderator will use four types of questions as needed; open-ended, follow-up, probing and prompted questions. In some cases, the moderator will follow a sequence that consists typically of four parts.

1. Starting withthemain question and listening for its answer.

2. Then s/hewillfollow up and inquire about the answer.

3. And probe to clarify.

4. If necessary, they prompt (cue or aide) theprobing questions.


The moderator has to keep in mind while listening to the answers that the Inter-agencyVulnerability Assessment Framework (VAF) defines vulnerability as:

the risk of exposure of Syrian refugee households to harm, primarily in relation to protection threats, inability to meet basic needs, limited access to basic services, and food insecurity, and the ability of the population to cope with the consequences of this harm.

Activity/ Subjectof Discussion

Question Tool Allocated Time

(minutes)

Notes to the Moderator

Registration Ask them to fill their names and information upon their arrival

Registration Form (annex A)

5

Introduction Ice breakerParticipantsintroducethemselvesOutline purpose of the meeting

• Ask them to give an example of one good thing that happened to their children because of receiving the child cash grant, then to introduce themselves

• Explain the objective of the meeting.

10 Note down the examples they give. These will be useful for identifying Case Studies and evidence of benefits

Purpose and Satisfaction of Delivery Mechanism

• Do you understand the purpose of the child cash grant and why you are receiving it?

• Are you happy with the way the child cash grant is delivered? Any interruptions? Why?

• Is the time given to you to withdraw the money sufficient? • Do you know how to make a complaint if you need to?• Have you ever had to make a complaint?

5 Probe further into questions about regularity of grant – would a different time frame be preferable and why?

Level of Assistance (Amount)

• Baring in mind that the child cash grant is intended only to meet the basic needs of your children; do you feel the amount is sufficient?

• If not, what do you think would be a sufficient amount to meet their basic needs?

5 Stress that the intention is to cover basic needs only, not every possible need of the childExplanation of basic needs: the minimum amount of resources your children need to maintain their health and well-being.

Eligibility • Do you think that the grant is reaching the most vulnerable families with children? If not, why?

5 Take specific examples if possible.Probe for information as to why they think families they mention might not be getting the grant – not registered with UNHCR, in poor economic situation but not as bad as them, etc.

Did child cash grant achieve intended results

• How do you feel that receiving the cash grant has affected your children in specific, and the family overall?Please explain.

• Were you able to satisfy any needs/requirements for your children that you would not have been able to afford without the child cash grant?e.g. education, stop children working, provision of health services, quality healthy food, clothes, recreation, shoes, etc. Please explain.

• Have you faced any difficulties or challenges resulting from the receipt of the grant? From community members, government, additional costs, etc.

• Was there anything you wanted to buy for your children but could not due to scarcity or unavailability of resources?

15 REMEMBER: We are talking about child cash grant. Remind participants to relate their answers to this if necessary. Note - changes on children/ families situation due to the additional child cash grant.Note - how additional child cash grant is used by the families and if any pattern is observed.Note – do they feel their situation has improved or not? Dig deeper into their answers.

Coping mechanisms • Since receiving the child cash grant, how has your family adapted to manage your financial hardship? Is your situation, including that of your children, improving since receiving the grant or not? Please give examples, either positive or negative.

• If the CG were stopped, in what ways would it affect your children’s situation, if any? How would you cope? Please explain – would it impact on food/education/health/other.

15 Explanation of negative coping strategies: ‘The following questions are about your coping mechanisms – the choices you have had to make that might impact the family positively or negatively due to changes in your financial means, such as reducing meal size or number, moving children into or out of school of school due to changing financial means, etc.’Reassure that last question is hypothetical.

Intra-Family Decision Making

• In your family, who decides how the money can best be used and allocates the spending of the grant? This may not necessarily be the person who collects the money

5 Note if decision maker is different person to the one who collects the grant.

Notice gender of collector/decision maker.


Concluding/ Ending Question

• To what extent do you feel the child grant was helpful in improving your children’s standard of living?

• What have you been able to do with the money that otherwise you might not have been able to afford? Things that were not a priority before but are affordable as a result of the grant.

5 Draw on positive examples – ask participants to expand on the positive benefits they experienced or things they have been able to do due to the cash grant.

Recommendations/ Way Forward

• Do you have any recommendation for how the child grant could work better for Syrian Refugee families?

5 Ask in terms of amount, cash/ kind, duration, criteria for eligibility, delivery mechanism etc.

Thank the participants for their participation– end with a positive note

Time at the end of the discussion

Comments:

Attitudes of the participants during the focus group :

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Quotes :

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Interruptions during the discussion: no/yes (frequency) ............................................................................................................................................................................................

Annex (A) Registration Form

Important Note for the Moderator: If the participant doesn’t want to give the below information then please ask them to fill their names and signature.

Focus Group Category

Location Date Time

Name UNHCR File No.

Mobile No.

Gender (M/F)

Relation to the Family

Number of Family members

Number of boys

< 18

Number of girls

< 18

Number of Disable children

< 18

Number of Boys at school or informal classes

Number of Girls at school or informal classes

Received since

(month)

Signature


ANNEX IVCASE STUDY GUIDE


Case Study The participants for the case studies will be identified during the data collection phase of the PDM and FGD, during which MRO will take note of cases of particular interest. These cases will then be discussed between MRO and To-Excel to determine which are the most suitable for our needs. We will conduct 6 interviews among different types of beneficiaries, and 3 of these will be used as programme Case Studies.

Before conducting the interviews, a briefing will be held between the interviewer and To-Excel, so that the interviewer can gain a detailed understanding of why this case has been selected, some background to their story, and the kind of information we would like to collect during the interview. This will allow the interviewer to capitalise on their knowledge in order to get the most out of each interview. During this briefing, the table on page 1 of the Case Study Tool will be completed for each interview based on the information we already have about each case. The rest of the tool is designed to give the interviewer prompt questions if required and indicates where further details should be requested, but is loosely structured so that the interviewee can tell their story in their own way, whilst the interviewer listens carefully and records important details.

UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant for Vulnerable Syrian Refugees in non-camp settings – Case Study Template

General InformationNote to interviewer: This table should be completed in consultation with To-Excel prior to conducting the interview so that you have a full understanding of why this case was selected.

Case Study ( )

Name and Age of Case Study Individual/s*: Name: Age: Gender:

Category of Participants for this FGD (please select):

1. Under Abject Poverty2. Under Absolute Poverty3. HH Hosting Unaccompanied and Separated Children4. HH with special Protection Needs

Governorate & Area: Governorate: Area: Address:

Reason for selecting this story?

Main Subject/ character of Story:

Prepared by: Name: Contact info:

Interviewer: All evidence generation practices must abide by UNICEF and To-Excel’s ethical guidelines at all times. All interviewees must give informed consent. Any interviews involving children and young people must take into account their competencies, and consent must be sought from a parent or guardian. Where possible, assent must still be given by the individual themselves. The interview must be conducted in a friendly and familiar environment in which the interviewee feels comfortable in order to minimize stress, and in the presence of their parent or guardian.

All participants must be made aware of the voluntary nature of their participation, and the decision whether to participate, including dissent or unwillingness to participate, must be respected. Interviewees must be made aware of their ability to withdraw at any time during the interview. Interviewees must be given the option to have the information they provide remain fully anonymous.

Please read the introduction to the interviewee(s) and answer any questions they may have, and ask the interview to indicate their consent by signing the consent form in Annex A, before conducting the interview.

Introduction (interviewer to read aloud): I would like to thank you for accepting to be a case study for this programme.

My name is ....................................................................................... from To –Excel Consulting Associates; we are here today to discuss the benefits and effects of the Child Cash Grant of JD 20 per month per child that you are receiving from UNICEF.

Your input will help us with the monitoring and evaluation of this programme as well as contributing to the design of similar programmes in the future. You are kindly requested to provide answers about the topic based on your current experience and personal opinion of this grant. Giving your opinion with full transparency will help donors understands the benefit of the grant and hence provide further support to refugees like yourself. There are no right or wrong answers, and you are free to ask for clarification at any time if you do not understand the question. Also, please be assured that the answers you give today will not have any implications for receiving the cash grant.

Our discussion will take about 30 to 45 minutes at the most. We want this to be a family discussion, so everyone can feel free to join us in this conversation. The discussion taking place will be kept confidential, and your names will be kept anonymous, unless you don’t mind such information being revealed. Please note that, if you don’t feel comfortable, you can withdraw from the discussion at any time.


Interviewer: Ask participants to sign Annex A

Discussion Guide Interviewer: Use the following questions to guide your information gathering, and encourage the participants to elaborate as much as possible on their answers. Let the children involved tell the story from their perspective.

Details of the Story: 1. Where in Syria is the family from?2. When did the interviews first come to Jordan and why? Did the whole family come to Jordan or are some still in Syria? Are

the parents still with the children? If not, why not?3. Who does the interviewee/s live with? Get details of the whole family. 4. How many children does the family receive the grant for? Do they have any special needs or circumstances? Ask them to

give details. 5. Direct question to children - How were their lives before receiving the grant? 6. Direct question to children - What has receiving the grant allowed them to do? How does this make them feel?

Ask for exact details and quantitative figures wherever possible.7. How has this impacted on their lives, both for the children themselves and for the caregivers? Look for details on their

living conditions, financial situation, mental and physical wellbeing, levels of happiness. 8. Has there been an impact on the wider community? If so, what was it?

Ask them to explain how this has happened, who it has affected, and in what ways. 9. How do they see this having an impact in the longer term? Do they have any goals in mind?10. If the grant stopped, how would this affect your lives? How would you manage your situation? (Reassure them that this

does not mean that the grant will stop). 11. Do you have access to or benefit from any other UNICEF programming or services? What are those services? How do they

help you?

Interviewer: Fill in their answers in the relevant sections below

Situation/Background (questions 1-5)..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Direct result of receiving the UNICEF Child Cash Grant for the children and caregiver (questions 6-8) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Long term expected results/impact on the children (questions 9-11) ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Evaluation/Evidence Eg – child enrolled in school, we are able to access medical facilities/services, we are able to give our children much better food, we have been able to buy something significant we couldn’t afford before, etc.. Please give as many details as possible. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

QuotesProvide 1 to 3 quotes from the individual(s) you are working with. Quotes should be restricted to 2 lines that reflects their feelings/beliefs etc. ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


Photographs

Interviewer:1. Capture 1-4 pictures that effectively portray the story during the course of the interview. 2. Making sure that the participants fully understand the intended use of the pictures, ask the participant to sign the relevant

section of Annex A. If there are children in the photographs, the parent or guardian must give permission on their behalf. 3. For each picture give the photographer’s name and organization. 4. Write a brief sentence to describe each of the pictures, identifying people in it if their permission to do so is granted.

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Concluding Summary (interviewer to complete):Suggested headline

List a headline that best describes the success story no more than 8 to 10 words ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Brief Summary of the Case Study Story:..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Annex A

Consent for ParticipationI, ................................................................................................................................. hereby consent to the use of the information given during this interview by To-Excel and UNICEF in the monitoring and evaluation of the UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant for vulnerable Syrian families living in non-camp settings in Jordan.

I understand the purpose of the research, that my participation is voluntary, that all of the information I have given will remain anonymous unless I grant permission otherwise. I understand that I have the right to withdraw my participation and the information I have given at any time until the Case Study is published.

Signed: .........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Print name: ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Date: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Permission granted on behalf of participant under the age of 18:

Parent/guardian signature: .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Parent/guardian name: .....................................................................................................................................................................................................................

On behalf of participant(s): .........................................................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................

.........................................................................................................................................................................................................

Date: ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................

Use of photographs:I understand the intended use of the pictures that have been taken and hereby consent to the use, printing and dissemination of these pictures by UNICEF and To-Excel within the context of the Monitoring and Evaluation of the UNICEF Unconditional Child Cash Grant for Syrian families living in non-camp settings in Jordan.

Signed: ....................................................................................................................................... Date: ...................................................................................................................................

Print: .............................................................................................................................................. Contact number: ................................................................................................

If you have any further questions about the nature of the research or wish to withdraw your participation, please contact Rani Khoury at [email protected] or on +962 6 5672223/5672224.

post distribution monitoring report july – august...

Documents