Terms of Reference for the Final Evaluation of the Bangladesh Joint Response

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference for the Final Evaluation of the Bangladesh Joint Response 1. Background and rationale Violence in Rakhine State, Myanmar, which began on 25 August 2017 has driven more than 600,000 Rohingya across the border into Cox s Bazar, Bangladesh. Since the 1990s, there have been several waves of displacement of Rohingya populations from Myanmar to Bangladesh. The new arrivals join an existing refugee population of between 200,000 and 500,000 who arrived in previous months and years and had settled in formal refugee camps and makeshift camps. There are some 33,000 registered refugees living in two formal camps that are under supervision of UNHCR. These are Kutupalong and Nayapara. In addition to those registered people, who are recognized by the Government of Bangladesh as refugees, there are many undocumented Myanmar nationals who have no legal status in Bangladesh and who are living in two makeshift camps close to Kutupalong and Leda, as well as in villages and towns across the south east of the country. Many of the refugees live in extremely difficult conditions. Pre-existing camps and settlements have expanded with the new influx and at the same time new spontaneous settlements were formed and were quickly growing. The refugee influx has been putting an enormous pressure on both the existing refugee population in the camps and settlements and the host community. The two camps set up by UNHCR in Kutupalong and Nayapara are overcrowded and inadequate to host more refugees. The speed and scale of the refugee influx and the enormous pressure on existing infrastructure, facilities and services in pre-existing and makeshift camps, resulted in a critical humanitarian emergency. Refugees who have arrived in Cox s Bazar came with very few possessions and they used the majority of their savings on transportation and constructing a very basic shelter, often consisting of solely bamboo and thin plastic. There is a high potential for outbreaks of communicable and water-borne diseases in camps and informal settings 1. The Rohingya population is highly vulnerable, having fled conflict and experiencing severe trauma, and now living in extremely harsh conditions. 2 They are now reliant on humanitarian assistance for lifesaving needs. Dutch relief Alliance In response to the challenges of the humanitarian system and the growing gap between humanitarian needs and humanitarian funding, the Minister of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) proposed the set-up of a Dutch Relief Fund (DRF) to increase effectiveness of Dutch humanitarian aid. The DRF is a pilot funding window for relief operations for the period , with a total volume of 570 million of which 120 million has been reserved for Dutch NGOs. The Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA), launched in April 2015, is an alliance of 16 Dutch NGOs with a strong track record in relief work, which has been set up to directly access the funds allocated through the DRF, with a mandate of delivering more effective and efficient humanitarian relief through large-scale, multisector programming leveraging the comparative advantages of each individual member. DRA member 1 HRP Bangladesh, 2 HRP Bangladesh, 1

2 organizations must hold a FPA with ECHO to be eligible for DRF funding, and each response is designed through participatory consultations and a self-selection process. In order to participate in a DRA response, an organization must be a member, although not all members are part of each Joint Response. The overall Dutch Relief Fund objectives are: o To contribute to the delivery of fast humanitarian aid in major acute (new) crises; o To create synergies and cooperation between Members aimed at increasing efficiency and effectiveness in providing humanitarian aid in crisis situations; o To increase the visibility of this Dutch contribution to humanitarian relief efforts towards the Dutch public and Parliament; o To work together, also with other parties, to tackle major bottlenecks in humanitarian practice through co-created innovation and joined learning. A substantial part of the DRF (30%) is reserved for new emerging crises. This includes both rapid onset emergencies and ongoing crises that have passed the response threshold. The DRA Acute Crisis mechanism is built upon the same basic principles as for the Ongoing Crisis mechanism, however with special attention to the following points: The speed of the decision making process. The timeliness of the humanitarian organizations to deliver (acute) humanitarian aid on the ground. Period of implementation (6 months) Acute Crisis Joint Response for Bangladesh MoFA approved a total amount of through the DRA s Acute Crisis Mechanism (ACM) within one week after activation of the mechanism by the DRA, effectively launching a 6-month emergency operation from 1 November 2017 to 30 April The Bangladesh Joint Response (BGDJR) is an emergency life-saving humanitarian program. It aims to assist refugees and host community members and ensure efficient implementation of humanitarian response activities on behalf of the Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA) participating members: CARE, Cordaid, Oxfam Novib, Nederland, and Save the Children, with Oxfam Novib as Lead. In line with the objectives from the Humanitarian Response for Bangladesh (HRP), dated October , the key objectives of the Joint Response are: 1.) To provide life-saving basic assistance in settlements, camps and host communities. 2.) To seek protection, dignity and safety of Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Interventions are based on needs as well as member organizations expertise. The selected sectors were therefore: WASH, Shelter/NFIs and Protection. In addition to the effective delivery of humanitarian aid, the BGDJR provides an adaptive and flexible grant structure which encourages improved cooperation between partners and enhances linkages across partners in delivering quality programming through continuous learning, adaptive implementation and information sharing. Moreover, through the BGDJR model of inter-agency learning, the efficiency and effectiveness of the actions of all agencies in the joint response are strengthened. Justification of Evaluation The BGDJR has a contractual obligation towards the donor, MoFA, to ensure the realisation of an evaluation report. The lead (Oxfam Novib) is responsible for conducting the evaluation of the Joint Response. The DRA considers it important in line with the OECD-DAC criteria- to evaluate: The OECD-DAC criteria: - Efficiency (including cost-effectiveness) - Effectiveness (including reach) 3 HRP Bangladesh, 2

3 - Impact - Relevance/ appropriateness - Sustainability/ connectedness Other evaluation criteria that could be taken into consideration: - Timeliness - The use of and adherence to international standards - Collaborative value the effect of joint communication/participation by DRA members on increased reach, improved delivery, reduced management cost & faster decision making. This ToR was developed by the Response Lead and finalized through a participatory process including first the Response Task Force (RTF), consisting of Cordaid and CARE in addition to the Lead, and subsequently all BGDJR partners (NL and field-based) as well as the DRA Monitoring, Evaluation and Added Value Working Group. 2. Objective and scope The purpose of the overall evaluation of the Joint Response will be twofold: ensure accountability towards MoFA and capture lessons learned for all stakeholders based on common challenges encountered with implementation. The evaluation will consider whether the BGDJR was conducted in accordance with the Core Humanitarian Standard. The purposes of this evaluation are reflected in the following objectives: 1) Assess the effectiveness, effectiveness and relevance of the response in terms of meeting emergency needs in Cox s Bazar, Bangladesh, as a measure of the overall quality of the BGDR 2) Assess the coordination and collaboration of BGDJR members (with each other as well as with all relevant stakeholders), while capturing lessons learned based on common challenges encountered with implementation. Objective 1: Assess the results and the quality of the response The first objective refers to the success and quality of the response. Success refers to whether the actions of the BGDJR were appropriate, effective and delivered efficiently, in adherence of CHS, considering any challenges and changes in context over the life of the project period. The logical framework of the BGDJR shows indicators for each Strategic Objective set by OCHA in the HRP of October 2017, see annex 1. Key evaluation questions: i. Quality (including Adherence to international standards): the evaluation should assess the quality of the response in term of timeliness and adherence to humanitarian standards (CHS); ii. Relevance/ appropriateness: the situation in Cox s Bazar changed after the approval of the funds and over the course of the response. Therefore, the evaluation should address: a. To what extent the BGDJR was able to adapt and provide appropriate response to changing local needs and priorities, taking into account the specific needs of women and vulnerable groups; b. The extent of accountability towards beneficiaries and to what extent the BGDJR partners involved beneficiaries in project design and implementation 4 ; iii. Effectiveness: the logframe of the BGDJR was based on UN OCHA HRP and included Strategic Objectives and results. The evaluation should assess to what extent the planned outputs were reached and to what extent the results contributed to the strategic objectives; iv. Efficiency: the evaluation should assess how economic resources and inputs (funds) were converted to results. Was the response cost-effective, with reference to type of intervention and method of implementation compared to identified need and recommended response. 4 We want to specifically focus on gender and protection strategies employed in the response to assess to what extent vulnerable people had their needs addressed and had fair and equitable access to relief items 3

4 v. Coordination: a wide range of actors was active in responding to the crisis in Cox s Bazar. This evaluation should include to what extent the activities of the BGDJR-partners were coordinated, prevented duplication and contributed to the success of the overall response activities in Bangladesh and to what extent the DRA contributed to this. Objective 2: Assess the cooperation and ways of working, as well as lessons learned for future collaboration under the DRA The second objective of the evaluation is to reflect on the process, thereby including a learning aspect on the BGDJR approach, for the participating organizations, the DRA and for the Dutch MoFA. The collaboration between the JR-partners has taken place in Bangladesh during regular meetings. During these meetings, the context, progress of the BGDJR as well as challenges and approaches of the partners were discussed. This evaluation shall enable reflection on the process of cooperation, the DRA-mechanism in an acute crisis and ways of working. The evaluation can also include the exchanging and learning from each other during the meetings, related to the different experiences within the programmes in the field and the peer-to-peer monitoring visit. Key evaluation questions: i. How did the consortium structure and coordination impact programming, and thus have an effect for beneficiaries? ii. What were the benefits and challenges of working in a consortium under the BGDJR? iii. What are key lessons learned from the BGDJR cooperation and recommendations for future cooperation within Joint Responses? iv. What was the added value of the coordinator/lead for the BGDJR and what are the key lessons learned regarding cooperation between the DRA cooperation structure in The Hague and DRA cooperation at field level? Evaluation matrix: Based on the scope outlined above, the evaluation team will develop an evaluation matrix as part of the workplan for the evaluation. The evaluation matrix serves as the basis for the evaluation process and should summarize the scope of the whole evaluation by identifying the: - Issues suggested by this ToR; - Questions suggested by this ToR; - Essential questions to inform the concepts laid out in this ToR; - Objective verifiable indicators for each evaluation question; - Description of the basis on which evaluation judgements are made; - Sources of data and methods of collecting data. 3. Evaluation methodology The evaluation methodology will be developed by the Consultant and presented in the work plan. The evaluation should be based on combined quantitative and qualitative research methods. Both strategic objectives should be assessed. The data collection strategy should include the use of a number of tools to gain a deeper understanding of the outcomes of the project, including: - Desk review of background documents, such as programme proposal as agreed with MoFA,, minutes of meetings, evaluation reports of the individual organisations that are already available; - Key informant interviews both with staff of the organisations in Bangladesh and the Netherlands and focus group discussions with beneficiaries; - Interviews with UN staff, local NGOs and if possible also representatives from the Bangladeshi government/authorities. 4

5 Work plan The Consultant will prepare a draft evaluation work plan of the evaluation, to be submitted as part of the application. The work plan will describe how the evaluation will be carried out, elaborating on the Terms of Reference. The draft work plan of the contracted evaluation team will be further elaborated and will be approved by the RTF of the BGDJR. The final work plan will serve as an agreement between parties for how the evaluation will be conducted. The following elements are part of the work plan: o Introduction o Methodology - Methodological approach for the evaluation - Data collection tools - Key informants and focus groups o Evaluation matrix, summarizing the scope of the evaluation by identifying: - Issues suggested by this ToR - Evaluation questions suggested by this ToR - Essential questions to inform the concepts laid out in the ToR - Objectively verifiable indicators to each evaluation question - Description of the basis on which judgements are made - Sources of data and methods of collecting data o Proposal for the learning session, including an agenda o Schedule of activities and travel o Budget - Total budget with a cost breakdown in days or hours spent and the related fees for the tasks (making the distinction for each evaluator). Costs for accommodation and meals, flights and other forms of transport, which are included in this budget shall be estimate. Actual costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with Oxfam Novib s expense policy for consultants. 4. Evaluation process, methods and deliverables Stakeholder involvement The BGDJR end-evaluation is expected to be an evaluation with involvement of JR-partners in Bangladesh and The Netherlands, beneficiaries and other (secondary) stakeholders. Deliverables The Consultant will deliver, based on an agreed upon evaluation work plan: 1. A draft report 2. An overview of input from DRA-partners and how feedback has been incorporated 3. A final evaluation report of max 25 pages (excl annexes) in English; and 4. A learning session with the BGDJR partners held in Bangladesh and in The Netherlands. Evaluation Report The evaluation report will be the main output of the evaluation process. It incorporates conclusions, recommendations with a clear link to the conclusions, challenges and lessons learned on the collaboration and related recommendations. The evaluation report consists of two parts. Part I concerns the results achieved and the quality of the response. Part II concerns the reflection on BGDJR cooperation. The evaluator(s) will deliver a draft report that will be discussed in a meeting with the JR-partners. 5

6 The Report will: - Contain an executive summary of max. 3 pages - Be analytical in nature - Include conclusions for each of the evaluation questions - Include recommendations, based on the conclusions - Be in English - Contain a maximum of 25 pages, excluding annexes - Be submitted to the BGDJR Lead (Oxfam Novib) electronically via . Supporting data is also expected to be submitted. - Follow the proposed format: 1.) Title page 2.) Table of contents 3.) Glossary and abbreviations 4.) Executive summary that can be used as a standalone document 5.) Introduction including evaluation objectives 5.) The intervention and context 6.) Methodology, including an indication of any perceived limitations of the evaluation 7.) Presentation of findings and their analysis 8.) Conclusions 9.) Learning and Recommendations 10.) Appendices Learning session In a learning session, the Consultant will share his/her preliminary findings with the BGDJR partners based on the draft report. This session can be used to refine, reconfirm and/or reformulate findings, conclusions and recommendations. The final evaluation report is due after the learning session. The form of this session is to be developed by the Consultant, in consultation with the JR lead and RTF members. The location should be in The Hague, to enable representatives from all BGDJR organizations to attend. Logistical support (ie. venue, reservations) is available. Preliminary ning and Budget The evaluation is expected to start as soon as possible after the BGDJR has ended. The table below shows the preferred timeframe. Phase Deliverables Preferred Payment timeframe (negotiable) Inception phase (including tools Final workplan 23 rd of May % of total development) Data collection phase Data analysis phase Evaluation report phase Learning phase Draft Evaluation Report Deliverable 1: Final Evaluation Report Deliverable 2: Learning session, including representatives from all BGDJR member organisations in the Netherlands Last week of May first week of June nd week of June rd week of June nd week of July st week of July % of total 10% of total 6

7 Remuneration is based on submission of deliverables provided that the report meets the specified requirements as stated in this ToR. No payment will be made in advance, except for the 10% upon agreement on the final work plan for prefunding of costs by the evaluation team (such as transport costs etc). Consulting fee rates should be in accordance with a comparable NGO environment. Evaluation team The evaluation will be carried out by a team of 2 to 3 persons, including a lead consultant. The selection criteria for the team leader and the other team member(s) are elaborated under later. 5. Management of the evaluation Oxfam Novib as the lead of the BGDJR consortium is responsible for the overall coordination of the process, supported by the other members of the RTF. The lead will: Ensure contract management of the contract between Oxfam Novib and the consultant agency and/or lead consultant (contract, payment of transfers as per contract agreement etc); Approve of final report Support in logistics of learning session in The Hague. The lead plus the RTF members will: Provide the team leader with relevant documentation and facilitate contacts with JR-partners in Bangladesh and in The Netherlands; Give feedback and green light to key subproducts of the evaluation: Give feedback and approval on evaluation workplan, Give feedback on draft report, Give feedback on learning session agenda/format All JR-partners will: Provide relevant information and documents to the JR lead (Oxfam Novib); Provide feedback on the draft report within the requested time frame; Be available to the JR lead for additional questions, clarifications and inputs when applicable; Participate in the learning event. The evaluation team leader is responsible for timely delivery of outputs to Oxfam Novib according to the agreed time schedule and agreed evaluation approach. In case of unexpected delays or issues during the evaluation, the team leader should immediately contact Oxfam Novib and seek advice on any modifications of the workplan and/or methodological approach, if necessary. 6. Purchase procedure Procedure (closed tender) This procurement procedure is organised to contract a team of consultants for the BGDJR end evaluation either through a consultant agency or an individual lead consultant who composes the evaluation team for this particular assignment. The consultant agency or lead consultant is asked to make a quotation based on the administrative criteria and the award criteria mentioned below. These quotations are assessed on their compliance, quality and price. The contract will be awarded to the agency/candidate with the best value for money quotation. This means that not only the price, but all award criteria will be taken into consideration. 7

8 Oxfam Novib withholds the right to conduct interviews with one or more candidates before an award decision is made. Purpose of the interview is to seek further clarification on the submitted quotations and learn more about the background and previous experiences of the candidates and their teams. Administrative criteria Quotations should reach Oxfam Novib no later than 27 April 2018 (GMT +1) to with subject line Consultancy BGDJR evaluation. Contents of quotation The following should be included in applications: - Two relevant reference assignments previously performed by the consultant agency/ lead consultant that are comparable in content, time and money. - A draft work plan of max. 3 pages, including a draft evaluation matrix and time planning based on this ToR. - CVs of all of the proposed team members (including team leader). - Total price, accompanied with a cost break down in days or hours spend and the related fee, travel costs etc. Award criteria The evaluation of the quotations will be based on the best value for money criterion covering technical quality (assessment of the work plan and the CVs and reference assignments of the consultants) and price of the quotation. Assessment of the work plan The assessment of the work plan will be based on the following criteria. The best fitting work plan for the assignment will be given the most points. o Understanding of the assignment; o Realistic planning with respect to time-frame and proposed evaluation budget (including consultant fees) o Methodology. Assessment of the CVs The assessment of the CVs will be based on appropriateness of the proposed team members based on the following criteria. The best fitting set of CVs for the assignment will be given the most points. At least one team member must be a Bangladeshi national and the team should preferably be gender balanced. The following competencies should be made clear in the CVs provided: The team leader: Required a) Academic degree in International Development Studies, Humanitarian Action or a related field; b) Strong experience in humanitarian response and knowledge of humanitarian standards; c) Demonstrated experience in leading evaluations of humanitarian response programmes; d) Knowledge of and adherence to ethical standards related to conducting evaluations of humanitarian programmes; e) Excellent communication, listening and interpersonal skills, including experience with diverse cultures and ethnicities and the ability to function in challenging environments; f) Interviewing skills and ability to facilitate group discussions; g) Proven analytical skills; h) Strong writing and presentation skills; i) Fluent in English. 8

9 Preferred Experience in Bangladesh and/or Myanmar; Experience with the evaluation of Consortium structures and programmes. Other team members: a) Strong experience in humanitarian response and knowledge of humanitarian standards (CHS, Sphere, Code of Conduct) b) Demonstrated experience with evaluations of humanitarian response programmes; c) Excellent communication, listening and interpersonal skills; d) Interviewing skills and ability to facilitate group discussions. Assessment of the Prices The contractor will have to make provisions for covering all costs associated with the assignment. This includes, but is not limited to, the following: o o o Research, tools development, data collection and analysis, report writing and editing costs. Secretarial/office-related costs which may include communications (phone, telecommunications, mail, photocopying, courier etc), report production and secretarial services both in the Contractor s Headquarters and/or consultant s home office and are considered to be included within the fee rate of the consultant. No costs of this nature may be charged in addition. No office, secretarial or communication facilities will be provided by the JR- partners. The consultant will be in charge of the secretarial and logistic arrangements for the evaluation process, including any travel. Remuneration is based on submission of final deliverables as mentioned in earlier. 7. Selection and assessment The assessment of the quotations will start with an assessment of the administrative criteria, mentioned in chapter above. These criteria are all Knock-out criteria. That means that if these criteria are not met, this quotation will be put aside, and the award criteria of this quotation will not be assessed. The quotations that meet the administrative criteria will be assessed against the award criteria. The award criteria are assessed according to the following distribution of points. Criteria Knock out (KO) / Max. Point Administrative criteria Quotation received within deadline At least two relevant reference assignments previously performed by the consultant agency/ lead consultant that are comparable in content, time and money. A work plan, including a time planning based on this ToR CVs of the proposed team members proving relevant experience and/or diplomas Within budget Award criteria Technical Work plan, including methodology, evaluation matrix and criteria time planning KO KO KO KO KO 40 out of 100 CVs and reference assignments 40 out of 100 Price 20 out of 100 9

10 Selection of consultants is planned during the 1 st week of May, with contracting during the 2 nd week of May. 8. Disclaimers Oxfam Novib may require the supplier to clarify its quotation and/or provide supporting documentation. However the supplier may not modify its quotation after the deadline for submission of quotations. Oxfam Novib reserves the right to stop the purchase procedure completely or partly, temporarily or permanently until the moment of contract signing. In these situations, suppliers are not entitled to reimbursement of any costs or damages incurred in connection with this purchase procedure. Quotations should be valid for at least three months after the deadline for handing in quotations. Oxfam Novib cannot be charged in any way for costs related to preparation and submission of a quotation. This can also include interviews and/or providing further information about the quotation. The risk of any costs and/or damages which may arise by not awarding this contract to a supplier lay solely with the supplier. Oxfam Novib cannot be held responsible for any such costs or damages. By submitting a quotation the Supplier agrees all the terms and conditions specified in this procedure and the provisions of the contract template. The quotation will not contain any reservation(s) to these terms and conditions. A quotation with one or more reservations can be excluded from the procedure. Any questions, remarks or requests for clarification can be send to Elselijn.Mulder@oxfamnovib.nl before 22 April 2018 (GMT +1). The questions will be answered to all applicants no later than 23 April 2018 (GMT +1). Annex 1. BGDJR Logical framework (next page) 10

11 Bangladesh Joint Response (BGDJR) Basic Project Information BGDJR Partners CARE, Cordaid, Oxfam,, Save the Children Program title Acute Crisis Joint Humanitarian Response for Bangladesh Program purpose 1. To provide life-saving basic assistance in settlements, camps and host communities (HRP Strategic Objective 1) 2. To seek protection, dignity and safety of Rohingya refugees (HRP Strategic Objective 3) Period 6 months (1 November April 2018) Relevant UN objectives Strategic Objective 1: Provide life-saving basic assistance in settlements, camps and host communities. Strategic Objective 3: Seek protection, dignity and safety of Rohingya refugees. Water and Sanitation, Hygiene (WASH) Indicator Target, specify in Specify target per Location (specify Upazila, individuals gender and age group union and (if possible) (children <18) location) Partners W.SO1 W.SO1: People in need have access to sufficient safe water and basic sanitation W.A1.1 Water supply W.A1.2 Sanitation services Number of people having access to sufficient and safe water for domestic use Number of people having access to dignified, safe, clean and functional sanitation facilities Men: 7713 Women: 9171 Boys: Girls: Men: Women: Boys: Girls: Ukhia: Rajapalong: Moinargona Spontaneous Camp, Kutapalong; ; Teknaf: Unchin Parang Ukhia: Rajapalong: Moinargona Spontaneous Camp, Kutapalong; (); Teknaf: Unchin Parang Cordaid, Oxfam Cordaid, Oxfam, W.A1.3 Solid waste management Number of people living in settlements with a functional solid waste management system Men: 4830 Women: 6670 Boys: 6075 Girls: 7425 SUB TOTAL W.SO Men: Women: Boys: Girls: W.SO2 W.SO2: People in need have sufficient access to essential hygiene items for their personal hygiene needs W.A2.1 Hygiene items Number of people having access to essential hygiene items to meet hygienic needs Men: 9000 Women: Boys: Girls: Ukhia: Rajapalong: Moinargona Spontaneous Camp, Kutapalong; (); Teknaf: Unchin Parang Cordaid, Oxfam, W.A2.2 Hygiene promotion Number of people receiving hygiene promotion and/ awareness raising sessions Men: 9000 Women: Boys: Girls: Ukhia: Rajapalong: Moinargona Spontaneous Camp, Kutapalong; (); Teknaf: Unchin Parang Cordaid, Oxfam, W.A2.3 Hygiene promotors and community mobilizers / volunteers Number of hygiene promotors and community mobilizers/volunteers trained Men: 1855 Women: 2075 Boys: 2486 Girls: 2804 Ukhia: Rajapalong: Moinargona Spontaneous Camp, Kutapalong; (); Teknaf: Unchin Parang Cordaid, Oxfam, SUB TOTAL W.SO Men: 9010 Women: Boys: Girls: TOTAL WaSH (without double Men: counting) Women: Boys: Girls: SN.SO1 Shelter/NFI Indicator Target (individuals) Specify target per Location gender and age group SN.SO1: Provide emergency shelter and NFI to refugee households in makeshift, spontaneous and formal refugee settlements SN.A1.1 Shelter Number of people having access to basic, safe and dignified shelter solutions Men: 7273 Women: 8446 Boys: Girls: Ukhia: Palongkhali: Barmapara, Mainerghona (makeshift camp), Hakimpara and Balukhali; Ukhia: Raja Palong: Kutupalong extension site. Partners CARE, Cordaid, Save the Children SN.A1.2 Non food items (NFI) Number of people provided with non food items Men: 7273 Women: 8446 Boys: Girls: Ukhia: Palongkhali: Barmapara, Mainerghona (makeshift camp), Hakimpara and Balukhali; Ukhia: Raja Palong: Kutupalong extension site. CARE, Cordaid, Save the Children SN.A1.3 Shelter site management Number of people provided with site management support for localized site improvements Men: 710 Women: 780 Boys: 960 Girls: 1100 Ukhia: Raja Palong: Kutupalong Save the Children extension site; Ukhia: Palong Khali: Moinarghona, Burma para, Hakimpara SN.A1.4 Training of shelter erection Number of people trained in skills the erection of emergency shelters Men: 4700 Women: 5290 Boys: 500 Girls: 500 Ukhia: Palongkhali: Barmapara, Mainerghona (makeshift camp), Hakimpara and Balukhali; Ukhia: Raja Palong: Kutupalong extension site. CARE, Cordaid, Save the Children SN.A1.5 Shelter upgrades Number of people with Men: 1470 upgraded shelters Women: 1700 Boys: 2080 Girls: 2300 SUB TOTAL SN.SO Men: 7273 Women: 8446 Boys: Girls: TOTAL Shelter/NFI (without Men: 7273 double counting) Women: 8446 Boys: Girls: Ukhia: Palongkhali: Barmapara, Mainerghona, Hakimpara and Balukhali; Ukhia: Raja Palong: Kutupalong extension site. CARE, Save the Children Protection Indicator Target (individuals) Specify target per Location gender and age group Partners P.SO1 P.SO1: Enhanced access and improved quality response and prevention services for survivors of GBV P.A1.1 GBV prevention SUB TOTAL P.SO1 Number of people reached with GBV related messages Men:6500 Women:6700 Boys:10100 Girls:10200 Men:6500 Women:6700 Boys: Girls:10200

12 P.SO2 P.SO2: Provision of PSS and case management to enhance resilience and coping methods P.A2.2 Case management training Number of case workers 182 Men:100 receiving case management Women:82 P.A2.3 Family tracing, reunification Number of people supported 600 Boys: 300 and foster care with family tracing, Girls: 300 reunifcation, and foster care P.A2.4 Identification and Number of UASC cases 800 Boys: 400 registration of UASC cases and identified and registered Girls: 400 other vulnerable children SUB TOTAL P.SO2 982 Men:100 Women:82 Boys:400 Girls:400 P.SO3 P.SO3: Persons with specific needs, including children, are identified and ensured access to appropriate support and specialised services P.A3.1 Dignity kits Number of people provided Girls: 6700 with dignity kits P.A3.2 Protective care and Number of children benefitting Girls: 6700 recreational support (including registered UASC) from protective care and recreational activities SUB TOTAL P.SO Girls: 6700 P.SO4 P.SO4: Community mobilisation, empowerment, resilience and coping abilities as wel as peaceful co-existence with host communities are strengthened P.A4.1 Community selfmanagement community self-management Number of people receiving 150 Women:150 support SUB TOTAL P.SO4 TOTAL Protection (without double counting) 150 Women:150 Men:6600 Women:6932 Boys: Girls:10600