Giving a Voice to Ivorian Refugees and Host Communities

1

People First Impact Method Assessment, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia

Giving a Voice to Ivorian Refugees and Host Communities

Solo Refugee Camp and Janzon Town, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia.

August 2011

2


Contents Acknowledgements 3

Executive Summary 4

Assignment Objective and Scope 4 Methodology 4 Limitations 5 Utilisation 5 Key Findings 5 Key Recommendations 6

Main Report 6 Background 6 1.0. Key Findings on Janzon Host Community Voices 7

1.1. Lack of access to and quality of education (especially secondary education and for physically challenged) - 8

1.2. Poor quality of and access to health services - 8 1.3. Free Primary Education + 9 1.4. Free health services + 9 1.5. Lack of essential non-food items - 9 1.6. Lack of information about agency activities and poorly organised distributions - 9 1.7. Lack of access to water and sanitation - 9

2.0. Key Findings on Solo Refugee Camp Community Voices 9 2.1. Lack of access to and quality of education (especially secondary education and adult

literacy) - 11 2.2. Poor quality of and lack of access to health facilities/services - 11 2.3. Free mobile health care + 11 2.4. Lack of non-food items (cooking materials, soap, clothing, shoes) - 11

3.0. Lessons learned 11

4.0. Key recommendations 12

5.0. Conclusion 12

Annexes Annex 1 Map of Liberia highlighting Grand Gedeh County where the exercise took place 13 Annex 2 Terms of Reference 14 Annex 3 People First Impact Method 15 Annex 4 Training and Field Exercise Participants 16 Annex 5 Focus Groups Disaggregated by Area and Gender 17 Annex 6 UNHCR Map of numbers of Ivorian Refugees in Liberia 18

3


Author Paul O’Hagan, an independent consultant (People First Impact Method www.P-FiM.org) [email protected], led the exercise and is the author of this report. The exercise commissioned by UNICEF Liberia represents the findings of the thirty five (35) participants from twenty four (24) organisations/social groups who conducted the discussions with representative groups in the field and are not necessarily the views of UNICEF Liberia.

Acknowledgments The author would like to thank all of the contributors, particularly the participants who brought immense insight and enthusiasm into the exercise. Many thanks for the efforts of the UNICEF Zwedru Field Office and especially Adolphus Scott for his organisation and Jamel who went beyond his duties as a driver.

Front page photo: Ivorian Boy, Zwedru, Grand Gedeh County, Liberia.

http://www.p-fim.org/

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

4


Executive Summary Between 22 and 26 July 2011 (35) Liberian and Ivorian participants from 24 organisations/social groups (cf.

Annex 4) were trained in the People First Impact Method (Annex 3) over a period of two days and then

deployed to the field. They included representatives from Liberian Government WASH, Health and

Education Departments, UN agencies, international and national NGOs etc. Ten (10) were Ivorian refugees

and many of the Liberian participants had themselves been refugees during the civil war.

Eleven (11) discussion groups were conducted in Solo Refugee Camp and Janzon Town, Grand Gedeh

County (Annex 1), Liberia. Grand Gedeh County is currently hosting the largest number of Ivorian refugees

in Liberia cf. Annex 6. These two locations enabled us to articulate the voices of Ivorian refugees living

either in a camp or in a host community.

Out of 24 participants who completed evaluation forms 62% felt that the learning objectives had been fully

met; 27% felt that they had been mostly met; only 11% respectively felt they had been partly met. Training

was conducted in English with French translation. It is important to positively note that this exercise was

carried out entirely by Ivoirians and Liberians in an emergency context.

The ranking dots on the Cavalla River between Harper and Guinea

indicate a high sense of achievement by participants on the exercise

realising its objectives of giving voice and developing skills.

The main report is deliberately short in order to maximise utility and

user access.

Exercise Objective and Scope The objective of the exercise was to a) give a voice to Ivorian

refugee and Liberian host communities on the changes taking place

in their communities over the past one year and their causes and

effects b) to train community workers in participatory approaches

to communication in emergencies using the P-FiM Methodology.

A total of 746 community members were engaged in qualitative

discussion of issues affecting them at local levels and as perceived and understood by them – these were

then attributed quantitatively in terms of drivers of positive and negative impact differences. 405

discussion group members were female and 341 male aged between 10-85 years. Cf. Annex 5 for full

details.

Methodology The approach and methodology was under pinned by the People First Impact Method (P-FIM© 2010)

www.P-FIM.org (see Annex 3). Sixty three (63) qualitative impact statements representing objective levels

and depth of communication, that participants had been trained to recognise, were documented from field

exercises as the key issues that people feel strongly about. Thirty three Impact Statements emerged from

field work in Solo Camp, which were grouped into sixteen common categories of statements (only the top

four are presented in this report. Full findings can be found in the Excel Spread sheets upon request and on

which this report is based). Thirty qualitative Impact Statements were documented from group work in

Janzon Town; these were grouped into twelve common categories of statements (only the top eight are

http://www.p-fim.org/

5


“No-one has ever come and allowed us to speak freely like this.”

Physically Challenged Group, Janzon

presented in this report. These findings were then grouped into positive and negative trends and attributed

to drivers of that difference e.g. forces within the Community, Government, Business, United Nations

Agencies, NGOs or an Event (in all cases where an event has an attribution percentage this refers to the

conflict in Ivory Coast).

Limitations In the opinion of the consultant the assessment findings provide a good snapshot and temperature taking

exercise at refugee and host community levels during July 2011 in the areas covered. While these findings

could be representative of other refugee affected areas of Liberia, it would not be advised to conclude that

the situation on the ground is the same without further field work using the P-FiM or equally participatory

methodology. The top ranked impact findings are presented in this report. It is important that other less

significantly ranked findings are not over looked. Further detailed analysis of wider findings can be found in

Excel spread sheets. People’s qualitative statements appear throughout the report; these are concentration

points of meaning, knowledge and experience that sum up what the quantitative data cannot say. Given

the time available it was not possible to carry out field work in Nimba, River Gee and Maryland Counties

which are currently hosting Ivorian refugees.

Utilisation This report is intended to give a voice to the experience, feelings and perspectives of refugees in a camp

and those in a host community who participated in the exercise. It is intended that this provides further

leverage to inform and shape humanitarian policy and decision making in response to the Ivorian Refugee

crisis.

The participants trained and UNICEF Liberia’s experience with the P-FiM methodology has provided a basis

to carry out further exercises in other communities and counties and to bring to a greater scale the voice of

affected populations in order to increase accountability to and genuine participation of affected

populations by humanitarian actors. It is encouraged that UNICEF convenes further participatory and inter-

agency exercises.

Each participant in the training has been provided a copy of the report and electronic versions of all training

materials and videos etc.

Key Findings

Psychosocial: Refugees were extremely eager to have the opportunity to talk freely with the field teams. Some vulnerable groups seemed to have never had the opportunity to do so. This raises concern over the coverage of services by the protection and community services staff of humanitarian agencies.

“A child’s mother was killed in his presence. He intended taking his mother’s body but he couldn’t make it

because she was too heavy and this is how he came to Liberia.”

Unaccompanied Children’s Group, Solo Camp, Grand Gedeh County

6


Accountability: Among refugees in host communities 39% of negative impact in their lives they attributed to UN agencies and 21% to NGOs. Mechanisms need to be urgently found to give voice to refugees and to ensure that their rights to information, a voice and to participate in the decisions that affect them are put in place and in practice. 29% of positive impact changes in their lives they attributed to UN agencies and 44% to NGOs. In Solo refugee camp 45% of negative change was attributed to UN agencies and 40% to NGOs. A concerted effort needs to be made to address legitimate concerns and provide opportunities to improve the quality of communication with the crisis affected population.

Access to and Quality of Services: The key issues affecting perception of the humanitarian community relates to this issue. For example in the education and health sectors while refugees are very happy with free access the services are lacking in quality and basic materials are lacking according to their views. Many of these issues could be quick fixes as outlined in the full report. Left unaddressed it is likely that dissatisfaction and resentment will understandably grow.

Capacity: Liberian Participants who work regularly in the field were surprised at the degree of struggle being faced by Ivorian refugees. This is from people who have been refugees themselves. There is a real need to extend and build the participatory communication skills of humanitarian workers and to support this in an on-going way.

Key Recommendations There are minor adjustments outlined in the report for the education sector in particular that could

help address some of the current frustrations e.g. provision of school benches, soap, shoes and clothing

so that refugee children are not inhibited from attendance by these esteem factors.

A Participatory Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation is encouraged (subject to access with the onset of

the rainy season), in order to develop a shared knowledge of the situation on the ground and common

ownership of the humanitarian response.

Improve information sharing by agencies with the affected populations and genuine community

participation in all aspects of the response.

Main Report Background The 2011 Presidential election and following political crisis in Ivory Coast led to a major outflow of refugees into the border regions of Liberia. There are currently approximately 150,000 Ivorian refugees in Liberia. This exact figure is currently disputed at the time of writing (07 July figure UNHCR).

“A young girl said that she was at school. All of a sudden the students started running in every direction. I

learned that the rebels had captured my village and were one hours march from the school. Then we

started to hear gun shots. We entered into the bush and walked for five days to cross the Cavally River to

enter into Liberia. When we were crossing the river my little sister fell in and drowned”

Youth Group, Solo Camp, Grand Gedeh County

7


1.0. Key Findings on Janzon Host Community Level Trends

Five focus group discussions took place in Janzon community. The positive and negative impact drivers for both Janzon and Solo relate to how refugees perceive their current situation and what/who they appreciate has helped them and to what/who the immediate challenges/responsibilities are to improving it. This attribution for Janzon relates to the seven key prioritised findings below. Education and health are the key priorities where they feel improvements need to be made. The distinction between UN and NGOs may not be fully understood by refugees especially given that NGO activities may be fully or partly funded by UN partners. The role and responsibilities of the government of Liberia in the humanitarian response may also not be fully appreciated. However there is a general appreciation that the Government of Liberia has limited capacity and resources and therefore refugees see the UN agencies followed by NGOs as having a particular responsibility to assist them.

“If you are washing someone’s back, you should also wash the stomach (if want to help someone don’t do it by half).”

Physically Challenged Group, Ganzon

8


1.1. Lack of access to and quality of education (especially secondary education and for physically challenged) –

Multiple refugee groups within the community ranked the highest difference in their lives since arriving in Liberia to be the lack of access to and quality of education. Children said that they felt excluded from attending the available school because they lacked clothes or they had no shoes on their feet. These partly esteem related needs are quick fixes to put right. The lack of access to secondary education is a particular constraint expressed by multiple groups. The adolescent focus group expressed that they would risk going

back to Ivory Coast if they felt that they would have access to secondary education. The lack of a school feeding programme meant that student concentration was limited. Lack of school supplies was also remarked.

1.2. Poor quality of and access to health services – A consistent deeply felt challenge was poor quality of and access to health services. People said that basic medicines were often lacking and that there was no medical coverage on weekends and public holidays. They bemoaned that medical staff did not keep regular hours of work. They were also concerned about the lack of mobile phone coverage in Ganzon in order to call for assistance in the event of a medical emergency. 1.3. Free Primary Education + Refugees were pleased that their children were receiving free primary education. They also felt that they have been warmly welcomed by their Liberian hosts. The provision of some school equipment and supplies has encouraged attendance (notwithstanding the challenges mentioned in 1.1. above). The level of trauma that some children are carrying is clearly evident.

“We are finding that our children are learning English here in Liberia.”


“While in the Ivory Coast, without crutches movement was very difficult for us, now in Liberia it is very easy for us because we have crutches.”


“A man was very ill at night complaining of severe stomach ache. There was no doctor and no ambulance.

He cried the entire night and died the following morning.”

Widows Group, Solo Camp, Grand Gedeh County

9


1.4. Free health services + Notwithstanding the constraints in 1.2 refugees appreciated that health services when they could access them were free of charge. 1.5. Lack of essential non-food items (manque des biens) –

A number of groups expressed that they lack basic commodities i.e. cooking pots, sleeping mats, soap and clothes etc. Some expressed the intention to register in a camp, receive these items and then return to the host community. The situation is so bad that one woman remarked that her husband returned to Ivory Coast to collect some of their things and was reported killed in the process of doing so.

1.6. Lack of information about agency activities and poorly organised distributions – People expressed that an agency has provided some items to the primary school and they do not know who that organisation is. Culturally people felt strongly that this was not appropriate. This may be a reminder as per Sphere Standards that disaster affected populations should be routinely consulted about the mandates and intentions of different agencies. Regarding food distribution people said it was not on time and that some had been badly organised meaning that they were dominated by youths who fought and as a result women could not have access. 1.7. Lack of access to water and sanitation – While efforts have been made to treat and provide additional water supply it is not enough. The rocky terrain reportedly impossible to dig hand dug wells and so technical options are limited.

2. Key Findings on Solo Refugee Camp Community Level Trends

Solo Refugee Camp

10


Six focus group discussions took place in Solo Camp producing thirty three impact statements consolidated into sixteen impact areas and the top five presented in this report (for full information excel spread sheet available on request). There was a greater sense of dependency among those refugees in the camp and greater frustration at their fundamental needs being only partially met. These challenges were partly off set by refugees in host communities who had felt generously welcomed by the communities they were living in.

“A red deer runs from the leopard and enters into the lion’s mouth.”

(We ran from war in our home and are encountering difficulties in the refugee camps)

Heads of household, Solo Camp, Grand Gedeh County

11


2.2. Lack of access to and quality of education (especially secondary education and adult literacy) – Access to primary education in the camp was welcomed. Lack of basic furnishing like school benches etc was seen as a factor inhibiting quality education. Teachers are individuals drawn from within the camp and it was reported that they may not have any teaching experience. People were particularly concerned about the lack of access to secondary education. Others given the camp situation felt that they were in a position to avail of adult literacy which it was reported was unavailable. 2.3. Poor quality of and lack of access to health facilities/services – It was understood from the reports that there is no health facility in the camp - only a mobile clinic. Refugees feel vulnerable in the event of a medical emergency. They were particularly concerned about the lack of attention to gynaecological treatment and what they called separate treatment of women. 2.4. Free mobile health care + As with primary education refugees were overall happy that a minimum mobile health service was available. 2.5. Lack of non-food items (cooking materials, bed mats, soap, clothing, shoes) -

Apart from selling part of their food ration to buy condiments to supplement their diet, people had limited options to buy essential items for their survival. A cursory glance inside several tents showed that families were sleeping without mats or blankets and had no basic household items. If these issues are not quickly addressed it is a clear recipe for respiratory and other health problems. As mentioned elsewhere in the report lack of clothing and foot wear is inhibiting school attendance.

3.0. Lessons learned 1. Frequently communication is focussed on information giving, information taking for supply decisions,

reports and proposals or consultation which does not necessarily affect decision making. The way in which humanitarian assistance is provided is as important as what is delivered. This includes paying particular attention to two way communication with the disaster affected population in a way that they feel they are truly participating in the decisions that affect them.

2. The exercise demonstrates that quality field work can be undertaken entirely by nationals in a demanding context like Liberia and this ensures real communication with affected populations that can be integrated at every stage of the project cycle and programming.

3. There was a good and wide representation of organisations in the exercise. Excellent by any standard. Better advance planning and generation of greater buy in by additional key agencies including UNHCR and organisations working with refugees will be important for any future exercises.

4. For field work involving community focus group discussions it is important that where possible the size of focus groups be limited to ideally a maximum of fifteen. In some instances this was not possible as the atmosphere was one where people felt traumatised and were eager to have the opportunity to talk.

“You need to sit before you can stretch your legs.”

(The tents have stones under them and no sleeping mats are provided. When it rains the water comes

under the tent. There is a crazy man in the camp who comes and opens the tent doors during the night).

Adult Group, Solo Camp, Grand Gedeh County

12


4.0. Key recommendations There are minor adjustments outlined in the report for the education and health sectors in particular

that could help address some of the current frustrations e.g. provision of school benches, soap, shoes

and clothing so that refugee children are not inhibited from attendance by these esteem factors.

A Participatory Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation is encouraged (subject to access with the onset of

the rainy season), in order to develop a shared knowledge of the situation on the ground and common

ownership of the humanitarian response.

Improve information sharing by agencies with the affected populations and genuine community

participation in all aspects of the response.

5.0. Conclusion

The two visits to Solo Camp on the surface portrayed a well organised and set out camp equal to high standards of planning and provision in a humanitarian crisis anywhere in the world. The tents were well spaced and basic latrine and camp management facilities clearly visible. These technical responses are obviously critical and represent a long train of logistics etc. However the psychosocial picture within the camp unveiled through this exercise revealed a different reality behind the straight tent lines and one that it is critical that agencies engage fully with. The requests outlined in this report by refugees are far from unreasonable in order to achieve minimum standards of life with dignity. The gap in qualitative standards of communication and genuine participation of the disaster affected population in the decisions affecting them is a key challenge to the humanitarian community in Liberia emerging from this report. Whether or not these findings are entirely accurate indicates the need for better information sharing and participatory communication in both directions between agencies and the people they exist to serve.

13


Annex 1 Map of Liberia highlighting Grand Gedeh County where the exercise took place

14


Annex 2

Terms of Reference

C4D in Emergencies Consultant Liberia Assignment 16 to 30 July 2011

Assignment Objective 1. To increase the capacity of UNICEF and UNHCR partner staff to engage in participatory communication

with refugee and host populations. 2. To provide space for the voice of refugee and host populations to be heard as the basis to inform

humanitarian awareness and decision making in a way that supports and respects community resilience to a disaster.

Background The 2011 Presidential election and following political crisis in Ivory Coast led to a major outflow of refugees into the border regions of Liberia. There are currently approximately 150,000 Ivorian refugees in Liberia. As per UNHCR policy there are plans to relocate some refugee camps further away from the border and therefore keeping positive communication with the affected populations needs to be at a premium in order to respect the rights to information and to be heard of the disaster affected population. C4D has a key role to play in facilitating processes that are accountable and transparent, in order to ensure the quality of the humanitarian response. Responsibilities 1. To facilitate training of 30-36 participants in Participatory Communication (using the People First

Impact Method (P-FiM)) and to provide oversight to 10-12 Focus Group Discussions in Grand Gedeh County, Liberia, among refugee and host populations.

2. User friendly report on field exercise Findings and Recommendations. Schedule Sat 16 July Arrive Monrovia Sun 17 July Preparation Mon 18 July Preparation Tues 19 July Preparation Wed 20 July Travel to Zwedru Thurs 21 July Travel to communities Fri 22 July Training Day 1 Sat 23 July Training Day 2 Sun 24 July Field Exercise preparation Mon 25 July Field Exercise and Debriefing Day 3 Tues 26 July Debriefing and Compilation of findings Day 4 Wed 27 July Travel to Monrovia Thurs 28 July Training in compilations of results Fri 29 July Training in compilations of results and wrap up Sat 30 July Depart

15


“P-FIM is fantastic in

successfully putting

people first.”

P-FIM Participant

Bor, Jonglei State,

Southern Sudan

“P-FIM is fantastic in

successfully putting

people first.”

P-FIM Participant

Bor, Jonglei State,

Southern Sudan

Annex 3

What is the People First Impact Method (P-FiM)?

P-FIM is a simple low cost methodology that fully allows communities to speak for themselves, in identifying impact changes in their lives and what the drivers of impact difference are attributable to. In this way the starting point is people and communities and not organisations and projects. It is a powerful tool that highlights issues humanitarian and development agencies may often be poorly aware of. P-FiM is a mainstream approach and tool directly complements aspects of Sphere, the Good Enough Guide, Participatory Impact Assessment (Tufts) and HAP etc. P-FiM enables humanitarian actors to accurately ‘take the temperature’ in order to properly align interventions with local priority issues, ensure they are engaging properly and where they can have the greatest possible impact. P-FiM simply recognises the primary driving force of people and communities at all stages of an intervention as essential. It adds value to existing collaborative and inter-agency initiatives. The method has been used in multiple inter-agency exercises (four days per exercise) e.g. in 2010 in South Sudan, Haiti, Sudan (West Darfur) and 2011 in Sudan (West Darfur) and Liberia with excellent results and high spontaneous buy-in by participants and agencies. Potential P-FIM Benefits to Agencies: (i) Impact measured in the context where a programme or programmes are delivered (ii) The action doubles as P-FiM Training for participating local agencies and agency personnel (iii) A series of P-FIM actions will provide a basis for advocacy/mainstreaming of people first

approaches. P-FIM takes a representative geographical area (e.g. a one to three year programme) of people and communities who are getting on with their lives. Local people are trained on P-FiM who have basic development skills, understand language and culture and are trusted locally. The method (i) enables a qualitative process where primary changes are openly discussed with representative groups making up a community - whether positive, negative or indifferent - and recorded (ii) the method then works backwards to determine in a quantitative way where change is attributable to e.g. leadership in the community, government actions, local business, NGO, UN etc. The method makes no assumptions about impact and what drives it - with often surprising impact results revealed. It is community owned and driven. P-FiM fundamentally asks “So what?” questions . . . “So what difference has that made to people’s lives?” and “who is really responsible for the change or impact?” There are two biases that often colour project and organisational impact evaluation approaches:

What impact are we actually having? Typically organisations and their programmes are the focus of impact/ evaluation measurement to meet standard quality, accountability and donor requirements.

How can we know the actual impact of a project/programme if we only consider projects and organisations? What about the depth and breadth of what is around the project or organisation in terms of change impacts? P-FIM measures impact in the context of the project and as such, the impact of the project can be tested.

While participatory approaches and accountability at community level are given increased importance, the standard organisation/project focus is still emphasised by donors and agencies. A typical end of project impact evaluation involves external (sometimes local) evaluators who carry out desk and field exercises to determine the positive or negative qualitative and (mostly) quantitative impact achieved by a project (which in itself is important). However, by over focusing on the organisation and project and the role of external consultants - the full honest views of local people and communities on what is working or not working (or whether correct or needed in the first place) and what other factors (often not actions of the project) have caused impact - are typically unheard or not considered.

16


Why People First Impact Method (P-FIM)? Our fundamental question is “Are we doing things right and are we doing the right things?” To put this into a programme/project context, the assumption column of a logframe requires that donors and agencies fully consider the wider context to ensure that proposed programmes are relevant. In this way it can be said that ‘impact lives in the assumptions’ - weak assumptions lead to inappropriate responses. P-FIM references ‘project cycle approaches’ and effectively links with other evaluative / impact tools in humanitarian and development contexts. It is a simple methodology that can bridge an essential gap within existing approaches. For example, P-FiM asserts that addressing Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) & Climate Change Adaption (CCA) requires the full engagement of communities. The knowledge base and pedigree underpinning P-FiM draws on key concepts from Existentialist and Personalist Philosophy, Psychosocial Methods and beyond. It is an integrated and holistic view of human nature freedom and potential - people’s needs and rights. Key concepts are: people come first; local relationships of trust are fundamental; people have a right to life with dignity; a non agency centric and non project approach facilitates objectivity and honesty; an integrated holistic appreciation of human development is vital; quality and depth of communication with people is essential; respectful understanding of people must be our starting point and be sustained.

© People First Impact Method 2010 www.p-fim.org

17


Annex 4 Training and Field Exercise Participants

No.

Name Position Organisation

1 Otis c. Zarzar County Coordinator Min. Public Works

2 Wuo L. N. Karnkeh Environ. Health Supervisor G.G. CHT

3 Austin Drokopia Min. Education

4 Teeline M. Dweh Nurse Min. Health

5 Facia Dweh M & E Officer Respect Liberia

6 Patricia B. Nuah Outreach Worker Save the Children UK

7 Matilda D. Y. Billy MCH Supervisor Merlin

8 Edith Y. Zomonway District Supervisor CHT

9 James B. Weah Child protection Supervisor Save the Children UK

10 Florence S. Yarlee Logistician Respect Liberia

11 Harrison W. Waylee Logistics Officer Min. Education

12 Quiah F.J. Woeloe Field Officer Plan/Caritas

13 Rudolph K. Dayway Librarian Min. Education

14 Madeline T. Clarke Child Welfare Officer MOGD

15 B. Malfred Bagen HPFP/CHT MOGD

16 Rita T. Yarlee Finance Officer Min. Health

17 E.T. Allison Z. Dunner Reporter Smile FM

18 Anthony S. Tokpah Animator ECREP

19 Peter Kpakelah Animator ECREP

20 Christopher N. Koon Education Supervisor Respect Liberia

21 Wuo L.N. Karnkeh Environ. Health Supervisor G.G.CHT

22 Franck Olivier Gohouo Primary School Director Janzon Refugee School

23 Kpae Achille Gbohou Refugee Representative Refugees of Janzon

24 Oulai Nadege Refugee Janzon

25 Mahan Gabriel Guei Parent of refugee students Janzon

26 Blo Tatiana Refugee Janzon

27 Sioulou Pucherine Interpreter Toe Town

28 Sioulou Remi Interpreter Toe Town

29 Decontee Baryee Trader Toe Town

30 Cyrus S. Garwo Volunteer ECREP

31 Kanhie K. Bernard Teacher Solo Camp (MoE)

32 Alieu A. Sackor Prog. Assistant WFP

33 Edith F. Kudah Gender Coordinator MOGD

34 Victor Lamin Kai Field Monitor Assistant WFP

35 Lorenzo Q. Dorr Programme Coordinator Merlin

18


Annex 5 Focus Groups Disaggregated by Area and Gender

Janzon

Group Female Male Av. Age Girls Boys Av. Age Total

1 Children 30 47 12-15 77

2 Women 46 31-60 22 18-30 68

3 Physically Challenged 28 22 35-80 2 10 12-20 62

4 Widows 27 30 19-60 35 25 12-60 117

5 Mixed Adult/Youth 8 67 18-40 10 30 14-17 115

Women Girls Men Boys Total

109 99 119 112 439

Female 208 Male 231

Solo Camp

Group Female Male Av. Age Girls Boys Av. Age Total

1 Unaccompanied Children 67 58 10-15 1251

2 Widows 56 35-55 56

3 Youth 7 5 12-18 12

4 Adults (Elderly) 17 15 18-60 32

5 Bloc Heads (Chefs de Bloc) 7 8 22-45 3 4 15-16 22

6 Heads of Households 30 20 22-85 50


110 77 43 67 297

Female 187 Male 110

Combined Focus Group Gender Disaggregation


229 176 162 179 746

Female 405 Male 341

1 15 of whom were unaccompanied children

19


Annex 6

Giving a Voice to Ivorian Refugees and Host Communities

Documents

Transcript of Giving a Voice to Ivorian Refugees and Host Communities