86058 Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure Maniema, Democratic Republic of Congo Working Paper No. 3 May 2013 The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank 1818 H Street, NW Washington, DC 20433 All rights reserved First published April 2013 www.logica-wb.net This Working Papers Series disseminates the findings of work in progress to encourage discussion and exchange of ideas on gender and conflict related issues in Sub-Saharan Africa. Papers in this series are not formal publications of the World Bank. The papers carry the names of the authors and should be cited ac- cordingly. The series is edited by the Learning on Gender and Conflict in Africa (LOGiCA) Program of the World Bank within the Fragile States, Conflict and Social Development Department. This paper has not undergone the review accorded to official World Bank publications. The findings, in- terpretations and conclusions herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development/World Bank and its affiliated organizations, its Executive Directors, or the governments they represent. To request further information on the series, please contact ereessmith@worldbank.org LOGiCA. Papers are also available on the LOGiCA website: www.logica-wb.net. Cover and layout design: Duina Reyes Photos provided by United Nations photo library Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure Maniema, Democratic Republic of Congo Working Paper No. 3 May 2013 Table of Contents Acronyms................................................................................................... 2 Introduction.............................................................................................. 3 Purpose of the Study................................................................................................................... 3 Methodology.............................................................................................................................. 4 Limitations and Challenges......................................................................................................... 4 Project Description.................................................................................... 5 Sensitization to GBV.................................................................................................................. 5 Literacy and Numeracy............................................................................................................... 5 ............................................................... 5 Income-Generating Activity and Budget Management. Childcare Services....................................................................................................................... 5 ..................................................................................................................... 6 Project Limitations. High-Level Analysis.................................................................................................................... 6 Data Set Results and Analysis.................................................................... 8 Key Demographics and Core Indicators...................................................................................... 8 Social Reintegration ................................................................................................................. 10 Confidence Levels..................................................................................................................... 11 Relationships............................................................................................................................ 12 ............................................................................. 13 Sexual and Gender-Based Violence (SGBV). Conclusions ............................................................................................................................. 13 Recommendations ................................................................................................................... 14 Annex 1a. Questionnaire (Project Beneficiaries: Female Ex-Combatants and Community Members). .......................................................................................................15 Annex 1b. Questionnaire (Control Groups: Female Ex-Combatants and Members)...........................................................................................................................22 Annex 2. Methodological Recommendations for Further Research.....................................29 Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 1 Acronyms CAAFAG Children Associated with the Armed Groups and Armed Forces COOPCEDE Cooperative de Credit et d’Epargne pour le Developpement D&R demobilization and reintegration DRC Democratic Republic of Congo GBV gender-based violence GLR Great Lakes region IGA income-generating activity LEAP Learning for Equality, Access, and Peace LOGiCA Learning on Gender and Conflict in Africa M&E monitoring and evaluation MDRP Multi-country Demobilization and Reintegration Program MECREKI Mutuelle d’Epargne et de Crédit de Kindu MSF Médecins Sans Frontières NGO nongovernmental organization PNDDR Programme National de Désarmement, Démobilisation, et Réinsertion SGBV sexual and gender-based violence STD sexually transmitted disease UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNFPA United Nations Population Fund Introduction The Learning on Gender and Conflict in Africa Many mothers have difficulty meeting their chil- (LOGiCA) program aims to increase gender- dren’s basic health and education needs. In addi- specific programming in postconflict countries in tion, women face barriers stemming from a series Sub-Saharan Africa, with a focus on demobiliza- of complex socioeconomic and cultural factors tion and reintegration (D&R) in the Great Lakes that include a perception of women’s social status region (GLR), and gender-specific issues arising as being lower than men’s. Ex-combatants in par- from armed conflict. Specific objectives are: (i) to ticular are stigmatized. Communities and families increase gender-sensitive programming in D&R are often unable or unwilling to accept the return operations in the GLR by better addressing the of young female ex-combatants, especially if they gender-differentiated needs of male and female return with children. Reinforcing such patterns combatants; and (ii) to generate knowledge and are women’s own assumptions of how they will good practices on how to address gender and be perceived upon returning to their communi- conflict issues, with a focus on learning initia- ties. Aware of the stigmatization and barriers they tives addressing sexual and gender-based violence may encounter, they might choose to marginalize (SGBV), vulnerable women, and young men at themselves. It is generally accepted that these spe- risk in Sub-Saharan Africa. This study pertains cific prejudices result in a sub-group of particu- to generating knowledge on gender sensitivity in larly vulnerable ex-combatants, disproportionately D&R programming. affected by conventional barriers to socioeconomic reintegration. A pilot project was conducted in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in Kindu, Maniema, Implemented by CARITAS, the pilot project tar- between 2008 and 2009, titled “Strengthening geted a total of 200 beneficiaries: 140 vulnerable socio-economic reintegration opportunities for ex-combatants and children associated with the vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobi- armed forces and armed groups (CAAFAG) and 60 lized through the PNDDR.” The project was im- additional vulnerable individuals in the commu- plemented under the Learning for Equality, Access nity. Specific vulnerability criteria were developed and applied for the identification of beneficiaries. and Peace (LEAP) program as part of the Multi- The pilot project activities included: (i) support country Demobilization and Reintegration Pro- for income-generating activities; (ii) basic skills gram’s (MDRP’s) efforts to strengthen the impact and management training, including basic literacy of D&R programming from a gender perspective. and numeracy training, “enterprise management The LOGiCA program was then launched in 2009 training,” and household budget management/ as a stand-alone initiative based upon the lessons microcredit management; (iii) support for the cre- of the LEAP program and significant interest from ation and strengthening of associations; and (iv) the international community. GBV information, referral, and sensitization. LOGiCA initiated a study to assess how beneficia- ries of the pilot project were faring—in relation to Purpose of the Study the rest of their communities and in light of the support they had received—24 months after the The study aimed to determine: (i) the extent to program’s closure. which the results of the intervention had been sus- tained by individual beneficiaries and associations, The pilot project aimed to respond to the spe- (ii) the related role of support provided through cific constraints on socioeconomic reintegration the pilot project, and (iii) the well-being of benefi- faced by female ex-combatants and child-mothers. ciaries relative to the rest of the community, more Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 3 specifically in comparison with ex-combatants employed for the research and monitoring and supported by the Programme National de Dés- evaluation (M&E) framework adopted for proj- armement, Démobilisation, et Réinsertion (PND- ect implementation does not allow causality to DR) but not eligible for participation in the pilot be established, but rather provides an indication project. of sustainability prospects and promising practices for replication. Methodology Thus, conclusions drawn from the study can be A semi-structured questionnaire was designed to generalized only across the pilot project benefi- replicate the key elements of the baseline survey ciary population. Inferences regarding the female conducted prior to the pilot project’s start in 2008. ex-combatant and community peer control groups Three questionnaires were employed, one tailored are only valid for the group of respondents in this to the project beneficiary group and a second to study. Furthermore, the baseline study conducted the control group (consisting of nonbeneficiary in 2008 did not include control group respondents; female ex-combatants demobilized through the therefore comparisons with the control groups are PNDDR; they received related D&R support only valid for the point in time that the new re- through the national program but did not benefit search was conducted. Analysis over time is limited from additional assistance through this pilot proj- to the pilot project beneficiary population only. ect). The third and final questionnaire was applied to a group of community peers to serve as a point While the female ex-combatant control group was of reference. Questionnaires can be found in an- randomly selected, it is important to note that this nex 1. group is less likely to have displayed the set of vul- nerability criteria established by the pilot project, A 95 percent confidence level and 5 percent con- as this was used to screen ex-combatants and com- fidence interval were the established parameters munity members for inclusion in the pilot. Since for sampling. The study included a total of 283 not all ex-combatants were originally screened, respondents, including 119 pilot project benefi- this may have an impact on the results. In addi- ciaries and 115 female ex-combatants who ben- tion, the third group of community peer respon- efited from the PNDDR program but did not dents was established to counter such effects. participate in the pilot project. The control group respondents were randomly selected from lists pro- Significant challenges were encountered in iden- vided by provincial PNDDR staff. An additional tifying project beneficiaries given the time lapse 49 community peer respondents were surveyed as since project closure and related follow-up by a nonrepresentative reference group. CARITAS. This was compounded by difficult se- curity conditions and a tight time frame ahead of Radio messaging was used to reach out to respon- the 2011 elections. Thus 119 beneficiary respon- dents who were interviewed in a central location; dents were reached compared to the target of 132 direct home visits were made thereafter to ensure set by the sampling parameters. This nonetheless the entire sample was reached. allowed for a confidence level of 95 percent and a confidence interval of 5.7 percent, which were Ninety-two percent of endline respondents were considered adequate and valid for the purposes of female; this reflects the fact that men were only eli- this research. gible for inclusion from the community member group and that only females were screened from Standard limitations apply in the case of this re- the ex-combatant group. search; it is possible that respondents assume that they may preclude themselves from any additional Limitations and Challenges assistance if they respond positively to the ques- tions asked of them. This study is low-cost, modest in scope, and aims to identify promising approaches to support- Specific methodological recommendations for fur- ing vulnerable ex-combatants. The methodology ther research can be found in annex 2. 4 Project Description The pilot project consisted of four key compo- Income-Generating Activity and nents. Each component described below includes a summary of the related outputs, as reported by Budget Management the implementing agency. This component provided for the distribution of goods in relation to the income-generating activ- Sensitization to GBV ity (IGA) selected by the beneficiary. Specifically, the beneficiaries selecting petty trade received (de- These activities include: (i) the design of radio pending on the trade chosen) iodized salt, palm oil, spots, which were broadcast locally, (ii) messages sugar, fry, wheat flour, soda lime, hens and ducks, disseminated through posters and banners within nails, and petrol. Fisheries involved the delivery of the community, and (iii) training of identified nets, breeding the distribution of goats and pigs, “sensitization agents” in collaboration with other agriculture the distribution of inputs, and tailor- local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). All ing the distribution of one sewing machine each. materials and radio spots were in Swahili, the prin- The distribution of goods was complemented with cipal local language in Kindu and in the Maniema basic accountant training, for example, in finan- province more broadly. cial documentation such as bookkeeping. Ac- counts were opened for beneficiaries across three Outputs cooperatives selected by the implementation part- ner: COOPEC IMARA, Cooperative de Credit • Three messages were promoted: “raping a et d’Epargne pour le Developpement (COOP- woman is like raping your own sister, your CEDE), and Mutuelle d’Epargne et de Crédit de own mother,” “we say no to violence against Kindu (MECREKI). women and girls,” “sexual violence causes sex- ually transmitted disease (STD), psychological Outputs disorders, divorces, unplanned pregnancies, • Eight interdependent groups were created by poverty . . . together, let us fight this plague.” 200 women and girl ex-combatants in associa- • The three local radio stations broadcasted tion with members of the community. each message three times a day until the end • Seventy-nine percent of the 200 beneficiaries of February 2009. had saved an average of $50 in their accounts by the close of the project. Literacy and Numeracy Three centers (Tokolete, Kasuku, Mikelenge) were Childcare Services opened to ensure literacy and basic calculation Three centers were equipped to host beneficiaries’ lessons to beneficiaries, with two trainers in each children three times a week while they attended center. the literacy and IGA/budget management train- ings. Outputs Outputs • More than half of the beneficiaries, or 104 in- dividuals, participated. • Three centers were equipped and six “edu- Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 5 cators” recruited to staff the centers. Nearly ing radio messaging to make contact. 60 children were looked after and fed three • The literacy training component remained in- times a week between the hours of 08:00 and complete four months after project close due 17:00. to the high number of beneficiaries that opted to participate in this activity. The component Project Limitations was nonetheless completed because CARITAS Congo was successful in mobilizing additional Beneficiaries were very mobile, especially female resources from CARITAS Norway. ex-combatants. The constant change of address made communication and related follow-up by • The M&E activities were challenging to im- the implementation partner challenging. Agents plement adequately due to problems of access: actively sought out where beneficiaries had moved Kindu’s remote location, harsh terrain, and by consulting with community members and us- insecurity. 6 High-Level Analysis Globally, the results show an improvement in the level of trust in other ex-combatants within indicators compared to the baseline survey, pri- the community, including male ex-combat- marily at the economic level. The female ex-com- ants, increased by 44 percent from the begin- batants group show “positive differences” overall, ning of the project in 2008. again particularly at the economic level. With re- gard to the social impact of the project, the results • Indicators show that project beneficiaries are are less clear about (i) a significant improvement in more informed about SGBV and related ser- the beneficiaries’ situations and (ii) the contribu- vices than the nonbeneficiary ex-combatants. tion of the activities themselves to improvements With 85 percent of the beneficiaries still run- in specific areas. Nevertheless, indicators are posi- ning the activity initiated through the project, tive, including enhanced “quality of relationships” the study indicates that 24 months after project and an increased membership in credit groups vis- closure, prospects for sustaining the selected IGA ible among project beneficiaries. is promising. Economic indicators such as home ownership as well as assets per household showed a Key Results global increase compared to the baseline in 2008, and a significant positive difference over the non- • Eighty-five percent of the beneficiaries are still beneficiary female ex-combatants group. In par- running the activity initiated during the proj- ticular, the number of respondents belonging to a ect, the majority in the agricultural sector. credit or savings group since the start of the proj- • Household ownership among project benefi- ect jumped up 47 percentage points (compared ciaries has increased by 23 percentage points to a 22 percentage point increase among nonben- since the baseline study was conducted. eficiaries). This suggests an improvement in both economic and social life. • Beneficiaries cook more meals for their chil- dren than at the beginning of the project; Despite sharing some traits with nonbeneficia- there is a 17 percentage point increase in the ries (for example, medicine purchases, number of number of respondents cooking two or three meals/day eaten by children, and literacy rates), times a day. the number and type of improved economic indi- cators among the beneficiaries suggests that their • Beneficiaries own 28 percent more assets than economic performance is better overall. the female ex-combatant nonbeneficiaries— the three indicators being mosquito nets, mat- With regard to SGBV, the level of information tresses, and radios. Among those, the number dissemination is positive, with high rates of infor- of mosquito nets shows a significant increase: mation dissemination and sensitization conducted 73 percent of beneficiaries owned one com- during project implementation. But there are no pared to 55 percent in 2008. These strong dif- discernible differences between perceptions of the ferences, both between baseline/endline and “normality” of domestic violence before and after beneficiaries/nonbeneficiaries indicate that the the project or between beneficiaries and nonben- project may have contributed to the ability of eficiaries. beneficiaries to purchase assets and property. The percentage of beneficiaries who used the child- • The level of confidence in others displayed by care services offered by the project, at 24 percent, project beneficiaries improved since the base- is relatively low in view of the fact that all had at line survey, from 4 percent to 10 percent by least one child at home. Very positive feedback was the end of the project. More specifically, the received from those who used the service. Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 7 Data Set Results and Analysis A total of 119 pilot project beneficiaries were sur- tion of Maniema was 48.9 percent in 2005.1 veyed, including 102 ex-combatants and 17 com- It is possible that the increase displayed by munity members (72 percent and 28 percent of the beneficiary population reflects an increase the total respondents, respectively). The following in the literacy of the population as a whole results and analysis largely refer to the beneficiary due to factors external to the pilot project. population as a whole without distinction between It is nonetheless positive that the beneficiary ex-combatants and community members. This is population—identified as a particularly vul- in light of two considerations: (i) the small, non- nerable group—had literacy rates comparable representative number of community members, with community peers. Health. Data on health and (ii) the primary goal of the study, to assess status remain inconclusive. The study revealed project beneficiaries’ well-being 24 months after that 76 percent of the beneficiaries visited a project closure. health professional between one and three times during the previous six months, which represents an increase of 5 percentage points Key Demographics and Core Indicators between the start and end of the project. This • Sex. Ninety-two percent of respondents were percentage is significantly higher than the female and 8 percent male. rest of the community (a 61 percent rate for the female ex-combatants group and 59 per- • Marital status. Sixty-three percent were mar- cent for the peer community control group). ried, 26 percent were widows, less than 1 per- While this suggests positive health effects cent were separated, and one respondent was for project beneficiaries, the number of doc- single. tor’s visits made by respondents’ children was largely similar across beneficiaries and control • Age. Approximately 27 percent of the sample groups. Among the 24 percent of beneficiaries was made up of respondents over 50 years old, that did not visit health professionals, more 36 percent between 40 and 49 years, 28 per- than half indicated they had not been ill over cent between 30 and 39 years, and 9 percent this period, 12 respondents explained it was between 25 to 29 years. too expensive, and 3 reported having free ac- cess to health services through (i) health zone • The above proportions across sex, age and membership, (ii) Médecins Sans Frontières marital status were largely similar across the (MSF) free health-care services, and (iii) ac- baseline and endline, as well as in the nonben- cess through a spouse’s work. eficiary female ex-combatants group. Literacy. Project beneficiaries displayed significantly higher levels of literacy at project comple- Project Activities and Sustainability Prospects tion (66 percent) than at the baseline (44 Activities chosen by project beneficiaries were as percent). The control groups’ rates, however, follows: agriculture 29 percent, breeding 23 per- were broadly similar: 65 percent of female ex- combatants and 67 percent of the peer com- munity group. Thus, the specific effect of the 1  Institut National de la Statistique, Rapport de l’enquête literacy training provided is not clear. The last 1-2-3 sur l’emploi, le secteur informel et la consommation available literacy rate of the general popula- des ménages de 2004 – 2005. 8 cent, and petty trade 45 percent. Twenty-four Economic Reintegration months after project completion, 85 percent of beneficiaries had continued with the IGA initiated The study measured the economic status of re- through the project. Figure 1 illustrates the activi- spondents through a range of indicators including: ties (percentages) that remain active. home and land ownership, purchasing capacity, and household assets. Overall, results indicate that While the relatively large proportion of active beneficiaries fared better following the completion IGAs are in petty trade, this simply reflects the of the project, with a significant increase in several large number of beneficiaries who initially selected economic indicators. Beneficiaries owned more this activity. But the percentage of dropouts in household assets and were more likely to own each category indicates a particularly strong reten- homes than the control group, but there were no tion rate in the agricultural sector. Indeed, 91 per- discernible differences across other indicators such cent of beneficiaries who chose agriculture; 87 per- as food consumption or land ownership. cent who chose petty trade; and 75 percent who chose breeding still run their activity. This serves Specifically, with regard to home and land owner- to contribute to the validity of the hypothesis that ship: agriculture poses the most effective and sustain- able reintegration opportunities. • Fifty-one percent of beneficiaries own their home compared to 36 percent of nonbenefi- With regard to the childcare services provided ciary ex-combatants. through the project, 24 percent of respondents used them. Given average household size in the • Fifty-two percent own a piece of land, among DRC generally (6.4), and in Maniema more spe- which 16 percent own more than one hect- cifically (7.2), the low utilization rate may be ex- are. While the ex-combatant control group plained by the tradition of younger children being displays a lower percentage of land ownership cared for by older siblings and subsequent resis- in total, at 45 percent, a higher proportion of tance to the provision of childcare services outside those landowners have more than one hectare, the family or community. at 33 percent. • Thirty-four percent of beneficiaries have use Figure 1. Active Businesses 24 of or rent land. Among those, 16 respondents Months after the Project (26 percent) were also landowners. 85 percent of beneficiaries were still With regard to purchasing power, 62 percent of running activities initiated under the project, the beneficiaries bought an object above $20 over with the following breakdown: the last year against 53 percent of the nonbenefi- ciary female ex-combatants. Mosquito net and cell-phone ownership showed 32% Agriculture the highest increase compared to the baseline, at 46% Breeding 19 percent and 18 percent, respectively. Owner- Petty trade ship of mattresses and radios, however, did not show any change over time among beneficiaries. 21% But a comparison of beneficiaries and the control group puts beneficiaries out ahead, with a posi- tive difference of 37 percentage points for mos- quito nets, 22 percentage points for radios, and Source: author; survey data. 26 percentage points for mattresses. On the other hand, ex-combatants were slightly more likely to Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 9 own a cell phone, with a difference of 9 percentage The significant increase in reported joint manage- points. ment of household finances is consistent with the significant decrease in the proportion of house- Levels of food consumption are also a standard holds where finances were reported to be managed economic indicator. The questionnaire asked re- by the husband alone. Of further significance is spondents how many times per day they cooked the fact that of those who jointly managed house- for their children. Results pointed to an improve- hold finances, 80 percent were members of an ment when compared to the baseline, with an economic-related group. Conversely, among re- increase of 17 percentage points in beneficiaries spondents who reported that their husband man- who provide two or three meals per day to their aged the finances, only 25 percent were members children. But there is little difference to be seen in of economic-related groups. a comparison with the control groups: 12 percent of project beneficiaries and 13 percent of female The study shows that beneficiaries’ membership ex-combatants cook three times a day; 47 percent in a community group increased by 47 percentage points from the baseline and indicates a significant and 49 percent, respectively, cook twice a day. positive difference when compared with the non- Results under this indicator are therefore unclear, beneficiary ex-combatants. Sixty-one percent were particularly when analyzed against other economic members of a credit group (figure 3), 28 percent of indicators such as assets owned, home ownership, a group related to economic issues, and 7 percent or number of visits to a health practitioner (for (or, one woman) of a sports group. the child). There was no correlation between these indicators and whether beneficiaries cooked once a day or three times a day. Figure 2. Credit and Savings With regard to modes of transport, there is neg- Group Membership ligible difference between those used by project beneficiaries and control groups. Meanwhile, the number of beneficiaries using a mode of transport member of a "credit group" other than walking (bicycles, motorbikes) increased from 5 percent at the baseline to 19 percent. 14% Beneficiaries Management of Household Expenses 2008 39% Questions pertaining to household expenses were Beneficiaries asked of the 75 beneficiary respondents reported 2011 to be married. Results indicate a gain in beneficia- 61% Non-beneficiary ries’ empowerment at the household level; many ex-combatants respondents reported that finances were equally managed by both spouses. Sixty-eight percent re- ported joint management compared to 45 percent at the baseline, 11 percent reported their husbands Source: author; survey data. managed all the finances compared to 35 percent at the baseline, and 20 percent reported they were the sole manager of the finances compared to 16 percent at the baseline. This is quite similar to the Social Reintegration ex-combatant control group p; nonetheless, the Welfare perception was assessed 24 months af- large increase from the baseline remains a signifi- ter project completion to obtain complementary cant finding in and of itself. qualitative information. Such data were not col- 10 lected at the baseline and thus inferences over time gration indicators: could not be made. Comparisons between the beneficiary and control groups were broadly simi- • All respondents owned their own house or a lar, with 9 percent of beneficiaries reporting their piece of land. satisfaction with life as “good” or “excellent” com- • All reported to have purchased medication in pared to 8 percent of nonbeneficiaries; 22 percent the last six months. reporting it to be “fair” compared to 18 percent of nonbeneficiaries; and 69 percent reporting it as • All of those married rated their relationship “bad” or “rather bad” compared with 74 percent with their husband a 5 on a scale from 1 to 5. of nonbeneficiaries. • Among those married, the money was man- The key finding here is that the overwhelming aged by both husband and wife. majority of respondents—beneficiaries and non- beneficiaries alike—rate their satisfaction with • Levels of confidence in the rest of the commu- life at the lowest end of the scale. These results are nity (including all categories, such as elders, somewhat ambiguous, however, when examined ex-combatants, government officials, and so in light of beneficiary satisfaction with the project: on) were significantly higher than that of the 93 percent indicated that the project helped them. other respondents. The economic situation (including access to health and education) is generally mentioned as a key Confidence Levels point of improvement; the quality of relationships and community integration also featured signifi- Overall, results indicate that project beneficiaries cantly in responses. Indeed, 68 percent of respon- show good levels of confidence in others within dents who indicated that the project had been their community. The level of confidence placed helpful rated their satisfaction with life as “bad” or in those outside the community was at 7 percent “rather bad.” There are two possible explanations (showing less trust), whereas confidence in those for such results: (i) the point of reference remains who had recently arrived in the community was very low for beneficiaries, and despite recognizing at 22 percent and trust in the government was at some improvement in relation to project support, 33 percent (table 1). Results were similar across beneficiaries still consider their situation as fairly beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. But the level of negative; (ii) respondents considered the ques- confidence in newcomers in the community, al- tion in terms of comparing their current situation though low at 22 percent, increased by 9 percent- to an absolute ideal condition and (iii) responses age points from the project baseline. may have been influenced by hopes of gaining ad- ditional support—either by indicating that the It is worth noting that some respondents, un- project was helpful, or by describing their situa- prompted, commented that the project had tion as dire. helped them be accepted by the community (in With regard to non-ex-combatant beneficiaries, all the case of ex-combatants) or be accepted and live indicated that the project was helpful. Six of the in peace with ex-combatants (among community 17 surveyed furthermore mentioned that the proj- members). ect helped them to improve the perception they Results also indicated low levels of confidence had of ex-combatants and their relationship with in health practitioners and teachers, but rates of them. confidence were significantly lower among non- Respondents who rated their satisfaction with life beneficiary respondents than beneficiaries, which to be “good” or “excellent” also performed more might suggest the efficacy of literacy and SGBV favorably against quality-of-life and social reinte- trainings. Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 11 Table 1. Comparative Table of Confidence Levels Female Beneficiaries Beneficiaries ex- 2008 2011 ( combatants (%) %) (%) Trust the government completely 39 33 31 Trust the chief of their area completely 63 72 60 Trust the elders completely 78 86 65 Trust the other women of the community completely 59 76 68 Trust the men of the community completely 52 50 56 Trust the women ex-combatants in the community completely 13 79* 83 Trust the men ex-combatants in the community completely 6 52 72 Trust people recently arrived in the community completely 13 22 28 Trust people outside the community completely 6 7 16 Trust health practitioners completely 93 83 59 Trust teachers completely 85 78 63 Source: author; survey data. Note: *This figure includes ex-combatants only, as all the members of the community answered “a little” to this question. Relationships depends on the reason” to the question “is it justi- fied that a husband beats his wife?” This perspec- tive has remained relatively unchanged since the Marital Relationships start of the project, across beneficiaries and non- Married project beneficiaries reported good-qual- beneficiaries alike. ity marital relationships: 84 percent rated their The significant increase in the marital relationship relationship as “excellent” or “good.” Sixty-three perception since the baseline and when compared percent of married beneficiaries reported their with nonbeneficiary ex-combatants, points to a marital relationship as “excellent,” an increase possible contribution of project activities to gen- compared to 55 percent at the baseline. Results der sensitization. show a higher proportion of respondents rating their relationship as excellent among beneficiaries Relationships with the Family compared to the control group of ex-combatants. It is, however, important to understand what is Beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries alike report perceived to constitute a “good” or “excellent” re- positive relationships with their own parents and lationship. Further light is shed on this topic with in-laws. Relationships with parents remained posi- cross-analysis on SGBV responses: of the 84 per- tive from the start of the project; 100 percent of cent who reported their relationships as “good” or beneficiaries with parents still alive reported ex- “excellent,” all respondents indicated “yes” or “it cellent or good relationships compared with 97 12 percent in 2008. Beneficiaries also experience be assumed that the end of the project corresponds good relationships with their in-laws: 79 percent to the decrease in exposure to sexual violence is- reported that they maintain excellent, good, or fair sues for both groups, and therefore that the project relationships with them. These results are broadly successfully targeted the wider community. But similar to those reported by nonbeneficiaries, thus awareness-raising and sensitization efforts were no discernible effect could be ascertained on rela- not maintained following project closure. tionships with the extended family. While data on community members’ general awareness of SGBV issues—despite their discon- Relationships between Community Members and tinuation—are promising, they seem to have had a Ex-Combatants rather superficial effect. Data indicate that attitudes and practices remain broadly unchanged since the Results pointed to good levels of integration be- baseline. Of beneficiaries 63 percent believe a tween community members and ex-combatants husband is justified in beating his wife, compared among both beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. to 65 percent at the time of the research. Among Ninety-one percent of ex-combatant beneficiaries nonbeneficiaries this percentage is only negligibly stated that their children played with other chil- higher, at 69 percent. Further qualitative research dren (of non-ex-combatants) in the community, would allow further exploration of these issues, and 95 percent of ex-combatant nonbeneficiaries especially in regard to the degree of male engage- indicated the same trend. Thus no link to proj- ment in related activities. Nonetheless, the time ect activities is discernible. Levels of acceptance of required to achieve a measureable change in atti- children born in active combat were reported to be tudes is an important consideration in the context fair or excellent. Of the 49 percent to which this of this pilot operation. situation applied, only one respondent reported a lack of acceptance of the child by her husband. It is worth noting, however, that only 13 percent Conclusions of those reporting high levels of acceptance report Overall, the study shows a positive experience in that the child’s father is not their current hus- providing additional support to vulnerable female band. ex-combatants and their community peers, with particularly promising prospects for sustainability. Sexual and Gender-Based Violence Results point to an improvement in key indica- (SGBV) tors, primarily at the economic level compared to the baseline and in comparison to nonbeneficiary Data indicate community awareness of SGBV is- control groups of both ex-combatants and com- sues; 55 percent of respondents reported that their munity peers. The data also point to some im- community is aware of SGBV and 59 percent be- provement in social indicators and generally reflect lieve that their community understands these is- success in promoting social reintegration and trust sues. Results further indicate that a greater number building among both ex-combatants and commu- of respondents were reached by SGBV sensitiza- nity members. Results on economic performance tion efforts during the course of the project, and tend to be more prominent, as reflected by home a lower yet significant number continued to be and assets ownership indicators among others. reached after project close. Meanwhile, among Several areas (such as key health and literacy in- nonbeneficiaries, 78 percent had been reached dicators) remain mixed, with no clear differences in the last 3 years and 62 percent in the last 12 between beneficiaries and nonbeneficiaries. For months. This difference is significant. The sexual example, the significant increase in beneficiary lit- violence awareness component of the project tar- eracy rates since the start of the project may reflect geted the community as a whole though radio and general improvements in the population; similar print materials in areas where both beneficiaries trends were observed across both beneficiary and and other female ex-combatants live. It can thus nonbeneficiary groups 24 months after project Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 13 closure. Indeed, it is important to recall that this D&R programs for particularly vulnerable groups study does not allow causality to be established, appears to be effective in strengthening socioeco- but simply provides an indication of prospects for nomic reintegration in this context. In particular, sustainability and promising approaches. targeting both ex-combatants and community members, based on standard vulnerability criteria, Project beneficiaries reported high levels of sat- to promote reconciliation emerges as a promising isfaction with the intervention, with 93 percent indicating that the project had specifically im- practice. proved their situation. But the point of reference SGBV activities should (i) complement sensitiza- remains very low: 68 percent of these respondents tion efforts with referrals to treatment and care rated their overall satisfaction with life as “bad” or providers and (ii) establish links with longer-term “rather bad.” initiatives that aim to change attitudes and prac- tices and include men—both during and after Recommendations project closure. The positive overall performance of project ben- The provision of childcare services is an emerging eficiaries and sustainability of project activities promising practice. Awareness of the value of such indicated by the research suggest that the project services could be raised by explaining the potential could successfully be replicated in other areas of negative effects on school attendance if older chil- the DRC. dren spend too much of their time caring for their Providing additional complementary support to younger siblings. 14 Annex 1a. Questionnaire (Project Beneficiaries: Female Ex-Combatants and Community Members) PROJET DE REINSERTION SOCIOECONOMIQUE DE 200 FEMMES A KINDU (EX-COMBATTANTES et COMMUNAUTE) Bénéficiaires du projet : (200 – 140 femmes ex-combattants et 60 membres de la communauté) Fiche bénéficiaire N°…………….. (1 à 200) NOM ………………………… Membre de la Communauté o Ex-combattant o (Ne pas poser la question, juste cocher la case à l’avance) N° QUESTIONS Cocher REPONSES Célibataire Marié(e) 1 Quel est votre état-civil ? Divorcé(e) Veuf(ve) Séparé(e) 01a Depuis quand ? (indiquer durée) |__|__| mois |__|__| années Oui 01b Si veuf (ve), avez-vous bénéficié de votre droit à l’héritage ? Non Oui 2 Savez-vous lire ? Non Oui 3 Savez-vous écrire ? Non Oui 4 Est-ce que vous avez eu un enfant depuis le début du projet ? Non Cet enfant est-il bien accepté par la communauté ? Oui 04a (Pour les ex-combattantes seulement) Non 0 fois Combien de fois avez-vous rendu visite à un médecin pour vous-même sur 5 Entre 1 et 3 fois les 6 derniers mois ? Jamais Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 15 Pas malade Trop loin de chez moi Je ne sais pas où aller Trop cher Si 0 ou jamais, pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi ? Mauvais accueil du 05a personnel de santé Plusieurs choix possible Autres : Expliquer : .......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 0 Combien de fois avez-vous emmené vos enfants voir un médecin sur les 6 6 Entre 1 et 3 fois derniers mois ? (maladie, vaccinations) Jamais Pas malade Trop loin de chez moi Si 0 ou jamais, pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi ? Je ne sais pas où 06a aller Plusieurs choix possible Trop cher Mauvais accueil du personnel de santé Oui Avez-vous acheté des médicaments cette année si vous ou vos enfants avez 7 Non été malades ? Pas malades Trop loin de chez moi Trop cher Autre : 07b Si Non, pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi ? Expliquer : .......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 fois 8 Combien de fois par jour vos enfants mangent-ils ? 2 fois 3 fois Est-ce que vos enfants s’entendent bien avec les autres enfants de la Oui 9 communauté ? Non Est-ce que vos enfants jouent avec les enfants d’Ex-combattants ? Oui 10 (pour les membres de la communauté seulement ? Non 16 Faites-vous partie d’un groupe ou association sportifs ou de Oui 11 divertissements ? Non 11a Si oui, depuis quand ? Indiquer durée |__|__| mois |__|__| années Femmes seulement Si oui, est-ce que ce groupe est composé de femmes ou d’hommes 11b Hommes seulement ? seulement Les deux Oui 11c Si oui, est-ce qu’il y a aussi des ex-combattants dans le groupe ? Non Ne sait pas Etes-vous membre d’un groupe d’épargne ou de crédit ? (en dehors du Oui 12 projet) Non 12a Si oui, depuis quand ? Indiquer durée |__|__| mois |__|__| années Femmes seulement Si oui, est-ce que ce groupe est composé de femmes ou d’hommes 12b Hommes seulement ? seulement Les deux Oui 12c Si oui, est-ce qu’il y a aussi des ex-combattants dans le groupe ? Non Ne sait pas Est-ce que vous faites partie d’une association qui traite des activités Oui 13 économiques, d’entreprenariat, ou de gestion ? Non 13a Si oui, depuis quand ? Indiquer durée |__|__| mois |__|__| années Femmes seulement Est-ce que cette association est composée de femmes ou d’hommes 13b Hommes seulement, ou des deux ? seulement Les deux Oui 13c Si oui, est-ce qu’il y a aussi des ex-combattants dans le groupe ? Non Ne sait pas 1 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimez-vous content/satisfait 2 14 de votre vie sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? (le niveau 1 3 représentant le niveau le plus bas de satisfaction) 4 5 Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 17 Avez-vous des amis parmi les membres de la communauté qui ne soient pas Oui 15 ex-combattants ? (pour les ex combattantes seulement) Non Avez-vous des amis parmi les ex-combattants ? (pour les membres de la Oui 16 communauté seulement ? Non 17 A quel point faites-vous confiance aux personnes suivantes ? Complètement Un peu A Les fonctionnaires du gouvernement ? Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup pas du tout Complètement Un peu B Le chef de votre quartier Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup pas du tout Complètement Un peu C Les aînés de votre communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu D Les femmes de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu E Les hommes de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu F Les femmes ex-combattantes de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu G Les hommes ex-combattants de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout 18 Complètement Un peu H Les gens qui ont rejoint récemment la communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu I Les gens en dehors de la communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu J Les professionnels de la santé (médecins, aides-soignants, infirmiers(ères) Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu K Enseignants Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Oui 18 Est-ce que vous êtes au courant de projets menés par la ville ? Non Est-ce que vous êtes au courant de projets menés par le quartier où vous Oui 19 habitez ? Non A pied A vélo 20 Comment-vous déplacez vous habituellement dans la ville ? Avec les transports Voiture Avez-vous acheté un nouvel objet pour votre maison/activité, d’une valeur Oui 21 de plus de 20$, depuis que vous avez commencé le projet ? Non Radio Téléphone Est-ce que l’un des membres de votre ménage possède l’un des objets portable suivants (acheté par votre ménage)? 22 Matelas Ecrire le nombre pour chaque objet Moustiquaire Vélo Oui 23 Etes-vous (votre ménage) propriétaire de votre logement ? Non Oui 24 Possédez-vous un terrain ? Non 0 à 250 ares 24 a Si oui, quelle taille fait votre terrain ? 250 à 500 ares 1 Ha et plus Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 19 0 à 250 ares 25 Si vous louez ou utilisez un terrain, quelle est sa superficie ? 250 à 500 ares 1 Ha et plus Moi Mon mari / ma 26 Au sein de votre ménage, qui gère les dépenses de la maison ? femme Nous deux Autre 26a Si Autre, merci de préciser qui 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimez-vous content/satisfait de 3 27 votre relation avec votre mari sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimiez-vous content/satisfait de 3 28 votre relation avec vos propres parents sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimiez-vous content/satisfait 3 29 de votre relation avec votre belle-mère sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimiez-vous content/satisfait 3 30 de votre relation avec votre belle-famille sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié Oui 31 A votre avis, est-il justifié qu’un mari frappe sa femme ? Non Cela dépend Infidélité Négliger les tâches ménagères Négliger les 31a Si cela dépend, quelles raisons sont acceptables ? enfants Sortir de la maison sans permission Autre 20 31b Si Autre, merci de préciser Est-ce que vous sortez voir des amis sans votre époux/se de temps en Oui 32 temps ? Non Oui 33 Est-ce que vous pensez que ce projet vous a aidé ? Non Si oui, de quelle manière ?(économiquement, socialement, humainement, 33a etc). Si non, pourquoi exactement ? (Qu’est-ce qui aurait pu être amélioré ou 33b qu’a-t-il manqué pour que le programme vous aide vraiment ?) Fait à Kindu, le / / Enquêteur _________________ Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 21 Annex 1b. Questionnaire (Control Groups: Female Ex-Combatants and Community Members) PROJET DE REINSERTION SOCIOECONOMIQUE DE 200 FEMMES A KINDU Groupe Contrôle non bénéficiaire du Projet – Ex-Combattantes Fiche Ex-combattantes N°……(GC1 à GC 100) NOM …………………………................................. N° QUESTIONS Cocher REPONSES Célibataire Marié(e) 1 Quel est votre état-civil ? Divorcé(e) Veuf(ve) Séparé(e) 01a Depuis combien de temps ? (indiquer durée) |__|__| mois |__|__| années Oui 01b Si veuf (ve), avez-vous bénéficié de votre droit à l’héritage ? Non Oui 2 Savez-vous lire ? Non Oui 3 Savez-vous écrire ? Non Est-ce que vous avez eu un enfant depuis Janvier 2009 ? (un enfant âgé de Oui 4 moins de deux ans et demi) Non Oui 04a Cet enfant est-il bien accepté par la communauté ? Non 0 fois Combien de fois avez-vous rendu visite à un médecin pour vous-même sur 5 Entre 1 et 3 fois les 6 derniers mois ? Jamais 22 Pas malade Trop loin de chez moi Je ne sais pas où aller Si 0 ou jamais, pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi ? Trop cher Mauvais accueil 05a du personnel de santé Plusieurs choix possible Autres : Expliquer : .......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 0 Combien de fois avez-vous emmené vos enfants voir un médecin sur les 6 6 Entre 1 et 3 fois derniers mois ? (maladie, vaccinations) Jamais Pas malade Trop loin de chez moi Si 0 ou jamais, pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi ? Je ne sais pas où 06a aller Plusieurs choix possible Trop cher Mauvais accueil du personnel de santé Oui Avez-vous acheté des médicaments cette année si vous ou vos enfants avez 7 Non été malades ? Pas malades Trop loin de chez moi Trop cher Autre : 07b Si Non, pouvez-vous expliquer pourquoi ? Expliquer : .......... ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 1 fois 8 Combien de fois par jour vos enfants mangent-ils ? 2 fois 3 fois Oui Est-ce que vos enfants s’entendent bien avec les autres enfants de la 9 Non communauté (qui ne sont pas ex-combattants) ? Non Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 23 Faites-vous partie d’un groupe ou association sportifs ou de Oui 10 divertissements ? Non 10a Si oui, depuis quand ? Indiquer durée |__|__| mois |__|__| années Femmes seulement Si oui, est-ce que ce groupe est composé de femmes ou d’hommes 10b Hommes seulement ? seulement Les deux Oui 10c Si oui, est-ce qu’il y a aussi des ex-combattants dans le groupe ? Non Ne sait pas Etes-vous membre d’un groupe d’épargne ou de crédit ? (en dehors du Oui 11 projet) Non 11a Si oui, depuis quand ? Indiquer durée |__|__| mois |__|__| années Femmes seulement Si oui, est-ce que ce groupe est composé de femmes ou d’hommes 11b Hommes seulement ? seulement Les deux Oui 11c Si oui, est-ce qu’il y a aussi des ex-combattants dans le groupe ? Non Ne sait pas Est-ce que vous faites partie d’une association qui traite des activités Oui 12 économiques, d’entreprenariat, ou de gestion ? Non 12a Si oui, depuis quand ? Indiquer durée |__|__| mois |__|__| années Femmes seulement Est-ce que cette association est composée de femmes ou d’hommes 12b Hommes seulement, ou des deux ? seulement Les deux Oui 12c Si oui, est-ce qu’il y a aussi des ex-combattants dans le groupe ? Non Ne sait pas 1 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimez-vous content/satisfait 2 13 de votre vie sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? (le niveau 1 3 représentant le niveau le plus bas de satisfaction) 4 5 Avez-vous des amis parmi les membres de la communauté qui ne soient pas Oui 14 ex-combattants ? Non 15 A quel point faites-vous confiance aux personnes suivantes ? 24 Complètement Un peu A Les fonctionnaires du gouvernement ? Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup pas du tout Complètement Un peu B Le chef de votre quartier Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup pas du tout Complètement Un peu C Les aînés de votre communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu D Les femmes de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu E Les hommes de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu F Les femmes ex-combattantes de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu G Les hommes ex-combattants de cette communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu H Les gens qui ont rejoint récemment la communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 25 Complètement Un peu I Les gens en dehors de la communauté Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu J Les professionnels de la santé (médecins, aides-soignants, infirmiers(ères) Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Complètement Un peu K Enseignants Pas d’avis Pas beaucoup Pas du tout Oui 16 Est-ce que vous êtes au courant de projets menés par la ville ? Non Est-ce que vous êtes au courant de projets menés par le quartier où vous Oui 17 habitez ? Non A pied A vélo 18 Comment-vous déplacez vous habituellement dans la ville ? Avec les transports Voiture Avez-vous acheté un nouvel objet pour votre maison/activité, d’une valeur Oui 19 de plus de 20$, depuis que vous avez commencé le projet ? Non Radio Téléphone Est-ce que l’un des membres de votre ménage possède l’un des objets portable suivants (acheté par votre ménage)? 20 Matelas Ecrire le nombre pour chaque objet Moustiquaire Vélo Oui 21 Etes-vous (votre ménage) propriétaire de votre logement ? Non Oui 22 Possédez-vous un terrain ? Non 0 à 250 ares 22 a Si oui, quelle taille fait votre terrain ? 250 à 500 ares 1 Ha et plus 0 à 250 ares 23 Si vous louez ou utilisez un terrain, quelle est sa superficie ? 250 à 500 ares 1 Ha et plus 26 Moi Mon mari / ma 24 Au sein de votre ménage, qui gère les dépenses de la maison ? femme Nous deux Autre 24a Si Autre, merci de préciser qui 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimez-vous content/satisfait de 3 25 votre relation avec votre mari sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimiez-vous content/satisfait de 3 26 votre relation avec vos propres parents sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimiez-vous content/satisfait 3 27 de votre relation avec votre belle-mère sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié 1 2 Si vous deviez la noter, à quel point vous estimiez-vous content/satisfait 3 28 de votre relation avec votre belle-famille sur une échelle de 1 à 5, à l’heure actuelle ? 4 5 Pas approprié Oui 29 A votre avis, est-il justifié qu’un mari frappe sa femme ? Non Cela dépend Infidélité Négliger les tâches ménagères Négliger les 29a Si cela dépend, quelles raisons sont acceptables ? enfants Sortir de la maison sans permission Autre 29b Si Autre, merci de préciser Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 27 Est-ce que vous sortez voir des amis sans votre époux/se de temps en Oui 30 temps ? Non Oui 31 Est-ce que vous pensez que le programme (PNDDR) vous a aidé ? Non 31a Si oui, de quelle manière ? Si non, pourquoi exactement ? (Qu’est-ce qui aurait pu être amélioré ou qu’a-t-il 31b manqué pour que le programme vous aide vraiment ?) Fait à Kindu, le / / Enquêteur _________________ 28 Annex 2. Methodological Recommendations for Further Research -- This questionnaire could be replicated on a representative sample of members of the community to serve as an additional control group (although this was considered for the present study, the time frame restricted this possibility). -- Results from certain sections of the questionnaire would be further reinforced by an additional quali- tative phase, for example, those around sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) knowledge, atti- tudes, and practice and perspectives on childcare services. -- Details on access to information obtained thorough the questionnaire (questions 19 and 20) would be further enhanced through the addition of questions on the following: (i) the precise channels of information and (ii) the type of projects that respondents were aware of. -- Awareness of SGBV issues could be further raise by adding a subquestion to understand exactly through what mechanism respondents became aware of such issues. Focus group discussions could also be added to understand further the relatively high rate of awareness versus a low shift in percep- tions of domestic violence as a “norm.” -- With regard to childcare services, focus group discussions would be valuable to further understand the low utilization rates in relation to the high levels of satisfaction for those who made use of the services. -- Reponses with regard to access to health services could be further strengthened by providing a list of specific options to select from and additional space to allow for more specific explanations for “other.” -- In light of some unexpected results in relation to the question on land ownership and rental—that several respondents reported to be both owners and renters of an additional land—it would be of value to further explore such findings through focus group discussions. Reintegration opportunities for vulnerable households of ex-combatants demobilized through PNDDR: An overview of the socioeconomic situation of pilot project beneficiaries two years following project closure 29 THE WORLD BANK 1818 H, Street N.W. Washington, D.C. 20433 www.logica-wb.org