Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Response Post-Earthquake

Final Report for Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 09/22/2016 Submitted To CONCERN Worldwide by Socio-Dig  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ACRONYMS ACF Action Contre Le Faim ACTED Agency for Technical Cooperation and Development ARC American Red Cross AGR Income Generating Activities CARE Cooperative for Assistance and Relief Everywhere CNSA Coordination Nationale de la Securite Alimentaire CW Concern Worldwide EU European Union ECHO European Commission Host Organization IDP Internally Displaced People IOM International Organization for Migrations IGA Income-Generating Activity Ministere des Travaux Publics, Transports et Communications MTPTC (Haitian Ministry of Public Works, Transport and Communica- tions) NGO Non-Governmental Organization PDNA Post Disaster Needs Assessment UN United Nations UNDP United Nations Development Programme UNICEF United Nations Children’s Fund USAID United States Agency for International Development WV World Vision ii Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS CONCERN Worldwide Carine Pierre Richemond Kesnel Melissa Acar UCLBP Joelle Fontilus ECHO Segolene DE-BECO Carline Jean-Paul Jordi Torres OIM Fabien Sambussy TORRES Amalia HelpAge Jean-Marie Zephirin ACTED Emilie Bernard Goal Carl Henri Jacques Florian Meyer Zoe Jordan CRF Marie DOZIN CRC Michel Lefbvre CRA Anna Konotchick JPHRO Starry Sprenkle Gary Philoctete iii Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements CONTRIBUTORS Team Leader Timothy T. Schwartz Consultants Harold Maas Damien Bouchon Logistics and Accounting Stephanie Pierre Survey Supervisors Pharrel Emile Othelo Bisnet Intervol Jude Egain Ambeau Field Surveyors Marckenson Emile Sylvestre Prophete Jeudy Lucner Rose-Yolande Desir Reaud Previlus Jackly Beautelus Chadson Pierre Lanel Pierre Renaud Emile Natcha Beauvil Louiceus Ozias Wedson Beautelus Hilaire Domesvard Telephone Surveyors Stephanie Pierre Almathe Jean Jhonny Jean Berline Clertide Focus Groups Animateurs Almathe Jean Pharrel Emile Stephanie Pierre Timothy T. Schwartz Focus Group Transcribers Amelie Odney Almathe Jean Berline Clertide Focus Group Report and Translation Almathe Jean iv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ....................................................................................................................................... A CAVEATS .................................................................................................................................................................. A IMPACT OF RENTAL SUBSIDY AND SIMPLY GETTING OUT OF THE CAMPS ............................................................................... B THE TEST ................................................................................................................................................................ B FINDINGS ................................................................................................................................................................. C MAJOR LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .....................................................................................................................F 1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE ................................................................................................1 OTHER STUDIES OF IMPACT ......................................................................................................................................... 2 Oxfam Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 2 CARE International ........................................................................................................................................... 3 Large N Analysis ............................................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE PRESENT STUDY: ANALYTIC STRATEGY AND IMPORTANT CAVEATS ...................................................4 MODIFICATION OF THE ORIGINAL RESEARCH STRATEGY ..................................................................................................... 4 UTILITY OF THE ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................................................ 6 SPECIFIC PACKAGES .................................................................................................................................................... 7 3. METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................................................................... 10 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................................................................................................................................... 10 INTERVIEWS WITH IMPLEMENTING PARTNERS................................................................................................................ 10 FOCUS GROUPS ....................................................................................................................................................... 10 SURVEY .................................................................................................................................................................. 11 Sampling Strategy .......................................................................................................................................... 11 Questionnaire ................................................................................................................................................. 13 4. IMPACT OF RENTAL SUBSIDIES ................................................................................................................ 15 INFRASTRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................................................... 15 RENTAL SUBSIDY RENEWALS ...................................................................................................................................... 16 Assets ............................................................................................................................................................. 17 5. TEST OF TRAINING AND AID MONEY IMPACT .......................................................................................... 18 THE EXPLANATORY VARIABLES.................................................................................................................................... 19 Money ............................................................................................................................................................ 19 Training .......................................................................................................................................................... 20 Tools and Materials Received......................................................................................................................... 21 The Organizations .......................................................................................................................................... 21 THE RESPONSE VARIABLES ......................................................................................................................................... 21 THE STATISTICAL TESTS ............................................................................................................................................. 22 RESPONSE VARIABLE 1: LEFT HOUSE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS ........................................................................................ 24 Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ ......................................................................... 24 ‘Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ ........................................................................................... 25 ‘Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ................................................................................... 25 RESPONSE VARIABLE 2: HOUSEHOLD TENURE STATUS .................................................................................................... 26 ‘Household Tenure’ Status and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid money Received’ ................................................. 26 ‘Household Tenure Status’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ .................................................................... 27 ‘Household Tenure’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ....................................................................... 27 RESPONSE VARIABLE 3: FAMILY STABILITY .................................................................................................................... 28 v  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ ................................................................ 28 Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Trainings’ ................................................................................... 29 ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ............................................................................ 29 RESPONSE VARIABLE 4: ASSET SCORE ......................................................................................................................... 30 Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ ........................................................................ 30 Asset Score and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ .......................................................................................... 31 Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ ................................................................................. 31 ‘Asset Score’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ .................................................................................. 31 RESPONSE VARIABLE 5: BREADWINNER STATUS ............................................................................................................. 32 Breadwinner Status and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ ........................................................... 32 Breadwinner Status & Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ ....................................................................... 33 ‘Breadwinner Status’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ..................................................................... 33 RESPONSE VARIABLE 6: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL ............................................................................................................... 34 Children in School and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ .............................................................. 34 Children in School and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ ................................................................................ 35 Children in School and Explanatory Variables: ‘Tools Materials Received’ ................................................... 35 ‘Children in School’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ........................................................................ 35 RESPONSE VARIABLE 7: INFORMAL ROTATING SAVINGS GROUPS ...................................................................................... 36 Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ ................................................................ 36 Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ ................................................................................. 37 Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ ....................................................... 37 ‘Rotating Savings Groups’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ............................................................. 37 RESPONSE VARIABLE 8: OUTLOOK FOR THE APPROACHING YEAR....................................................................................... 38 ‘Outlook’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ ............................................................................ 38 OUTLOOK AND EXPLANATORY VARIABLE ‘TRAINING’....................................................................................................... 39 Outlook and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ ..................................................................... 39 ‘Outlook’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ ....................................................................................... 39 6. MAJOR LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................... 41 7. WORKS CITED .......................................................................................................................................... 43 ANNEX A. CLOSING THE CAMPS AND SUBSIDIES .......................................................................................... I ANNEX B. DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE ................................................................................. IV POPULATION STRUCTURE ........................................................................................................................................... IV Age and sex of Respondents in survey compared to metropolitan population ............................................... iv Age and Sex of All Household Members in Survey Compared to Metropolitan Population ............................. v Household Size and Structure .......................................................................................................................... vi Gender ............................................................................................................................................................viii Small Male Headed Households .....................................................................................................................viii Education ......................................................................................................................................................... x VULNERABILITY AND LIVELIHOOD ..................................................................................................................................XI ASSETS ................................................................................................................................................................... XII RENT AND OWNERSHIP .............................................................................................................................................. XII Floor Type, House Size, Cost and Latrine ........................................................................................................xiii INCOME, OCCUPATIONS AND SKILLS .............................................................................................................................XV URBANIZATION AND THE SUBSIDY RESPONDENTS CONNECTION TO RURAL AREAS ............................................................... XVII IMPACT OF EARTHQUAKE........................................................................................................................................... XIX Property.......................................................................................................................................................... xix Injury and Death............................................................................................................................................. xix Refuge in Rural Areas and Moving to Camps ..................................................................................................xx CAMPS .................................................................................................................................................................. XXI MOVING OUT OF THE CAMPS................................................................................................................................... XXIV vi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements QUALITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE ................................................................................................................................... XXV Improved Living Standards .......................................................................................................................... xxvii EVALUATING POST-CAMP CHANGES IN LIVING STANDARDS...........................................................................................XXVIII ANNEX C. ANALYSIS OF TRAINING AND RESPONSE VARIABLES ............................................................... XXX RESPONSE VARIABLE 1: LEFT HOUSE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS ....................................................................................... XXX Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ ........................................................................................... xxx Left House & Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ ................................................................................... xxxii RESPONSE VARIABLE 2: HOUSEHOLD TENURE STATUS ..................................................................................................XXXII Household Tenure Status and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ ................................................................... xxxii Household Tenure Status and Tools/Material Received ............................................................................ xxxiii RESPONSE VARIABLE 3: FAMILY STABILITY ................................................................................................................. XXXIII ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Trainings’ .............................................................................. xxxiii ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ ................................................... xxxiv RESPONSE VARIABLE 4: ASSET SCORE ....................................................................................................................... XXXV Asset Score and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ ....................................................................................... xxxv Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ ............................................................................. xxxvi RESPONSE VARIABLE 5: BREADWINNER STATUS ..........................................................................................................XXXVI Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ ........................................................................................ xxxvi Breadwinner & Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ ............................................................................. xxxvii RESPONSE VARIABLE 6: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL ........................................................................................................... XXXVII Children in School and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ ........................................................................... xxxvii Children in School and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ .............................................. xxxviii RESPONSE VARIABLE 7: INFORMAL ROTATING SAVINGS GROUPS ................................................................................... XXXIX Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ ............................................................................. xxxix Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ ........................................................ xl RESPONSE VARIABLE 8: OUTLOOK FOR THE APPROACHING YEAR........................................................................................ XL Outlook and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ .................................................................................................. xl Outlook and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ ......................................................................xli ANNEX D. FOCUS GROUPS ........................................................................................................................ XLII BENEFIT PACKAGES .................................................................................................................................................. XLII TARGETING ............................................................................................................................................................ XLII DISTRIBUTION ........................................................................................................................................................ XLII CONTEXT............................................................................................................................................................... XLII SPECIFIC TARGET QUESTIONS AND ISSUES TO BE USED DURING FOCUS GROUP................................................................. XLVI Camps............................................................................................................................................................ xlvi Assistance, Livelihood Packages And Igas .................................................................................................... xlvii FOCUS GROUP GUIDE: BENEFICIARIES (KREYOL) ........................................................................................................ XLVIII KESYON SIBLE PANDAN FOKIS GWOUP........................................................................................................................XLIX KAN................................................................................................................................................................ xlix Asistans: Pakej Livelihood Yo, Igas .................................................................................................................... l STAFF FOCUS GROUP GUIDE (ENGLISH) ....................................................................................................................... LI STAFF FOCUS GROUP GUIDE (KREYOL)........................................................................................................................... LI SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................................................ LI CAMP FOCUS GROUP REPORT ...................................................................................................................................... LI The Earthquake ............................................................................................................................................... lii Life in the Camps ............................................................................................................................................ liii Humanitarian Aid Agencies in the Camps ...................................................................................................... liv Opportunists and Corruption ......................................................................................................................... liv Eviction and Pressure to Leave the Camps ...................................................................................................... lv The Rental Subsidy Program .......................................................................................................................... lvi The Burden of Rent ........................................................................................................................................lviii vii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements TRANSLATION FOR FOCUS GROUP CAMP #10 STAFF #2 .................................................................................................. LIX Participants .....................................................................................................................................................lix Socio Dig Staff Presentation ............................................................................................................................lix ANNEX E. QUESTIONNAIRE ................................................................................................................. LXXXV Sampling.................................................................................................................................................... lxxxvi Control Groups: ........................................................................................................................................ lxxxvii Survey Complications ............................................................................................................................... lxxxvii Phase 3—Draft questionnaire: .................................................................................................................. lxxxix ANNEX F. THE GREATEST LESSON........................................................................................................... XCVI Growing Camps ............................................................................................................................................ xcvi Absurdity of the Numbers ............................................................................................................................ xcvi THE PROBLEM OF ENDEMIC OPPORTUNISM AND AID CAPTURE....................................................................................... XCIX ANNEX G: PHASE 1 CONTACTS .......................................................................................................................... CI ENDNOTES ....................................................................................................................................................... CII viii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements FIGURES FIGURE 1: IOM HOUSING ASSISTANCE AND CAMP CLOSURE PROCESS .................................................................... 9 FIGURE 2: ORIGINAL SAMPLING TARGET.......................................................................................................... 12 FIGURE 3: GPS POINTS SHOWING DISTRIBUTION SAMPLE. COORDINATES RECORDED BY SURVEYORS ON TABLET DEVICES ........................................................................................................................................................... 14 FIGURE 4: LEFT ORIGINAL SUBSIDY HOUSE (N=1,399) ...................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 5: STILL IN HOUSE OR LEFT FOR NON-ECONOMIC REASONS ..................................................................... 16 FIGURE 6: YEAR LEFT CAMP BY STILL IN SUBSIDIZED HOME ................................................................................ 16 FIGURE 7: REASONS LEFT SUBSIDY HOUSE ...................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 8: EXPLANATORY AND RESPONSE VARIABLE MODEL ............................................................................... 18 FIGURE 9: PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS RECEIVED AID MONEY BY AMOUNT CATEGORIES .................................... 20 FIGURE 10: AVERAGE MONEY RECEIVED .......................................................................................................... 20 FIGURE 11: TOTAL MONEY RECEIVED BY STILL IN HOUSE OR LEFT HOUSE FOR NON-ECONOMIC REASONS ................. 24 FIGURE 12: LEFT HOUSE BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING........................................................................................ 25 FIGURE 13: CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR REMAINED IN HOUSE OR MOVED FOR NON-ECONOMIC REASONS BY ORGANIZATION...................................................................................................................................... 25 FIGURE 14: CURRENT STATUS IN HOUSE WHERE LIVING .................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 15: TOTAL MONEY RECEIVED BY HOUSE TENURE.................................................................................... 26 FIGURE 17: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY BUSINESS SKILLS ........................................................................................ 27 FIGURE 16: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ............................................................................ 27 FIGURE 18: HOUSEHOLD TENURE STATUS BY ORGANIZATION .............................................................................. 27 FIGURE 19: MARRIAGE STATUS AT TIME OF SURVEY.......................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 20: STILL WITH SAME SPOUSE IN CAMP (N=921) ................................................................................... 28 FIGURE 21: AID MONEY BY NO LONGER WITH SPOUSE....................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 22: FAMILY STABILITY BY LIFE SKILLS TRAINING ...................................................................................... 29 FIGURE 23: NO LONGER WITH SPOUSE BY ORGANIZATION .................................................................................. 30 FIGURE 24: RECEIVED MONEY BY ASSETS SCORE ............................................................................................... 30 FIGURE 25: RECEIVED MONEY BY ASSETS SCORE SCATTER (HTG)........................................................................ 30 FIGURE 26: CONFIDENCE INTERVALS FOR AID MONEY BY ASSET SCORE (N=1,399) ................................................ 31 FIGURE 27: ASSETS SCORE BY ADULT EDUCATION.............................................................................................. 31 FIGURE 28: ASSET CHANGE BY ORGANIZATION. ................................................................................................ 32 FIGURE 29: AID MONEY BY INCREASED BREADWINNER STATUS ........................................................................... 32 FIGURE 30: CHANGE IN BREADWINNER STATUS BY RECEIVED TOOLS .................................................................... 33 FIGURE 31: POSITIVE CHANGE IN BREADWINNER STATUS BY ORGANIZATION ........................................................ 33 FIGURE 32: CHILDREN AGED 6 TO 18 YEARS ATTENDING SCHOOL PER RESPONDENT HOUSEHOLD ............................. 34 FIGURE 33: NOT ALL SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY AID MONEY .............................................................. 34 FIGURE 34: NOT ALL SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY ORGANIZATION ........................................................ 35 FIGURE 35: PARTICPATION IN ROTATING SAVINGS GROUP BY GENDER AND TIME ................................................... 36 FIGURE 36: INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN ROTATING SAVINGS GROUP BY AID MONEY ............................................ 36 FIGURE 37: INCREASED PARTICIPATION IN ROTATING SAVINGS GROUP BY ORGANIZATION ....................................... 37 FIGURE 38: NEGATIVE OUTLOOK FOR COMING YEAR ......................................................................................... 38 ix  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements FIGURE 39: OUTLOOK BY AID MONEY ............................................................................................................. 39 FIGURE 40: OUTLOOK BY BUSINESS SKILLS TRAINING ......................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 41: NEGATIVE OUTLOOK BY ORGANIZATION .......................................................................................... 40 ANNEX FIGURE 1: CHANGE IN CAMP POPULATIONS, NUMBER OF CAMPS, TOTAL RENTAL SUBSIDY BENEFICIARIES ............................................................................................................................................................. II ANNEX FIGURE 2: REASONS FOR LEAVING CAMPS UP UNTIL 2014......................................................................... III ANNEX FIGURE 3: REASONS FOR CLOSING CAMPS UP UNTIL 2014 ........................................................................ III ANNEX FIGURE 4: EVICTIONS VS. SUBSIDIES (HOUSEHOLDS) ................................................................................. III ANNEX FIGURE 5: COMPAIROSN OF RESPONDENT SAMPLES TO GENERAL POPULATION OF P-AU-P ............................. IV ANNEX FIGURE 6: DIVISION OF SURVEY RESPONDENTS BY SEX AND AGE .................................................................. V ANNEX FIGURE 7: METROPOLITAN AREA POPULATION SEX AND AGE STRUCTURE ..................................................... V ANNEX FIGURE 8: COMBINED TOTAL POPULATION OF ALL SAMPLED HOUSEHOLDS ................................................... V ANNEX FIGURE 9: P-AU-P STRUCTURE ............................................................................................................... V ANNEX FIGURE 10: COMMUNE OF RESIDENCE WHEN THE EARTHQUAKE STRUCK (N=1,399) .................................... VI ANNEX FIGURE 11: OVERALL HOUSEHOLD SIZE IN CAMPS VS. SUBSIDY SAMPLE HOUSEHOLD SIZE .............................. VI ANNEX FIGURE 12: HOUSEHOLD TYPE/HEADSHIP SUBSIDY ................................................................................ VIII ANNEX FIGURE 13: COMPARISON FOR ADULTS (18 YRS +) AND CHILDREN.............................................................. IX ANNEX FIGURE 14: COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD SIZE FOR CAMP SUBSIDY SAMPLE 2016 VS. CAMPS IOM 2012 ...... IX ANNEX FIGURE 15: COMPARISON OF AVERAGE NUMBER OF CHILDREN PER SINGLE FEMALE VS. SINGLE MALE VS. MALE- FEMALE HEADED HOUSEHOLD .................................................................................................................. IX ANNEX FIGURE 16: EDUCATION OF SAMPLE BY SEX ............................................................................................. X ANNEX FIGURE 17: NO SCHOOL OR INCOMPLETE PRIMARY IN CAMP SUBSIDY SURVEY VS. GENERAL CAMP POPULATION VS. GENERAL POPULATION ........................................................................................................................ X ANNEX FIGURE 18: DISABILITIES: SUBSIDY SAMPLE 2016 VS. HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL 2012 ............................... XI ANNEX FIGURE 19: VULNERABLE PEOPLE IN THE HOUSEHOLD............................................................................. XII ANNEX FIGURE 20: RENTERS & OWNERS FOR SUBSIDY RESPONDENTS VS. GENERAL METRO POPULATION 2001 AND USAID/BARR SURVEYS 2010.................................................................................................................XIII ANNEX FIGURE 21: COMPARISON OF TOILET TYPES............................................................................................XIII ANNEX FIGURE 22: COMPARISON OF FLOOR TYPES ............................................................................................XIII ANNEX FIGURE 23: NUMBER OF ROOMS IN HOUSE .......................................................................................... XIV ANNEX FIGURE 24: EVIDENCE OF BEING SIGNIFICANTLY DISADVANTAGED ............................................................ XIV ANNEX FIGURE 25: NOT THE POOREST OF THE URBAN POOR .............................................................................. XV ANNEX FIGURE 26: COST OF ANNUAL RENT IN 2009 ......................................................................................... XV ANNEX FIGURE 27: DEPARTMENT OF ORIGIN ..................................................................................................XVII ANNEX FIGURE 28: AGE SURVEY RESPONDENTS ARRIVED IN PORT-AU-PRINCE......................................................XVII ANNEX FIGURE 29: YEARS IN PORT-AU-PRINCE FOR SUBSIDY RESPONDENTS ........................................................ XVIII ANNEX FIGURE 30: HAS CLOSE RURAL FAMILY ................................................................................................ XVIII ANNEX FIGURE 31: OWNS LAND IN A RURAL AREA .......................................................................................... XVIII ANNEX FIGURE 32: REPORTED DAMAGE TO HOUSE DURING EARTHQUAKE ............................................................XIX ANNEX FIGURE 33: PROPERTY REPORTEDLY LOST DURING EARTHQUAKE...............................................................XIX ANNEX FIGURE 34: PROPORTION OF POPULATION KILLED DURING THE EARTHQUAKE ............................................. XX x  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ANNEX FIGURE 35: WENT TO RURAL AREA WHEN EARTHQUAKE HIT ................................................................... XX ANNEX FIGURE 36: TIME SPENT IN THE PROVINCE AFTER THE EARTHQUAKE .......................................................... XX ANNEX FIGURE 37: WHEN ARRIVED IN CAMPS.................................................................................................. XX ANNEX FIGURE 38: YEARS IN CAMP.................................................................................................................XXI ANNEX FIGURE 39: TIME/WALKING DISTANCE FROM CAMP TO FORMER RESIDENCE ..............................................XXI ANNEX FIGURE 40: MAIN REASON WHY STAYED IN CAMP .................................................................................XXI ANNEX FIGURE 41: WHY CHOSE AREA........................................................................................................... XXIV ANNEX FIGURE 42: HAD ‘PEOPLE’ IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ................................................................................XXV ANNEX FIGURE 43: RELATIONSHIP OF RENTER TO HOME OWNER .......................................................................XXV ANNEX FIGURE 44: CURRENT STATUS IN HOUSE WHERE LIVING ...................................................................... XXVIII ANNEX FIGURE 45: CONFIDENCE INTERVAL FOR TEST OF CAUSE OF PEOPLE HAVING RETURNED TO CAMPS, TENT, OR LIVING WITH OTHER FAMILY ................................................................................................................. XXIX ANNEX FIGURE 46: LEFT HOUSE BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ............................................................................. XXX ANNEX FIGURE 47: LEFT HOUSE BY BUSINSESS SKILLS TRAINING ......................................................................... XXX ANNEX FIGURE 48: LEFT HOUSE BY LIFE SKILLS TRAINING .................................................................................. XXX ANNEX FIGURE 49: LEFT HOUSE BY ADULT EDUCATION ..................................................................................... XXX ANNEX FIGURE 50: LEFT HOUSE FOR ECONOMIC REASONS BY RECEIVED TOOLS .................................................. XXXII ANNEX FIGURE 51: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY BUSINES SKILLS ............................................................................. XXXII ANNEX FIGURE 51: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ............................................................... XXXII ANNEX FIGURE 53: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY LIFE SKILLS .................................................................................. XXXIII ANNEX FIGURE 54: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY ADULT EDUCATION ...................................................................... XXXIII ANNEX FIGURE 55: HOUSEHOLD STATUS BY RECEIVED TOOLS/MATERIALS ........................................................ XXXIII ANNEX FIGURE 56: FAMILY STABILITY BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING .................................................................. XXXIV ANNEX FIGURE 57: FAMILY STABILITY BY BUSINESS SKILLS TRAINING ................................................................ XXXIV ANNEX FIGURE 59: FAMILY STABILITY BY LIFE SKILLS TRAINING ........................................................................ XXXIV ANNEX FIGURE 59: FAMILY STABILITY BY ADULT EDUCATION........................................................................... XXXIV ANNEX FIGURE 60: FAMILY STABILITY BY RECEIVED TOOLS .............................................................................. XXXIV ANNEX FIGURE 61: ASSETS SCORE BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ........................................................................ XXXV ANNEX FIGURE 62: ASSETS SCORE BY BUSINESS SKILLS .................................................................................... XXXV ANNEX FIGURE 63: ASSETS SCORE BY LIFE SKILLS............................................................................................ XXXV ANNEX FIGURE 64: ASSETS SCORE BY ADULT EDUCATION ................................................................................ XXXV ANNEX FIGURE 65: ASSETS SCORE BY RECEIVED TOOLS .................................................................................. XXXVI ANNEX FIGURE 66: CHANGE OF BREADWINNER STATUS BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING .......................................... XXXVI ANNEX FIGURE 67: CHANGE OF BREADWINNER STATUS BY BUSINESS SKILLS ...................................................... XXXVI ANNEX FIGURE 68: CHANGE OF BREADWINNER STATUS BY LIFE SKILLS............................................................. XXXVII ANNEX FIGURE 69: CHANGE OF BREADWINNER STATUS BY ADULT EDUCATION ................................................. XXXVII ANNEX FIGURE 70: CHANGE OF BREADWINNER STATUS BY RERCEIVED TOOLS .................................................. XXXVII ANNEX FIGURE 71: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING ........................................................... XXXVIII ANNEX FIGURE 72: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY BUSINESS SKILLS ....................................................................... XXXVIII ANNEX FIGURE 73: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY ADULT EDUCATION ................................................................... XXXVIII ANNEX FIGURE 74: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY LIFE SKILLS ............................................................................... XXXVIII ANNEX FIGURE 75: CHILDREN IN SCHOOL BY RECEIVED TOOLS....................................................................... XXXVIII xi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ANNEX FIGURE 76: PARTICIPATION IN SAVINGS GROUP BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING .......................................... XXXIX ANNEX FIGURE 77: PARTICIPATION IN SAVINGS GROUP BY BUISNESS SKILLS TRAINING ........................................ XXXIX ANNEX FIGURE 78: PARTICIPATION IN SAVINGS GROUP BY LIFE SKILLS TRAINING ................................................ XXXIX ANNEX FIGURE 79: PARTICIPATION IN SAVINGS GROUP BY ADULT EDUCATION................................................... XXXIX ANNEX FIGURE 80: ROTATING SAVINGS GROUP BY RECEIVED TOOLS/MATERIALS.................................................... XL ANNEX FIGURE 81: OUTLOOK BY PROFESSIONAL TRAINING .................................................................................. XL ANNEX FIGURE 82: OUTLOOK BY BUSINESS SKILLS TRAINING ................................................................................ XL ANNEX FIGURE 83: OUTLOOK BY LIFE SKILLS..................................................................................................... XLI ANNEX FIGURE 84: OUTLOOK BY ADULT EDUCATION ......................................................................................... XLI ANNEX FIGURE 85: OUTLOOK BY RECEIVED TOOLS ............................................................................................ XLI ANNEX FIGURE 47: P-AU-P HSHLD OCCUPANCY LEVELS PER RESIDENCE PER MTPTC COLOR ................................ XCVII ANNEX FIGURE 48: HOME RETURNS BY MONTH USAID/BARR SURVEY 2010 ................................................... XCVII xii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements TABLES TABLE 1: LIVELIHOOD PACKAGES USED IN CAMP RELOCATIONS, 2010-2015 ............................................................ 8 TABLE 2: ORGANIZATIONS THAT GAVE TYPES OF TRAINING AS REPORT BY PARTICIPANTS ........................................... 8 TABLE 3: OCCUPATION OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSANTS .................................................................................... 10 TABLE 4: ADDRESS/NEIGHBORHOOD OF FOCUS GROUP DISCUSSANTS ................................................................. 11 TABLE 5: NGOS THAT HELPED DISCUSSANTS .................................................................................................... 11 TABLE 6: TARGETED VS. INTERVIEWED ............................................................................................................. 13 TABLE 8: CHANGES IN HOUSE INFRASTRUCTURE, SANITATION FACILITIES, WATER, AND COST ................................... 15 TABLE 9: CHANGE IN ASSETS FROM BEFORE EARTHQUAKE TO CAMP TO TIME OF SURVEY ........................................ 17 TABLE 10: TOTAL MONEY RECEIVED BY LEFT HOUSE FOR ECONOMIC VS. NON- ECONOMIC REASONS ........................ 24 TABLE 11: AID MONEY BY NO LONGER WITH SPOUSE ........................................................................................ 29 TABLE 12: NOT ALL SCHOOL-AGE CHILDREN IN SCHOOL ..................................................................................... 35 TABLE 13: PARTICIPATION SAVINGS BY AID MONEY ........................................................................................... 37 TABLE 14: OUTLOOK BY AID MONEY ............................................................................................................... 38 ANNEX TABLE 1: COMPARISON OF HOUSEHOLD SIZES BY GENDER, ORGANIZATION, CAMP, GENERAL POPULATION, AND SUBSIDY SAMPLE BEFORE EARTHQUAKE, CAMPS AND AFTER SUBSIDY ............................................................ VII ANNEX TABLE 2: COMPARISON OF EDUCATION LEVEL BY GENDER FOR GENERAL METRO, CAMP METRO, AND SUBSIDY SAMPLE POPULATIONS............................................................................................................................. XI ANNEX TABLE 3: ASSETS: SUBSIDY SAMPLE VS. POPULATION ............................................................................... XII ANNEX TABLE 4: COMPARISON OF SAMPLE TO GENERAL POPULATION OF PORT-AU-PRINCE .................................... XV ANNEX TABLE 5: COUNTS OF RESPONDENTS PER BREADWINNING CATEGORY AND INCOME GENERATING ACTIVITY..... XVI ANNEX TABLE 6: LEFT CAMP AND RETURNED AND/ OR LIVED IN MORE THAN ONE CAMP ......................................XXI ANNEX TABLE 7: PAID TO LIVE IN CAMPS (N=1,399) ........................................................................................ XXII ANNEX TABLE 8: PAYING FOR WATER AND PRICE: CAMPS VS. BEFORE EARTHQUAKE (N=1,399)............................. XXII ANNEX TABLE 9: CAMP SANITARY FACILITIES................................................................................................... XXII ANNEX TABLE 10: ROOMS AND ‘TENT’ CONSTRUCTIONS .................................................................................. XXII ANNEX TABLE 11: RESPONDENTS WHO POSSESSED ASSET IN CAMP .................................................................... XXIII ANNEX TABLE 12: : BENEFICIARY VS. SPONSOR CHOSE THE HOUSE .................................................................... XXIV ANNEX TABLE 13: : AVERAGE COST OF RENT ..................................................................................................XXV ANNEX TABLE 14: CHANGES IN HOUSE INFRASTRUCTURE, SANITATION FACILITIES, WATER, AND COST .................... XXVI ANNEX TABLE 15: CHANGE IN ASSETS FROM BEFORE EARTHQUAKE TO CAMP TO TIME OF SURVEY ......................... XXVII ANNEX TABLE 16: PEOPLE WHO HAVE RETURNED TO CAMPS, TENT, OR LIVING WITH OTHER FAMILY .................... XXIX ANNEX TABLE 17: FOCUS GROUP PARTICIPANTS ............................................................................................. XLIII ANNEX TABLE 18: GPS POINTS AVAILABLE TO IDENTIFY RELOCATION ZONES ................................................... LXXXVII ANNEX TABLE 19: COMPARISON OF CAMP POPULATION TO TOTAL POPULATION OF COMMUNE .......................... XCVIII xiii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report focuses on an evaluation of Income Generating Activities (IGA) that accompa- nied rental subsidy programs in Haiti between 2013 and 2016. The original objectives were: 1. Evaluate the impact of supplemental support on the economic situation of house- holds. 2. Evaluate different livelihoods approaches from a quality/cost/effectiveness point of view in order to improve program performance based on lessons learned and ac- countability. 3. Feed into current reflection process of parties concerned with sustainable livelihood approaches. To accomplish the preceding, the consultants reviewed reports for humanitarian organiza- tions that provided rental subsidies, conducted 10 focus groups with beneficiaries and aid workers, and surveyed a sample of 1,399 rental subsidy beneficiaries, 1,057 of whom had received some configuration of cash and 1,005 of whom had received some form of training focusing on management of domestic budget, small business and trade strategies, adult literacy, and employment. The most significant conclusions of the report are summarized below. But first, some caveats regarding the statistical comparison of the different aid packages are in order. Caveats Any comparative study of the efficacy of the training, or costs—whether from this report or any other report—must be made cautiously. The aid agencies used differential beneficiary criteria, different means of selecting and verifying beneficiaries, different training strate- gies, and in different geographical areas that had widely varied levels of urbanization and crime. All the preceding was applied by different staff with unknown competence levels and different pay incentives. No strategy was randomly applied to the beneficiary population. In some cases, the agencies used Proxy Means Tests to select beneficiaries (e.g., Concern), in other cases they used surveys and basic indicators (e.g., Oxfam), in others they used selec- tion committees (e.g., IOM), and in other cases beneficiaries self-selected themselves (e.g., Goal and CARE). The different organizations also accompanied the interventions with different support services, including a wide array of counselling, medical care, and referrals to other agencies for additional assistance. Some provided child care during training. Others did not. The duration of similar trainings varied widely between the organizations and sometimes within the same organization. Goal, for example, reported giving the same information to beneficiaries in six, two-hour training sessions delivered over a period of seven weeks as they did in 11, two-hour training sessions delivered over a period of 12 weeks. Nor did the duration of training that staff reported giving always jibe with that a  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements described in reports. All of preceding makes it difficult to compare the impact of differential training regimes. Having noted the previous caveats, all is not lost. We can and in this report do make useful comparisons between the beneficiaries that received training from different agencies versus those that received no training at all; and we evaluate the impact on economic status of different levels of financial assistance. These two tasks are the topic of the main report. We can also draw on Information from the 1,399 respondent quantitative questionnaire and the 10 fully transcribed focus groups to gain insight from an examination of overall impact of the aid (reports for both are also provided in the annex). Impact of Rental Subsidy and Simply Getting Out of the Camps The simple intervention of helping people move from the camps had, by itself, a definitive impact on living standards. The study found dramatic improvements in access to flush toilets (33% vs. 26%), the proportion of those who had no toilet at all or a hole disappeared (3% vs. 0%), more had improved latrines (55% vs. 52%), and far more had cisterns (15% vs. 3%). Moreover, although after one year, 62 percent of the respondents did not renew their rental, a significant proportion of these people left the home for non-economic rea- sons. Specifically, 60 percent of people sampled either stayed in the original subsidy house or left for non-economic reasons. Data collected for changing possession of 22 assets also shows the dramatic impact of simply leaving the camps. For mattresses the increase is over 50% and for telephone, kitchen table, and television it was 37% or higher. The TEST The hypotheses were that: 1) Additional support/money = better economic situation for beneficiary and households. a) Money was defined as cash the beneficiary received from an aid agency, including ‘change’ from the rental subsidy. The reason money can be used independently as a variable is because it is a convertible commodity. See Money on page19 for a full dis- cussion. b) Improved technical and life skills = better economic situation for beneficiary and households. 2) Training was broken down into the four aid packages most relevant to economic status: Life Skills, Business Training, Vocational Training, and Adult Literacy. See Training on page 20 for a full discussion. 3) Tools or materials given = better economic situation for beneficiary and households a) Tools included those for construction (levels for mason, electric meters for electri- cians) materials included those necessary for trade (table and umbrella, basin) b  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 4) Organization: The organization that gave the money and/or training, important for the reasons discussed above. a) To test these relationships and to shed light on differences between beneficiaries of different aid organizations and different aid packages, we used four explanatory var- iables and eight response variables. b) Explanatory variables were exactly those defined in the above hypotheses: 1) ‘Aid Money’ that beneficiaries received, 2) Type of ‘Training’ that beneficiaries received, 3) Tools and materials that beneficiaries received, 4) Organization that gave money, tools and materials, and training. c) Response variables—those socio-economic characteristics used to assess the impact of the interventions—were: 1) Whether the beneficiary was still in the rental subsi- dy house at the time of the survey, 2) The status of House Tenure for those who were not (i.e., owner, renter, squatter, or guest), 3) If school age children were in fact in school, 4) Participation in financial savings groups, 5) Family/marital stability, 6) Assets, 7) Status of respondent as a household breadwinner, and 8) Positive outlook for the upcoming year. d) The statistical tests used to detect relationships were Comparison of Means, and Chi- Square. Findings1 1) Amount of aid money: A relationship was found in the study between: a) ‘Aid Money Received’ and still being in the rental subsidy house: Those who received the greatest amount of money—over 25,000 HT were most likely to have left the house for economic reasons (53% vs. and total sample average of 40%). The rela- tionship is likely related to the fact most vulnerable beneficiaries received the most aid, i.e., they were also the most likely to have to seek lower income housing. b) ‘Aid Money Received’ and ‘Household Tenure’: Those who received more than 5,000 HTG were half as likely to have returned to camps, tents, or to have gone to live with another family as those who received 0 to 5,000 HTG (28% vs. 13%). c) ‘Aid Money Received’ and the probability that a respondent has remained with his or her spouse. The relationship is evident only the category that received the most aid money (over 25,000 HTG). But it is dramatic. Specifically, 94% of those in the high income catgegory vs. 51% for the average respondent were still with the same spouse they had when living in the camp. Because those in the highest income cate- gories were targeted for being extremely vulnerable and received the most money, the relationship may have to do with being extremely vulnerable (see Response Vari- able 3: Family Stability on page 28). 1 Comparison of means are illustrated graphically using a ‘the random mean line’ and finer lines representing the two extremes of the confidence intervals. c  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements d) The more ‘Aid Money Received’ the more positive the beneficiary’s ‘Outlook’ for the approaching year. Once again this is a relationship that appears dramatically only for the category that received the most aid money (over 25,000 HTG). And here too the relationship is dramatic. Specifically, 38% of the sample population reported a posi- tive outlook for the upcoming year vs. 75% for those in the highest income category. 2) Training: The most statistically significant indications of a relationship between training and any response variable were: a) A relationship between professional training and still being in the rental subsidy house or having left it for non-economic reasons. Specifically, we found that 73% of those who had professional training had either remained in the house or left for non-economic reasons vs. 60% for the over all sample population. b) Those who experienced Professional/Vocational training or Business training were less likely to have moved back to a camp, to a tent or into the home of another family. In the case of Profession training, only 12 percent of beneficiaries were living in a camp, tent or home of other family vs. the sample average of 22 percent. For Busi- ness training the difference was a much narrower 19 percent vs. 22 percent for the sample population, however, the business training sample was much larger and yielded results that were highly significant (p=.004). c) A relationship between ‘Life Skills Training’ and ‘Family Stability’. Specifically, only 19% of those individuals who had been exposed to Life Skills Training had left their spouse since moving out the camps vs. 28% of those who had not had life training. Those who had been exposed to life training were 2/3 less likely to have left their spouse. d) A highly significant relationship between ‘Assets Score’ (increasing position of asset since leaving the camps) and ‘Adult Education’ (instruction in basic literacy). e) Those who experienced Business seminars were more likely to have a negative out- look for the upcoming year. Specifically, only 35% of those who had experienced business training training had a positive economic outlook for the upcoming year vs. 42% for those who had not business training. 3) Tools and Materials: A relationship was found between Breadwinner Status and having Received Tools or Materials. Eleven percent of those who had received tools progressed from being a non breadwinner or a less than primary breadwinner to being a second or the primary household breadwinner. The relationship is highly signiicant, Chi-Squre = 13.7 (p < .003). 4) Aid Organizations: In a comparison of means for each of the response variables and the specific organization that managed the aid, we found: a) A statistically significant (p=.05) higher proportion of beneficiaries who had re- ceived training remained in the rental subsidy home or left for non- economic reasons. Specifically, only 41 percent for those who had received no training re- mained or left the rental unit for non-economic reasons vs. 55 percent for the nearest humanitarian aid agency, that of Goal. b) A statistically significant (p=.05) greater than average number beneficiaries had gone back to live in a camp, tent or to a home of another family. Specifically, 30 per- cent vs. the average of 22 percent. There was also a statistically significant difference d  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements between those with no training and Care, Concern, and Goal beneficiaries. The dif- ference was not, however, statistically significant for HelpAge, IOM and Oxfam. c) A statistically significant (p=.05) fewer than average Concern beneficiaries were in camps, tents or homes of other families. Specifically, 12 percent for Concern benefi- ciaries vs. 22 percent for the sample average. d) A statistically significant (p=.05) greater number of IOM beneficiaries were no long- er with their spouses (since leaving the camps). Specifically, 42 percent for IOM beneficiaries vs. 26 percent for the sample average. e) A statistically significant (p=.05) lower ‘Asset Scores’ between Concern beneficiaries and the expected average, something that may reflect the ‘extreme vulnerability’ cri- teria that Concern used to target beneficiaries. Specifically, Concern beneficiaries had an average asset score of 2.0 vs. 2.7 for the sample average. Concern score was also significantly different than HelpAge, Oxfam, and those average for those benefi- ciaries who received no training at all. f) Beneficiaries of Concern and Oxfam had a statistically significant (p=.05) more nega- tive outlook for the upcoming year than the sample average, and more negative than all other organizations except that of HelpAge. Specifically, 20 percent of Concern beneficiaries and 23 percent of Oxam beneficiaries vs. a sample average of 28 per- cent. Overall, those with no training at all had the highest proportion of respondents with a positive outlook, something that also may reflect the ‘extreme vulnerability’ criteria that Concern and Oxfam used to target beneficiaries and the fact that most organizations were likely inclined to target the most vulnerable respondents. e  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Major Lessons and Recommendations 1) The first main lesson from the report is that the simple act of helping people move from the camps dramatically improved living standards. In this way, it is recommended that people be assisted in leaving camps and leaving them as fast as possible after a crisis. The destination being re-integration into neighborhoods. 2) The partners should standardize interventions. Multiple packages can be implemented but in order to evaluate aid packages in the future there must be a consistent structure that can be evaluated. This means strictly defining and coordinating with the other agencies—before the interventions are made—beneficiary criteria, mechanisms select- ing and verifying beneficiaries, training curriculum, length of curriculum, attendance requirements, benefits and conditions for receiving benefits. 3) Begin the evaluation process at the same time as the interventions are being applied. Similar to medical trials, this will allow for the creation of control and treatment groups; before and after evaluation of the impact of the programs. For those who feel such an approach is de-humanizing or unfair to beneficiaries, it warrants emphasizing that it is as import to undertand the best practices that can make humanitarian aid effective and can help people recover from disaster and/or escape povery as it is to understand the impact of medicines on the sick. As for those individuals who do not receive interven- tions because they are a control group, post study interventions can be provided. f  1. INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF LITERATURE According to IOM, the January 12th 2010 earthquake in Haiti displaced 2.3 million people, 1.5 million who were sheltered in 1,555 camps in Port-au-Prince and surrounding regions (Brookings and IOM 2014). After the initial emergency assistance, humanitarian aid agencies launched programs to help get families out of camps and back to stable home living conditions. One such program was the Rental Support Cash Grant (RSCG). The standard RSCG program offered beneficiaries a one-time subsidy, in most cases US$500 (20,000 Haitian Gourdes, from here on designated HTG) to cover first-year rent in a home of their choosing. Homes were subject to verification. Residences had to meet minimum standards, such as access to water and sanitary facilities. For rent negotiated at under $500, families were allowed to keep the remainder of the money. They also typically received a small grant of $25 USD to pay for transport and other expenses associated with the move. Many beneficiaries subsequently received an additional grant of $125 to $250 contingent on them still living in the home when representatives of the implementing agencies con- ducted spot visits 6 to 12 weeks after the relocation. Rental subsidies were intended to help put the families into safe housing and temporarily free them from the burden of rental payments as they reintegrated into neighborhoods and the urban economy. Governmental and non-governmental implementing partners involved in the rental subsidies also understood them as a highly effective strategy for closing camps. Satisfaction among recipients surveyed was often found to be 100 percent (see Holdus 2011; Fitzgerald 2012:29; Louis, G.J. 2012: World Bank 2014:28). But from a critical perspective rental subsidies also represented a type of concession to initial high hopes for massive housing projects that would raise living standards for those people stuck in the camps. The concern was that, having gotten people out of camps, they would once again be subject paying rent, a significant burden for Haiti’s urban poor. Em- mett Fitzgerald, IOM’s principal consultant who designed and oversaw implementation of the first rental subsidy programs pointed out that,i The question most often raised about Rental Support Cash Grant programs is, “given that each family receives 1 year of rental support, what happens to the family next year?” (Fitzgerald 2012:20) There is little question, based on prior studies, that paying rent was indeed a challenge for those who moved out of the camps. In December 2014, the consultancy Large N followed up on a sample of 2,234 subsidized renters and found that after one year, 49 percent of re- 1  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements spondents did not repay, i.e., they did not remain in the subsidized rental home. Wolfgroup Consultancy studied a sample of 361 beneficiaries and 354 landlords and reported that 75 percent of subsidy recipients had left the subsidized home; 49 percent of those because of cost and another 26 percent because of problems with landlord. Oxfam and IOM found that of 1,003 families from 5 camps (63%), were no longer in the rental subsidy house; 81 percent of those beneficiaries explained that the reason was due to high rental costs, i.e., they could not afford to pay. To address this issue of not being able to cope with the burden of rent, donors and partner organizations added livelihood elements to the relocation packages. Specifically, Concern, Goal, CARE, Helpage, IOM, and CARE added training in such areas as managing the house- hold budget, starting a business, and vocational training, what we call in the report “professional” training (skills such as masonry and electrician). Training often included assistance to beneficiaries in developing a business plan. To help beneficiaries start or resume an Income-Generating Activity (IGA), the plans were supported with additional cash grants in the range of $150 to $300 USD. Some projects included follow-up visits and guidance. Some aid agencies made subsequent disbursements contingent upon satisfactory follow-through performance on the part of beneficiaries. These were measures meant to help those who benefitted from them meet the onus of rental payments.2 Other Studies of Impact There is little evidence from prior studies that training from any of the partners had a significant impact on beneficiary ability to meet rental payments. Oxfam Study In 2013 Oxfam and IOM conducted a “rigorous evaluation” of 1,450 families displaced from five different IDP camps in the Croix-des-Bouquets commune of Port-au-Prince.ii The control treatment families received a $500 rental cash subsidy but no additional support. A treatment group received a $500 rental cash subsidy and additional relocation support in the form of business training and literacy classes. The subsequent evaluation found that: The results do not indicate that additional training provided by Oxfam had an additive impact on the housing status and economic well-being of relocated families, beyond the $500 IOM rental cash subsidy grant. 2 The ARC gave $500 USD unconditional cash grants; CARE provided all families in specific camps with three days of entrepreneurial training and a grant of approximately $150 USD; Goal offered all families other camps the opportunity to take a three-month business class, and gave similar grants to the 90% of participants who completed a business plan deemed solid by staff. -2-  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements The only positive finding from the Oxfam study was that data indicated an average decrease in weekly expenses of 194 HTG, something the authors of the study hypothetically linked to the beneficiaries having experienced seminars in managing the household budget. Howev- er, the finding was statistically insignificant at the 5% level (p-value < 0.05), suggesting that, at best, the impact was weak; at worst, there was no impact at all. CARE International Similarly, CARE gave IGA training associated with VSLA (savings groups) participation. An internal CARE report found that, …a simple analysis using the CARE database indicates that VSLAs member- ship seems to be of help only to those struggling the most. Very few relocated IDPs used their new homes as a base for IGAs. From a small study done dur- ing the evaluation, it seems that the profitable IGA families were already successful before the earthquake, though they reduced their activities while in camp due to the lack of security for money and stock. Large N Analysis Large-N Analysis compared three relocation strategies for all 10 implementing members of the CCCM cluster. Specifically, they compared the core rental subsidy program only, rental subsidies plus livelihood training, and rental subsidies with a cash grant. They found only marginal differences in terms of beneficiaries’ subsequent security and safety levels and beneficiary self-evaluations of the socio-economic impact of differential strategies. The best they could say was that after the one-year subsidized period ended those beneficiaries who received livelihood packages were “slightly more likely” than those who received only rental subsidies to use self-employment income to pay rent. Large-N recommended a broader evaluation to compare the impact of livelihood programs and cash grants. It is in the context of the above studies that members of the CCCM working group evalua- tion steering committee asked Socio-Dig to conduct a comparative evaluation of the different camp relocation and livelihood support strategies. Important in deciding to conduct such a study was Large-N’s recommendation that an evaluation be conducted to compare the impact of livelihood programs and cash grants. -3-  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 2. THE PRESENT STUDY: ANALYTIC STRATEGY AND IMPORTANT CAVEATS The overarching objective of the TOR study was to: “… determine the impact of the different livelihoods approaches and the eco- nomic security of households that were relocated; and to provide a comparison of the impact relative to relocated families who have not been targeted by livelihoods program.” More specifically,  Assess the impact of additional support on the economic situation of households  Evaluate the different livelihood approaches with respect to quality / cost / effec- tiveness Modification of the Original Research Strategy The research strategy that was originally proposed to meet these objectives was a heavily qualitative investigation and a complementary survey of 800 beneficiaries. The plan was subsequently modified for a much larger and more informative survey of 1,400 beneficiar- ies. Although the focus groups were retained as part of the research strategy (a focus group report is provided in Annex) the shift was dramatically toward a much more quantifiable approach. This strategy of depending on a large survey lends itself to statistical tests and analysis. Particularly useful for those seeking to understand the people who qualified for aid is that the database permits the development a of statistical profile of the sample population and an assessment of change in beneficiary socio-economic status before the earthquake stuck vs. while they were in camps vs. after the program interventions (while in the rental subsi- dy homes) vs. after they left the rental homes (for those that did leave). All of the preceding can be compared to the general Port-au-Prince population for insight into who the RSCG beneficiaries where and how their lives changed with the earthquake and subsequent interventions. Such an analysis can be also found in the annex of this report. However, any statistical tests and comparison of differential effectiveness of strategies employed by the humanitarian aid agencies must be made with caution. The reasons are many. The actual training topics were similar, i.e., the same techniques were taught for business, commerce, household budgeting practices, and conflict resolution assessed in this report. But they were bundled with other services that differed widely. Oxfam promoted peer insurance and savings and loan schemes combined with livelihood training that emphasized trade and business and gave grants. Care promoted it’s VSLA scheme but with a short livelihood training and no grants. The training strategies were also -4-  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements conducted over different lengths of time—varying from one day to three months. Training was applied by different staff with different competence levels, and differential salaries and pay incentives. No strategy was randomly applied to the beneficiary population.iii Training strategies and training packages bundled differently is only part of the problem with comparing different programs or of lumping them into categories for comparison. More problematic is that if or when statistical differences between beneficiary populations are detected, it is not clear what we are measuring. The aid agencies also used different targeting criteria and different means of selecting beneficiaries who fit those criteria. Oxfam beneficiaries were selected for disabilities, chronic illnesses, victims of violence, the elderly, pregnant or lactating women, female-headed households, minor heads of house- hold and adults without any school education. HelpAge beneficiaries were targeted for being over 60 years of age and responsible for small children. Concern had a two level set of targeting criteria: the first focused on specific variables such as age, illness, and handicap; the second was based on variables such as number of meals per day. Goal and CARE had no criteria other than being a resident in a camp that was being targeted for closure. And not least of all, many of the vulnerability targeting criteria themselves—those used by the agencies for detecting beneficiaries—are all also highly controversial and have been cast in doubt, some of them arguably select for the opposite of what is intended, i.e., least vulnera- ble families (see CNSA 2015 Report on Beneficiary Targeting in Haiti: Detection Strategies). iv v Agencies also used different mechanisms to select people who supposedly fit the criteria. Concern used Proxy Means Tests. Oxfam used straight survey criteria. CARE and Goal beneficiaries were self-selected, i.e., they volunteered. As if all the preceding were not enough to make any comparison of volunteer beneficiary categories with those targeted for extreme vulnerability problematic, the targeted benefi- ciaries lived in areas with differential levels of urbanization and crime; different organizations gave different support services, such as Oxfam which gave psychosocial aid in the form of therapy, counseling, and ‘relaxation sessions.’ HelpAge gave medical care assis- tance. Care gave referrals to other agencies support. Those organizations that did these things did so, we can assume, with differential degrees of effectiveness. Some also provided child care during training, such as IOM. Others did not. Even the duration of similar train- ings not only varied widely between the organizations, it sometimes varied widely within same organizations. Goal, for example, reported giving the same information to beneficiar- ies in 6, 2-hour training sessions delivered over a period of 7 weeks as they did in 11, 2- hour training sessions given over a period of 12 weeks. In some cases, another aid agency conducted livelihood training, such as ACF did for IOM beneficiaries. For most organizations it is not even clear how long the training lasted. Even where reports describe the length of training, what the organization stated in reports versus what staff reported were not -5-  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements always the same. Once again, all of this makes it difficult to directly evaluate the impact of differential training regimes. vi vii Similarly, any evaluation of costs per training program vs. the benefits of those costs is, for the same reasons mentioned, moot. There is no ready and logical basis for comparing the value of HTG 45,000 Vocational training package for a young adult to that of a HTG 13,500 livelihood training package or to an educational grant to a child. What will be the dividends from vocational training 3 years now? In five years? In ten years? How many children will be educated with the money the beneficiary earns from his or her new profession? Will he or she continue with the profession? On the other hand, how do we assign a value to getting a child through a critical year of school? Is there a synergistic impact of the educational grant and livelihood training for the mother? Will the mother who received training in commerce use that information to make a critical decision sometime in the future and thus be able to continue sending the child to school, something less likely had the child missed the year that HelpAge subsidized? The same is true of cash grants. It is illogical to compare the impact of increased money given to beneficiaries when the largest grants went to two populations 1) the most vulner- able camp residences, 2) those who demonstrated a competence for business planning and capacity to generate income. The shortest way to sum up the preceding complications is that any statistical variation detected may in fact be detecting differences in the applicability of targeting criteria, the selection and verification process, the area where the beneficiaries are located, or the effective delivery of the aid packages. The myriad of major confounding influences de- scribed make comparisons not only illogical, but dangerous in that they may give way to misleading conclusions. viii Utility of the Analysis Having made the preceding caveats, all is not completely lost. We can make useful compari- sons between the beneficiaries that received training from different agencies versus those that received no training at all; and we can evaluate the impact on economic status of different levels of financial assistance. These two tasks are the topic of the following sec- tions. We can also draw on information from the quantitative questionnaire and the 10 fully transcribed focus groups available in the annex to gain insight regarding the overall impact of the aid (reports for both are also provided in ANALYSIS OF TRAINING AND RESPONSE VARIABLES on page xxx). -6-  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Specific Packages Concern  Training: The beneficiaries were given three day trainings financial manage-  Financial Benefits: Rental subsidies income generating activity grants of HTG ment and livelihood strategies. (Staff reported 1-day training). 13,500 grant. Another 431 beneficiaries from “extremely vulnerable families” received an AGR with a value of HTG 12,500 or Vocational training with a value  Targeting Criteria: Resident of specific camp where IOM had already inter- of HTG16,500 vened; Household head over 60 years of age.  Training: 1 to 2 weeks  Detection Strategy: Old People Associations, Camp leaders and Mayor’s office  Targeting Criteria: Resident of specific camp; extreme poverty criteria: female- OXFAM headed households, pregnant or lactating women, headed by an elderly person  Financial Benefits: Oxfam gave rental subsidy, a transportation subsidy of aged 60 or over or a young adult under 20, single person households, 1 adult 1,000 gourdes, a final incentive payment of 5,000 gourdes given to families with dependent children, over 6 members and 5 or more children under 18. that remained in rented homes, and winners of a business plan competition  Detection Strategy: Survey and 2-level Proxy Means Testing each received 23,400 gourdes to launch their businesses. Goal  Training: Managing of micro enterprise, domestic/household economics and job location and job preservation. An adult education program saw 127 (of  Financial Benefits: Rental subsidy and a HTG 5,000 grant for AGR. 300) complete the program (a dropout rate of 58%). Training lasted from 14  Training: Goal used two strategies. One involved 6, 2-hour training sessions to 25 days. over a period of 7 weeks. The other involved 11, 2-hour training sessions given  Targeting Criteria: Resident of specific camp; disabilities, chronic illnesses, over a period of 12 weeks. Topics covered included savings, prudent food victims of violence, the elderly, pregnant or lactating women, female-headed purchasing strategies, investing in revenue generating activities and small households, minor heads of household and adults without any school educa- enterprise, rotation of stocks, concept of markets tion  Targeting Criteria: Resident of specific camp  Detection Strategy: Survey and indicators, selection committees.  Detection Strategy: Self Selection CARE OIM  Financial Benefits: Families were provided a free rent for as long as 18 months.  Financial Benefits: Rental subsidy. And unconditional grant of HTG 7,000 toward moving expenses and IGA activi-  Training: 1,099 beneficiaries received 6 months of vocational training. ties. About 75% of IDP  Targeting Criteria: Resident of specific camp; illiteracy; “vulnerable” unclear  families were also involved in VSLAs, giving them access to loans. three follow-  Detection Strategy: Survey up visits with coaching, and a HTG6,000 grant to be used for IGAs.  HELPAGE  Training: All beneficiaries received IGA training, 3-day training, Business plans  Financial Benefits: Rental subsidy. A resettlement grant HTG 4,000 for essen- were done in groups as a hypothetical exercise. three follow-up visits with tial Non Food Items (NFIs). Some 1,136 beneficiaries received educational coaching, and HTG6,000 for IGAs. grants of HTG 2,812 to HTG 4,000; 1,420 households received an Income Gen-  Targeting Criteria: Resident of specific camp erating Activity (IGA) grant of HTG 10,000 to 11,200,  Detection Strategy: Self-selection. 7  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Table 1: Livelihood packages used in camp relocations, 2010-2015 Packages training and AGR Uncond. Long (3 mos) Short AGR Uncond. Cash Mixed aid, Targeting Reloc. Job Cash training AGR, training, 10K+ transfer+ targeting by Org. Years Criteria Zone only training Transfer 5K+ HTG HTG short training vuln. group 3.2 2014-5 All Carrefour 134 455 Care 2013-15 All Carrefour 518 CWW 2011-13 All PaP 587 2100 CWW 2013-15 Vulnera- PaP 2 448 300 CWW 2014-16 ble Vulnera- PaP 2 310 30 431 Goal 2013-14 ble Volunteer PaP/Car./G 2,166 931 HI 2011-14 Handicap ressier All 46 Helpage 2012-15 Elderly Delmas, 1 040 OIM 2011-14 Vulnera- CdB, Tab. All 39 228 781 Oxfam 2013-15 ble Vulnera- CdB, 771 679 ble Tabarre, PaP Table 2: Organizations that Gave Types of Training as Report by Participants Explanatory Note: Table 1 Human Gave above shows a general Organization Profession Business Hygiene Adult Ed Rights Artisan Disaster Life tools summation of the different CARE 4 183 106 2 16 4 101 62 20 livelihood packages offered Concern 13 121 139 17 12 7 122 83 38 by different aid agencies. Goal 4 188 92 2 14 0 79 51 117 Table 2 provides a summa- Helpage 2 126 103 15 28 1 95 64 46 tion of the what survey IOM 42 66 101 9 25 2 74 39 68 respondents reported having OXFAM 4 114 72 7 13 2 64 44 87 been instructed in. TOTAL 69 798 613 52 108 16 535 343 376 8  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure 1: IOM Housing Assistance and Camp Closure Process (Source: modified from Fitzgerald 2012: 22) Step 2 Protection Step 1 Registration Step 3 Beneficiary final list validated by mayor Identification of most vulner- able families for additional Communications and posted in camp assistance Every family empowered to make an informed and voluntary choice Transitional Shelter Yellow House Step 4 Camp Repair Resident Chooses a Work with Shelter Housing Option Providers housing construction and Rental repair agencies if Solutions  Rental Support house cannot be  Host Family Support repaired referred  Return to provinces back to rental team Step 5 Step 5b Social Security Support Step 5a Rental Support  Income generation  Family finds house & negotiates with landlord  Life Skills  IOM visits house to assure minimum standards  Business skills training  1 year rental contract is signed  Edu cation grants  Healhcare Support Step 6 Cash Transfers  Owner and renter (beneficiary) receive cash transfers  Transport  Livelihood grant  Education grant Step 7 Camp Closure  100% of occupants have left, camp decommis- sioned Step 8 Verification Visits  2-3 months later, a surprise visit to verify if the family is still in rental 9  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 3. METHODOLOGY The research was divided into three phases: two weeks of initial field work (and ongoing interviews with partner staff, government officials, and other actors); a series of ten focus groups with relocation beneficiaries and aid workers; and, finally, a 1,399 respondent quantitative survey. Review of the Literature A review of documents on all aspects of restoring livelihoods. Beneficiary databases, availa- ble final reports on projects, available external evaluations of projects. Interviews with Implementing Partners Table 3: Occupation of Focus Group Discussants The first phase, undertaken in December 2015, was an Occupation Woman Man initial qualitative effort involving interviews with 21 Nothing 9 0 representatives of the partner organizations, and a Nurse 1 0 review of literature, including but not limited to project Teacher 1 0 proposals, project evaluations, internal reports, and Office worker 7 6 other documents provided by the partner organizations. Trade 15 1 Beautician 1 0 This phase resulted in an initial work plan proposal Cook 2 0 calling for a survey of 800 beneficiaries allowing for a Other skilled labor 0 1 comparison of those receiving three broad types of Security guard 0 1 livelihood support (professional training, unconditional Driver 0 1 cash transfers, and IGA grants coupled with training). NGO Staff 2 5 TOTAL 38 15 Focus Groups The study included 10 focus groups, 8 of which were conducted with beneficiaries of programs implemented by Goal, Helpage, Concern, IOM, and Care (see Table 4 below). Two focus groups were conducted with staff from the same implementing organizations. The size of focus groups ranged from 3 to 8 people, with a total of 55 discussants, 35 of whom were women and 20 of whom were men. Ages ranged from 26 to 66 years, they had an average of 2.6 children; nine of them had no children at all. Occupations of the participants were broad (see Table 3, above right) and the locations where they lived were distributed broadly throughout the metropolitan area (Table 4, below right). - 10 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Table 5: NGOs that Helped Discus- Table 4: Address/Neighborhood of Focus sants Group Discussants Women Men Total Neighborhood Count Neighborhood Count ARC 1 2 3 Bizoton 1 Fort Mekredi 2 Concern 22 5 27 Canape Vert 1 La Plaine 1 Goal 5 2 7 Carrefou 2 Lalue 2 CARE 2 2 4 Carrefour 9 Martisant 5 HelpAge 2 2 4 C. Feuilles 2 Martissant 2 IOM 3 7 10 Christ Roi 6 Nazon 1 Delmas 4 Paco 1 All 10 focus groups were recorded and fully Dkayet 1 Pacot 1 transcribed into Kreyol. A summary report Fontamara 3 Turgeau 4 of the focus groups and a full English translation for one of the two focus groups conducted with staff from the implementing organizations are available in FOCUS GROUPS on page xlii. The most useful insights from focus groups included:  Most participants were not direct victims of the earthquake but rather victims of the economic impact, such as suspension of jobs or the depression in local trade that came with the flood of material aid.  Many participants were already or became extremely vulnerable as a results of suffering shocks unrelated to the earthquake but common in Haiti, such as death in the family and chronic illness.  Participants put a great deal of value on training in skills and the contribution they made to beneficiaries’ capacity to earn income.  There was a high level of satisfaction with both rental subsidy programs and income generating assistance.  Many camp residents appear to be recent immigrants from rural areas (see also ‘Demo- graphic Description of Sample’ in annex) Survey Sampling Strategy The quantitative survey sought out 1,399 beneficiaries of programs overseen by five hu- manitarian aid organizations—Concern, CARE, Oxfam, HelpAge, and Goal—one international institution—OIM. The sample was stratified to capture representative sam- ples of beneficiaries who had training that related to livelihoods and the ability to generate increased income, but also including a target of 400 beneficiaries who had received only cash or a rental subsidy. ix - 11 - Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure 2: Original Sampling Target - 12 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Questionnaire The survey questionnaire involved 400 questions and generated over 2,000 varia- bles, most of which were intended to provide background and context of life before the earthquake, in the camps, and since (see Annex). The surveyors administered the questionnaire at the home of the beneficiary using Samsung Telephone Tablet devices that automatically recorded longitudinal and latitudinal coordinates of the beneficiary’s homes. Surveyors also took photos of the respondent’s national identity or voting card and a photo of the respondent at the door of the home and inside the home. Fifty-five respondents refused to be photo- graphed. Beneficiary in front of Beneficiary inside National Identity Card or Voter the home in Carrefour the home Registration Table 6: Targeted vs. Interviewed Did not Received Average Organization Targeted Achieved Receive Money amount Training ARC* 100 0 0 0 0 0 CARE 250 237 44 193 $285 195 Concern 150 197 15 182 $227 172 Goal 300 205 34 171 $234 195 Helpage 150 178 24 154 $182 150 IOM 300 492 198 294 $393 169 OXFAM 150 90 27 63 $192 124 Total 1400 1399 342 1057 $143 1005 * Despite three different consultants requesting total of 9 times over a period of 7 months a sample of beneficiaries, RC never contributed a list of beneficiaries and were eventually excluded from the data base - 13 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure 3: GPS Points Showing Distribution sample. Coordinates recorded by surveyors on tablet devices - 14 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 4. IMPACT OF RENTAL SUBSIDIES Infrastructure With the move out of the camps there was a definitive improvement in access to sanita- tion, water and quality of housing. The improvement exceeds even conditions prior to the earthquake. As seen in Table 7a-8f below, more respondents had concrete vs. tin roofs (53% vs. 46%),3 more had flush toilets (33% vs. 26%), the proportion of those who had no toilet at all or a hole disappeared (3% vs. 0%), more had improved latrines (55% vs. 52%), and far more had cisterns (15% vs. 3%). Only in the case of the propor- tion of respondents with cement floors was there a slight and insignificant change in direction that suggested a decline in living standards (83% vs. 85%). Table 7: Changes in House Infrastructure, Sanitation Facilities, Water, and Cost Table 8a: Roof Table 8b: Floor Type Earthquake Subsidy house Type Earthquake Subsidy hos Concrete 46% 50% Cement 85% house 83% Tin 53% 50% Ceramic 15% 15% Plastic 0% 1% Earth 1% 2% Wood 1% 0% Wood 0% 0% Table 8c: Toilet Table 8d: Cistern Type Earthquake Subsidy house Earthquake Subsidy house Improved 52% 55% 3% 15% Flush 26% 33% Typical 19% 12% Table 4-1e: Purchased water Hole 1% 1% Earthquake Subsidy house None 3% 0% 71% 75% Table 8f: Cost of Housing Measure Currency Earthquake Subsidy house HTG HTG 18,210 HTG 18,625 Average US Dollars US$ 455 US$ 339 HTG HTG 15,000 HTG 20,000 Median US Dollars US$ 375 US$ 364 3 Although concrete roofs may seem less secure, and were considered undesirable in the months following the earthquake, it is emphatically preferred by the majority of people in Port-au-Prince, considered a mark of status, and the dangers seemed to be quickly forgotten in the year follow the earthquake (see USAID/BARR 2011) 15  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Rental Subsidy Renewals Similar to findings of Oxfam, Large N and Figure 4: Left Original Subsidy House (N=1,399) Wolfgroup seen in the literature review, a significant portion of the sampled popula- tion did not renew the rental subsidies. Left House Specifically, since leaving the camps, 62 62% percent of the respondents moved out of Still in House the rental subsidy homes (Figure 4, right). 38% The number who moved has increased with time, going from 57 percent for those who left the camp in 2015 or later, to 70 percent for those who moved out of the camp in 2013 or earlier (see Figure 6 below). For some of these people the Figure 5: Still in House or improvements in living standards seen Left for Non-Economic reasons above were lost (see Annex B for data). However, there is also a significant propor- Left Hs Economic tion of people who left the rental homes for 40% Still in Hs/Left reasons that were not economic, such as for Non Economic, 60% pressure from the landlord, did not like the area, needed more room, or had a problem with the house, such as a broken toilet (see Figure 7, below right). If non-economic reasons are taken into consideration, then we find that 60% percent either stayed in the original subsidy house or left for non- economic reasons (see Figure 5). Figure 6: Year Left Camp by Still in Figure 7: Reasons Left Subsidy Subsidized Home House COULD NOT AFFORD… 52% PRICE UNFAIR 21% LANDLORD DID NOT… 9% 70% 59% 57% DID NOT LIKE… 6% 60% 43% ATTRACTED TO OTHER… 5% 41% 40% 30% PROBLEMS WITH… 3% SECURITY/CRIME 1% 20% MOVED TO BETTER… 1% YEAR 2013 OR YEAR 2014 YEAR 2015 MOVED TO OWN HOME 1% EARLIER PROBLEMS WITH… 0% Moved Still in subsidized home 0% 10%20%30% 40%50%60% - 16 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Assets That living standards improved dramatically after the subsidy recipients left the camps is most evident from data on changing assets. The survey gathered data on possession for 22 assets. The data was gathered for three points in time: just before the earthquake, at the end of being in the camp, and at time of survey. Table 8 illustrates the change per asset for the entire sample population over the periods in question. In the Table it can be seen that assets plunged with the earthquake and subsequent move to the camps. After leaving the camp possession dramatically increased. For mattresses the increase is over 50% and for telephone, kitchen table, and television it is 37% or higher. When comparing assets at the time of the survey to before the earthquake, there is a continu- ing and significant deficit. Nevertheless, the trend in change highlights the dramatic material improvements that came with simply moving out of the camps. Table 8: Change in Assets from Before Earthquake to Camp to Time of Survey Before Camp Present to to vs. Assets Before Camp Present Camp Present Before Mattress 82% 20% 73% -62% 53% -9% Telephone 74% 52% 89% -22% 37% 15% Kitchen table 73% 9% 50% -64% 41% -23% Television 73% 13% 53% -60% 40% -20% Radio 69% 14% 41% -55% 27% -28% Chinaware display 41% 2% 16% -39% 14% -25% Refrigerator 26% 1% 10% -25% 9% -16% Bank account 23% 6% 15% -17% 9% -8% Cat 12% 2% 13% -10% 11% 1% Chicken 12% 2% 7% -10% 5% -5% Stove 11% 1% 4% -10% 3% -7% Gas burner 9% 0% 3% -9% 3% -6% Dog 8% 1% 7% -7% 6% -1% Micro credit 8% 1% 2% -7% 1% -6% Ag plot 6% 0% 4% -6% 4% -2% Hog 6% 1% 3% -5% 2% -3% Bicycle 5% 1% 1% -4% 0% -4% Laptop 5% 1% 3% -4% 2% -2% Moto 3% 1% 3% -2% 2% 0% Vehicle 3% 0% 1% -3% 1% -2% Tablet 2% 0% 2% -2% 2% 0% Dory/boat 1% 0% 1% -1% 1% 0% - 17 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 5. TEST OF TRAINING AND AID MONEY IMPACT The hypotheses were that: 1) Additional support/money = better economic situation for beneficiary and house- holds. a) Money was defined as cash that the beneficiary received from the aid agency, in- cluding change from rental subsidy. The reason money can be used independently as a variable is because it is an interchangeable commodity. See page 19 for a full discussion. 2) Improved technical and life skills = better economic situation for beneficiary and households. a) Training was broken down into the four aid packages most relevant to economic status: Life Skills, Business Training, Vocational Training, and Adult Literacy. See page 20 for a full discussion. 3) Tools or materials given = better economic situation for beneficiary and households a) Tools included those for construction (levels for mason, electric meters for elec- tricians); materials included those necessary for trade (table and umbrella, basin) 4) Organization: The organization that gave the money and/or training, important for the reasons discussed above. To test these relationships and to shed light on differences between beneficiaries of different aid organizations and different aid packages, we used four explanatory varia- bles and eight response variables. Explanatory variables were: 1) ‘Aid Money’ that beneficiaries received, 2) Type of ‘Training’ that beneficiaries received, 3) Tools and materials, and 4) Organization that gave money, tools and materials, and training. Response variables—those socio-economic characteristics used to assess the impact of the interventions—were: 1) Whether the beneficiary was still in the rental subsidy house, 2) The status of House Tenure for those who were not (i.e., owner, renter, squat- ter, or guest) , 3) If school age children were in fact in school, 4) Participation in Figure 8: Explanatory and Response Variable Model RESPONSE VARIABLES EXPLANATORY VARIABLES 1. Asset Score 1. Aid money 2. Breadwinner Status 2. Training 3. Household Tenure 3. Tools 4. Left/Remained in Rental House 4. Aid organization 5. School Aged Children 6. Family Stability 7. Participation in Informal Rotating Savings Grp 8. Outlook for the Upcoming Year - 18 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements financial savings groups, 5) Family/marital stability 6) Assets, 7) Status of respondent as a household breadwinner, and 8) Positive outlook for the upcoming Year. The Explanatory Variables Money The most significant point to understand regarding the analysis of the impact of money is that we considered it interchangeable and hence directly measure the relationship of the amount of money vis-a-vis the response variables. Specifically, in the case of ‘keep- ing the change’ from rental subsidies negotiated below the cost of actual subsidy, beneficiaries were allowed to spend the money on what they wished. In the case of Oxfam’s final incentive payments, recipients could also use the money as they pleased. In other cases, there was an expectation money would be spent on specific purposes. For example, education subsidies were meant to be pay a child’s tuition or school supplies. But the fact is that there was no way for the organizations to verify if someone who got an education subsidy used it for transportation, food, to pay a debt, or on booze. The aid organizations recognized this. Referring to money it gave to beneficiar- ies, Concern noted that whatever the money was targeted for, it allowed families to “strengthen existing small businesses or support major expenses (school tuition, illness, loans, etc.)” HelpAge noted that: In cases where the grant had been used to pay off individual debts, it was impossible to prevent this because people do not have registered debts, like a bank loan, but informal debts which they would never talk about it. Secondly, beneficiaries were the most vulnerable families headed by an older person; particularly in the IDP camp setting in Haiti, as they are very vulnerable to diseases and one became ill after receiving the grant. HelpAge Internal Evaluation Report, 2013x The prosaic and analytically useful fact is that money is convertible. Thus, in the analysis that follows we treat money as the interchangeable commodity that it is and we make the assumption that most significant impact that aid money had on the beneficiary’s family—no matter what humanitarian agency intended the money for—was that there was more of it (See Figure 9 and Figure 10 for summary of money beneficiaries re- ceived). - 19 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure 9: Percentage of Respondents Received Aid Money by Amount Categories (in HTG/Haitian Gourdes) 40% 30% 30% 22% 20% 13% 13% 11% 6% 4% 10% 2% 0% Figure Figure5.3: 10:Average MoneyReceived Average Money Received (HT (HTGourdes) Gourdes) (n=1,399; 55 (n=1,399; 55 HTD HTD = ~1 ~1 USD) USD) HTG 20,000 HTG 18,598 HTG 15,000 HTG 13,511 HTG 12,578 HTG 11,727 HTG 11,613 HTG 10,000 HTG 8,634 HTG 7,559 HTG 5,000 HTG - CARE Concern Goal (n=205) Helpage IOM (n=421) OXFAM TOTAL (n=237) (n=197) (n=178) (n=144) (n=1,399) Training In the case of training, we test the eight response variables against for all those benefi- ciaries who received any livelihood, business, adult education or vocational/ professional training. More specifically, the survey asked and surveyors were trained to explain that training of interest fell into the following categories:  Livelihood training (fomasyon Lavi): Training in household budget, conflict man- agement.  Adult Education (Alfabetasyon): Training in adult literacy.  Business (Fomasyon Komes/Biznes/AGR): Training in commerce, understanding markets, managing a small business.  Vocational/professional training (Fomasyon Metye): Long term training (six months) in a skilled trade (mason, electrician, plumbing, etc.). - 20 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Tools and Materials Received Some agencies gave tools for professional work and materials for commerce (see Table 5 on page 11). As mentioned above, tools included those for construction (levels for mason, electric meters for electricians) materials included those necessary for trade (table and umbrella, basin). The Organizations Aid agencies worked in different areas, used different interventions, gave different sums of money and worked with different populations, thus the causes of differential impact may lie elsewhere, all of which makes testing the beneficiaries by organization useful in detecting differences between them and comparing beneficiaries who received training from specific organizations to those who got no training at all. The Response Variables We have chosen eight Response Variables that are most likely to indicate changing living standards and capacity to earn income. In all cases except ‘Outlook for the Upcoming Year’ and ‘School Aged Children,’ the variables evaluate the change in status from life when respondents were in the camps vs. when the survey was conducted or when respondents first moved into the subsidized rental vs. current status. These variables are: 1. Left/Remained in Rental House: Whether a respondent has remained in rental house or moved for non-economic reasons vs. having moved for economic reasons— i.e., poverty—indicating, in the latter case, lower resiliency. 2. Household Tenure: Change in status from renter to either camp resident, living in a tent elsewhere, living in household of other family, or owning a home. The assump- tion is that this lower status indicates decreased resiliency. 3. Family Stability: Whether or not a respondent is still with the same spouse as he/was lived with when they left the camp. Instability in spouse/family is assumed to be an indicator of lower resiliency. 4. Asset Score: Change in ownership between camp and present for 22 material items or pets. We are interested in change from the camp to subsidized or post- subsidized housing. Each item a beneficiary owns at a given time—the camp or post camp—is given a score of 1. If the item is not owned, then the score is 0. Thus, for example, if a beneficiary did not own a mattress while living in the camp, then ‘mat- tress asset’ is scored 0 for the camp; and if the same beneficiary owned a mattress when surveyed, a score of 1 is assigned to the ‘mattress asset’ for the post camp pe- riod. To generate the Asset Score, we subtract the total points for all assets from the post camps point in time from that of camp. Thus, if a person owned a mattress both while in the camp and at the time of the survey the score would be 0, indicating no change in assets status for mattress. But if the respondent did not own a mattress in - 21 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements the camp and did own one at the time of the survey, the score is 1. In summary, the asset score measures net items gained or lost since being in the camp (1 for gained, - 1 for lost and 0 for unchanged. 5. Breadwinner Status: Change in status from camp to present in terms being the 1st or 2nd or household breadwinner—or no longer being a breadwinner at all. The as- sumption is that an increased position as breadwinner indicates increased resiliency. 6. School Aged Children: Number of children in the household aged 6 to 18 years who are attending school. A lower score/number for school age children in school indicates lower resiliency. 7. Participation in Informal Rotating Savings Group: Change in participation from camp to post-camp period for what are call Sol, informal rotating savings groups. Increased participation in sol is thought to be an indicator of increased resil- iency. 8. Outlook for the Upcoming Year: In this case the variable does not measure change but whether the respondent believes life will improve economically in the upcoming year. The assumption is that a positive outlook is a proxy for improved in- come generating capacity In the sections that follow, each of these Response Variables is defined graphically and then tested against the Explanatory Variables—money, tools, training, and organization. The Statistical Tests In the analysis on the following pages we use line and bar graphs to illustrate relation- ships and we evaluate the strength of those relationships with statistical tests: Chi- Square and Comparison of Means: 1. Graphs offer a means to visually assess the impact of money and Trainings to the Response variables. Each graph has a red dash ‘random line’ indicating the average for the entire sample. Each ‘random line has a lighter dashed line on either side of it indicating the extremes of the 95% confidence interval for the estimation of the av- erage. For training, these graphs illustrate the relationship of the dependent variable via a yes/no (took the training or did not take the training) and differential percent- ages of respondents falling into each category of the dependent variable. To evaluate the impact of aid money we have broken money received into six categories 1) 0, 2) 01-5,000 HTG 3) 5,001-10,000 HTG, 4) 10,001 - 15,000 HTG, 5) 15,001 to 25,000 HTG, 6) more than 25,001 HTG: the money categories are then used to illustrate dif- ferences in the proportion of respondents falling into each of the dependent variable categories. Large difference between the expected frequencies (that found among the total sample population for that particular variable) suggesting a causal rela- tionship. 2. Chi-Square is used to measure the expected correlation between categories of the Response Variable and categories of the Explanatory Variables Training and Money. - 22 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements A high Chi-Square indicates higher probability of a relationship. The “p-value” for a high Chi-Square value tends to be low: the higher the Chi-Square, the lower the p- value and the more likely that there is some sort of causal relationship between the Explanatory and Response Variables. For example, if ‘Business Training’ has a pow- erful relationship between the likelihood of a positive outcome on School Children (a household’s children 6 to 18 years of age who are in school), the Chi-Square will be high and the p-value low. If it is statistically significant the p-value will be low. 3. Comparison of Means is to evaluate any possible relationship between the Ex- planatory variables Money and Organization vis-a-vis the Response variables. Specifically, the mean in this case is the proportion/percentage of beneficiaries ex- hibiting a characteristic of a Response Variable and the organization giving the aid. For example: the proportion of CARE beneficiaries who have Remained in the rental subsidy home. In all cases in the present study, we set the p-value used to evaluate statistical significance at a maximum of .05, meaning that at such a p-value or less there would be at least a 95% probability that the there is indeed relationship—whether causal or not—between the Explanatory variable and the Response variable in question. - 23 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 1: Left House for Economic Reasons Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ Figure 11 illustrates that the expected proportion of those remaining in the subsidy house or having left for non-economic reasons is 60% (designated by the “Random Line”). The graph suggests a relationship only between the counter-intuitive high number of those who received money and yet still left the house for economic reasons. Those who received the greatest amount of money—over 25,000 HT—and who were also among the most vulnerable categories, were most likely to have left the house for economic reasons (53% vs. an total sample average of 40%). The reason for the latter may well be that these were the most vulnerable beneficiaries—the most vulnerable individuals received more aid, as in the case of Concern and Oxfam—hence were also those most inclined to seek less costly rental accommodations. Congruently, Chi-Square test yields strong support that this is not being a random finding (Chi-sq. = 22, p = .001). Figure 11: Total Money Received by Still in House or Left House for Non-Economic Reasons Figure 5.4: Total Money Received by Still in House or Left House for Non-Economic Reasons Random Line = 60% (57-63%) Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=237) 47% 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=116) 66% 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=147) 61% 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=421) 64% 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=301) Chi-sq=22 61% p = .001 Zero HTG (n=177) 63% Chi-sq=22 p = .001 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Table 9: Total Money Received by Left House for Economic vs. Non- Economic Reasons Non- Aid Money Received Economic economic Zero HTG (n=177) 37% 63% 01-5,000 HTG (n=301) 39% 61% 5,001-10,000 HTG (n=421) 36% 64% 10,001-15,000 HTG (n=147) 39% 61% 15,001-25,000 HTG (n=116) 34% 66% > 25,000 HTG (n=237) 53% 47% TOTAL (N=1,399) 40% 60% - 24 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ‘Left House’ and Explanatory Figure 5.5: 12: Figure LeftLeft House byby House Variable ‘Training’ Professional Training Professional Training 73% There is evidence for a relationship 80% 60% between whether or not a beneficiary 60% 40% left their home for economic reasons 40% 27% and professional skills training, illus- 20% trated in Error! Reference source not 0% Left house for Still in House or left found. and statistical significant at p < economic reason for other reason .05 (specifically p =.02). Professional Training No (n=1,324) Chi-sq=5.7 Professional Training Yes (n=75) p = .02 ‘Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ A statistically significant (p=.05) lower proportion of beneficiaries who had received training remained in the rental subsidy home or left for non- economic reasons. Specifi- cally, 41 percent for those who had received no training vs. 55 percent for the nearest humanitarian aid agency, that of Goal. Figure 13: Confidence Interval for Remained in House or Moved for Non-Economic Reasons by Organization. Random Line 80% = 60% (57-63%) 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% CARE CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING (N=195) (N=172) (N=195) (N=150) (N=169) (N=124) (N=371) - 25 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 2: Household Tenure Status We saw in the previous section that alt- hough 62 percent of recipients left the Figure 14: Current Status in House Figure 5.7: Where Current Status in Living rental, and a total of 40% left for economic House Where (N=1,399)Living reasons. A proportion of those people (49%) returned to camps, went to live in (N=1,399) tents on property of others, or went to live Rent 73% with other families. Overall, the percentage of those people is a rather large 22% of the Own entire sample (see Figure 14). We can infer 5% that it is precisely this population that was most unable to cope with life outside the Camp, tent or staying with camps and the burden of rental payments. people 22% ‘Household Tenure’ Status and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid money Received’ Figure 15 graphically illustrates a trend toward ‘the less money received, the more probable the respondent has moved back to a camp, tent or is a guest in another fami- ly’s house.’ The trend is nearly perfectly linear. It is also rather dramatic. Those who received 0 to 5,000 HTG were than twice as likely to have returned to camps, tents, or to have gone to live with another family (28% vs. 13%). Chi-Square suggests an extremely high level of probability that the observed relationship is not by chance (p=.000). Figure 5.8: Total Money Received by House Tenure Figure 15: Total Money Received by House Tenure (percentage of respondents who are currently living in camp, tent or as (percentage of respondents who are currently living in camp, tent or as guests in house of other guests in house of other family family) Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=237) 13% Random Line 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=116) 13% = 22% (20-24%) 20% 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=147) 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=421) 22% Chi-sq=30 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=301) 30%p = .000 Zero HTG (n=177) 24% Chi-sq=30 p = .000 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% - 26 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ‘Household Tenure Status’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ Those who experienced Professional/Vocational training or Business training were less likely to have moved back to a camp, to a tent or into the home of another family. For Professional Training, the Chi-Square is 4.2, statistically significant at p=.04. Business Skills has a higher Chi-Square (8.4) and a much lower p-value (p=.004), suggesting a relationship. Figure 17: Household Status by : HouseholdStatus Figure 5.9 Household Status by Figure Figure 16Household 5.10 Status by by Professional Training BusinessSkills Skills Professional Training Business 100% 88% 78% 80% 100% 75% 81% 60% 50% 25% 19% 40% 22% 20% 12% 0% 0% Camp, tent or Rent or Own Camp, tent or guest Rent or Own guest Professional Training No (n=1,324) Chi-sq=4.2 Business Skills No (n=597) Chi-sq=8.4 Professional Training Yes (n=75) Business Skills Yes (n=802) p = .004 p = .04 ‘Household Tenure’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ There is a statistically significant difference (p<.05) between averages for Training beneficiaries of Concern. Fewer are in camps, tents, or living with other families, some- thing different than the random line. It is statistically significant with respect to the ‘No Training Category’. However, with regard to other organizations, the relationship is only statistically significant with respect to Oxfam beneficiaries. Noteworthy as well is that, similar to the beneficiaries who had left the house, a statistically significant number of beneficiaries who received no training at all were in camps, tents or homes of other families (the same is true for beneficiaries who received no money, something evident in Figure 15 but also included in Figure 18). Figure 18: Household Tenure Status by Organization Random Line = 22% (20-24%) 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CARE CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING (N=195) (N=172) (N=195) (N=150) (N=169) (N=124) (N=371) - 27 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 3: Family Stability The Survey asked respondents about current marital status (see Figure 19). Responses were categorized as Single (never in union), Common Law marriage (living with a partner but not legally married), Married (legally betrothed), widowed (common law or legal spouse having died), and divorced (a legal marriage that has been legally an- nulled). In cases of divorce and widowhood, the respondent could be again in union, something captured in the survey and discussed in the annex (see Annex B on page iv). For all respondents not in the category ‘single’ the survey also asked if the respondent was with the same spouse as they had been with when in the camp (see Figure 20). The assumption is that economically stressed individuals will more often have separated from a spouse. On the other hand, those who experienced less economic stress are expected to exhibit higher levels of marital/family stability. In this way the variable ‘Family Stability’ can be used as a proxy for the of impact of the Explanatory Variables. If the interventions—Aid Money, Training, Tools/Materials, and Organization—had a positive impact on the wellbeing of recipients, they should demonstrate recipients having more frequently having remained with their spouse. Figure 5.13: Still with Same Spouse in Figure 20: Still with Same CampSpouse in Camp (n=921) Figure 19: Marriage Status at Time (n=921) of Survey 51% Yes 74% 22% No 26% 16% 10% 0% COMMON SINGLE MARRIED WIDOWED DIVORCED LAW ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ The relationship between amount of aid money received and whether a beneficiary has left their spouse since being in the camp appears—rather dramatically—only the category that received the most aid money (over 25,000 HTG). Specifically, 94% of those in the high income category vs. 51% per the average were still with the same spouse they had when living in the camp. Because those in the highest income categories were targeted for being extremely vulnerable and received the most money, the relationship may have to do with being extremely vulnerable. The relationship yields a strong Chi- Square of 35 (p=.000). - 28 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Random Line = 26% (23-29%) Figure 21:5.14: Figure Aid Money by Noby Aid Money Longer with Spouse No longer with spouse Greater than 25,000 12% 5,001 to 10,000 26% Chi-sq=35 p = .000 15,001 to 25,000 28% 10,001 to 15,000 30% 01 to 5,000 31% 0 26% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% Table 10: Aid Money by No Longer with Spouse Figure5.15: Figure 22: Family FamilyStability by Stability Not w/ Still Life Skills Training Aid Money Received spouse w/Spouse by Life Skills Training Zero HTG (n=177) 18% 50% 100% 72% 81% 01-5,000 HTG (n=301) 22% 48% 28% 19% 50% 5,001-10,000 HTG (n=421) 18% 52% 0% 10,001-15,000 HTG (n=147) 18% 43% No longer with Still with 15,001-25,000 HTG (n=116) 19% 48% spouse Spouse > 25,000 HTG (n=237) 6% 49% TOTAL (N=1,399) 17% 49% Life Skills No (n=703) Chi-sq=.8.6 Life Skills Yes (n=218) p = .01 Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Trainings’ There is a statistically significant indication of a relationship between Family Stability and Life Skills Training. Specifically, only 19% of those individuals who had been ex- posed to Life Skills Training had left their spouse since moving out the camps vs. 28% of those who had not had life training. Chi-Square high (Chi-sq.=8.6) and has a correspond- ingly low p-value (p=.01). Looking at the graph (Figure 22), it can be seen that those who had been exposed to life training were 2/3 less likely to have left their spouse. ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ The only statistically significant difference (p<.05) in ‘family stability’ between averages for beneficiaries categorized by Organization that gave training is those of IOM. A statistically significant (p=.05) greater number of IOM beneficiaries were no longer with their spouses (since leaving the camps). Specifically, 42 percent for IOM beneficiaries vs. 26 percent for the sample average. In view of the finding above of a relationship be- - 29 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements tween life skills training and ‘family’ stability,’ most IOM beneficiaries in the sample did not experience life training (Figure 23). Figure 23: No Longer with Spouse by Organization 60% Random Line = 26% (23-29%) 40% 20% 0% CARE CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING (N=195) (N=172) (N=195) (N=150) (N=169) (N=124) (N=371) Response Variable 4: Asset Score As seen earlier on, the survey gathered data on possession for 22 assets. That data was gathered for three points in time: just before the earthquake, at the end of being in the camp, and at time of survey (see Annex B). The Asset Score used in the test below is only concerned with the change from camp to time of survey. It derives from a score calculated for each specific beneficiary. To derive the asset score from the data each item is given a score of 1; an individual can have gained an item since being in the camp (1), lost an item (-1), or are maintained owning the item or not have gained or lost the item (0). The scores are a total of all changes in item status’. Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ There is a statistically insignificant relationship (but at p=.10) between the Reponses Variable Asset Score and the Explanatory Variable Aid Money received. Note that to avoid expected cell counts of less than 5 observations, the range of scores were com- bined into groups to obtain the Chi-square. Specifically, the Asset Score was combined into grouped cells: -4 to -1, 0 to 3, 4 to 7, and 8 to 13. These groups covered the entire range of Asset Scores generated from the data). There is however, a difficult to explain statistically significant lower asset score for individuals who received 15,001 to 25,000 HTG. xi Figure 24: Received Figure 5.17: Money ReceivedbyMoney Assets Score Figure Figure25: Received 5.18: Money Received by Money by Assets Score byAssets AssetsScore ScoreScatter Scatter(HTG) (HTG) 20% 12000 0% 7000 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 2000 Assets Score Received Money No (n=342) -5 -3000 0 5 10 15 - 30 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure 26: Confidence Intervals for Aid Money by Asset Score (N=1,399) Random Line = 2.7 (2.6-2.9) 4.00 3.50 3.00 2.50 2.00 1.50 1.00 0.50 0.00 Asset Score and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ The data suggests a statistically significant Figure 27: Assets Score by Adult relationship (p<.05) between the Response Education Variable Asset Score and Adult Literacy courses 20% (see Figure 27, right). The sample of beneficiar- 15% ies who had received courses in Adult Educa- 10% tion was small (n=54). Nevertheless, the Chi- 5% Square had a p <.01. The suggestion is that only Adult Literacy courses had a strong relationship 0% to increasing possession of assets. -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Asset Score Asset Score and Explanatory Varia- Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi-sq=13.2 ble ‘Received Tools’ p = .004 Adult Education Yes (n=52) Similar to the preceding, there is no evidence that the Explanatory Variable Tools Received impacted the Response Variable. ‘Asset Score’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ Figure 28 illustrates a statistically significant (p=.05) lower ‘Asset Scores’ between Concern beneficiaries and the expected average, something that may reflect the ‘ex- treme vulnerability’ criteria base on which Concern targeted beneficiaries. Specifically, Concern beneficiaries had an average asset score of 2.0 vs. 2.7 for the sample average. Concern score was also statistically significant difference from HelpAge, Oxfam, and those beneficiaries who received no training at all. This may reflect the ‘extreme vulner- ability’ criteria by which Concern targeted beneficiaries. But it is also somewhat counter intuitive in that Oxfam and Helpage also targeted the extremely vulnerable. - 31 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Random Line Figure 28: Asset Change by Organization. = 2.7 (2.6-2.9) 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 CARE CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING Response Variable 5: Breadwinner Status As seen earlier on, the survey questionnaire asked respondents who was the primary and secondary household breadwinner at the time of the earthquake, while living in the camp, and at the time of the survey (see Annex B for more details). From this data a profile of changing breadwinner status can be derived for the population as a whole (ibid). Focusing on that period of time between the camp and the survey—when the interventions occurred—we can categorize breadwinner status as having Decreased (gone from a primary breadwinner to a secondary breadwinner or less), remained the Same (remaining at primary, secondary or other status), or having increased (gone from other to primary or secondary breadwinner or from secondary to primary status). The Breadwinner Status measure used in the following tests is derived from a change in breadwinner status calculated for each beneficiary. Breadwinner Status and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ Graphically the trend that appears in Figure 29 for the relationship between aid money received and breadwinner status is weak. In the graph it falls with no pattern close to the 9 percent random line. The Chi-Square is 15 with p = .458. Figure 29: Aid Money by Increased Breadwinner Status Random Line Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=237) 8% = 9% (8-11%) 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=116) 7% 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=147) 9% 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=421) 10% Chi-sq=15 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=301) 8% p = .438 Zero HTG (n=177) 12% 0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14% - 32 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Breadwinner Status & Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ There is a relationship between Breadwinner Status and have received Figure 30: Change in Breadwinner Status tools or materais, i.e., giving tools helps by Received Tools preserve or enhance the beneficiaries 100% 77% 77% status as household breadwinner. Eleven percent of those who had received tools 50% 11% 7% 12% 16% progressed from being a non 0% breadwinner or a less than primary Progress Regress Same breadwinner to being a second or the primary household breadwinner. The Received Tools or Materials No (n = 958) Chi-sq= 13.7 relationship is highly signiicant, Chi- Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 380) p = .003 Squre = 13.7 (p < .003). ‘Breadwinner Status’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ There is no statistically significant difference (p<.05) in ‘breadwinner status’ between averages for beneficiaries categorized by Organization (see Figure 31). Figure 31: Positive Change in Breadwinner Status by Random Line Organization = 9% (8-11%) 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% CARE (N=191) CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING (N=165) (N=187) (N=146) (N=157) (N=121) (N=348) - 33 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 6: Children in School The survey asked about total number of children in the house and whether or not each child aged 6 to 18 years of age was currently attending school (see Figure 32). The assumption is that, a) Haitians place a high value on educating their children, b) those households with school aged children who are not attending school are more Figure Figure5.25: ChildrenAged 32: Children Aged 6 to 6 to 1818 Years economically stressed than those who Years Attending Attending School per School per Respondent Household do have all children in school and hence, Respondent Household c) If the interventions—money, training and tools/ materials—had a positive impact, then those experiencing the All in school 57% interventions will more consistently have more school aged children in school. Only households that actually have school aged children were includ- Not all in ed in the calculations. No attempt was school 11% No school age made to adjust the number of school children 32% age children per household. The calcu- lations are made strictly on the basis of, ‘All School Aged Children Attending School’ vs. ‘Not All School Aged Children Attending School” (School age = 6 to 18 years of age). Children in School and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ Graphically no trend appears for the relationship between aid money received and Not all School Age Children in School (see Figure 33). Similarly, the Chi-Square is 10 with a p-value = .414. Figure 5.26: Not all in School-Age Children in School by Aid Figure 33: Not all School-age Children in School by Aid Money Money (For those with school age children: n= 954) Random Line (for those with school age children: n = 954) = 17% (15-19%) Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=156) 15% 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=89) 18% 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=91) 22% 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=287) 16% 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=207) 17% Chi-sq=10 p = .414 Zero HTG (n=124) 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% - 34 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Children in School and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ There is no suggestion of a relation- Table 11: Not All School-Age Children in School ship between any forms of training No school and Children in School. All Chi- age Not all Square are low, with high corre- All in children in in sponding p-values. Aid Money Received school house school Zero HTG (n=177) 60% 30% 10% 01-5,000 HTG (n=301) 57% 31% 12% 5,001-10,000 HTG (n=421) 57% 32% 11% 10,001-15,000 HTG (n=147) 48% 38% 14% 15,001-25,000 HTG (n=116) 63% 23% 14% > 25,000 HTG (n=237) 56% 34% 10% TOTAL (N=1,399) 57% 32% 11% Children in School and Explanatory Variables: ‘Tools Materials Received’ Similar to Trainings, there is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship be- tween Tools/Materials Received and Children in School. The Chi-Square is low (.3), with high corresponding p-values (p=.86) ‘Children in School’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ There is no statistically significant difference in ‘Children in School’ between averages for beneficiaries categorized by Organization (see Figure 34). Figure 34: Not All School-Age Children in School by Organization Random Line = 17% (15-19%) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% CARE CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO (N=195) (N=172) (N=195) (N=150) (N=169) (N=124) TRAINING (N=371) - 35 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 7: Informal Rotating Savings Groups A common Haitian strategy for saving money and accessing capital are informal Rotat- ing Savings Groups called Sol. Participants engage in an informal contract whereby at regular intervals—by day or week—each member of the group pays an equal and specified sum into a kitty. Participants take turns receiving the entire sum. During focus groups, discussants commonly referred to the importance of sol as a source of capital to engage in commerce, money to pay home rental fees and school tuitions. On at least three occasions a focus group participant lamented being forced to quit participating in sol when under economic stress. Both men and women engage in the practice. It is particularly important to women engaged in commerce. The assumption is that in- creased participation in Sol from the time of leaving camp and receiving money and training is an indication of increased benefits of those interventions. The proportion of quantitative survey respondents who reported participating in sol is presented in Figure 35. Figure 35: Particpation in Rotating Savings Group by Gender and Time 80% 69% 57% 60% 48% 38% 40% 25% 18% 21% 18% 20% 0% HAS IN PAST OR PARTICIPATED IN PARTICIPATED IN PARTICIPATING AT DOES NOW SOL BEFORE SOL IN CAMP TIME OF SURVEY PARTICIPATED IN EARTHQUAKE (N=890) (N=890) SOL (N=1,399) (N=890) Female (N=804) Male (N=595) Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ There is a dramatic relationship between increased use of rotating savings groups and those beneficiaries who either received no money at all or more than HTG 25,000. The Chi-Square score is 28 at p=.001 strongly suggesting that there is a non-random pattern. Figure36: Figure Increased 5.29: Participation in Increased Rotating in Participation Savings Group by Rotating Aid Money Savings Group by Aid Money Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=237) 26% 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=116) 16% Random Line 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=147) 10% = 18% (14-20%) 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=421) 16% 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=301) 15% Zero HTG (n=177) 21% Chi-sq=28 p = .001 0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% - 36 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ There is no evidence of a statistically Table 12: Participation Savings by Aid Money significant relationship between any Aid Money Received Dec Unchanged Inc. forms of training and participation in Zero HTG (n=177) 23% 56% 21% informal rotating savings groups. All 01-5,000 HTG (n=301) 21% 64% 15% Chi-Square are low, with high corre- 5,001-10,000 HTG (n=421) 24% 60% 16% sponding p-values. 10,001-15,000 HTG (n=147) 31% 58% 10% 15,001-25,000 HTG (n=116) 17% 67% 16% > 25,000 HTG (n=237) 10% 64% 26% TOTAL (N=1,399) 21% 62% 18% Zero HTG (n=177) 23% 56% 21% Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Re- ceived’ Similar to Trainings, there is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship be- tween Tools/Materials Received and participation in informal rotating savings groups. The Chi-Square is low (2.2), with high corresponding p-values (p=.54). ‘Rotating Savings Groups’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ There is no statistically significant difference (p<.05) in participation in ‘Rotating Savings Group’ between averages for beneficiaries categorized by Organization. It is notable however, that Concern beneficiaries have the lowest mean participation rate, something that may, once again, reflect that they were effective in their efforts to select for extreme vulnerability, i.e., many of their vulnerable beneficiaries did not have money to spare for engagement in sol (Figure 37). Random Line Figure 37: Increased Participation in Rotating Savings Group by Organization = 18% (14-20%) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% CARE (N=71) CONCERN GOAL (N=65) HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING (N=108) (N=51) (N=72) (N=45) (N=131) - 37 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 8: Outlook for the Approaching Year The survey included a question asking Figure Figure 5.31: Negative 38: Negative OutlookOutlook for Year for Coming beneficiaries if they thought that the ap- Coming (N=1,398; Year =1) missing proaching year would be better for them (N=1,398; missing =1) economically. We use this here as a proxy for economic wellbeing. The assumption is that Yes a positive outlook is a proxy for improved 38% Do Not income generating capacity. As seen in Know Figure 38, fully half of the respondents 51% No replied, “Do not know,” but that leaves 49% 12% of respondents who gave a decisive Yes/No prediction. Moreover, even the response ‘Does not Know’ can be contrasted with the more positive and certain ‘Yes’ responses. ‘Outlook’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Aid Money Received’ Graphically, the relationship between aid Table 13: Outlook by Aid Money money and a positive economic outlook for Do not the upcoming years appears counter- Aid Money Received know No Yes intuitive in the lower categories of recipi- Zero HTG (n=177) 58% 6% 36% ents, falling from a close to expected 36% 01-5,000 HTG (n=301) 57% 10% 33% 5,001-10,000 HTG (n=421) 60% 11% 29% for those who received no money at all to 10,001-15,000 HTG (n=147) 66% 16% 18% 18% for those recipients in the 10,000 to 15,001-25,000 HTG (n=116) 53% 16% 32% 15,000 HTG group. It then rises with the > 25,000 HTG (n=237) 10% 15% 75% dramatic 75% of respondents in the 25,000 TOTAL (N=1,399) 51% 12% 38% and over category reporting a positive outlook for the upcoming year. - 38 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure 5.32: Outllook by Aid Money (Believes Approaching Year39will Figure be Economically : Outlook Better than year past) by Aid Money (Believes Approaching Year will be Economically Better than Past Year) Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=237) 75% 32% 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=116) 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=147) 18% Random Line 29% 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=421) 38% (35% - 41%) 33% 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=301) Chi-sq=224 36% p = .000 Zero HTG (n=177) Chi-sq = 45 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% p =.216 Outlook and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ The only notable relationship evident and statistically significant (p=.02) between Outlook and Training is that of Business Skills Training. Those who experienced Busi- ness seminars were more likely to have a Figure Figure40: Outlook 5.33: by by Outlook Business Skills Business negative outlook for the upcoming year Training Skills Training (Figure 40, right). 60% 53% Chi-sq=9.3 48% 42% p = .02 40% 35% Outlook and Explanatory Varia- bles ‘Tools Materials Received’ 20% 10%13% There is no evidence of a statistically 0% significant relationship between Tools/ Do not know Not better Better Materials Received and Outlook. The Chi- Business Skills No (n=597) Square is a moderate (6.3), but with a high Business Skills Yes (n=802) p-values (p=.10). ‘Outlook’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Organization’ Beneficiaries of Concern and Oxfam had a statistically significant (p=.05) more negative outlook for the upcoming year than that sample average, and more negative than all other organizations except that of HelpAge. Specifically, 20 percent of Concern benefi- ciaries and 23 percent of Oxam beneficiaries vs. a sample average of 28 percent. Overall, those with no training at all had the highest proportion of respondents with a positive outlook, something that also may reflect the ‘extreme vulnerability’ criteria base on which Concern and Oxfam targeted beneficiaries and the fact that most organizations were likely inclined to target most vulnerable respondents, whether they did so inten- tionally or not (see Figure 41). - 39 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Random Line = 38% (35% - 41%) Figure 41: Negative Outlook by Organization 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CARE CONCERN GOAL HELPAGE IOM OXFAM NO TRAINING (N=195) (N=172) (N=195) (N=150) (N=169) (N=124) (N=371) - 40 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 6. MAJOR LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Rental subsidies: The first main lesson from the report is that the simple act of helping people move from the camps dramatically improved living standards. This was evident in the physical structures of the homes vs. the camps, and even in com- parison to conditions—house type and sanitary facilities—that many beneficiaries lived in before the earthquake. The improvement in living standards after the camp is also evident in dramatic increase in basica assets, what we called in this report the Asset Score. In this way, it is recommended that people be assisted in leaving camps and leaving them as fast as possible after a crisis. The destination being re- integration into neighborhoods. 2. Money: In this report we saw a detectable impact on economic autonomy of the aid money given to beneficiaries. The more money beneficiaries received the less likely they were to have returned to camps, tents, or to have gone to live with another fam- ily, and the more likely they were to have remained with the spouse they had while in the camp. Nothing is or should be surprising about this finding. Although more than half the Haitian population qualifies as extremely impoverished, they are not idle. Haiti is a cash- and market-oriented society with a high velocity rate of money. Petty trade and what is known as occupational multiplicity--a plethora of job spe- cialties—defines the informal economy. Thus, much of the money injected into the economy via household heads is put to work in some form of commercial activity. Even when recipients do not themselves engage in trade, they will often ‘store’ the money with a close female relative who does engage in trade. The profits and, over a period of time, the capital as well, is spent on food, medical and educational expens- es as they arise. Indeed, intuitively one would have expected stronger relationships between cash transfers and socio-economic resiliency. The likely reason such rela- tionships were not found was because they were masked by the fact that those beneficiaries who received the most money tended to be selected for extreme vul- nerability. Another important point here is that the Haitian poor are, compared to many impoverished populations, highly conservative regarding vices such as use of drugs and alcohol (some might say that they are so poor they cannot afford the luxu- ry of vices). In this way, money given to the poor in Haiti—no matter what it is intended for-- is seldom wasted. Thus, humanitarian aid agencies would do better to concern themselves with how to effectively select and vet vulnerable beneficiaries than what they do with the money once they have received it, i.e. money is a highly effective form of aid but the principal challenge is selecting and getting it to those most in need. 3. Training: All training had some detectable impact on the beneficiaries studied. Vocational training corresponded to a greater likelihood that the beneficiary was still in the rental subsidy home at the time of the survey or that they had left it for non-economic reasons; those who experienced Professional/Vocational training or Business training were less likely to have moved back to a camp, to a tent or into the home of another family; those who had experienced Life Skills Training were signifi- cantly more likely to have remained with the spouse they had while in the camp; and those who took adult education courses had significantly higher Asset Scores. In view of the high value that the Haitian poor place on formal knowledge of any - 41 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements kind, intense petty trade and occupational multiplicity discussed above, and the im- pact of training detected in this study all attest to the appropriateness of training and education as interventions. Moreover, while it was beyond the scope this report to elaborate on the need for training and education, there is a deficit in Haiti of quali- ty educational resources—both adult, vocational and regarding children. However, with the exception of IOM vocational training (sub-contracted to existing technical schools), there is a lack of definition, standardization, and even assurances that the quality of the education given. Similarly, there is a paucity of evaluations of the direct impact of that training, i.e. what did they learn? were they tested? and were the skills taught appropriate to the local economy? The fact that such information is not readi- ly available raises questions about the quality of the training, 4. Standardization: The partners should standardize interventions. Multiple packages can be implemented but in order to evaluate aid packages in the future there must be a consistent structure that can be evaluated. This means strictly defining and co- ordinating with the other agencies beneficiary criteria, mechanisms for selecting and verifying beneficiaries, training curriculum, length of curriculum, attendance requirements, benefits and conditions for receiving benefits. This standardization should begin before the interventions are made. 5. Monitoring and Evaluation: Begin the evaluation process at the same time as the interventions are being applied. Similar to medical trials, this will allow for the crea- tion of control and treatment groups. For those who feel such an approach is de- humanizing or unfair to beneficiaries, it warrants emphasizing that it is as import to understand the best practices that can make humanitarian aid effective and can help people recover from disaster and/or escape poverty as it is to understand the im- pact of medicines on the sick. As for those individuals who do not receive interventions because they are a control group, post study interventions can be pro- vided. - 42 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements 7. WORKS CITED Amnesty International 2013 “Nowhere to Go: Forced Evictions in Haiti’s Displacement Camps.” January 2013. http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/amr360012013en.pdf, 20. CARE 2013b Gender Survey CARE HAITI HEALTH SECTOR Life Saving Interventions for Women and Girl in Haiti Conducted in Communes of Leogane and Carrefour, Haiti EMMUS-I. 1994/1995. Enquete Mortalite, Morbidite et Utilisation des Services (EMMUS-I). eds. Michel Cayemittes, Antonio Rival, Bernard Barrere, Gerald Lerebours, Michaele Amedee Gedeon. Haiti, Institut Haitien de L'Enfance Petionville and Calverton, MD: Macro International. EMMUS-II. 2000. Enquete Mortalite, Morbidite et Utilisation des Services, Haiti 2000 (EMMUS-II). Cayemittes, Michel, Florence Placide, Bernard Barrere, Soumaila Mariko, Blaise Severe. Haiti: Institut Haitien de L'Enfance Petionville and Calverton, MD: Macro International. EMMUS-III. 2005/2006. Enquete mortalite, morbidite et utilisation des services, Haiti 2000 (EMMUS-II). Cayemittes, Michel, Haiti: Institut Haitien de L'Enfance Petionville and Calverton, MD : Macro International. FAFO 2001 Enquete Sur Les Conditions De Vie En Haïti ECVH – 2001 Volume II FAFO 2003 Enquete Sur Les Conditions De Vie En Haïti ECVH – 2001 Volume I Fitzgerald E. 2011 Helping Families, Closing Camps - Using Rental Support Cash Grants and Other Housing Solutions to End Displacement in Camps. E-Shelter & CCCM Cluster, Haiti IFRC Haiti 2012 Return and Relocation Programme Gildea, January 2012 and Interim survey of phase one shelters, Ida Holdus for the Norwegian Red Cross, November 2011 Corbet A. 2012 Rapport de Recherche: Approche communautaire en Haïti : decryptage de la notion de «communautes» et recommanda- tions. Groupe URD HLCS Volume I and II Holdus, Ida 2011 Participatory Project Reviews: IFRC Secretariat Recovery Shelter Review, Rees- Homeward Bound? Assessing Progress of Relocation from Haiti’s IDP Camps Louis, G.J. 2012 Enquete de satisfaction aupres des beneficiaires de Retour a Terrain Oscar. Concern Worldwide, Haiti. Miyamoto, H. Kit Ph.D., S.E., and Amir Gilani, Ph.D., S.E 2011 Haiti Earthquake Structural Debris Assessment Based on MTPTC Damage and USAID Repair Assessments. Miyamoto International MTPTC: KML files showing evaluation of red, yellow and green tagged buildings from the MTPTC Building Habitability survey since 11 March 2010, Ministry of Public Works, - 43 -  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Transport and Communications, available at: http://www.mtptc.gouv.ht/index.php?c=bteb_index, accessed 7 March 2011, 2009. New York Times 2012 Rebuilding in Haiti Lags After Billions in Post-Quake Aid By DEBORAH SONTAGDEC. 23, 2012 New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/24/world/americas/in-aiding-quake-battered- haiti-lofty-hopes-and-hard-truths.html?_r=0 OCHA: Haiti – Internal Displacement and Population Figures (as of February 28, 2010), OCHA, 4 March 2010. Rana R., Condor J. and Juhn C. 2013 External Evaluation of the Rental Support Cash Grant Approach Applied to Return and Relocation Programs in Haiti. RSCG Programs – Operational Manual. Wolfgroup Performance Consultants. Rees-Gildea, Peter and Olivier Moles, LESSONS LEARNED & BEST PRACTICES The International ederation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Shelter Programme in Haiti 2010-2012 CRATerre CRATerre - ENSAG BP 2636 60 avenue de Constantine 38036 Grenoble Cedex 2, France Sanderson D, Clermont C., Sharma A. and Spraos H. 2011 Study of member agencies’ responses to the earthquake in Port au Prince, Haiti, January 2010. London; Disasters Emergency Committee UNDP / GoH (2012) Fiche de Projet 16 quartiers, 6 camps (16/6). Seelinger, Kim Thuy and Laura Wagner 2013 Safe Haven Sheltering Displaced Persons From Sexual And Gender-Based Violence Case Study: Haiti May 2013 Human Rights Center | Sexual Violence Program University Of California, Berkeley, School Of Law Spraos, Helen 2013 IDP Camps – the least worst option for the earthquake’s homeless. Oxfam-Quebec. Trevino, Monica, Ph.D., Robert Stewart, Mark Daku, And Andrea Lawlor, Ph.D., 2014 Second External Evaluation of the Rental Support Cash Grant Applied To Return And Relocation Programs In Haiti. Large N Analysis UN-HABITAT 2009 Strategic citywide spatial planning: A situational analysis of metro- politan Port-au-Prince, Haiti 2009 United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UN-HABITAT), 2009 USAID/BARR 2011 Building Assessments and Rubble Removal in Quake-Affected Neighborhoods in Haiti, Ravine Pentad Census BARR Survey FINAL REPORT Timothy T. Schwartz, with Yves-François Pierre, Eric Calpas April 2011. USAID/BARR 2011 Building Assessments and Rubble Removal in Quake-Affected Neighborhoods in Haiti BARR Survey Port-au-Prince Survey FINAL REPORT Timothy T. Schwartz, with Yves-François Pierre, Eric Calpas April 2011. World Bank 2014 Rental Support Cash Grant Programs: Operational Manual Interna- tional Bank for Reconstruction and Development / The World Bank World Bank 2015 Home sweet home: Housing programs and policies that support durable solutions for urban IDPs. World Bank - 44 - Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements - 45 - ANNEX A. Closing the Camps and Subsidies i  Annex Figure 1: Change in Camp Populations, Number of Camps, Total Rental Subsidy Beneficiaries Figure A.1.: Change in Camp Populations, (Source IOM) Number of Camps, Total Rental Subsidy Beneficiaries (Source IOM) 1600000 1400000 1200000 1000000 800000 600000 400000 200000 0 Jul-10 Dec-10 Jul-11 Nov-11 Jun-12 Dec-12 Jun-13 Dec-13 Jun-14 Dec-14 Jun-15 Dec-15 Mar-16 People in camps Total rental subsidy beneficiaries Camps ii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure A.2: Reasons for Annex Figure 2: Reasons for Leaving Camps Figure A.3: 3: Annex Figure Reasons Reasonsfor ClosingCamps up for Closing Leaving Camps up until up 2014until 2014 until 2014 Camps up Until 2014 (units of (units ofofanalysis (units = people) analysis=people) (units of analysis = camps) analysis = camps) Spontaneuous Spontaneuous Rental returns, 74% returns, grants, 52% 35% Rental grants, Evictions, Still in 18% Evictions, Open sites, 4% camps, 2% 11% 4% Figure A.4: Evictions vs. Subisides (households) Source: Annex Figure 4: Evictions vs. OIM Subsidies (households) Source OIM 20000 15000 10000 5000 0 Rental subsidies (households) Evictions (households) Note: the above graph illustrates the period of rental subsidies and number of beneficiaries (blue line) and the number of evictions. As can be seen, the number of evictions was on a steep rise until rental subsidy program provided a mechanism for moving people out of the camps without forced eviction. Source: OIM 2016 iii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ANNEX B. DEMOGRAPHIC DESCRIPTION OF SAMPLE In this section we provide a basic description of the sample and their reported conditions when the earthquake hit. The objective is to understand the demographic characteristics of the population: how the Subsidy Sample population differs from camp populations found in other surveys and how similar they are to the general metropolitan population. Very im- portantly, we see in the following section that the Camp Subsidy sample is poorer and less advantaged in terms of education than the metropolitan population as a whole, but few appear to come from the ranks of the poorest sector. Population Structure Age and sex of Respondents in survey compared to metropolitan population Annex Figure 5, right and Annex Figure 6 and Annex Figure 7 on the following page, com- pare the respondents in the Subsidy Survey Sample population to the metropolitan adult population from the USAID-funded Demographic and Health Surveys (2012). The only notable differences in age and sex of the two populations is in the youngest categories (21 to 25 and 26 to 30 years of age), ages before most people in the metropolitan area have married or engaged in union; and the category of 70 years and over for men, ages when (somewhat inexplicably) women continue to head households at a rate equal to their representation in the population but fewer men continue to do so. Annex Figure 5: Compairosn of Respondent Samples to General Population of P-au-P (Source: DHA 2012) Figure B.1: Comparison of Respondent Samples to General Population of P-au-P (source: DHS 2012) 54% 57% 46% 43% P-au-P Sample Male Female iv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Figure Figure 7: Metropolitan B.3: Metropolitan areaPopu- Area Popula- Figure B.2: Division of Survey Annex Figure 6: Division of Survey Respondents tion Sex and Age Structure Respondents by Sex lation Sex and Age Structure (Source: by Sex and Age and Age (Source: DHS 2012) (Source: DHS 2012) (Source: Camp SubsidySurvey) Camp Subsidy Survey) 3% 1% 3% 3% 2% 1% Female 1% 1% Female Male Male 4% 2% 2% 2% 5% 3% 3% 2% 6% 4% 4% 3% 6% 3% 4% 3% 7% 5% 5% 5% 7% 6% 6% 6% 7% 9% 8% 8% 8% 8% 10% 10% 2% 2% 12% 12% 10% 5% 0% 0% 5% 10% 20% 10% 0% 0% 5% 10% 15% Age and Sex of All Household Members in Survey Compared to Met- ropolitan Population Similar to the respondent population, the total population of survey households very closely mirrors that of the general metropolitan population (Annex Figure 8 and Annex Figure 9 below), suggesting there is nothing demographically unusual about the population Figure B.4: Combined Annex Figure Total 8: Combined Population Total Population of of All SampledHouseholds All Sampled Households (Source: (Source: Camp Subsidy Camp Subsidy Survey) Survey) Female Male 59% 58% 29% 30% 12% 12% 50% 0% 0% 50% of Subsidy Recipients. Figure B.5: P-au-P Structure (Source: DHS 2012) FemaleAnnex Figure 9: P-au-P Structure Male 57% (Source: DHS 2012) 55% 33% 34% 10% 11% 50% 0% 0% 50% v  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure B.6: Annex Commune Figure 10: of of Commune Residence Residencewhen theEarthquake when the EarthquakeStruck Struck (N=1,399) (N=1,399) 29% 30% 25% 21% 21% 20% 15% 9% 8% 10% 4% 3% 3% 5% 1% 1% 0% Household Size and Structure In all data on Post-Earthquake camps in Haiti the average household size is reported to be Annex Figure 11: Overall Household Size in significantly less than the average Metropoli- Camps vs. Subsidy Sample Household Size tan area household size (3.2 vs. 4.5 persons; see Annex Figure 11 right and Annex Table 1 on the following page). Since early on after the earthquake the trend was widely attributed to camp inhabitants splitting families into multi- ple tents in an effort to capture as much aid as possible (see Schuller 2012; USAID/BARR 2011). In contrast, Subsidy Sample respond- ents reported camp household sizes larger even that the general population, 4.5 vs. 4.4 persons per household, making it seem that accurate targeting mechanisms eliminated many of the those who were posturing and/or had split households into multiple tents. A problem with the preceding conclusion is that that average household size for all benefi- ciaries in the subsidy programs except IOM’s subsidy-only beneficiaries is 3.4 people per household. IOM’s subsidy only beneficiaries have an average household side of 3.3 people per household. This suggests that the large household size in the sample for the present study may in fact be something peculiar to the sample, i.e., that those people who could be located were among the truly needy beneficiaries who reported honestly. vi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Table 1: Comparison of Household Sizes by Gender, Organization, Camp, General Population, and Subsidy Sample Before Earthquake, Camps and After Subsidy DHS 2012 Camps NGO Subsidy and IGR Programs (n=1,330) Survey Sample Population IOM Concern IOM Total Subsidy General HsHld CARE AGR Concern Azile JP/HRO 1 JP/HRO 2 OXFAM COPAC Subsidy Only Camps Pop Before EQ Camp After Camp Size (n=153) (n=2,958) (n=420) (n=420) (n=834) (n=1,022) (n=164) (n=5,971) (n=52,864) (n=1,330) (n=1,784) (n=1,399) (n=1,399) (n=1,399) 1 18% 14% 1% 2% 12% 1% 4% 9% 9% 19% 7% 2% 4% 4% 2 26% 24% 14% 15% 36% 7% 29% 22% 25% 23% 13% 7% 10% 9% 3 22% 26% 28% 33% 26% 24% 21% 26% 28% 22% 18% 15% 20% 16% 4 18% 20% 27% 25% 15% 26% 18% 21% 19% 15% 19% 22% 21% 23% 5 11% 9% 17% 14% 7% 20% 12% 12% 10% 10% 15% 18% 16% 18% 6 3% 4% 8% 5% 3% 12% 8% 6% 5% 7% 10% 13% 12% 13% 7 1% 2% 3% 2% 1% 6% 7% 3% 2% 2% 8% 8% 7% 8% 8 0% 1% 2% 2% 1% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 4% 8% 5% 5% 9+ 0% 0% 1% 1% 0% 2% 0% 1% 0% 1% 5% 7% 5% 5% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Average 2.9 3.1 4.0 3.8 2.9 4.4 3.7 3.4 3.3 3.2 4.4 5.0 4.5 4.7 vii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Gender Figure B.8:12: Household Type/Headship Subsidy Annex Figure Household Type/Headship Subsidy Sample Populaton vs. CARE 2012 Non-Camp Sample Population vs. CARE 2012 Non-Camp Survey in Also unusual for Camp populations, Survey in Leogane Leogane and and Carrefour. Carrefour vs. IOMvs. IOM the Camp Subsidy Sample exhibited a 2012 high proportion of households with 70% 62% both a male and female head;4 and 70% 51% 60% correspondingly lower proportion of 50% 40% 27% 32% single female and single male headed 23% 30% 11% 9% 17% households than found in the general 20% camp population. Specifically, IOM 10% 0% (2012) reported 32 percent single Leogane and Camp Subsidy IOM 2012 female headed households and 17 Carrefour Sample (n=13,836) percent single male headed, for a 2012 (N=1,399) total of 49% of all camp households (N=1,629) as single parent headed. In contrast, Woman and Man Single Female Single Male the 2016 Camp Subsidy Sample had only 32% single headed households: 23 percent female and 9 percent male. Putting the extremity of the findings into perspective, these findings were once again lower than typically found even in the general population. A 2012 study by CARE International in Leogane and Carrefour found 38 percent of households were headed by a single female (27 percent) or a single male (11 percent), findings typical throughout Haiti (see Annex Figure 12, top right). Small Male Headed Households Not only are there many more single female-headed vs. single male-headed households, as seen above, single male headed households tend to be smaller and they have significantly fewer children (see Annex Figure 13 - Annex Figure 15 on the following page). This is true for both the Subsidy Sample and the general population. The number of children per male headed household is generally consistent through all age groups. The differences are largely due to changes in the number of children per female headed household being narrowest at: 1) The lowest household head age groups—21 to 30 years of age—when women have fewer children and likely many of the male heads may in fact be representing older household heads (male or female) and 2) The age ranges 51 to 66 years of age when women in the sample have fewer average children per household, the reason for which is not evident in the data. 4 The notion of who is “household head” is complex in Haiti. Who a respondent reports as head depends to a large extent on who is being asked (see CNSA 2013). In both rural and urban Haiti women are most often the functional head of the household, even when men are present. About 1/3 of women in union with a man will identify themselves as household head, another 1/3 will identify their husband and the remainder will report both themselves and their husband as head. Men on the other hand, tend to report themselves as the sole head about twice as often as women do. For this reason we have focused on de facto head, i.e., whether or not there is a single male vs. female adult owner/renter responsible for the home or whether it is a couple, i.e., the identified owner/responsible has a live-in spouse. viii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Figure 13: Comparison for Adults (18 yrs +) and Children (less than 18 yrs) per Household: Single Female vs. Single Male Headed Households 4 (male hd, n=127; female hd, n = 337) 3 3.02 2 2.69 1.55 1 0.98 0 SINGLE FEMALE SINGLE MALE HEADED SINGLE FEMALE SINGLE MALE HEADED HEADED HSHLD HSHLD HEADED HSHLD HSHLD CHILDREN ADULTS Annex Figure 14: Comparison of Household Size for Camp Subsidy Sample 2016 vs. Camps IOM 2012 6 4.63 4.6 4 4 3.3 3.4 2.6 2 0 MALE AND FEMALE HEADED SINGLE FEMALE HEADED SINGLE MALE HEADED HSHLD HSHLD HSHLD Camp Subsidy Sample 2016 (n=464) IOM 2012 (n=7,796) Annex Figure 15: Comparison of Average Number of Children per Single Female vs. Single Male vs. Male-Female Headed Household 2.86 2.64 2.56 2.63 2.52 2.27 1.95 1.86 2.00 1.87 1.85 1.84 1.58 1.34 1.25 1.24 1.32 1.21 1.30 1.10 1.14 1.17 0.89 0.95 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.78 0.68 0.64 0.57 0.60 Female (n=337) Male (n=127) Female-Male (n=757) ix  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Education With data on education we begin to see the vulnerability of the Camp Subsidy population— people who remained in the camps for four to five years—vis-a-vis other people in the camps in year 2012. Overall, the rate of illiteracy in the general camp population in 2012 tended to be twice that of the general population, a trend seen with regard to both sexes. Congruently, the camp subsidy population had twice the rate of illiteracy as the 2012 camp population and three to four times the rate of illiteracy as the general population. The trend is especially pronounced for female respondents who exhibit a differential rate of illiteracy vis-a-vis men that is even greater in the Subsidy population than it is in the general camp population or the metropolitan population at large (see Annex Figure 16, Annex Figure 17, and Annex Table 2 below). Annex Figure 16: Education of Sample by Sex Female Male 1% 3% 4% 8% 29% 45% 13% 12% 26% 22% 28% 10% 60% 40% 20% 0% 0% 20% 40% 60% Annex Figure 17: No School or Incomplete Primary in Camp Subsidy Survey vs. General Camp Population vs. General Population 60% 54% 50% 45% 40% 28% 29% 32% 30% 21% 20% 10% 0% FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE MALE GENERAL METRO CAMP METRO CAMP SUBSIDY POPULATION DHS POPULATION DHS SURVEY 2012 2012 2016 x  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Table 2: Comparison of Education Level by Gender for General Metro, Camp Metro, and Subsidy Sample Populations General Metro Camp Metro Camp Subsidy Population DHS Population DHS Survey 2012 2012 2016 Educational Level Female Male Total Female Male Total Female Male Total None 6% 4% 5% 15% 7% 11% 28% 10% 20% Primary school incomplete 22% 17% 19% 30% 22% 26% 26% 22% 24% Primary school complete 4% 4% 4% 7% 3% 5% 13% 12% 12% Secondary school incom- 53% 52% 53% 43% 57% 50% 29% 45% 36% Secondary school complete 3% plete 5% 4% 2% 5% 4% 4% 8% 6% University 12% 19% 15% 4% 6% 5% 1% 3% 2% TOTAL 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Vulnerability and Livelihood Camp Subsidy Sample identified vulnerable Annex Figure 18: Disabilities: Subsidy Sample household’s members as widows, Chroni- 2016 vs. Handicap International 2012 cally Ill, Elderly (over 70 years of age), 3.2% blind/mute/deaf, mentally disabled and 2.2% physically disabled: 76% had no vulnerable 1.6% members at all and the most common 0.9% 0.5% 0.7% category of vulnerability was widowhood followed by at least one chronically ill household member (see Annex Figure 19 below). Comparing the number of mentally, physically, visually and hearing impaired persons per household reported in the Camp Subsidy Sample to the general population the figures are, two to seven times the rate that Handicap International found for the general population, a conse- Subsidy Sample 2016 quence of the fact that many of the Handicap International 2013* beneficiaries were in fact targeted because they fit vulnerability criteria (Annex Figure 18, right). xi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure Annex B.15:19: Figure Vulnerable People Vulnerable ininthe People theHousehold Household(N=1,399) (N=1,399) 100% 76% 50% 10% 8% 4% 2% 2% 3% 0% Assets The bulk of sampled subsidy household was not, as a whole, highly unusual in terms of simple assets, such as radios, televisions, and refrigerators. Regarding these assets, the proportion reported for 2010 was approximately equal to that reported for the general population in the 2012 DHS (see Table B.3 below). For example, at least 70 percent of each population had a radio, cell phone, and television in the house. It is with the discrepancy between high dollar assets that differences stand out. Almost four times the proportion of the general population had a vehicle (11% vs. 3%); nearly twice as many had a motorcycle (3% vs. 5%); twice as many had a computer (11% vs. 5%); almost three times the propor- tion had a gas stove or burner; and 93% had a at least one member of the household who owned a cell phone vs. 74% for the Camp Subsidy sample. Annex Table 3: Assets: Subsidy Sample vs. Population Rent and Ownership DHS Survey Asset 2012 2010 The most outstanding feature of those living in the camps Radio 73% 69% and the Subsidy population was the extent to which they Television 70% 73% were, at the time of the earthquake, renters. All studies note Cell phone 93% 74% the high proportion of renters. Fitzgerald (2012) noted that Refrigerator 28% 26% that 90 percent of beneficiaries had been renters prior to the Computer 11% 5% earthquake. Similarly, fully 83 percent of the Camp Subsidy respondents were renters at the time of the earthquake. Gas burner 24% 9% Annex Figure 20, below, compares this the vs. 42 percent of Bicycle 5% 5% the metropolitan population found in the 2001 ECVI and the Moto 5% 3% much higher 60 percent found in the 2010 USAID BARR Car/truck 11% 3% study. Notable as well is that the USAID/BARR census of Ravine Pentad, one of the Port-au- Prince Prince neighborhoods most impoverished and most severely damaged, found that 60 percent of respondents owned the house; 51 percent owned the house and land. The discrepancy in the differences between the USAID surveys and that of the 2001 ECVH is due to the latter not have differentiated between ownership of the house and ownership of the land. As seen in the USAID surveys, a common practice in popular neighborhoods is to build xii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements homes on rented land and subsequently purchase the land. Rents for land are typically 1/10 to 1/20 that of the rent for home. Figure B.16: Renters & Owners for Subsidy Respondents vs. General Metro Annex Figure 20: Renters & Owners for Subsidy Respondents vs. General Metro Population Population 2001 2001 and and USAID/BARR USAID/BARR SurveysSurveys 2010 2010 100% 83% 68% 60% 60% 80% 52% 40% 48% 42% 60% 29% 40% 5% 4% 6% 3% 0% 6% 20% 0 0% Renters Owner of House Owners House Other & Land Camp Subsidy 2010 USAID/BARR P-au-P Survey 2010 Floor Type, House Size, Cost and Latrine Fewer respondents had flush toilets before the earthquake than the 2012 DHS reported for the general population. However, a significantly fewer proportion had only a hole in the ground or no toilet at all; specifically, 4 percent for the Subsidy Sample at time of the earth- quake vs. 15 percent for the metropolitan area general population at the time of the 2012 DHS survey (Annex Figure 21).xii Similarly, the Camp Subsidy respondent data for type of floor were comparable to the general population, but with the exception that there was a significantly larger proportion among the general metropolitan population with dirt floors (Annex Figure 22). Annex Figure 21: Comparison ofof Toilet Types Figure B.18: Comparison of Floor Figure B.17: Comparison Toilet Annex Figure 22: Comparison of Floor Types Subsidy Sample Po;ulation at Time of Earthquake Types: Subsidy Sample Population at Types: Subsidy Sample Population at Subsidy Sample Po;ulation at Time of Earth- vs. Metropolitan General Population at Time of time of Eearthquake vs.Metropolitan time of Earthquake vs.Metropolitan quake vs. Metropolitan General Population at DHS Survey 2012 General Populat at Time of DHS General Populat at Time of DHS Time of DHS Survey 2012 Survey 2012 Survey 2012 3% Other 0% None/other 1% 7% 1% Tile 15% HOLE 8% 15% 71% Cement 85% Latrine 52% 79% 26% 1% Flush Dirt 33% 5% 0% 50% 100% 0% 50% 100% Subsidy Sample 2010 Subsidy Sample 2010 DHS P-au-P 2012 DHS P-au-P 2012 xiii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure B.19: Number Annex of Rooms Figure 23: in House: Number Camp in of Rooms Subsidy HousePopulation at CampTime of Sample SubsidyEarthquake vs. General Population Metro at Time Population of Earthquake vs.(of renters and General Metropolitan Population (of renters and owners) owners) 47% 50% 38% 38% 40% 26% 24% 30% 20% 10%13% 6% 10% 0% One room Two rooms Three rooms Four Plus rooms Camp Subsidy Respondents at Time of Earthquake Metropolitan General Population (HLCS 2001) Summarizing to this point, the data indicates the Camp Subsidy population is less well off than the general population, but that most were not among the poorest segments of the metropolitan area population. Annex Figure 24 summarizes the critical indicators support- ing that they were less advantaged. Specifically, only 6 percent of the Subsidy respondents vs. 24 percent of the general population lived in homes with four or more rooms; 54 vs. 28 percent of adult women had never been to school; and 26 vs. 7 percent had no one in their home who possessed a telephone. On the other hand, Annex Figure 25 illustrates data that makes it clear that the subsidy population was not the poorest of the urban poor include that, only 27 percent of the Subsidy Sample vs. a higher 30 percent of the general popula- tion was without a television at the time of the earthquake; 5 vs. 15 percent lived in a house with a dirt floor, and 4 vs. 15 percent were without a toilet. Not least of all the average rent that subsidy sample respondents reported paying per year at the time of the earthquake was 13,240 HTG (US$331), much lower than the US$40 annual rent that UN Habitat esti- mated in Site Soley in year 2009 (Annex Figure 27).xiii Figure Annex B.20: Figure Evidence 24: Of Being Evidence Significantly of Being Disadvantaged: Significantly DisadvantagedCamp CampSubsidy Respondents Subsidy Respondents at At Time Time fo Of Earthquake Earthquak vs. Vs. Metro Metropolitan General General Population Population 54% 60% 24% 28% 26% 40% 20% 6% 7% 0% Four Plus rooms Female Illiteracy/no No telephone school Metro General Population Camp Subsidy Respondents at Time of Earthquake xiv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure25: Annex Figure B.21: NotPoorest Not the the Poorest Of The of the Urban Poor Figure Annex B.22: Figure 26: Cost OfAnnual Cost of Urban Camp Poor: Camp Subsidy Subsidy Respondents vs. AnnualRentRentinIn 2009: 2009 Respondents Metro e Vs. General Metro General Population Subsidy Subsidy Sample Sample Vs.Soley vs. Site Site (USD) Population Soley (USD) 30% 27% $350 $300 $250 $331 30% 15% $200 20% $150 $40 5% 4% $100 10% 1% $50 $0 0% Low End Sity Average for No Dirt floor No toilet or Soley 2009 Subsidy Television only hole in (UN Habitat) Sample at the ground time of DHS 2012 Earthquake Camp Subsidy Survey Respondents 2010 Income, Occupations and Skills Annex Table 4: Comparison of Sample to General Of the 1,398 respondents who answered the Population of Port-au-Prince question about source of income (1 missing Subsidy DHS response), only 13 said, “nothing”; 6 cited Survey 2012 2012 remittances from overseas. The most Category Female Male Female Male common occupation for men was skilled Management 13% 16% 13% 30% labor (35% of all male respondents), Sales/services 62% 32% 64% 27% typically in the construction sector, followed Skilled labor* 14% 35% 4% 11% by trade (32% of males). For women it was Unskilled labor 4% 11% 4% 26% overwhelmingly trade (62% of women). Domestic 6% 4% 13% 2% The remaining responses were vast and Agriculture 0% 1% 2% 1% varied: 8 reported making stoves for a Other 0% 1% 0% 3% living, 3 air were conditioner repair men, 12 * The principal differences in the data is skilled vs. mechanics, 16 who reported fishing as a unskilled labor and the category of ‘management’, primary source of income, 23 were civil differences that are almost certainly attributable to the servants, 19 school teachers, 18 moto taxis, way in which different occupations were categorized. 26 domestic servants, and 1 policeman (see For the DHS it was no documented in the DHS 2012 report how they aggregated categories. For the Camp Table B.4) right. In sum, the income gener- Subsidy Survey see Annex ating activities for the Subsidy Sample is a near perfect reflection of activities of the general population; once again suggesting that the respondents in the Camp Subsidy population are best described at the time of the earth- quake, not as the poorest of the urban poor, but as a representative cross section of the Port-au-Prince population. xv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Table 5: Counts of Respondents Per Breadwinning Category and Income Generating Activity 1st breadwinner before quake 2nd breadwinner before quake Income Activity Female Male Total Income Activity Female Male Total Commerce 475 166 641 Commerce 182 187 369 Skilled labor 105 189 294 Salaried unskilled 51 23 74 Salaried Unskilled 65 78 143 Skilled labor 48 21 69 Unskilled labor 32 63 95 Unskilled labor 12 16 28 Driver 14 15 29 Professional 9 5 14 Domestic 21 5 26 Domestic 4 9 13 Civil Servant 18 5 23 School teacher 9 4 13 School teacher 11 8 19 Wash Clothes 4 6 10 Taxi moto 10 8 18 Nothing 7 2 9 Fishing 5 11 16 Civil Servant 4 3 7 Professional 5 5 10 Restaurant/bar 2 2 4 Wash Clothes 10 0 10 Taxi moto 3 1 4 Security 4 5 9 Driver 2 1 3 Crafts 1 6 7 Mecurity 1 2 3 Other 3 4 7 Agriculture 2 2 Shop 1 6 7 Fishing 2 2 Remittances 3 3 6 Porter 2 2 Restaurant/bar 4 2 6 Shop 1 1 2 Agriculture 1 4 5 Crafts 1 1 Messenger 2 1 3 Factory work 1 1 Factory work 1 1 2 remittances 1 1 Informal medical sector 2 2 Other 22 5 27 Porter 1 1 2 Grand Total 448 363 811 Livestock 1 1 Marketing 1 1 Musician 1 1 Police 1 1 Shaman/spiritual healer 1 1 Nothing 10 3 13 Grand Total 804 594 1398 xvi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Urbanization and the Subsidy Respondents Connection to Rural Areas Like most developing countries, over the past Annex Figure 27: Department 65 years Haiti has been the site of massive Figure B.23: of Department Origin of migration from rural areas to towns and Origin cities. The entire country has gone from 13% urban in 1950 to more than 50% urban today. Nord_Est 1% While some 20% of those people are in Nord_Ouest 2% provincial cities, such as Les Cayes, Gonaives, Centre 3% Port-de-Paix and Cape Haitian, some 3.4 million—1/3rd of the population of Haiti— Artibonite 5% are in the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area Nord 5% (in 1950 Port-au-Prince had a population of Nippes 6% less than 150,000 residents, today there are 1 Sud_Est 13% million. And that’s just within the city’s Grand_Anse 15% borders.) The extent of the phenomenon is Sud 19% evident in the finding that 85% of Subsidy Respondents were born in rural areas, having Ouest 31% moved to the city in their youth (see Annex 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% Figure 28 and Annex Figure 29 on the follow- ing page). FigureAnnex Figure B.24: 28: Age Age Survey Respondents Survey Respondents Arrived in Port-au-Prince Arrived in Port-au- Prince 0% 0% 1% 0% 1% 2% Female Male 2% 1% 3% 5% 7% 10% 19% 22% 20% 16% 18% 8% 16% 16% 12% 19% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% xvii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Figure 29: Years in Port-au-Prince for Subsidy Respondents Figure B.25: Years in Port-au-Prince for Susidy Respondents 20% 17% 13% 14% 15% 12% 11% 10% 8% 6% 4% 5% 4% 3% 5% 1% 1% 1% 1% 0% We can expect that respondents would de-emphasize rural connections when interviewed, given the importance to aid agencies of establishing that camp residences who benefitted from subsidies were in fact residences of Port-au-Prince prior to the earthquake, Neverthe- less, the significance of the rural-urban connection cannot be gainsaid and is evident in land ownership: 94% reported having close connections to rural family (see Figure B.26 below). Moreover, while only 8% of respondents reported they owned land in Port-au-Prince (Figure B.27), 32% reported owning land in rural areas. Annex Figure 30: Has Close Rural Family Annex Figure 31: Owns Land in a Rural Figure B.26:(N=1,399) Has Close Rural Family Figure B.27: Area Owns land in a rural (N=1,399) area (N=1,399) (N=1,399) No 68% Yes 94% Yes 32% No 6% xviii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Impact of Earthquake Property A full 70 percent of Rental Subsidy respondents Annex Figure 32: Reported Damage to House reported that the house they were living in During Earthquake was destroyed; 27 percent reported it Figure B.28: Reported Damage to (N=1,399) was damaged; only 3 percent reported House During Earthquake (n=1,399) the house was undamaged. Eighty per- cent of respondents reported losing Complete 70% goods; the median estimate value of the goods was HTG 55,000 (US$ 1,375 at the time); the average loss was at HTG 62,253 (US$1,556; see Annex Figure 32 Partial 27% and Annex Figure 33).5 Injury and Death Undama ged 3% Three-hundred-forty-nine respondents reported AnnexFigure FigureB.29: 33: Property PropertyReportedly ReportedlyLost that at least one member of the household was During Earthquake Lost During Earthquake injured; a total of 520 people. Considering that (N=1,399) (n=1,399) at the time of the earthquake the total house- hold population for the Subsidy Sample was 6,995 (the average household size of 5.0 multi- Lost goods 80% plied by the total number of respondents), 7% of the population was injured. The number of Lost nothing households reporting at least one member killed 20% was 183 (four were discarded for inconsisten- cies in the data), and a total of 282 people killed, translating to 4% of the Subsidy Sample household population at the time of the earth- quake. The later figures are high compared to findings from the USAID/BARR survey and Census of Ravine Pentad, one of the hardest hit neighborhoods in Port-au-Prince (see Error! Reference source not found. below). They are nevertheless consistent with what may be expected from a hard hit population that sought refuge in the camps and with reportedly high value of property losses. However, when compared to the official govern- ment estimates of the loss of life they are less than half the rate reported for greater Port- au-Prince (ibid). xiv xv 5 At the time of the earthquake US $1 = 40 HTG xix  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure B.30: Proportion of Population Killed During the Earthquake Annex Figure 34: Proportion of Population Killed During the Earthquake 10.50% 3.10% 4.05% 2.16% USAID/BARR USAID/BARR Camp Subsidy Government P-au-P Ravine Pentad Sample Total Estimate for from Houshold P-au-P Sizes at Time of Earthquake Refuge in Rural Areas and Moving to Camps Reflecting their strong connection to rural Annex Figure 35: Went to Rural Area When Earth- family, 51 percent of respondents report- Figure B.31: WentHit quake to rural area when ed having gone to the countryside after EQ hit (N=1,399) (N-1,399) the earthquake (Annex Figure 35). Most would stay for only two to three months (Annex Figure 36). When they returned to Yes 51% No 49% the city, the vast majority went directly to a camp (Annex Figure 37): 93 percent of them would remain in those camps for the next three to five years (Annex Figure 38). AnnexFigure Figure 36: B.32:Time Spent Time in in Spent thethe Province Figure Annex B.33: Figure WhenArrived 37: When Arrivedin in Camps After the Earthquake Province after the Earthquake (N=1,392; missing =7)) Camps (n=1,392; missing=7) (N=718) (n=718) 92% 92% 100% 100% 80% 80% 60% 60% 4% 8% 5% 40% 40% 20% 2% 20% 0% 0% 1 to 3 4 to 6 6 months 1 to 3 4 to 6 6 months months months or more months months to 1 year xx  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure B.34: Years in Camp Annex Figure 38: Years in Camp (n=1,399) (N=1,399)) 38% 40% 40% 30% 15% 20% 2% 5% 10% 1% 0% Less than One Two Three Four Five one Camps Most respondents went to camps located close to Annex Table 6: Left Camp and their home prior to the earthquake: 58% reported Returned and/ or Lived in More the camps within 15 minutes walking distance of the than One Camp prior home; 78% reported that it was 30 minutes or One camp 92% less (see Annex Figure 39). Only 7 percent (103 Two camps 7% respondents) reported having lived in at least one Three different camps 1% other camp and less than 1 percent (10) reported Left and returned once 1% having left the camp to live elsewhere and then returned (Table B.7). When asked why they did not leave the camp before the subsidy program, 57 percent said they could not find another place and 40 percent cited money as the primary impediment. We can assume however, that those who could not find a place meant that they could not find a place for a price they could afford (Annex Figure 40). Figure B.35: Time/Walking Figure B.36: Main reason Distance Annex Figurefrom Camp to Former 39: Time/Walking Distance from Annex whyFigure 40: in stayed Main Reason Why camp Camp to Former Residence Stayed in Camp Residence (N=1,399) (N=1,399) (N=1,399) (N=1,399) 36% 40% 28% 30% 20% No Money Could not Find 40% 20% 8% 8% Place 57% 10% 0% Other, 2% xxi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements If there were advantages to living in a camp it came with the fact that few had to pay. Annex Table 7: Paid to Live in Camps (n=1,399) Only 3 percent (46 respondents) reported Frequency Number Amount paying to live in the camps; the vast majority of payment respondents in HTG USD of these (40) paid only once and they paid only an average of $US 35.59, 1/10 the 1 payment 40 2010 $36.59 average price of rent before coming to the 2 payments 1 1000 $18.18 camp (see Annex Table 7 left). Moreover, 3 payments 1 2000 $36.36 while 71% of respondents paid for water before coming to the Camp, only 59% re- 6-months 1 500 $9.09 ported having to pay for water in the camps. Monthly 1 300 $5.45 The average price was slightly higher in the Annually 2 875 $15.91 camp, HTG 4.0 vs. 3.7 per 5-gallon bucket (see Annex Table 8 below). Annex Table 8: Paying for Water and Price: Camps vs. Before Earthquake (n=1,399) Locations Paid for water Average price per 5-gallon Bucket Camp 59% HTG 4.0 Before Earthquake 71% HTG 3.7 Not so advantageous were the reported availability of toilet facilities and the size of the accommodations: 14 percent of respondents reported no toilet in the camp where they last resided; fully 85% reported living in single room, 89% were cloth or plastic (see Annex Table 9 and Annex Table 10, below). Also indicative of the plummeting standard of living respondents experienced in the wake of the earthquake and upon moving to camps was assets. Ownership of assets declined for all 22 items the survey collected data on. More than 50% of respondents no longer had a mattress, radio, television or dining table. In many other cases, such as with vehicles, motorcycles, fishing boats, banks accounts, gas burners, and animals, those few who possessed them before the earthquake reported losing them upon moving to the camps (see Annex Table 11 on the following page). Annex Table 9: Camp Sanitary Facilities Annex Table 10: Rooms and ‘Tent’ Constructions Camp Latrine Camps with no latrine Rooms in One room 85% (N=1,399) (n=196) last tent Divided into 2 rooms 14% Port-o-Potty 31% Neighbor 41% Divided into 3 rooms 1% Outhouse 20% Plastic bag 5% Tarp 89% Improved 9% Ravine/bush 45% Tin 7% Wall Hole 4% Seaside 7% Wood planks 4% None 14% Other 2% Other 1% Other 1% Floor Cement floor 22% Dirt 78% xxii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Table 11: Respondents who Possessed Asset in Camp (n -1,399) Asset Before Earthquake Camp Change Kitchen table 73% 9% -64% Mattress 82% 20% -62% Television 73% 13% -60% Radio 69% 14% -55% Display case for glasses, bowls... 41% 2% -39% Refrigerator 26% 1% -25% Telephone 74% 52% -22% Bank account 23% 6% -17% Cat 12% 2% -10% Chicken 12% 2% -10% Stove 11% 1% -10% Gas burner 9% 0% -9% Dog 8% 1% -7% Micro credit 8% 1% -7% Ag plot 6% 0% -6% Hog 6% 1% -5% Bicycle 5% 1% -4% Laptop 5% 1% -4% Vehicle 3% 0% -3% Moto 3% 1% -2% Tablet 2% 0% -2% Dory/boat 1% 0% -1% xxiii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Moving Out of the Camps Fully 94 percent of the Rental Subsidy respondents reported choosing the rental to which they moved; 3 percent reported choosing it in consultation with the aid agency; and only 3 percent reported that the agency chose for them. Of the latter, most were beneficiaries of the CARE program in which CARE paid owners to fix their damaged houses in exchange for one to two years of rent to subsidy beneficiaries (Annex Table 12, below). Annex Table 12: : Beneficiary vs. Sponsor Chose the House (N = 1,399) CARE Concern Goal Helpage IOM OXFAM Row Labels (n=237) (n=197) (n=205) (n=178) (n=492) (n=90) TOTAL Beneficiary 81% 99% 97% 93% 96% 97% 94% Both 2% 1% 1% 7% 3% 3% 3% Organization 17% 0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 3% When we asked the main reason they chose a particular area where the rental was located, 42 percent reported familiarity with the area, 34 percent chose security, 19 percent said that it was all they could find, 2 percent said they did not know and, as seen, for 3 percent it was the aid agency that chose (Annex Figure 41). Consistent with the importance given to familiarity of the area, 59 percent of respondents knew the landlord of the house they were going to live in; 21 percent reported they were friends or family of the owner (Annex Figure 42). The average cost of the rent was HTG18,625, only HTG 415 more than the average that respondents paid before the earthquake and, if calculated in USD, US$116 less (see Annex Table 13). Annex Figure 41: Why Chose Area Figure B.37: Why Chose Area Org Security chose, Price 18% 34% 3% Familiarity with area 42% Do not know, 2% xxiv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Annex Figure 42: Had ‘people’ in the Neighborhood Figure B.38: Had 'people' in (N=1,399) the neighborhood (N=1,399) No 32% Yes 68% Annex Figure 43: Relationship of Renter to Home Owner (N = 1,399) 59% 15% 6% KNEW THE OWNER OF FRIEND OF OWNER FAMILY OF OWNER THE HOUSE (N=1,399) (N=826) (N=826) Annex Table 13: : Average Cost of Rent Currency At time of Earthquake Subsidy Increase in cost of Rent Haitian Gourde (HTG) HTG 18,210 HTG 18,625 HTG 415 US Dollar (USD)* $455 $339 ($116) *USD Exchange, Earthquake: 1 USD= 8 HD; Time of Subsidy ~1 USD= 11 HD Quality of Infrastructure As seen in the main report, with the move out of the camps there was a definitive improve- ment in access to sanitation, water and quality of housing. The improvement exceeds on most measures the conditions prior to the earthquake. As seen in Annex Table 14 below, xxv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements more respondents had concrete vs. tin roofs (53% vs. 46%),6 more had flush toilets (33% vs. 26%), the proportion of those who had no toilet at all or a hole disappeared (3% vs. 0%), more had improved latrines (55% vs. 52%), and far more had cisterns (15% vs. 3%). Only in the case of the proportion of respondents with cement floors was there a slight and insignificant change in direction that suggested a decline in living standards (83% vs. 85%). However, for those who left the subsidy housing, there was an also a dramatic decline in the same measure of living standards. The proportion of those with concrete vs. tin roofs plummeted (from 50% to 32%), the proportion of flush toilets fell (from 33% to 22%), the proportion with improved latrines declined as well (55% to 43%), and those with no latrines skyrocketed (from 0% to 18%). Less dramatic was the decline in availability of water from a cistern in the house (dropping from 15% to 12% but still much higher than the pre-earthquake level of 3%), and the decline in the change in the cost of rent, which in HTG increased slightly over the 6 years since the earthquake but, translated into US dollars, declined by 25% for both the original subsidy costs and the post-subsidy beneficiaries. Annex Table 14: Changes in House Infrastructure, Sanitation Facilities, Water, and Cost Roof Floor Subsidy After Subsidy After Type Earthquake house subsidy Type Earthquake house subsidy Concrete 46% 50% 32% Cement 85% 83% 76% Tin 53% 50% 63% Ceramic 15% 15% 11% Plastic 0% 1% 4% Earth 1% 2% 12% Wood 0% 0% Wood 0% 0% 1% Toilet Cistern Subsidy After Type Earthquake house subsidy Earthquake Subsidy house After subsidy Improved 52% 55% 43% 3% 15% 12% Flush 26% 33% 22% Typical 19% 12% 15% Purchased water Hole 1% 1% 2% Earthquake Subsidy house After subsidy None 3% 0% 18% 71% 75% 76% Cost of Housing Measure Currency Earthquake Subsidy house After subsidy HTG HTG 18,210 HTG 18,625 HTG 19,566 Average US Dollars US$ 455 US$ 339 US$ 326 HTG HTG 15,000 HTG 20,000 HTG 20,000 Median US Dollars US$ 375 US$ 364 US$ 333 6 Although concrete roofs may seem less secure, and were considered undesirable in the months following the earthquake, it is emphatically preferred by the majority of people in Port-au-Prince, considered a mark of status, and the dangers seemed to be quickly forgotten in the year follow the earthquake (see USAID/BARR 2011) xxvi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Improved Living Standards Living standards improved dramatically after the subsidy recipients left the camps. The improvements are manifest in access to better infrastructure and sanitation facilities, water, house type seen on the previous page. The most powerful indicator, however, comes in the form of assets. As seen in earlier sections, the survey gathered data on possession for 22 assets. Not seen earlier was that data was gathered for three points in time: just before the earthquake, at the end of being in the camp, and at time of survey. Annex Table 15 illus- trates the change per asset for the entire sample population over the periods in question. In the Table it can be seen that assets plunged with the earthquake and subsequent move to the camps. After leaving the camp possession dramatically increased. For mattresses the increase is over 50% and for telephone, kitchen table, and television it is 37% or higher. Nevertheless, when comparing assets at the time of the survey to before the earthquake, there is a continuing and significant deficit. Annex Table 15: Change in Assets from Before Earthquake to Camp to Time of Survey Before Camp Present to to vs. Assets Before Camp Present Camp Present Before Mattress 82% 20% 73% -62% 53% -9% Telephone 74% 52% 89% -22% 37% 15% Kitchen table 73% 9% 50% -64% 41% -23% Television 73% 13% 53% -60% 40% -20% Radio 69% 14% 41% -55% 27% -28% Chinaware display 41% 2% 16% -39% 14% -25% Refrigerator 26% 1% 10% -25% 9% -16% Bank account 23% 6% 15% -17% 9% -8% Cat 12% 2% 13% -10% 11% 1% Chicken 12% 2% 7% -10% 5% -5% Stove 11% 1% 4% -10% 3% -7% Gas burner 9% 0% 3% -9% 3% -6% Dog 8% 1% 7% -7% 6% -1% Micro credit 8% 1% 2% -7% 1% -6% Ag plot 6% 0% 4% -6% 4% -2% Hog 6% 1% 3% -5% 2% -3% Bicycle 5% 1% 1% -4% 0% -4% Laptop 5% 1% 3% -4% 2% -2% Moto 3% 1% 3% -2% 2% 0% Vehicle 3% 0% 1% -3% 1% -2% Tablet 2% 0% 2% -2% 2% 0% Dory/boat 1% 0% 1% -1% 1% 0% xxvii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Evaluating Post-Camp Changes in Living Standards Summarizing to this point, the impact of leaving Figure B.40: Current Status in Annex Figure 44: Current Status in House the camps is associated with a dramatic and House Where Where LivingLiving immediate impact on assets: they increased. The (N=1,399) (N=1,399) increase is not directly related to the actual hous- ing unit, nor as will be seen in subsequent sections Rent 73% is there any detectable relationship between increase in assets and aid money and training. Own Related to the housing unit is the improvement in 5% house construction, sanitary facilities and access to water. We also saw that 62 percent of recipients left the rental; 73 percent of them (45% of the Camp, tent or staying with entire sample), left for economic reasons; and that people 22% these people experienced a significant decline in living standards. A proportion of them (49%) returned to camps, went to live in tents on property of others, or went to live with other families (see Annex Figure 44). Overall, the percentage of those people is a rather large 22% of the entire sample. We can infer that it is precisely this population that was most unable to cope with life outside the camps and the burden of rental payments. The next question is, why? Why was this 22% of the subsidy population unable to cope maintain themselves in the subsidiary housing or move to housing with equivalent stand- ards. Answering the question is critical to the report and analysis because in the next section we measure the impact that the money and training from aid agencies had on the economic success of beneficiaries. Eliminating or demonstrating the influence of other factors unrelated to interventions from the aid agencies will help us understand the impact of the interventions. Specifically, we can use ‘returned to camp, tent, or living with other family’ as a proxy for falling on hard times and slipping into deeper poverty. And we can measure it against the most likely reasons—other than interventions-that this would occur. Specifically, 1) house- hold member seriously injured in the earthquake (incapacitated for at least one month), 2) household member killed in the earthquake, 3) goods lost in the earthquake, 4) death in the family since the earthquake, 5) at least one household member seriously ill since the earthquake (incapacitated for at least one month), 6) at least one household member imprisoned since the earthquake, and 7) receives remittances from overseas (captured in the survey questionnaire with the question, ‘does someone in the house have someone overseas.’xvi Annex Table 16 and Annex Figure 45 on the following page show the results of the compar- ison. The only two variables that indicate a different proportion of those exposed to them falling on hard times are ‘a household member having been imprisoned’, where the benefi- xxviii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ciary is 50% more likely (31% vs. 22%) to be living in a camp, tent or home of other family’; and ‘probably receiving remittances,’ in which case the beneficiary is half as likely (12% vs. 22%) to be living in a ‘camp, tent, or home of other.’ Annex Table 16: People Who Have Returned To Camps, Tent, or Living With Other Family Proportion of Difference from Category that is Expected 21% of now living in Total Sample Living Camp, Tent, or in Camp, Tent or Guest in House of Guest in house of Variable Other Family Other Family 1. Hshld member seriously injured in earthquake (n=350) 20% -1% 2. Hshld member killed in earthquake (n=186) 20% -1% 3. Lost goods in the earthquake (n=1022) 21% 0% 4. Hshld member died since the earthquake (n=300) 23% 2% 5. At least one hshld member seriously ill since quake (n=428) 18% -3% 6. Member of hshld probably receiving remittances (n=58) 12% -10% 7. At least one household member imprisoned since the earthquake (n=176) 31% 10% Annex Figure 45: Confidence Interval for Test of Cause of People Having Returned To Camps, Tent, Or Living With Other Family 50% 45% 40% 35% 30% 31% 25% 23% 21% 20% 20% 20% 18% 15% 10% 12% 5% 0% Reported At least one Member of Lost goods Hshld Hshld Hshld deaths in serious hshld in the member member member the house illness since imprisoned earthquake seriously killed in "has since the the quake since (n=1022) injured in earthquake somone" earthquake (n=428) Earthquake earthquake (n=186) overseas (n=300) (n=58) (n=350) (n=176) xxix  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ANNEX C. ANALYSIS OF TRAINING AND RESPONSE VARIABLES Response Variable 1: Left House for Economic Reasons Left House’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ There is some evidence for a relationship between whether or not a beneficiary left their home for economic reasons and Professional skills training. The relationship is statistical significant at p < .05 (specifically p =.02). For Business skills the relation- ship is no significant at p < .05. Annex Figure Figure C.1: Left 46: Left by House House by Figure C.2: Annex Left House Figure 47: Leftby Business House by Professional Professional Training Training Skills Skills Businsess Training Training 73% 80% 80% 60% 63% 58% 60% 40% 60% 37% 42% 40% 27% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% Left house for Still in House or left Left house for Still in House or left economic reason for other reason economic reason for other reason Professional Training No (n=1,324) Chi-sq=5.7 Business Skills No (n=597) Chi-sq= 3.6 p = .02 Business Skills Yes (n=802) p = .06 Professional Training Yes (n=75) Figure AnnexC.3: Left 48: Figure House Left by Life by House Skills Figure Annex C.4: Left Figure House by 49: Left Adult House by Training Life Skills Training Education Adult Education 100% 38% 44% 62% 56% 100% 40% 31% 60% 69% 0% 0% Left house for Still economic in House reason or left for other reason Left house for Still economic in House reason or left for other reason Life Skills No (n=1,052) Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi-sq=3.2 Life Skills Yes (n=347) Adult Education Yes (n=52) Chi-sq= 1.8 p = .08 p = .18 xxx Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements xxxi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Left House & Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ There is no evidence for a relationship between whether or not a beneficiary Figure C.5: Annex Left 50: Figure House Left for Economic House for left their home for economic reasons Economic Reasons Reasons by by Received Received Tools and whether or not they received tools Tools 100% 60% 61% or materials from one of the aid agen- 40% 39% 50% cies. 0% Left House for Economic Still in House or Left for Reasons Non Economic Reasons Received Tools or Materials No (n = 1,010) Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 389) Chi-sq=.10 p =.75 Response Variable 2: Household Tenure Status Household Tenure Status and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ The Chi-Square tests for Professional and Business Training suggest a relationship with Household Status. In the case of Professional Training, the Chi-Square of 4.2 and p=.04, suggest a relationship, albeit much weaker and less significant than seen with Aid Money. The weak relationship may be a byproduct of the small sample size for those who received Professional Training (n=75). Business Skills has a higher Chi-Square (8.4) and a much lower p-value (p=.004). Figure Annex C.6 Household Figure 52: Status by Household Figure C.7:Figure Annex Household Status by 51: Household Professional Status by Training Professional Training Business Status by Skillsskills Busines 100% 88% 78% 80% 100% 75% 81% 60% 50% 25% 19% 40% 22% 20% 12% 0% 0% Camp, tent or Rent or Own Camp, tent or guest Rent or Own guest Professional Training No (n=1,324) Chi-sq=4.2 Business Skills No (n=597) Chi-sq=8.4 Professional Training Yes (n=75) Business Skills Yes (n=802) p = .004 p = .04 xxxii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements AnnexC.8: Figure Figure 53: Household Household Status Figure C.9: Figure Annex Household 54: Status by Household Status by Life Skills by Life Skills Adultby Adult Status Education Education 100% 78% 80% 100% 80% 78% 85% 80% 60% 60% 40% 22% 20% 40% 22% 15% 20% 20% 0% 0% Camp, tent or Rent or Own Camp, tent or Rent or Own guest guest Life Skills No (n=1,052) Chi-sq= .7 Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi-sq= 1.2 Life Skills Yes (n=347) p = .40 Adult Education Yes (n=52) p = .28 Household Tenure Status and Tools/Material Received With a Chi-Square of .62 and p=.43, there is no apparent relationship Figure AnnexC.10: Household Figure 55: Status Household by Status between Household Status and Received by Tools/Materials Received Tools/Materials Received Tools. Because we know 100% 78% 80% there is perfect overlap with Received 80% Chi-sq=.62 Tools/ Materials, Training and Money 60% p = .43 Received, the absence of this relation- 40% ship lends more weight to the argu- 22% 20% 20% ment that these other variables are 0% causal, i.e., the suggestion is that it is Camp, tent or guest Rent or Own not the Tools/Materials that are causing the relationship but Money Received Tools or Materials No (n = 1,010) Received. Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 389) Response Variable 3: Family Stability ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variable ‘Trainings’ There is no statistically significant indication of a relationship between any training and Family Stability with the single exception of Life Skills Training, which exhibits a high Chi-Square (Chi-sq.=8.6) and correspondingly low p-value (p=.01). Looking at the graph, it can be seen that those who had been exposed to life training were 2/3 less likely to have left their spouse. xxxiii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure Annex C.11:56: Figure Family Stability Family Stabilitybyby FigureFigure Annex C.12:57: Family Stability Family byby Stability Professional Training Professional Training Business Skills Training Business Training 100% 49% 40% 100% 49% 49% 50% 17% 21% 50% 19% 15% 0% 0% No longer with Still with Spouse No longer with Still with Spouse spouse spouse Professional Training No Chi- Business Skills No Chi-sq=2.9 (n=1,324) sq=2.7 (n=597) p = .23 FigureFigure Annex C.13:58: Family FamilyStability Stabilitybyby Figure Annex C.1459: Figure Family Stability Family byby Stability Life Life Skills Training Training Adult Education Adult Education 100% 48% 51% 100% 49% 44% 50% 19% 12% 50% 17% 19% 0% 0% No longer with Still with Spouse No longer with Still with Spouse spouse spouse Life Skills No (n=1,052) Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi- Life Skills Yes (n=347) Adult Education Yes (n=52) sq=.5 p = .77 ‘Family Stability’ and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ There is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between Tools/ Figure Annex C.1560: Figure Family Stability Family Stabilityby by Materials Received and Family Stability. Received Tools Received Tools 75% 72% The Chi-Square is low (1.4), with high 80% corresponding p-values (p=.95). 60% 40% 28% 25% 20% 0% No longer with spouse Still with Spouse Received Tools or Materials No (n = 663) Chi-sq=1.4 p = .95 Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 258) xxxiv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 4: Asset Score Asset Score and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ A statistically significant relationship (p<.05) between the Response Variable Asset Score and Explanatory Variable Training was found only with relation to Adult Literacy courses. The sample of beneficiaries who had received courses in Adult Education was small (n=54). Nevertheless, the Chi-Square had a p <.01.7 Although somewhat unexpected and difficult to explain, the suggestion is that only Adult Literacy courses impacted change in Assets that beneficiaries possessed. Figure Annex C.16:61: Figure Assets AssetsScore Score by Figure Annex C.17: Figure 62: Assets Scoreby Assets Score by Professional Training Professional Training by Business Business Skills Skills 20% 20% 10% 0% 10% -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 0% -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Asset Score Asset Score Profession No (n = 1,324) Chi-sq=2.2 Business No (n = 597) Chi-sq=2.2 Profession Yes (Yes: n = 75) p = .53 p = .53 Business Yes (n = 802) Figure Annex C.18: Figure AssetsScore 63: Assets Scoreby Life Figure Annex C.19: Figure AssetsScore 64: Assets Scoreby by Life Skills Skills by Adult Adult Education Education 20% 20% 15% 10% 10% 5% 0% 0% -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 Assett Score Asset Score No (n = 1,052) Chi-sq=4.7 Adult Education No (n=1,347) p = .20 Chi-sq=13.2 Yes (n = 347) Adult Education Yes (n=52) p = .004 xxxv  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ Similar to the preceding, there is no evidence that the Response Variable was impact by the Explanatory Variable Tools Received. AnnexFigure C.20: Figure 65: Assets Assets Score Score by by Tools Received Tools Received 20% 10% 0% -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 Chi-sq=2.2 Assets Score p = .45 Received Tools No (n=1,007) Received Tools Yes (n=389) Response Variable 5: Breadwinner Status Asset Score and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ Similar to Aid Money, the Chart and Chi-Sq tests below suggest that any relationship between Breadwinner Status and Aid Money is extremely weak and statistically insignificant (p = .115). FigureFigure Annex C.21:66: Change of of Change Breadwinner Breadwinner Figure Annex C.22: Figure 67: Change of Breadwinner Change of Breadwinner Status Statusby byProfessional Training Professional Training Status Status byby Business Business Skills Skills 100% 80% 72% 75% 80% 74% 77% 60% 60% 40% 40% 15% 20% 13% 13% 20% 4% 3% 9% 5% 12% 5% 4% 10% 9% 0% 0% Other Progress Regress Same Other Progress Regress Same Profession No (n=1,324) Business No (n=597) Chi-sq=2.2 Chi-sq=2.6 Profession Yes (n=75) p = .53 Business Yes (n=802) p = .47 xxxvi  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure Annex C.23: Figure Changeof 68: Change ofBreadwinner Breadwinner Figure69: Annex Figure C.24: Change Change of of Breadwinner Status Status by by LifeLife Skills Skills Breadwinner Status Status by by Adult Adult Education 80% 74%73% Education 60% 100% 74%73% 40% 50% 17% 13%6% 4%4% 9% 20% 4% 4% 9% 9% 12% 14% 0% 0% Other Progress Regress Same Other Progress Regress Same Life No (n=1,052) Chi-sq=.74 Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi-sq =5.9 Life Yes (n=347) p = .86 Adult Education Yes (n=52) p = .11 Breadwinner & Explanatory Variable ‘Received Tools’ The Chart to the right suggests that although FigureFigure Annex C.25:70: Change in of Change Breadwinner Breadwinner not strongly pronounced, there is a relation- Status Received Tools Status by Rerceived ship between Breadwinner Status and have received tools or materials (p < .01), i.e., 100% 77% 77% giving tools helps preserve or enhance the 50% beneficiary’s status as household breadwin- 11% 7% 12% 16% ner. 0% Progress Regress Same Received Tools or Materials No (n = 958) Chi-sq= 13.7 Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 380) p = .003 Response Variable 6: Children in School Children in School and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ There is no suggestion of a relationship between any forms of training and Children in School. All Chi-Square are low, with high corresponding p-values. xxxvii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Figure Annex C.26: Figure ChildrenininSchool 71: Children Schoolby Figure C.27: Children in School Annex Figure 72: Children in School by by Professional Professional Training Training by Business Skills Business Skills 57% 55% 56% 57% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 11% 13% 20% 11% 11% 0% 0% All in school Not all school All in school Not all school Professional Training No (n=1,324) Chi-sq=.34 Business Skills No (n=597) Chi-sq=.07 Professional Training Yes (n=75) p = .84 Business Skills Yes (n=802) p = .97 Figure73: Annex Figure C.28: Children Children in School in School by Figure C.29: Children by Adult Education Annex Figure 74: Children in Schoolinby School Adult Education by Life Skills Life Skills 80% 65% 56% 60% 100% 56% 60% 40% 50% 20% 11% 10% 11% 12% 0% 0% All in school Not all school All in school Not all school Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi-sq= 1.6 Life Skills No (n=1,052) Chi-sq=3.2 Adult Education Yes (n=52) p = .44 Life Skills Yes (n=347) p = .20 Children in School and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ Similar to Trainings, there is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between Tools/Materials Received and Children in School. The Chi-Square is low Figure Annex C.30: Figure 75:Children ChildrenininSchool School by by (.3), with high corresponding p-values ReceivedTools Received Tools (p=.86). 100% 84% 82% 50% 16% 18% 0% All in school Not all in school Chi-sq= .30 Received Tools or Materials No (n = 689) p = .86 Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 265) xxxviii  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Response Variable 7: Informal Rotating Savings Groups Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Training’ There is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between any forms of training and participation in informal rotating savings groups. All Chi-Square are low, with high corresponding p-values. FigureFigure Annex C..31:76: Participation ParticipationininSavings Savings Figure Annex C.32: Figure 77:Participation Participation in in Savings Savings Group Group by Professional ProfessionalTraining Training Group by Business Skills Training Group by Buisness Skills Training 40% 35% 30% 25%23% 30% 23% 20% 20% 9% 9% 8% 9% 7% 4% 10% 6% 7% 10% 0% 0% Decrease Increase Same Decrease Increase Same Participation Participation Participation Participation Participation Participation Professional Training No (n=517) Business Skills Training No (n=235) Chi-sq= 1.0 Chi-sq=2.5 Professional Training Yes (n=36) p = .28 Business Skills Training Yes (n=318) p = .58 Figure C.33: Participation in Savings Figure C.34: Participation in Savings Annex Figure 78: Participation in Savings Annex Figure Group 79: Participation by Adult Education in Savings Group GroupbybyLife LifeSkills SkillsTraining Training Group by Adult Education 30% 24%23% 40% 37% 25% 20% 30% 24% 15% 8% 10% 7% 6% 20% 10% 9% 10% 7% 6% 5% 4% 0% 0% Decrease Increase Same Decrease Increase Same Participation Participation Participation Participation Participation Participation Life Skills Training No (n=416) Chi-sq= 1.1 Adult Education No (n=529) Life Skills Training Yes (n=137) p = .58 Adult Education Yes (n=24) xxxix  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements Rotating Savings and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ Similar to Trainings, there is no Figure C.35: Rotating Savings Group evidence of a statistically significant Annex Figure 80: Rotating Savings Group by by Received Tools/Materials Received Tools/Materials relationship between Tools/Materials Received and participation in infor- 80% 61% 62% mal rotating savings groups. The Chi- 60% Square is low (2.2), with high corre- 40% 23% 21% 16% 17% sponding p-values (p=.54). 20% 0% Decreased Increased Same Received Tools/Materials No (n=389) Received Tools/Materials Yes (n=389) Response Variable 8: Outlook for the Approaching Year Outlook and Explanatory Variable ‘Training’ The only notable relationship evident and statistically significant (p=.02) between Outlook and Training is that of Business Skills Training. Ironically, those who experi- enced Business seminars were more likely to have a negative outlook for the upcoming year—or perhaps not so ironically. FigureFigure Annex C.36:81: Outlook bybyProfessional Outlook Professional FigureFigure Annex C.37:82: Outlook OutlookbybyBusiness Business Training Training Skills Training Training 100% 100% 51% 51% 38%31% 48%53% 42%35% 50% 11% 19% 50% 10%13% 0% 0% Do not know Not better Better Do not know Not better Better Professional Training No (n=1,324) Chi-sq = 4.5 Business Skills No (n=597) p =.216 Chi-sq=9.3 Professional Training Yes (n=75) Business Skills Yes (n=802) p = .02 xl  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements FigureFigure Annex C.38: 83: Outlook by by Outlook LifeLife Skills Skills Figure Annex C.39: Figure 84:Outlook Outlookby byAdult Adult 60% Education Education 51%50% 80% 37%39% 58% 40% 60% 50% 38% 40% 31% 20% 12%11% 20% 12%12% 0% 0% Do not know Not better Better Do not know Not better Better Life Skills No (n=1,052) Adult Education No (n=1,347) Chi-sq= .9 Life Skills Yes (n=347) p = .83 Adult Education Yes (n=52) Chi-sq=1.2 p = .73 Outlook and Explanatory Variables ‘Tools Materials Received’ There is no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between Tools/Materials Received and Outlook. The Chi-Square is a moderate (6.3), but with a high p-values (p=.10). Figure Annex C.40: Figure 85: Outlook by Received Outlook by by Received Tools Tools 56% Chi-sq= 6.3 60% 49% p = .10 39% 40% 34% 20% 12% 10% 0% Do not know Not Better Better Outlook Received Tools or Materials No (n = 1,010) Received Tools or Materials Yes (n = 389) xli  Final Report: Comparative Assessment of Livelihood Approaches Across Humanitarian Organizations in Post-Earthquake Haiti Camp Resettlements ANNEX D. FOCUS GROUPS Focus Group Guide Benefit packages What are the different packages people got to help them resettle from the camps? Did everybody get the same thing? Was it what people needed? If not, what was missing from the packages? How did the people in charge decide who got what? What would you do differently? What different packages would you offer? What do you think were the most effective in actually helping people get going? Training, cash grants, credit, remittances, follow-up guidance, other? Targeting How were people chosen? Was it fair? Female headed households, was that fair? What would you do differently? Distribution Did people leaving camps getting what they expected? What did they do with the money they got to spend on IGA? Was it enough to help? Are people who received help and classes on business better off than others who did not? Context Did the earthquake hurt or stop business/job/economic activities? What was life like in the camps? Was it hard leaving the camps? Why? Is life better now? Why? What was most important in getting life back to normal after leaving the camp? xlii  Annex Table 17: Focus Group Participants Focus Group # 1 Sex Age Children Occupation Address NGO Education #2 Fi 57 7 Komes Martisant Concern Prime #3 Fi 50 4 Anyen Fontamara Concern 6eme ane #6 Gason 53 5 Komes Martisant Concern 6eme ane #1 Fi 66 2 Anyen Delmas HelpAge 6eme ane #4 Fi 29 3 Anyen Dkayet Concern 9eme ane #5 Fi 35 0 Anyen Carrefour Concern Filo Focus Group # 2 #1 Fi 40 6 Komes Carrefou Concern Okenn #2 Fi 33 3 Komes Martissant Concern Okenn #3 Fi 32 3 Anyen Martissant Concern 3eme ane #4 Gason 26 0 Plombri Paco Concern Rheto #5 Fi 54 3 Komes Fontamara Concern 6eme ane #6 Fi 47 6 Komes Carrefou Concern Okenn #7 Fi 37 1 Kontabilite Turgeau Concern Filo #8 Fi 30 3 Kosmetologi Delmas Guest Seconde Focus Group # 3 #1 Gason 62 3 Chofe/Taye Fontamara HAI 9eme ane #2 Gason 49 2 Mason Carrefour Concern Okenn #3 Gason 43 4 mason/Fersye/Chapant Carrefour Concern Rheto #4 Fi 51 4 Komes Carrefour Concern Okenn #5 Fi 36 1 komes/mason Martisant Concern 3eme seconde #6 Fi 54 4 Komes Delmas Concern Prime #7 Fi 30 0 Anyen Carrefour Guest Filo Focus Group # 4 #1 Fi 43 3 Komes Pacot Concern 4eme seconde Carrefour #2 Fi 30 1 Enfomatik Feuilles Concern Rheto Carrefour #5 Fi 38 4 Komes Feuilles Concern 3eme seconde #8 Fi 57 3 Anyen Fort Mekredi Concern Okenn #9 Fi 35 2 Komes Fort Mekredi Concern Seconde #4 Fi 38 2 Komes Martisant Concern Prime #3 Fi 44 2 Enfimye Martisant Concern Seconde Focus Group # 5 #1 Fi 29 3 Anyen Christ Roi IOM Prime #2 Gason 32 0 Carelaj Christ Roi IOM Rheto #3 Gason 58 3 Fewonri Christ Roi IOM Prime #4 Gason 30 2 Mason Christ Roi IOM 9eme ane #5 Fi 30 2 Komes Nazon IOM Rheto xliii #6 Gason 30 1 Penti Lalue Guest 6eme ane Focus Group # 6 # 1 Gason 32 1 Ebenis Lalue Guest Rheto #2 Gason 27 0 Elekrisite Christ Roi IOM Rheto #3 Gason 61 3 Sekirite Christ Roi IOM 4eme sekonde #4 Fi 40 2 Komes Delmas IOM 9eme ane #5 Fi 43 5 Kwizin Carrefour Concern Prime Focus Group # 7 #2 Gason 3o 0 Ebenis, mason Carrefour Goal 9eme ane #4 Fi 43 3 Profese La Plaine Goal Filo #1 Fi 53 5 anyen Turgeau Goal 6eme ane #3 Fi 36 0 Telekomikasyon Turgeau Goal Filo #6 Fi 27 0 Gestion Turgeau Goal Inivesite #5 Fi 52 2 Kwizin Canape Vert Goal 9eme Focus Group # 8 #1 Fi 34 1 Komes Bizoton ARC 6eme ane #2 Gason 30 1 Refigerasyon Carrefour ARC 9eme ane #3 Gason 45 0 Enfomatik Carrefour ARC Filo Focus Group # 9 Staff #1 Gason 30 3 Social Worker IOM #2 Gason 31 3 Social Worker/ Accounting IOM Focus Group # 10 Staff #1 Gason 38 5 Science Politic Goal #2 Gason 31 4 Sociology HelpAge #3 Fi 31 4 Iniveriste HelpAge #4 Gason 34 8 Science Administrative Concern #5 Fi 30 3 Gestion Administrative Concern xliv  Focus Group Guide: Beneficiaries (Eng- lish) CONVERSATIONAL STRATEGY 1) Introduction: Present SocioDig staff and explain purpose of study 2) General questions (breaking the ice):  What camp were they in?  What type of assistance did they get?  Where there advantages to the camps? 3) Go around the table and each participant explains when the earthquake struck  What they were doing to earn a living.  What they did after the earthquake struck.  What they do today. 4) Camps  Biggest problems with camps  Return to topic of advantages  Aid while in camps 5) Rent  Importance of the rental subsidy programs  Will they be able to pay rent  How they get along with landlords. 6) Assistance (IGA, livelihood assistance, training…)  How beneficiaries were selected  Targeting: how they determined which camp?  Follow up  What was their opinion the different strategies  Who benefitted from the program (fraud, corruption, opportunists)  Which was the best strategy  What would they do different xlv  Specific Target Questions And Issues To Be Used Dur- ing Focus Group Camps 1) How was life in the camps? Did you really want to leave the camp? Was life in the camp normal? (Security? Work? Problems with neighbors?) Where there advantages, such as  No rent  Closer to work/school  Better area, higher up the hill, cooler….  Did they know people in the camps before they arrived?  Church in camps  Business in the camps? Specific sources of income.  Use of camps as a place of business, or for base of trade, storage  Opportunists, aid posturing… 2) Life in the camps: Difficult? Why? Why not? 3) Changing camps/ Wanting to change camps/ jealous of other camps 4) Ever miss the camp? 5) Why didn’t they leave the camps on their own? If they must pay rent now, and you had to pay rent before 12-January, and you did not like the camp, why in 5 years did you never leave? 6) What was the most important ingredient to leaving the camp and returning to a normal life? 7) Were people in the camps really ‘viktim’ of the earthquake? 8) Where there camps that got more than others? Were those who benefitted from the rental subsidies really people living in the camp? 9) Was there pressure to leave the camps? Eviction? 10) Did you expect to get a house of your own? 11) Do you own land anywhere? Have you ever owned land? 12)Why didn’t people go back to rural areas? 13)Why didn’t people buy land? Why didn’t people go to Corrail? xlvi Assistance, Livelihood Packages And Igas 1) What did NGO/UN agencies give to help people leave the camps. 2) How much did they pay for houses? How much was rent before 12-January. Will they be able to pay rent? 3) Did people in the camps think they would get aid one day, no matter what? 4) What did people do with the IGA grants? Was the money enough? 5) Did everyone get the same aid packages? 6) How did the NGOs decide who got an aid package? 7) Is that what people really needed? If not what was missing? 8) Are you a ‘viktim’? 9) Do you think it was necessary that those who received aid were those who lost goods, house and family during Jan-12 10)Who chose which aid was given? 11)Was their corruption? 12)Did all those in the camp really deserve aid? 13)Those who received training to do a business, are they better off now? Are they better off than people who did not receive training? Better off than those who only received money? 14)In general, is the current economy better than before 12-January? Is your situa- tion better? 15)Did the earthquake really destroy their business? 16)Was the flood of NGOs good for business? Good for the economy? 17)Did you or will you be able to pay your rent this/next year? 18)Where will you get the money to pay? 19)If you could be in charge of the aid to leave the camps, what would you do differ- ently? xlvii  Focus Group Guide: Beneficiaries (Kreyol) GID FOKIS GWOUP STRATEGI KI ITILIZE 1) Entwodiksyon: Prezantasyon Staf SocioDig ak eksplikasyon sou objectiv etid la 2) Kesyon general (pou mete patisipan yo alez):  Nan ki kan yo te ye?  Ki asistans yo te jwen nan men ONG yo?  Ki avantaj yo te jwen nan kan yo ? 3) Fe wond tab la pou chak patisitan eksplike aktivite yo te konn fe jis lè tran- bleman tè te frape.  Ki aktivite yo t’ap fe pou yo viv.  Ki aktivite yo te fe apre tranbleman tè a pandan yo te nan kan pou yo viv.  Ki aktivite yo ap fe kounyea pou yo viv. 4) Vi nan kan  Pi gwo pwoblem kite gen nan kan yo.  Retounen anko mande patisipan si yo te jwen avantaj pandan yo te nan kan.  Ed yo te konn jwen pandan yo te nan kan. 5) Fem kay  Enpotans sibvansyon pwogram enfeme kay yo .  Eske benefisye yo ap ka peye fem kay la anko le li bout?  Relasyon benefisye yo te genyen ak kay yo. 6) Asistans yo ( AGR, livelihood, fomasyon)  Koman yo te seleksyone benifisye yo  Sible: Koman kan yo te seleksyone?  Swivi  Opinyon sou diferan strategi kite itilize pou retire moun nan kan.  Kisye ki vreman benefisye de pwogram nan.( Fwod, koripsyon, opòtinis)  Ki strategi kite pi bon.  Kisa yo t’ap fe ki diferan si se yo ki t’ap deside (dirije). xlviii  Kesyon Sible Pandan Fokis Gwoup KAN 1) Koman vi nan kan te ye? Eske ou te vle vreman soti nan kan ? Eske vi nan kan an te yon vi nomal? ( Sekirite? Travay? Pwoblem nan vwazinaj?) Eske te gen avantaj tankou:  Fem  Pi pre travay/ lekol  Zon nan pi bon, tanperati a pi bon…..  Eske yo te deja konnen moun nan kan yo avan yo te vini ?  Legliz nan kan  Bisnis nan kan yo? Sous revni?  Itilize kan yo pou fe bisnis; vann ak stokaj(depo)  Opotinis, moun ka tan ed ONG… 2) Eske vi nan kan yo te difisil ? Poukisa ? 3) Kite kan pou ale nan yon lot kan/ Eske te gen lot kan kite jwen plis ed ke kan yo te ye?/ Eske sa pa konn fe yo jalou de lot kan ki jwen plis ed ke yo? 4) Eske yo sonje vi nan kan yo kounyea?( Eske yo vle retounen viv nan kan anko?) 5) Pouki rezon yo pat kite kan yo pou tet pa yo? Yo te konn enfeme kay avan 12 Janvye epi kounyea yo toujou ap peye kay. Si ou pat renmen vi nan kan yo poukisa ou pat soti pou kont ou, ou fe 5 ane w’ap viv ladan? 6) Kisa kite pi enpotan pou kite kan pou retounen viv yon vi nomal ? 7) Eske moun kite nan kan yo se vre viktim tranbleman te a. 8) Eske te gen kan kite jwen plis ed ke yon lot? Eske moun ki jwen ed pou enfeme kay yo se moun ki t’ap vreman viv nan kan yo? 9) Eske yo te konn jwen anpil presyon pou soti nan kan yo ? 10) Eske yo t’ap atan pou yo te bay yo yon kay ? 11) Eske ou gen te? Eske ou pat janm gen te deja ? 12) Poukisa gen moun ki te tounen andeyo ? 13) Poukisa yo pat achte te? Poukisa yo pat ale nan zon Koray? xlix Asistans: Pakej Livelihood Yo, Igas 1) Ki ed ONG/ Minista te bay pou fe moun yo kite kan yo? 2) Konbyen kob yo te peye pou kay yo? Konbyen li te ye jis avan 12 Janvye? Eske benefisye yo ap ka peye kay yo pou tet pa yo? 3) Eske moun ki t’ap viv nan yo te kwe yo t’ap jwen ed ONG kanmenm? 4) Kisa moun yo fe ak kob AGR a? Eske kob sa te ase? 5) Eske tout mout te jwen menm pakej la ? 6) Koman ONG yo te deside kiyes k’ap jwen pakej yo? 7) Eske sa yo te bay yo se sa moun yo te vreman bezwen ? Kisa kite manke nan sa ONG yo te bay yo? 8) Eske ou se yon viktim ? 9) Eske ou panse ke moun kite jwen ed nan men ONG se moun kite vreman viktim ? Eske se moun sa ki kite pedi fanmi, kay,ak komes pandan 12 Janvye ? 10) Kiyes kite chwazi ki ed pou yo bay? 11) Eske te gen koripsyon(fwod) 12) Eske moun kite nan kan yo te vreman merite ed yo ? 13) Eske moun kite jwen fomasyon pou biznis kounyea gen yon lavi miyo ke avan? Eske moun sa yo mwayen ekonomik yo pi bon ke moun ki pat jwen fomasyon? Eske kounyea vi moun sa yo pi bon ke moun kite selman jwen kob yo? 14) An general eske ekonomi an pi bon ke avan 12 Janvye? Eske sitiasyon vi yo pi bon kounyea? Esek yo te vreman pedi biznis nan 12 Janvye? 15) Ekse manje ONG te bay yo te bon pou ekonomik peyi a ? 16) Eske w’ap ka renouvle kay la le fem ou fini ? 17) Ki kote w’ap jwen kob fem kay la? 18) Se te ou ki t’ap derije ed ki vini pou leve moun nan kan, kisa ou t’ap fe ki diferan ke sa ONG yo te fe ? l  Staff Focus Group Guide (ENGLISH)  What did they do  Biggest problems  Targeting: how they determined which camp?  How they selected beneficiaries  Fraud  Rural/urban migrants  Follow up  For those who did not give training: Why not?  What was their opinion of the different strategies?  Who benefitted from the program  Why did some get second subsidy  Which was the best… strategy  What would they do different Staff Focus Group Guide (Kreyol)  Ki sa oganis fe pou moun yo  Pi gwo pwoblem yo  Siblaj: ki jan yo te deside ke yon kan ta benefisye  Siblaj: ki jan yo te deside ke yon moun ta benefisye  Magouyi  Moun andeyo kap vin rete nan kan yo  Swivi  Pou sa k pat bay fomasyon, poukisa?  Ki sa yo panse de strateji yo, sa k te pi bon…  Kiyes ki vreman benefyse de pwogram la  Eske gen moun ki jwenn 2eme subsidi pou kay  Ki say o ta fe diferan Summary Camp Focus Group Report 8 Focus Groups with a total of 48 total beneficiaries 2 Focus Groups with 7 NGO employee li The Earthquake The Earthquake hit on January 12th 2010 at 16:53 local time. Representative ac- counts from focus group discussants included the following. FG_4 #5 Natacha Rober, Female, 38 years, 4 children, marketwoman, 3eme sekonde, Concern: When the earthquake hit I was selling hardware tools, sugar, and several other things. I loss everything because people stole them. But these things were not the most important. Family was most important. You wanted to find your children and family to make sure they were safe. You didn’t care for the business. When I finally home I found that my 14 year old daughter had died. FG_6 #4 Niva Jean Baptiste; Female; 40 years; 3 children; marketwoman; 9eme ane; OIM: I had 3 children before the earthquake. One of them died. He was asleep when the earthquake hit. The house fell down on him. FG_3 #6 Joseph Carole; Female; 54 years; 4 children; marketwoman; primier; Concern: I was in the kitchen cooking when the earthquake hit. Some blocks fell down on me. It was God who saved me. Although there was great loss for many people when the earthquake hit the biggest impact for many came later. FG_2 # 7 Cancoul Chantal; Female; 37 years;1 child; accounting, philo, Concern: The problem was not the earthquake. It was the economy. Even if you had goods to sell no one had money to buy from you. If you had money you could rent a place to stay. But there was no money. FG_4 #3 Senat Yolene, Female, 44 years, 2 children, nurse, seconde, Concern: The earthquake paralyzed everyone. You could not do business anymore. There was no life after the earthquake. FG_3 #1 Andre Michel; Male; 62 years; 3 children; drive/tailor; 9eme annee; HelpAge: I am a tailor. I used to sew…Since the earthquake my blood sugar in- creased and I couldn’t see well anymore to sew. My eyesight got bad now I cannot sew anymore. lii Life in the Camps Camp life prevented many people from going about their daily business because they worried about who is going to watch over their children while they went to the market to sell. Many women turned to washing clothes or selling charcoal in the camps to survive. FG_2 # 3 Bibiane Pierre; Female; 32 years; 3 children; nothing; 3eme annee; Concern: You couldn’t go out to sell because you don’t have anyone to leave the children with. You could not leave the children alone in the camp. You have to stay and watch over them. Life was hard because we didn’t have money to sur- vive. FG_4 #8 Manita Jena, Female, 57 years, 3 children, nothing, none, Concern: I used to wash clothes for people in the camp. Sometimes the person didn’t have money to pay but he might give you some food to take home and share with the children. FG_6 #4 Niva Jean Baptiste; Female; 40 children; 3 children; marketwoman; 9eme annee; OIM: I was selling soda at the camp but someone stole the freezer I used to keep them in. Because of that I couldn’t do business anymore. I sur- vived because my neighbors in the camp where good people. We shared food with each other. Whoever had food would share. If I had 5 gourdes I also shared. The lack of employment and recession meant that life got harder after the earth- quake. Discussants described how this trapped them in camps. FG_3 #3 Cadio Jean; male; 43 years; 4 children; Mason/seller/metalworker; Rheto; Concern : I have 4 children, sometimes I was only able to get 1 day of work and then could not find work for the next 8 to 15 days. I had to feed my children. How was I going to get enough money save to rent a house? FG_2 # 5 Imene Massena; Female; 54 years; 3 children; marketwoman; 6eme annee; Concern :You didn’t have anything to sell to make money. Life got harder after the earthquake. FG_4 #5 Natacha Rober, Female, 38 years, 4 children, marketwoman, 3eme se- conde, Concern: Before Concern came to help us life was very difficult for us. I used to sell goods before the earthquake but I lost my business. You didn’t want to take a loan from people [to do business] because no one had money to buy from you. People wouldn’t give you loan anyway because they knew the econo- my was no good. They spent the money on their families and surviving. liii Humanitarian Aid Agencies in the Camps Aid organizations helped people in the camps. Earlier on they gave hygiene kits, wood and tarps to build tents, and mattresses. They also helped people replace lost birth certificates and IDs. FG_1 # 6. Jean Andre Greffin; Male ; 53 years; 5 children; commerce; 6eme an- nee; concern: They used to gave us soap, towels and hygiene kit. FG_4 #5 Natacha Rober, Female, 38 years, 4 children, marketwoman, 3eme se- conde, Concern: They paid 20,000 gourdes for the house and we got another 6,500 gourdes to buy furniture because some people did have any. After we got another 10,000 gourdes for commerce, I need to tell you the truth about what I got. Depending on how things went you might get another 3,500 gourdes FG_4 #1 Viota Felicin, Female, 43 years, 3 children, marketwoman, 4eme annee, Concern: Goal gave us wood to build shelters. FG_3 #7 Marie-Therese Jean-Baptiste; Female; 30 years; none; nothing; Philo; Concern: While we were in the camp I remember my little brother didn’t have a birth certificate. One of the NGOs helped us get him one. Opportunists and Corruption Opportunists made life much harder for those who were vulnerable. Discussants recounted camp committees dominating aid, taking it and selling it instead of giving the aids to people in need. FG_7 # 4 Erns Maire Claire; Female; 43 years; 3 children; teacher; philo; Goal: The camp committee took everything that was given for the camp. They took the tarpaulins and if you need one you had to buy it from them for 250 or 300 gourdes. If not, you lived in the rain. Sometimes we saw trucks came with food. But they took everything to store at their houses. They didn’t give us anything. Some of these people had houses in good condition. The camps offered them more advantages than staying in their own houses. FG_6 # 3 Jean Riguer Cadet; Male; 60 years old; 3 children; security guard ; 4eme seconde; HelpAge: I can say that I got food aid only once. They sold the food. They do business with the food. FG_3 #3 Cadio Jean; Male; 43 years old; 4 children; mason/ironworker; Rheto; Concern: I did not buy food aid from the camp committees. What I saw happen- ing was that they sold the food. Sometimes they made arrangements with other people and gave them food several times. These people sold the food and share the money with them. liv Some tents were not really occupied. People in the nearby neighborhoods would leave their own house and move to camps to get aid. Discussants reported that when aid workers came to the camps in the middle of the night to verify who were real camp residents, people would come running from nearby homes to occupy the tents. FG_2 # 7 Cancoul Chantal; Female; 37 years; 1 child; accounting, philo, Concern: When Concern arrived at midnight you could see them running to get inside a tent. You don’t know who told them that Concern is coming. You can see them running all over the camp. FG_1 # 4. Gaspard Julienne; Female; 50 years; 4 children; nothing; 6eme annee; Concern: If someone said he didn’t get formation it was because he gave a fake number. The person took the money and threw away the sim card. FG_7 # 4 Erns Maire Claire; Female; 43 years old; 3 children; teacher; philo; Goal: Some people left their houses and moved to the camps to benefit from the aid. Their houses were not destroyed by the earthquake but they moved to the camps to get more advantages. Sometimes they put names of family mem- bers they have that were living in the provinces on the list and when we have a meeting with an NGO the family members from the provinces will attend the meetings. Do you understand? Eviction and Pressure to Leave the Camps As time went on, landlords began to pressure people in the camps. There were attacks. People would come in and throw rocks and bottles. Sometimes people would start shooting in the camps or set fires to put pressure on people to leave. FG_1 # 3. Vilneon Scheilla; Female; 27 years; 3 children ; nothing; 9eme annee; Concern: … they used to threw rocks at us to leave the camp. They would some- times start shooting too. FG_2 # 3 Bibiane Pierre; Female; 32 years; 3 children; nothing; 3eme annee; Concern: Suddenly you would see they were throwing rocks and bottles at us. Sometimes they would even start a fire to scare us to leave. FG_4 #3 Senat Yolene, Female, 44 years, 2 children, nurse, seconde, Concern: They would come inside the camps with guns. You could not do anything about the situation. You had to accept that life because you cannot leave the camp and rent a house to stay. Camp residents themselves sometimes became fed up with the camps, the pressure, and the promises of aid that never arrived. Discussants recounted cases where NGOs had come to the camps to help but left without informing them that they were not longer going to help. One discussant told of how Concern came to help but people were not willing to speak with them because they were tired of being misled. lv  FG_6 #1 Jose Alcimbert; male; 32 years; 1 child; carpenter; Rheto; OIM: I was in Camp Ika, the organizations took a lot of time before they help us. At the be- ginning ACF was in charge of the camp and they left without telling us why. FG_8 # 2 Antoine Pierre Pelicier; Male ; 30 years; 1 child; handyman; 9eme an- nee ; ARC: One of our main problems was when we got a visit from an NGO and they asked us who was helping us. We said IOM and they said we cannot do any- thing for you because IOM will take care of everything. But IOM never helped us. FG_1 # 3.Vilneon Scheilla; Female; 27 years; 3 children; nothing; 9eme annee; Concern: Every NGO that came to the camp left without helping us. After all the misery they had us went through to help us leave the camp when Concern came we didn’t want to talk with Concern. People in the camps also took action and aggressively demand aid and removal from the camps FG_6 #1 Jose Alcimbert; Male; 32 years old; 1 child; carpenter; Rheto; OIM: The organization that was helping our camp took a very long time to relocate us. First it was ACF who was helping us but they left before relocating us. When we see no one wants to help us we started shutting down the streets. It was af- ter many strikes that we finally got their attention. Finally, IOM came and relocated us. The Rental Subsidy Program The rental subsidy program came as a great relief to many. FG_3 #4 Asselie Beauvil; Femle; 51 years; 4 children; marketwoman; none; Con- cern: We prayed every day for someone to get us out of the camp. God answered our prayers and sent Concern to us. We raised our hands to the heavens to thank God first and then Concern second who has done so much for us. They came and got us out of the camp. Now we are sleeping inside a house. That is a great blessing. FG_1 # 2. Ane Joseph; Female; 57 years ; 7 children; marketwoman; Primary school; Concern: Getting us out of the camp was very good for us. The reason I say that is because we wanted to leave the camp so bad. Camp life was terrible. Living inside a tent under the hot sun was like living in hell. No matter what you did you could not resist it. As for me I covered my tent with 3 tarpaulins to see if I could find a solution from the sun, but I didn’t. When Concern got us out of them camp it was a solution for us. FG_7 # 5 Fleurist Philomen; Female; 52 years; 2 children; cook; 9eme annee; Goal: I am very happy with the help I got! I am very satisfied! Life in the camp lvi  was misery. When it rained I took 8 blocks and put a chalk board on top of them, that was my bed. The focus group discussants appreciated training and formation. They felt that it helped them to better manage their money. For some it opened a door. Some also felt cheated because they were not offered training. FG_2 # 7 Cancoul Chantal; Female; 37 years; 1 child; accounting, philo, Concern: The trainings and formations were beneficial for me. I was taught how to man- age my money and how to avoid spending too much. I am a better business woman now because of the trainings. FG_7 # 2 Emile Bergeau; Male; 30 years; none; carpenter/mason; 9eme an- nee; Goal: Actually, right now I am surviving on what I learned in the formation. It opened a road for me to support myself. FG_1 # 2. Ane Joseph; Female; 57 years old ; 7 children; marketwoman; Primary school; Concern: Some people didn’t get the chance to be called for formation. I would have liked to participate too but I wasn’t giving the chance. Discussants were especially appreciative of Concern and IOM programs. FG_4 #1 Viota Felicin, Female, 43 years, 3 children, marketwoman, 4eme annee, Concern: It is because of Concern now I have land and built a shelter. The train- ing I got from them helped me to manage my money. Now I have a place of my own. FG_6 #1 Jose Alcimbert; Male; 32 years; 1 child; carpenter; Rheto; OIM: I have nothing negative to say about IOM. IOM has done many good things for us. At first it was ACF who came in the camp. They left without helping us. But IOM came and relocated everyone who was in the camp. Everyone benefited from IOM. CARE and the American Red Cross got the least favorable reviews from discussants. A particular sore point regarding CARE was the subsidy conditions and the feeling that the rental subsidy benefitted homeowners more than the form camp residents. FG_8 # 2 Antoine Pierre Pelicier ; Male ; 30 years ; 1 child ; handyman ; 9eme annee ; ARC: Many homeowners participated in the program in order for their houses to be fixed; but they [the homeowners] don’t want us living in their houses. They accepted to let us live in their new houses for a year and half be- cause Red Cross gave them a new house. But after one year they asked us to move out of the houses. Now they have brand new houses, they raised the rent because they know that we cannot afford the rent. lvii  FG_8 # 3 Jean Herold Jean ; Male ; 45 years ; none ; computer science; Philo; ARC: Here is the problem. The program was for people living in camps but it was not these people who benefited from the program. We met with Care and told them that their program will not be beneficial to us. But they didn’t listen. Care told us to find homes that were damaged from the earthquake and they will have a contract with the owners. Care will fix the houses and have us move to the house for a year and half. Who do you think benefits from that program? The home owners benefited because now they have a new house. Many of us who were in the camps are now living in the streets. The Burden of Rent Paying rent to help people leave the camps was universally seen by discussants as a good thing. Life if the camps and the stress of impending eviction were hard. But discussants emphasized that rent is also among the most onerous economic bur- dens. It is compounded by other problems such as meeting medical expenses and feeding the family. FG_1 # 3. Vilneon Scheilla; Female; 27 year; 3 children; noyhing; 9eme annee; Concern: As for me my rent was due since September. I told my landlord I would pay in December because someone told me he will pay the rent for me. I did re- ceive the money but one of my children got sick we had to spend the money. Now I don’t have the money anymore. I don’t what I am going to do. FG_3 #3 Cadio Jean; Male; 43 years; 4 children; mason/commerce/ metalwork- er; Rheto; Concern: I would have been able to pay my rent but my mother just died, I am the first born, the money was spent on my mother’s death. FG_6 # 3 Jean Riguer Cadet; Male; 60 years; 3 children; security agent ; 4eme segonde; HelpAge: I cannot pay rent in Port-au-Prince. I used to get support from 2 of my friends now they have problems of their own. Now my head is hot like a glass lamp from being worried about paying rent. Many had hoped they would have been given a home or assistance in purchasing one and when asked what they would have done differently had they been making the decisions about aid, most respondents spoke precisely of purchasing homes or helping people purchase them. FG_2 # 7 Cancoul Chantal; Female; 37 years;1 child; accounting, philo, Concern: Paying the rent for me was important but I think if the NGOs had built a room for me it would have been a necessity. Because right now all rents are due and not everyone can pay. FG_3 #5 Saintlia Ydrache; Female; 36 years; 1 child; marketwoman/mason; 3eme segonde; Concern: If I was in the position to make a decision I wouldn’t have gone with the subsidy plan because when the rent is due some people are lviii  not able to pay again. I would have built them a permanent place to stay. They wouldn’t have to worry about a place to stay anymore. FG_7 # 2 Emile Bergeau; male; 30 years; none; carpenter/mason; 9eme annee; Goal: I think they should have done something different. You can see the coun- try has a lot of empty land. They should have taken the money and built houses for the people. Right now life is worse for some beneficiaries then before. Translation for Focus Group Camp #10 Staff #2 Transcription date: February 24th – February 29th 2016 Translation date: May 27th -1st June 2016 Participants #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern Socio Dig Staff Presentation Dr. Timothy Schwartz: My name is Tim. I am an anthropologist. I have been working in the country for over 25 years. I worked in the Dominican Republic for a time then I came back to Haiti. We are a team of 30 people in Socio Dig. We have 2 other foreign- ers in the team, an American and French guy. Almathe and Stephanie are part of the team. I am going to let them introduce themselves. Stephanie Pierre: My name is Stephanie Pierre. I think Dr. Schwartz already said everything. I am member in the Socio Dig staff. It is a pleasure to be here today with you to exchange information that we need to go farther with the survey. Almathe Jean: Good morning. My name is Almathe. I am member of Socio Dig. We have sat with many beneficiaries and agents from the Relocation project and have gathered a lot of information from them on how the project works. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Good afternoon everyone. My name is Joel Normil. I am an ex-employee of Concern. I am happy for the invitation to attend this Focus Group. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: My name is Plaismond Nikenncia. I work for HelpAge as an officer of reloca- tion. lix #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: My name is Cherubin Jocelito. I am working for HelpAge as an officer of relocation #1 Dalin Charles; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: I am Charles Dalin. I work for Goal. I used to work in the relocation project but we don’t have this project anymore. It’s a pleasure to be here with you all. I have seen you before? #1 Dalin Charles; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Yes, at Concern office. Public: Laughing I remember your face. I don’t remember if it was at the Goal office, I worked for Goal before in Gressier. #1 Dalin Charles; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Did you meet Hertha? Emmm! #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: She works in Gressier. Zorie was also there too. Yes, Zorie was also there. Also Hilaire and Bethony were there too. #1 Dalin Charles; Male; 38 years; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Bethony ? Ok. We worked on corn and beans production during the drought season. We all know that each organization has their own strategies working on each pro- ject. We have an idea how each project works through the beneficiaries and also from the report. Can each of you explain your role in the relocation project and the strategies you use when working in the camps to move people from the camps. Let’s start with you, Joel. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Well, I worked as an agent. I first started working in camp Lapaix in Delmas 2. We worked in several communities in the metropolitan area. I worked in 3 different projects for Concern. We sat down with the beneficiaries first to explain to them what the project is about. We told them who will benefit from the project and what each person will receive. What did each person receive? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: They each receive 20,000 gourdes as a rent subsidy. Then we will visit them a second time. After the second visit they will receive another installment. When we visit them second lx time if we don’t find them in the house we rented for them they will not receive the next installment. Did you give them any training? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes. We trained them on GDR. We gave the training on Livelihood. We trained on how to do business, especially those who do business downtown. We gave them a lot of trainnings. What is GDR? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: GDR is gestion, risk, and disaster. How long does that training last? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Well, its runs through a period of time. It can be 1 week or 2 weeks of training. Tell us about Livelihood and how it works. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: I was not very involved in Livelihood. I am going leave that for Manette. I am an agent of GDR. Concern assigned agents to give the beneficiaries all the criteria of where to rent houses. They can’t rent houses that are damaged. There rules that need to be followed. Do they choose the house they want to live in? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: The beneficiaries choose the houses. Then they call us to go to verify the house they pick. After verifying the house we sign a contract with the owner. If the house doesn’t respect all the criterias we will not pay for it. What are the other criteria beside the house being damaged in some way? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: The house shouldn’t be damaged. It should not be located near a ravine. It needs to have a toilet or a latrine. The latrine needs to have a door. These are the criteria that need to be followed. Ok. Your name is Joel. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. HelpAge is an organization that works with elderly people. That means we have a specific group of people we work with. We work in camps but at the begin- ning we did have some problem. How do we intervene? When we first started we didn’t work with only elderly people in the relocation project. We work with other organizations such as Concern, IOM, Goal, and organizations as partners. How is that done? As soon as we have all the information on the camp our partners will take all the young people who are eligible to relocate. We will take all the elderly ones. We took elders from 50 and up. Now we only take 60 and up. lxi How our project works? IOM will send a list with everyone who are eligible for the project then we will select the elderly from the list. Before it was stricter, a person could be 50 years old and might not be selected. After being evaluated we might find all the criteria why the person should not be selected for the project; if the person doesn’t have dependents. That‘s how it used to be. If he doesn’t have what? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Dependent, such as kids. One of the aids we gave was in education. Now the project is different. Not all the elderly at first really needed our help. Now we take people who are really in need. We had to remove people from project because of that one criteria. Now we take both elderly with or without dependents. Because of that we are taking more people now. I will give you some of our criteria and I will let my colleague speak. (Laughing) #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Gason ; 31 ane ; Sosyoloji; 4 ane ap travay ak HelpAge You can speak. I can add anything you miss. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. We do an evaluation to find the people who are eligible. Why do we do an evaluation? The date we have said everyone in the list is 60 or more. But when they present their IDs, some of them might 20, 30, or 40 years old (Laughing) Those are types of errors we sometimes find. Now after the evaluation we will help these people fill up proper documents such as chronic diseases, if he has dependents or not. We will do what is called a baseline with these people. A baseline is a history of their lives. How are they living. How many children they have. What do they have to feed themselves? What they do for a living. What they were doing before the earthquake. It’s like a history of their social lives. Where are they from. Where do they want go. It is after the baseline that we tell them what the project is about. We do a focus group with them like the one we are doing now. We then tell what kind of house to select. We tell what they will get from HelpAge. Now they can go look for houses. Like Joel said before, the house they pick should not have any type of damage. It should not be in on a hill or a steep slope because we don’t want them to fall down. The house should not be too small. It needs to be a least 3 meters in size. It needs to have a latrine and the latrine should not be too far from the house. The house shouldn’t have stairs because an elderly person will be living in it. At 60 someone should not be climbing stairs. If the house has stairs they should not be too many. Those are the type of criteria we use for selecting houses. We also taught them their rights after 6 months living in the house and how to interact with the house owner. Once he or she finds the house we have agents who will visit the house to verify it. If the house meets all our criteria we will then sign a contract with the owner. Now if the house does not meet our criteria, we tell them to look for another house. We also educate the house owner on why his house is not selected. The process will continue lxii until we find a proper house to rent. It is after renting the house that we will do the next installment. The problem is that we don’t use cash. It would be risky if we were walking with the money on us while we go to the camps. Now when we do the payroll, we would call the house owners and pay them. Then we would give 800 gourdes to the beneficiary to carry his belongings from the camp to the new house. Now as they leave the camp the second part of the project begins. In a month or less we will go and verify if he/she is still living in the house we rented. If yes, we then start with the second part of the project. They will get a package from us. We will pay health insurance for them for a year. We will pay school for 1 of their children, if they have children. We will give them money to buys some furniture. We will also give them money to start a small business. That is what we called AGR. Ok. You pay rent for them for a year? You pay health insurance for a year and also school for the children? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Well, only if he has dependents. We only pay for 1 dependent. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. What I want to add is on the education part. We don’t pay school for the child. It is a program that helps the child in education. For example, if the child needs a book bag we can provide 1. We don’t pay school for the child. Maybe a school fee was not yet paid and we pay that fee. Maybe the child needs uniform and can provide the child with a uniform. Ok # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: We gave them money to start a business and money to bay furniture. You give them money for furniture and a business? #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Also the training in GRD and AGR. Does everyone get the money to buy furniture? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Everyone got it. The difference is if the person does or doesn’t have a depend- ent. A dependent would be someone who is in school not in university. Someone who is at least 23 years old and still depends on the beneficiary. A dependent who can be no more than 23 years? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: That is still in school but not in university or maybe who is not in school at all. lxiii #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Now there it is different. Before the dependent could be 23 years old now he has to be more than 21 years old. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Before it was 23 now its 21 years. They lower the age? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes What about the health card, what does it cover? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. The health care is with Dash. It covers all the basic health issue. For example, blood test, glycemic test, vitamins, check their blood pressure, do a checkup if they are suffering from pain. We work in partnership with other NGOs, such as IOM. For example, we had someone who has a boil on his stomach but the insurance didn’t cover that. We went to IOM to cover the surgery and anything else the health card doesn’t cover #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. To add to what my colleague Nekenncia said about the health card, it is just a health card that we have with Dash that covers the basic health needs of the benefi- ciaries. It covers the consultations fee. For instance, surgery, it doesn’t cover that. That is why we do training on prevention for them. We told them that if they are in any kind of pain to go see a doctor and not to wait because that might lead to some type of surgery. We told them that the consultations and medications are free, although there are some medications that are not free. For example, a urine analysis is free but radio- graphs partially covered. The health card has a limit. Ok. Who else in the household does it cover? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: No it only covers the beneficiary. Ok. You work with Dash ? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes. We signed a contract with Dash. We gave each beneficiary a health card from Dash. The card is for one year. Practically, that’s what they get. Do they get access to a Dash clinic in their own area? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. This is how the process works, first we get them in a group of about 25 to 30 elderly people. We have offices in Delmas and Tabarre where we hold the meetings. We invite lxiv Dash to participate in the meetings in order for them to properly explain what the insurance is about. Dash gives a card that has the location for every Dash clinic in the metropolitan area. Ok. They get training on AGR? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Before we gave them AGR, we conduct training on small business manage- ment and savings. A day of training is from 8 AM to 3 PM. It is after the training we give them AGR. Ok. They receive the training on small business management. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: In fact, we do the training before they receive the AGR. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: We also gave training on GDR, gestions, risks, and disasters. OK # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: We gave all that training in 1 day. Ok. Does the training for AGR last 1 day, 1 week, or 3 months? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: We give all the training in 1 day. Does everyone get another installment after the AGR training? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: They all might not get the money on the same day but within a week they will get a call to go to Unitransfer to get the money. Ok. Ok. Does each beneficiary get the same amount? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Everyone gets the same thing. The only difference like I mentioned before it if the person has a dependent. If he has a dependent he will benefit from the education aid. If he doesn’t he will not benefit from the aid for education. The elders you help are they really at least 60 years? #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: The package that HelpAge provides is very different from what the other organizations provided. We get the elders from the other organizations as the most vulnerable. Our follow-ups with the elders are very intense. That is why we help in education and health, so that the money they get for AGR can last longer. Before we give the AGR we do some kind of survey on the households to look for some- one who can help the elders with the business. Sometimes it might happen that we lxv select someone in the family to run the business because the beneficiary is too old to run a business. Ok. I have a question for you. During our focus group some of the beneficiaries mentioned that they pay a fee for a badge. Can you give us a more explanation on that? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Ok. That is a confusion that is causing a problem. We make it very clear that HelpAge is an international organization that works with elderly people. Before the earthquake HelpAge wasn’t working directly with people. It was working with local associations working with elderly people to reinforce their capabilities. Some of these associations are located in Delmas, Tabarre, and Cite Soiel. It is after the earthquake that HelpAge is involved in the relocation project. The reason that HelpAge got involved in the relocation project is because we realized that old people were always the victims when it comes to getting aid. During food aid distributions elderly people were often the victim because they don’t have the strength fight for food. The question about the badges is because we know that the project is only for 1 year and we want the beneficiaries to be involved in local associations so when we no longer are there to help they always have some kind of moral support. Those associations are local. We have our trainings in their offices because we want them to be members in their local associations. There is a fee of 250 gourdes for a badge. We made it clear that it is not HelpAge that is asking for that money. That fee is being asked by the local associations not by HelpAge. We know that these people are vulnerable. Is HelpAge aware that they are asking to pay 250 gourdes for badges? (Everyone is talking at the same time.) Public: Laughing #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: The problem is with members of the associations. Those are not strong associations. They always want to be identify as HelpAge, which is not true. We are encouraging them to be autonomous. They lack the capacity to function on their own. During their first year HelpAge paid half of their rent and on their third year HelpAge stopped paying. That is why several of these associations don’t have an office now. Yes, they tried to identify themselves as HelpAge but they are not HelpAge. Ok. Let me ask you another question. Public :Laughing . Dalin, I haven’t speak yet! You have mentioned all the things to do in the project. To be honest with you it is the first time that I have heard an organization that has done so much. If you were in lxvi charge of the relocation project for HelpAge what kind of changes would make? What would you do differently? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: To make the project better I would change the methods we use for AGR. The rental subsidy is only for 1 year. We give some help in education and in health; but is only to try to prevent our beneficiaries to spend less from the AGR. Elders suffer from chronic illness such as tension, pain, and blood sugar. That is why they spend so much in hospitals. The health card helps them in spending less in hospi- tals so the business in can grow. I think the project is not yet helping the most vulnerable. That is my observation. The project’s objective has not yet been reached. Some beneficiaries spend the money as soon as they get it because one of their children needed something and they had to spend the AGR money. Even those who really open a business don’t succeed. There are things I would change. Instead of giving the whole AGR package at once I would give it in 2 installments. After they get the first installment I would follow up to check on their weakness and strength. After checking on them then I would give the second installment. I would rather see them lose half of the money instead of losing all. I believe that would be better for the beneficiaries. We should sit down with them and ask them what type of business they want to do. You ask them how much they would need to start the business with. Doing that would make you as an officer more involve in the business. Ok. You want to say something? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: What break my heart the most while working with these elders is that sometimes the money that is given to some of them is taken away. Sometimes they don’t even get the chance to see the money that was given for them because someone else in the family took the money… We give two times more than the other organiza- tions. Public: Concern gives 12,000 gourdes, 11,000 gourdes, 12,000 gourdes, or 25,000 gourdes. I will give me details when I get the chance to talk. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Perfect! The first thing I would do if I was in charge is that the elders without any form of ID I would do the follow up on them in person. Some of these elders doesn’t even own a phone so they have no idea when HelpAge give the money for them. I would tell these elders this the amount of money you got and ask them what they want to do with the money. I think the money they receive for AGR to do business is a good thing. When you ask the what kind of business they want they might say they want to sell rice but when you give them the money to sell rice they do something else with the money. So the second lxvii change I would bring is buy the goods for them to sell instead of giving them the money to buy the goods themselves. I would also not give the whole amount in one installment. Instead I would give the money in two installments in case something went wrong on buying the first stock of goods. These are some of the changes I would bring. Ok. Now is your turn . Public: Lauinging #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Ok. My role in the project with Goal is to get in contact with the local authorities and the camps leaders to present the project. We tell the local authorities we will intervene in the camps in their communities and we need their support. As for the camps leaders we inform them that we are coming to the camps. On the same week that we make them aware we are coming we come to the camps with our team to register names of benefi- ciaries. We will compare the data we get with what we first got from IOM. Sometimes we find names on our list that are not in the IOM list. We still register these names. We refer these people to UCLPP. UCLPP will find the ones that qualify for the aid and then we will add their names on the relocation project. We refer the disabled to Handicap International and the elders to HelpAge. We then present the remaining beneficiaries. Like they already mentioned, we tell them in what condition the house should be in order for Goal to pay the rental fee. The rental fee is 20,000 gourdes. They get another 1,000 gourdes to carry their belongings from the camp to the new house. Like HelpAge we don’t give the cash directly. They have to go to Sogexpress to get the money. They have 3 days to gather their belongings and leave the camp. It’s almost the same as HelpAge. As soon as they leave the camps they we will start with the AGR training. They will get training on GDR , Wash, and also urban farming. Does every beneficiary get the training? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Not all beneficiaries got the urban farming training. In order to get that training you need to have land where you can farm. It doesn’t have to be a lot of land. We send our technicians to evaluate the piece of land to verify if it is good for planting. They need to be able to get water for the land but it doesn’t have to be a lot of water. They would need water to water the garden. If they qualify after the evaluation then they get trained on urban farming. Goal will give the water hose and fertilizers. They will also learn how to get rid of insect to prevent them from destroying the garden. What is WASH? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: It is a training on health. I don’t remember everything they taught but I know they teach lxviii them how to wash their hands and they will get a water filter. They will also get Clorox. The training is 2 months and week. What is the filter? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: It is a bucket with a tube that will filter the water into drinking water. How long will that bucket last? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: How long will the bucket last? They also get triainings on how to clean the tube. It won’t last for long. As for AGR like HelpAge they get the training over 8 weeks. Training is once a week. They will get 7,000 gourdes after the training. Now they are getting 7,500 gourdes. Not everyone gets the 7,000 gourdes. They have to open a bank account with Fonkoze and we deposit the money in the account for them. They can leave maybe 100 gourdes on the account if they want but they can take the whole amount at once if they want to. Has Goal been doing that since the beginning? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Yes. We did have a business plan for them to find out what they can invest their money in. It is after the 3rd training they will get the call for the money. I don’t quite understand. #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: It is after 8 different days of training they will receive the money to open the business. You will not get the money if you only come to 2 days of training but after the 3 days of training, if you miss the rest of the training for some reason we will do some kind of catching with them on what they missed in ordered to get AGR. Do they have to come to all 8 days of training ? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: They don’t have to but we don’t tell them that. We always tell them the trainings are mandatory. They do come for training. Do they get any transportation fee to come to the training? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: No. We don’t give a transportation fee. We provide a meal for them during training. The training is not all day. The reason we don’t give a transport fee is because where the training is being held is not far from where they live. Is the same with HelpAge? #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Well, that is one the methods that we forgot to apply. Some of our beneficiaries were coming from Carrefour to Delmas for trainings. Once we were in Cite Soleil and we had lxix to Delmas for security purpose. We didn’t have the space near them and they had to come all the way to Delmas for trainings. Did they get any transport fee ? #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: We didn’t have transportation fee in the package. We give them a meal during training for GDR. For AGR they get a snack in the morning and a meal in noon. OK # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: With Concern, we tried to find a space near, them for instance a school. We trained them on how to do serums in case of emergencies. We do something that is called “Door to door”. That is an emergency plan. We do that training with them in their own house. We took that training from Red Cross. What is the emergency plan? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: It is a plan of prevention in case of emergency. What to do among themselves during emergencies. Where will they go if they need to leave the house? Write down the phone numbers that are important to contact. Write down the phone number and home address of places they can go during emergencies on a pamphlet. Do you have an emergency plan for earthquakes? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes, we do. They know if there is an earthquake what to do. Even if the earth is shaking they need to leave the house. Scientifically what to do if they are inside the house. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: You want to talk? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: I just want to add something. Yes! (laughing) I want to give an answer for Tim’s question on the emergency plan. Here is what we do in the GRD training. We tell them how to act during all natural disasters. We do that training in their own houses because it involves the whole family. How many people is in the family? Is there anyone who is sick? Which door to take to leave the house? If there is an earthquake and the house is destroyed where I will find family members. Do you have an emergency plan for your house? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes, I do the same thing for my own house. I don’t have one myself. ( Laughing) lxx # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: I really did it. I have a baby that is 1 year old that was the main reason I did it. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge : On the question about the 250 gourdes fee, I will dig more into it. The money is for a badge. ( Pause) #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: That is what I want to find out. The project only last a year we want to integrate these people in a local association. That is why we do our trainings at their locations. Besides our GRD there is another GDR that is done by local associations that is bigger. Once I overheard them say in their meetings that they need to stay together. Sometimes they have a free medical day treating cataracts for the members. They always want to be identified as HelpAge, which is weakness they have. We know that these associations need our help. HelpAge is helping them to be autonomous. # 5 Manette Noel; Fi; 30 ane; Gesyon administrative; 3 ane ap travay ak Concern : Ok. Now can I speak? Public : (Laughing)) # 5 Manette Noel; Fi; 30 ane; Gesyon administrative; 3 ane ap travay ak Concern :. I am sorry for being late. I was sick. I didn’t go to work today and I had to leave my house at 11 am. My name is Mannette Noel. I work for Concern. Normil already spoke about the relocation project for Concern. Within the relocation project there is another project called Livelihood. There is a 2,000 gourdes rental subsidy for each beneficiary... Within that program are the people we called beneficiaries without IDs. They don’t have a birth certificate or they lost the papers. We help these people get new IDs. In a family of 5 it can be possible for no one to have paper. Concern will help the whole family get new papers. Unlike HelpAge for the beneficiaries without IDs we have a plan with Unitransfer how to give them money. They have different days to pick up the money, Tuesday and Thursday. There are agents from Concern that will accompany them to pick up the money. The transfer is in the persons own name even if he or she doesn’t have an ID. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: We also do that. They have to be able to go and get the money themselves. If the elder is in good health we accompany him to Unitransfer to get the money. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: I will need a lot of time to speak. lxxi Public : Laughing #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: We refer the people who don’t have IDs to IOM. IOM will help them get IDs. We also send people who don’t have IDs to Unitransfer but only those who are able. For those who cannot they select a person they trust in the family to collect the money for them. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Ok. In our case 6 weeks after leaving the camps the beneficiaries get the next install- ment. How much is it Normil? 6,500 gourdes? It is after that installment we will start the Livelihood project. How do we select the people who will participate in this project? We need to select the most vulnerable. So we need a method to identify them. We do a survey that is called The Most Vulnerable with all Concern beneficiaries. This is where our project is different from the others. We do a focus group with the most vulnerable on how they live. We ask them questions on what they eat; how many times they have a meal in the past week. That is how we identify the most vulnerable from the vulnerable. We select the most vulnerable to participate in the project. We ask questions like,’ Charles how many children do you have?’ He has 6 children and his wife is dead. ‘ Did you eat today, Charles?’ He said, no I didn’t eat today because I didn’t have money. Then we might ask Stephanie the same question. She might say something like this, ‘I didn’t have much but I did eat something this morning’. Those are the type of questions we ask to find the most vulnerable. After the focus group we will present the project to them. We tell them what they will receive and what rights they have. We let them know it is their right to receive this aid. We will use the information to help them start their business. First we will send them to local markets to find the price on goods. We will go to their communities to identify what they can sell. We also do a family budget for them. How do we do that? We teach them how do a budget for their families. For the business to succeed they need to be able to have a budget for the family. After the AGR training they get 12,500 gourdes to start the a business. We don’t give the whole amount in one installment. We give them 10,000 gourdes for the first installment. We give the remaining 2,500 gourdes after we do a follow up. This is what Livelihood is, to reinforce the capacity of the beneficiaries. We also train on nutrition. We showed them that they don’t need a lot of money to eat a healthy meal. We taught them that is possible to eat a meal with 25 gourdes. They don’t believe at first because according to them even 50 gourdes cannot buy a meal. 25 gourdes will buy a banana and a bread with peanut butter and still have some left over money. We taught how to identify foods that have the aliments the body needs. We do 4 to 6 visits before they can get the next installment. We also have professional trainings. We have a contract with KAPAK which is a tech- nical school. OIM also uses that same school. I don’t know about the other lxxii organizations. Some beneficiaries take cooking class, cosmetology, phone repairing, local arts, and cleaning products. For the first project each agents has about 30 beneficiaries in their portfolio. During the second project it went to up to 50 beneficiaries for each agent. These agents treated each beneficiary like their own child. Concern is very sensible when it comes to its beneficiaries. The agents will do follow ups individually for each of them to see how they are progressing. Agents don’t want to lose a beneficiary that is why the take great care when working with them Concern also wants to reinforce local products. We encourage the beneficiaries to sell local products. Even though the local products can be more expensive, we help them find markets where they can buy goods at good price. Local products such as rice, eggs, and soda. We also tried to work in reforestation. We encourage them to buy cookers that don’t use much charcoal. We also teach them on marketing so they can sell their goods faster. Ok. I have some questions for you. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: No problem. As for the cleaning products I know it can be difficult to find them in the country, how does Concern help in them in getting materials to make them? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: We have local suppliers in charge of getting supplies. Concern already planned on that. The beneficiaries know where to get supplies and how much it will cost. We do the same thing for those who sell local arts. Really? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Some of the local crafts they sell are jewelry, office supplies, paintings, household items such as trays. We have suppliers that direct them on where to buy supplies. Ok. My next is question is how long the project lasts? It seems like the AGR project has several different parts. How long does it last? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Our program in Concern usually lasts 1 year, the relocation project is about to end now. When we move the people from the camps and they receive the last installment the program ends. But Livelihood goes farther than that. The process is longer. The pro- gram we have now started in November and will end in June. As for the technical trainings we do a test that is called Ciko Technique to identify beneficiaries that qualify for these trainings. Not everyone qualifies because you cannot ask a father of 6 kids without a wife to leave the kids home and go to technical school. Ok. How long is that? Do they get a certificate? lxxiii # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: 6 months. 6 months for professional school, how long does AGR last ? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Its 6 months. They don’t have class every day and class doesn’t last a whole day. As agents we are still work with them during their technical trainings. When they don’t have class with KAPAK that is when we have trainings on nutrition, sanitation, and GRD. KAPAK is for 6 months and nutrition is also 6 months? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: We have several modules in the program for trainings. The 6 months is for KAPAK. Does everyone receive trainings on Wash and nutrition? Public :: Yes, everyone. Ok. I have another question. Do you think there might be fraud when they select the most vulnerable? Won’t people lie when you ask them questions about how many times they eat per day? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: The question about how times they eat is just an example. We do a whole survey to identify the most vulnerable. It is not something that is done over the phone, we do it in person. We do investigations on them. We are very interested on what they have in their houses. The survey has questions to identify the most vulnerable. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Some of the questions are very tricky. If they lie on one question we will see that when they answer more questions farther in survey. Ok. Surveys take time to do. We worked with Fonkoze, that survey you’re describing it took a long time. How many people participate in the survey? How many people do you have in the most vulnerable program? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: We do the survey with everyone who gets the rental subsidy. In the program we have now, we have about 2,500 beneficiaries. Remember it is not only Concern that is working in the relocation project. We also have IOM, Goal, and HelpAge. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: As soon as they move into the house we start with our survey agents. Livelihood will continue the surveys. That is how it is done. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: To do the survey on the most vulnerable it took us around 3 months. What about the vulnerable ones? Do they get aid too? lxxiv # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: No, only the most vulnerable. There is a small confusion. When Concern gets to the camps they move everyone out then select the most vulnerable for the program? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Yes, the most vulnerable. Concern only takes the most vulnerable. What about the rest? What do you do with them? (Everyone tries to talk at the same time.) # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: The survey is for the most vulnerable. There is some type of confusion. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: No, no! The relocation project involves everyone in the camp. Ok. It is after the relocation that you do the survey. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: After there is a relocation project everyone gets 6,500 gourdes. Ok. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: The most vulnerable are selected for the Livelihood program. Everyone gets the 6,500 gourdes. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: That is why we said earlier that we visit them at home. From 6 to 8 weeks after they move we give the next installment. The agents continue with the survey for the Livelihood project. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: If I’m wrong Tim you can correct me. The difference I see between HelpAge and Goal from Concern is that they have a relocation project with AGR. Concern has a relocation and Livelihood project. All these projects last for about 1 year. All these projects have different trainings. These are differences I see. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: I am sorry Normil. It is a Relocation program. From the Relocation program we have the Livelihood program. The Livelihood project last longer. What do you need for the Relocation program? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: What I don’t understand is where you said the Relocation program ends? If it is the same program, where does one part of the program end while the other part continues. lxxv #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: You call it the Livelihood program but we call it Relocation program. It has a package with education included. I understand the strategy you used. I like your strategy. It shows the difference between the programs. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Let me give an example. If you are in the program which is RTN, returning home….. Wait please. For 6 to 7 months…. #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Stop there! We pay a rental subsidy for 1 year and half. If after a year we don’t find that person still living in the house we rent, that is another issue. Would that person still get the aid? Public : Yes. During the visit its possible for the person to leave the house. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Let me try to make it clear to you. #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: Hum hum…… # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Example…. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes. For example as agents in the Relocation project as soon as the person moves to the house, after 72 hours the next installment is given to them and we start with the 6 to 8 weeks visit. The training has already begun by then. That is part of the program last for 6 to 8 weeks then the Livelihood program starts. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: We continued with the follow ups. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Well, that’s part of it. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: If I am not mistaken, you said the survey done with the most vulnerable are the people that Concern already relocated. Right? I think you…. (Everyone is talking at the same time.) # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: You asked me a question I need time to answer. Right now Concern already stopped with our Relocation project. The AGR program is still being financed. (Everyone is talking at the same time.) # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Let me talk ! Concern doesn’t have the Relocation project anymore. We are very satis- fied with our Relocation project. The Relocation project is now the Livelihood project. lxxvi Now we are working in partnership with Goal and IOM. We are working with people they relocated. We have the Livelihood program with them now. OK #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Oh, things have changed. Do you give them same thing as before? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Yes, it changed. Before it was for 18 months because the relocation program was also included and it was more complicated then. Now the Livelihood project lasts for 9 months only. Is HelpAge still working in the Relocation project ? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes. When will it ends ? #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: This project we are working now should be the last one. Most of the remaining camps are being named villages. For example, we are in Acra Village and Mega Acra. These people are asking for the camps to be formalized instead of relocated. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Formalized into villages, they want to build regular houses in the camps. #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Male; 31 years; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Formalizing these camps into villages is not part of the AGR package. There is some- where in the program you can help the beneficiary buying building materials but with some restraint. The NGOs are now being face with UCLPP (Unite de Construction de Logements et de Batiments Publics). The problem is also political. This is our last year in the relocation project. When did you start with the Relocation project? #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Since 2011 When did it end? Public: Last year. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: 2 years, it ended in September of 2015. Now we are working with other NGOs who had the Relocation project. Ok. Thank you. Some of the beneficiaries said there is another installment of 4,000 gourdes they have not yet received, are they the most vulnerable? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern : Maybe. We don’t have a rental subsidy during the second year. We did train them on how to manage the business to make enough money to pay their rental fee. lxxvii We know it’s getting late and some of you need to leave. My question for you is if you were in charge of the Relocation project what would you do differently? How would you manage this project better? What would you keep? What would take eliminate? Some people would say transform the camps in permanent settlements. Besides Place Boyer I wouldn’t have a problem with that method. #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: I would like to give a unique answer. During the project some of the beneficiaries sug- gested we move them to Morne Cabrit or Zoranje instead of paying the 20.000 gourdes rental fee. To me that is good idea because it not easy to find a house for 20,000 gourdes. Some of them wanted to rebuild their old homes because that is where they have families and friends. I don’t want to say here is what I would do not but I don’t like the process of sending people to place where they don’t know anyone. That is very hard for them. Ok. Would you like to add something else? You already told us what is good in from your project. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: What I think is very important….. We know Concern is good. Public : Laughing We know that these people were already vulnerable before the earthquake. You can finish saying what you were saying. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: I am not working the relocation project anymore. We don’t have that project anymore. #1 Dalin Charles ; Male ; 38 years ; Political Science; 5 years working with GOAL: You can talk about your experiences. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Some of the beneficiaries suggested for Concern to give them the money instead of paying for the rent. They still have the land from their old homes. Why not give them the money to try and rebuild their house instead? After the rent ends they will go back to the same situation. They spent five years living in a tent in camps now they get a rental subsidy for 1 year. What about school fees? Next year they will have to pay the rent again. These institu- tions could have built homes for them instead. It would have been more durable. They are going back to the same problem after a year. I want to ask another question. Do you think most of the people who were in the camps are from the provinces? Public : Well, normally….. lxxviii Was there a system to identify where they lived right before the earthquake? # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes, we know that. What was the percentage of people who moved to the capital after the earthquake and where living in camps? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: The percentage is very high. From the date we collected, the majority of them were form Ti Goave. Jeremy, Gonaives, all over the provinces. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: To identify the people who were from the provinces we told them we will facilitate their return back to where they are form if they want to go back. Did they return? Public : Yes, a lot of them returned. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Concern will not pay for their transport but will send an agent to where they used to live to look at the house. Concern sends a transfer via Unistranfer. The house owner will need to collect the money. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: They also get the 6,500 gourdes. So if someone returns to their old home in the provinces they still get the 20,000 gourdes? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: No, only the 20,000 gourdes and the next installment of 2,500 gourdes. What is the percentage for people who moved back to provinces? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Not all of them wanted to move back. About 10 to 15 percent actually did move back to the provinces. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes, 10% to 15% Do you do follow up on them too? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: No, they only get the 2000 gourdes. How do we know these people won’t move back to capital? They have land in hometown. They won’t have to pay the rent. They will use the money to start a business. We did favor those who wanted to return back home. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: After the earthquake things got worse for them and they move in the camps. They also benefited from the aid. lxxix I want to thank each one of you for coming here today. If you want to ask a question feels free to ask. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: I want to add something more on the last question you asked about the beneficiaries from the provinces. That question has many levels. My role was an agent in the reloca- tion project. I can answer as an agent but not as the person in charge. If you have the power to change, what would you change? #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: No, no. Remember I don’t have the power to participate as a leader. I played the role of a technical agent. I can talk as an agent not as the person who was in charge. The state has big role in how things turned up. Do you really think the state has something to say on how things turn out? Was the state involving in the decisions making. Don’t you think it was the foreign aids who decide how to do things? Public : Lauighing. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: I think our state is poor when it comes to planning. Seriously I think the foreigners did what they think is best. They let the NGOs do whatever they want. I am asking myself do they really think this is the best thing to do? I am talking! Let me talk! This is my opinion! We have a social problem. Yes, paying a rental subsidy is helping but at what level? After 2 to 3 years that money is finished. The business will not last long. Why couldn’t they use the benefits from the earthquake to do something better? Why couldn’t we use land that the state is not using to do something better? These lands are being wasted. Why couldn’t we have built big constructions to help the people? Here is how I would do the project. “Foreigners you want to help me and I know you won’t be here a for long time, here is what I need’’. I am not saying what is being done is not good but it will not last for long. Yes, people benefit from program but for how long. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: The people could have gotten something better than that. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes, the people could have gotten something better than that. It would last longer. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern : That change would have been more visible. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Where are the things that are done? Do you see them? After 10 years, will there be any more money left? They could have built homes and have the people stay in lxxx them for 10 years until they paid them off. They should have done social projects instead. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Listen, you are talking about a global project. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: I agree with you that is not my place. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Wait, wait, wait ! As a staff we should be able to discuss the problems. We might not be the directors but we still can speak about changes. What I want to say is what role did the state play in the projects? The state is responsible for the way things turn out. I understand the question. As an executor you have a plan how you will execute the project. How will you improve the images? How will you get to the people who will benefit from the project? #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Do you know how? I mean the director position. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: Wait, wait ! I am answering the question that was asked. The question said if I was the director what I would do differently. What weakness do I see in the project? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Keep talking. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: I am not talking about the Relocation project because we don’t have it anymore. I am talking about the Livelihood program because that is where I now work. I am talking about the weakness on that program. Keep talking. Public : Laughing  # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: It has its strength and weakness. Let’s take the AGR program for example. Although I do follow up with the beneficiaries the business won’t last more than 2 months, alt- hough we give the money in different installments. There is one beneficiary who lives in Fontamara she is always calling me to come see how the business is progressing. When I visit her you can see she put the training she got in action but still it’s not too much. Now when you take the ones who took a professional trade there is difference. What they learned is for life. It has a great impact on them in terms of economic support. Right there is where I would make the change. In a family of 6 or 7 the business will not last long. I prefer the professional trade although there is some weakness. Let’s take cooking class for example. The person lxxxi needs a stove to practice the trade. The people with professional trades need tools to practice their trades. I know tools are not part of the package we have. If I have the power as a director I would take that into consideration from the begin- ning in the project. In Concern we see the need but we don’t have money for it in the project. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: What I want to say, when you work for an organization they already have their own structure. I am trying to say if I want to do something different I would need to remove myself from them. I have to be outside to act differently. I don’t question their reloca- tion process. I am a relocation agent that’s what I do. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: That is why I came in. I am only making propositions. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: I understand what you saying but I know I can’t over pass my limit. They tell me what to do and that’s what I do. But I am a Haitian citizen and I want to talk as a Haitian. What I am saying is that the state should have been involved in the decisions making. The state should have directed the NGOs on what to do. In 2012 when I was working in Delmas on rental subsidy, it was more than 20000 gourdes. It was about 51 to 52 thousand gourdes. The state set the rental to 20,000 gourdes as a rental fee and also a small school fee. The state should a project that is more durable even if the NGOs project is short term. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: I really appreciate the invitation. I got the invitation as an agent for HelpAge who works in their relocation project so I can only speak as an agent. I am Haitian, if you want to invite me as a Haitian to talk about the problem I will be happy to come. Public ::() I agree with you. We can say the same thing to. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: There is one thing that is very important to me and I already mentioned it. It’s true that I work a s a relocation agent for Concern but at the same time if there is a sugges- tion I should be able to give it. We always do that with Concern. I work in the Livelihood program if there is a suggestion I always bring it to notice. One lesson we learned was always talk about the weakness and strength of the pro- gram. We speak about what we can change to make things better and they applied these things. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes, that is true. During the second project we did bring suggestions to make the project better and on the third project the changes were made to the project. Yes, I learned about what you told us. lxxxii # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: There! That is what we call lesson learned. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: To me, why I think we need to talk about these things is if another earth- quake happens, If we could do a focus group and sit down to talk about these issues it would be very good for us. We could identify what needs to change. If another earth- quake happens we would know what needs to be done. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: That is where I am going with my answer. It is not that I am against you… #2 Jocelito Cherubin; Gason ; 31 ane ; Sosyoloji; 4 ane ap travay ak HelpAge : I didn’t say you were against me. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: What is important to me as a Haitian, it’s true that I benefit from the NGOs because they give me a job. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Yes, they give jobs. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: They gave jobs and helped the people. But what is more important to me is that I understand my follow Haitian needs more than the foreigners . It is true I was not involved when the plan for the project was being made, but I work in the project and I know its weakness and strength. I will always suggest the changes that need to be made. I don’t know if all NGOs are the same but Concern has a general assembly every last Friday of the month where all the employees get together to talk about work. You can always note if a project needs change. Sometimes the change might not be able to me made because the project is already regulated, but what you say can be useful for the next year. #2 Jocelito Cherubin ; Male; 31 years ; Sociologist; 4 years working with HelpAge: Allow me to say something. You see what I said is comprehensive. You can approach the question several ways. It can be a technical or social approach. When you have a structure you can have suggestions but that still doesn’t change anything. This a global problem. Let’s say there is a problem in education you cannot attack education to fix the prob- lem. You will need to attack people’s mentality. You have to change their mentalities to fix the problem. Do you see what I mean? # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: I understand where you are coming from. You will have to agree with me if you have a mountain that needs to be removed you won’t just turn the mountain upside down to fix the problem. If you part the system you cannot destroy the system. lxxxiii # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: I won’t be able to fix the problem at once. But you still can give suggestions. Too bad we don’t have a system for that. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: There! You as an executor you can bring your own suggestions. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: These are short term projects. It has a beginning and an end. Not even the foreigners can change it. Americans are making the plans. Public : No they cannot change it. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Concern is doing something right now. Concern is giving away goats, a male and a female to people. Concern is even giving them donkeys because the people are in such great need. Concern repairs houses for them. That is some type of development # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern: These are development projects. Development projects are long terms project because they last for 2 or 5 years. Emergency development projects don’t last more than 2 years. # 4 Joel Normil; Male; 34 years; Administration; 6 years working with Concern: Yes, 1 year and half. # 5 Manette Noel; Female; 30 years; Administration; 3 years working with Concern:. That is problem. (Hummmmmm) Thank you everyone for coming. # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Female; 31 years; University; 4 years working with HelpAge: Thank you to you too. END! lxxxiv  ANNEX E. QUESTIONNAIRE Among the variables were those that could be used to verify the benefits that respondents received from the aid organizations. Specifically, the questionnaire (see Annex, p. 15) was designed to measure:  Who really were the beneficiaries in terms of need and vulnerability  How had their lives changed?  How effective where the different livelihood packages at improving their living standards  Who really were the beneficiaries in terms of need and vulnerability Answering this question involves garnering information on the following areas: 1. Extent to which the individual was a victim or the earthquake vs. economic fallout from the earthquake (death, destroyed home, loss of business and mer- chandise) vs. economic fallout from other shocks (medical or funeral expenses, expenses, loss of family members). Specifically, the questionnaire gathers data on:  Material and family losses at time of the earthquake  Impact of post-earthquake shocks  Comparison on multiple variables between beneficiary status before earth- quake, in camp, after camp (access to water, food, work, security…) 2. Migration history  Place of origin  Time in PAP  Connection to rural areas in terms of trade, production, travel, ownership of land 3. Major factors influencing the beneficiaries’ status as vulnerable  Sources of and capacity to generate revenue (education, skills, trade, work, capital, working adults in hshld)  Major expenses and shocks (medical expenses for ill, funeral expenses, tui- tion… ) 4. How had their lives changed lxxxv Answering this question helps to inform how the camps and the subsidy program fit into the beneficiary livelihood strategies (how they used—or attempted to use the camps to survive and improve their living standards), how many and who was really in need. Put in technical language, it measures targeting effectiveness and provides the basis for evaluating the next area of question: to what extent people in the camps benefitted from the livelihood packages. 5. How effective where the different livelihood packages at improving their living standards In the context of the analysis, Explanatory Variables are the interventions. Specifical- ly, rental subsidy, money, tools, and training. What we want to do is test to estimate if those interventions can be judged to have caused improved income or living stand- ards and capacity to generate revenue (resiliency) as indicated by the proxy Response Variables we have selected to evaluate the impact of the interventions. To do this we used control groups (see below). Sampling The individuals were to come from lists provided by the organizations. The survey subgroups targeted:  Those who received a rental subsidy only (100 surveys)  Those who received an unconditional cash transfer, distributed to all HH in question with no selection criteria, as unique livelihood package element (100 surveys)  Those who also received a long technical-school or construction training course (200 surveys), a strategy mainly used by IOM and targeting the most vulnerable  Beneficiaries who received short business training and an IGA grant (200 sur- veys)  Those who received short business training and an unconditional grant (200 surveys)  Beneficiaries targeted due to particular vulnerability categories (the elderly, handicapped, large families, etc.) and offered expanded livelihood packages (with elements such as health insurance and school stipends) (200 surveys)  Beneficiaries offered a chance to take a longer (3 month) course and receive a grant contingent on the completion of a business plan deemed solid by staff (200 surveys);  Beneficiaries whose packages included access to a Village Savings and Loan Association or other credit source (200 surveys) lxxxvi Control Groups:  All those individuals sampled received rental subsidies. But the presence of individuals who received differential or no money or training allows for compar- ison of multiple groups, i.e., those that received specific training versus those who did not; those who received money versus those who received less or no money (see Figure 3.1 on page 15 and Table 3.2 on page 18). An additional rela- tionship of interest is differential changes with respect to the organization that gave the aid. Survey Complications  The American Red Cross, JP/HRO, and World Vision never provided documents that could be used to draw samples.  A pilot phone call study revealed that only 54 of the first 200 phone numbers on the list were functional. An alternative was to locate the houses using GPS coor- dinates and addresses. However, GPS points were unreliable and finding people by address is difficult in Port-au-Prince, even for the employees of the aid agen- cies who helped relocate individuals.  Some databases included fewer exploitable GPS points than others, complicating the effort of selecting beneficiaries and contacting them Annex Table 18: GPS points available to Identify Relocation Zones Usable Beneficiaries GPS points GPS % exploita- listed listed points ble OIM 40 009 39 878 38 042 95.1% CWW (RTN3) 2 959 2 742 2 671 90.3% GOAL 1 002 502 396 39.5% Helpage 839 74 73 8.7% JPHRO 5 375 4 081 4 029 75.0% Total 44 809 43 196 41 182 91.9% To overcome these difficulties while maintaining a level of representativeness, survey staff randomized the lists; and then began calling phone numbers in the order in which they had be rearranged. Those respondents located were asked to identify three family friends or acquaintances they knew where also beneficiaries and to have those people call the survey staff. For every contact made and verified on the lists, we requested that contact provide telephone numbers for three more beneficiaries or have them call us. lxxxvii In this way the sample was built through a mixture of random sampling for the lists and networking through those individuals who were able to locate. Once individuals were contacted, or they contacted us, their names were verified on the list. For those that were valid, surveyors were then dispatched to their homes, now easier to locate with the beneficiary’s guidance via telephone. lxxxviii Phase 3—Draft questionnaire: The Current state of the questionnaire is a point of departure for discussion purposes. The focus groups are necessary to explore the issues in depth. The questionnaire will be final- ized with insights from the focus groups and input from the evaluation steering committee, and submitted for the steering committee’s review at the end of Phase 2. Data Entered prior to Interview, 1) Surveyor: what's your name 2) Zone 3) Neighborhood 4) Sex 5) Last Name of Respondent client 6) First name Interview Begins Here Hello. My name is __. We are conducting a survey on behalf of the organizations that helped relocate people from the camps to new housing. We would like to ask some questions about your experiences. We will not divulge exactly who you are and what you specifically said with anyone else. 1) Name 2) Did you live in a camp? 3) If respondent did not live in camps survey ends 4) In what year did you arrive in the camp? 5) Month 6) Did you leave the camp? 7) If respondent did not leave camp survey ends 8) What year and month did you leave? 9) Where were you living when the earthquake struck? 10) Department 11) Commune and zone 12) Where were you relocated when you left the camp? 13) Department 14) Commune and zone 15) Are you still living in the house you moved to from the camp? If no: 18.1) Where did you move? 18.2) What was the reason for the move? 16) Age 17) Marital status 18) What class did you complete in school? lxxxix If respondent has spouse, 19) What class did spouse complete in school? 20) How many biological children do you have (living)? Now I am going to ask you how many people live in your household. I am going to ask how many females and then, after that, I am going to ask about the males. (do not forget to count the respondent) 21) How many people are in your family group/household? Girls Baby girls (less than 24 months) Girls 2 to 5 years of age Girls 6 to 12 years of age Girls 13 to 18 years of age Women older than 18 years of age (do not forget to count the respondent) Boys Baby boys (less than 24 months) Boys 2 to 5 years of age Boys 6 to 12 years of age Boys 13 to 18 years of age Men older than 18 years of age 22) How many people total in your household? (do not forget to count the respondent) (Program Calculates and compares and then, if the number for the total and what respond- ent said for each individual group are not equal, prompts surveyor to go back over the responses for household members). 23) Is anyone in the house: Suffering from chronic illness Physically disabled Mentally disabled Blind, deaf, and/or mute Old age (more than 75 years of age) Widowed None (If any of the preceding are present, prompts for ‘how many’ and then ‘are any disabled or widowed people mentioned above one of the household heads?’) 24) When the earthquake hit, what were the three most important sources of household income? Agriculture Livestock xc  Commerce Shop Restaurant/bar Fishing Crafts Skilled labor Unskilled labor School teacher Professional/Nonprofessional State employee Driver truck, bus… Taxi moto Remittances Nothing Other (if ‘other’ prompts for explanation) 25) When you were in the camp, what were the three most important sources of house- hold income? Agriculture Livestock Commerce Shop Restaurant/bar Fishing Crafts Skilled labor Unskilled labor School teacher Professional/Nonprofessional State employee Driver truck, bus… Taxi moto Remittances Nothing Other (if ‘other’ prompts for explanation) 26) And now, what were the three most important sources of household income? Agriculture Livestock Commerce Shop Restaurant/bar Fishing xci  Crafts Skilled labor Unskilled labor School_teacher Professional/NonProfessional State employee Driver truck, bus… Taxi moto Remittances Nothing Other (if ‘other’ prompts for explanation) 27) Do you or your spouse have a business(es) now? If ‘Yes’ prompts for business type 28) Did you or your spouse have a business(es) before the earthquake hit? If ‘Yes’ prompts for business type 29) Did you or your spouse have a business(es) when you were in the camp? If ‘Yes’ prompts for business type 30) In the list I will present, I would like you to tell me if you have each other them now, when you were in the camp, just before the earthquake Bank account: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Loan from an institution: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Bicycle: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Moto: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Vehicle: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Dory: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Mattress: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Cabinet: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Table: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Television: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Radio: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Telephone: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Laptop: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Tablette: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Charcoal burner: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Propane burner: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Propane tank: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Kerosene burner: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Stove: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Cooler: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Refrigerator: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never Freezer: Before Camp / Camp / Now / Never xcii I'm going to ask some questions about leaving the camp? 31) Did you receive assistance to leave the camp? If Yes, 32) What type of assistance? Tshelter Retrofit Built house Gifted house Rented with host family Money/Cash Transfer Other None 33) What organization gave it to you? 34) Who chose where you would live? Organization / Beneficiary / Both /Other 35) How did you feel when you began living in the first place you came to? 36) Unwelcome / Not so unwelcome / Comfortable / Cannot say 37) Did you already know people in the area? 38) How do you feel now in the neighborhood where you live? 39) Unwelcome / Not so unwelcome / Comfortable / Cannot say 40) And after you left the camp, did you receive any aid? If yes, what type of aid 41) Which did you most appreciate? 42) When you were in the camp, which was more important source of material for you. Work vs. NGO Work vs. Catholic Church Work vs. Protestant Church Work vs. Friends Work vs. Family NGO vs. Catholic Church NGO vs. Protestant Church NGO vs. Friends NGO vs. Family Catholic vs. Protestant Church Catholic vs. Friends Catholic vs. Family Friends vs. Family 43) Are you still receiving any type of aid or support? If ‘Yes’, What type of assistance? Tuition payments Medical Insurance Community Integration Training in construction Professional training xciii  Cash transfer Formation aptitude de vie Adult education Formation micro-entreprise Formation AGR Micro-credit Subvention pour AGR Groupes d'epargne et de credit (VSLA – SOL) Other None If receiving more than one aid type, 43.1) What organization(s) give it? 43.2) Which do you most appreciate I am going to ask you some questions about security, and availability of water, school, an electricity and I would like you to compare and tell me in which place it was best First I am going to ask you to compare access or quality of all that is on the list and choose which had better service, Camp vs. where you lived immediately before the earthquake 44) Camp vs. where you were immediately BEFORE the earthquake Security: Camp / Before camp / Same Water: Camp / Before camp / Same School: Camp / Before camp / Same Electricity: Camp / Before camp / Same Healthcare: Camp / Before camp / Same Work: Camp / Before camp / Same Quality of your house: Camp / Before camp / Same Quality of latrine: Camp / Before camp / Same 45) Now I am going to ask you to compare access or quality of all that is on the list and choose which had better service, Camp vs. where you lived immediately after you left the camp Security: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp Water: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp School: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp Electricity: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp Healthcare: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp Work: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp Quality of your house: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp Quality of latrine: Camp vs. immediately AFTER camp xciv 46) I am going to ask some questions about the construction of the house 47) Roof material? Iron Concrete Straw Plastic Wood Other 48) Material covering the floor of the house, Earth Cement Mosaic Ceramic wood planks Concrete 49) Does the house have a latrine? 50) Does the house have a cistern 51) Do you own the house? 52) Do you own the land? IF does not own the house 52.1) How much do you pay per year for the house? 53) And the house where you lived before the earthquake, do you own it? 54) Did you own the land? IF did not own the house 55) How much did you pay per year for the house? 56) Did the house have a latrine? 57) Did the house have a cistern 58) GPS coordinates can only be collected when outside. latitude (x.y °)longitude (x.y °)altitude (m)accuracy (m) xcv  ANNEX F. THE GREATEST LESSON The single greatest impediment to helping those people in the camps after the earthquake was the flood of opportunists that made it difficult to identify those really in need. And the single greatest lesson we can learn from the earthquake response is precisely that we need to effectively and rapidly sort out the real victims from rent seekers. Not to recognize this point is tantamount to burying our heads in the sand, and a type of negligence that will set us up for failure the next time there is a disaster. In this final section, we summarize the facts supporting what should be the greatest lesson we learned from endeavor to deal with the post-earthquake camps. Growing Camps We know that the camps grew for six months after the earthquake. They went from 370,000 people living “under improvised shelters” on January 20th (IOM), to 700,000 on January 31st (USAID 2010), to 1.3 million on March 1st (UN 2010), to July when UN Resident and Humanitarian Coordinator for Haiti, Nigel Fisher declared, “a staggering 2.3 million displaced.” That included 800,000 who had either gone to the rural areas or were living with friends or neighbors and 1.536 million living in 1,555 camps. But the figures do not jibe with what should have been expected. Absurdity of the Numbers This figure of 2.3 million homeless was nearly equivalent to one quarter of the entire population of Haiti; it was 68% of all the 3.375 million people in entire earthquake strike zone. The 1.536 million in camps was equivalent to 46% of all 3.375 million people in the entire strike zone; 58% of those living in urban areas. In some areas, there were as many or more people in camps as there were people living in the region when the earthquake hit (see Table 6.1 on page 45 below). In at least one case, that of Gressier, there were 50% more people in camps than had lived in the Commune prior to the earthquake. Additional evidence for the absurdity of the numbers comes from estimations of reoccupa- tion rates. The PDNA post-earthquake structural evaluations of buildings in Port-au-Prince conducted by MAST and seismic engineering firm Miyamoto Incorporated found that 7% of buildings in the earthquake strike zone had collapsed. Another 13% were damaged such that demolition was recommended. That meant that a total of 20% of the buildings were considered unfit for re-occupancy and should have been demolished: 93% of those build- ings were residential units. And that meant that if the criteria for being an IDP was that the home that the person lived in prior to the earthquake had destroyed, then at 1.36 residence per building, no more than 27% of the population should have been what the authorities were calling IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons). If we extend the definition of an unfit home to include the yellow houses, then the figures get closer to the 68% of the population reported as IDPs. Specifically, there would have been 46% IDPs. xcvi However, not all IDPs went to camps. As seen, the UN estimated that 800,000 (35%) of the IDP population (24% of the population in the strike zone) had gone to the countryside or were living in the homes of others in the earthquake strike zone. Moreover, the only statis- tically representative survey of home returns conducted in the year after the earthquake indicated that despite the swelling camps. people were in fact returning home. And they did so within weeks of the disaster. Figure F.1: P-au-P Hshld Occupancy The USAID/BARR survey (2010-2011) found Levels Annex per Residence Figure 86: P-au-Pper MTPTC Hshld ColorLevels Occupancy that at the height of the exodus, 68% of per Residence Codeper MTPTC Color residents in the earthquake impacted region left their home (that extrapolates to 2,040,000 people); only about half of those people—30% of the total population in the earthquake strike area or 900,000 people— went to camps. And they begin returning home within weeks of the earthquake. USAID/BARR tells us that 70% of people who n = 5,158 Missing = had left their homes had returned home by 23 July 2010, when IOM estimated there were 1.5 million in the camps (see Annex Figure 87 at bottom of page). By the one-year anniversary of the earthquake, when IOM estimated there were still 1 million people in camps, 88 percent of those people who had left their homes were back in them. Even the 78,000 red tagged structures residences—those recommended for demolition—had a re-occupancy rate of 64 percent. For the 100,000 yellow tagged residences—those damaged but reparable—the re-occupation rate was 92 percent; and for the 206,000 green tagged structures—those that were undamaged—the re-occupancy rate was 96 percent (see Annex Figure 86 above right). Annex Figure 87: Home Returns by Month USAID/BARR Survey 2010 xcvii  Annex Table 19: Comparison of Camp Population to Total Population of Commune Ratio of proportion Ratio of population proportion in CAMPs, Ratio of Ratio of population in to propor- Pop. in Pop. in Propor- CAMPs, to tion of Popula- Popula- Camps Camps tion all Proportion proportion of urban tion of Total tion to Total to Urban residenc- Urban residences that residences Camps Popula- Urban Popula- Popula- es Red Residences were tagged that were July 2010 tion 2009 2009 tion tion tagged Red tagged Red tagged Red CARREFOUR 195,755 465,019 430,250 42% 45% 17% 17% 247% 265% CITESOLEIL 70,273 241,055 241,055 29% 29% 6% 6% 483% 483% CROIX-DES- 200% 539% BOUQUETS 105,064 227,012 84,812 46% 124% 23% 23% DELMAS 352,675 359,451 359,451 98% 98% 19% 19% 516% 516% GANTHIER 6,111 56,869 19,948 11% 31% unknown unknown unknown unknown GRAND-GOAVE 34,665 124,135 19,874 28% 174% 4% 27% 700% 644% GRESSIER 47,916 33,152 13,043 145% 367% 53% 53% 274% 692% JACMEL 26,115 170,289 40,108 15% 65% 3% 13% 500% 500% LEOGANE 166,799 181,709 85,044 92% 196% 30% 30% 307% 653% PETION-VILLE 102,482 342,694 271,175 30% 38% 11% 11% 273% 345% PETIT-GOAVE 52,062 157,296 91,797 33% 57% unknown unknown unknown unknown PORT-AU-PRINCE 303,529 897,859 875,978 34% 35% 18% 18% 189% 194% TABARRE 73,001 118,477 118,477 62% 62% 13% 13% 477% 477% TOTAL 1,536,447 3,375,017 2,651,012 46% 58% 20% 230% 290% xcviii  xcix The Problem of Endemic Opportunism and Aid Cap- ture A primary reason for the growth of the camps was that, 1) the homes in which many people lived had been destroyed or damaged and so they built improvised shelters wherever convenient and expedient. But there were two other reasons for the growth of the camps: 2) opportunism in an economic environment where extreme poverty is the norm (i.e., virtually everyone sees themselves as in need) and 3) the reluctance on the part of aid agencies to implement mechanisms to determine who needed or qualified for aid, who did not, and who was really living in camps. Early on, members of the US Southern Command had gone into the camps at night wearing infra-red goggles and determined that many tents in the camps were unoccupied. Directors and specialists participating in the emergency response also knew that there was a high level of posturing in pursuit of aid. Kit Miyamota, CEO of the seismic engineering corporation that repaired 2,000 homes recounted that, When we repair yellow houses [damaged homes], we get to know the owners and renters very well since we stay there for an aver- age of three days. Our Haitian engineers know their living status. After we repair yellow houses, approximately 100% of people re- turn for 24 hours a day. But about 90% of them keep the unoccupied tents in the IDP camps since they hope to receive ser- vices and money to remove them. (USAID/BARR 2011: 35) Haitian Joegodson, who grew up in Site Soley—one of the Port-au-Prince’s poorest neighborhood- and who moved into several of the camps himself offered an insider’s glimpse into the process when he wrote in a book published in 2016, All that was needed was eight long sturdy branches and some sheets to hang from them to represent walls… The NGOs decided to visit them [the camps] and to distribute whatever tents or tarps they still had. To qualify for those donations, or other aid, Haitians needed to have a place etched out in one of the camps and to have demonstrated some proof of residence…. Everyone kept their ears open to find out where the NGOs were distributing the tents most generously. The objective was to go to that camp and demonstrate a presence. Then wait. Sometimes people squatted in a number of camps at the same time in order to cover all their bases. [Déralciné, Vilmond Joegodson; Jackson, Paul. Rocks in the Water, Rocks in the Sun 2665-2675). Athabasca University Press. Kindle Edition. xcix The extent to which opportunism had driven people to pretend to populate camps became abundantly clear to the aid organizations when they vetted beneficiaries for rental subsidy grants. The World Bank would note in its 2014, Rental Support Cash Grant Programs: Operations Manual that, “one interviewee gave some idea of the scale of the challenge when he noted that of 600 com- plaints received following registration at one camp, 70 were found to indeed live there.” Concern Worldwide would note that, From the outset CW had intended to be accommodating to the beneficiaries regarding name or status changes, but it resulted in considerable extra work and verification exercises as many benefi- ciaries took advantage or attempted to defraud other families. (Large N 2014: 14) xvii Perhaps the most telling example of all, a rare case of truly verifiable Concern beneficiaries, Over 3000 persons declared not having any ID during registration; however verification by local organization ACAT (contracted to provide birth certificates) found that the great majority of those persons do in fact have ID. ACAT's verification brought down the number of paperless beneficiaries to 379 ….xviii Thus, while as seen in Annex A, 74% percent of the camp population would spontaneously leave the camps—or simply suspend pretending to live in them— a core of desperate people eked out their existence in those camps, waiting years for assistance to leave them. And it is those people—the ones who sympathetic overseas donors sent money to aid and who the aid agencies sought to help— who suffered most from the opportunism. Again, Joegodson, who was among them and he articulately left a record of the process, There were distinct classes of victims. For some, the objective was to accumulate as many tents—and whatever other forms of hu- manitarian aid might arrive—as possible. When they saw that material goods with a street value were coming into the country, their goal was to profit. To do that, they had to shut their eyes to the people who were actually in desperate need of the basic neces- sities of life: water, food, and shelter. They became even more callous than before toward those who were suffering the most. [Déralciné, Vilmond Joegodson; Jackson, Paul. Rocks in the Water, Rocks in the Sun 2665-2675). Athabasca University Press. Kindle Edition. c  ANNEX G: PHASE 1 CONTACTS Name Organization Position Leila Bourahla Concern Director Melissa Acar Concern Urban program manager CCCM CCCM Steering Committee Amalia Torres OIM Project officer Peter Kioy OIM Data manager Fabien Sambussy OIM Head of Operation Charles Sainfleur Elizé CRF Livelihood Project Marie Dozin CRF Responsable programme Maude Morin CARE Responsable programme Ciarra Ruben Oxfam Data manager Daniel Gédéon Oxfam Livelihood Project Charles Darlin GOAL Liaison communautaire James Bellamy ARC Responsable Lamika Carine Pierre Concern Gestionnaire projet retour Kesnel Richemond Concern Officier Livelihood Rollande Pierre Worldvison Responsable relocalisation John Hasse Worldvison Director Carline Jean-Paul ECHO Assistante programme Jordi Torres Miralles ECHO Assistant technique Amandine Stolfi JPHRO Livelihood project manager Luc Herbie Mes- Senior mgr. Pro- sadieu Helpage gram/support Jean Marie Zephirin Helpage Team leader relocalization Joelle Fontilus UCLBP Project officer ci  ENDNOTES i According to the World Bank: Their objective [of rental strategies] generally is to restore tenant’s living standards to those before their displacement. Complementary measures that monitor beneficiaries’ ability to continue paying rent after their cash-based assistance ends or that keep track of affordable rental housing stock are not necessarily considered integral components of rental support grant programmes. (World Bank 2015: 4). ii End-line Analysis “Front Tent to Home” Sylvia Warren iii How does one go about evaluating the impact of Vocational training on a population of young IOM beneficiaries vs. the impact of livelihoods training on a population that is 80% female headed households with children, as in the case of Concern. The beneficiaries are simply not comparable. Vocational training itself is complicated by the fact that IOM beneficiaries could choose between 8 different vocations, each of which would have differential demand on the employment market, and they used four different schools, all of which may have differed in capacity, competence, and teaching resources. iv From Concern Worldwide PROGRAMME EVALUATION REPORT ON THE RETURN TO NEIGHBOURHOODS PROGRAMME implemented by Concern Worldwide + Partners Port-au- Prince, Haiti Martin Fisher | Geneva, Switzerland | February 2013 Following from page 26 Si les familles relocalisées vivent actuellement dans de meilleures conditions vie le fait qu’elles ont un logement plus décent, il n’est pas certains qu’elles continueront tous à bénéficier de cette qualité de vie. Tel est le cas pour les familles relocalisées qui n’ont pas pu mettre en place une AGR. Ces dernières auront à faire face à des difficultés financières s’ils n’arrivent toujours pas à développer une AGR dans l’avenir. Actuellement, les personnes relocalisées qui sont en difficulté pour payer leur loyer au même cout de la subvention, cherchent d’autres alternatives. Par exem- ple elles renégocient le prix de leur. If the relocated families are now living in better living conditions, the fact that they have a more decent housing, it is not certain that they all continue to benefit from this quality of life. Such is the case for the relocated families who were not able to establish an IGA. These will have to face financial difficulties if they are still unable to develop an IGA in the future. Currently, the relocated people who are struggling to pay their rent to the same cost of the grant, seek other alternatives. For example, they renegotiate the price of the rent, change of accommodation and try to get their cii own house. What is important to emphasize is that none of the families relocated not intend to return to the camps. v Similarly, survival for the poor in urban Port-au-Prince is complex and may include more eco- nomic activity on the part of the beneficiaries than is assumed or indicated from surveys. The most interesting finding regarding the Asset Scores in this study is that the sample population exhibits a clear and strong trend of increasing assets as people moved out of the camps and into homes (see page 37). Yet, the only notable evidence that the interventions—aid money and training—caused the increase in assets was that of Adult Education, an activity that only a few beneficiaries participated in. The suggestion is that moving out of the camps did have a positive impact on Assets—and hence material wellbeing—but the impact was not, in this case, coming from the aid. vi Konbyen tan fomasyon an te dire? # 4 Joel Normil; Gason; 34 ane; Syans administrative; 6 ane ap travay ak Concern: Bon se sitou pa peryod. Sa kon rive nou 1 semen 2 semen ap bay fomasyon sou sa. #1 Dudley Saint Jean; Gason; 30 ane; Travaye Sosyal; 3 ane ap travay ak OIM : Wi, yo bay fomasy- on tou, men li menm se plis yon brifing. Se yon ajan adan biro ki kapab reyini 4 ak 5 benefisye ba yo; montre yo kijan pou yo jere trezoreri yo; kijan pou jere. Souvan se de pwodwi perisab. Kjan pou ye fe renouvelman stok. Li petet ka dire yon joune, 2 joune, 3 joune. Sa ki diferan de OIM li menm ki kap bay yon fomasyon an kapab dire 6 mwa… Yes, they gave training also, but it was more like a briefing. It was one agent in the office who would call together 4 or 5 beneficiaries, show them how to manage a the treasury, how to man- age money. Often products are perishable. How to renew stock. It might last one, to or three days. That’s different than IOM that can give training for 6 months…. #1 Dalin Charles ; Gason ; 38 ane ; Syans politik ; 5 ane ap travay ak GOAL: …. Epwi pou fomasyon an AGR menm jan ak Help Age nou ba yo yon fomasyon 8 semen. Yon fwa pa semen… For the AGR training we gave them 8 weeks. Once per week…. #1 Dalin Charles ; Gason ; 38 ane ; Syans politik ; 5 ane ap travay ak GOAL: Se 8 fomasyon pou jwenn kob la. Apre 2 ou pap gen kob men apre 3 fomasyon nou fe ratrapaj pou yo…. ou kapab monte ti bisnis ou oubyen konpletel. Yo pa bezwen vin nan tou le 8, men nou pa janm di yo ke yo pa beswen vin nan tou le 8. Nou toujou montre yo ke fomasyon an li obligatwa pou yo patisipe nan tout fomasyon yo. Men yo toujou vini an majorite nan fomasyon an. ciii It was 8 trainings. After 2 you didn’t get money. Min after 3 trainings we helped them open a business…. They did not have to come to all 8 meetings, but we never told them that. We always should them that training was mandatory. And they came, a majority came to training. # 5 Manette Noel; Fi; 30 ane; Gesyon administrative; 3 ane ap travay ak Concern : 6 mwa, men kouman li ye. Fomasyon nou yo a KAPAK li pa chak jou. E fomasyon nou yo pa tout jounen. Pandan moun yo KAPAK nou menm se benefisye, potfey nou toujou ap travay. Le sa fomasyon nou fe sou noutrisyon, igen , GRD…. Nou gen plizye modil de fomasyon nan kad pwogram nan. M’ap pale nou de KAPAK , se fomasyon pwofesyonel. Six months. Here is how it is. Training we did thorugh KAPAK was not every day. When you’re in that training you’re not into nutrition, and hygiene and disaster management. … We have several different models of vocational training. But I’m talking about KAPAK. With regard to AGR # 4 Joel Normil; Gason; 34 ane; Syans administrative; 6 ane ap travay ak Concern: Bon se sitou pa peryod. Sa kon rive nou 1 semen 2 semen ap bay fomasyon sou sa. Well, it depends on what time you’re talking about. It could be 1 week , or 2 weeks that they give training. Ok. Yo ba yo fomasyon AGR ? # 3 Nikenncia Plaisimond; Fi; 31 ane; Inivesite; 4 ane ap travay ak Helpa Age: Avan nou bal AGR la, nou fe fomasyon sou jesyon kijan poul jere ti bisnis li. Ki bisnis kap pi bon poul fe kijan li ka fe ekonomi . Pandan yon jounen nou konn fe de 8h ak 3 ze fomasyon pou yo. Se apre fomasyon sa yo tout benefisye ap jwenn kob pou AGR…. Yo tout se sou yon jounen nou fe yo. Before we gave AGR, we trained on management, how to manage a business. What business is best to do, how to economize and plan. During one day we could do 8 hours with 3 hours of training for them. After that al the beneficiaries go money for AGR… It’s all done in one day. vii Different agencies worked with different populations in different areas. These populations were exposed to significantly different environmental impediments. For example, Concern worked in St Martin where gang violence and riots were major factors influencing both Concern’s capacity to deliver services and the population’s capacity to take advantage of those services. Goal worked in part in Gressier where violence and gang conflict was not an issue. viii How does one compare Concern Beneficiaries in St. Martin, people whose lives are complicat- ed with persistent gang violence, to Goal beneficiaries in rural Gressier where there is almost no crime at all. civ ix The survey subgroups envisioned are:  Those who received a rental subsidy only (100 surveys);  Those who received an unconditional cash transfer, distributed to all HH in question with no selection criteria, as unique livelihood package element (100 surveys);  Those who also received a long technical-school or construction training course (200 surveys), a strategy mainly used by IOM and targeting the most vulnerable;  Beneficiaries who received short business training and an IGA grant (200 surveys);  Those who received short business training and an unconditional grant (200 surveys);  Beneficiaries targeted due to particular vulnerability categories (the elderly, handi- capped, large families, etc.) and offered expanded livelihood packages (with elements such as health insurance and school stipends) (200 surveys);  Beneficiaries offered a chance to take a longer (3 month) course and receive a grant contingent on the completion of a business plan deemed solid by staff (200 surveys);  Beneficiaries whose packages included access to a Village Savings and Loan Associa- tion or other credit source (200 surveys). x HelpAge Internal Evaluation Report Resettlement of vulnerable people living in IDP camps July 2012– June 2013 (ECHO/HTI/BUD/2012/91014) Internal Evaluation made by: Kizito Chiwala - June 2013 xi Confidence Intervals for Aid Money by Asset Score (N=1,399) Zero HTG (n=177) 2.84 3.21 3.58 01 to 5,000 HTG (n=301) 2.52 2.79 3.05 5,001 to 10,000 HTG (n=421) 2.49 2.71 2.93 10,001 to 15,000 HTG (n=147) 2.22 2.59 2.95 15,001 to 25,000 HTG (n=116) 1.69 2.03 2.38 Greater than 25,000 HTG (n=237) 2.52 2.80 3.08 TOTAL (N=1,399) 2.61 2.73 2.86 cv xii Every one of the multiples except for one is a combination of Widow or Chronically ill. And most interesting is that probably that in the overwhelming majority of the cases they have no vulnera- ble at all. xiii Average of No_10,000_outliers Haitian Dola $ 3,641.62 USD $ 331.06 USD (Exchange at time of Earthquake: 1 USD= 8 HD xiv Items Reportedly lost in the Earthquake Veso 75% Furniture 75% Television 71% Radio 62% Telephone 30% Burner_Charcoal 27% Refridgerator 25% Cooler 14% Burner_Propane 13% Freezer 10% Stove 8% Burner_Kerosene 7% Propane_tank 5% Laptop 4% Tablette 2% Vehicle 2% Bicycle 2% Moto 1% Other 14% xv Deaths  three records for reported more deaths than they reported people in the house cvi   one reported 12 death but only had six people in the household prior to the earthquake  one reported 6 deaths but only report 4 people in the house prior to the earthquake  one report 3 deaths but only reported 3 people in the house prior to the earthquake  one missing Injuries  one reported 12 injuries but only reported 4 people living in the house  one reported 5 injuries but only had 4 people living in the house  one missing xvi Everyone in Haiti has family and friends overseas, but we have found that asking, “do you have someone” functions as code for someone who cares enough to send them money. Respond- ents instinctively filter out anyone who does not care enough to send them money. xvii The World Bank. 2014. Rental Support Cash Grant Programs: Operations Manual, p. 11, xviii Concern Worldwide Report to the European Commision - Directorate General - Humanitarian aid and Civil protection – ECHO eSingle form for humanitarian aid actions App_version Agree- menteSingle form for humanitarian aid actions App_version Agreement; page 6). cvii