Strengthening Disaster Risk Management and Capacities in Lao PDR

Final Evaluation

Final report

6 March 2015

Prepared by

1 | P a g e

Contents

1 Acronyms................................................................................................................................................................... 4

2 Executive summary..................................................................................................................................................... 5

3 Project background..................................................................................................................................................... 8

4 Evaluation methodology............................................................................................................................................. 9

4.1 Scope...........................................................................................................................................................................9

4.2 Final Evaluation activities............................................................................................................................................9

4.3 Limitations and challenges........................................................................................................................................10

5 Findings.................................................................................................................................................................... 12

5.1 Impact and effectiveness...........................................................................................................................................12

5.2 Relevance..................................................................................................................................................................20

5.3 Efficiency...................................................................................................................................................................21

5.4 Sustainability.............................................................................................................................................................24

6 Conclusions and recommendations........................................................................................................................... 26

7 Appendix A: Final Evaluation Survey Questionnaires.................................................................................................28

7.1 Knowledge Attitude Practice (KAP) Household Questionnaire...................................................................................28

7.2 Key Informant Interview (KII) Questionnaire.............................................................................................................33

8 Appendix B: KAP Survey Report (Baseline versus Endline).........................................................................................42

8.1 Sample overview.......................................................................................................................................................42

8.2 Knowledge and awareness........................................................................................................................................43

8.3 Practices....................................................................................................................................................................45

2 | P a g e

1 Acronyms

CF Child Fund

DDMC District Disaster Management Committee

DRM Disaster Risk Management

DRR Disaster Risk Reduction

HVCA Hazard Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis

KAP Knowledge Attitude and Practice

KII Key Informant Interview

MOES Ministry of Education and Sport

MOLSW Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare

MONRE Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment

MOU Memorandum of Understanding

NDMP National Disaster Management Plan

NDMO National Disaster Management Office

PDMC Provincial Disaster Management Committee

PVCA Participatory Vulnerability and Capacity Analysis

RDPE National Committee for Rural Development and Poverty Eradication

RIES Research Institute for Education and Sport

SCI Save the Children

VDMC Village Disaster Management Committee

3 | P a g e

2 Executive summary

This document is a Final Evaluation of the program “Strengthening Disaster Risk Management Systems and Capacities in Lao PDR”, which is part of the Disaster Preparedness and Response initiative of the Australian Government. The program was implemented in 82 villages across nine districts in four provinces during 2013 and 2014.

The overall objective of the program was to strengthen the national disaster risk management capacity of Lao Government and communities through an integrated, multi-level approach to Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Risk Management capacity building, education and training.

The activities of Save the Children, ChildFund and Plan International related to four program outcomes: Strengthened multi-level linkages for effective disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response at all

levels Children and teachers have improved knowledge and understanding of risk and risk management options

and skills in monitoring of risk management initiatives Improved School Disaster Management awareness and practices Access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and disaster resilient.

The purpose of this Evaluation is to assess the extent to which the objective of this program has been realized and progress on the four outcomes has been achieved. The evaluation addresses questions grouped under four broad themes – impact and effectiveness; relevance; efficiency; and sustainability.

The program was aligned closely with the strategies of the Government of Lao PDR including the strategies outlined in the Government’s Strategic Plan on Disaster Risk Management.1 It was also highly relevant to the needs of the communities targeted by the program, which are located in poor districts that are vulnerable to small-scale disasters. Consortium members have been successful in creating a sense of engagement with Government stakeholders (at all levels) and with the local communities themselves. All stakeholders recognized the importance of strengthening the capacity of communities and the Government to reduce the risks associated with small-scale disasters.2

The consortium approach contributed to the strength of program implementation in the target districts. The approach enabled the program to reach into four provinces with different hazard landscapes, in a way that would not have been possible with a single organization. There were clear benefits from sharing tools, experiences and lessons learned, as well as the enhanced influence with Government officials that a consortium approach brings. For example, having three organizations jointly implement the DRR curricula was more influential with education officials than if a single organization had done so.

Overall, implementation of program activities was consistent with the design of the program. All program activities were implemented in full within the duration of the program.

1 Aims of the strategic plan include: safeguard sustainable development and reduce the damage of natural or manmade disasters; shift the focus of Government agencies from disaster relief to disaster preparedness and mitigation; and develop community-based disaster management approaches.2 This view was expressed by national representatives of the Ministry of Education and Sport (MOES), Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MOLSW) and National Committee for Rural Development and Poverty Eradication (RDPE), and was also reflected in results from the household survey and key informant interviews. 4 | P a g e

Key achievements of the program include: Relevant ministry officials at all levels of Government have increased their awareness and appreciation of

disaster risk reduction and disaster risk management District/Village Disaster Management Committees and child clubs have been established and supported,

and are operating effectively Hazard assessments have been undertaken and Disaster Action Plans have been developed and rolled out

in all target communities New education modules and teacher support materials have been developed and rolled out to all target

schools Teachers have received training in the new disaster risk reduction curriculum School infrastructure has been made safer and more disaster resilient through the small grants

component of the program.

The program has had a positive impact on the knowledge, attitudes and practices of the target communities. Based on the household surveys and key informant interviews, interviews with consortium staff and Government officials at the national level, and a review of program documentation, the evidence strongly suggests that the program led to a substantial increase in knowledge and awareness about the hazards faced by the communities and how to reduce or mitigate the associated risks. This increase in knowledge and awareness has been achieved across different population groups in the community, namely children, youth, adults, teachers and local administrators.

There is also evidence to suggest that the program has been successful in changing behaviours and practices relating to disaster risk reduction and disaster risk management. For example, communities now have greater access to, and make greater use of, early warnings systems. Communities have identified hazards relating to unsafe school buildings and infrastructure, and have made improvements to create safer school environments. Communities have also participated in evacuation drills and emergency simulations. Taken together, these changes in behaviours and practices have improved communities’ preparedness for, and resilience to, the small-scale disasters they face on a regular basis. However, perhaps not surprisingly given the short duration of the program, there remains considerable scope for further improvement in behaviours, practices and outcomes in the target communities. In particular, based on the endline survey results, children’s knowledge of how to help disabled people in the event of an emergency has improved but remains quite low. The endline survey results also suggest there is scope to improve communities’ knowledge of standard operating procedures for safety in the event of emergencies.

The program was structured with a view to sustaining the benefits of the program over the long term. This is reflected in the emphasis on capacity-building for Disaster Management Committees and child clubs, the new curricula and teacher support materials for rollout in all schools, and the multi-level, community-wide approach to disaster risk management.

Nevertheless, there are limitations regarding the sustainability of the achievements made through the program. First, it is difficult to reinforce newly-acquired knowledge, support new institutional structures, and create long-lasting changes in practices and attitudes within a two-year program. Second, while the development and rollout of new school curriculum and training provided to teachers was successful, it remains to be seen whether the benefits of the new curriculum for Grades 3-6 will stay with the students as they progress through higher grades. It also remains to be seen whether the new curriculum can be sustained in a limited number of schools and districts, in the event that funding is not secured to implement the Government’s commitment to a national rollout of DDR curriculum.

5 | P a g e

These limitations reflect the short duration of the program. While program funding was initially obtained for two years, the program was designed in the expectation that subsequent funding would be obtained for two additional years – which did not eventuate.3 This explains why some elements of program design – such as having a consortium approach, implementing the small grants component in year 2 and rolling out the DRR curriculum in the second half of year 2 – would be more appropriate in a four-year program rather than a two-year program.

Aside from this issue, the program was well designed and implemented, and achieved positive results on the key program objective and outcomes. The lessons learned in the design and implementation of this program will provide a solid foundation for future programs that address the important issue of disaster risk reduction in Lao PDR.

This evaluation presents six recommendations with a view to improving programming in this area in the future.

A consortium approach to program implementation should be encouraged, particularly where each member brings different but complementary capabilities to the consortium and where adequate resources are allocated to consortium management activities.

Reflecting the good practice of this program, future programs should be designed carefully to align with Government priorities and strategies in this area.

Programs that seek to achieve lasting improvement in attitudes, behaviours and practices in the area of disaster risk management should ideally be implemented over a period longer than two years.

Those involved in program design and implementation need to keep striving for new and improved ways to make programs more inclusive of the needs of vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities as well as women and girls.

Future DRR programming should build on this program’s successful development of curricula, teacher training and support materials, with consideration given to developing new modules for higher school grades (beyond grade 6).

Donors and other organizations should continue to advocate for DRR modules to be mainstreamed in the national school curricula, in recognition of the sustainability challenges of rolling out DRR modules in a limited number of target schools.

3 This expectation was based on discussions held between the donor and consortium members at the time of project design.6 | P a g e

3 Project background

Consulting firm Emerging Market Consulting (EMC) has been hired to conduct a Final Evaluation of the program “Strengthening Disaster Risk Management Systems and Capacities in Lao PDR”, which is part of the Disaster Preparedness and Response initiative of the Australian Government.

The program was implemented over two years (January 2013 to December 2014) by a consortium comprising Save the Children (SCI), ChildFund (CF), Plan International and World Food Program. This Final Evaluation relates to the activities of SCI, CF and Plan.

The program was implemented in 82 villages across nine districts in four provinces:

Luang Prabang: 30 villages in three districts (SCI) Bolikhamxay: 30 villages in three districts (SCI) Xieng Khouang: 12 villages in one district (CF) Bokeo: 10 villages in two districts (Plan).

The overall objective of the program was to strengthen the national disaster risk management capacity of Lao Government and communities through an integrated, multi-level approach to Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Risk Management capacity building, education and training.

The activities of SCI, CF and Plan related to four program outcomes (labeled as outcomes 3 to 6 of the program):

3. Strengthened multi-level linkages for effective disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response at all levels

4. Children and teachers have improved knowledge and understanding of risk and risk management options and skills in monitoring of risk management initiatives

5. Improved School Disaster Management awareness and practices6. Access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and disaster resilient.

7 | P a g e

4 Evaluation methodology

4.1 Scope

The purpose of this Final Evaluation is to assess the extent to which the objective of this program has been realized and progress on the four outcomes has been achieved.

The evaluation addresses questions grouped under four broad themes:

Impact and effectiveness:o To what extent have the overall objective and expected outcomes been achieved?o Were the program activities and outputs consistent with the intended effects and ultimate impact of

the project? Relevance:

o To what extent did the program objective remain relevant and consistent with beneficiary needs and priorities, relevant Government of Lao PDR policies, and the overall operating environment?

Efficiency:o What factors acted as enablers or constraints to the achievement of the program objectives? o How economically were program resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) used to achieve the

desired results? Sustainability:

o What is the likelihood of program benefits being sustained beyond the program period? o What are the potential long-term effects of this program, positive and negative, intended or

unintended?

4.2 Final Evaluation activities

This Final Evaluation is based on analysis of information collected through a mix of desk research, household surveys, and in-depth interviews with relevant stakeholders (consortium staff and Government officials at the national level).

EMC undertook a desk review of relevant policies, strategies and other documents of the Government of Lao PDR, as well as program documents from consortium members that included project design documents, baseline data and report, monitoring and evaluation data, progress reports, and workshop reports.

A key component of the evaluation was the endline Knowledge Attitude and Practice (KAP) survey of 347 households and 92 Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) that EMC conducted in the four provinces in December 2014. 4

In consultation with consortium members, EMC developed a sampling strategy for the KAP survey and KIIs that closely resembled the sampling conducted in the baseline research conducted in February-March 2013. The two samples are broadly comparable in terms of type and number of persons surveyed in each village. (See Appendix B: KAP Survey Report for details of the baseline and endline samples.)

4 KAP respondents are categorized as children (defined for the purposes of this study as children aged 7 to 14, to maintain consistency with the baseline survey), youth (aged 15 to 25) in school and out of school, and adults (aged over 25). KII respondents include school principals and teachers, village chiefs and administrators, education district officers, local officials from MLSW and NRE, and members of DDMC / VDMC members. 8 | P a g e

EMC, in consultation with consortium members, refined the KAP and KII survey tools used in the baseline so as to capture all relevant information to meet the needs of the Final Evaluation. EMC, with support from SCI, conducted one day of training for the two team leaders and four enumerators.5

The two research teams implemented the KAP survey and KIIs in 12 villages from five districts in four provinces, according to the schedule outlined in Table 1. In total, endline data was collected from 347 households for the KAP survey and 92 key informants (including community leaders, school principals, teachers, local government officials and consortium program staff).

Table 1: Data collection for endline KAP survey and KIIs

Date Province District Villages

8-9 Dec 2014 Bolikhamxay Viengthong Phondou, Thadeua

8-9 Dec 2014 Luang Prabang Viengkham Houykuang, Houy Chok

12-16 Dec 2014 Xiengkhouang Nonghet Nonghet Tai, Paka, Dindam, Phakhae Neua

12-16 Dec 2014 BokeoMeung Torle, Ponghine, Thamphabath

Paktha Donesavanh

In addition, EMC conducted interviews with national program staff at SCI, CF and Plan, as well as national representatives of: Ministry of Education and Sport (MOES); Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MOLSW); and National Committee for Rural Development and Poverty Eradication (RDPE).

EMC presented preliminary findings of the survey results to national consortium members in January 2015, which generated valuable feedback that was incorporated into the draft report.

4.3 Limitations and challenges

The research team did not encounter any unanticipated challenges during the data collection phase. The team benefited from the insights shared by consortium members regarding baseline survey implementation challenges, as well as from the logistical support of consortium district staff. As expected, there were some communication challenges that resulted from some survey participants not speaking the Lao language, but these interviews were successfully completed with the assistance of translators.

There were two main challenges in comparing results from the baseline and endline surveys.

First, in the endline survey, it was not possible to survey the same villages in Bokeo Province as had been surveyed in the baseline survey. At the time of the baseline survey, Plan International had not finalized the villages to be targeted in the program. As it turned out, the four villages surveyed in the baseline were not included as target villages for program implementation. Consequently, Plan International recommended four other villages to be sampled in the endline, which introduces the possibility of selection bias.

Second, it is possible that the same questions in the baseline and endline surveys may have been asked with different levels of explanation or prompting. The baseline survey was conducted by Ms. Phoukham Sipaseuth using a survey team that included provincial and district officials from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MOLSW) and the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport (MOEYS). The endline survey was conducted by consulting firm EMC using a team of experienced survey enumerators. Consistent with the training provided by

5 The endline survey was implemented using two teams (two provinces per team), with each team consisting of a team leader and two enumerators.9 | P a g e

EMC, endline enumerators provided additional explanation of questions in cases where the participant appeared not to understand the question. However, it is not clear whether a similar technique was employed in the baseline questioning, since the baseline questionnaire instructed enumerators to record answers “without probing”. The very high “no response” rate for many questions in the baseline suggests that enumerators may not have fully explained questions that at first instance were not understood by participants. As a result, some of the difference in responses between the baseline and endline surveys may reflect, in part, possible differences in interviewing techniques. EMC was unable to isolate this effect when analysing the results.

10 | P a g e

5 Findings

5.1 Impact and effectiveness

To what extent have the overall objectives and expected outcomes of the program been achieved?

Were the program activities and outputs consistent with the intended effects and ultimate impact of the project?

The overall objective of the program was to strengthen the national disaster risk management capacity of Lao Government and communities through an integrated, multi-level approach to Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Disaster Risk Management (DRM) capacity building, education and training.

Below, the extent to which each of the four program outcomes (3 to 6) has been achieved is evaluated.

Outcome 3: Strengthened multi-level linkages for effective disaster risk reduction, preparedness and response at all levels

The main activities designed to achieve this outcome were:

To establish and support 132 VDMCs and 15 DDMCs in the target communities To train and build the capacity of committee members to improve their awareness and understanding of

DRR and of their roles and responsibilities as committee members To support VDMCs to conduct Hazard, Vulnerability and Capacity Assessments (HVCA) and develop DRR

Action Plans for their communities. To establish community-based early warning systems

The program achieved its activity targets in terms of establishing, supporting and training VDMCs and DDMCs, conducting HVCAs, and developing DRR Action Plans at the village level.

As an example of the training provided to DMCs, in May 2013 SCI organized DRR training of trainers sessions for provincial and district DMCs in Bolikhamxay, so that they could roll out the training at the village level. After two days of training, post-evaluation surveys showed that 79% of participants could correctly define key DRR concepts.6

One challenge experienced by consortium members in undertaking training and other program activities was the difficulty of accessing some villages during the rainy season. This was noted as a constraint or limitation in the minutes of the Final Workshop for both Bolikhamxay and Bokeo. Another challenge raised in an interview with CF was that some activities coincided with the harvest season, which made it difficult for villagers to attend.7

According to monitoring data on Early Warning Systems (EWS) that were provided to 29 villages in Bolikhamxay and 17 villages in Luang Prabang, the system was functioning in 71% of the villages. Of the remaining systems, 7% had broken and were being repaired, while 22% had not been installed due to a lack of electricity in the village. 8 The systems that are functioning are being used regularly (usually at least three times per month) to announce warnings as well as for other important village announcements.

6 There was no follow-up assessment of their training skills when they applied this new knowledge in practice.7 CF indicated that delays by Government had the effect of pushing some activities back into the harvest season. 8 Loudspeakers were provided to 10 villages that do not have electricity. These villages mistakenly thought they could use a water generator as a power source for the loudspeakers, but this proved not to be correct. Of these 10 villages, one expected to complete installation in October 2014 (one month after being surveyed), four intended to mobilize community funds to buy an electric generator, and the other four were due to get electricity in the near future.11 | P a g e

In total, 85% of endline KII respondents said their organization or community set up an early warning system, with the most common systems being loudspeakers (70%) and telephone messages (20%). When asked the same question in the baseline KII, only 7% of respondents answered in the affirmative.

In the endline KAP survey, when participants were asked how the community helped to reduce the risk or impact of any hazards experienced in the past two years, by far the most common responses were early warning systems and loudspeakers (51% of respondents).

More generally, 88% of KII respondents believe there is evidence that Government or village level structures have adopted practices and attitudes resulting from the program. For example, one DMC member drew attention to the “evaluation of natural hazard risk in the community” as a key aspect of the program.

The program strengthened multi-level linkages in various ways. For example, child clubs coordinated with DMCs at the district and village levels to undertake and present hazard assessments. Teachers were provided with guidance in engaging both the VDMCs and children to assist with the DRR action planning following the completion of the hazard assessments. VDMC representatives assisted the children with addressing the issues and developing potential solutions.

Outcome 4: Children and teachers have improved knowledge and understanding of risk and risk management options and skills in monitoring of risk management initiatives

The main activities relating to outcome 4 are presented in the table below, along with the percentage of all 92 KII respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that these activities had been undertaken.

Table 2: Outcome 4 activities and achievement

Activity% of KII respondents

agree or strongly agree

New DRR curriculum modules were developed by the consortium in 2013, pilot-tested in the first half of 2014, and rolled out to all target schools in the second half of 2014

92%

New DRR teacher support materials were produced, including teacher guidelines and school-based hazard risk mapping guidelines

90%

Children and teachers were trained to conduct child-friendly hazard assessments (HVCAs) in the school and surrounding community

79%

Small scale activities were implemented based on the priorities identified in the DRR Action Plans 93%

In interviews conducted in September 2014 by SCI staff with principals and teachers from 60 target schools in Luang Prabang and Bolikamxai, 68% of interviewees agreed that most teachers had received training about hazards and risk reduction, with another 29% agreeing “somewhat” and 3% saying “no”. When asked if most students are aware of things that can be done to reduce risks in the home, school and community, 35% of interviewees agreed, 37% agreed “somewhat” and 28% said “no”.9

In interviews with consortium members and education officials at the national level, the general consensus was that the new curriculum was very useful and that both teachers and students enjoyed the new participatory teaching style. According to one national consortium member, “Teachers said they had never thought to use

9 The high negative response may reflect that the interviews were conducted in September 2014, while some schools had plans to roll out disaster management activities after that time. 12 | P a g e

songs in the classroom before.” A quarterly report from another consortium member observes that: “Based on our monitoring students’ participation in DRR activities, school students’ understanding in DRR has been improved resulting from teachers’ introduction to the teaching guide book and using participatory methods … It is also expected that this information can be shared among teachers across the schools so that they also … continuously apply this in their teaching on other subjects.”10

Results from the baseline and endline KAPs support the finding that during the life of the program, children have received additional information about hazards from their school. In the endline survey, 92% of children said they had learned about hazards at school. By comparison, in the baseline survey, only 39% of children said they had learned something at school about reducing the impact of floods. (No details were provided.)

More broadly, the results from the endline KAP survey and KIIs with the 25 teachers indicate that the program achieved this outcome, with significant increases in knowledge and understanding about hazards and risk reduction. Given that the new curriculum modules were only rolled out towards the end of the two-year program, the increase is likely to have come from other program activities that commenced in the first year of the program, including hazard assessments, activities, songs and key messages.

In the endline KAP survey, all 120 children and 38 of the 39 youth in school (97%) were able to nominate at least one hazard (average of 2.5 to 3 hazards) that their community faced. By comparison, in the baseline KAP survey, only 6 of the 112 children (5%) nominated a hazard, with another 6 children saying their community faced no hazards and the remaining 100 children not providing a response to the question. (As mentioned earlier, the high “no response” rate suggests that baseline enumerators may not have elaborated on questions in cases where the participant did not understand the question. However, EMC is not able to confirm precisely how the questions were asked in the baseline.)

Similarly, in the endline KII, all 25 principals and teachers nominated at least one hazard (average of 4 hazards) that their community faced, while none of the 12 principals and teachers interviewed in the baseline KII provided a response to the question. (Again, it is difficult to interpret the high “no response” result in the baseline.)

While it is possible that the dramatic increase in response rates from baseline to endline may partly reflect different levels of explanation or prompting in the way the question was asked, it is likely to also reflect a genuine increase in knowledge and conceptual understanding about what constitutes a hazard. Based on the observations of consortium members, prior to this program, members of these communities did not view the small-scale disasters that affected them within the conceptual framework of hazard identification, disaster preparedness and disaster mitigation.

In the endline KAP, 92% of children said they learned about these hazards at school, with the other main sources of information being at home (42%), from NGOs (42%) and personal experience (29%). The corresponding figures for youth in school were 41% at school, 23% at home, 33% from NGOs and 28% from personal experience. In the KII, 68% of principals and teachers got their information from NGOs, while 56% also used government sources.

In the endline KAP and KII, 67% of children, 87% of youth in school, and 96% of principals and teachers believe their preparedness for hazards has increased in the last two years, with most other respondents indicating no change in their level of preparedness.

In conclusion, the DRR curriculum and teaching support materials developed under the program, along with other DDR school-based activities, appear to have been well received by both teachers and students. Based on endline survey results, project monitoring reports and interviews with stakeholders, it appears that many students have

10 ChildFund, Quarterly Report, Q1 2014/15, November 2015.13 | P a g e

enhanced their knowledge and awareness of hazards and risk reduction as a result of the program, although a significant percentage of students are perceived – by themselves and also by teachers – to have experienced little or no improvement. Given the short duration of the program, it is likely that the full benefits of the program (in terms of improved knowledge and awareness) will only become apparent in the months and years ahead.

Outcome 5: Improved School Disaster Management awareness and practices

The main activities relating to outcome 5 are presented in the table below, along with the percentage of all 92 KII respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that these activities had been undertaken.Table 3: Outcome 5 activities and achievement

Activity% of KII respondents

agree or strongly agreePractice simulation drills for expected and recurring disasters were undertaken, incorporating the needs of children with disabilities; Standing Operating Procedures (SOPs) and Guidelines for these school drills were developed

88%

School administrators, staff, and students engaged in on-going school community DRM activities, including hazard and risk assessments

93%

School DRM plans were developed that incorporated the needs of children with disabilities 89%

School DRM plans were linked with VDMC disaster planning, to encourage a community-wide approach to disaster management planning

92%

In terms of perceived impact, the majority of all 347 respondents in the endline KAP survey believe there has been a significant improvement in their school disaster management awareness and practices over the past two years. In total, 75% of children, 74% of youth in school, 69% of youth out of school and 88% of village adults believe there has been a “big improvement” or “improvement” compared to two years ago. 11 The biggest perceived improvement was in on-going disaster risk reduction and preparedness planning at schools (78% of all KAP respondents), while the lowest improvement was increased knowledge of standard operating procedures for safety in the event of emergencies (44%) and educational continuity planning at schools (45%).

The relatively low score for improved knowledge of standard operating procedures is echoed in results from interviews conducted in September 2014 by SCI staff with principals and teachers from 60 schools in Luang Prabang and Bolikamxai. In those interviews, 55% felt that most students are not familiar with safe building evacuation procedures for fire, 48% felt that most students are not familiar with safe assembly areas, and 67% felt that most students are not familiar with safe family reunification procedures.12

On a more positive note, CF felt that the emergency simulations conducted in its target districts had been successful in improving communities’ disaster preparedness. For example, CF reported that the Nonghet emergency simulation on fire “built on overall capacities of DDMC and communities who participated in the event” and “also provided ideas for the district government to start initiating planned simulations in their district strategy”.

11 Respondents were asked to rank their improvement on a scale from 1 to 5. A rank of 4 is interpreted as “improvement” while a rank of 5 is interpreted as “big improvement”. 12 The high negative response may reflect that the interviews were conducted in September 2014, while some program activities continued beyond this time.14 | P a g e

Outcome 6: Access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and disaster resilient

The main activities relating to outcome 6 are presented in the table below, along with the percentage of all 92 KII respondents who agreed or strongly agreed that these activities had been undertaken.

Table 4: Outcome 6 activities and achievement

Activity% of KII respondents

agree or strongly agree

School Development Plans were reviewed to incorporate appropriate hazard mitigation 89%

Training was conducted on infrastructure DRR activity planning for stakeholders 87%

Schools undertook structural and non-structural hazard protection measures through the small grants program

92%

These KII results support other evidence that considerable work has gone towards making schools safer. For example, in interviews in September 2014 with 30 schools in Bolikhamxay: 87% of schools indicated they were incorporating DRR in school development plans; 100% of schools said that school buildings and grounds are maintained and repaired for disaster resilience; and 83% of schools said that school infrastructure (including access routes, shelters and safe evacuation points) are developed as needed and maintained for safety.

A national representative from CF indicated that implementation of the small grants component of the program had been challenging in several respects. The process for approving grant applications took longer than anticipated. Second, in some villages, community contributions of labour for small grant activities were lower than anticipated due to their engagement in the corn-harvesting season.13 While these challenges resulted in some delays, the small grants component was still fully implemented.

In addition to making schools safer, it appears that safety improvements made using the small grants component also had a positive impact on school attendance. In a monitoring report conducted in Luang Prabang, average absence rates had fallen from 20-30% to 0-10% in some schools – especially those that had improved the safety of school access/entry and water/sanitation facilities. This supports the view that key drivers of absenteeism include difficult access to schools (especially in the rainy season), inadequate toilet facilities (especially for girls) and inadequate hand-washing facilities (which contribute to diarrhoeal diseases).14

In terms of outcomes, 89% of all KAP respondents agreed or strongly agreed that access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and more disaster resilient compared to two years ago. The most common measure was the use of hazard-resistant techniques in construction and retrofit (47% of respondents). Other measures included building a fence around the school (to protect against animals roaming on school grounds and/or children wandering onto nearby roads), “improving” the school building, having an evacuation plan and having the soil tested.

13 Delays in processing small grant applications resulted in some small grant activities being pushed back into the harvest season.14 Report of school disaster management sharing workshop (Luang Prabang), October 23-24 2014, Addendum: Small Grant Funded Activities - Status Update.15 | P a g e

Cross-cutting issues: gender and disability

The program explicitly recognized that the key to successful inclusion of the most vulnerable populations – including women and girls and persons with disabilities – in DRR and DRM is ensuring their meaningful participation, active involvement and effective representation in all stages of planning, preparation and implementation at all levels.

Gender:

Increasing the participation of women and girls – in VDMCs, child clubs and training activities – was a focus for the program. Each consortium member had targets for female representation on VDMCs, although in some cases it was challenging to meet targets due to cultural factors as well as the low number of women in Government positions in some areas. For example, CF indicated that it was a challenge to achieve its modest target of having one woman on each VDMC, due to cultural factors in ethnic minority villages. On a more positive note, SCI found that promoting leadership positions for girls in child clubs was an effective way to give girls a voice in disaster risk management.

People with disabilities:

The program also sought to be inclusive of people with disabilities, ensuring they were involved in risk assessments, hazard mapping and other DRR activities (including simulation drills), and contributing to the design of community preparedness plans that took into consideration the needs of differently abled members of the community. For example, SCI arranged specific outreach groups which were able to attract children with cognitive and physical disabilities both in and out of school. The risk mapping was done using various methodologies including hazard awareness through pictorial depictions, language, body movements and writing.

Knowledge about helping persons with disabilities to deal with hazards appears to have been quite low prior to commencement of the program. According to the baseline results, only 23% of KAP respondents said they knew a person with a disability and agreed there are things that can be done to make them safe. When asked what things can be done to help them, only 6% of KAP respondents were able to provide a suggestion (4% children, 11% youth and 6% adults), with the only suggestion being to help move the person to a safer place.

The endline results indicate that community members are now more aware of how to help persons with disabilities, although awareness levels are still quite low. When asked how they could assist disabled persons, 46% of KAP respondents provided at least one suggestion (33% children, 41% youth in school, 46% youth out of school and 61% adults), with the three main suggestions being evacuation/transportation, alert the person, and education programs. Among the 92 KII respondents, 63% provided a suggestion on how to help.

In addition, 65% of KAP respondents agreed that their community DRR Action Plan addresses the needs of people with disabilities (compared to 80-93% of respondents who felt their plan addresses the needs of other groups – men, women, boys, girls, youth and minority groups). In the KII survey, 75% of respondents felt that the program covers the needs of people with disabilities. (The 25% who disagreed were not asked to elaborate.)

In interviews with Government officials at the national level, officials did not seem to have a clear idea of how the program addressed the issues of gender and people with disabilities. Education officials indicated that gender was incorporated into the curriculum by ensuring an equal number of boys and girls were represented in textbook pictures, and that disability was covered elsewhere in the curriculum. MLSW officials indicated that gender and disability were incorporated into the program, but they did not provide any examples of how this had been done.

16 | P a g e

Encouragingly, in interviews conducted in September 2014 by SCI staff with principals and teachers from 60 target schools in Luang Prabang and Bolikamxai, 82% felt that the needs of young children, girls, and persons with disabilities had been integrated into training and awareness, with another 14% saying that needs had been “somewhat” integrated.

Other comments

Overall, the consortium members, government officials and the communities themselves seem to have a positive impression of the need for, and success of, the program.

For example, 86% of the 92 KII respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the program succeeded in achieving its objective, namely to strengthen the national disaster risk management capacity of Lao Government and communities through an integrated, multi-level approach to DRR and DRM capacity building, education and training.15

In the household KAP surveys, the significant increase in perceived knowledge and awareness of hazards and disaster risk management practices (as reported earlier) is an important indicator of the effectiveness of the program.

In terms of how this knowledge translates into improved practices, when asked how they responded to or prepared for hazards they have faced in the past two years, 66% of KAP participants provided at least one activity, with the most common responses being reunification plans (20%) and practice evaluation drills (19%). Of the other participants, 2% said they did nothing and 32% said they didn’t know. When KII participants were asked the same question, 77% provided at least one activity, while 23% said they didn’t know.

Taken together, these results suggest that the program has made some important inroads in terms of improving knowledge and – to a lesser extent – changing practices, while recognizing the challenges of trying to achieve systemic change in practices and behaviours during the course of a two-year program.

It is important to note that while program funding was initially obtained for two years, the program was designed in the expectation that subsequent funding would be obtained for an additional two years – which did not eventuate.16 This explains why some elements of program design – such as having a consortium approach, implementing the small grants component in year 2 and rolling out the DRR curriculum in the second half of year 2 – would be more appropriate in a four-year program rather than a two-year program.

15 11% disagreed or strongly disagreed, and 3% were neutral.16 This expectation was based on discussions held between the donor and consortium members at the time of project design.17 | P a g e

5.2 Relevance

To what extent did the program objective remain relevant and consistent with beneficiary needs and priorities, relevant Government of Lao PDR policies, and the overall operating environment?

The program objective and expected outcomes are directly supportive of the policies and strategies of the Government of Lao PDR, including the strategies outlined in the Government’s Strategic Plan on Disaster Risk Management, namely to:

Safeguard sustainable development and reduce the damage of natural or manmade disasters Shift the focus of Government agencies from disaster relief to disaster preparedness and mitigation Develop community-based disaster management approaches.

More broadly, the program supports the achievement of the Hyogo Framework for Action 17, with particular focus on three of the five priorities:

Ensuring that DRR is a national and local priority with a strong institutional basis for implementation Using education to build a culture of safety Reducing underlying risk through village level assessments.

At the local level, 91 of the 92 respondents in the endline KII believed that the goal of the program matched the strategy of the Government.

When asked if the project had contributed to the implementation of the National Disaster Management Strategy, 53% of KII participants agreed. Typical comments were that “the program follows the same strategy as the Government strategy” and that the consortium members were “participating with the Government to help the community”. On the other hand, 32% of KII participants felt that the program did not match the Government strategy, with common responses being a perceived need to modify the selection of target villages, a general lack of project funding or support, and a few comments to the effect that the project or procedures were “not in line” with the target of the Government (although these respondents did not elaborate on which targets they were referring to).18

Concerns about the selection of target villages is surprising, given that the target districts and villages were carefully selected based on factors including their hazard vulnerability and poverty profile, as well as consultations at district and village level. Of the nine selected districts, eight are identified by the Government as among the poorest 47 districts in Lao PDR (designed “high priority” districts), with the other district identified as among the next 25 poorest districts (“priority” districts). Moreover, one of the target provinces (Luang Prabang) is a key priority province for the NDMO, with over 76 per cent of its villages classified as poor and vulnerable to disasters.

Officials from MOEYS at the national level raised the issue of reconciling the implementation a new school curriculum in a small number of target villages with the ministry’s broader responsibility to provide a consistent national curriculum in all schools throughout the country. Ministry officials expressed interest in a national level roll-out of the new curriculum and the ministry is currently working on incorporating DRR mainstreaming into the Education Sector Development Plan 2016-2020. (This issue is explored in further detail in section 5.4.) A national roll-out – or a roll-out to high-risk provinces – would also encounter the challenge of making the curriculum

17 During the World Conference on Disaster Reduction (Kobe, Japan, January 2005), 168 countries adopted the Hyogo Framework for Action 2005-2015: Building the Resilience of Nations and Communities to Disasters.18 The remaining 15% of KII participants did not respond to the question.18 | P a g e

relevant to the hazards faced by each province while maintaining a consistent national curriculum in all schools throughout the country.

In terms of meeting beneficiary needs and priorities, communities across Lao PDR are affected by frequent small-scale, recurrent disasters, which have significant socioeconomic impacts. Within this context, the program was implemented in districts that are vulnerable to, or have a history of experiencing, hazards or disasters. In total, 66% of KAP respondents (including 80% of adults and 46% of children) indicated they had experienced a hazard within the past two years, with the most common hazards being floods, landslides and strong winds. Similarly, 68% of KII respondents indicated they had experienced a hazard over that time. The most common impacts of these hazards were loss of income, psychosocial impacts, the death of animals and damage to crops.

In interviews with consortium members and Government officials at the national level, all persons interviewed were strongly of the view that the program served a genuine need in the target communities, and that provincial and district administrators, as well as the communities themselves, are keen to continue working to enhance their preparedness and response to disasters.

While the program remained relevant and consistent with the overall operating environment, implementation was affected by a 2011 Prime Minister resolution – which came into effect in 2013 – which transferred oversight of the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MLSW) to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). This meant there was a delay in getting MoUs signed for SCI. While SCI was able to continue to conduct activities at the field level without an MoU, the situation resulted in an increase in workload for the field teams (to ensure activity level approval by the provincial Government) and led to some delays in procurement of large items such as cars and furniture.

5.3 Efficiency

What factors acted as enablers or constraints to the achievement of the program objectives?

Time

A key constraint to the achievement of the program objectives was the relatively short duration of the program of two years. It is very difficult to achieve and sustain changes in behaviour and practices – particularly in relation to a new concept for a community such as disaster risk management – in only two years.

For example, the new school curricula was developed in the first year of the program, piloted and refined in the first half of the second year of the program, and only fully rolled out towards the end of the program. While it is hoped that education officials and teachers have received sufficient training for them to implement the new curricula and sustain its implementation, the program finished before there was time to monitor the effectiveness of the rollout or to measure its impact on the knowledge and skills of students who received instruction in the new curricula.

Similarly, the small grants component for improving school infrastructure was implemented in the second year of the program – consistent with the implementation schedule. By the time grants were assessed and approved – which according to CF took longer than anticipated – and by the time the infrastructure upgrades were carried out, there was little time left to monitor the effectiveness with which the resources had been spent, the impact of these upgrades on improvements in school safety, and support to ensure the infrastructure improvements are effectively maintained. (It should be noted that consortium members had in place an M&E framework for the grants component which included technical checks of the work carried out.) As mentioned earlier, the program

19 | P a g e

was designed in the expectation that funding would be extended for years 3 and 4, in which case having infrastructure upgrades in year 2 would have been a more natural fit.

In interviews with national consortium staff and relevant Government officials, the short duration of the program was repeatedly mentioned as a key constraint to achieving and sustaining the program objectives.

Interestingly, 73% of the 85 KII respondents who answered the question said that “time” was an enabler, rather than a constraint. It is difficult to reconcile this result with the fact that the program ran for only two years.

Finances and resources

The program appears to have been adequately resourced, in terms of sufficient funds for development and supply of education tools and materials, and administration of the small grants component of the program. Nevertheless, 79% of the 85 KII respondents who answered the question said that finance was a constraint on the program. (Finance is often raised as a constraint in such surveys.)

The more significant resourcing constraint related to human resources. The program provided limited resources for activities relating to consortium management. A consortium manager position was funded for six months of the two-year program, with that person continuing to perform consortium management duties – including the joint monitoring and evaluation framework, joint workshops, and quarterly consortium steering group meetings – throughout the program, in addition to their program duties. This placed an added burden on some staff.

Consortium approach to program implementation

Overall, having the program implemented by a consortium of NGOs was an enabler to the success of the program. By bringing the organizations together, it enabled the program to reach into four provinces with different hazard landscapes, in a way that would not have been possible with a single organization. National consortium staff spoke very positively about the benefits from sharing tools, experiences and lessons learned, as well as the enhanced influence with Government officials that a consortium approach brings. Different members of the consortium were able to benefit from the expertise of other consortium members, which contributed to the effectiveness of program implementation in the target districts.

Ministerial transfer of disaster management responsibilities

As mentioned earlier, the program was affected by a 2011 Prime Minister resolution – which came into effect in 2013 – which transferred oversight of the National Disaster Management Office (NDMO) from the Ministry of Labour and Social Welfare (MLSW) to the Ministry of Natural Resources and Environment (MNRE). This presented a number of challenges for the program, including delays in getting MoUs signed, a loss of some of the benefits of DRR training for MLSW officials at the national level, and a change in leadership of the DMCs. Indications from national consortium staff and relevant Government officials suggest that these challenges were manageable and were not a major constraint on achieving the program objectives.

How economically were program resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time) used to achieve the desired results?

In the KIIs, participants were asked whether there were any obvious areas of waste or inefficiency. Only 13 respondents (14%) felt that there were areas of waste or inefficiency, although the examples they gave (lack of budget and lack of knowledge) are not directly related to efficiency of resource use.

In interviews with consortium members and Government officials at the national level, interviewees did not identify any areas of waste or inefficiency. The general feeling was that resources had been used efficiently, and

20 | P a g e

that the program had benefited from the pooling of resources among consortium members in terms of tools development and knowledge sharing.

As mentioned earlier, the small grants component of the program was monitored through on-site technical checks to make sure the work had been completed to a satisfactory standard.

5.4 Sustainability

What is the likelihood of program benefits being sustained beyond the program period?

What are the potential long-term effects of this program, positive and negative, intended or unintended?

The program was structured with a view to sustaining the benefits of the program beyond the life of the program, including the emphasis on establishing DMCs and child clubs, building the capacity of DMC members, developing new curricula and teacher support materials for rollout in all schools, and encouraging a multi-level, community-wide approach to disaster risk management.

Encouragingly, 88% of KII respondents believe there is evidence that Government or village level structures have adopted new attitudes and practices resulting from the program – although few details were provided by the respondents as to what that evidence may be. One indication that new attitudes and practices have been incorporated into Government or village structures is in the high percentage of KII respondents who agreed or strongly agreed with the following statements:

Children and youth are taking a leading role and are advocating for action on DRR and adaptation in their communities (91%)

School administrators, staff and students are engaged in on-going school community DRM activities (93%) School DRM practices are linked with VDMC planning (92%).

These encouraging results provide some hope that these attitudes and practices can be sustained.

Also encouraging was the view expressed by Government officials at the national level that the program has contributed to greater awareness within Ministries of disaster risk management. This greater awareness may help to mainstream disaster risk management in policy development and implementation.

However, as mentioned earlier, the limited duration of the program (two years) has major implications for the sustainability of the achievements of the program. Two years is not a sufficient amount of time to raise knowledge and awareness, and to institutionalize changes in attitudes and practices. This applies to the DMCs, child clubs, other village structures and the education system.

The DDMCs and VDMCs are likely to require ongoing assistance, support and training to ensure they continue to carry out their roles and responsibilities effectively and continue to incorporate child clubs and other community structures into disaster risk management practices. As noted in a project quarterly report from one of the consortium members, “Training evaluation has found that refresher trainings will be an essential component to solidify knowledge and capacity in the VDMCs to ensure sustainability of the program past 2015.” 19 Such refresher trainings would likely be necessary beyond the life of a two-year program.

In relation to the new school curriculum, sustainability is problematic not only due to the two-year duration of the program (which limits monitoring of the rollout and impact) but also to the focus on curriculum changes for Grades 3 to 6 only. Education officials at the national level felt that for children’s DRR knowledge to be sustained,

19 Save the Children, Quarterly Progress Report for July-September 2013. 21 | P a g e

the key messages need to be reinforced and built upon every year – including beyond Grade 6. They also felt that extending the DRR curriculum to higher grades would enable some topics to be covered in greater depth.

Moreover, having these modules taught in a relatively small number of schools and districts may pose challenges to sustainability, as there is a risk that over time the curriculum gets folded back into the standard national curriculum. Prospects for sustainability would be greater if the education system was to mainstream DRR into the national curricula.

Encouragingly, there is institutional commitment to integrate DRR modules into the national curricula. The 5 -year disaster management strategy of MOES aims for 100% rollout of DRR curricula by the end of 2020, and the ministry is currently working on incorporating DRR mainstreaming into the Education Sector Development Plan (ESDP) 2016-2020 – which would embed it in the national strategy. The program has been instrumental in moving DRR curricula mainstreaming onto the national agenda, which is an important achievement.

Although there is approval for a national rollout of DRR curricula, funding for such a rollout is yet to be confirmed. As noted in a report of the National Disaster Management Office, “The requirement for the new DRR education curriculum … to be delivered to all schools nationally requires serious commitment to funding, manpower and resources.” 20 Getting this issue into the EDSP 2016-2020 would be an important step forward in this regard, since international donors will base their funding decisions for the sector on this document.

While the institutional commitment to integrate DRR into the national curricula is a very positive step, the lack of committed funding casts some doubt as to whether this can be achieved by 2020. Consequently, the extent to which curriculum changes made in schools in a small number of villages or districts can be sustained in the event of significant delays to DRR being mainstreamed in the national curriculum is an important consideration that should be explored carefully in the design of future projects.

Encouragingly, consortium members reported that both teachers and children had responded very positively to the participatory teaching approach used for the DRR modules, which involves experiential learning and incorporates songs, games and activities into the learning process. It is hoped that school administrators and teachers see the potential benefits of such a participatory approach and that teachers may be able to apply some of these modern teaching techniques to other parts of the school curriculum. When asked about the likelihood of such techniques being applied to other subjects, education officials at the national level said they hoped this could happen but that such application would be limited by the lack of participatory tools and materials developed for those other subjects.

20 National Disaster Management Office, National Progress Report on the Implementation of Hyogo Framework for Action (2011-2013), Interim Report, 2012.22 | P a g e

6 Conclusions and recommendations

Overall, the program was designed, managed and implemented effectively.

The main objective of the program – to strengthen the national disaster risk management capacity of Lao Government and communities through an integrated, multi-level approach to DRR and DRM capacity building, education and training – appears to have been achieved.

Key achievements include:

Relevant ministry officials at all levels of Government have increased their awareness and appreciation of DDR and DRM

DDMCs, VDMCs and child clubs have been established and supported, and are operating effectively HVCAs have been undertaken and Disaster Action Plans have been developed and rolled out in all target

communities New education modules and teacher support materials have been developed and rolled out to all target

schools Teachers have received training in the new DDR curriculum School infrastructure has been made safer and more disaster resilient through the small grants

component of the program.

Comparison of the baseline and endline KAP and KII results strongly supports the view that the program has been effective in integrating DRR practices into existing community structures, and in improving community members’ knowledge of the hazards they face and how to address them.

The consortium approach of this program provided many benefits in terms of extending the reach of the program, enhancing Government influence, building consensus, and sharing tools and experiences among consortium partners. However, to maximize the effectiveness of a consortium approach without imposing extra burdens on program staff, funding should be provided for consortium management activities. Moreover, a consortium approach is more suitable for longer programs, given the time and effort required to establish them.

The program devoted considerable effort to maximizing the participation of women and girls in DRR structures and activities, and to ensure these structures and activities were inclusive of the needs of people with disabilities. Results from the endline KAP and KII results provide a mixed picture regarding the effectiveness of the program’s approach to disability. In a positive sign, there seems to have been an increase – from a very low base – in knowledge and awareness about the need to help people with disabilities in the event of an emergency. However, as reported in this document, a significant percentage of respondents still seem to lack this knowledge and awareness. The results reflect the inherent challenges in changing attitudes about issues relating to disability and in designing programs that are inclusive of the needs of people with disabilities. It is recommended that the consortium partners continue to reflect upon these challenges and consider how they could address these challenges more effectively in future projects.

While the program was designed to achieve sustainable results, the short duration of the program (two years) poses significant challenges for the sustainability of many of the achievements of the program. Achieving long-term improvements in the awareness, attitudes, behaviours and practices of all persons in a community – particularly in relation to a “new” concept such as disaster risk reduction and management – requires on-going support, monitoring and refresher training that is difficult to implement within a two-year project.

23 | P a g e

The new DDR modules have been rolled out successfully to all target schools. The sustainability of this rollout will depend, in part, on whether funding is secured to implement the Government’s commitment to a national rollout of DRR modules. If a national rollout does not occur in the next few years, and in the absence of on-going support and funding for the program’s target schools, there is a risk that the new DRR modules will not be able to be sustained, and instead the school curricula will revert to the mainstream national curricula. This risk should be considered carefully in the design of future projects that involve changes to school curricula.

Based on the lessons learned from the design and implementation of this program, the following recommendations are made with a view to improve programming in this area in the future.

First, there are substantial benefits to a consortium approach to program implementation, and this type of approach should be encouraged in future programming. A consortium approach works best in instances where each member brings different but complementary capabilities to the consortium, and where adequate resources are allocated to consortium management activities.

Second, reflecting the good practice of this program, future programs should be designed carefully to align with Government priorities and strategies in this area. This program also demonstrates the benefits of working closely with stakeholders at all levels to enhance stakeholder engagement and to create a sense of ownership of the program – which will contribute to the sustainability of program achievements.

Third, programs that seek to achieve lasting improvement in attitudes, behaviours and practices in the area of disaster risk management should ideally be implemented over a period longer than two years. This program demonstrates that DRR programs face sustainability challenges if implemented over a two-year period. This program also highlights the complications that can arise when programs are designed in the expectation that further funding will be received to extend the duration of the program.

Fourth, those involved in program design and implementation need to keep striving for new and improved ways to make programs more inclusive of the needs of vulnerable groups, particularly people with disabilities as well as women and girls. This program devoted considerable time and effort to the issues of disability and gender, but the KAP survey results on disability highlight the difficulty and complexity of addressing this issue effectively.

Fifth, future DRR programming should build on the good work of this program in the area of DRR curriculum development, teacher training and support materials. Consideration should be given to developing new modules for higher school grades (i.e. beyond grade 6) to ensure that key messages continue to be reinforced as children progress through school.

Finally, donors and other organizations should continue to advocate for DRR modules to be mainstreamed in the national school curricula. While there is institutional commitment for a national rollout of DRR by 2020, the substantial funding required for such a rollout has yet to be committed. Until funding for a national rollout is secured, program designers need to carefully consider the sustainability of rolling out DRR modules in a limited number of target schools – particularly for programs of relatively short duration (e.g. two years).

24 | P a g e

7 Appendix A: Final Evaluation Survey Questionnaires

7.1 Knowledge Attitude Practice (KAP) Household Questionnaire

General Information

1 Name of interviewer

2 Date of interview

3 Start-time

4 End-time

5 Name of respondent

6 Age of respondent

7 Gender of respondent 1 = Man 0 = Woman

8 Any disability 1 = Yes, Please specify_______ 0 = No

9 Number of participants (Only for Children group)

Female _____________ Male ___________

10 Category

1 = Children 9 - 14

1 = Grade 3

2 = Grade 4

3 = Grade 5

4 = Out of school

2 =Youth in school (15 – 25)

1 = Grade 6

2 = Grade 7

3 = Grade 8

4 = Grade 9

5 = Grade 10

6 = Grade 11

7 = Grade 12

3 = Youth out of school (15 – 25)

4 = Adult (25+)

If answer 1 or 2 is selected in Q8

11 Name of School

If answer 3 is selected in Q8

12 Level of education last attended 1 = Grade 3

2 = Grade 4

3 = Grade 5

33 = Other, Please Specify:_____________

25 | P a g e

If answer 3 is selected in Q8

13 Source of income 1 = Livestock

2 = Agriculture

3 = Small Business

4 = NTFP

33 = Other, Please specify: __________________

14 Average income US $ _____ / LAK __________ please specify: daily/ monthly / yearly

All respondents

15 Number of household Members ____________

16 Do you or anyone in your household have any type of disability?

1 = Learning difficulties

2 = Physical mobility

3 = Hearing

4 = Speaking

5 = Seeing

33 = Other, Please Specify _______________

99 = NA (No Disability)

A. Knowledge

A. Knowledge

A1 What types of natural or man-made hazards your school or community is subject to?

Please select all that apply

1= typhoon

2= flood

3= flash flood

4= Landslide

5= Epidemic / Pandemic

6= Animal disease

7= Fire

33= Other, Please Specify _______________

89= DK

99= NA (No Disasters)

A2 How did you find out this information?

1= School

2= Home

3= Seminars

4= Organisation

5= Municipality / Government

26 | P a g e

A. Knowledge

6= Experience

7= Media (TV, Internet…)

33= Other, Please Specify _______________

89= DK

99= NA

A3 In the last 2 years did you assist any information sharing meeting about risk disasters?If Yes, from where.

1= Yes 0= No

A4 If Yes, What hazards where covered?

1= typhoon

2= flood

3= flash flood

4= Landslide

5= Epidemic / Pandemic

6= Animal disease

7= Fire

33= Other, Please Specify _______________

89= DK

99= NA (No Disasters)

A5 What programs did you attend? _______________________________ __________________________________

A6 Did you share this information with relatives and friends?

1= Yes 0= No

Please select 1 for each question1=NoImprovement

2 3 45= Big Improvement

89=DK / 99=NA

A7 Compared to two years ago, has your School Disaster Management awareness and practices improve?

/

A8 Ongoing disaster risk reduction and preparedness planning at schools

/

A9 Integration of risk reduction and preparedness elements into SIP

/

A10 Participation of staff in DRR activities /

A11 Participation of students in DRR activities /

A12 Participation of families in DRR activities /

A13 Increased knowledge of standard operating procedures for safety in the event of emergencies

/

A14 Educational continuity planning at schools /

27 | P a g e

B. Practice

B. Practice

B1 Have you been subject to any hazard in the last 2 years?

1=Yes, Please Specify___________

0= No

B2 If Yes, What was the impact of the hazard?

1= Physical impact on people

2= Physical impact on school facilities

3= Physical impact on property

4= Loss of income or housing means

5= Psychosocial

6= Impact on school attendance

33= Other, Please Specify:_________________

89= DK

99= NA

B3 How were / do you prepare for a hazard?

Please select all that applies

1= Fire Safety (Fire extinguisher, Fire hydrants, smoke detectors…)

3= First aid kit

4= Life jackets

5= Emergency lighting or Flash lights

6= Equipment for alternative energy (generator/solar power)

7= Tools or equipment for filtering or cleaning water

8= Practice evacuation drill

9= Reunification plan with family / Colleagues…

33= Other, please specify: ______________________

89= Don’t know

99= NA

B4 When did you acquire this material ________________ Days / Weeks / Years

B5 How did you/ could you assist (were assisted) disabled persons

1= Education programmes

2= Alert

3= Evacuation & Transportation

4= Provided accommodation

33= Other

89= DK

99= NA (Did not assist disabled persons)

B6 How did the community help 1= Warning

28 | P a g e

B. Practice

you reduce the impact / risk? 2= Shelter

3= Emergency Kit

4= Megaphones

5= Small Boats

6= Information sharing (maps…)

7= Slope stabilisation for landslide (tree planting, gabion weaving)

8= Fencing around the school for safety from animal disease

9= Hand washing facilities

33= Other, Please Specify:___________________

99= NA (Did not receive any sort of help)

B7 Do you have a DRR action plan in your community / school?

1= Yes, 0= No

If Yes, please select 1 for each question 1 = Yes 0 = No

B8 Does it address the need of Men?

B9 Does it address the need of Women?

B10 Does it address the need of boys

B11 Does it address the need of youth?

B11 Does it address the needs of girls?

B13 Does it address the need of People with Disability?

B14 Does it address the need of minority groups?

Please select 1 1=Increase

2=No change

3=Decrease

89=DK / 99=NA

B15 Compared to two years ago, has your preparedness to hazards increase or decrease?

/

Please select 1 1= Strongly Agree

2= Agree

3= Disagree

4= Strongly Disagree

89=DK / 99=NA

B16 Compared to two years ago, access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and disaster resilient

/

B17 If 1 or 2, What measurers where taken?

1= The soil tested2= Applied hazard-resilient techniques in the construction and retrofit for

safety3= School furnishings and equipment designed and installed to minimize

potential harm4= Evacuation plan

33= Other, Please specify:_____________89= DK

99= NA

29 | P a g e

7.2 Key Informant Interview (KII) Questionnaire

General Information

1 Name of interviewer

2 Date of interview

3 Start-time

4 End-time

5 Name of respondent

6 Age of respondent

7 Gender of respondent 1 = Man 0 = Woman

8 Any disability 1 = Yes, Please specify_______ 0 = No

9 Position / representing 1 = Village Administrator/Planning

2 = MHO/PHN

3 = NGO officer

4 = MoLSW Representative

5 = PDMC, DDMC or VDMC member

6 = School Principal/Head Teacher

7 = Village chief

33 = Other, Please Specify:______________

12 Average income US $ _____ / LAK __________ please specify: daily/ monthly / yearly

Female Male

13 Number of members in the organisation

14 Anyone in your organisation have any type of disability?

1 = Learning difficulties

2 = Physical mobility

3 = Hearing

4 = Speaking

5 = Seeing

33 = Other, Please Specify _______________

99 = NA (No Disability)

15 What is yours or your organisation role concerning DRR?

1 = Risk assessment

1 =Action planning for risk reduction and/or climate change adaptation

2 = Protection of assets

3 = Development of response skills

4 =Organization of post-disaster response, please Specify:______________

5 = Stockpiling of response provisions30 | P a g e

6 = Organizational continuity planning

33 = Other, Please specify:_______________________________

89 = DK

99 = NA

A. Knowledge

A. Knowledge

A1 What types of natural or man-made hazards your community is subject to?

Please select all that apply

1= typhoon

2= flood

3= flash flood

4= Landslide

5= Epidemic / Pandemic

6= Animal disease

7= Fire

33= Other, Please Specify _______________

89= DK

99= NA (No Disasters)

A2 What impacts has climate change on your community?

Please select all that apply

1= Warming temperature

2= Changes in precipitation

3= Water supply and quality

4= Reduced agricultural yields

5= Health impacts in cities due to heat

6= Change in lake / River levels

7= Change in Ecosystem

8= Increase in hazards occurrences

33= Other, Please Specify:_________

89= Don’t Know

99= NA (No impact)

A3 How did you find out this information?

Please select all that apply

1= School

2= Home

3= Seminars

4= Organisation

5= Municipality / Government

31 | P a g e

A. Knowledge

6= Experience

7= Media (TV, Internet…)

33= Other, Please Specify _______________

89= DK

99= NA

A4 In the last 2 years did you attend any information sharing meeting about risk disasters?

1= Yes 0= No

A5 If Yes, What hazards where covered?

1= typhoon

2= flood

3= flash flood

4= Landslide

5= Epidemic / Pandemic

6= Animal disease

7= Fire

33= Other, Please Specify _______________

89= DK

99= NA (No Disasters)

A6 What programs did you attend? _______________________________ __________________________________

A7 Did you share this information with relatives and friends?

1= Yes 0= No

Please indicate the leve for each question1=Improved

2=Stay same

3=Decreased

89=DK /99=NA

A8 Compared to two years ago, has your knowledge and understanding of risk and risk management options and skills in monitoring of risk management initiatives improved?

/

B. Practice

B. Practice

B1 Have you been subject to any hazard in the last 2 years?

1=Yes, Please Specify___________

0= No

B2 If Yes, What was the impact of the hazard?

1= Physical impact on people

2= Physical impact on school facilities

3= Physical impact on property

32 | P a g e

B. Practice

4= Loss of income or housing means

5= Psychosocial

33= Other, Please Specify:_________________

89= DK

99= NA

B3 How were you / do you prepare for a hazards?

Please select all that applies

1= Fire Safety (Fire extinguisher, Fire hydrants, smoke detectors…)

3= First aid kit

4= Life jackets

5= Emergency lighting or Flash lights

8= Materials for keeping water out of any area

9= Equipment for alternative energy (generator/solar power)

10= Tools or equipment for filtering or cleaning water

11= Practice evacuation drill

12= Reunification plan with family / Colleagues…

13= Early warning system (e.g. Village speaker, rain water measurement…)

33= Other, please specify: ______________________

89= Don’t know

99= NA

1= Fire Safety (Fire extinguisher, Fire hydrants, smoke detectors…)

3= First aid kit

4= Life jackets

B4 When did you acquire this material ________________ Days / Weeks / Years

B5 Did your organisation / community set up for an early warning system?

1= Yes 0= No

B6 If Yes, Please specify 1= Message from weather/meteorology service

2= Message from other communities

3= Monitoring within our own community

4= Message delivered by radio

5= Message delivered by loudspeaker

33 | P a g e

B. Practice

6= Message delivered by telephone

7= Message delivered in person

33= Other, Please Specify:_____________

89= DK

99= NA

B7 How did you / could you assist (were assisted) disabled persons

1= Education programs

2= Alert

3= Evacuation & Transportation

4= Provided accommodation

33= Other

99= NA (Did not assist disabled persons)

B8 How did the community help you reduce the impact?

1= Warning

2= Shelter

3= Emergency Kit

4= Megaphones

5= Small Boats

6= Information sharing (maps…)

7= Other equipment or devices

33= Other, Please Specify:___________________

99= NA (Did not receive any sort of help)

Please select 1 for each question1=Increase

2=No change

3=Decrease

89=DK / 99=NA

B9 Compared to two years ago, has your preparedness to hazards increase or decrease?

/

Please select 1 for each question1=Safer

2=No change

3=Less safe

89=DK / 99=NA

B10 Compared to two years ago, access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and disaster resilient

/

B11 If 1 or 2, What measurers where taken?

1= The soil tested

2= Applied hazard-resilient techniques in the construction

3= Backup plan to ensure that school operations continue in case of hazard

34 | P a g e

B. Practice

4= School furnishings and equipment designed and installed to minimize potential harm

5= Evacuation plan

33= Other, Please specify:_____________

89= DK

99= NA

C. Program

C. Programs

C1 Were you involved in any program(s) in the last 2 years?

1=Yes, Please Specify___________

0= No

C2 Who were the stakeholders in the program?

1= NGOs, please specify:______________________

2= Government Officials

3= Community leaders / Officials

4= School teachers

5= Students

6= DRM representative

33= Other, Please Specify:___________________________

89= DK

99= NA

C3 If Save the Children was involved:Was the management ok?Was the capacity of the partner staff ok?Were the resources adequate?

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

C4 Goal of the project and strategy of the government match?

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

To support the plan of the NSEDP 2011-2015

C5 Promoting inclusion of women and girls, ethnic groups and communities in remote areas

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

C6 Focus towards rural development and poverty eradication through DRR

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

35 | P a g e

C. Programs

C7 Expand educational opportunities through DRR extra-curricular activities

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

C8 Build better management staff and highly skilled workers through capacity building and training.

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

C9 Secure the country from losses due to natural disasters

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

C10 Maintenance/infrastructure to promote school safety and disaster prevention and protection.

1= Yes 0=No, Please explain___________

C11 Were there any obvious areas of waste or inefficiency?

1=Yes, Please Specify___________

0= No

C12 Did the program cover the need of disabled persons

1= Yes 0= No

Please select 1 for each question1= Strongly Agree

2= Agree3= Disagree

4= Strongly Disagree

89=DK/ 99=NA

C13 Did the program succeed in achieving its goals?To strengthen the national disaster risk management capacity of Lao Government and communities through an integrated, multi-level approach to Disaster Risk Reduction and Disaster Risk Management capacity building, education and training.

/

Were the activities and outputs consistent with the intended effects and ultimate impact of the project, in terms of…

1= Strongly Agree

2= Agree3= Disagree

4= Strongly Disagree

89=DK / 99=NA

C14 Educational resources for child-clubs and schools are revised and improved using a child-centered approach

/

C15 Teacher support materials are improved using participatory approaches

/

C16 Children and teachers are trained to conduct HVCA/

C17 Children groups undertake HVCA and subsequent DRR Action Plans in their wider community

/

C18 Small scale activities implemented in support of DRR Action Plans.

/

C19 Children and youth take a leading role and are advocating for action on DRR and adaptation in their communities

/

36 | P a g e

C. Programs

C20 Practice simulation drills for expected and recurring disasters are undertaken, incorporating the needs of children with disabilities

/

C21 School administrators, staff, and students engaged in ongoing school community DRM activities.

/

C22 School disaster management plans developed that incorporate the needs of children with disabilities

/

C23 School DRM practices linked with the VDMC planning /

C24 School Development Plans are reviewed to incorporate appropriate hazard mitigation

/

C25 Training conducted on Infrastructure DRR activity planning for 638 stakeholders

/

C26 Schools undertake structural and non-structural hazard protection measures through a small grants program

/

Please select 1 for each question 1=Enabler

2=Constraint

89=DK / 99=NA

C27 Which of these are program enablers or constraints

1= Organization support

2= Financial

3= Time

4= Human resources

5= Material

6= Information

33=Other, Please Specify:_____________

89= DK

99= NA

C28 Which practices have been started? Will they continue? Why or why not?

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C29 How has the project contributed to the implementation of the National Disaster Management Strategy?

____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

C30 Is there evidence that GoL or village level structure has adopted practices/ attitudes

1=Yes, Please Specify__________________

0= No

37 | P a g e

C. Programs

Rate impact of transfer from MOLSW to MONRE on following aspects of the program:

1 negative impact

2 3 neutral / no impact

4 5 positive impact

C31 Timeliness / responsiveness

C32 Effectiveness

C33 Sustainability

C34 Suitable for all groups (gender, ethnicity, disabled persons…)

38 | P a g e

8 Appendix B: KAP Survey Report (Baseline versus Endline)

This KAP Survey Report compares the results from the baseline and endline Knowledge Attitude and Practice (KAP) household surveys. In some questions, results are also shown for the Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with that were conducted with school principals, teachers, local NGO staff and village/district officials.

8.1 Sample overview

As highlighted in the tables below, the samples in the baseline and endline surveys are quite similar in terms of number, gender and location (province) of respondents.The two main differences between the samples are:

The baseline survey includes only three youth in school, compared to 39 youth in school in the endline survey.21

Different villages were surveyed in Bokeo in the baseline and endline surveys. (The same villages were surveyed in the other provinces.)

Table 5: Sample comparison – by province

Province Baseline Endline

Child

Youth in

school

Youth out of school Adult

KAP Total KII Child

Youth in

school

Youth out of school Adult

KAP Total KII

Bokeo 33 1 29 40 103 25 40 10 28 40 118 40

Bolikamxai 20 0 9 28 57 15 20 10 10 20 60 12

Luang Prabang 22 0 8 27 57 17 20 6 8 20 54 20

Xiengkhouang 36 2 23 41 102 17 40 13 22 40 115 20

Total 111 3 69 136 319 74 120 39 68 120 347 92

In the KAP surveys, females comprise 50% of the baseline and 52% of the endline. Female ratios are lower in the KIIs (19% in baseline and 30% in endline).

Table 6: Sample comparison – by gender

Gender Baseline Endline

Child

Youth in

school

Youth out of school Adult

KAP Total KII Child

Youth in

school

Youth out of school Adult

KAP Total KII

Male 51 0 27 80 158 55 56 20 26 64 166 64

Female 60 3 42 55 160 13 64 19 42 56 181 28

Not recorded 1 1 6

Total 111 3 69 136 319 74 120 39 68 120 347 92

In the KAP surveys, the number of respondent households that have a person with a disability was quite low in both the baseline (18 households, or 6%) and the endline (6 households, or 2%). These low percentages may

21 For the purposes of this evaluation, “children” refers to ages 7 to 14 and “youth” refers to ages 15 to 25.39 | P a g e

indicate some level of under-reporting or a lack of understanding about the breadth of conditions covered by the term “disability”.

8.2 Knowledge and awareness

When asked to name the hazards faced by their community, the response rate in the baseline KAP survey was very low. In total, only 34 respondents (10%) nominated a total of 45 hazards, with another 12 respondents (4%) saying their community did not face any hazards. A response rate of just 14% suggests that baseline enumerators most likely did not explain or elaborate on the question if the participant did not understand it, but instead just moved onto the next question. It may also reflect the fact that prior to the program, the target communities had little exposure the concept of “hazard”.

In the endline survey, but contrast, 97% of KAP respondents nominated a total of 890 hazards (average 2.6 hazards per participant). The most common hazards mentioned were flood, animal disease, landslide and typhoon. (It should be noted that endline enumerators provided additional explanation or prompting in cases where participants appeared not to understand the question.)

Table 7 What types of natural or man-made hazards is your community subject to?

Baseline Endline

Flood Typhoon Fire DroughtNo

hazard Flood Typhoon LandslideEpidemic pandemic

Animal disease Fire Wind Drought Cold Total Av #

No hazard

Don't know

Child 6 6 0 0 6 70 55 65 25 60 25 10 15 15 340 2.8 0 0

Youth 8 13 2 1 4 58 31 55 24 53 14 19 5 13 272 2.5 3 1

Adult 7 2 0 0 2 69 30 53 31 69 13 14 4 5 288 2.4 4

KAP 21 21 2 1 12 197 116 173 80 182 52 33 24 33 890 2.6 7 1

KII - - - - - 83 53 52 34 57 27 12 10 6 334 3.6 0 0

In the endline survey, KAP participants were asked where they found out information about the hazards they face (see table below). In total, 110 children (92%) received information on hazards from school, as well as from other sources. In contrast, in the baseline survey, children were asked if they learned about floods at school, to which only 39% said yes, 51% said no and 10% did not respond.

Table 8 Endline Survey: How did you find out this information?

School Home Seminars NGO MunicipalityPersonal

experience Media Other Don’t know N/A

Child 110 50 50 35 15

Youth 16 9 13 4 11 8 2 2

Adult 1 4 1 26 20 28 13 1 5

KAP 1 5 1 75 54 38 20 2 2 1

KII 128 68 2 164 78 112 56 5 2 8

40 | P a g e

In the endline survey, when asked if they had attended an information meeting about risks or disasters in the last two years, 96% of children said they had attended, compared with 51% of youth in school, 66% of youth out of school and 85% of adults. As highlighted in the table below, respondents perceived the consortium member operating in their province to be the main provider of this information.

Table 9 Endline Survey: If you attended an information meeting in last two years, who provided the information?

Consortium member School Other Don't know Total

Bokeo 81 0 6 6 93

Bolikamxai 23 24 4 0 51

Luang Prabang 19 5 6 9 39

Xiengkhouang 99 0 0 0 99

All provinces 222 29 16 15 282

Those endline participants who had attended information sessions were asked what hazards were covered in the sessions. As shown in the table below, respondents perceived that a wide range of hazards were covered in the sessions, with flooding topping the list.

Table 10 Endline Survey: If you attend an information meeting in last two years, what hazards were covered?

FloodAnimal disease Landslide Typhoon

Epidemic pandemic Fire

Flash flood Other

Don't know

Child 74% 43% 57% 61% 48% 52% 13% 17% 0%

Youth in school 45% 50% 65% 35% 20% 20% 10% 20% 0%

Youth out of school 73% 49% 40% 18% 31% 31% 4% 11% 2%

Adult 56% 70% 50% 40% 48% 34% 19% 7% 4%

Total 65% 54% 52% 45% 43% 40% 13% 13% 2%Note: percentages show the percentage of those participants who attended a session.

As shown in the table below, most endline respondents believe there has been substantial improvement in their school disaster management awareness and practices compared to two years ago. (Respondents were asked to rate the level of improvement on a scale from 1 (no improvement) to 5 (big improvement).

Table 11 Endline Survey: Compared to 2 years ago, have your school disaster management awareness/practices improved?

1No improvement

2 3 4 5Big improvement

Don’t know

Total

Child 0 0 25 25 65 5 120

Youth in school 0 0 8 16 13 2 39

Youth out of school 0 1 10 19 28 10 68

Adult 2 1 5 25 81 6 120

Total 2 2 48 85 187 23 347

41 | P a g e

Using the same rating scale, endline respondents were asked to rate the level of improvement on key elements of DRR. The results are presented in the table below.

Table 12 Endline Survey: Please rate improvement compared to 2 years ago

1No improvement

2 3 4 5Big improvement

Don’t know

Total

DRR & preparedness planning at school 2 2 48 85 187 23 347Integration of risk reduction & preparedness elements into SOP 1 20 90 72 127 37 347

Participation of staff in DRR 3 25 89 62 101 67 347

Participation of students in DRR 1 19 72 71 116 68 347

Participation of families in DRR 12 35 75 72 119 34 347Knowledge of standard operating procedures for safety in emergency 6 26 114 53 101 47 347

Educational continuity planning at school 1 18 63 53 104 108 347

8.3 Practices

In the KAP surveys, participants were asked if they had experienced a hazard in recent years (within the last three years in the baseline, and within the last two years in the endline).

In total, 47% of baseline respondents said they had experienced a hazard in the last three years, while 66% of endline respondents said they had experienced a hazard in the last two years.

The table below shows the type of hazard experienced by the baseline and endline respondents (endline results are broken down by province). Baseline respondents listed a total of 197 hazards that their community had experienced, compared to a total of 313 hazards in the endline survey. The table highlights that endline respondents in different provinces perceived different hazards. For example, flooding was perceived to be the most common hazard in Bokeo and Bolikamxai, compared to landslides in Luang Prabang and animal disease in Xiengkhouang.

Table 13 Baseline versus endline: Type of hazard experienced in last 2 years

Flood Landslide WindAnimal disease Fire Drought

Very cold Other

All hazards

No hazard

Don’t know/ No response

BASELINE 85 32 45 0 3 10 0 7 197 73 97

ENDLINE 121 69 51 41 18 8 5 0 313 117 0

Bokeo 70 21 38 2 11 7 4 0 153 24 0

Bolikamxai 29 0 2 4 0 0 0 0 35 26 0

Luang Prabang 18 36 5 1 7 0 0 0 67 6 0

Xiengkhouang 4 12 6 34 0 1 1 0 58 61 0

42 | P a g e

In terms of the perceived impact of these hazards, only 20 baseline respondents gave at least one impact of the hazards they have experienced, with the most common being loss of income and property damage. Responses in the endline survey were greater in number and diversity, where the most common impacts were loss of income, psycho-social, the death of animals and crop damage. See table below for details.

Table 14 Baseline versus endline: Impact of hazard experienced in last 2 years

Loss of income

Psycho-social

Animals died

Crop damage

Property damage

Impact on school

attendanceOther Don’t know N/A

BASELINE 13 0 1 5 13 0 0 14 191

ENDLINE 82 50 42 32 22 14 10 18 20

Bokeo 57 39 0 2 7 9 3 3 20

Bolikamxai 6 0 6 17 6 1 0 0 0

Luang Prabang 14 11 2 2 3 4 5 15 0

Xiengkhouang 5 0 34 11 6 0 2 0 0

Respondents in the endline survey were asked how they did (or could) prepare for the hazards they face. In total, 66% of respondents provided at least one suggestion on what they could do, with 32% saying they didn’t know what to do and a further 2% saying they did nothing. While only 22% of adults said they didn’t know what to do, half of all children said they didn’t know what to do.

Table 15 Endline Survey: How did you / could you prepare for the hazard?

Children Youth in SchoolYouth out of

School Adult TotalReunification plan 25 3 17 26 71

Practice evacuation drill 20 6 11 30 67

First aid 10 2 11 12 35

Tools for clean water 0 7 10 15 32

Prepare move to safer location 5 3 7 11 26

Prepare move clothes/food to safer location 5 6 8 6 25

Injection for animals 0 0 15 15

Inform somebody 5 1 1 0 7

Life jackets 0 0 1 1 2

Other 0 2 7 5 14

Do nothing 5 0 1 1 7

Don’t know 60 10 16 26 112

43 | P a g e

In terms of how the community helped them to reduce the threat or impact of the hazards faced, 59% of all respondents were able to nominate at least one activity. Around two thirds of all children said they didn’t receive any help from the community, which may indicate that children are not aware of the things that are being done to help them.

Table 16 Endline Survey: How did the community help you to reduce the threat or impact of the hazard?

Children Youth in SchoolYouth out of

School Adult TotalMegaphones 20 23 31 50 124

Warning 15 3 14 27 59

Shelter 0 0 6 13 19

Slope stabilization 5 1 2 3 11

Information sharing ( maps) 0 2 2 2 6

Emergency kit 0 0 2 0 2

Other 0 3 5 12 20

Didn’t receive any help 80 9 19 33 141% participants who gave a suggestion 33% 77% 72% 78% 59%

According to the baseline results, only 23% of respondents said they knew a person with a disability and agreed there are things that can be done to make them safe. When asked what things can be done to help them, only 6% of baseline respondents were able to provide a suggestion (4% children, 11% youth and 6% adults), with the only suggestion being to help move the person to a safer place.

By comparison, 46% of endline respondents were able to provide at least one suggestion for helping a person with a disability in the event of a disaster or emergency (see table below for details). The three most common suggestions were helping to evacuate or transport, alerting the person, and through education programs.

Table 17 Endline Survey: How did you / could you help a person with a disability?

Children Youth in schoolYouth out of

school Adult Total Evacuate or transport 10 14 27 60 111

Alert 20 2 3 19 44

Education programs 10 8 11 13 42

Provide accommodation 0 1 1 3 5

Other 0 0 0 1 1

Don't know 80 23 37 46 186

% participants who gave a suggestion 33% 41% 46% 62% 46%

Regarding DRR action plans, around 70% of endline respondents said there is a DRR action plan in their community or school (89% in Luang Prabang, 87% in Bolikamxai, 74% in Bokeo and 49% in Xiengkhouang). Knowledge of the existence of DRR action plans was lowest among youth out of school (60%) compared to other categories (71-74%). By comparison, to the same question in the baseline survey, six respondents said there was no action plan and all other participants did not answer the question.

44 | P a g e

In the endline survey, when asked if their community’s DRR action plan addresses the needs of certain groups:

93% believe it addresses the needs of men, while 90% believe it addresses the needs of women 81% believe it addresses the needs of boys, while 93% believe it addresses the needs of girls 81% believe it addresses the needs of youth 65% believe it addresses the needs of people with disabilities 90% believe it addresses the needs of minority groups.

As the table below shows, around 76% of all respondents believe that their preparedness to hazards has increased over the last two years.

Table 18 Endline Survey: Compared to two years ago, has your preparedness to hazards increased or decreased?

Increased preparedness

No change

Decreased preparedness Don’t know Total

Bokeo 87% 10% 3% 0% 118

Bolikamxai 63% 20% 0% 17% 60

Luang Prabang 72% 13% 11% 4% 54

Xiengkhouang 74% 18% 7% 1% 115

All provinces 76% 15% 5% 4% 347

Children 67% 21% 4% 8% 120

Youth in School 87% 5% 3% 5% 39

Youth out of School 72% 21% 6% 1% 68

Adult 85% 9% 6% 0% 120All categories 76% 15% 5% 4% 347

Encouragingly, 89% of endline respondents believe that access to schools and school infrastructure is safer and more disaster resilient than two years ago.

Table 19 Endline Survey: Compared to two years ago, is access to schools and school infrastructure safer/disaster resilient?

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree Don’t know Total

Bokeo 27% 66% 2% 4% 1% 118

Bolikamxai 28% 42% 3% 0% 27% 60

Luang Prabang 43% 54% 0% 0% 4% 54

Xiengkhouang 28% 62% 0% 0% 10% 115

All provinces 30% 59% 1% 1% 9% 347

Children 29% 50% 0% 4% 17% 120

Youth in School 18% 74% 0% 0% 8% 39

Youth out of School 26% 62% 3% 0% 9% 68

Adult 37% 60% 2% 0% 2% 120

All categories 30% 59% 1% 1% 9% 347

45 | P a g e

In terms of which measures they perceive to have made their schools safer, the most commonly cited measure was the use of hazard resistant construction techniques and retrofit of existing buildings.

Table 20 Endline Survey: If agree, what measures have been taken to make schools safer?

Bokeo Bolikamxai Luang Prabang Xiengkhouang Total

Hazard resistant construction & retrofit 55 34 18 57 164

Evacuation plan 27 2 6 11 46

Soil tested 1 0 2 35 38

New/improved school building 0 0 0 27 27

School equipment designed to minimize harm 10 5 3 0 18

Other 6 0 0 0 6

Don’t know 3 1 10 15 29

Total 102 42 39 145 328

46 | P a g e