Program Overview
LIVELIHOOD SUPPORT TO RETURNEES AND HOST
C O M M U N I T Y, S O U T H S U D A N
Total Budget: 1,500,697 USD
Location : Aweil West and
Aweil North, Northern
Bahr el Ghazel
Sectors :
1. Economic Recovery and
Market Support
2. Water Sanitation and
Hygiene (WASH)
Number of beneficiaries :
1,500 HHs
Executive Summary: Phase I
Objective:
Sector 1: Economic Recovery and
Market Support
O B J E C T I V E : T O G E N E R AT E W O R K O P P O R T U N I T I E S F O R R E T U R N E E
AND RESIDENT HOUSEHOLDS IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THEM WITH A
TEMPORARY INCOME SOURCE AND ASSIST THEM TO MEET THEIR
BASIC NEEDS.
T O TA L F U N D S : U S D 1 , 2 3 1 , 6 6 5
Subsector 1: Temporary Employment
 Main Activity: 3 ½ months of Cash for Work
 1350 HHs from 8 communities participated in the Cash for Work
program
 Beneficiaries worked for 20 days/month for 3 months and were paid
9 SSP / day
 In the 4th month they worked for only 10 days, at the same rate
 Micro projects included:
Road clearing
 Fencing of water points
 School fencing
 Bush clearing for farming
 Land clearing for settlement

Subsector 1: Economic Asset Restoration
 Cash Relief grants (equivalent to the Cash for Work grant
size if the beneficiary worked the full 20 days) were paid
to 150 labor poor households
 Cash Relief beneficiaries were drawn from the same 8
communities as the Cash for Work
Cash Relief beneficiary Amir Dau Deng,
preparing roofing materials for her home.
Gok Machar, Aweil North
Beneficiary Breakdown
 Beneficiaries were spread
between 8 settlements
Mangar Akot
15%
Referendum
11%
Nyamlel
7%
Marial Baai
7%
Waralel
18%
Majok Lop
18%
 1,500 HHs registered (150 labor poor
for Cash Relief, the rest were Cashfor-Work)
 61% of beneficiaries were returnees,
39% members of the host community
 69% were female
 Selection criteria included


Riang Mier
17%


Gok Machar
7%



Time of arrival (for returnees)
# of people in the household
Household assets
Access to support from the Diaspora
Gender of household head
Presence of physically challenged
dependents
Member of minority group
Distribution Method - Hawala
 The cash was distributed to all beneficiaries through the
Hawala, Amal


The agency was paid X commission to pay the funds
Amal came to each of the 8 communities and made the payments in
the presence of program staff and members of the Village Relief
Committees
 The Amal agent in Aweil was pretty weak and would have
benefited from more capacity building work on cash
transfer programs at the beginning of the program
 As a result, we are looking at alternative distribution
methods for Phase II
To address concerns around security and transparency, Adeso has a policy of always distributing cash through an agent of some kind.
Post Distribution Monitoring
Expenditure Returnees
Expenditure Host Communities
0%
Food
0%
1%
1%
0% 0%
0%
0% 5%
3%
1%
11%
0%
3%
0%
0%
0%
Gift/share
14%
Livestock
Business investments
57%
Livestock
5%
Business
investments
0%
Water
0%
Medical
0%
Water
4%
6%
School Fees
4%
Gift/share
0% 0%
11%
0%
3%
Food
Debt Repayment
Transport
Medical
70%
School Fees
Debt Repayment
Transport
Rent or shelter
materials
This data collected following the 3rd cash distribution – April, 2012
Subsector 3: Livelihood Support Grants
 LSGs and business training were provided to 278 HHs (68
HC, and 210 returnees)


71% were women
77% had a specific skill
 Grant recipients were selected from the CFW and CR
beneficiaries through a series of questionnaires covering
skills, specific income generation plans, and status of
current businesses
 The grants ranged from 200 – 500 USD depending on
business plans provided
Livelihood Support Grants (Cont’d)
 Business start-up and management training covered:
 Definition of business
 Introduction to business start-up
 Factors considered in business start-up/growth
 Business risk taking (Starting small Vs starting big)
 Business idea and income generation
 Business start-up/growth tips (Starting small/turnover/)
 Qualities of a good business person
 Market survey, linkages and associations
 Customer care
 Money management (prizing/costing/profits/records keeping/saving
etc)
 Business planning
0%
LSG Use by Sector
8%
14%
Micro Business
Livestock
3%
Agriculture
75%
Artisans and crafts
Fishery
61
Small business activities supported (207
HHs)
51
30
6
10
5
3
1
1
4
6
1
5
7
2
10
1
1
1
1
Sampling of Beneficiaries at work
XXXXXXX, Gok Machar
Grant :XXXXXX SSP
Business: Small cosmetics shop
Merry Abuk, Nyamlel
Grant :1,080 SSP
Business: Sale of local
perfumes and small shop
Nyalong Deng, Gok Machar
Grant : XXXXX SSP
Business: Restaurant and tea shop
in partnership with another
beneficiary
Post Distribution Data
Livelihood Support Grant Expenditures
0%
0%
2%
0%
Food (Business)
4%
Food (Home)
Livestock
11%
Business Equipment
1%
Rent for Business
0%
1%
1%
Medical
2%
2%
46%
School Fees
Debt Repayment
Transport
9%
Shelter (Home)
Agriculture Inputs (Commercial)
Agriculture Inputs (Home)
Fuel (Charcoal and Firewood)
7%
Clothes / shoes
Saved / in hand
15%
Other
Post Distribution Data (cont’d)
 99 % of recipients reported that the business trainings
provided were helpful
 33% of beneficiaries reported that they would have preferred
in kind business supplies to the cash provided


Explanations for this preference included difficulties with the cost of
inflation, that it was easier to be given goods than to look for them
themselves, and that transportation costs were an impediment to starting
the business
Responses in favor of the cash included preference to select their own
goods and the ability to purchase locally
 74% of respondents indicated they kept their savings in a
shop, while 26% said they were kept at home.

No respondents kept their savings in either a sanduk or bank