Attachments
Executive summary
• To collect the required data on the needs of the targeted people in Gedarif State, CARE conducted a comprehensive need assessment, the assessment was conducted internally by team from CIS leaded by MEAL coordinator, it took place in Gedarif state covering three localities namely; Al-Galabat Shargia, Al-Mafaza and Al-Fashaga. The objective of the assessment is to assess the current situation, identify the gaps and needs of the targeted communities and recommend of key interventions that meet the real needs of them. Different methods were used for data collection including individual interviews with HH leaders, FGDs with representative from different community groups, Desk review of the existing information and KIIs with the authorities in relevant miseries and institutions.
• In total; 58,6% of the assessed people have access to easy safe and adequate water while 41.4% are suffering from difficult in collecting water, poor quality or the water they collect is not enough for their HH.
• Women have the main responsibility in fetching water from the sources comprising 33.2%, followed by boys and girls comprising 24%(12% each), and men have the lowest responsibility in fetching water (17.2%).
• lack of water sources closed to the housed is one of the main causes of Gender Based Violence (GBV), particularly women, girls and youth females who facing different types of violence during collecting water particularly those need to go far distances to collect water particularly during dry season. 21.8% confirmed that women and girls are facing problems during fetching water
• In general; less than third of the assessed people have latrines comprising 30.1% while the majority do not have latrines in their houses (69.9%). Situation in host communities is relatively better comparing to the refugees as 86.2% of the people have latrines comparing to only 13.8% of the refugees.
• Almost 25.8% of the people in the area practicing open defecation in different places, including, open spaces in/near their villages/camps (15.9%), in the stream bank (3.6%), in the push (3.4%) and 3% in other places including agriculture field.
• Waste management system only found in the refugee camps intruded by CARE international, the existing system covering only 28.8% of the refugees, and very few people in the host communities (0.4%) have containers outside houses for waste disposal.
• Half the consulted people did not receive any type of capacity building in hygiene (48.3%). However, there still gap in hygiene promotion within the refugees, but the situation is better than in the host communities, as only 29.1% of the host communities were received capacity building in hygiene comparing to 62.2% in refugee camps.
• However most of people have access to health facilities (91.7%), but many factors are affecting their access to the good health services. When they asked about the things affecting their access to health services; 58.2% is lack of medical supplies such as medicines, 35.1% lack of medical personnel in the health facilities, 31.7% due to cost of the services, 23.8% lack of transportation, 18.4% lack of confidence in the health facilities services, 13% raised the issue of safety as they think the health facilities are not safe, 12.1% due to unavailability of female staff which contradicting with their culture, 9.9% is due to inaccessibility of the facilities for elderly and disabled people, 2.7% due to unsafety of the roads and 1.1% have cultural restrictions.
• From the consulted households; 65 (14.6%) have pregnant women during the last 12 months, most of them (76.9%%) referred to midwives for ANC. 41.5% of them attended AFC tow times or less, including 20% attended two times, 16.9% attended one time while 4.6% of the pregnant women have never attended ANC during pregnancy, 29.2% attended three times and 29.2% are the pregnant women attended FNC more than three times during pregnancy.
• There is a need for providing delivery support as 56.9% did not received postnatal care after delivery, and 70.8% were not support with the clean delivery kits.
• Most of the deliveries were assisted by midwives (76.9%), 41.5% of them delivered in their house assisted by trained midwives, 24.6% delivered in house assisted by traditional midwives, 12.35 assisted by nurse in health facility, 10.8% assisted by trained midwives in health facility, 4.6% assisted by doctors in their homes, 4.6% assisted be doctors in health facility while 1.5% delivered in home an assisted by TBA.