Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data & Information

AP	Annual Plan
AR	Annual Report
CC	Collective Centers
CHF	Cooperative Housing Foundation
CSO	Civil Society Organization
DHS	Durable Housing Solutions
DOS	Department of State
EG	Economic Growth
EUR/ACE	Office of the Coordinator of U.S. Assistance to Europe and Eurasia
FAO	Food and Agriculture Organization
FY	Fiscal Year
GJD	Governing Justly & Democratically
GMP	Georgia Monitoring Project
GOG	Government of Georgia
HA	Humanitarian Assistance
HR	Human Rights
IDP	Internally Displaced Persons
IHS	Integrated Household Survey
IIP	Investing in People
INL	Bureau for International Narcotics & Law Enforcement Affairs
IP	Implementing Partner
IR	Immediate Result
IRD	International Research and Development
JNA	Joint Needs Assessment
KK	Kvemo Kartli
M&E	Monitoring & Evaluation
MCG	Millennium Challenge Georgia
MDF	Municipal Development Fund
MFI	Micro-Finance Institutions
MLHSA	Ministry of Labor, Health & Social Affairs
MRA	Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation
NGO	Non-Government Organization
PMP	Performance Management Plan
PRO	Public Registry Office
SIS	Settlements Infrastructure Survey
SK	Shida Kartli
STR	Special Thematic Report
TA	Technical Assistance
TI	Transparency International
UN	United Nations
USAID	United States Agency for International Development
USG	United States Government
VIC	Village Infrastructure Census
WB	World Bank
WFP	World Food Program
WHO	World Health Organization

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author would like to thank the First Deputy Minister of the Ministry of Refugees & Accommodation in the Government of Georgia, Ms. Tamar Martiashvili, and the Deputy Head of the MRA International Relations Department, for their sincere support and cooperation, particularly in providing access to an extensive range of documentation, for which the Georgia Monitoring Project is extremely grateful. In addition, the author expresses gratitude to the Georgia Embassy Assistance Coordinator, the Regional Refugee Coordinator of the United States Embassy, the USAID/Georgia Transition Coordinator and the USAID/Georgia Program Development Specialist for providing ideas, reports and material necessary to conduct the Pre-Monitoring Review.

DISCLAIMER

The author’s views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States Department of State or the United States Government.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Georgia Monitoring Project is a two-year program (June 2010-May 2012) supported by the United States Department of State to monitor the results of the U.S. Government’s foreign assistance under the $1 billion pledge to the Government of Georgia after August 2008: the Georgian-Russian conflict.

One component of the GMP is the delivery of special thematic reports throughout the two-year period. Due to the conflicts within Georgia, stemming from 1990-1993 and most recently in August 2008, up to 9.9% of the population[1] was internally displaced and many more were affected. Immediately following the conflict, the USG spent approximately $135 million dollars in relief assistance to IDPs in order to assist the 25,000 who were displaced following the 2008 conflict. This assistance provided immediate help with food supplies, shelter, energy supplies, and agricultural assistance to the IDPs. Currently, USG funds are focused on providing IDPs with opportunities for income generation, assistance with rehabilitation of housing, and community mobilization to facilitate (re)integration into society. Therefore most, if not all, of the GMP’s special thematic reports will require textual and numerical information on IDPs affected by previous conflicts (old caseloads) and the August 2008 conflict (new caseload). In preparation for the assessment of USG foreign assistance, GMP conducted a Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information to assess the extent, quality, validity and usefulness of the data for reporting purposes. The Pre-Monitoring Review was conducted for internal GMP use. However, a by-product of the review is that it may also interest the USG and their partners, as well as other donors assisting the Government of Georgia.

The Review’s major aim was to conduct a quality and gap analysis of primary IDP data. The GMP team and their local partner organization will collect any missing data that may be essential for GMP to monitor USG foreign assistance. The Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information therefore is a preparatory and essential stage of GMP’s monitoring process.

The Pre-Monitoring Review analyzed textual and numerical information from the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA), whose primary responsibility is the protection, assistance, and accommodation of IDPs. MRA also has the responsibility to maintain a database and repository of information on the assistance, status, movement and profile of IDPs. From the Pre-Monitoring Review, GMP determined that MRA data’s main strengths and vulnerabilities are the following:

MRA DATA STRENGTHS	MRA DATA VULNERABILITIES
Consolidated datasets	Individual IDP profiling
Capacity & status of housing structures	Private accommodation information
Rehabilitation & construction information on durable housing solutions	IDP health and welfare
	IDP attitudinal surveys
Information on collective centers	IDP longitudinal surveys (old caseload)

The Pre-Monitoring Review also analyzed a sample[2] of key donor reports on IDPs since the August 2008 conflict to determine their scope and relevance for the GMP. From the combined MRA information and statistics and the donor reports, GMP identified the following potential[3] information gaps:

NO	INFORMATION GAPS IN IDP DATA
1	Baseline data (August 2008) – complete and reliable
2	Quality/effectiveness of IDP beneficiary selection criteria
3	Movement of internally displaced persons – timing, extent, and location
4	Education – primary, secondary, vocational, tertiary – access, equity, quality
5	Impact/outcomes of vocational education and training
6	IDP attitudinal data
7	Results of economic growth/livelihoods/job creation programs
8	IDP health – access, awareness, relevance and quality
9	Access to & quality of social services for IDPs/non-IDPs
10	Legal counseling – access, awareness, use, outcomes
11	Psycho-social welfare – mental health
12	Social security – feelings of “safety” at home/village; social protection; family rights; equality etc.
13	Financial security – attitudes toward their financial stability/growth; whether they feel that their situation has improved or not; etc.
14	Beneficiaries by settlement; and types of beneficiaries
15	IDP longitudinal data

GMP is particularly interested in data related to: (1) the movement of internally displaced persons – timing, extent, and location; (2) economic growth through socio-economic integration; (3) psycho-social welfare and rehabilitation; (4) education and health; and (5) the living conditions of IDPs.

GMP recommends that, where possible, the vulnerabilities and gaps are addressed by the GMP team at some level over the life of the GMP project - on a sector level, thematic level or program level through the collection of donor reports, government information, USG Implementing Partner reports, USG information, or by collecting the information directly via surveys, interviews and other data collection methods. GMP also recommends that, during the approach and methodology phase of special thematic reports, the GMP team prepares comprehensive and specifically targeted lists of all projects related to the theme being assessed. This list will be checked with USG Section Heads, through the Georgia Embassy Assistance Coordinator, to determine a manageable scope of work for the thematic reports. There is a mutual benefit in this work as the GMP will contribute to improving and updating information for the USG Master Spreadsheet of projects and programs.

Current GOG and donor reports often do not record household situations in terms of mental health, psycho-social factors, and socio-economic factors. For example, IDPs may receive the same resources as compensation for displacement, but their quality of life may differ vastly, depending on factors such as sustainable employment, mental health, peace and security, and democratic empowerment. The USG’s foreign assistance to Georgia comprises a substantial number of programs on humanitarian assistance, psycho-social rehabilitation, and socio-economic integration/economic growth programs. Monitoring the assistance in these areas would generate valuable information on program results for the USG. GMP aims to “tell the story” of USG foreign assistance to Georgia beyond assets and metrics by determining what happened, when, how, to whom and with what result.

A. INTRODUCTION

The Georgia Monitoring Project is a two-year program (June 2010-May 2012) to monitor United States Government foreign assistance to Georgia from the $1 billion supplemental provided since August 2008 to ensure funds are directed toward the foreign policy and foreign assistance objectives for which they are intended.

Due to the conflicts within Georgia, stemming from 1990-1993 and most recently in August 2008, up to 9.9% of the population[4] was internally displaced and many more affected. Immediately following the conflict, the USG spent approximately $135 million dollars in relief assistance to IDPs in order to assist the 25,000 who were displaced following the 2008 conflict. This assistance provided immediate help with food supplies, shelter, energy supplies, and agricultural assistance to the IDPs. Currently, USG funds are focused on providing IDPs with opportunities for income generation, assistance with rehabilitation of housing, and community mobilization to facilitate (re)integration into society.

A component of the GMP is the delivery of special thematic reports (STR). Most, if not all, of GMP’s STRs will require information (textual and numerical) on IDPs and refugees affected by previous conflicts (old caseloads) and the August 2008 conflict (new caseload). In preparation for the assessment of USG foreign assistance, GMP conducted a Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information to assess the extent, quality, validity, and usefulness of the data on IDPs for reporting purposes. The GMP team and their local partner organization will collect any missing data that would be essential for GMP to monitor USG foreign assistance. The Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information therefore is a preparatory and essential stage of GMP’s monitoring process.

The Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information was conducted during a one-month period from September to October 2010. GMP reviewed textual and numerical information from the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) whose primary responsibility is the protection, assistance, and accommodation of IDPs. The MRA also maintains a database and information-base related to the assistance, status, movement and profile of IDPs.

Several meetings were held with the Deputy of the MRA to formulate the approach and methodology for the Pre-Monitoring Review, and to obtain her support for access to IDP information and statistics. The GMP amassed a range of documents such as the MRA Strategic Work Plan for IDPs 2009-2012, prepared in conjunction with donors (including the USG), and relevant IDP data-related material for 2008, 2009 and 2010. Key donor reports since August 2008 were reviewed to compare data sources and the data reported.[5] The approach and methodology is provided in detail in Annex 1 and a list of reference materials is provided in Annex 4. Worksheets with the Review’s findings also are in the report’s annexes.

The purpose of the Pre-Monitoring Review is to generate information for GMP’s internal use. At this stage, GMP does not intend to correct current information only to document discrepancies, variances and gaps in data in order to conduct a situational and gap analysis.

B. IDP COUNT

Tracking the statistical count of IDPs revealed data inconsistencies and vulnerabilities because documents did not specify whether the count referred to the old caseload (IDPs from the 1990-1993 conflict) or the new caseload (from the 2008 conflict). Nor did the documents, including the MRA’s, specify whether the count included IDPs within Tskhinvali[6]/South Ossetia and those from Tskhinvali/South Ossetia fleeing into North Ossetia (Table 1). The MRA was the only source that documented “double IDPs” – IDPs affected by both conflicts. The MRA definition of “double IDPs” is: “new IDPs with status before displacement”[7] that “have already benefited from durable housing projects in 2008 or received compensation. These IDPs were therefore included in statistics relating to new IDPs.”[8] MRA listed 2,574 double IDPs (895 families). The MRA also consistently reported the individual count of IDPs as well as the number of families (generally in brackets next to the IDP count).

At the height of the August conflict UNHCR documented the number of IDPs as 192,000, including 127,000 new IDPs from within Georgia (data recorded on September 12, 2008). The data referred to the new caseload.

In May 2009 the count of new IDPs was revised upward from 127,000 to 138,000, and included 222,000 IDPs from the old caseload, swelling the total number to 460,000.
In January 2010 UNHCR also documented people living in “IDP-like conditions.” This confuses the total count, particularly as they reported 246,940 new IDPs and 105,700 living in IDP-like conditions, which produced a new count of 352,640.

The term, “IDP-like conditions” was not found in other key documents and is therefore not recommended for GMP reporting.

The current count of IDPs, according to MRA March 2010 statistics, and verified by GMP, was 233,453 IDPs from the old caseload and 15,912 from the new caseload (individuals with official IDP status). Therefore, in March 2010, the total count of new and old caseload IDPs was 249,365.

Of the 127,000 new IDPs recorded by UNHCR on September 12, 2008, as a result of the August conflict, about 22,000 remain to be resettled. Therefore about 105,000 are returnees – they have returned to their homeland such as Shida Karti and other regions. Some documents record 104,000 to 108,000 returnees in 2010 (Table 1), so the likely estimate is about 105,000. The 22,000 new IDPs remaining to be resettled are those seeking official IDP status with the Public Registry. Of the 22,000 seeking IDP status, 15,912 have already been granted IDP status. This figure continues to increase as the Public Registry proceeds with registration.[9] Of the 22,000 new IDPs, an estimated 2,000 are in private buildings and approximately 20,000 are in collective centers (CCs). Both UN reports and MRA documents estimate that 18,000 old caseload IDPs have been resettled and 30,000 currently are still displaced.

UNHCR statistics generally proved useful during the initial phases of the August 2008 conflict and were cited by several donor organizations in their reports. However, with the continual improvement of MRA’s consolidated database, in accordance with donor requests and suggestions, the current count in 2010 was relatively stable and valid. Consequently, donors are increasingly citing MRA data.

Table 1: Comparison of IDP Figures (IDPs within Georgia)

	USAID	UNHCR	Transparency International	MRA
Source	Situation Report #2, FY09, June 18, 2009 (JNA April 2009 data)	www.unhcr.org Sept 12, 2008 & Jan, 2010	Cottage Settlements for Georgia’s New IDPs, April 27, 2010	2010 IDP Housing Strategy & Working Plan, April(?) 2010, (March 31 data)
IDPs at height of Aug 2008 conflict (Sept 2008)	130,000	127,000
	S.O. 30,000	S.O. 30,000
	To N.O. 38,000	To N.O. 35,000
	Total 198,000	Total 192,000
IDPs (May 2009)		New 138,000
		Old 222,000
		Total 460,000
IDPs (Jan 2010)		IDP 246,940		Old 231,861
		IDP-like 105,700		New 16,223
		Total 352,640		Double 2,574
				(p5) Total 250,658
Current IDPs (March 2010)				Old *233,453
				New** 15,912
				Total*249,365
Returned IDPs	104,000	*108,000		105,000
Resettled IDPs	18,000	*18,000		(p4) Old*18,000
Still Displaced		*30,000	(p13) 26,000
IDPs remaining in CCs – Old & New Caseload	8,000			CCs 113,210
				Private B’s 137,448
				(p5) Total 250,658
IDPs remaining in CCs – New Caseload				Approx in CCs 20,000
				Approx in Private 2,000
				Approx Total 22,000
Settlements		36	38	40
Houses			*(Dec 2008) 3,963	4,379
CCs				’08 Baseline 1,540
				March 2010 1,042
DHS				Converted 498
				To be CC 212
				Other 332
				Total 1,042
Notes	New or old caseload not specified	IDPs in “IDP-like conditions” * Of 138,000 new IDPs	*MRA cites 3,979 for same period – source MDF	factsheet 2010 (month ?); *15,912 received IDP status from approx 22,000 new IDPs seeking status

In summary, donor reports that refer to 230,000 IDPs are generally referring to the old IDP caseload. The new caseload of 192,000 IDPs that UNHCR reported in September 2008 (127,000 new IDPs within Georgia) is the most plausible estimate. For more specific 2010 figures, the MRA data are credible, with only minor discrepancies, and can be cited with a high degree of confidence.

C. IDP HOUSING

The MRA has continued to maintain a relatively accurate and reliable database of tangible structures, such as CCs and privately-owned buildings, including an up-to-date database of their physical status. The status information includes lists of “CCs that could be used for durable housing solutions (DHS)”, “idle buildings that could be used for DHS” and “collapsing CCs”[10] and identifies whether buildings could be rehabilitated by the GOG, the number that have been rehabilitated and converted into DHS, and those that the GOG has transferred ownership to IDPs with or without rehabilitation.

The MRA defines collapsing CCs as “CCs under threat of collapse which are dangerous for IDP’s health”[11] and therefore IDPs are currently living in them. Idle buildings are not occupied. CCs that could be used for durable housing are those MRA identified for “rehabilitation, conversion or construction” in “an environment that provides opportunities for sustained socio-economic integration.”[12]

COLLECTIVE CENTERS AND SETTLEMENTS

There are two discrepancies in the housing data: (1) the number of houses built by the GOG; and (2) the number of current CCs remaining. Transparency International noted the first and GMP confirmed it. GMP found the second during this Pre-Monitoring Review.

Firstly, Transparency International (TI) reported in April 2010 that between October and December 2008 the GOG had built 3,963 houses (cottages) in 38 settlements. MRA’s figure was 3,979 houses in 38 settlements during the same time period. GMP confirmed the discrepancy of 16 houses but the reason for the variance could not be determined. Secondly, the MRA documented 161 collapsing collective centers (CCs) in their 2010 IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan. GMP found 163 such centers during the Pre-Monitoring Review. In the same document, MRA reported that there were potentially 212 CCs that may be converted into DHS. The GMP found 198 (14 fewer).

The GOG aims to reduce the number of CCs by converting them into DHS for IDPs. The baseline number of CCs in August 2008 was 1,540. In its 2010 IDP Housing Strategy, MRA reported that currently 1,042 CCs remain. The GOG has assessed their physical status and in 2010-11 will determine whether or not to convert them into DHS. The GMP found 1,030 remaining CCs (a variance of 12 CCs from the GOG’s figures). MRA reported 266 CCs that it plans to return to their original use and 403 privately owned CCs that will be returned to their owners. GMP confirmed these figures.

The differences in housing figures are minor and do not affect the GMP’s review of USG support to rehabilitate existing CCs and to construct new houses/cottages in the GOG’s new settlements. MRA stated in its 2010 IDP Housing Strategy that USAID plans to rehabilitate 102 CCs and 83 unused buildings in 2010/2011. A USG source, dated September 29, 2010, when the GMP sought confirmation of these figures, reported that “USAID will rehabilitate approximately 2,600 apartments (118 buildings) for approximately 10,000 people.” GMP will confirm these figures with USAID to potentially include in monitoring USG foreign assistance to Georgia.

LIVING CONDITIONS

MRA’s main aim is to improve IDPs’ living conditions and one way this is achieved is through the rehabilitation and construction of adequate housing. Transparency International noted that “between October and December 2008, the Government of Georgia [primarily with funds from the World Bank and the European Commission] built 3,963 individual cottage homes across 13 different locations to shelter those who could not return to South Ossetia after the August 2008 war.”[13] These cottage/homes housed 13,876 IDPs. TI commended the GOG’s speed in responding to the need for durable housing for the new caseload of IDPs. TI stated that it was “unaware of any similar precedents by a country emerging from conflict to immediately address the shelter needs of an internally displaced population.” An international NGO agency previously noted that many of the 250,000 old caseload IDPs were housed in unacceptable conditions,[14] so the GOG’s response to the new IDP caseload’s needs was a significant, positive change.

However, the new cottage settlements were built in a hurry and were criticized by donors and the local press for their poor construction and living conditions. TI maintained that the evidence of poor quality is “still largely anecdotal”[15] and that the GOG balanced speed and cost with quality. TI’s 2010 report added that the psychological benefits of owning a home possibly outweighed the negative conditions, but that “a longer planning period involving a slightly larger circle of local and foreign experts in durable shelter could have led to a significantly higher standard of quality at very little additional cost.” GMP may follow up some issues related to construction quality to supplement the information that already exists and include the findings in its reports. GMP also may explore the concept of the “psychological benefits” of home ownership that is not fully documented in donor reports.

SPOT CHECKS

On October 19 two GMP staff visited six CCs listed on MRA’s database (Annex 3). This sample consisted of CCs in Tbilisi only, drawn from clusters close to the city center in order to cross-check information in the MRA database. MRA classified these six CCs as “collapsing” and categorized them into two categories: the First Category - “very urgent;” and the Second Category - “less urgent”. The number of old-caseload IDP families still living in the six CCs ranged from one to 57, depending on the structure. The structures ranged from a one-storey house to five-storey apartment blocks. The IDPs did not necessarily occupy all of the latter. For example, in one apartment block the IDPs lived on the second and the fifth floors only.

This Review revealed that MRA had double counted some CCs and counted one CC four times. MRA had provided the CCs’ addresses and they were all in the city, but they were not always easy to locate because the street numbers’ sequencing is ambiguous. But the spot check did account for and identify all six CCs. The spot check also found that the categorization of some CCs was not consistent among different government sources. For example, one CC that MRA listed for demolition was judged by the Public Registry to be suitable to sell as private accommodation (i.e. fit to be sold or rented to IDPs). MRA defines “private accommodation” as “IDPs living in the private sector … who have not formally been provided accommodation by the GOG; e.g. IDPs who live in rented or owned houses/apartments or with relatives or friends.” The MRA also stated that “a planning assumption has been made that all IDPs who are not living in CCs live in the private sector.”[16] Currently 57 families were residing in a CC that MRA had listed for demolition although the GMP staff felt that the Public Registry’s assessment (the CC was suitable for private accommodation) was more appropriate. Another apartment spot checked by GMP was clearly collapsing and categorized by MRA as such.

Nevertheless, GMP would not need to collect additional information on CCs due to the adequate documentation by the MRA of the location of CCs, private buildings and new settlements, and their status in terms of rehabilitation, transfer of ownership, construction or other status. In fact, much of the information will be initially useful in assisting the GMP to determine survey locations.

D. IDP PROFILING AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC INTEGRATION

For the GMP, the interesting factor was that, while both the MRA and donors focused their reports primarily on the physical structure of IDP “living conditions,” there was little reporting by the MRA on the psycho-social impact of displacement and the socio-economic integration of IDPs. However, the Danish Refugee Council recently conducted individual IDP socio-economic profiles as part of an MRA resettlement process and USG implementers have collected quantitative and qualitative information on vocational training, agricultural development, and lands registration [and other projects] as part of their quarterly reports on IDP-related activities using 1207 funds.[17] There was also minimal focus on attitude surveys at the GOG level, with ad hoc reporting at donor level. A longitudinal study does not appear to have been conducted by the GOG or donors, and such a study would be useful for a time series analysis.

USG’s foreign assistance comprises a substantial number of programs on humanitarian assistance, psycho-social rehabilitation, and socio-economic integration/economic growth programs.[18] Therefore, monitoring this assistance, focusing on these areas, would provide the USG with valuable information on program results.

E. LITERATURE REVIEW OF DATA AVAILABILITY

Most donor reports on Georgia cited other donor organizations. The most frequently cited information was the IDP statistics from UN agencies such as the UNHCR. MRA statistics on IDPs were generally cited from the end of 2009 and throughout 2010 when, it appears, donors had more confidence in MRA’s IDP primary data, especially the registration of IDPs and housing status. MRA’s 2010 IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan demonstrated the continual improvement of its planning documentation and reporting of previous year’s achievements. However, there was no direct reporting against Action Lines and their respective activities. MRA Action Lines documented in their strategic plans are the equivalent of USAID’s Strategic Objectives. Each MRA Action Plan has Action Lines. Under each Action Line are a number of activities. Against these activities are expected results and targets. The information against Action Lines may or may not be reported and requires a degree of searching throughout MRA document to determine this information. In particular, MRA frequently failed to date their documents which made sequencing difficult.

DATA AVAILABILITY

For the Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information, GMP organized the availability of data within MRA sources and selected key donor reports from August 2008 to August 2010 in Table 2.

Table 2: Data Available from the MRA and Other Sources (by Subject)

Subject	MRA data sources	Other data sources
Agriculture	X	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (Shida Kartli, Kvemo Kartli) – agricultural machinery & production
		Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment on Food Security, Child Nutrition, and Agricultural Livelihoods of Conflict-Affected Persons in Georgia: Feb-March 2009
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – land, size, land use, cultivation, animals, sale of agricultural goods, cost of agricultural items (machinery etc.)
		Ministry of Agriculture
		GeoStat Agriculture Holding Survey
		USG implementers
Baseline Data Aug 2008	Collective Centers	UNHCR, Sept 12, 2008 – New IDP count
Baseline Data Aug 2008	Approximate count of IDPs	Amnesty International Report 2008
Collective Centers	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Standards for Rehabilitation (Annex 3)	UNICEF Water & Sanitation June 2009 – list, location, map, settlement description etc. in Annexes (but not attached to online document)
	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Completed/Ongoing Rehabilitation of CCs to DHS (Annex 5)	Amnesty International Report 2008
	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Collapsing CCs (Annex 9)
	List of CCs; location; classification; status; assessment schedule
	Shelter Strategy for IDPs Sept 08
Displacement	IDP Displacement /Movement Patterns (some information)	Amnesty International Report 2008 – displacement
		Amnesty International Report 2009
		Amnesty International Report 2010
		IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs April 2010 (global)
		Human Rights Council Report (Kalin) Feb 2009 – displacement patterns
		ReliefWeb - maps
Durable Housing Solutions	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Key DHS Principles (Annex 2)	IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs April 2010 – criteria for achievement (global)
	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Rehabilitation IDP apartments(Annex 4)	MCG- Village Infrastructure Census (VIC) – nationwide survey of infrastructure (quality, use & accessibility) 2008 and 2010
	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Needs Summary (Annex 6)	MCG – Settlements Infrastructure Survey (SIS) 2007 and 2010
	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Idle Buildings (Annex 8)
	Shelter Strategy for IDPs Sept 08
Education (access)/ Vocational Education & Training	X	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (SK, KK) – kindergartens; education support
		Human Rights Council Report (Kalin) Feb 2009
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – costs, access, transport, distance, reasons for absence, attitudes, further training etc.
		Ministry of Education
		USG implementers
Electricity/Power	List of CCs; location; classification; status; assessment schedule	MCG- VIC – nationwide survey of infrastructure (quality, use & accessibility) 2008 and 2010
		MCG – SIS 2007 and 2010
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – gas, water, heating; access, consumption
		USG implementers
Employment/Economic Growth/Livelihoods/ Income	Technical Expert Group on livelihoods has collected information	Amnesty International Report 2010 – employment of displaced persons
	List of IDP Livelihood Projects (donors)	IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs April 2010 (global)
	Livelihood Projects – Guiding Principles
		CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (SK, KK)
		Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment on Food Security, Child Nutrition, and Agricultural Livelihoods of Conflict-Affected Persons in Georgia: Feb-Mar 2009.
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* – income, expenses, employment, pensions, donor grants.
		Ministry of Finance
		Ministry of Labor, Health & Social Affairs
Food Distribution	2008 WFP Distribution List	WFP - location; number of IDPs; commodity
Food Distribution	2008 WFP Distribution List	Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment on Food Security, etc. Feb-March 2009.
Household Assets	X	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (SK, KK) – list of household assets
Household Assets	X	GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – assets (TV, oven, etc.), sale of assets
Human Rights	Gap Analysis: Protection of IDPs	Amnesty International Report 2009
		Amnesty International Report 2010
		IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs April 2010 – Guiding Principles (global)
		Human Rights Council Report (Kalin) Feb 2009
IDP Attitudes	X	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (SK, KK)
IDP Attitudes	X	GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – access to education, health (very minimal attitudinal survey)
IDP Health	MRA/Ministry of Labor, Health & Social Affairs – IDP profile	Amnesty International Report 2010
		Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment on Food Security, Child Nutrition, etc: Feb-March 2009.
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – access to health, illnesses, disease, treatment, pregnancy, child care & feeding, vaccination, dental, surgery etc. (very minimal attitudinal questions)
		GeoStat Health Utilization & Expenditure Survey (HUES) May-June 2007
IDP Living Conditions	Assessment of IDP accommodation & schedule of assessments	Amnesty International Report 2010
		IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs April 2010 (global)
		MCG- Village Infrastructure Census (VIC) 2008 & 2010
		MCG – SIS 2007 and 2010
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – size, residence, source of water, land, assets.
IDP Registration	MRA/Civil Registry	Amnesty International Report 2010
IDP Registration	MRA/Civil Registry	UNICEF Water & Sanitation June 2009 – map (May09)
IDP Status	MRA/Civil Registry	Amnesty International Report 2010
		Human Rights Council Report (Kalin) Feb 2009
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – IDP category is listed under “special status”**
Land Plots	MRA/Public Registry	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (KK, SK)
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – land, size, land plots, land use
		Ministry of Agriculture
Law/legal requirements	X	Amnesty International Report 2008 – international humanitarian, human rights & criminal laws
		Amnesty International Report 2010 – law on displaced persons
		Ministry of Justice
Psycho-Social Welfare	X	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (SK, KK)
		Ministry of Labor, Health & Social Affairs
		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey* (IHS) – health questions (mental health is not questioned and is identified only under “other” indicated by resident)
Remnants of War	X	Amnesty International Report 2008
Remnants of War	X	Halo Trust
Socio-Economic Integration	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Principles Socio-Economic Integration (Annex 10)	CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (SK, KK)
New Settlements	Shelter Strategy for IDPs Sept 2008	UNICEF Water & Sanitation June 2009 – list, location, map, settlement description etc. in Annexes but not attached to online document; cost benefit ratio
New Settlements	IDP Housing Strategy 2010 – Construction Works in Poti (Annex 11)	Transparency International April 2010 – construction (built by GOG Oct-Dec 2008); number of settlements; cottage settlement quality; construction costs & process; GOG accountability mechanisms
Timeline/ Background	X	Amnesty International Report 2008
Timeline/ Background	X	Various documents
Water, Waste Management	List of CCs; location; classification; status; assessment schedule	UNICEF Water & Sanitation June 2009
Water, Waste Management		GeoStat Integrated Household Survey (IHS) – access to potable water, cost of water, type of toilet, etc.

Note: * GeoStat’s Integrated Household Survey sampling is undertaken at a regional level which would provide GMP with essential data for reports on specific geographical areas (such as Shida Kartli). However, the sample may only capture a small overall proportion of IDPs and this should be noted when conducting studies solely related to IDPs.

Note: ** GeoStat’s Integrated Household Survey has a section titled “Special Status” under which residents can respond to only one category that includes disabled, single mother under 16 years of age, and IDP. Hence, there may be IDPs that do not identify their status as an IDP.

F. DATA STRENGTHS AND VULNERABILITIES

For the Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information, GMP tracked data from the MRA Action Lines to MRA documents, database information, USG sources, and donor reports (provided in assessment worksheets as Annexes).

MAPPING OF DATA

From the information assessed during the Pre-Monitoring Review, key documents were mapped against 16 data dimensions to represent four quality features: (1) sound information; (2) dependable information; (3) useful information; and (4) useable information (Table 3).

Table 3: Mapping of MRA & Donor Information against Data Dimensions[19]

CONFORMS TO SPECIFICATIONS	MEETS OR EXCEEDS USER EXPECTATIONS
Sound Information Free-of-Error Concise Representation Completeness Consistent Representation ► Transparency International – Cottage Settlements, April 2010 (construction of new settlements) ► Amnesty 2010 Report (law on displaced persons) ► MCG – Village Infrastructure Census (2008, 2010) ► MCG –Settlements Infrastructure Survey (2007, 2010) ► Integrated Household Survey	Useful Information Appropriate Amount of Data Relevancy Understandability Interpretability Objectivity ► MRA IDP housing data ► ReliefWeb maps ► MCG – Village Infrastructure Census (2008, 2010) ► MCG –Settlements Infrastructure Survey (2007, 2010)
CONFORMS TO SPECIFICATIONS	MEETS OR EXCEEDS USER EXPECTATIONS
Dependable Information Timeliness Security ► Integrated Household Survey ► MRA IDP housing data ► MRA IDP count ► MCG – Village Infrastructure Census (2008, 2010) ► MCG –Settlements Infrastructure Survey (2007, 2010)	Usable Information Believability Accessibility Ease of Manipulation Reputation Value-Added ► Integrated Household Survey – limited, but may be useable for comparison purposes ► MRA IDP housing data ► CARE Baseline Survey, December 2009 ► Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment, March 2009 ► UNICEF Water & Sanitation, June 2009

DATA STRENGTHS

GMP determined that MRA data have the following strengths:

CONSOLIDATED DATA-SETS
CAPACITY & STATUS OF HOUSING STRUCTURES
REHABILITATION & CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION ON DURABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS
INFORMATION ON COLLECTIVE CENTERS

Consolidated IDP Primary Data (Unified Database)

IDP data are available from a variety of sources. The Civil Registry, under the Ministry of Justice, collects data on people’s identification, citizenship, births and deaths. The National Agency of Public Registry collects data on the real estate of IDPs, such as private ownership, and registration of livings spaces and durable housing. The Ministry of Finance provides financial data. The Ministry of Labour, Health and Social Affairs collects information on the beneficiaries of social programs and social status. These datasets are merged with data collected by the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation on IDPs and refugees, such as the number of IDPs, the number of families, and the region where they live. The merged and consolidated data-sets form the Unified IDP database managed by MRA. A flaw of the Unified IDP database is the timely migration of all data, particularly on IDP registration status.

It is unusual for countries to have such a consolidated database of IDP information and hence this achievement by the Government of Georgia should be commended. It is also noted that the MRA has been receptive to donor advice regarding the improvement of the data-sets, Action Plans, and other related strategic planning documents associated with internally displaced persons in Georgia.

Categorization, Identification, Repair & Rehabilitation of CCs for Durable Housing Solutions

Through the gradual closure of the CCs, the majority of which are state-owned, the Government of Georgia will also reduce state expenditures, as the GOG will no longer have to pay for the communal utilities and maintenance of the centers. The closure of the CCs through privatization, in particular, will also ensure CCs are restored & replaced with more attractive buildings or are renovated.[20]

Although the timeline for the rehabilitation, privatization, and closure of CCs was difficult to follow – from baseline to current – there was extensive documentation on their status in the form of statistics, categorization of ownership, conditions, use for durable housing alternatives, and locations. The current situational statistics (2010) were well documented but earlier documentation was inadequately recorded. Usefulness of data will depend on whether the GMP wants to show the timelines for categorization, repair, privatization, and closure – in terms of the improvement of IDP living conditions.

The data against the MRA Action Lines did not focus on people (i.e. profiling), but on property and visible structures. These are dependable, useful and useable. MRA also included guidance notes that outlined the quality standards for the rehabilitation, conversion, or construction of durable housing for IDPs.[21] These minimum standards included parameters for living spaces, heating, windows, floors, electrical systems, and general facilities.

Relatively reliable statistics have been collected by MRA on the number of families living in the CCs, and estimates of the capacity of CCs and other structures to accommodate IDPs. This is due to MRA consistently matching the IDP count with the number of families that the count represents, such as “22,108 IDPs (7,663 families),” indicating an average range of between 2.86-2.89 persons per HH (household/family). This is in comparison with a mean HH size of 3.65 (IHS, September 2009).

DATA VULNERABILITIES

The Pre-Monitoring Review noted the following MRA data vulnerabilities:

INDIVIDUAL IDP PROFILING
PRIVATE ACCOMMODATION INFORMATION
IDP HEALTH AND WELFARE
IDP ATTITIDUNAL SURVEYS
IDP LONGITUDINAL SURVEYS (OLD CASELOAD)

While the MRA adequately documented tangible indicators, it fell short of adequate documentation and reporting of intangibles, such as IDP profiling, attitudes, health and welfare. MRA was also better at documenting GOG controlled structures and status, rather than privately owned accommodation. In addition, MRA’s Technical Expert Group on livelihoods has collected socio-economic information for activities conducted throughout Georgia. It should also be added that donor reports, while raising the awareness of MRA data shortfalls, were also limited in their coverage of IDP issues due to their scope of work. However, donors and implementing partners continue to collect data and to conduct workshops and conferences. Hence, not all information has been collected by the GMP to date – this is an ongoing process for the GMP. Furthermore, while initial relief effort activities to address the August 2008 conflict did not conduct surveys to measure their immediate results, USG’s newly commenced and planned IDP-related development activities will include such surveys.

DATA GAP ANALYSIS

Table 4 (below) specifies the gaps in IDP information which GMP may need to collect directly from USG program partners and/or supplement through data collection instruments such as surveys, focus group interviews and other sources as relevant. USG program partners, depending on the focus of GMP’s investigation and assessment, may have internal M&E results for targeted areas or indicators that may or may not need validating or supplementing. Their usefulness will depend on whether GMP requires standardized and consistent data for comparative studies. Generally, implementers use their own internal databases and reporting formats that are not consolidated within programs or across programs. In addition, their use of terminology and definitions may be subject to interpretation. However, the USG foreign assistance, as the most extensive donor assistance in Georgia, has commenced documenting program results through its implementing partners and this, in addition to the GMP monitoring of overall program results in a thematic approach, may be able to address some of these data vulnerabilities.

Table 4: Major Gaps in IDP Data

NO	INFORMATION GAPS IN IDP DATA
1	Baseline data (August 2008) – complete and reliable
2	Quality/effectiveness of IDP beneficiary selection criteria
3	Movement of internally displaced persons – timing, extent, and location
4	Education – primary, secondary, vocational, tertiary – access, equity, quality
5	Impact/outcomes of vocational education and training
6	IDP attitudinal data
7	Results of economic growth/livelihoods/job creation programs
8	IDP health – access, awareness, relevance and quality
9	Access to & quality of social services for IDPs/non-IDPs
10	Legal counseling – access, awareness, use, outcomes
11	Psycho-social welfare – mental health
12	Social security – feelings of “safety” at home/village; social protection; family rights; equality etc.
13	Financial security – attitudes toward their financial stability/growth; whether they feel that their situation has improved or not; etc.
14	Beneficiaries by settlement; and types of beneficiaries
15	IDP longitudinal data

G. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE GEORGIA MONITORING PROJECT

CONFORMITY OF PROJECT LISTS: TITLES AND IMPLEMENTER

The Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information encountered difficulties in cross-checking and validating USG program and project information. Projects related to IDPs (and project information in general) are comprehensively listed by the MRA and the USG. The MRA has a list of projects listed by implementer (executing agency), location (generally only by region), description, and funding amount. Only in a few cases are project titles listed. USG lists all programs and projects in their USG Master Spreadsheet. However, matching the listed projects is a complex and time-consuming exercise because MRA does not provide the title of projects and the funding amount does not match the amount provided in the USG Master Spreadsheet. To magnify the problem, the lists are subject to change during the course of the two-year monitoring project.

For example, the MRA lists the executing agency (i.e. CARE), but the USG Master Spreadsheet lists the executing agency inconsistently, in the following ways: (1) “NGOs”; or (2) “various NGOs”; or (3) “multiple”. For USG projects listed without the executing agency, it is difficult to match specific implementers. USG currently has 17 implementers and these are represented by agency (such as the Department of Justice or the Bureau of International Narcotics & Law Enforcement) with many international or local NGO partners/executing agencies (such as CARE and World Learning).

Another example is the title. MRA did not list project titles. The USG Master Spreadsheet listed project titles, but predominantly listed program titles (such as “Humanitarian Assistance” with several unspecified projects within the program). Often project start and end dates were omitted; sometimes only the year was provided for start and end dates; only the regional location was provided; and the type of beneficiary was rarely provided. In USG Factsheets, generally the city or village was also provided for small projects.

The financial structure is varied and the portfolio of the USG foreign assistance in Georgia is immense. In July the list comprised 291 USG projects; 146 completed, 11 under development, and 134 in progress – with many of these being aggregated programs and not specific projects. This means that there are more than 291 individual USG projects. Hence, the GMP is not accounting for each dollar, nor for each project, and therefore a disaggregated and detailed project description for each of the nearly 300 projects on the USG Master Spreadsheet is not recommended as it would not be a productive use of GMP’s time. Instead, it is more beneficial for GMP to focus on disaggregating project information to determine coverage of projects (such as geographical coverage or by sectors) when conducting an STR.

Therefore, it is recommended that during the approach and methodology phase of STRs GMP prepares a comprehensive and specifically targeted lists of all projects related to the theme being assessed. This list will be checked with USG program heads, through the Assistance Coordinator, to define the scope of work for thematic reports. This will enable USG and GMP to more consistently record projects or programs monitored during the STRs. In addition, a mutual benefit exists in which the work of the GMP will assist in improving and updating information for the USG Master Spreadsheet.

COMPLETENESS AND CONSISTENCY OF INFORMATION

GMP does not aim to “plug every gap” in MRA data. However, it can aid the completeness to which data are of sufficient breadth and depth as to be useful for monitoring and reporting USG program results. This will be achieved through data collection pertinent to each thematic report. It should also be noted that the given timeline is unlikely to show impacts of programs, but may show immediate results and the direction of activities. For example, the report on all USG assistance in Shida Kartli would not focus solely on visible, tangible results, such as accommodation, but will also aim for greater depth of knowledge in addressing whether the USG assistance is moving toward its intended goals.

In terms of consistency of representation, MRA data are not consistently documented for comparison purposes. It is recommended that GMP data attempt, where feasible, to address these inconsistencies by clearly describing and clarifying terminology and source data (i.e. whether it represents old, new or both IDP caseloads, whether the data represent individual IDPs or families, and other ambiguous information).

ADDRESSING GAPS IN DATA

Table 4 (above) specifies current major gaps in MRA and donor data (to the extent of the literature review). Where possible, these gaps should be addressed to some level over the life of the GMP project, on a sector level, thematic level or program level.

OTHER DATA ISSUES

Support to Individuals/Aid to Households

MRA distinctly separates its recording to individuals and to households (families) by, in most cases, providing both figures. Most donor reports, GOG reports, and some USG documents do not specify whether the statistics pertain to IDP individuals or to households. GMP will need to clearly make the distinction between the two.

Logistical Support

Some USG foreign assistance in the emergency/disaster assistance phase of support to the Government of Georgia was identified for logistics. This includes transporting aid to regions and households. Hence, GMP will need to clearly make the distinction between logistical support (indirect support) and direct beneficiary support, if appropriate.

USG Implementing Partners

It is expected that some (or most) USG implementing partners would have Monitoring & Evaluation Plans, particularly USAID partners. For programs and projects reported on in GMP’s special thematic reports, GMP will review partner’s existing monitoring reports, if appropriate, to note whether indicators have been reported against. Where there are multiple implementing partners reporting data on a single indicator, GMP would document how the program merges multiple reporting sources to note data collection, collation, and data analysis, if any, so that GMP can document cumulative and collective results or use data for comparative purposes.

Beyond Assets

The Government of Georgia (i.e. in the Integrated Household Survey) provides information on household assets owned by the people of Georgia and MRA, in particular, documents assets provided to vulnerable groups, particularly IDPs. However, current reports, including donor reports, often do not record household situations beyond assets in terms of mental health, psycho-social factors, and socio-economic factors. For example, IDPs may be provided the same assets as compensation for displacement, but their lives may be vastly different, depending on factors such as sustainable employment, quality of life, mental health, peace and security, and democratic empowerment. GMP aims to “tell the story” of USG foreign assistance to Georgia beyond assets and metrics by determining what happened, when, how, to whom and with what result.

ANNEX 1: APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

INTRODUCTION

Two major elements of the Government of Georgia’s current focus is on economic development and the socio-economic integration of internally displaced persons (IDPs) on IDPs. This focus is also reflected in USG’s foreign assistance to the country. The largest share of USG funding assistance has been distributed across two main sectors: Investing in People (IIP)/Humanitarian Assistance (HA) – 44% and Economic Growth (EG) – 47%. The IIP/HA sector funding comprises 60% for Investing in People and 40% for Humanitarian Assistance. IIP/HA and Economic Growth are predominantly focused on Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs).

In order for the Georgia Monitoring Project (GMP) to fully monitor and assess USG’s assistance across all sectors and for IDPs and non-IDPs, it is necessary to conduct an assessment of the available data and information, particularly in the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA) which is responsible for maintaining data on IDPs, IDP housing, and programs for IDPs. This assessment, or Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data and Information, will include a gap analysis to determine the extent of available data and their usefulness, and any data that are inadequate for GMP purposes, or are missing. In the event of substantial data vulnerablities, GMP may need to collect the information from other sources (such as from other donor or USG partner reports) or directly from the field when conducting their monitoring of USG assistance, particularly during investigations for special thematic reports.

OBJECTIVES OF THE PRE-MONITORING REVIEW

To ensure that GMP is aware of the strengths and vulnerabilities of IDP primary data that can be used for monitoring and reporting;
To ascertain gaps in IDP data and identify other potential sources.

PROPOSED ANALYTICAL APPROACH

Data, in the context of the Pre-Monitoring Review, is used in its broadest sense: numerical and textual information. GMP will apply Data Quality Dimensions (Table B) to targeted activities (performance indicators) under specified Action Lines (strategic objectives) in the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation’s Action Plans. The data dimensions will assist in determining the level to which the data and information are sound, dependable, useful and usable (Table C). GMP will also identify specific vulnerabilities in data. In addition, GMP will conduct a literature review of key donor and USG partner documents and reports related to IDPs in Georgia.

MRA DATA SOURCES – ACTION PLANS

With the aim to provide long-term and sustainable solutions to the needs of IDPs from the conflicts in the 1990s, on 2 February 2007 by its Decree #47, the Government of Georgia endorsed the State Strategy on IDPs. The Annex to the State Strategy, adopted in December 2008 by the Governmental Decree #854, integrated the population displaced as a result of the August 2008 conflict into the overall State Strategy. The Action Plan (AP) for the implementation of the State Strategy on IDPs during 2009-2012 further builds on the findings and priority needs identified in the United Nations/World Bank Joint Needs Assessment (JNA) and benefits from a broad consultation process. The Action Plan was adopted by governmental decree #403 on 28 May 2009. The Action Plan is a living document and is updated quarterly based on independent interim evaluations. Both mechanisms (updating the Action Plan and instituting an interim evaluation) are initiated by the MRA in consultation with donor partners.

SCOPE OF THE PRE-MONITORING REVIEW OF IDP DATA AND INFORMATION

In accordance with the above GOG decrees, MRA has the following:

ACTION PLANS

(1) Action Plan on IDPs 2008

(2) Action Plan on IDPs 2009

(3) Action Plan on IDPs 2010

Each Action Plan has Action Lines. Under each Action Line are a number of activities. Against these activities are expected results and targets. Table A lists the Action Lines that GMP will assess against the data dimensions (such as in terms of quality, relevance, reliability etc.) listed in Table B.

Table A: Action Lines

ACTION LINES

1.1.1 Protection of the Housing, Land, Property rights of IDPs

2.1.1 To improve the living conditions of IDPs in Collective Centers (CC)

2.1.2 Support the voluntary privatization of CCs by IDPs according to appropriateness

2.1.3 Provision of alternative durable housing solutions through construction, purchase of existing houses etc

2.2.1 Socio-economic integration of the IDPs

2.2.3 Provision of information about job creation schemes, professional training, micro-credit & grants to IDPs

2.3.1 Increase IDP awareness and ensure information as well as legal counseling is available to them

7 Action Lines

Initially, 12 Action Lines were considered and these were reduced to 7 Action Lines (primarily from 2008 and 2009 Action Plans) after discussions with USG staff on September 3, 2010. Due to timing constraints, the activities under each Action Line were aggregated to focus on the most relevant data for GMP purposes.

DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS

GMP will take an expanded approach to assessing data and information by applying 16 dimensions (Table B) to the refugee/IDP primary data that take into account both objective measurements and subjective perceptions. The metrics to calculate the dimensions use one of three methods: (1) simple ratios; (2) minimum or maximum operations; or (3) weighted averages. Simple ratios (SR) are when 1=most desirable; 0=least desirable; and SR=ratio of desired to total outcomes. The Simple Ratio adopts a positive terminology in favor of focusing on undesirable or negative wording in the formation of dimensions. Minimum or Maximum Operations are aggregations of multiple data units (variables) in which the minimum is the weakest unit (between 0 and 1) and maximum is the optimal unit (between 0 and 1). Weighted Averages take into account the proportional relevance of each data unit.

Table B: Data Quality Dimensions[22]

DIMENSIONS	DEFINITIONS (The extent to which ...)	METRICS
Completeness	Data are not missing & are of sufficient breadth & depth	Simple Ratio
Consistent Representation	Data are presented in the same format	Simple Ratio
Free-of-Error	Data are correct and reliable	Simple Ratio
Concise Representation	Data are compactly represented	Simple Ratio
Ease of Manipulation	Data are easy to manipulate & apply to different tasks	Simple Ratio
Relevancy	Data are applicable & helpful	Simple Ratio
Believability	Data are regarded as true & credible	Minimum or Maximum Operation
Appropriate Amount of Data	The volume of data is appropriate	Minimum Operation
Timeliness	Data are sufficiently up-to-date	Maximum Operation
Accessibility	Data are available or easily & quickly retrieved	Maximum Operation
Interpretability	Data are in appropriate language, symbols, & units, & the definitions are clear	Weighted Average
Objectivity	Data are unbiased, unprejudiced, & impartial	Weighted Average
Reputation	Data are highly regarded in terms of source or content	Weighted Average
Security	Access to data is restricted appropriately to maintain its security	Weighted Average
Understandability	Data are easily comprehended	Weighted Average
Value-Added	Data are beneficial & provides advantages from its use	Weighted Average

A mapping of the 16 DQ dimensions (Table C) can also be represented in terms of four modes: (1) sound information; (2) dependable information; (3) useful information; and (4) usable information as a basis for assessing how well the primary IDP/refugees data meet specifications and expectations, and provide a system for determining usefulness.

Table C: Mapping of Data Quality Dimensions[23]

CONFORMS TO SPECIFICATIONS

MEETS OR EXCEEDS USER EXPECTATIONS

Sound Information

Free-of-Error
Concise Representation
Completeness
Consistent Representation

Useful Information

Appropriate Amount of Data
Relevancy
Understandability
Interpretability
Objectivity

Dependable Information

Timeliness
Security

Usable Information

Believability
Accessibility
Ease of Manipulation
Reputation
Value-Added

FIELD TESTING

Information provided by the MRA includes the addresses of CCs that could be used for DHSs and the addresses of idle buildings that could be used for DHS. GMP will “spot check” random sites in Tbilisi and nearby locations to determine whether the sites have been recorded accurately. This is not a check of quality of buildings and CC, but only a review of data records. This would also provide GMP with information about possible sites for reviewing in more detail in upcoming special thematic reports.

ANNEX 2: LIST OF INTERVIEWEES

NAME	POSITION, INSTITUTION
Tamara Martiashvili	First Deputy Minister, Ministry of Refugees & Accommodation (MRA)
Iulia Kharashvili	Deputy Head, International Relations Department, MRA
Greg Gardner	Regional Refugee Coordinator, U.S. Embassy
Eka Todria	Assistant to the Regional Refugee Coordinator, U.S. Embassy
Greg Booth	Transition Coordinator, USAID/Georgia
Cassandra Welch	Assistance Coordinator, U.S. Embassy
Lela Kerashvili	Program Development Specialist, USAID/Georgia
Jonathan Puddifoot	Mission Director, CARE International in the Caucasus

ANNEX 3: LIST OF COLLECTIVE CENTERS “SPOT CHECKED”

NO	LOCATION
1	Tbilisi, Chavchavadze Avenue N49b
2	Tbilisi, Chavchavadze Avenue N56
3	Tbilisi, Chavchavadze Avenue N80
4	Tbilisi, Nutsubidze Street N56
5	Tbilisi, Nutsubidze Street N77
6	Tbilisi, Ninoshvili Street N57

ANNEX 4: BIBLIOGRAPHY AND REFERENCES

Amnesty International. Georgia/Russia: Civilians in the line of fire: The Georgia-Russia conflict. Amnesty International Report, November 2008.

http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR04/005/2008/en/d9908665-ab55-11dd-a4cd-bfa0fdea9647/eur040052008eng.pdf

Amnesty International. Civilians in the Aftermath of War: The Georgia-Russia Conflict One Year On. Amnesty International Report, 2009. http://www.amnesty.org

Amnesty International. In the Waiting Room: Internally Displaced People in Georgia. Amnesty International Report, 2010. http://www.amnesty.org

Bokuchava, Irakli. The State Strategy for Internally Displaced Persons Persecuted in Georgia and the Action Plan on Implementation of the Strategy. Social Programs Foundation, Tbilisi, Georgia, November 2008. http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/(httpDocuments)/706CF94132DAF029C125754C00552391/$file/Research_on_State_Strategy_for_IDPs_and_its_Action_Plan-final-eng.pdf

CARE. Baseline Survey of the IDP Settlements and their Neighboring Communities in Kvemo Kartli and Shida Kartli for: Stabilization and Integration of IDPs into Mainstream Georgian Society Project (SIIMS). Prepared by GeoWel Research and Caucasus Research Resource Center, Tbilisi, Georgia, December 2009 (conducted 3-15 November 2009).

Gegeshidze, Archil, and Chomakhidze, Ellen. Enhancing Human Security of Internationally Displaced Persons in Georgia (Policy Study). Georgian Foundation for Strategic and International Studies (GFSIS), Tbilisi, Georgia, 2008. http://www.nplg.gov.ge/dlibrary/collect/0001/000317/Gegeshidze.pdf

Government of Georgia. Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation, IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010.

Government of Georgia. Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation, Shelter Strategy for IDPs. September 2008.

Government of Georgia. State Strategy on Occupied Territories: Engagement through Cooperation (date unknown).

Inter Agency Standing Committee. IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons. The Brookings Institution – University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, April 2010.

Kälin. Walter. Mission to Georgia. Report of the Representative of the Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Addendum, October 2008.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/bodies/hrcouncil/docs/10session/A.HRC.10.13.Add.2.pdf

Loughna, Sean, Bregvadze, Tamar and Partskhaladze, Nino. Not Displaced, Out-of-Place: Education of IDP Children in Georgia. Norwegian Refugee Council, March 2010.

ReliefWeb. http://www.reliefweb.int

Transparency International/Georgia. Cottage Settlements for Georgia’s New IDPs: Accountability in Aid and Construction. Open Society Georgian Foundation, Tbilisi, Georgia, April 27, 2010. http://www.transparency.ge

Transparency International/Georgia. Georgian Perspectives on International Aid: Survey Results. TIG, Tbilisi, Georgia, December 11, 2008. http://www.transparency.ge

UNICEF. Child Protection Coping Mechanisms in Rural Shida Kartli before and after August 2008, Education Needs of Conflict-Affected Children in Georgia: Rapid Assessment. UNICEF, IRC, CCHA, Terre des Hommes, Save the Children, Halo Trust, Tbilisi, Georgia, December 2008.

UNICEF. Food Security, Child Nutrition, and Agricultural Livelihoods of Conflict-Affected Persons in Georgia: Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment, February-March 2009.

UNICEF. Protection, Support and Care: Humanitarian assistance for conflict affected children and their families. UNICEF emergency response in Georgia. August-October 2008.

http://www.unicef.org/georgia/NewsletterPSC_ENG.pdf

UNICEF. Assessment of Situation, Needs and Priorities for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Georgia IDP Settlements. Prepared by Action Contre la Faim (ACF) and International Rescue Committee (IRC), June 12, 2009.

World Bank. Georgia: Summary of Joint Needs Assessment Findings (Donor’s Conference, Brussels). World Bank and United Nations, Tbilisi, Georgia, 22 October 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEORGIA/Resources/301645-1224598099977/GEJNA2008.pdf

World Bank. International Donors Pledge – US$4.5 billion (EUR3.4 billion) Joint World Bank-European Commission Press Release. http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/ECAEXT/GEORGIAEXTN/0,,contentMDK:21949507~pagePK:1497618~piPK:217854~theSitePK:301746,00.html

World Bank. Summary of the Main Findings of the Joint Needs Assessment. World Bank and United Nations, October 2008. http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTGEORGIA/Resources/301645-1224598099977/summary.pdf.

World Food Programme. Emergency Food Security Assessment Caucasus Conflict Follow-up: Georgia, March 2010.

Annex A – Action Line 1.1.1: Protection of Housing, Land & Property Rights

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2008 ACTION LINE: 1.1.1
Action Line: PROTECTION OF THE HLP (HOUSING, LAND & PROPERTY) RIGHTS OF IDPS
Activity: Registration of IDP houses, land & property at public registry – receiving & registration of information on IDP property , improvement of the legal framework to ensure IDP’s property rights, & registration
Baseline: IDP housing, land & property (HLP) rights are not respected in Abkhazia & SO; land, housing & property continues to be illegally confiscated, occupied, damaged or destroyed.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): Legal framework is created. During one year of property at least 15,000 IDP families left in conflict regions will be legalized.
Reporting Year or Period: 2008
Reviewer(s): Martina Nicolls
Date Reviewed: 20-22 September 2010
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in the 2010 Action Plan? No
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in a donor report? Yes, 2010 Amnesty International Report and CARE Baseline Survey December 2009 (Kvemo Kartli, Shida Kartli) – land plots
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GMP USE AND REPORTING
MRA information on property rights may be of interest to GMP for the Shida Kartli report & IDP/Humanitarian Assistance report. Georgia Land Market Development II – August 2005 to September 2010 (Economic Growth), USAID nationwide project implemented by the Association for Protection of Landowner’s Rights (APLR) designed to assist the GOG to survey, register and title agricultural land; publish cadastral data online; support implementation of the new pasture land privatization law; and develop policies and regulations that promote secure property rights systems. Support registration of claims by IDPs on properties within the administrative boarders of South Ossetia, as well as assisting with registration of properties that were transferred to IDPs by the GOG after August 2008. (Source: July 2010 USG Master Spreadsheet) [There is also a project called “Identification and Registration of Land Parcels for IDPs” in Shida Kartli documented by MRA as having been conducted from September 2008 to January 2009 – donor unknown, but it could be connected to the USAID project and will be clarified by GMP.] Georgia Land Market Development II project assisted privatization of 203,600 hectares of state-owned agricultural land, including 157,761 of leased land, 39,466 of unused farmland (via auctions) and 6,373 hectares privatized through the 100 New Agricultural Enterprises Program. Land privatization plans were prepared for 506 sakrebulos. GIS verification was conducted for 4,192 land parcels. 21 legislative amendments drafted by the project and aimed improving land privatization and management has been passed by the parliament. 18,200 individuals have received land privatization related consultations through APLR regional offices and hotline. Ministry of Economic Development personnel, NAPR regional offices and relevant municipal officers were trained in land privatization procedures and legislation. Claims for 8,300 property units (residential land parcels with houses and/or agricultural land parcels) were registered by 4,150 IDP families from the disputed territories as a result of the August 2008 conflict. Also 3,168 land parcels (with or without houses) were surveyed and prepared for privatization, and 833 agricultural land parcels were titled to the same number of IDP families. Lost property claims registered for 5,800 property units (residential land parcels with houses and/or agricultural land parcels) left by IDP families on the occupied territories. (Source: July 2010 USG Master Spreadsheet) GMP is not monitoring the legal framework or IDP legalization program (because it is not a USG program). THIS COMPLETED USG project may be out of the GMP scope of work due to timeframe - Governing Justly and Democratically Sector, nationwide program, Assistance to the Reform of Civil Registration and Identity Documentation, USAID, FSA FY06 funds ($1,643,000.00), start date Sep-2005 end date Sep-2007 Implementer: OSCE - The project objective is to continue to Phase I of the Government's Civil registration reform and lay the foundation for the effective functioning of the civil registration system through, inter alia, developing legal framework, raising public awareness and developing adequate IT design for the system. MRA July 2010 data source indicates that: 15,912 (6,105 families) have received IDP status (registration is ongoing). Current assessment of IDP status & registration conducted by Amnesty International (see below). Source: In the waiting room: Internally displaced people in Georgia Index: EUR 56/002/2010 Amnesty International August 2010, pp18-19 4.1. IDP STATUS AND REGISTRATION All Georgian citizens, those displaced as well as the general population, are obliged to register at their place of residence and receive identity (ID) cards. In addition, displaced people undergo an annual registration to obtain an IDP card in order to receive benefits relevant to their status. The registration of IDPs is the responsibility of the Ministry of Refugees and Accommodation (MRA). During their protracted displacement, persons displaced during the 90’s within Georgia have changed their residences frequently making it difficult for the authorities to maintain accurate registration records. Registration inaccuracies negatively affect displaced people in a number of ways. It may compromise their entitlement to benefit from the privatization of their living space, to obtain compensation or alternative housing and to be protected from eviction. Local organizations working with displaced people have highlighted the differences between registry data and the people who actually live in the CCs. While registration inaccuracies can in part be attributed to the failure of the displaced to re-register when they move, during the mass registrations such people were reportedly not adequately informed about changes of registration dates or about registration procedures, nor were they informed about remedies available to them should their application be rejected or if they missed the deadline for registration. Displaced people living in privately owned accommodation faced additional barriers to register as they need permission from the owner of the property in order to notify the authorities of their actual residence. The MRA acknowledges registration inaccuracies, but claims they will be corrected in due course. There were also reported inaccuracies and delays with registration of new IDPs which lead to difficulties for people who had not been registered to access IDP benefits such as assistance and social services and delays in granting of the IDP status. Some displaced people who had lost documents or left them behind had been unable to register by the end of 2009. In order to replace these documents, and subsequently register as an IDP, an application needs to be issued at the civil court but many people lacked funds to cover related expenses. During registration of newly displaced people in 2008, the Civil Registry Agency (CRA) counted up to 2,500 people who lacked identification documents. In addition, those displaced as a result of the August 2008 war also faced problems obtaining their formal IDP status. Granting of IDP status is a prerequisite for entitlement to the IDP allowance and other benefits, as well as being an explicit recognition of the right to return. According to Georgian legislation in cases of mass displacement, all displaced persons should be granted the status of IDP immediately. However the process of granting IDP status for those displaced as a result of the August 2008 war only started in May 2009, nine months after their displacement. Granting the status to newly displaced people has often been criticized as a slow and protracted process, effectively denying them their legally guaranteed rights under the law. Another group currently excluded from IDP status is those whose homes are in areas of Georgia outside of the self-proclaimed territories, but who cannot return to their homes due to security concerns. Initially, granting of IDP status was suspended until the overall situation stabilized, but two years after their displacement the GOG still lacks a clear a policy on how to address this group. These are mostly people from areas adjacent to Tskhinvali/South Ossetia, especially villages close to the administrative boundary line. According to the Council of Europe, about 400 people from villages adjacent to Tskhinvali/South Ossetia cannot go back to their homes due to security concerns, and have not yet been granted IDP status. Without the status, these individuals lack protection afforded to them according to the law and are in a particularly vulnerable situation.
DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS		EVIDENCE
1. Completeness The extent to which data are not missing & are of sufficient breadth & depth		See report above
2. Consistent Representation The extent to which data are presented in the same format		N/A
3. Free-of-Error The extent to which data are correct and reliable		See report above
4. Concise Representation The extent to which data are compactly represented		N/A
5. Ease of Manipulation The extent to which data are easy to manipulate & apply to different tasks		N/A
6. Relevancy The extent to which data are applicable & helpful		Property rights information is relevant to the GMP
7. Believability The extent to which data are regarded as true & credible		N/A
8. Appropriate Amount of Data The extent to which the volume of data are appropriate		N/A
9. Timeliness The extent to which data are sufficiently up-to-date		Delays reported by Amnesty International, see report above
10. Accessibility The extent to which data are available or easily & quickly retrieved		N/A
11. Interpretability The extent to which data are in appropriate language, symbols, & units, & the definitions are clear		N/A
12. Objectivity The extent to which data are unbiased, unprejudiced, & impartial		N/A
13. Reputation The extent to which data are highly regarded in terms of its source or content		The overall legal framework governing the whole process follows provisions of the Administrative Code. This enables a person to file a claim in the MRA or the Government of Georgia, or the MRA and the court.
14. Security The extent to which access to data are restricted appropriately to maintain its security		N/A
15. Understandability The extent to which data are easily comprehended		High
16. Value-Added The extent to which data are beneficial & provides advantages from its use		N/A
FINDINGS
Data Strengths:
Data Vulnerabilities:

Annex B – Action Line 2.1.1: Improvement of Living Conditions in CCs

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2008
ACTION LINE: 2.1.1

Action Line: TO IMPROVE THE LIVING CONDITIONS OF IDPS IN COLLECTIVE CENTERS (CC) & IN PRIVATE SECTOR THROUGH THE PROVISION OF DURABLE TAILOR-MADE HOUSING SOLUTIONS

Baseline: IDPs 45% reside in about 1,600 CC in untenable conditions

Activity 1: Categorization of CCs into 2 parts: (1) CCs under public ownership; and (2) CCs belonging to private owner.

Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): CCs which belong to the public sector are identified, and the management of the CCs are carried out by MRA, & the conditions for gradual closure are prepared

Activity 2: Facilitation of voluntary privatization of CCs which are fit for habitation by IDPs.

Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): The number of CCs is reduced as CCs close and their status is revoked. IDPs pay for utilities & maintenance of CCs.

Activity 3: Identification and repair of abandoned state-owned buildings, creation of acceptable conditions with the aim that IDPs can be housed in these buildings.

Expected Results/Overall Targets: The needs for providing basic living conditions in these buildings are defined & included in next year’s action plan. Homeless IDP families received accommodation to minimal standards.

Activity 4: Emergency rehabilitation of CCs fit for human habitation to ensure they meet minimum living standards.

Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): The living conditions in dilapidated CCs meet minimum standards.

Reporting year: 2008

Reviewer(s): Martina Nicolls

Date Reviewed: 22-30 September 2010

Is the Action Line Activity Reported in the 2010 Action Plan? Yes

Is the Action Line Activity Reported in a donor report? Yes, 2010 Amnesty International Report (pp19-22)

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GMP USE AND REPORTING

Timeline of completion of work is difficult to follow – from baseline (2008) to current – although there is extensive documentation by MRA on CCs – statistics, categorization of ownership, conditions (repair, collapsing closure etc), transfer to IDPs, use for durable housing alternatives, & addresses. Current situation and statistics (2010) are well documented but earlier documentation is inadequately recorded.

As at March 2010 (Source: MRA 2010 Housing Strategy and Working Plan)

Baseline: 1,540 Collective Centers (CC) – figure not validated by GMP (can’t be triangulated against other reports or documents)

498 have been turned into DHS and are no longer regarded as CCs (245 being rehabilitated & 253 are being transferred to IDP ownership without rehabilitation) [253=252 state owned and 1 privately owned] – figures validated by GMP

Remaining: 1,042 CC – GMP can validate 1,030 and notes a variance of 12

Collective Centers

MRA Reported

GMP

Validated

Comment

Collapsing – unlikely to be useable

161

163

Discrepancy between MRA p9, Annex 9 & database

Shida Kartli	5
Kvemo Kartli	6
Tbilisi	51
Samegrelo	101
Total	163

Planned to be returned to original use

266

Private ownership to be returned to owners

403

To be converted into DHS

212

198

Rehab state owned & transfer	72 (USAID)
No rehab state owned & transfer	80
Rehab private & transfer	30 (USAID)
Buy back no rehab & transfer	16
Total	198

Total

1,042

1,030

62 derelict unused buildings already rehabilitated. In addition to CCs to be converted to DHS, there will also be 83 unused existing buildings (not CCs) to be rehabilitated and transferred to IDPs in 2010/2011 (78 state owned and 5 private) – figures validated by GMP

198 CC and 83 unused buildings to be converted to DHS = 281 – figures validated by GMP

USAID are rehabilitating CCs for transfer to IDPs: 72 state owned and 30 private (Source: MRA 2010 Housing Strategy, p12).

Total CC and existing buildings to be rehabilitated by USAID is 102 CC and 83 unused buildings = 185 (Source: MRA 2010 Housing Strategy)

USG information indicates that “USAID will rehabilitate approximately 2,600 apartments (118 buildings) for approximately 10,000 people.” (Source: Email, C Welch, September 29, 2010) – Discrepancy noted by GMP

The following annexes to the 2010 MRA Housing Strategy will be useful (includes addresses and locations, and state of CCs):

Source: MRA 2010 Housing Strategy and Work Plan

Annex 1: Joint Needs Assessment
Annex 2: Key Principles of DHS
Annex 3: Standards for Rehabilitation
Annex 4: Rehabilitation of IDP apartments
Annex 5: Completed or Ongoing Rehabilitation of CCs to DHS
Annex 6: Needs Summary
Annex 7: List of Potential CCs for DHS
Annex 8: Idle Buildings that could be converted to DHS
Annex 9: Collapsing CCs
Annex 10: Principles of Socio-Economic Integration
Annex 11: Construction Works in Poti

Check past, ongoing, planned USG projects (Sources: July 2010 USG Master Spreadsheet & USG Shida Kartli Factsheets)

(* MAY NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST – and needs to be validated with USG staff)

Logistics/Relief Commodities; Shelter and Settlements (CARE)
Funding: $1,015,056.00 (Immediate Post Conflict Assistance)
Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA
Timeline: Fall 2008
Region/City: Shida Kartli and GOG Settlements
USAID provided funding to CARE for logistics/relief commodities and shelter and settlements.

Humanitarian Assistance: Multiple Agencies
Funding: $10,273,085.00
Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA (Immediate Post Conflict Assistance)
Timeline: Fall 2008
Region/City: Shida Kartli/Tbilisi Region
USAID/OFDA Funding provided numerous NGOs with funding to support shelter and settlements, protection, agriculture, and economic assistance. CHF ($3,541,095), SC/US ($1,091,470), FAO ($112,714), IOCC ($200,000), IRD ($2,528,404), PU ($300,000), and WFP ($2,499,402).

Humanitarian Assistance: Shelter and Settlements (IRD) – part of above HA
Funding: $2,528,404.00
Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA
Timeline: Fall/Winter 2008/2009
Region/City: Kvemo Kartli, Imereti and Shida Kartli Regions
During the winter of 2008/2009, the GOG prioritized shelter needs of IDPs unable to return to areas of origin and expected to provide permanent housing to remaining IDPs by the end of March 2009. However, as of April 2009, approximately 8,000 IDPs remained in CCs in Tbilisi and the Shida Kartli region. In the prior year, USAID provided more than $5.1 million to International Relief and Development (IRD) and CHF International for emergency shelter activities in support of the overall GOG IDP settlement plan, including support to host families through home repairs, upgrades, and cash grants for the purchase of shelter materials. This year, USAID provided more than $1 million to CARE and nearly $320,000 to UMCOR for shelter materials needed to renovate kitchen facilities in CCs and improve the ventilation of roofs in GOG settlements.

Shida Kartli new Settlement IDP and Adjacent Area Returnee Support: IRC [Is this part of above?]
1,881,971 GELS. UNHCR December 2008 – January 2010
(Source: MRA list of projects) – not validated

Humanitarian Assistance: Shelter and Settlements (IRD) – THIS MAY BE AN INTERESTING PROGRAM FOR GMP TO FOLLOW UP
Funding: $569,204.00 (State/Eur/Ace)
Lead Agency: State/PRM/ERMA
Timeline:? COMPLETED
Region/City: Imereti Region
Convert a collective center into a model public housing facility.

Humanitarian Assistance: Humanitarian Assistance – ACTS, UMCOR, Hellincare, IRD, Counterpart [??]
Funding: $76,357,583.00 (FSA)
Lead Agency: DOS
Timeline: Jan 1992-ongoing
Region/City: Nationwide
Funding (FY09) for 12 SRPs (small reconstruction projects) in Georgia - 10 have been completed: Dusheti Orphanage; Roof renovation of Dmanisi IDP Center – Center supports 352 IDP families; Renovation of bathrooms, water/electrical system at the Khoni IDP Center – Houses about 1200 people (90% IDPs); Gori Kindergarten #14; Insulation of building and heating system renovation at Gori Children’s Polyclinic, which Supports both local children and IDPs; Koda IDP Center Medical Ambulatory; Roof renovation at Tbilisi Africa District Orphanage “Charity”; Roof repair at Gori Soccer Club where children from Gori &IDP children from Shida Kartli and Tskhinvali study and play; Khidstani, Shidamkarti Village Ambulatory; Reconstruction of kitchen and cafeteria at Kvareli St. Illia Martalli Gymnasium which feeds approx 250 vulnerable children twice a day; Saguramo Boarding School; and Senaki, Samegrelo Boarding School for Disabled Children (not yet completed). So far in FY10 funded 6 SRPs, one has been completed: Kvareli Water System and Wells (completed); Gori, Tkylavi District Ambulatory; Kvareli Water Systems Project; Telavi Boarding School; Rvispiri Village Ambulatory; and Tbilisi Africa District Orphanage “Charity” – Living Quarters.

Humanitarian Assistance: Protection: WASH – IRC
Funding: $882,229
Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA
Timeline: No start/end date given
Region/City: Tbilisi, Shida Kartli Region & GOG Settlements
In late January (2009?) OCHA reported concerns regarding waste collection and management, as well as wastewater drainage in CCs and new settlements. In response to WASH needs, USAID contributed $750,000 to UNICEF to support hygiene promotion activities in CCs housing IDPs. In addition, USAID funded efforts by IRC to improve the health and well-being of conflict-affected populations through the provision of water and sanitation facilities for IDPs in CCs.

Humanitarian Assistance: Logistics/Relief Commodities; Shelter & Settlements - UMCOR
Funding:
Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA
Timeline:
Region/City:
USAID relief commodities and logistics assistance included local transportation and distribution of USG humanitarian assistance, valued at nearly $3.5 million. Between August 13 and September 4, 2008 the USG conducted 59 humanitarian missions, delivering relief commodities from Department of State and Department of Defense warehouses in Germany and USAID stockpiles in Italy. In the prior year, USAID provided more than $5.1 million to IRD and CHF International for emergency shelter activities in support of the overall GOG IDP settlement plan, including support to host families through home repairs, upgrades, and cash grants for the purchase of shelter materials. USAID provided more than $1 million to CARE and nearly $320,000 to UMCOR for shelter materials needed to renovate kitchen facilities in CCs and improve the ventilation of roofs in GOG settlements.

Humanitarian Assistance: Shelter & Settlements - IRD
Funding:
Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA
Timeline:
Region/City: Kvemo Kartli, Imereti, Shida Kartli
During the winter of 2008/2009, the GOG prioritized shelter needs of IDPs unable to return to areas of origin and expected to provide permanent housing to remaining IDPs by the end of March 2009. However, as of April 2009, approximately 8,000 IDPs remained in CCs in Tbilisi and the Shida Kartli region. In the prior year, USAID provided more than $5.1 million to partner NGOs.

Assessment of Living Conditions by Amnesty International, In the waiting room: Internally displaced people in Georgia, 2010

NB: This assessment is of all donors and does not necessarily reflect USG assistance – but interesting to note.

DISPLACED PEOPLE IN COLLECTIVE CENTERS (pp19-22)

Roughly 42 per cent of those displaced during the conflicts in the 90’s live in collective centers - state or privately owned buildings such as hospitals, kindergartens, sanatoria, dormitories and barracks.

Amnesty International representatives visited 16 collective centers [evaluator’s note - Baseline: 1,540 Collective Centers] in the areas of their major concentration such as Tbilisi, Gori, Senaki, Kutaisi and Zugdidi.66 While those designed for short-term occupancy, such as hotels and dormitories, at least have basic washing or shower facilities, others such as schools, hospitals or factories have few or no basic services for hygiene and sanitation. (Report continues to note dilapidated buildings, leaking roofs, unsafe electrical wiring, overcrowding.)

DISPLACED PEOPLE IN PRIVATE HOUSING

Around 58 per cent of the total number of households who are in situations of protracted displacement live in private housing. … While they are often assumed to be better off than those living in collective centers, in fact they are in a vulnerable situation as many of them depend on their host families with no right to their own living space. … Furthermore, displaced people interviewed by Amnesty International stated that they often faced discrimination and other obstacles as prospective tenants, because landlords usually perceived them as impoverished and a risky category of rent payers. Despite the precarious conditions in the collective centers, local and international NGOs on the ground report that an increasing number of displaced people living in the private sector resort to moving to collective centers as they are not able to pay rents.

DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS

EVIDENCE

1. Completeness

The extent to which data are not missing & are of sufficient breadth & depth

An expected result for Activity 3 was “IDPs pay for utilities & maintenance of CCs”. No information or reporting on this result.

2. Consistent Representation

The extent to which data are presented in the same format

Reasonably consistent in one document but not across different documents over different years. Often hard to check and make comparisons of data on CCs identification, repair and emergency rehabilitation information. Not in one document that shows year-by-year progress (and trends).

3. Free-of-Error

The extent to which data are correct and reliable

Minor errors noted

4. Concise Representation

The extent to which data are compactly represented

MRA 2010 Housing Strategy and Work Plan (p 7) reports achievements from September 2008 to April 2010 in terms of aggregated data only – disaggregated data available in data-sets but not reported, and no timeline of clear progress (i.e. table showing progress at 6 months, 12 months, and 18 months for comparison).

5. Ease of Manipulation

The extent to which data are easy to manipulate & apply to different tasks

Reasonably easy to manipulate

6. Relevancy

The extent to which data are applicable & helpful

Useful and applicable, depending upon needs

7. Believability

The extent to which data are regarded as true & credible

Baseline data are available for most categories, but questionable regarding reliability.

8. Appropriate Amount of Data

The extent to which the volume of data is appropriate

Volume of data is appropriate

9. Timeliness

The extent to which data are sufficiently up-to-date

Data sufficiently maintained and up-dated

10. Accessibility

The extent to which data are available or easily & quickly retrieved

Accessibility good

11. Interpretability

The extent to which data are in appropriate language, symbols, & units, & the definitions are clear

Easy to interpret – maintained predominantly in text (rather than coded) which provides ease of reading. Definitions documented.

12. Objectivity

The extent to which data are unbiased, unprejudiced, & impartial

This data are about physical, visible structures and therefore less prone to bias. Standards provided for DHS by MRA.

13. Reputation

The extent to which data are highly regarded in terms of its source or content

Appears to be well regarded by stakeholders

14. Security

The extent to which access to data is restricted appropriately to maintain its security

Not assessable

15. Understandability

The extent to which data are easily comprehended

The data are easily comprehended

16. Value-Added

The extent to which data are beneficial & provides advantages from its use

Advantages include: status, region, address, & some disaggregated data

FINDINGS

Data Strengths:

Data Vulnerabilities:

Annex C – Action Line 2.1.2: Support of Voluntary Privatization of CCs

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2009 ACTION LINE: 2.1.2
Action Line: SUPPORT VOLUNTARY PRIVATIZATION OF CCs BY IDP
Baseline: Not recorded
Activity: In order to meet safety standards of rehabilitation (when needed) the local authorities and MRA with full participation of IDPs will identify objects for temporary accommodation of IDPs while their CCs are under rehabilitation process.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): CCs are vacated for the rehabilitation.
Activity: Energy, water-supply and gas companies will provide respective connections to the infrastructure & individual meters.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): IDPs are provided with energy, water & gas supply
Reporting Year or Period: 2009-2010
Reviewer(s): Martina Nicolls
Date Reviewed: 1-4 October 2010
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in the 2010 Action Plan? Some reporting evident in MRA 2010 Housing Strategy
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in a donor report? Refer to Assessment of Situation, Needs and Priorities for Water, Sanitation and Hygiene in Georgia IDP Settlements prepared by ACF & IRC, June 12, 2009.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GMP USE AND REPORTING
USG PROJECTS (Source: July 2010 USG Master Spreadsheet) (* MAY NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST) Power and Gas Infrastructure Project (PGIP) Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $115,000,000 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: 2010 - 2013 PGI will assist the Government of Georgia (GOG) in undertaking strategic interventions in gas and power infrastructure aimed at enhancing the energy security of the country. It will support the ongoing efforts of Georgia’s power transmission company and Georgia’s gas transit operator to construct and build power and gas transmission infrastructure. Under Stage II of the East-West Gas Pipeline rehabilitation/replacement, 12 km of undersized pipeline sections will be replaced with 700mm diameter pipes, and in addition, up to 40 km of leaking 700 mm pipes will be rehabilitated. These activities will take place on a section of the East-West Gas Pipeline between Saguramo and Khashuri. The main part of the section to be rehabilitated under PGI program is located in the Shida Kartli region. Once rehabilitated, pipeline will ensure reliable and uninterruptable natural gas supply to population of Shida Kartli. Rural Energy Program Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $300,000 Timeline: Dec. 2008 – Mar 2009 Lead Agency: USAID The Rural Energy Program distributed efficient wood stoves to IDP returnee families in villages in Shida Kartli located close to South Ossetia administrative boundary in the winter of 2008-2009. Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Energy Utility Subsidy program Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $1,500,000 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Dec. 2008 – May 2009 After the august 2008 conflict with Russia thousands of families were displaced from the conflict area, many of whom were housed in CCs. In response, the GOG provided new housing to many of these new IDPs, often with power and gas systems new to them. Access to these utilities was and remains a burden to families in these new houses for reasons ranging from new or increased cost of service to lack of functionality. The USAID-funded Internally Displaced Persons (IDP) Energy Utility Subsidy program provided resettlement assistance to the newly-displaced long-term Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) from South Ossetia in new government-constructed households beginning in 2008. To ease the burden of new electricity and gas utility costs that IDPs had to address in their new homes, this activity subsidized IDP winter utility payments from November 2008 until the end of April 2009.
DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS	EVIDENCE
MRA data incomplete and not assessable

Annex D – Action Line 2.1.3: Provision of Durable Housing Solutions

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2009 ACTION LINE: 2.1.3
Action Line: PROVISION OF ALTERNATIVE DURABLE HOUSING SOLUTIONS (DHS) THROUGH THE PROCESS OF CONSTRUCTION OF NEW HOUSES, PURCHASE OF EXISTING HOUSES & APARTMENTS & OFFERING THEM TO IDPs WHO RESIDE IN CCs THAT ARE NOT SUBJECT TO PRIVATIZATION
Baseline: Not recorded
Activity: Identification of beneficiaries for alternative DHS will be done in line with clearly established criteria which, following the adoption by the Steering Committee, will form an integral part of the Action Plan.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): Beneficiary selection criteria are adopted & IDPs informed of them.
Activity: As a form of DHS, State-owned buildings that are presently not CCs will be renovated into apartment blocks & offered as private property to IDPs residing in CCs that will not be subject to transfer of ownership as well as IDPs from private accommodation.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): According to preliminary assessment, accommodate 5,000 IDP families in 100 buildings (state-owned buildings that are renovated into apartment blocks)
Activity: Build 2-5 storey apartment blocks in various cities & urban regions (Gori, Rustavi, Kutaisi, Poti, Batumi).
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): According to the assessment of 27,000 displaced families would be in need of this housing; priority will be given to regions where IDPs live and are integrated; 27,000 IDP families own accommodation space.
Activity: Build individual residential houses for 2,500 families (from CCs and PAs) in western and other regions that will be transferred to private ownership to the IDPs. IDPS will also be provided with agricultural land plots.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric & textual): 2,500 IDP families own accommodation space & land plots for agriculture.
Activity: Those IDP families who can afford to buy living place & need partial financial assistance (approx 13,000 families) can be granted cash assistance (less than 16,000 GEL) as an alternative housing measure.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): 13,000 IDP families provided with financial assistance for purchasing accommodation.
Activity: Families who own living space will be provided with one time cash assistance (less than 10,000 GEL per family) to upgrade their apartment/house or pay bank loans.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): 5,000 IDP families receive one-time cash assistance.
Reporting Year or Period: 2009
Reviewer(s): Martina Nicolls
Date Reviewed: 4-7 October 2010
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in the 2010 Action Plan? Some reporting noted
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in a donor report? IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs April 2010 and Transparency International April 2010 – construction (built by GOG Oct-Dec 2008); number of settlements; cottage settlement quality; construction costs & process; GOG accountability mechanisms
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GMP USE AND REPORTING
Activity to build 2-5-storey apartment blocks – not assessable – conducted with EU funds. Activity to build individual residential houses – not assessable – conducted with Italian Government funds. “USAID: $42 million, of which $26 million is foreseen for rehabilitation of Collective Centers/ other buildings and for improving infrastructure in new settlements.” (Source: MR 2010 Housing Strategy, p15) – This is also documented in this report under Annex B. USAID funding - USAID will provide housing assistance to IDPs under its new ‘IDP Durable Housing’ activity. The $41.6 million dollar activity will rehabilitate approximately 2,600 apartments (118 buildings) for approximately 10,000 people. In addition, it will provide infrastructure upgrading for approximately 4,000 new IDP cottage settlement houses for approximately 12,000 people. PRM funding - PRM contributed $10 million to UNHCR for the protection and integration of IDPs and returned displaced populations in Georgia. UNHCR will use these funds to assist IDPs with housing assistance, income-generation, and community mobilization to facilitate (re)integration into society. (Source: Email USG September 29, 2010) 1. Upgrade Old Caseload Housing (TBD-USAID/PRM/UNHCR) Supp FY09 $36,610,000 + Shelter Solutions for Old Caseload IDPs – CR FY08 $5,000,000 = $41.61 million 2. Upgrade Housing in GOG-Constructed New IDP Settlements (TBD-USAID/PRM/UNHCR) – Supp FY09 $10,000,000 New Buildings to be Constructed (2010-2012) - (Source: 2010 MRA 2010 Housing Strategy) 42 living settlements (32 in Poti and 10 in Tskalthubo) 20 individual houses 138 houses to IDP ownership 94 apartments (in 12 blocks)
DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS	EVIDENCE
1. Completeness The extent to which data are not missing & are of sufficient breadth & depth	No evidence of cash assistance to 13,000 families in MRA data-sets (see Ministry of Finance). Beneficiary selection not assessable – little evidence; documentation exists on selection criteria, but no evidence of effect or impact of this criteria.
2. Consistent Representation The extent to which data are presented in the same format	MRA data not consistent in language, terminology, recording of families and individual IDPs in preliminary (2008) data – the data show improvement up to 2010 (which appears to be in response to donor requests to improve existing data, recording of new data etc). Also the Action Plans have been improved each year by the MRA which also means that their planning processes are improving.
3. Free-of-Error The extent to which data are correct and reliable	Data checked under this Pre-Monitoring Review appear reliable. However, much of the data are planned figures – and activities have yet to be documented and reported against.
4. Concise Representation The extent to which data are compactly represented	Not assessable
5. Ease of Manipulation The extent to which data are easy to manipulate & apply to different tasks	Not assessable
6. Relevancy The extent to which data are applicable & helpful	Relevant for GMP knowledge of USAID planning – may be relevant for GMP monitoring in second year of project
7. Believability The extent to which data are regarded as true & credible	Not assessable
8. Appropriate Amount of Data The extent to which the volume of data is appropriate	Not assessable
9. Timeliness The extent to which data are sufficiently up-to-date	Strategic planning updated regularly (in coordination with donors) and distributed to donors.
10. Accessibility The extent to which data are available or easily & quickly retrieved	Not assessable
11. Interpretability The extent to which data are in appropriate language, symbols, & units, & the definitions are clear	Not assessable
12. Objectivity The extent to which data are unbiased, unprejudiced, & impartial	Appears objective – under scrutiny of donor coordination
13. Reputation The extent to which data are highly regarded in terms of its source or content	Not assessable
14. Security The extent to which access to data is restricted appropriately to maintain its security	Not assessable
15. Understandability The extent to which data are easily comprehended	High understandability
16. Value-Added The extent to which data are beneficial & provides advantages from its use	Not assessable
FINDINGS
Data Strengths:
Data Vulnerabilities:

Annex E – Action Line 2.2.1: Socio-economic Integration of IDPs

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2009 ACTION LINE: 2.2.1
Action Line: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INTEGRATION OF THE IDPs
Baseline: Not recorded
Activity: Refining State social programs when needed in a way that ensures inclusion of most vulnerable IDPs.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): The most vulnerable IDPs are included in the State social assistance programs.
Activity: When needed, schools are supported with provision of school furniture, education materials, laboratories, libraries, computer rooms etc. IDP children are fully mainstreamed into the public education system. IDP children are supported with provision of textbooks and clothes to facilitate their school attendance. IDP youth has access to loans for tertiary education.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): All DP children are enrolled & have safe access to schools in the vicinity of their home. IDP youth has access to loans for tertiary education.
Activity: For IDP families (approx 36,500) who will leave their temporary places of residence & move to other cities or regions – implement self-employment programs (1,500 GEL per family); provide information about job creation schemes, training, micro-credits & grants; re-skilling opportunities for adults are developed in consultation with IDPs; provision of package of support for start-up of small and medium businesses; community support of IDPs to create employment opportunities for themselves; support income generating/livelihood prospects in rural settings and also the provision of agricultural machinery, seeds and fertilizers; irrigation projects for agricultural areas of IDP resettlement.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): IDPs are integrated in the new settlements; IDPs are aware of livelihood opportunities available; re-skilling opportunities are available; IDP community mobilized; IDPs in new settlements provided with agricultural support & know-how on production increase & market placement.
Reporting Year or Period: 2009
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2008 ACTION LINE: 2.2.3
Action Line: PROVISION OF INFORMATION ABOUT JOB CREATION SCHEMES, PROFESSIONAL TRAINING, MICRO-CREDIT & GRANTS TO IDPs
Baseline: IDPs are not entirely integrated into the general social protection system. IDP students & teachers require additional support to ensure they have equal access to education and are integrated in the mainstream of the educational system. Adult IDPs require access to information on employment opportunities and vocational training, as well as income generating opportunities.
Activity: Increasing awareness of IDPs about existing job placement. Programs of vocational training & re-training; increase access to income generation programs & micro-credit.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): IDPs become more self-reliant and regain their dignity.
Reviewer(s): Martina Nicolls
Date Reviewed: October 11-14, 2010
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in the 2010 Action Plan? MRA lists livelihood projects by donors, and guiding principles for livelihood projects
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in a donor report? December Baseline Survey 2009 (Shida Kartli & Kvemo Kartli); Joint UNICEF/FAO/WFP Assessment on Food Security, Child Nutrition, and Agricultural Livelihoods of Conflict-Affected Persons in Georgia: Feb-March 2009.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GMP USE AND REPORTING
USG PROGRAMS/PROJECTS – SOCIAL INTEGRATION (* NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST – and requires validation with USG staff) Rebuilding Lives Project (Biliki) Sector: Investing in People Funding: $5,245,250 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Sept 2004 – Sept 2010 The 6-year Rebuilding Lives Project was closed-out in September 2010. This project improved the well-being of street and vulnerable children by providing services to help prevent children living on the street and through protection of existing street children. Through day centers and mobile outreach services, the project served approximately 3,000 street and other vulnerable children. In response to the August conflict in Georgia and to reduce the negative impact of the war on vulnerable displaced children, the project expanded its activities to three orphanages in Tbilisi and Shida Kartli to prevent new cases of institutionalization and abandonment, and support reunions with families. In Shida Kartli, the local NGO Biliki serves 80 socially vulnerable children every month, including 15 former street children, by providing them basic food, formal and non-formal education, and psychosocial consultations. Children and their parents are involved in a variety of club activities, including a journalism club, debate club, parents club, children’s rights club, and ecology club. Approximately 2000 students and their parents, as well as teachers from all schools in Shida Kartli, were engaged in activities against child violence and abuse. Psycho-Social Rehabilitation of IDPs (Public Affairs – Bonnie Miller; Georgian Organization of Scout Movement; Union Junior Cinema Center “Snow White”; American Friends of Georgia) Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People Funding: $75,000 Timeline: June 2010; July 2010; current Region/City: Gori , v. Tserovani, Sasireti, Metechi Conduct training-of-trainers workshop (June 2010) in psycho-social rehabilitation of IDPs in Gori; two summer camps (six-days each) for youth through the scout movement (60 youth in each camp - 30 IDP and 30 non-IDP); implementation in Tserovani, Sasireti, and Metechi of art therapy activities including drawing classes and movie/cartoon screenings for IDP kids at the settlements; and provision of psycho-social rehabilitation for IDP children and adults through art experience and vocational education. Democracy Commission Small Grants (Public Affairs Section) – a range of small grants, some of which are designed to assist in the social integration of IDPs (Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People) USG PROGRAMS/PROJECTS – SOCIO-ECONOMIC INTEGRATION (* NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST – and requires validation with USG staff) Agriculture and Food Security (CNFA) Sector: Investing in People Funding: $2,899,999.00 (Immediate Post Conflict Assistance) Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA Timeline: Fall 2008 Region/City: Shida Kartli Agriculture constitutes the basis of the economy of the conflict-affected Shida Kartli region. The loss of 2008 harvest income significantly impacted livelihoods in affected areas. In October 2008, CNFA estimated that the conflict resulted in approximately 13,600 cattle deaths, valued at $10.4 million, and destroyed 158,500 metric tons (MT) of crops, valued at $80 million and representing 64% of the expected 2008 harvest in Gori, Kareli, and Kaspi districts. During the 2008/2009 winter, villagers in affected areas reported agricultural livelihoods opportunities as the primary humanitarian need, according to the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA). In addition, the CoE reported in May 2009 that landowners in certain affected areas remain unable to cultivate fields due to the continued presence of landmines and unexploded ordnance. USAID provided $2.9 million to CNFA to provide farmers with seeds and farming machinery, as well as assistance with the plowing, cultivation, and planting of the winter wheat throughout the Shida Kartli region. For several months following the conflict, IDPs in CCs, villages and other settlements remained largely dependent on food assistance. In April 2009, the joint U.N. assessment recommended the continued provision of food assistance to ensure food security until the harvest, which FAO expected to begin in June or July 2009. The assessment also found that basic food rations and livelihoods interventions in resettlement areas and CCs had mitigated potential increases in malnutrition and contributed to food security. The GOG allocated land plots to reintegrated IDPs to helped reduce food insecurity, although the quality and size of plots vary significantly. Economy and Market Systems; Logistics and Relief (Mercy Corps) Sector: Investing in People Funding: $1,144,330.00 (Immediate Post Conflict Assistance) Lead Agency: USAID/OFDA Timeline: Fall 2008 Region/City: Shida Kartli USAID /OFDA provided Mercy Corps with funding to provide support to IDP communities in the Shida Kartli Region. PL 480 Food Aid Monetization (Ag) Sector: Investing in People Funding: $3,154,881.95 Lead Agency: USDA Timeline: June 2006 – September 2010 Region/City: Shida Kartli/ Samtskhe-Javakheti Improve Market Accessibility for Raw Milk Producer Farmers in Akhaltsikhe and Adigeni Districts; Yield Increase of Oyster Mushroom (Pleurotus Ostreatus) and Introduction of a New Variety – Shiitake (Lentinus Edodes) on Georgian Market; Arrange a small manufacture unit for wax sheet production in the village Avlevi, Shida Kartli; Arrange Dairy Processing/Packaging Units in the Villages Tambovda (Chashka) and Baraleti in Samtskhe-Javakheti; Arrange Modern Nursery in Kaspi; Support Small Agribusinesses through the Provision of Micro-credit Loans for Agriculture-related Activities; Arrange Intensive Fruit Orchards in Shida Kartli Region; Improvement of Soil Management & Plant Protection in Shida Kartli and Samtskhe-Javakheti Regions. Georgia Agriculture Risk Reduction Program (GARRP) Phase 1 and 2 Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $16,578,163 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Oct. 2008 – April 2009, Phase 2, Oct 2008 – Dec 2009 Region/City: Shida Kartli Rebuild livelihoods by reestablishing agricultural production and maintaining household livestock in the Shida Kartli region; provide seed and plowing services for 20,000 hectares of land (improved seed varieties to increase yields); direct assistance to 16,000 households; generation of an estimated $28 million in harvest revenue; livestock vaccination. GARRP Phase II will expand the OFDA-funded Phase I winter crop initiative in Shida Kartli region, to the villages inside Russian-controlled "buffer-zone" bordering South Ossetia, as well as to conflict-affected villages in Kaspi district. Emergency Supply of Animal Feed Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $5,500,000.00 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Dec. 2008 – Jan. 2010 Region/City: Shida Kartli The activity supports provision of approximately 4,200 metric tons of fodder to approximately 16,000 households in 112 villages affected by the conflict with Russia (buffer zone). Funding will be sufficient to provide 250kg of fodder to every household within this area that had at least one head of livestock. In addition, an anti-patristic supplement will be provided for approximately 40,000 head of livestock to ensure the health of the area's entire remaining herd. This activity is being coordinated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Shida-Kartli Governor's office, and Sakrebulo Gamgebelies. Fodder distribution will commence about end January 2009. Georgia Nation-wide Employment and Infrastructure Initiative (GEII) Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $16,449,780.00 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Jan. 2009-Ongoing Region/City: Shida Kartli This program is designed to promote the improvement of economic livelihood in local communities through community investment projects, rural business development, and public-private partnerships. It supports income and employment generating initiatives that improve rural economic infrastructure; deliver market information, provide training and technical assistance; facilitate business linkages and development; and assist in designing community economic development strategies. Under the School Rehabilitation Project 16 deteriorated public schools, located in the former conflict zones of Gori and Kareli districts of the Shida Kartli region are being rehabilitated. Georgia Vocational Education Project Sector: Economic Growth/Investing in People Funding: $5,500,000.00 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: May 2008-July 2011 The 3-year Georgia Vocational Education Project started in May 2008. The program is focused on improving vocational education and training in construction and tourism, by building direct partnerships between vocational schools and employers to help ensure the country’s ability to meet workforce needs. It provides short-term, intensive training to Georgian workers to fill job opportunities created by post-conflict reconstruction projects as well as secondary support industries through rapid, intensive courses that directly meet the needs of employers. Currently, the program provides 2 to 4-month trainings in construction and tourism in the Vocational Education Centers (VEC) in Tbilisi, Khidistavi, Kutaisi, and Kobuleti. Khidistavi is located in the Shida Kartli region. Sustainable Integration of the IDPS into the Value Creation Chains of the New Settlement Areas Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $500,000.00 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Sept 2009 – Nov 2012 Region/City: Shida Kartli The project aims to support IDP's social and economic integration on the new place of residence, ensure their inclusion into local and regional value creation chains, tight links and relations with new partners. Women's Economic Independence in the Post-Conflict Zone and Remote Regions of Georgia Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $500,000.00 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: Sep. 2009 – Nov 2012 Region/City: Shida Kartli WFG will support the women from the region of Shida Kartli to empower and provide them with the necessary knowledge and skills, to forge their economic independence by starting micro businesses. Agricultural Development Activity – ADA (MCG) Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $1,948,357.00 Lead Agency: MCC Timeline: June 2006 – Nov 2010 Region/City: Shida Kartli There are 35 projects in Shida Kartli and 2 Machinery Rings Initiatives, which have created 397 jobs and benefited 15,000 people. Small and Medium Enterprise Support Project Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $9,307,745 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: 2008 - 2009 The SME Support Program awarded a grant of $201,000 to Gori State University to introduce a three-year higher professional education program in business administration, construction management, hotel/restaurant management, and agricultural management. The main objective of this program was to assist students in building careers in their home regions, strengthen SME development, and contribute to civil engagement. As a result, 24 new courses were developed along with the accompanying textbook material; 20 high school directors and 15 teachers from the Gori region were trained to provide guidance to high school students that were getting ready to transition into college courses; 34 teachers were trained in new teaching and learning methodologies; 4 advisory committees were formed and trained to develop course material for the new programs; and a student career center was established to link career services to internships, jobs, and workforce development. USAID’s Health and Social Development initiatives continue to support internship opportunities for this program. Skills for Life – Democracy Commission Small Grant (American Friends of Georgia/Georgian Office) Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People Funding: Democracy Commission Small Grant, Grant Amount: $24,000.00 Timeline: 2009-10 Region/City: Gori, v. Khurvaleti Vocational training of up to 100 IDP adult and youth living in v. Khurvaleti. Democracy Commission Small Grant (Rural Development Institute 'Botsveri') Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People Funding: Democracy Commission Small Grant, Grant Amount: $23,000 Timeline: 2009-10 Region/City: v. Tserovani Provide income-generating means to IDPs by training them in rabbit breeding, further marketing and establishing community association. Democracy Commission Small Grant (Shalom Club) Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People Funding: Democracy Commission Small Grant, Grant Amount: $20,745.00 Timeline: 2009-10 Region/City: v. Karaleti Train 480 families in Karaleti IDP settlement in new agricultural methods and technologies. Democracy Commission Small Grants (Public Affairs Section) – a range of small grants, some of which are designed to assist in economic integration of IDPs (Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People) Non-USG PROJECTS Not assessable NGO called People in Need conducting the Support to Social-Economic Integration of Internally Displaced Population project (EUR500,000 by the EU Delegation in Georgia) in partnership with the Georgian Association o f Social Workers and Association of Disabled Women (DEA) from August, 1, 2009 to January 31, 2011, in Samegrelo. CONTINUING PROJECT
DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS	EVIDENCE
No MRA data related to psycho-social programs or aid to IDPs; no MRA socio-economic data except lists of livelihoods projects (and these need to be checked against the USG Master Spreadsheet and other USG documents and personnel).

Annex F – Action Line 2.3.1: Increased Awareness & Provision of Legal Counseling

ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2009 ACTION LINE: 2.1.1
Action Line: GENERAL PREPARATORY MEASURES
Baseline: Not recorded
Activity: In order to ensure transparency with IDPs & increase their awareness on DHS and future CCs they live in, the MRA commits to prepare an overview of all CCs with categorization of those that will be transferred into ownership of the IDPs, privatized by investors, benefit of rehabilitation & those that will not be considered as DHS due to its dilapidated condition.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): The IDPs are informed regarding the future of the CCs they live in and are taking an active part in identification of DHS that meets their needs.
ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET: ACTION PLAN 2009 ACTION LINE: 2.3.1
Action Line: INCREASE IDP AWARENESS AND ENSURE INFORMATION AS WELL AS LEGAL COUNSELING IS AVAILABLE TO THEM
Baseline: Not recorded
Activity: Inform population on the implementation of the State Strategy and AP including the progress on implementation & raise awareness on reforms (e.g. transition from IDP allowance to Social Targeted Assistance) & increase level of information on job opportunities available to IDPs.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): IDPs are aware of the processes and in position to make an informed decision.
Activity: Through partnership with credible national & international NGOs build the capacity of the latter to provide information & legal counseling to IDPs & to assist & guide them through community mobilization activities that would facilitate IDP participation in all activities of the AP.
Expected Results/Overall Targets (numeric and textual): IDPs enjoy access to free legal advice.
Reporting Year or Period: 2009-2012
Reviewer(s): Martina Nicolls
Date Reviewed: October 12, 2010
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in the 2010 Action Plan? No – alluded to but not reported
Is the Action Line Activity Reported in a donor report? No
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GMP USE AND REPORTING
USG PROGRAMS/PROJECTS (* NOT A DEFINITIVE LIST – and requires validation with USG staff) IDP Livelihood Activities, Human Rights Protection and Monitoring Sector: Economic Growth Funding: $10,000,000.00 ($5 million Western Georgia/Shida Kartli and $5 million Abkhazia) Lead Agency: PRM/UNHCR Timeline: 2010/2011 Region/City: Western Georgia/Shida Kartli/Abkhazia UNHCR supported programs focused on shelter, NGO capacity building, economic growth programs, and human rights protection and monitoring. Democracy Commission Small Grant (Human Rights Priority) Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically/Investing in People Funding: Democracy Commission Small Grant, Grant Amount: $23,990.00 Timeline: 2009-10 Region/City: ‘buffer zone’ villages of Shida Kartli: Gugutiantkari, Koshka, Ergneti, Mereti, Qsuisi, Karbi Monitor living conditions of the 'returned IDPs' in the ‘buffer zone’ villages, provide information on aid programs and legal assistance. Informing People of Gori and Kaspi Municipalities about Election Procedures Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically Funding: $24,905 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: April 2010 – June 2010 The USAID funded project partnered with the Democracy Development Institute of Shida Kartli and the Gori Information Center to conduct a voter education project in Shida Kartli for the 2010 municipal elections. It promoted democratic conduct of local government elections by increasing public awareness and improving voter education through conducting trainings, and establishing training and mobile groups in Gori and Kaspi municipality regions. Pre-Election Television Debates in the Regions of Georgia Sector: Governing Justly & Democratically Funding: $29,890 Lead Agency: USAID Timeline: April 2010 – June 2010 USAID also provided a grant to Internews for organizing a series of television debates among candidates in regions of Georgia. One debate was organized to Trialeti, a local Gori television station. Trialeti provided a studio for TV debates, as well as some equipment, a phone line for direct calls, live broadcasting, television ads prior to the event, and other technical support. NON-USG PROJECT – NOT ASSESSABLE Not relevant in terms of USG monitoring Information, Counselling and Legal Aid (ICLA) Project conducted by Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC). Funded by Norwegian MFA, UNHCR (USD$500,000) in partnership with SPF, FPH, & Legal Protection Institute, January 2009 ongoing. Regions Imereti, Samegrelo, Ajara, Shida Kartli, & Kakheti (Source: MRA List of Projects, July 2010)
DATA QUALITY DIMENSIONS	EVIDENCE
No MRA data available on legal counseling and increased awareness

[1] Government of Georgia gives the 2008 population as 4,630,841 including Abkhazia & Tskhinvali/South Ossetia, and UNHCR estimates of new and old caseloads of IDPs were as high as 460,000 (May 2009, UNHCR)

[2] Due to the timelines of the Pre-Monitoring Review, a limited number of donor reports were reviewed

[3] Donors and Implementing Partners may have collected, or be in the process of collecting, program results

[4] Government of Georgia gives the 2008 population as 4,630,841 including Abkhazia & Tskhinvali/South Ossetia, and UNHCR estimates of new and old caseloads of IDPs were as high as 460,000 (May 2009, UNHCR)

[5] Due to the timeline of this Pre-Monitoring Review, the number of donor reports reviewed was limited

[6] State Strategy on Occupied Territories: Engagement through Cooperation, Government of Georgia (date unknown)

[7] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, p5

[8] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, p7

[9] Already estimated to be close to 19,000 in early October, 2010

[10] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, Annex 7, 8, and 9 respectively

[11] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, p28

[12] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, p6

[13] Transparency International, Cottage Settlements for Georgia’s New IDPs: Accountability in Aid and Construction, April 27, 2010, p5

[14] Amnesty International, Georgia/Russia: Civilians in the line of fire: The Georgia-Russia conflict, November 2008.

17 Transparency International, Cottage Settlements for Georgia’s New IDPs: Accountability in Aid and Construction, April 27, 2010, p5

[16] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, p8

[17] Information provided by USG by email on November 9, 2010

[18] These programs may be targeted for IDPs, implemented in regions with high IDP populations, for the integration of IDPs, or aimed at sustainable economic growth to improve the living conditions of the wider population of Georgia

[19] Adapted from Information Quality Benchmarks, p188

[20] 2008 MRA IDP Action Plan Introduction, March 24, 2008, p1

[21] MRA IDP Housing Strategy and Working Plan, 2010, Annex 3

[22] Information Quality Benchmarks: Product and Service Performance, by B. Kahn, D. Strong, and R. Wang, Communications of the ACM, April 2002, Vol45, No4ve, p187. The conventional view of IQ is product-oriented, but the process of converting data to information has the typical characteristics of a service.

[23] Adapted from Information Quality Benchmarks, p188

[This is a mobile copy of Pre-Monitoring Review of IDP Data & Information]

« Home | Back to Top | Previous page

Page 1 of 1