Afghan Civilian Assistance Program II End-Line Report: Examining ACAP II’s PMP Indicators

The program was implemented in 16 provinces and involved 3,045 respondents in a custom survey conducted in 2013. The survey was administered by D3 Systems and ACSOR on behalf of the implementing partner IRD. The survey results showed that Tailored Assistance (TA) was strongly supported by recipients, with 60% agreeing that it had allowed them to rebuild their lives after the violent incident. Additionally, 74% of respondents believed that TA had "greatly" or "somewhat" improved their post-incident lives. The results also indicated that several provinces, including Helmand, Logar, Laghman, and Wardak, remained the most difficult environments for ACAP II assistance, with lower-than-average scores on ACAP II performance indicators. Beneficiary answers were strongly affected by the nature of the violent incident experienced. Satisfaction with ACAP II performance consistently ranked higher after some types of events, such as airstrikes, than for others, such as roadside IEDs. ACAP II assistance scored lowest when judged using the respondents' perception of fairness of aid delivery, with only 41% of respondents reporting that they believed they received similar levels of assistance as their neighbors. Regional differences were also observed, with 79% of recipients in Kabul believing that they received similar assistance to other families, while only 21% in Farah held the same belief. TA was associated with higher beneficiary satisfaction across all indicators, provinces, and types of violent incidents compared with Immediate Assistance (IA) recipients. The net difference in responses ranged as high as a 29% increase in satisfaction when compared with responses from IA beneficiaries. The sample included 1,314 respondents who received ACAP II Immediate Assistance (IA), 724 respondents who received ACAP II Tailored Assistance (TA), and 1,007 interviews with randomly selected individuals who were present in the village when the violent incident that precipitated ACAP II assistance occurred but who were not harmed by this action. These individuals acted as a baseline from which comparison could be made to TA and IA recipients in the absence of pre-event baseline data. The survey was conducted in March, June, September, and November/December 2013, and respondents were overwhelmingly male (99%), Pashtun (82%), and relatively young (37 years on average). About 70% reported holding full-time employment, and respondents on average possessed six years of schooling. The majority (69%) of interviews were conducted in areas with strong or moderate ISAF presence, while 26% were conducted in areas with strong or moderate Taliban presence. IRD established two sets of performance indicators for ACAP II. The first indicator focused on two questions: (1) the percentage of TA recipients who agreed that TA had helped them rebuild their lives after the violent incident and (2) the degree of improvement in the life of the family after receipt of ACAP II tailored assistance. These indicators corresponded to Question 30 and 31 on the ACAP II Evaluation Survey, respectively. The second set of performance indicators centered around whether the ACAP II assistance was delivered in a transparent and fair manner to beneficiary families. Two questions (Q-32 and Q-35, respectively) comprised this performance metric and were reprinted below. Q-32 asked respondents to describe their situation regarding the transparency of ACAP II assistance, while Q-35 asked respondents whether ACAP II provided their family with a level of assistance that was similar to other families that experienced the same level of harm. The results of the survey showed that TA was associated with higher beneficiary satisfaction across all indicators, provinces, and types of violent incidents compared with IA recipients. The net difference in responses ranged as high as a 29% increase in satisfaction when compared with responses from IA beneficiaries.