CONTACT: MECO @DRC-SSUDAN.ORG MABAN SASA!

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT

(APRIL 2019)

SOUTH SUDAN // MABAN SASA!

BASELINE SURVEY REPORT
DRC-DDG IROEGBU PROMISE
Hai supiria, Juba MEAL COORDINATOR
SOUTH SUDAN meco@drc-ssudan.org
WWW.DRC.NGO +211 (0) 922499355

Page 1 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

EXCUTIVE SUMMARY
The Danish Refugee Council (DRC) is implementing a UNHCR funded project entitled “Multi-sectoral
assistance to Sudanese refugees in Upper Nile “in Maban. One of the project’s pillars is the Sexual Gender
Based Violence (SGBV) prevention and response intervention, including a concept called SASA! - Start,
Awareness, Support Action approach that is envisioned to create positive, supportive, and sustained changes
in community knowledge, attitudes, skills, and behaviours related to gender-based violence and power. As a
way to fully understand the situation on the ground before implementation of the SASA! Approach, DRC
conducted a baseline survey for the SASA! Approach in April 2019. The main objective of the survey was to
set the benchmarks of the project before SASA! activities were rolled out to the targeted communities.
Qualitative and quantitative data collection approaches were used; with quantitative data being collected
using a structured questionnaire adopted from the SASA! toolkit and qualitative data being collected using a
Focus Group Discussion guide (FGD) that was also adopted from the SASA! toolkit. Quantitative data was
collected by 6 trained enumerators (3 males and 3 females) who were selected from the host community in
Maban whilst FGD data was collected by DRC male and female staff members working in Maban. A total of
200 refugees (100 males and 100 females) provided quantitative data for the survey whilst 96 refugees
participated in the 8 FGDs that were conducted in the 4 camps in Maban. Quantitative data was collected
using tablets that had KoBoCollect, a mobile data collection software installed in them. Data cleaning and
analysis were conducted using Statistical Product and Service Solutions (SPSS) software and graphs were
generated using MS Office 2016.
The following were the key findings from the survey:
 In terms of SGBV knowledge, respondents seem to be knowledgeable about SGBV issues.
Respondents showed some understanding on the likely causes of domestic violence, e.g. knowing
that domestic violence also affects children staying home.
 Regarding SGBV attitudes, 46% of the respondents highlighted that it didn’t matter for a woman to
refuse having sex with her husband whilst 55% of the respondents mentioned that it did matter
 54% (51% males and 57% females) of the respondents mentioned that it was better to tolerate or
accept violence as a way of keeping the family unified.
 86% of the respondents didn’t believe that women should share information that they have been
beaten by their partners.
 60% of the respondents did not see any problem with man being regularly seen washing dishes at
home by their friends whilst 40% of the respondents mentioned that it did matter to them to see
married men being regularly seen by his friends washing dishes at home.
 68% of the respondents mentioned that people should intervene when the husband is beating his
wife whilst 32% mentioned that no one should intervene in such a case. More male respondents saw
it fit to intervene than females.
 Regarding SGBV skills and behaviour, 51% of the respondents did not provide assistance when
they saw women experiencing violence in their homes
 31% of the respondents reported the violence cases that they witnessed in nearby homes whilst 57%
did not report any of those cases.
 Only 32% of the respondents had spoken against violence against women in their communities in
the last 12 months. religion influenced significantly (χ2 = 6.555, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) on speaking
against violence against women meaning more Christians (54%) than Muslims (28%) spoke against
violence against women.
 35% of the women did things that were typically thought to be men’s roles whilst on the other hand,
47% of the men mentioned that they did things that were typically thought to be women’s roles.
 67% (74% males & 59% females) mentioned that they had a greater say (more influence/power in
making decisions) than their partners in important decisions matters that affect them or their family.
 In terms of the resolving a disagreement between the male and female partners, 67% (67% males
and 67% females) mentioned that they did not win or have the thing happen the way they wanted
most of the time in the last 12 months meaning both parties equally gave in to the decisions of their
partners.
 72% of the respondents mentioned that they felt respected by their partners for the past 12 months
whilst 26% mentioned that they felt they were not respected by their partners. The results were

Page 2 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 statistically significant (χ2 = 33.951, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) meaning more males felt respected by
their partners than females.
 In terms of SASA! awareness, 24% of the respondents had seen some SASA! material before and
only 23% of the respondents had seen someone in their community talking about SASA!
 51% (61% males and 41% females) had participated in activities related to safe and healthy
relationships.
 One key lesson learned from the survey was that in most cases where action against violence/GBV
was required, men appeared to be the ones trying to prevent violence against women whilst women
themselves tended to distance themselves from such acts.
 In terms of recommendations, it is recommended some SASA! related indicators be developed by
both the SGBV team and MEAL team. This will enable DRC to quantitatively measure how the SASA!
intervention managed to impact the targeted communities.
 Looking at the low literacy levels of the respondents, it is recommended that DRC simplifies its SASA!
literature so that those struggling to read can understand the literature. Another way would be to
device other approaches to reach to people e.g. awareness campaigns do not require reading but
instead listening thus accommodating the less educated.

In conclusion, the survey was a success in that it managed to address most of the issues under investigation.
A detailed analysis on the survey findings can be found in the following sections of the report.

Page 3 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXCUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................................................... 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................. 4
LIST OF FIGURES .......................................................................................................................................... 5
LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................................................... 6
LIST OF ACRONYMS ..................................................................................................................................... 7
01. INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................................. 8
01.1 Project overview .............................................................................................................................. 8
01.2 Objectives of the survey .................................................................................................................. 8
02. METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................................ 8
02.1 Data collection tools development .................................................................................................. 8
02.2 Identification of enumerators and enumerators training .................................................................. 8
02.3 Data collection process ................................................................................................................... 9
02.4 Sampling ......................................................................................................................................... 9
02.5 Data cleaning, analysis and report writing ...................................................................................... 9
03. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS .............................................................................................. 10
03.1 General profile of the participants ................................................................................................. 10
03.1.1 Sex and age of the respondent ............................................................................................ 10
03.1.2 Respondents’ literacy levels ................................................................................................. 11
03.1.3 Respondent marital status and religious affiliation ............................................................... 11
03.1.4 Participation in Income Generation Activities (IGAs) ............................................................ 13
03.2 SGBV Knowledge ......................................................................................................................... 13
03.3 SGBV Attitudes ............................................................................................................................. 16
03.4 Gender Skills and Behaviour ........................................................................................................ 19
03.4.1 Household decision making .................................................................................................. 22
03.4.2 Partners’ respect perception ................................................................................................. 22
03.5 SASA! awareness ......................................................................................................................... 22
04. LESSONS LEARNED, CHALLENGES FACED, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSION ..... 25
04.1 Lessons learned............................................................................................................................ 25
04.2 Challenges faced .......................................................................................................................... 25
04.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................ 25
04.4 Conclusion .................................................................................................................................... 26

Page 4 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Sex of the respondent .................................................................................................................... 10
Figure 2: Respondent literacy level ............................................................................................................... 11
Figure 3: Respondent marital status .............................................................................................................. 12
Figure 4: Respondent religious affiliation ...................................................................................................... 12
Figure 5: Respondent participation in IGAs ................................................................................................... 13
Figure 6: Financial control ............................................................................................................................. 14
Figure 7: Violence effect on children ............................................................................................................. 14
Figure 8: Violence and HIV infection ............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 9: Violence after HIV status disclosure ............................................................................................... 15
Figure 10: Alcohol consumption and violence against women ...................................................................... 16
Figure 11: Women denying sex ..................................................................................................................... 16
Figure 12: Women violence tolerance from their partners. ............................................................................ 17
Figure 13: Women disclosing about being beaten by their spouses. ............................................................ 17
Figure 14: Men doing household chores ....................................................................................................... 18
Figure 15: Women to blame on HIV spread .................................................................................................. 18
Figure 16: Intervention in SGBV issues. ........................................................................................................ 19
Figure 17: Assistance to women experiencing violence home. ..................................................................... 19
Figure 18; Reporting SGBV cases to local leadership .................................................................................. 20
Figure 19: Speaking against violence in the community ............................................................................... 20
Figure 20: Women regularly doing men’s roles ............................................................................................. 21
Figure 21: Partners’ respective perception .................................................................................................... 22
Figure 22: Interaction with people preventing women violence ..................................................................... 23
Figure 23: Awareness of SASA! materials .................................................................................................... 23
Figure 24: Awareness of SASA! facilitators ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 25: Participation in safe and healthy relationships activities. ............................................................. 24

Page 5 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Age data bar table ........................................................................................................................... 11
Table 2: Dish washing practices .................................................................................................................... 21

Page 6 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

LIST OF ACRONYMS
DF : Degrees of freedom
DRC : Danish Refugee Council
FGD : Focus Group Discussion
HIV : Human Immunodeficiency Virus
MEAL : Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning
RCT : Randomized Control Trial
SASA! : Start Awareness, Support Action
SGBV : Sexual Gender Based Violence
UNHCR : United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Page 7 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 01. INTRODUCTION
01.1 Project overview
Danish Refugee Council is implementing a project entitled “Multi-sectoral assistance to Sudanese refugees
in Upper Nile “in Maban, Upper Nile State of South Sudan, funded by the United Nations High Commissioner
for Refugees (UHNCR) Protection. The project seeks to improve the living conditions for 168,056 refugees in
Maban and for Persons with Specific Needs (PSN) in the host community through provision of basic services,
improved mechanisms for access to justice and protection from violence and exploitation with a dedicated
focus on the most vulnerable. One of the key pillars of the project is a SGBV concept called SASA! approach.
SASA! is a community-based intervention program designed by a Uganda-based NGO called Raising Voices
to address the core drivers of violence against women and the power imbalance between men and women.
Through SASA! DRC intends to address power imbalance between men and women, which is one of the root
causes of SGBV in Maban. This will be done through identification and training of male and female community
activists in the targeted areas. These activists will work closely with DRC’s SGBV team and will engage the
community to increase the community’s awareness on gender power imbalances, shared power and non-
violence.

01.2 Objectives of the survey

In line with the SASA! Approach, DRC conducted a baseline survey in Maban refugee camps (Batil, Doro,
Kaya and Gendrassa) with the key objectives of setting the benchmark of the project before SASA! Activities
are rolled out to the targeted communities and understand the community’s perceptions and knowledge of
SGBV and the social norms and cultural aspects related to gender and power
The survey also intended to address the following:
 Identify gaps that can be addressed by the SASA! Approach,
 Assess if the project is still relevant to the needs of the community,
 Draw lessons learned that can help inform implementation of the project and,
 Make appropriate recommendations for the project implementation and for the design of the endline
survey.

02. METHODOLOGY
This section will give a thorough description on the SASA! Baseline survey methodology. It will delve into the
survey design, the data collection tools, sampling and limitations of the assessment.

02.1 Data collection tools development

DRC adopted the SASA! Evaluation toolkit that was developed by Raising Voices in Uganda but modified
the tool to fit the Maban context. There were 2 sets of data collection tools used, namely:
i. Structured questionnaire: This tool was used to capture quantitative data from the targeted
community and it was used as the primary data collection tool.
ii. Focus Group Discussion (FGD) Guide: The FGD guide was used to capture qualitative data that
was collected in the 4 camps, with each camp having one FGD for males and one FGD for females.

02.2 Identification of enumerators and enumerators training

A total of 6 enumerators (6 for data collection and 2 on stand-by) participated in the data collection exercise
and they were identified from the host community in Maban. Because of the nature of the survey that required
males to interview male survey participants and females to interview female survey participants, 3 male and
3 female data collectors directly interviewed the community members in the 4 camps in Maban. One of the
key selection criteria used in selecting the enumerators was their ability to understand English and translate
it into Arabic and their ability of to use android tablets. A total of 8 enumerators participated in the training of
enumerators that lasted for 1 ½ days in Maban. Enumerators were trained on the following topics:
 SASA! Concept overview

Page 8 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

  Objectives if the survey
 Ethics in data collection
 Code of conduct during data collection
 Administering the questionnaire
 Sampling participants.

02.3 Data collection process

SASA! quantitative data collection process lasted for 3 days (14 to 16 March 2019) and a total of 6
enumerators participated in the data collection exercise. In order to enhance the quality of data collected, the
enumerators were under the supervision of a survey supervisor who was selected from DRC SGBV team
based in Maban and the MEAL Officer responsible for surveys and assessments, based in Juba.
Quantitative data was collected using tablets that had KoBoCollect application (a free online mobile data
collection software) installed in them. The mobile data collection system was preferred over the paper based
system because:
i. It is user friendly since the interface is very easy to understand and easy to manoeuvre,
ii. It has special logical functions and data validation rules that enhance the quality of data collected,
and
iii. It is easier to carry one tablet than carrying printed questionnaires on a clip board.

A total of 4 camps in Maban (Doro, Kaya, Gendrassa and Batil) were sampled and in each camp, the plan
was to sample respondents from the market places. However, this did not happen as planned since males
were more dominant at the market places and were not willing to be interviewed in such congested places.
The survey team later resolved to conducting random door to door visits in search of the people who were
willing to participate in the survey. For women, the easy starting points were the community water points since
more women would come there to draw water during the day, but however some of them didn’t have time to
spare since they were in a hurry but instead were willing to be interviewed from their homesteads. Each
enumerator interviewed an average of 11 people per day during the surveying period. During the data
collection process, male enumerators ONLY interviewed male respondents whilst female enumerators ONLY
interviewed female respondents only. The objective of this approach was to ensure that respondents feel
comfortable to express their views to enumerators of the same sex since some of the questions were very
sensitive to be asked by an enumerator of the opposite sex.
Qualitative data was collected through FGDs with community members and a total of 8 FGDs were conducted
in the 4 camps, each camp having 2 FGDs conducted (1 for male participants only and 1 for female
participants only). Each FGD was composed of 12 people and facilitated by 2 DRC staff members based in
Maban. FGDs for female community members were interviewed by DRC female staff members and FGDs for
male community members were interviewed by DRC male staff members only.

02.4 Sampling
In determining the appropriate sample size, 2 criteria were specified as follows: Confidence Interval (95%);
and Margin of error (4.91). Raosoft calculator was used to determine the sample size, using SASA! project
target population of 400 people, a total of 200 people were interviewed during the survey. Since the survey
was conducted in 4 different camps, proportional sampling was done to determine the number of respondents
to participate in the survey from each camp.
Having determined the minimum sample size, multistage sampling design was applied in the following steps:
Step I: Purposive sampling was used to determine the survey areas. In this case, the survey targeted camps
where DRC was operating in Maban.
Step II: Simple random sampling techniques were applied to select the respondents to be interviewed per
each selected camp.

02.5 Data cleaning, analysis and report writing

The completed questionnaires were electronically uploaded in the Statistical Product and Service Solutions
(SPSS) version 21. Data verification and cleaning were performed in SPSS in two stages: firstly, using

Page 9 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 physical assessment of data entries to correct data collection errors; and secondly using logic to clean field
and data collection errors. Data were processed and analysed in SPSS with the results and frequencies being
exported to MS Excel for tabular and graphical presentation.
Report writing was done in MS Word by the MEAL Officer responsible for surveys and assessment.

03. SURVEY RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

This section will present the main findings from the SASA! baseline survey with both quantitative and
qualitative analysis. The results are disaggregated by the sex of the respondent and the geographical location
of the respondent. Such disaggregation is presented where Chi-Square test showed the associations were
significant.

03.1 General profile of the participants

This subsection will analyse the sex, marital status and education level of the respondent. It is also of
paramount importance to note that there were 2 filtering questions that made participants eligible to be survey
respondents i.e. their duration of stay in the community (at least 1 year) and whether the person was currently
staying in the community (only those staying in the community were surveyed). Furthermore, the minimum
age for people to participate in the survey was 18 years, anyone below that age was not eligible for the survey.

03.1.1 Sex and age of the respondent

This section will assess the sex and age of the respondent.

Sex of respondent

male female
50% 50%

Figure 1: Sex of the respondent

Figure 1 shows that there was an equal representation of the sex of the respondents. The survey design was
designed in a way that resulted in achieving equal sample sizes of the respondents that participated in the
survey. Equal representation is important in ensuring that survey responses are unbiased towards a particular
sex group.
The average age for the respondents was 33 years (35 years for males and 30 for females), the youngest
respondent being aged 18 years and the oldest being aged 63 years. The survey showed that male
respondents were slightly older than female respondents by 5 years.

Page 10 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

Table 1: Age data bar table

Locat ion Age

The data bar shows the average ages of the
Doro 34 respondents per each camp and it is clear that Doro
Gendrasa 33 and Gendrassa camps were composed of older
Kaya 30 respondents than Kaya and Batil

Bat il 31

03.1.2 Respondents’ literacy levels

One of the key issues assessed were the literacy levels of the respondents and this is important in
determination of how the respondents perceive gender related issues.

Respondent literacy level

Refuse to answer 1.0%

Some Secondary education

2.5%
Education level

4.5%
Technical course
6.0%
Completed Secondary level
11.0%
Completed Primary level
36.0%
No education

Some Primary education 39.0%

0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0%

Percent

Total Males Females

Figure 2: Respondent literacy level

Figure 2 shows the literacy levels of the respondents. 39% of the respondents had received some primary
level education (31% males & 47% females) but did not manage to complete primary level education and
36% of the respondents had never attained any form of education (29% males & 43% females). Chi squared
analysis showed that there was an association between the sex of the respondent and the literacy level (χ2
= 32.976, DF=6, p<0.05, N=200) implying that the literacy level of the respondent was dependent on their
sex. This also means that literacy level will also influence some of the responses given in the assessment
hence where the influence is significant, results will be presented disaggregated by literacy level.

03.1.3 Respondent marital status and religious affiliation

This section will delve into the marital status of the respondent and their religious affiliation. Gender
knowledge and attitudes can be greatly influenced by the marital status of the respondent and their religious
affiliation.

Page 11 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

03.1.3.1 Respondent marital status

Respondent marital status

Divorced
1%
Widowed
3%

Single
11%

In a relationship but
not married and not
living together Married
2% 83%

Divorced Married In a relationship but not married and not living together Single Widowed

Figure 3: Respondent marital status

Figure 3 shows that 83% of the respondents were married, 11% single, 3% widowed, 2% in a relationship but
not married and not living together and lastly 1% divorced. This means the findings from the survey are likely
to be a true reflection of gender issues within married couples since the greater part of the respondents are
married people. There was no association between the marital status and the sex of the respondent or with
the camp were the respondent stayed (p>0.05).

03.1.3.2 Respondent religious affiliation

Religious affiliation
100%
90%
80%
70%
69%
60%
Percent

87%
50% 100% 100% 100%
40%
30%
20%
31%
10%
13%
0%
Batil camp Doro camp Gendrasa camp Kaya camp Total

Christian Muslim

Figure 4: Respondent religious affiliation

Figure 4 shows the religious affiliation of the respondent, disaggregated by the camp where the respondent
resides. Overall, 87% of the respondents were Muslims whilst 13% the respondents were Christians. Chi
squared analysis showed that there was an association between the respondents’ religious affiliation with the
camp in which the respondent stayed (χ2 = 41.270, DF=3, p<0.05, N=200) and the sex of the respondent (χ2
= 11.317, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) implying that the respondent’s religious affiliation was strongly influenced

Page 12 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 by the sex of the respondent and the area in which the respondent resided. Further analysis showed that
more females (95%) than males (79%) were affiliated in Muslim religion.

03.1.4 Participation in Income Generation Activities (IGAs)

This section will look into the respondent’s participation in IGAs. Access to financial resources is very
important since this can affect who makes decisions in the household. In this report, the access and control
concept of the Harvard Analytical framework will be partly used to measure who has access to income and
who then controls that income.

Respondent involvement in IGAs

80% 75%
70%
60% 58%
60%
50% 42%
Percent

40%
40%
30% 25%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total
Sex of respondent

No Yes

Figure 5: Respondent participation in IGAs

Figure 5 shows that 42% of the respondents were involved in activities that generate money for them whilst
58% were not involved in any IGAs. Further analysis can show that more males (60%) were involved in IGAs
than females (25%). These results can be used as a proxy indication on who has access to cash/ income and
who doesn’t. In this case, males have better access to income from IGAs than females and this can lead to
males being more controlling of the income than females as well.
Chi squared analysis showed that there was an association between participation in IGAs with the sex of
respondent (χ2 = 27.130, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) and the camp where the respondent stayed (χ2 = 33.307,
DF=6, p<0.05, N=200) meaning that participation was biased towards the sex of respondent and the
residential camp of the respondent. It was also noted that in Kaya, only 4% of the respondents participated
in IGAs as compared to other camps where an average of 42% of the respondents were into IGAs. This might
mean that the impact of IGAs participation are very unlikely to affect the survey results in Kaya camp.

03.2 SGBV Knowledge

This section of the report will assess the respondents’ knowledge on SGBV issues at household level. Results
will be disaggregated by the sex of the respondent and the camp of residence (where Chi squared results are
significant).

Page 13 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 A man controlling the family finances is a form of violence?
100%
90% 14%
29%
80% 43%
70%
60%
Percent

50%
40% 86%
72%
30% 57%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

Agree Disagree

Figure 6: Financial control

Figure 6 shows the respondents’ knowledge regarding men having financial control in family finances. 72%
of the respondents (57% males and 86% females) agreed that man controlling finances was a kind of violence.
There was an association (χ2 = 20.636, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) between the sex of the respondent and their
knowledge to the question meaning the perception was dependent on the sex of the respondent. In as much
as men are more active in bringing in income from IGAs, more women (86%) felt that there was no need for
the men to control the finances.

If a man/husband is violent towards his wife, it does NOT affect the

children?
100%
90%
80% 38%
46%
70% 54%
60%
Percent

50%
40%
30% 62%
54%
20% 46%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

Agree Disagree

Figure 7: Violence effect on children

54% of the respondents agreed that if a man/ husband is violent to his wife, it will not affect the children whilst
46% of the respondents disagreed to this statement. Surprisingly, more males (54%) than females (38%)
disagreed to this statement implying that men were more aware that violence against women negatively
affects children.

Page 14 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 If a husband is violent toward his wife, she is at higher risk for
getting infected by HIV?
80%
68%
70% 64%
60%
60%
50%
Percent

38%
40% 35%
32%
30%
20%
10%
1.0% .5% 1.0% .5%
0%
Agree Disagree Don’t know Refuse to answer

Female Male Total

Figure 8: Violence and HIV infection

64% of the respondents disagreed that if the husband is violent to the wife, this could pose higher risk of the
wife being infected with HIV. There was no significant difference between the sex of the respondent and the
question asked (p>0.05). The results show that both males and females in Maban seem to view that violence
doesn’t result in higher risk of HIV infection to the wife.

Women often experience violence from their partner after telling

them their HIV positive status?
80%
68%
70% 65%
61%
60%
50%
Percent

38%
40% 35%
32%
30%
20%
10%
1.0% .5%
0%
Agree Disagree Don’t know

Female Male Total

Figure 9: Violence after HIV status disclosure

65% of the respondents disagreed that women experienced violence from their partners after disclosing their
HIV status whilst 35% of the respondents agreed that women experienced violence after disclosing their HIV
status. There was no significant difference (p>0.05) between the sex of the respondent and the question
asked meaning the perceptions were not influenced by the sex of the respondent.

Page 15 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 If a man drinks alcohol regularly, he is more likely to use violence
against his wife?
100%
90%
80% 34%
42%
49%
70%
60%
Percent

50%
40%
30% 66%
58%
51%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

Agree Disagree

Figure 10: Alcohol consumption and violence against women

58% of the respondents agreed that regular consumption of alcohol resulted in men being violent to women
whilst 42% of the respondents disagreed to this question. There was no significant difference between the
sex of the respondent and the question asked (p>0.05).

03.3 SGBV Attitudes

This section of the report will assess common issues that come up in relationships between women and men
e.g. sexual related issues and domestic violence issues.

In your opinion, can a married woman refuse to have sex with her
husband if she doesn't want it?
100%
90%
80% 36%
46%
70% 55%
60%
Percent

50%
40%
30% 64%
55%
20% 45%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 11: Women denying sex

46% of the respondents highlighted that a married woman cannot refuse to have sex with her husband whilst
55% of the respondents mentioned that she can. More men were responded that a wife should not refuse a
husband sex and this concurs with FGD findings that highlighted that sex denial was one of the major causes
of domestic violence in Maban area.

Page 16 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 Do you think that a woman should tolerate/accept violence from her partner
to keep her family together?
100%
90%
29%
80% 46%
70% 54%
62%
60% 75%
Percent

50%
40%
71%
30% 54%
20% 46%
38%
10% 25%
0%
Batil Doro Gendrasa Kaya Total

No Yes

Figure 12: Women violence tolerance from their partners.

54% (51% males and 57% females) of the respondents mentioned that it was better to tolerate or accept
violence as a way of keeping the family unified. There was an association between the violence tolerance
question and the camp of residence of the respondent (χ2 = 14.269, DF=3, p<0.05, N=200) implying that the
perception was dependent on where the respondent stayed. There was more concurrence to this statement
in Batil camp and much less concurrence in Kaya camp.

If a married woman has been beaten by her husband, is it okay for

her to tell others?
100%
16% 13% 15%
90%
80%
70%
60%
Percent

50%
84% 87% 86%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 13: Women disclosing about being beaten by their spouses.

86% of the respondents didn’t believe that women should share information that they have been beaten by
their husbands. Both males and females vividly agreed on this matter implying that potentially a lot of women
in the communities might be survivors of SGBV but they are not reporting these issues. This auger well with
the above question that showed that respondents would rather tolerate violence in order to keep the family
united.

Page 17 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 Do you think it is strange for a married man if his friends see him
regularly washing dishes at home?
100%
90% 23%
80% 40%
70% 56%

60%
Percent

50%
40% 77%
30% 60%
20% 44%

10%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 14: Men doing household chores

60% of the respondents did not see any problem with a married man being regularly seen washing dishes at
home by his friends whilst 40% of the respondents mentioned that it did matter to them to see a married man
being regularly seen by his friends washing dishes at home. There was an association between the sex of
respondent and the question (χ2 = 22.785, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) implying that the responses were subject
to the sex of the respondent. Interestingly, more women saw this as strange than men which could be related
to strong social gendered norms and tasks.

Do you think women are mostly to blame for bringing HIV to the
household?
100%
89%
90%
80% 76%
70% 62%
60%
Percent

50%
38%
40%
30% 24%
20% 10%
10% 1.0% .5%
0%
No Refuse to answer Yes

Female Male Total

Figure 15: Women to blame on HIV spread

Only 24% of the respondents perceived that women are to blame for the spread of HIV whilst 76% didn’t take
the blame on women. There was a significant difference (χ2 = 22.161, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) between the
sex of respondent and the perception on women spreading HIV thereby implying that more men thought that
women were to blame for the spread of HIV than women.
In relation to HIV issues, 91% (93% males and 89% females) saw it unfit for women to ask their husbands to
use condoms when they want to have sex. Findings from daily debriefings showed that if a woman asks her
husband to use a condom, it was considered like a sign that the husband was living unfaithfully to his wife
and that would result in domestic violence within the household.

Page 18 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 If a husband beats his wife, do you think other people should
intervene?
100%
90%
80%
47%
70%
68%
60%
Percent

89%
50%
40%
30%
53%
20%
32%
10%
11%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 16: Intervention in SGBV issues.

68% of the respondents mentioned that people should intervene when the husband is beating his wife whilst
32% mentioned that no one should intervene in such a case. There was an association between the sex of
respondent and the question (χ2 = 40.533 DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) meaning that more men saw it fit to
intervene than women.

03.4 Gender Skills and Behaviour

This section of the report will look closer into the gender related behaviours practised by community members
and the gender skills they currently possess.

In the last 12 months, have you helped a woman who was

experiencing violence at home?
100%
90% 22%
80% 36%
50%
70%
25%
60%
Percent

13%
50%
40%
30%
53% 50% 52%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total
Yes, I helped a woman who was experiencing violence in the home

Not applicable - There were no women experiencing violence in homes in my community that I knew about

No, I knew of a woman who was experiencing violence in the home but I did not help

Figure 17: Assistance to women experiencing violence home.

51% of the respondents did not provide assistance when they saw women experiencing violence in their
homes whilst 36% provided assistance to those women who were experiencing violence in their homes. There
was an association between the sex of the respondent and question in analysis (χ2 = 35.976 DF=2, p<0.05,
N=200) meaning more men provided assistance to women who were experiencing violence in their homes
than women.

Page 19 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

Further analysis showed that there was an association between the responses given on the previously
analysed question “If a husband beats his wife, do you think other people should intervene?” and this question
being analysed (χ2 = 18.607, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) meaning those who said there should be no intervention
constituted of the majority of those who had not provided any assistance to women experience violence in
their homes (73%). FGD findings also reviewed that most women were not eager to assist because most of
them were chased away whilst trying to assist other women who were survivors of violence.

In the last 12 months, have you told a local leader about domestic
violence in a home nearby?
100%
90% 17%
31%
80% 45%
70% 25%
60% 13%
Percent

50%
40%
30% 58% 55% 57%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

Yes, I told a local leader about domestic violence in a home nearby me

Not applicable - There were no homes near me that had domestic violence
No, there was domestic violence in a home near me but I did not tell a local leader

Figure 18; Reporting SGBV cases to local leadership

In terms of reporting SGBV cases, only 31% of the respondents reported the cases that they witnessed in
nearby homes whilst 57% did not report any of those cases. There was an association between the sex of
the respondent and the question under analysis (χ2 = 37.725, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) meaning that more men
(45%) reported domestic violence cases they witnessed than women (17%). The results also correlate with
the initial findings in the report that showed that community members don’t see it worth sharing with anyone
the cases of domestic violence that they witness in their communities.

In the last 12 months, have you spoken out about violence against
women to others in your community?
100%
12%
90%
32%
80%
52%
70%
Percent

60%
50%
88%
40%
68%
30%
48%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 19: Speaking against violence in the community

Only 32% of the respondents had spoken against violence against women in their communities in the last 12
months whilst 68% kept silent on this matter. There was an association between the sex of the respondent

Page 20 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

and the question under analysis (χ2 = 36.725, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) meaning that more men spoke out
against violence against women (52%) than women (12%). The results might mean that women are not
comfortable in speaking out against violence against women but they would rather use other communication
channels to speak against violence against women.
Further analysis show that religion influenced significantly (χ2 = 6.555, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) on speaking
against violence against women meaning more Christians (54%) than Muslims (28%) spoke against violence
against women. Since Muslims constituted the greater part of the sample size, religion could be the underlying
factor in women opting to stay away on matters related to domestic violence.
Furthermore, there were some significant association (χ2 = 32.678, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) between those
the question “In the last 12 months, have you helped a woman who was experiencing violence at home?” and
the question under review. Those who provided help when they saw women experiencing violence constituted
the greater proportion (57%) of those who spoke against violence against women and on the other side those
who had not witnessed violence and those who had not helped women experiencing violence at home
constituted the greater proportion (81% & 88% respectively) of those who did not speak on violence against
women in their communities.

Do you regularly do things that are typically thought of as men's

role?
100%
90% 13%
26%
80% 42% 35%
70%
75%
Percent

60%
50%
40% 88%
74%
30% 58% 65%
20%
10% 25%
0%
Batil Doro Gendrasa Kaya Total

no yes

Figure 20: Women regularly doing men’s roles

Overall, 35% of the women did things that were typically thought to be men’s roles and these findings were
statistically significant (χ2 = 16.945, DF=6, p<0.05, N=200) meaning that the results were dependent on where
the women resided. The graph shows that more women in Batil camp (75%) did things that were regarded as
men’s roles as compared to the other camps.
On the other hand, 47% of the men mentioned that they did things that were typically thought to be women’s
roles and the findings showed no association with the camp in which the respondents stayed.
One scenario that was used to assess the truthfulness of the responses given was whether women had ever
been assisted by their partners in washing dishes OR whether men had assisted their partners in washing
dishes.
Table 2: Dish washing practices

Question Addressed to: Yes No

Does your partner regularly help with washing dishes in the home? Females ONLY 41% 59%

Do you regularly help with washing dishes at your home? Males ONLY 55% 45%

Table 2 shows that 41% of the women had been helped by their male partner home to wash their dishes
whilst 55% of the males had acknowledged that they regularly assisted with dish washing at their homes.

Page 21 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 03.4.1 Household decision making
This sub-section will look at the decisions made in different households, with main focus on healthcare and
general decision making at household level.
67% (74% males & 59% females) mentioned that they had a greater say (more influence/power in making
decisions) than their partners in important decisions matters that affect them or their family. The results were
statistically significant (χ2 = 5.050, DF=1, p<0.05, N=200) meaning more men had control over decisions
made at household level than women.
When it comes to healthcare decision making, 73% (82% males & 63% females) of the respondents
mentioned that their partners made most of the decisions about their health care and these results were
statistically valid (χ2 = 12.810, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) meaning that more men made decisions regarding their
partners than women.
In terms of the resolving a disagreement between the male and female partners, 67% (67% males and 67%
females) mentioned that they did not win or have the thing happen the way they wanted most of the time in
the last 12 months meaning both parties equally gave in to the decisions of their partners.
67% (74% males & 54% females) mentioned that their partners made decisions when they could visit their
family/ relatives. The results were statistically valid (χ2 = 8.138, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) meaning more males
had their decisions made by their partners than females.

03.4.2 Partners’ respect perception

During the last 12 months, do you usually felt respected by your

partner?
100%
90%
80%
70% 55%
72%
60%
Percent

89%
50%
1%
40%
30%
2%
20% 44%
3% 26%
10%
8%
0%
Female Male Total

No Not applicable - I do not have a partner (am single, divorced, or widowed) Yes

Figure 21: Partners’ respective perception

72% of the respondents mentioned that they felt respected by their partners for the past 12 months whilst
26% mentioned that they felt they were not respected by their partners. The results were statistically
significant (χ2 = 33.951, DF=2, p<0.05, N=200) meaning more males felt respected by their partners than
females.

03.5 SASA! awareness

This section will look into the community’s awareness on SASA! activities and whether they interacted with
any people spreading SASA! concepts.

Page 22 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 In the last 12 months, have you seen people in your community
doing something to prevent violence against women?
100%
90%
31%
80%
52%
70%
60% 73%
Percent

50%
40%
69%
30%
48%
20%
10% 27%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 22: Interaction with people preventing women violence

52% of the respondents had seen people in their community who were doing something to prevent violence
against women whilst 48% had not seen such people. The results were statistically significant (χ2 = 35.337,
DF=1 p<0.05, N=200) meaning more males have seen people in their community who did action to prevent
violence against women than the females.

Have you seen any of the SASA! materials?

100%
9%
90% 24%
80% 39%
70%
60%
Percent

50%
91%
40% 76%
30% 61%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 23: Awareness of SASA! materials

24% of the respondents had seen some SASA! material before whilst 76% had not come across such
material. There was an association between the sex of respondent and those who had seen the SASA!
material (χ2 = 24.671, DF=1 p<0.05, N=200) meaning that more men had seen the SASA! material than
women. This can imply that more men might have an idea of what SASA! is about than females (that is if they
read and understood the SASA! the material).

Page 23 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 Do you know anyone from your community who talks about
SASA!?
100%
7%
90% 23%
80% 39%
70%
60%
Percent

50%
93%
40% 77%
30% 61%
20%
10%
0%
Female Male Total

No Yes

Figure 24: Awareness of SASA! facilitators

Only 23% of the respondents had seen someone in their community talking about SASA! whilst 77% of the
respondents had not seen anyone talking about SASA! The results were statistically significant (χ2 = 28.910,
DF=1 p<0.05, N=200) meaning more males had seen people talking about SASA! than the females.
Furthermore, the results imply that very little has been done regarding SASA! in the targeted camps and this
shows that DRC’s programming will be relevant since there is a gap in SASA! awareness in the targeted
camps.

In the last 12 months, have you participated in any activity about

safe and healthy relationship?

Yes
51% No
49%

No Yes

Figure 25: Participation in safe and healthy relationships activities.

51% (61% males and 41% females) had participated in activities related to safe and healthy relationships.
From those who had participated in a safe and healthy relationship activity, 49% of the participants mentioned
that the activity was a SASA! activity. This means 1 person in every 4 people residing in the 4 camps had
participated in SASA! activities. The greater part of the respondents (46%) had participated once in the SASA
activities, with more men (58%) having participated once than women (8%). On the other hand, more women
(67%) had participated more than twice compared to men (3%) who had participated twice.

Page 24 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

 04. LESSONS LEARNED, CHALLENGES FACED, RECOMMENDATIONS AND
CONCLUSION
This section of the report will draw lessons learned from the survey, challenges faced and possible
recommendations for the success of the project.

04.1 Lessons learned

 All camps in Maban are dominated by the Muslims (Batil, Gendrassa and Kaya camps) and a very
low percentage of the population constitutes of the Christians (mostly in Doro Camp). Findings from
the survey showed that religion played a crucial role in some of the gender practices. The majority
of Christians spoke more against violence against women whilst the majority of Muslims remained
calm and never spoke against violence against women in their communities.
 In most cases where action against women violence was required, men appeared to be the ones
trying to prevent violence against women whilst women themselves tended to distance themselves
from such activities. This could be attributed to the deep rooted patriarchal system across the four
camps where even on issues affecting women, they have been socialised and accustomed to remain
silent whereas for men they are free to engage and at times talk on behalf of women.
 In terms of gender roles, women saw it strange for men to regularly wash dishes at home whilst most
of the men saw nothing wrong with it.
 In terms of SASA! awareness and participation, very few people in the community (1 person in every
4 people) had participated in SASA! related activities, leaving a very big gap that can be addressed
by DRC’s SASA! activities.

04.2 Challenges faced

 Technically, the approach was to use systematic sampling, assuming that everyone approached was
willing to participate in the survey. However, this was not the case on the ground since some people
were not willing to participate in the survey and this forced the team to shift from systematic sampling
to simple random sampling.
 According to the plan, participants were supposed to be sampled from public places and in this
context these places were market places and water points (boreholes). Unfortunately, this wasn’t
possible since participants were not willing to be interviewed from such places hence participants
had to be interviewed from their homesteads.
 Translation of questions from English to Arabic took much time of the training since some questions
were a bit difficult for the enumerators to translate.
 Some participants were not willing to disclose their age hence in such cases, the age of respondent
had to be skipped.
 HIV issues were considered a bit sensitive to some respondents hence they refused to provide
answers for such questions.

04.3 Recommendations
The following recommendations are made in line with beneficiary targeting and project implementation:
 Since the baseline survey was done before actual targeting of beneficiaries, it is strongly
recommended that a randomized control trial (RCT) be conducted at endline, with the direct
beneficiaries being the treatment group and the project non-participants being the control group. This
will help assess the efficacy of the SASA! activities with the baseline survey findings and the endline
findings.
 When rolling out SASA! activities, it is important to ensure the aspect of religion is taken into
consideration when engaging with community members, as the social norms/practices might differ.
 The survey findings revealed that there are some gaps in terms of attitude to SGBV issues and SGBV
practices. In several instances, these gaps in knowledge are found with women respondents, hence
it is recommended that SASA! activities try as much as possible to reach out to women and empower
them to make key decisions that will positively affect their lives and other female community
members. The same can also be done for men.

Page 25 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019

  As a way of ensuring effective measurement of the SASA! activities to the community, it is
recommended that indicators related to the baseline survey be developed by both the SGBV team
and MEAL team. This will enable DRC to quantitatively measure how the SASA! intervention
managed to impact the targeted communities.
 Since the majority of the respondents were not educated or did not complete their Primary level
education implying that a significant percentage of the participants might not be able to read or write.
It is therefore recommended that DRC simplifies its SASA! literature so that those struggling to read
can understand the literature. Another way would be to device other approaches to reach to people
e.g. awareness campaigns do not require reading but instead listening thus accommodating the less
educated.

04.4 Conclusion
The SASA! baseline survey was a success and the findings from the survey can go a long way in informing
the project implementation. Furthermore, a lot of rich data was harvested from the survey and it can be used
in a variety of ways, depending on the organisational capacities and the planned activities. There were also
notable good practices that can be extracted by the SGBV team for future replications in other operational
areas.
In conclusion, the report shows that the SASA! intervention is very relevant to the needs of the Maban
community and the activities can go a long way in changing the mind sets, breaking down the deep rooted
patriarchal system that disadvantages the women and girls and lastly address the power dynamics among
the community members which are projected through the gender roles and responsibilities of the targeted
community. Above all, more lessons on the effect of the intervention to the project direct and indirect
beneficiaries.

Page 26 // DRC Maban SASA! Baseline Survey Report // April 2019