Village Assessment Survey Report

IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) conducted the Village Assessment Survey (VAS) to facilitate planning for transition and recovery programs. Its main objectives are to map the availability of basic needs, services, and infrastructure and to identify priority areas for intervention within selected counties in South Sudan.

This Abyei Administrative Area Village Assessment Survey covers a period from 28 February to 27 March 2023. The survey team mapped 393 facilities, encompassing 19 administrative buildings, 9 markets, 28 religious structures, 3 bus stations, and 264 water points. Notably, educational and healthcare facilities were identified as well, with 49 education facilities and 24 health facilities marked.

This Tonj South Village Assessment Survey covers a period from 4 April to 17 May 2022. Notably, it was found that 94% of administrative buildings, 90% of religious buildings, and 88% water points are functional. On the other hand, all of the assessed market facilities were found to be functional.

This Aweil South Village Assessment Survey covers a period from 26 March to 30 April 2021. Notably, it was found that 89% of education facilities are functional, and 72% of water points are functional. On the other hand, administrative buildings, health facilities, markets, religious facilities, and transport networks were all found to be functional. 

IOM’s Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) conducted the Village Assessment Survey (VAS) to facilitate planning for transition and recovery programs. Its main objectives are to map the availability of basic needs, services, infrastructure and to identify priority areas for intervention within selected counties in South Sudan. The assessment is funded by the Reconciliation, Stabilization and Resilience Trust Fund area based programming for Jonglei and Greater Pibor Administrative Area. Data collection and analysis was conducted as part of joint IOM and UNICEF-led program on strengthening education programs and infrastructure in targeted counties.
Data was collected between March and April 2021, with previously inaccessible facilities and settlements in Akobo assessed
in May and June 2021. DTM assessed the counties of Akobo and Pibor in Jonglei state, covering 25 bomas in seven payams (83.3% coverage) and 34 bomas in four payams (54.8% coverage), respectively. Five bomas in Akobo could not be assessed due to insecurity and road inaccessibility. In Pibor, five bomas could not be assessed due to road inaccessibility.

This atlas contains 17 individual maps as part of the Wau, Rubkona And Bor South Village Assessment Survey (August - November 2019). DTM mapped the presence and quality of available facilities, infrastructure and services:

1. Facilities Types and Coverage
2. Education Facilities by Functionality
3. School Curriculum
4. Healthcare Facilities by Functionality
5. Improved Water Point Facilities
6. Access to Water and Related Conflict
7. Access to Water Sources
8. Most Common Forms of Sanitation Practices
9. Most Common Shelter Types
10. Major Livelihood Practices
11. Top Three Livelihood Shocks
12. Land Ownerships and Land Allocations to returnees
13. Challenges that Affect Farming
14. Access to Major Markets
15. External Threats, Violations and Risks
16. Internal Threats, Violations and Risks
17. Presence of Mines and Demining Activities

This atlas contains 17 individual maps as part of the Wau, Rubkona And Bor South Village Assessment Survey (August - November 2019). DTM mapped the presence and quality of available facilities, infrastructure and services:

1. Facilities Types and Coverage
2. Education Facilities by Functionality
3. School Curriculum
4. Healthcare Facilities by Functionality
5. Improved Water Point Facilities
6. Access to Water and Related Conflict
7. Access to Water Sources
8. Most Common Forms of Sanitation Practices
9. Most Common Shelter Types
10. Major Livelihood Practices
11. Top Three Livelihood Shocks
12. Land Ownerships and Land Allocations to returnees
13. Challenges that Affect Farming
14. Access to Major Markets
15. External Threats, Violations and Risks
16. Internal Threats, Violations and Risks
17. Presence of Mines and Demining Activities

This atlas contains 17 individual maps as part of the Wau, Rubkona And Bor South Village Assessment Survey (August - November 2019). DTM mapped the presence and quality of available facilities, infrastructure and services:

1. Facilities Types and Coverage
2. Education Facilities by Functionality
3. School Curriculum
4. Healthcare Facilities by Functionality
5. Improved Water Point Facilities
6. Access to Water and Related Conflict
7. Access to Water Sources
8. Most Common Forms of Sanitation Practices
9. Most Common Shelter Types
10. Major Livelihood Practices
11. Top Three Livelihood Shocks
12. Land Ownerships and Land Allocations to returnees
13. Challenges that Affect Farming
14. Access to Major Markets
15. External Threats, Violations and Risks
16. Internal Threats, Violations and Risks
17. Presence of Mines and Demining Activities

Between August and November 2019, IOM's Displacement Tracking Matrix (DTM) conducted Village Assessment Survey (VAS) in Wau, Rubkona and Bor South counties assessing a total of 63 bomas (13 in Bor South, 11 in Rubkona and 39 in Wau) and carrying key informant interviews at 191 educational facilities and 42 health facilities. In addition to this, 1,147 facilities and services including water points, markets, fishing areas, etc. were also mapped.

Datasets: 

• Boma/Area Mapping Survey Questionnaire – Dataset
• Education Technical Questionnaire - Dataset
• Health Technical Questionnaire – Dataset
• Facility, Infrastructure and Service Mapping - Dataset

Key findings: 

• In a significant number of bomas (42 of 63 bomas), status of majority of the houses was reported as partially damaged, in 9 bomas majority of the houses were completely damaged while in two bomas makeshift shelters were reported as the most common form of shelters in the areas.
• Findings show limited instances of bomas where land has been allocated for returnees (only 9 bomas out of 63 assessed). 
• Conflict over water was reported in a sizeable majority of the bomas (38 of 63 bomas). Primarily owing to the distance to the water source and insufficient water quantity, in over half the assessed bomas (34 of 63 bomas), water sources were not accessible to all households residing in the bomas.
• Respondents states that none of the bomas were equipped with any credit and financing infrastructure needed to support the farmers, often leaving them without the capital for purchasing necessary tools and equipment.
• Rainwater is the most commonly used source of irrigation, making farmers susceptible to rain patterns. Erratic or delayed rains that may result in poor or no harvests, while heavy rains and flooding can waterlog fields and destroy stocks.
• Out of the 191 schools visited, many lack basic amenities such as furniture (n=150), classrooms (n=104), drinking water (n=115), non-drinking water (n=130) and school latrines (n=119) which are found to be either completely absent or insufficient.
• A significant number of bomas (35 out of 63) reported access to health facilities, where, in most cases respondents expressed dissatisfaction (20 of 35) with the existing facilities. This was mainly related to non-availability of medicine, lack of qualified personnel and selective operational days.
• Boma courts play an integral role resolving community conflicts and legal disputes; in comparison to traditional courts that were reported in 54 of 63 bomas, judicial courts were reported in only 19 of 63 bomas. In over half the bomas assessed (34 of 63 bomas), no police posts/police stations were reported.