Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for MRE
TERMS OF REFRENCE FOR CONSULTANT
Project “Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in
Vietnam: UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support
for landmine incident survivors in high risk communities”
MARCH 3, 2016
0
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for MRE
Contents
1.
BACKGROUND ............................................................................................................................................. 2
2.
OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION ............................................................................................................... 2
3.
EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 5
4.
METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE ....................................................................................................................... 3
4.1 Design ........................................................................................................................................................ 3
4.2 Sampling and sample size .......................................................................................................................... 3
4.3 Tools .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
4.4 Data collection ........................................................................................................................................... 8
4.5 Data Analysis ............................................................................................................................................. 8
4.6 Stakeholder Engagement .......................................................................................................................... 8
4.7 Scope of the evaluation ............................................................................................................................. 8
5.
REPORT WRITING ........................................................................................................................................ 8
6.
ETHICAL GUIDANCE AND CONSIDERATION ................................................................................................. 9
7.
EVALUATION TEAM ..................................................................................................................................... 9
8.
TIMELINES .................................................................................................................................................. 10
9.
REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANT .......................................................................................................... 10
9.1 Consultant Deliverables........................................................................................................................... 10
9.2 Qualifications and Experience Required of External Consultant............................................................. 10
9.3 Period of Performance ............................................................................................................................ 11
9.4 Compensation.......................................................................................................................................... 11
9.5 Application requirements ........................................................................................................................ 11
ANNEX 1: The Project Result Framework .......................................................................................................... 13
1
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for MRE
TERMS OF REFERENCE – FINAL EVALUATION
“Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam: UXO/Mine risk education and
comprehensive community support for landmine incident survivors in high risk communities project”
1. BACKGROUND
Catholic Relief Services Vietnam (CRS) is a US non-governmental organization that was established in 1943
and that has been headquartering in Baltimore, America. CRS started programs in Vietnam in 1994 with an
office in Hanoi. The project, “Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine incident survivors in high
risk communities project” (Grant # SPMWRA12GR1096) is implemented in Quang Tri (QT), Quang Binh (QB),
and Quang Nam (QN). The project has two components, including Mine Risk Education (MRE) for primary
students and assistance to landmine survivors (LMS). In the MRE component, CRS in collaboration with its
partners, provincial Departments of Education and Training in QB, QT, and QN, developed an MRE
integration guideline (MREIG) to help teachers integrate MRE content into compulsory curricula in schools.
The MREIG is now being used at all 475 primary schools in these three provinces. Additionally, in the second
component, CRS and its partners, provincial Departments of Labor, Invalids, and Social Affairs in QB, QT, and
QN, provide support of education, agriculture livelihood, and health, to 300 LMS. LMS’ identified needs are
being met through the project’s resource or existing available service providers in their locality. The Results
Framework is included on Annex 1.
Local project partners—including the provincial Departments of Education and Training (DOETs) and
stakeholders such as Departments of Labor Invalid and Social Affairs (DOLISA) at the provincial and district
levels— play a crucial role in all stages of project implementation. Moreover, CRS works with Quang Tri
Teachers Training College to replicate MRE to other primary-education students at Teachers Training
Colleges in Hue, Quang Nam, Quang Ngai, Nghe An, Ha Tinh, and Quang Binh.
The project final evaluation, planned from 1st March to 13 May 2016, will assess its relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, impact, and sustainability; identify lessons learned and potential promising practices; and make
recommendations for future similar project development.
2. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The final evaluation has five objectives as follows:
1. To assess and document the extent to which CRS/VN has achieved the Project’s strategic objectives and
contributed to the project goal including intended and unintended, positive and negative outcomes
resulting from the project (the project impact).
2. To determine major successes and innovations accomplished during the project’s implementation as
well as challenges and lessons learnt
3. To collect feedback from the project participants on the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of
project’s strategies/approaches, including the participants/beneficiary selection process.
4. To analyze the level of lasting change and sustainability as well as replicability of the project’s
interventions;
5. To make recommendations for CRS/VN and its key implementing partners in terms of linking services to
landmine survivors, implementing MRE as well as informing future programing.
2
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
3. METHODOLOGY AND SCOPE
4.1 Design
The methodology for the final evaluation will include 1) a desk review of project document; 2) quantitative
survey using self-administered questionnaires; 3) qualitative tools in targeted communities; 4) Participatory
Reflection Events
Desk review: Below is a list of documents that will be made available to the evaluation team.











Project Result framework;
Project Proframe
MEAL Plan
Update IPTT
Baseline tools
Baseline survey report
Project proposals and project agreements with implementing partners;
Partners’ reports
CRS quarterly reports
National and sectorial policies (national program 504, PWDs law, and policies of MOLISA for PWDs)
Award Provisions and Standard Terms and Conditions of US Department of States
Quantitative Assessment: A self-administered questionnaire will be delivered to interviewees who are
students and teachers of selected schools to collect feedback.
Qualitative method: Focus group discussions (FGDs) and key informant interviews (KIIs) will be the principal
qualitative methods used to collect in-depth information related to the evaluation’s objectives and
evaluation questions with targeted groups according to Table 1.
Quantitative and qualitative data collection will be conducted from 17 March to 31 March 2016,
respectively, including training and field-testing.
Participatory Reflection Events
After data collection, there will be two reflection events. 1) Participatory internal learning meeting among
CRS staff. One day will be allocated for staff to summarize and analyze the information collected during the
FGDs, KIIs, and questionnaires. 2) Based on the information collected, CRS will share preliminary findings
with partners to collect their opinion in the reflection workshop in April. This participatory reflection session
will allow partners to reflect on issues of project relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, successes,
challenges and recommendations. This reflection event will result in lessons learned, potential promising
practices, and recommendations for future programming.
4.2 Sampling and sample size
Qualitative assessment:
The qualitative assessment using purposeful sampling method will be conducted in three provinces where
MRE-VA projects are being implemented. The number of FGDs and KIIs with different target groups are as
follows:
Target group
Number of FGDs
(at least 6 participants per
Number of KIIs
3
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
DOETs representative
DOLISA representative
Community volunteers
Village head
Landmine survivors
Students
Teachers
CRS program staff
TOTAL
group)
0
0
3
3
6
6
0
0
18
3
3
6
6
9
6
6
1
40
Quantitative assessment:
Sampling method
The sampling method and sample size of quantitative survey of the final evaluation will be the same as those
in the baseline. A stratified two-stage cluster sampling method was applied. According to CRS guidance on
monitoring and evaluation, , clustered sample without stratification will be applied to select teachers and
clustered sample with stratification (boy vs girls) will be used to select students
1
Therefore, sample size for quantitative assessment will be as follows:
Old schools
New schools
Teachers
Students
260
260
Boys
169
169
Girls
169
169
Total
338
338
At the first stage, probability proportional to size sampling method was applied to randomly select 20
schools (10 among old schools and 10 among new schools) from target population of 44 old schools 2and 397
new schools 3 in three project provinces.
At the second stage, each school will randomly select 34 students (17 girls, 17 boys) to participate in the final
evaluation.
4.3 Tools
Final evaluation tools including FGD guide, in-depth interview guide and self-administered structured
questionnaire will be developed. The baseline tools will be modified slightly for the objectives of the
evaluation. Tools will be developed in English, translated into Vietnamese and cross-checked for accuracy in
terminology translation.
1
Guidance on monitoring and evaluation, page 57
2
Old schools are schools which implemented MRE project from Nov 2012 to February 2014.
3 New schools are schools which have implemented MRE project since Oct 2014.
4
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for MRE
4. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS
In order to achieve evaluation objectives, the following key evaluation questions have been developed and grouped by the 5 evaluation criteria of OECD4.. The
evaluation team will develop data collection tools with more specific questions based on these evaluation questions.
Table 1 - Key Evaluation Questions and Informants
Relevance
Were the project interventions in line with priorities and policies of the
country, provinces and donor?
Qualitative,
Desk Review
Did the project staff have the appropriate capacity to implement the
project? Why/ why not?
Qualitative
KII, FGD
KII and
internal
meeting
KII and
internal
meeting
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Did the project meet following strategic objectives and to what extent? Why/
why not?
1. Target community reduce the LM/UXO risks
'• # of UXO/LM accidents that happen in target communities during the
project period
• % of students in target schools practicing safe behaviors
4
Desk review
Quantitative
DOLISA’s
and
DOET’s
reports
Structured questionnair
es
OECD, “DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance” at http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm
5
CRS
Commune
Head/vice
head
Landmine
survivors
x
Students
Qualitative
Teachers
Did the project design (project's objectives, activities, timing) meet the
priorities and needs of the community (victims, teachers, students)? Were
there differences between men and women; adults and children? If so, how?
If not, why not?
Tool
Community
volunteers
How/
method
DOLISA
What information you need to know
DOET
Who to talk to /respondent
x
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam: UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community
support for landmine incident survivors in high risk communities project
Quantitative
Structured questionnair
es
• % of DOETs that have officially approved the MREIG for mandatory use
in all primary schools across the target provinces
Desk review
Progress
report
2. LM/UXO survivors have increased benefits/social services through the
volunteers’ networks and DOLISA
• # (300) of UXO/LM survivors that receive assistance through the project
and other available services.
Desk review
Progress
report/IPTT
table
x
• # of link between survivors' needs and available existing service providers
are implemented by VNs and DOLISAs (desk review/progress report/IPTT
table)
Desk review
Progress
report/IPTT
table
x
Did the project achieve its planned outputs on the planned timeline? Why/
why not?
Reflection
events and
desk review
IPTT table
x
Has the working in partnership (meet deadline, time allocation for the project,
staffing) influence to the effectiveness and quality of the project? Why/ Why
not?
Qualitative
and refection
events
KII guide
x
x
Has the project been effective in building partner capacity? If so, how has
partner capacity been built? If not, why not? If not, how can this be improved
for next time?
Qualitative
KII and
FGD guide
x
x
What were the major factors influencing the achievement or nonachievement of the objectives?
Qualitative
KII guide
x
x
x
KII guide
x
x
x
KII guide
x
x
x
• % of target schools with >=80% of students practicing safe behaviors
Effectiveness
Are the project's staffing and management structure efficient? Why/ why not?
Efficiency
Did the M&E system provide the right information at the right time to allow
for timely project management and decision-making? Why/ why not?
What is the cost per project participant by project component? Is this
reasonable given project impact? Why/ why not?
Were objectives achieved on time? Were objectives achieved on budget?
Refection
events
Qualitative
and refection
events
Refection
events and
desk review
Refection
events and
x
x
x
x
x
x
Relevant
project
documents
x
Relevant
project
X
6
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam: UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community
support for landmine incident survivors in high risk communities project
What are significant changes in beneficiaries’ life after participating in the
project? What are evidence for better quality of life of beneficiaries? What is
the most valuable impact to beneficiaries? Why?
Impact
What major successes, accomplishments, and innovations were achieved
during the project for each component (MRE and VA)? What key factors led
to these successes? Which impacts were most valued (and valuable) to
beneficiaries in particular, and society in general?
What are the unintended outcomes (both negative and positive) of the
project?
How many people benefit from the project?
What were the program’s biggest challenges or failures? Were these
adequately addressed during implementation? What are the most relevant
lessons learnt from the program implementation?
Which activities/results can the DOLISAs/DOETs/communes/schools
continue after the project funding ends? Why/ why not? If not, What support
do they need and what and how do they need to do to sustain it?
Sustainability
desk review
documents
Qualitative
and reflection
events
KII guide
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Qualitative
KII and
FGD guide
x
x
x
x
X
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Qualitative
Desk review
Qualitative
Qualitative
Have sustainability plans been developed and implemented? Are there any
indications that services/ activities/models developed during program
implementation will be still used, functioning or scaled out once the project
ends?
Qualitative
What are the threats to the sustainability of project benefits? Why?
Qualitative
What are the successful aspects of the project can be replicated? How?
Qualitative
KII and
FGD guide
IPTT table
KII and
FGD guide
KII and
FGD guide
KII and
FGD guide
KII and
FGD guide
KII and
FGD guide
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
7
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
4.4 Data collection
It is expected that data collection will be conducted by consultants with support from CRS team in the
mid of March 2016. A team of data collectors will be trained on all data collection tools.
4.5 Data Analysis
Analysis of qualitative data and quantitative data will be carried out by the national consultant with
input from the Evaluation team in Vietnam.
4.6 Stakeholder Engagement
Students
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
CRS
Teachers
Landmine
survivors
Commune
Head/vice
head
DOLISA
Progress toward end of project targets for key
indicators at SO, IR and output levels
Assessment of project relevance, efficiency,
impact, sustainability and potential for scale-up or
replication
Unexpected outcomes (positive or negative) of the
project
Lessons learnt and recommendations for future
programing.
DOET
Interest/Information Need
Community
volunteers
Given the objectives of “Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine incident survivors in
high risk communities” project, the final evaluation must include opportunities for consultation and
participation of provincial DOET and DOLISA representatives in 3 provinces: Quang Binh, Quang Nam,
and Quang Tri. The evaluation methodology and tools as well as data collection plan will be shared with
relevant partners for their input prior to the start of data collection. DOLISA and DOET will join in data
collection with CRS. The preliminary evaluation findings will be reflected at the reflection workshop. The
final evaluation report will be shared with all relevant stakeholders.
4.7 Scope of the evaluation
The evaluation will be conducted in Quang Nam, Quang Tri, and Quang Binh from 29 February to 13 May
2016
5. REPORT WRITING
The national consultant is responsible for writing the full evaluation report (in English and the report will
be translated into Vietnamese to send to partners). The CRS Evaluation team, including the Sub-regional
HoP, will provide review and feedback on the first draft evaluation report and on the revised draft. The
total final evaluation report should not be more than 20 pages, excluding annexes.
8
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
The following outline is suggested for the full evaluation report:
 Executive Summary (1.5 pages)
 Background (0.5 pages)
 Methodology and limitations(1 page)
 Findings with Analysis and discussions (14 pages, including tables and graphs)
 Lessons Learned and promising practices (1 page, including summary of lessons learned and
potential promising practices)
 Conclusion and Recommendations (2 page)
 Annexes (ToR, tools, etc.)
6. ETHICAL GUIDANCE AND CONSIDERATION
The Consultants must ensure that the baseline study adheres to ethical guidelines as outlined in the
American Evaluation Association’s (AEA) Guiding Principles for Evaluators. A summary of these
guidelines is provided below:
1. Verbal Informed Consent: All participants are expected to provide verbal informed consent
following standard and pre-agreed consent protocols. For children respondents (under 18 years)
in the qualitative assessment, written parental consent is required for each child participating.
2. Systematic Inquiry: Evaluators conduct systematic, data-based inquiries.
3. Competence: Evaluators provide competent performance to stakeholders.
4. Integrity/Honesty: Evaluators display honesty and integrity in their own behavior, and attempt
to ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire evaluation process.
5. Respect for People: Evaluators respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents,
program participants, clients, and other evaluation stakeholders. It is expected that the
evaluator will obtain the informed consent of participants to ensure that they can decide in a
conscious, deliberate way whether they want to participate.
6. Responsibilities for General and Public Welfare: Evaluators articulate and take into account the
diversity of general and public interests and values that may be related to the evaluation.
7. A link to a more detailed description of AEA’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators can be found at:
http://comm.eval.org/eval/Go.aspx?c=ViewDocument&DocumentKey=ba879c95-f810-4c6bbf50-524da31144c1
7. EVALUATION TEAM
The national consultant will be hired to participate in designing tools, conduct qualitative data collection
in the field, co-facilitate two participatory reflection events with CRS staff, quantitative data entry,
qualitative data transcription, and overall data analysis and develop the report.
CRS Project team (including 1 PM and 2 POs) will support evaluation planning, tool design, quantitative
and qualitative data collection, and report review. The PM will be responsible for overseeing and
coordinating the overall evaluation activities and process, including data analysis. POs will liaise with
partners to support the data collection in provinces.
CRS MEAL team will participating in evaluation planning, provide technical support in tool design,
quantitative and qualitative data collection, and report review.
9
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
Support from CRS Sub-regional HOP will also be there to ensure the quality of the evaluation.
8. TIMELINES
The following is a proposed action plan and tentative timeline for the evaluation:
Action Point
TOR for final evaluation
Finalization and approval of TOR
Hiring an external consultant and local contract signed
Data collection plan with partners
Design Tools
Tentative date
29/2/2016
4/3/2016
16/3/2016
17/3/2016
18/3/2016
Field-test tools
21/3/2016
Finalization of Tools
22/3/2016
Data collection
31/3/2016
Data transcription and quantitative data entry
Data analysis
CRS internal team reflection
7/4/2016
15/4/2016
19/4/2016
Reflection workshop with partners
Draft report written
Comments on the draft report
25/4/2016
3/5/2016
10/5/2016
Finalization of evaluation report
Evaluation report will be shared with relevant stakeholders
12/5/2016
13/5/2016
Responsible (involved)
CRS Team
CRS team and HoP
CRS
CRS Team
CRS Team
(Consultant)
CRS Team
CRS Team
(Consultant)
Consultant
(Data collectors and
CRS Team)
Consultant
Consultant
Consultant
(CRS team)
CRS team
Consultant
MEAL, project team,
HoP
Consultant
CRS Team
9. REQUIREMENTS FOR CONSULTANT
9.1 Consultant Deliverables
-
A written evaluation plan detailing the full design and methodology of the evaluation, which will
be subject to CRS/VN approval;
Data collection tools and work plan, also subject to approval by CRS/VN and partners;
Clean quantitative data set; qualitative KII/FGD notes and transcripts
Quantitative and qualitative data matrix
Presentation of preliminary evaluation findings for reflection workshop
A draft evaluation report, for review by CRS and partners;
A final evaluation report in English and Vietnamese, taking into account suggestions and
changes recommended during the review/validation process;
9.2 Qualifications and Experience Required of External Consultant
-
Master degree in social sciences or a related field;
10
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
-
-
Demonstrable expertise in designing and conducting qualitative and quantitative program
evaluation, including data analysis, impact assessment, to provide strategic recommendations
for continued support/development of programming/strategies;
Strong knowledge and 5-year experience in relevant field (education, landmine) in Vietnam;
Excellent and demonstrable skill of Participatory monitoring and evaluation methodologies and
approaches;
Excellent analytical, communication and report writing skills;
Excellent written skill, in English and in Vietnamese;
Ability to work under pressure, as an individual and in a team;
Ability to solve problems.
9.3 Period of Performance
As shown in the table above, the period performance for the final evaluation is expected to be from 1
March 2016 to 13 May 2016. The fee for consultant will be negotiated and applied following CRS
Vietnam regulations
The contract is expected to start by 17 March to 12 May 2016: Tentative 36 days
Action Point
Design Tools
Finalization of Tools
Data collection
Data transcription and quantitative data entry
Data analysis
CRS internal team reflection
Reflection workshop with partners
Draft report written
Finalization of evaluation report
Tentative date
18/3/2016
22/3/2016
31/3/2016
7/4/2016
15/4/2016
19/4/2016
25/4/2016
3/5/2016
12/5/2016
No. of days
1
1
9
7
6
1
1
7
3
9.4 Compensation:
CRS will pay the consultant a fixed daily rate. The rate will depend on the selected consultant’s level of
experience
9.5 Application requirements
Institutions and Individuals interested in this job are invited to submit your applications via email to
Catholic Relief Services, Ms. Trần Thị Thu Hằng, at: [email protected] .
Applications should include:
i)
Expression of Interest;
ii)
A concise technical proposal;
iii)
A tentative work plan with indicative budget,
iv)
CVs demonstrating relevant capacity and experience.
Deadline for submission: by 10 March 2016
For further information, please contact:
Ms. Ta Thi Hai Yen - Program Manager
11
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
Tel: 04. 37738300, ext: 137
Email: [email protected]
CRS is an equal-opportunity employer and does not discriminate on the basis of ethnicity, religion, sex,
national origin, disability, or HIV/AIDs.
12
Terms of Reference – Final Evaluation for Consultant
Responding to the social/economic effects of Landmine/UXO in Vietnam:
UXO/Mine risk education and comprehensive community support for landmine
incident survivors in high risk communities project
ANNEX 1: The Project Result Framework
Program Goal: The negative humanitarian, social and economic effects of explosive
remnants of war (ERWs) is reduced in QB, QN, and QT provinces.
SO 2: LM/UXO survivors have
increased benefits/social services
through the Volunteers’ Network and
DOLISAs.
SO 1: Target communities
reduce the LM/UXO risks.
IR 1.1 : Trained teachers
implement the MREIG in
514 (470+44 already piloted
schools) schools in 20
districts in QB, QN and QT
provinces. rights and needs
Output 1.1.1:
Teachers in 470
new schools in
QB, QT, and
QN have
complete
knowledge and
skills on the
revised MRE
integration
guideline
IR 1.2: Trained students
practice safe behaviors in
schools and at home in 20
districts in QB, QN and QT
provinces. priority needs
Output 1.1.2:
All teachers in
44
old/existing/
schools have
refresher
knowledge
and skills on
the Revised
and approved
MRE
guideline
Output
1.2.1: All
primary
students in
QB, QT,
QN
provinces
have
complete
knowledge
on MRE
IR 1.3: Future teachers in TTCs
in 7 high risk provinces have
improved understanding on
how to use the MRE integration
guideline in their future job.
Output
1.3.1:
Future
teachers in
TTCs in 7
high risk
provinces
are trained
on how to
use the
MRE
integration
guidelines.
Output 2.1:
11 new
volunteer
networks
are
established
and 9 old
volunteer
networks
are
maintained
IR 2.1: Volunteer networks
in 20 communes (11 new
communes and 9 currentlytargeted communes) in 9
districts of QT, QB and QN
provinces link LM/UXO
survivors to services and
Output 2.2:
Volunteer
Networks in
new areas
have
knowledge
and skills to
link
LM/UXO
survivors to
services and
support
Output
2.3:
Volunteer
Networks
in old areas
have
refresher
knowledge
and skills to
link
LM/UXO
survivors to
services
13