Coverage & Reach
Who received or accessed each intervention? Were locations and vulnerable groups adequately covered?
Independent verification of the Start Ready Pakistan Heatwave Anticipatory Action activation phase across Tehsil Jacobabad, Tehsil Thul and Tehsil Garhi Khairo — fieldwork 22–24 June 2026.
Peace by Youth (PY) was commissioned by the Community Development Foundation (CDF) to independently verify the reach, timeliness, quality, inclusivity, accountability and perceived value of seven heatwave activation interventions in District Jacobabad. PY completed 240 structured interviews against an approved target of 210, with every individual activity meeting or exceeding its sample target — complemented by 57 direct site observations, 17 key informant interviews and 3 focus group discussions.
Overall, the evidence shows a strongly positive picture of timeliness, functionality and satisfaction across the activation package, with strong, independently corroborated validation of timely support before peak heat impacts. The most consistent gap requiring CDF's attention is accountability: awareness and use of the feedback/complaints mechanism remains low for several activities, particularly Community Cooling Stations and Green Shade Nets, despite strong awareness of entitlements.
District Jacobabad experiences some of the highest recorded summer temperatures in Pakistan and faces recurring heat-related risks, particularly for daily wage workers, outdoor labourers, street vendors, women, children, older persons, persons with disabilities and livestock-dependent households.
Under the Start Ready framework, CDF activated a package of forecast-based, timely support interventions following the district heatwave trigger: five Mobile Cooling Carts, twenty Shade Everywhere kits, ten Community Cooling Stations, thirty Clay Water Points, ten Community Ice Banks, one thousand Green Shade Nets for vendors and open kitchens, and ten portable Animal Watering Points — with an estimated combined direct reach of approximately 645,000 people. PY's assignment was to independently verify whether these interventions were timely, accessible, functional, safe, inclusive, accountable and useful in reducing heat exposure and protecting livelihoods.
Who received or accessed each intervention? Were locations and vulnerable groups adequately covered?
Were interventions activated and deployed within required trigger windows?
Were services operational, safe, adequately supplied and fit for purpose?
Did users perceive reduced heat exposure, improved hydration or livelihood protection?
Were women, older persons and persons with disabilities able to access benefits equitably?
Were entitlements and complaint channels known and used? Were users treated with dignity?
Were respondents satisfied with the timing and usefulness of support before peak heat conditions?
PY applied a convergent mixed-methods design combining a structured beneficiary/field-user survey, direct site observation, key informant interviews and focus group discussions, with all tools administered digitally through KoBoToolbox by a trained field team between 22 and 24 June 2026, following PY's approved Inception Report and the CDF-approved Final Sampling and Field Control Workbook.
| Component | Achieved Coverage |
|---|---|
| Direct site observations | 57 — census-style coverage of accessible sites (5 CCS, 25 GSN, 6 CIB, 1 MCC, 4 SES, 11 CWP, 5 AWP) |
| Key informant interviews | 17 — CDF/MEAL staff, cooling-station site informants, community first-responders/training participants, and MCC/SES/CWP/AWP focal persons |
| Focus group discussions | 3 — women beneficiaries; daily wage workers/vendors; older persons, persons with disabilities and caregivers |
Average respondent age was 40.5 years; 38 respondents (15.8%) were aged 60 or above, and 12 respondents (5.0%) self-reported a disability or serious functional difficulty.
Coverage in Garhi Khairo was limited to the Community Cooling Station in Panj Chowk, the only activation intervention established in that tehsil, so findings from Garhi Khairo should be read as indicative of that site only and not generalised to the tehsil as a whole or to other activities.
Sample allocation across activities follows the CDF-approved sampling frame and is therefore uneven by design: Green Shade Nets (n=69) and Community Ice Banks (n=47) are more heavily represented than the four activities sampled at n=20 each, which caps the precision of activity-level percentages for the latter group.
Observation coverage for mobile/distributed items (MCC, SES, AWP, CIB clusters) was purposive rather than census-based and should be read as indicative.
As with any post-distribution survey relying on self-report, satisfaction and impact indicators may be subject to some social-desirability bias; this risk was mitigated through private interviewing, independent respondent selection and exclusion of CDF implementers from the interview space, and is further triangulated here against independent observation and KII/FGD evidence.
Key indicators for each of the seven activation activities, drawing on the beneficiary/field-user survey and triangulated with direct observation and KII/FGD evidence. Selected gaps and recommendations are reproduced in the language in which they were given. Tap any activity's "Full indicator data" to see the complete dataset.
Reached households mainly through registered distribution lists, with strong satisfaction and a clear satisfaction with timely support. The main gap is accountability: fewer than one in three respondents knew how to give feedback or make a complaint, consistent with KII/FGD reports that beneficiaries were often not walked through the complaints channel even where it was displayed.
"Can't afford buying ice for cold drinking water."
"Ice is not available in market in these days."
"Hum chahte hain k ye is trh ki choti choti grants continuously deni chahiye, is se hmen kafi support mil jati hai."
| Sex of respondents | Female: 15, Male: 31, Other/self-described: 1 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 4 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 27 (57.4%); Fair: 18 (38.3%); Poor: 2 (4.3%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 43 (91.5%); Don't know: 1 (2.1%); No: 3 (6.4%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 40 (85.1%); Don't know: 3 (6.4%); No: 4 (8.5%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 16 (34.0%); Don't know: 31 (66.0%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 44 (93.6%); Don't know: 3 (6.4%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 39 (83.0%); Don't know: 7 (14.9%); No: 1 (2.1%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 43 (91.5%); Don't know: 4 (8.5%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 45 (95.7%); Don't know: 2 (4.3%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Yes: 3 (6.4%); No: 44 (93.6%) |
| Did your household receive ice? | Yes: 47 (100.0%) |
| Was selection and distribution fair? | Yes: 38 (80.9%); Don't know: 7 (14.9%); No: 2 (4.3%) |
| Was ice handled and stored hygienically? | Yes: 44 (93.6%); Don't know: 2 (4.3%); No: 1 (2.1%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 6; Condition Good: 6; Operating Yes: 6; Hygiene Fair: 2, Good: 4; Avg. users/visit: 12.8 |
The largest single sample, showing very high satisfaction and satisfaction with timely support among vendor/open-kitchen recipients. Gender and disability access questions returned a higher share of "Don't know" responses than other activities, largely because recipients were reporting on their own stall rather than a shared public site. Awareness of the feedback mechanism is the lowest of any activity (14.5%) and is a priority for CDF follow-up.
"Cloth is very poor quality."
"Saman sahi quality ka nahi mila hai aur saaman rehri k qaabil nai hai."
"Cooler aur shamsi plate mile aur mazboot sheet mile mukamal saman k sath."
| Sex of respondents | Male: 34, Female: 34, Other/self-described: 1 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 2 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 59 (85.5%); Fair: 10 (14.5%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 67 (97.1%); Don't know: 2 (2.9%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 66 (95.7%); Don't know: 3 (4.3%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 58 (84.1%); Don't know: 10 (14.5%); No: 1 (1.4%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 38 (55.1%); Don't know: 28 (40.6%); No: 3 (4.3%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 40 (58.0%); Don't know: 27 (39.1%); No: 2 (2.9%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 66 (95.7%); Don't know: 2 (2.9%); No: 1 (1.4%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 65 (94.2%); Don't know: 1 (1.4%); No: 3 (4.3%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Yes: 2 (2.9%); No: 67 (97.1%) |
| Did you receive the shade net/cloth? | Yes: 69 (100.0%) |
| Was it installed or used? | Yes: 60 (87.0%); No: 9 (13.0%) |
| Material quality | Good: 54 (78.3%); Poor: 3 (4.3%); Fair: 12 (17.4%) |
| Did you receive installation support/instructions? | Yes: 58 (84.1%); Don't know: 6 (8.7%); No: 5 (7.2%) |
| Did it help protect work/customers/kitchen activity? | Yes: 55 (79.7%); Don't know: 14 (20.3%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 25; Condition Good: 19, Fair: 4, Poor: 2; Operating Yes: 25; Hygiene Fair: 7, Good: 16, Poor: 2; Avg. users/visit: 11.5 |
Performs well on functionality, hygiene and inclusion (women's and PWD/older-person access both above 86%), and satisfaction is high. This is the only activity with confirmed coverage across all three tehsils, including the Community Cooling Station in Panj Chowk, Garhi Khairo. As with CIB, awareness of the feedback mechanism is low (11.4%) — the lowest of any fixed-site activity — despite good staffing and supply levels observed on site.
"Koi problem nh h, har waqt thanda pani majood hota hai."
"Isk ilwa dusri jagao pr b lagne chiye."
"JIMS hospital ke nazdeek lgae camp."
| Sex of respondents | Male: 42, Female: 2 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 3 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 30 (68.2%); Fair: 12 (27.3%); Poor: 2 (4.5%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 42 (95.5%); Don't know: 2 (4.5%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 38 (86.4%); Don't know: 3 (6.8%); No: 3 (6.8%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 39 (88.6%); Don't know: 4 (9.1%); No: 1 (2.3%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 41 (93.2%); Don't know: 2 (4.5%); No: 1 (2.3%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 38 (86.4%); Don't know: 3 (6.8%); No: 3 (6.8%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 44 (100.0%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 38 (86.4%); Don't know: 5 (11.4%); No: 1 (2.3%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Don't know: 1 (2.3%); No: 43 (97.7%) |
| Was it open during expected hours? | Yes: 33 (75.0%); Don't know: 7 (15.9%); No: 4 (9.1%) |
| Was safe drinking water available? | Yes: 40 (90.9%); Don't know: 4 (9.1%) |
| Was shaded seating/rest space available? | Yes: 38 (86.4%); Don't know: 4 (9.1%); No: 2 (4.5%) |
| Was a trained staff member/volunteer present? | Yes: 37 (84.1%); Don't know: 4 (9.1%); No: 3 (6.8%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 5; Condition Good: 2, Fair: 2, Poor: 1; Operating Yes: 5; Hygiene Good: 5; Avg. users/visit: 10.8 |
Shows strong satisfaction and reasonable inclusion, though disability/older-person access is somewhat lower (75%) than for fixed sites, plausibly reflecting the mobility demands of intercepting a moving service. Feedback-mechanism awareness is mixed (40% yes) — better than CIB/CCS/GSN but still with room for improvement.
"Route timing could be publicised better so more people know when the cart is coming."
"ORS packets ran out once during a very hot afternoon; otherwise consistent."
"Shade around the cart is limited when many people gather at once."
| Sex of respondents | Female: 11, Male: 9 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 1 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 12 (60.0%); Fair: 6 (30.0%); Poor: 2 (10.0%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 18 (90.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 16 (80.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%); No: 2 (10.0%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 15 (75.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 4 (20.0%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 19 (95.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 15 (75.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 4 (20.0%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 15 (75.0%); No: 5 (25.0%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Yes: 2 (10.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 17 (85.0%) |
| Was cold drinking water available? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Was ORS available when needed? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Was first aid available? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Was shade available around the cart? | Yes: 13 (65.0%); Don't know: 4 (20.0%); No: 3 (15.0%) |
| Did the cart visit regularly / known route? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 1; Condition Fair: 1; Operating Yes: 1; Hygiene Good: 1; Avg. users/visit: 12.0 |
Shade Everywhere structures show strong satisfaction and the highest satisfaction with timely support recorded (90%). A structural quality concern was flagged by both survey and observation data at one site following storm damage, which aligns with the KII report of two shade panels torn and not yet reinstalled.
"Shade structure is helpful but could be larger to cover more of the market area."
"More such shades are needed at other market points nearby."
"Would like the shade extended into the evening hours for vendors staying later."
"Structure held up well in wind; only the corner anchoring needs checking."
| Sex of respondents | Male: 13, Female: 7 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 0 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 14 (70.0%); Fair: 3 (15.0%); Poor: 3 (15.0%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 18 (90.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 18 (90.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 15 (75.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 4 (20.0%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 16 (80.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%); No: 2 (10.0%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 14 (70.0%); Don't know: 3 (15.0%); No: 3 (15.0%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 18 (90.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 12 (60.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 7 (35.0%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Yes: 3 (15.0%); No: 17 (85.0%) |
| Did people actively use the shade? | Yes: 16 (80.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 3 (15.0%) |
| Structural condition | Good: 14 (70.0%); Fair: 5 (25.0%); Poor: 1 (5.0%) |
| Did it feel safe in wind and normal use? | Yes: 19 (95.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%) |
| Was the location appropriate for people at risk? | Yes: 18 (90.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 4; Condition Good: 2, Fair: 1, Poor: 1; Operating Yes: 4; Hygiene Good: 2, Poor: 1, Fair: 1; Avg. users/visit: 9.0 |
Score well across quality, hygiene, accountability awareness (65% — the highest of any activity) and timely support satisfaction, consistent with their simple, low-maintenance design and direct community management.
"Water point is useful but needs more frequent refilling in peak heat."
"A second point nearby would reduce waiting and crowding."
"Good location, easy to reach, water stays cool most of the day."
| Sex of respondents | Male: 12, Female: 8 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 1 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 14 (70.0%); Fair: 5 (25.0%); Poor: 1 (5.0%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 17 (85.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 2 (10.0%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 12 (60.0%); Don't know: 3 (15.0%); No: 5 (25.0%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 19 (95.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 17 (85.0%); Don't know: 3 (15.0%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 19 (95.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 14 (70.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 5 (25.0%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Yes: 2 (10.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 17 (85.0%) |
| Was water available when you visited? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Hygiene and cleanliness | Good: 12 (60.0%); Fair: 8 (40.0%) |
| Was it easy to reach and use? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 11; Condition Good: 10, Fair: 1; Operating Yes: 11; Hygiene Good: 8, Poor: 2, Fair: 1; Avg. users/visit: 8.1 |
Show solid satisfaction and functionality, with a comparatively higher "Don't know" share on women's access, consistent with livestock-handling roles in the area being predominantly male. Feedback-mechanism awareness (60%) is comparatively strong for this activity.
"Would like a second trough as animals from nearby areas also use this one."
"Trough needs more frequent refilling and occasional cleaning."
"Watering point is useful for our animals, especially in the afternoon heat."
| Sex of respondents | Male: 9, Female: 11 |
| Respondents reporting a disability | 1 |
| Overall condition/quality | Good: 12 (60.0%); Fair: 6 (30.0%); Poor: 2 (10.0%) |
| Available when heat risk was high | Yes: 19 (95.0%); No: 1 (5.0%) |
| Helped reduce heat exposure/risk | Yes: 18 (90.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 1 (5.0%) |
| Helped continue work/protect livelihood | Yes: 13 (65.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 6 (30.0%) |
| Women/girls could access safely and fairly | Yes: 14 (70.0%); Don't know: 5 (25.0%); No: 1 (5.0%) |
| PWD/older persons could access | Yes: 15 (75.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%); No: 4 (20.0%) |
| Treated respectfully, no discrimination | Yes: 19 (95.0%); Don't know: 1 (5.0%) |
| Knew what they were entitled to | Yes: 16 (80.0%); Don't know: 2 (10.0%); No: 2 (10.0%) |
| Actually gave feedback/complaint | Yes: 4 (20.0%); Don't know: 3 (15.0%); No: 13 (65.0%) |
| Was water available for animals? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Condition of trough/station | Fair: 14 (70.0%); Good: 6 (30.0%) |
| Did you observe animals using it? | Yes: 20 (100.0%) |
| Was it refilled regularly? | Yes: 14 (70.0%); Don't know: 3 (15.0%); No: 3 (15.0%) |
| Direct observation — sites observed | 5; Condition Fair: 2, Good: 3; Operating Yes: 5; Hygiene Fair: 1, Good: 4; Avg. users/visit: 10.4 |
Coverage, quality, inclusion and accountability, triangulated across all seven activities.
Overall satisfaction was Very satisfied/Satisfied for 211 respondents (87.9%), with only 6 reporting dissatisfaction. 88.8% said the intervention helped reduce heat exposure or heat-related risk, and 70.0% said it helped them continue work or protect their livelihood.
Inclusion indicators were consistently strong for CIB, CCS, CWP and AWP; Green Shade Nets shows a comparatively higher share of "Don't know" responses on gender and disability access, reflecting the recipient-only nature of that interview.
This is the most consistent cross-cutting gap in the dataset: awareness of entitlements is strong, but awareness and use of the accountability/complaints channel is markedly weaker.
Several respondents in key informant interviews and focus group discussions noted that complaint banners or phone numbers were displayed at distribution sites but not actively explained to beneficiaries.
Overall, 214 out of 240 respondents (89.2%) said the support was useful because it arrived before heat conditions became more severe — triangulated through 17 key informant interviews and 3 focus group discussions.
"Ready to help as soon as temperatures rose — community first-responders, because training was delivered soon after the trigger."
"Prepare before the worst heat arrived rather than after symptoms appeared."
"Women described being able to cook in the shade rather than direct sun, and reported drinking more, cooler water once ice access began."
"Early activation helped prevent heat-related health risks and reduced disruptions to daily livelihoods."
This finding supports CDF's forecast-based financing model by showing that respondents valued timely support provided before peak heat conditions. It should be read alongside the accountability gap identified in the previous section, particularly low awareness of feedback and complaint channels.
What worked, what needed adaptation, and cross-cutting learning from the activation phase.
Most frequently cited: crowding and limited seating at busier cooling stations during peak hours; occasional depletion of water/ice ahead of the next refill; one wind-storm event that damaged shade-net anchoring at a small number of sites; and transport/distance barriers for some female beneficiaries. In most cases, PY/CDF field teams adapted promptly — adjusting refill schedules, adding seating, or reinforcing damaged frames.
Women and girls generally accessed services without major barriers, with cultural norms and household responsibilities cited as the main limiting factor rather than deliberate exclusion. Persons with disabilities and older persons were supported through caregiver collection and accessible, ground-level site placement, though formal disability-specific accommodations (e.g., ramps) were not observed at most sites.
Beneficiaries generally understood their entitlements but had inconsistent awareness of how to use feedback or complaint channels. No safeguarding concerns, payment demands or misconduct were raised in any key informant interview or focus group discussion, and enumerators reported no incidents requiring escalation through the safeguarding referral pathway during fieldwork.
Grouped by urgency to support CDF's planning for any subsequent activation cycle.
Independent evidence and a clear path forward for future anticipatory action.
The evidence gathered through this independent PDM shows that the Start Ready Pakistan Heatwave Anticipatory Action activation phase in Jacobabad was delivered largely on time, to a good standard of quality and functionality, with high beneficiary satisfaction and strong, independently corroborated validation of timely support before peak heat conditions. The principal area requiring CDF's attention is accountability: awareness and use of feedback/complaint channels lags well behind awareness of entitlements across most activities.
PY is confident that this report, together with its underlying KoBoToolbox datasets, sampling frame and field-control records, provides CDF, Start Ready and Start Network with a credible, independent and actionable evidence base on the performance of the activation phase.
Peace by Youth thanks the Community Development Foundation, the communities of Jacobabad and Thul, and all respondents who gave their time to this independent monitoring exercise.
Supporting datasets, workbooks and reference documents underpinning this report.
| Annex | Document |
|---|---|
| A | Detailed sampling frame and respondent allocation by activity/tehsil |
| B | Beneficiary Survey Questionnaire — KoBoToolbox dataset (240 records) |
| C | Direct Observation and Site Assessment — KoBoToolbox dataset (57 records) |
| D | KII and FGD Documentation — KoBoToolbox dataset (20 records) |
| E | PDM Data Analysis Report (supporting statistical annex) |
| F | Inception Report (approved methodology and sampling design) |
Full annex datasets and the formal signed-off PDF are available to CDF, Start Ready and Start Network on request.
This PDM is one part of PY's growing evidence base on youth-led, community-centred humanitarian and development work across Pakistan.