An Integrated Evaluation Appraisal of Disaster Response Support and Electronic Monitoring in Uganda:

Abstract

The aim of this study was to establish extents how integrated evaluation appraisal of disaster response of transitive relief supplies and electronic monitoring suggest solution to the COVID-19 indented food and logistics supplies challenges in urban areas in Uganda. The study worked on a sample of 693 of the targeted 1562 electronic media deployment teams, the distributors of food items and logistics, vulnerable groups, COVID-19 task force groups in urban areas. A positivistic approach and cross-sectional survey was conducted. Data analysis took correlational and descriptive statistics based on the purposive and simple random sampling techniques. Findings suggest that experiences on the nature of disasters, diseases (41.8%) frequently and adversely affect local people by 77.8 %, businesses by 13.0%, international community by 4.5% and districts by 3.4%. The methods of distribution of response support indicate that using local councils (45.2%), district task force (20.3%) and village task force (11.8%) were preferred on criteria of receiving supplies as a family (50.2%) and per head (22.0%) for those who don't live as a family. Shortfalls such as corruption (39.0%), inadequacies of food and logistics (23.2%), local politics (22.0%), poor road systems (9.6%), improper monitoring system (73.5%), poor media coverage (34.5%) caused by high cost (57.1%), unreliable network (34.5%), unacceptability of media staff by security (77.4%) were more prominent. Delivery and distribution of food and palliatives was low (37.3%), with 67.9% never received food supplies in time while 11.5% received after complaints. Those who did not receive at all made up 62.7%. For disaster experience, the source of relief and vulnerability positively influence appraisal, and significantly influenced delivery of relief supplies by 48.7%. Shortfalls of food response cause accumulative burden of 89.8%. Vulnerability of the people positively influenced appraisal by 21.8% and delivery of relief by 16.9%. The reasons and intensions of response negatively affected source of relief by 4.7%. Quality of relief had a positive correlation with reasons and intensions of response, source of relief and delivery of relief, level of vulnerability, monitoring and reporting. The suggested elements as determinant of the frame work include source of relief, methods of response, reasons and intensions of response, quality of relief, monitoring and reporting.