Humanitarian Indicator Toolkit - Slow Onset

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 7
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report
Category:

Others

Published:

Views: 3 | Pages: 7

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
The humanitarian effectiveness reviews critically examine the performance of selected humanitarian responses against 12 recognised quality benchmarks. Following the protocol of the Humanitarian Indicator Tool (HIT), external humanitarian experts review existing documentation and interview the response
Transcript
  VM Walden 2013 Guidelines for Consultants in use of Humanitarian Indicator Tool for Slow Onset Emergencies The evidence needed for each standard under the indicator needs to be checked for quality and effect. Standard Evidence Quality check 1 Rapid appraisal of facts within 24 hours of pre-defined trigger, plans in place and scale-up or start-up commenced within three days Examples of triggers could be the IPC results, Fewsnet, State of Emergency declared. Trigger such as the categorisation may not be appropriate if this was late  –  if the country does use this as a trigger, consultant needs to look at other agencies and the overall response to assess Oxfam timeliness Initial assessment report  –  partner and Oxfam Other agency assessment reports RTE report Sitreps from first two weeks Request for CatFunds Date of first concept note Telecon notes with region or HD Date of new PIP or project on OPAL BBC website JCAS Contingency plans Other agency response  –  such as Save the Children Check JCAS and contingency plans for predefined triggers Check BBC website for Oxfam and predictions on slow onset Check the date of the assessment report  –  both when the assessment was carried out and when the report was written Check that assessment report has proposed intervention included Check the RTE under benchmark 1 and 2 for mention of timeliness but also of pre-trigger monitoring The Sitreps should give the date of first implementation The request for CatFunds will also show timeliness as it should be within first week Check for telecons around triggers and need to respond Check the contingency plan as this should identify different scenarios and which triggers will be used Look for evidence of monitoring of the situation and a reaction to the data If there was no reaction and the response was late, look for good reasons such as lack of media interest and donor reluctance  –  media reports 2 Coverage uses 10% of affected population as a planned figure with clear  justification for final count It could be that the target was for advocacy purposes only Coverage assessment using the scale - RTE reports Initial assessment report Telecon notes stating categorisation Minimum standards in place 1  Concept notes with proposed aspirational coverage Proposed budget for aspirational figure Look at the assessment report and the concept note for the total number of affected UN reports will also give total number affected The RTE will give an estimate of programme targets and whether these have been reached In the case where 10% of the population has not been reached, the explanation needs to have been documented If the explanation is plausible and unavoidable, the rating can be met  –  these could be lack of access, insufficient funding, Oxfam prioritising marginalised communities whose needs are not being met by others, scattered populations such as pastoralists where it 1  HR, logistics and finance minimum standards for faster implementation  VM Walden 2013 Revised coverage figure and budget with justification UN reports for actual affected figures would not be cost effective to cover large numbers, government decisions for INGO involvement, UN or government having a good response Check in telecon minutes that categorisation was agreed and minimum standards put in place The coverage should be cumulative without too many sudden upsurge in numbers especially during last months of programme  –  look at responsiveness to needs (use the Sitreps for tracking) If most of the activities are advocacy look for evidence of effect such as increased access or more funding being pledged that potentially would increase the number of beneficiaries without it being possible to give a figure 3 Technical aspects of programme measured against Sphere standards Note: the word “Sphere” may not be mentioned but the standard itself should be used (for example mentioning the amount of water per person but not the word Sphere)  –  check the Sphere standards handbook if in doubt If there is clear justification for not using Sphere standards this should have been documented Proposals MEAL strategy and plans PH and EFSL strategies Technical adviser visits Training agendas and presentations LogFrames and monitoring frameworks donor reports RTE and other evaluation reports learning event or review reports Check proposals and strategies to see if standards are mentioned not just as a possibility but that they are considered in the context of the response  –  this might mean that Sphere has been adapted to suit the context The indicators on the LogFrame for technical areas should reflect Sphere standards The MEAL strategy should have Sphere as indicators and for data collection methods Check adviser reports for mention of standards and how these were implemented Check the RTE report for mention of Sphere standards Check WASH and EFSL strategies and adviser reports to see if any training was carried out for staff and partners Check review and evaluation reports for mention of standards 4 MEAL strategy and plan in place and being implemented using appropriate indicators LogFrame in proposals Logic model and outcome statements in PIPs Monitoring framework Evidence of formats for data collection being used Reporting  –  technical reports, donor reports Evaluations Check the indicators  –  are they SMART? Is there a target, quantity and quality? Are there indicators at the different levels that reflect that level? Are the same indicators used at different levels? Do the indicators reflect gender?  Are there clear Means of Verification (MOV)? Is there a monitoring framework with MOVs and a timeline? Is there evidence of monitoring data collected and analysed against indicators being used to inform programme progress and maintain activity quality?  VM Walden 2013 Outcome statement on OPAL Check the logic model (for the PIP) and an outcome statement that is replicated in the project LogFrame Check if there has been an evaluation that looks at the outcome indicators  –  what was the method used and is it robust enough to measure outcomes? Check the donor reports for mention of monitoring and measurement of outcome  –  are the conclusions plausible and well demonstrated? Check monthly/quarterly reports for mention of monitoring and measurement of progress towards meeting indicators Check if unintended outcomes have been reported or documented in internal or donor reports  Are sex and age disaggregated data being collected and reported? 5 Feedback/complaints system for affected population in place and functioning and documented evidence of information sharing, consultation and participation leading to a programme relevant to context and needs  Assessment reports with comparison with final proposals to check needs expressed and addressed Feedback/complaints system protocol Follow up mechanism and database Reporting format and collation of complaints form MEAL strategy and reports Technical reviews and visit reports Pictures of banners, billboards and ration cards with numbers Donor reports Media reports and productions (both internal and external) Case studies Feedback session reports from community (if available) RTE reports and other evaluations Sitreps (a sample) Check evidence of a system in place including logging of feedback/complaints and a method for follow-up Check for evidence of feedback/complaints leading to changes in programming Check for evidence that serious complaints were dealt with appropriately (satisfactory outcome for both complainant and Oxfam)  – may be in Sitreps Check for evidence of consultation with the population regarding methods in place and satisfaction levels with the system (look at evaluation reports, RTEs and MEAL reports) Check assessment reports for degree of consultation (especially more in-depth assessments) Check especially technical reports for degree of community participation and decision-making Check MEAL strategy and technical strategies for participation of communities in MEAL Check to see if OI MEAL minimum standards and dimensions are mentioned anywhere Check to made sure information was given out and the feedback system for complaints about lack of information Check evaluation reports to see if needs were addressed 6 Partner relationships defined, capacity Partnership agreements Oxfam International has a policy around partnership and an  VM Walden 2013 assessed and partners fully engaged in all stages of programme cycle Partner assessment report RTE reports Planning meeting minutes Evaluation reports Technical adviser visits Partner reports Training agendas and participant lists assessment tool  –  check that these are known and have been followed Check partnership agreements that they have been carried out and signed Check that partnership agreements clearly state expectations and outcomes for both parties Check agreements for mention of capacity building and how this will happen Check assessment report for mention of partner engagement Check planning meeting reports and technical adviser reports for partner involvement Check monitoring and accountability framework/strategy for partner involvement Check learning event reports for partner involvement Check technical adviser reports for mention of partner training or capacity Check partner reports for satisfaction around partnership Check evaluation reports for partner capacity assessment and views on Oxfam Interview partners (if possible) for their perceptions around the working relationship 7 Programme is considered a safe programme: action taken to avoid harm and programme considered conflict sensitive  Assessment report Gender analysis and strategy Protection analysis Protection HSP report (if applicable)  Advocacy strategies Technical reports RTE reports Evaluation  Affected population feedback session reports Protection and other advisor visit reports Other protection actor reports (according to Sphere Protection Principles and sector-specific protection standards) Check that protection was considered and that a risk analysis was carried out (proposals and Sitreps) In situations deemed to be risky, check that protection was integrated into the programme (protection strategy) If above check that Sphere protection standards or other sector-specific standards were used Check in early Sitreps if protection staff were requested and when the request was filled Check WASH and EFSL strategies to ensure that dignity and safety were considered and addressed Check reports for evidence of feedback from separate women and men’s g roups Check that Oxfam staff are aware of other actors protection activities if not being addressed by Oxfam Check advocacy strategy to see if protection issues were considered Check evaluations for mention of protection and addressing issues
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks