Humanitarian Quality Assurance - Central African Republic: Evaluation of the response in Bangui | Oxfam | Internally Displaced Person

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 35
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:

Documents

Published:

Views: 10 | Pages: 35

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Share
Related documents
Description
This evaluation report is presented as part of the Effectiveness Review Series 2014/15, selected for review under the humanitarian response thematic area using the application of Oxfam’s Humanitarian Indicator Toolkit (HIT). The report presents the findings from the evaluation carried out in November 2014, of Oxfam’s humanitarian response in Bangui, Central African Republic, between February and October 2014. The humanitarian assistance that Oxfam delivered in Bangui consisted of firstly water treatment, supply and distribution
Transcript
  EVALUATION: NOVEMBER 2014 PUBLICATION: SEPTEMBER 2016 www.oxfam.org.uk/effectiveness   HUMANITARIAN QUALITY ASSURANCE: CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC Evaluation of the response in Bangui Effectiveness Review Series 2014/15 Oxfam team connecting pipes to fill bladders with drinkable water for IDP camps in Bangui. Credit: Vincent Tremeau/Oxfam MARILISE TURNBULL OXFAM GB   Humanitarian Quality Assurance: Central African Republic. Evaluation of the response in Bangui. Effectiveness Review Series 2014-15 2 CONTENTS 1 Background ........................................................................................................................... 3   1.1 The disaster and response ................................................................................................ 3   1.2 Evaluative methodology .................................................................................................... 4   2 Summary of results ............................................................................................................... 5   2.1 Quantitative result by standard ......................................................................................... 5   3 Detailed analysis of results .................................................................................................. 6   3.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 6   3.2 Analysis using standards and benchmarks ..................................................................... 6   3.2.1 Quality standard 1: Timeliness ...................................................................................... 6   3.2.2 Quality standard 2: Coverage ......................................................................................... 8   3.2.3 Quality standard 3: Technical aspects of programme measured against Sphere standards .................................................................................................................................10   3.2.4 Quality standard 4: MEAL strategy and plan in place and being implemented using appropriate indicators ............................................................................................................13   3.2.5 Quality standard 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. ................................18   3.2.6 Quality standard 6: Partner relationships defined, capacity assessed and partners fully engaged in all stages of programme cycle ...................................................................19   3.2.7 Quality standard 7: Programme is considered a safe programme: action taken to avoid harm and programme considered conflict sensitive ..................................................20   3.2.8. Quality standard 8: Programme (including advocacy) addresses gender equity and specific concerns and needs of women, girls, men and boys .............................................22   3.2.9 Quality standard 9: Programme (including advocacy) addresses specific concerns and needs of vulnerable groups ............................................................................................23   3.2.10 Quality standard 10: Evidence that preparedness measures were in place and effectively actioned. ................................................................................................................24   3.2.11 Quality standard 11: Programme has an advocacy/campaigns strategy and has incorporated advocacy into programme plans based on evidence from the field. ............25   3.2.12 Quality standard 12: Evidence of appropriate staff capacity to ensure quality programming ...........................................................................................................................26   Appendix 1: Sources of data ..................................................................................................28   Appendix 2: Humanitarian Indicator Tool for slow-onset disasters: Degree to which humanitarian responses meet recognised quality standards for humanitarian programming ...........................................................................................................................32   Notes ........................................................................................................................................34     Humanitarian Quality Assurance: Central African Republic. Evaluation of the response in Bangui. Effectiveness Review Series 2014-15 3 1 BACKGROUND  1.1 THE DISASTER AND RESPONSE In December 2013, a long-running internal conflict in Central African Republic (CAR) deteriorated into a major humanitarian emergency. Bands of former rebels, whose predominantly Muslim ‘Seleka’ alliance had seized power in March 2013, went on a violent rampage in various regions of the country, committing executions, massacres and rapes in communities they believed to be supporters of the ousted president. In response, predominantly Christian ‘Anti - Balaka’ groups that had srcinally been set up to defend themselves from Seleka rebels, transformed into militias and proceeded to commit massacres and lynchings of their own against populations they regarded as pro-Seleka.  Across the country, villages were threatened and attacked by violent armed groups of one allegiance or another. In fear of their lives, hundreds of thousands of people fled to the capital, Bangui, where they set up makeshift camps in and around religious buildings, at the airport, and in other sites across the city. Meanwhile, fighting spread to Bangui itself, and over a period of a few days in December 2013, over a thousand people were killed.  Already poor prior to this crisis, many IDPs (Internally Displaced People) were thrown into a situation of extreme vulnerability. They lacked the means to feed or protect themselves, and were unable to return to their lands while the violence continued. In the crowded camps there was little or no access to water or sanitation facilities, and outbreaks of diarrhoea rose sharply. In response to warnings of a potential genocide, the international community began to react. The UN declared the situation a ‘Level 3 emergency’ in December 2013, and humanitarian organisations mounted operations to supply food, water, emergency shelter and other forms of relief to the then 190,000 IDPs in Bangui. Following its own assessment of the crisis as a ‘Category 2 emergency’, Oxfam’s humanitarian response team arrived in- country in early January 2014 with the objective of ‘filling gaps’ in the collective response in the areas of water, sanitation, hygiene, emergency food security, income-generating opportunities, protection and humanitarian advocacy. The humanitarian assistance that Oxfam delivered in Bangui from February to October 2014 (the period covered by this evaluation) consisted of: ã  Water treatment, supply and distribution; hygiene promotion; provision and maintenance of sanitation facilities for 61,261 beneficiaries (IDPs and host communities) in 23 sites 1 ã  Food distributions and cash transfers for 8,500 beneficiaries 2 From May 2014 Oxfam made plans to set up a programme in Bria, a region where there was a proportion of returnees from the capital. However, following a series of delays and challenges, the Bria programme didn’t become operational until October 2014, and is therefore beyond the scope of this Effectiveness Review.   Humanitarian Quality Assurance: Central African Republic. Evaluation of the response in Bangui. Effectiveness Review Series 2014-15 4 1.2 EVALUATIVE METHODOLOGY This evaluation uses a methodology designed to enable Oxfam GB (OGB) to estimate how many disaster-affected men and women globally have received humanitarian aid that meets established standards for excellence from Oxfam GB. The methodology is based on a Humanitarian Indicator Tool consisting of 13 quality standards and a scoring system (see Appendix 2), which varies slightly for rapid and slow onset emergencies. It requires documented evidence, complemented by verbal evidence where available, to be collected and analysed in relation to each standard. A rating is generated for the programme’s results against each standard, and as a cumulative total. In cases where the rating was significantly affected by a lack of documented or verbal evidence, this is noted in the relevant section. For the evaluation of the CAR response, 12 of the 13 quality standards were used. The ‘Resilience’ standard was not included as Oxfam GB was in the process of revising its benchmarks. The emergency in CAR was cons idered a ‘slow onset’ emergency, and thus the ‘slow onset’ version of the standards was used.  A quantitative summary of the results of the evaluation is provided in Section 2. A fuller explanation of the rating for Oxfam’s performance against each standar  d is provided in Section 3.
Recommended
View more...
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