Coordinated)Assessments)in) HumanitarianCrises...Beer priori@saon +of+needs+to+ensure+the+most vulnerable+receive+appropriate+and+@mely+assistance+ Creang+acommon+operaonal+picture+on+which+to+

oordinated Assessments IASC

Inter-‐Agency Standing Commi3ee C

Coordinated Assessments in Humanitarian Crises

Workshop Khartoum, Sudan 18 – 19 July 2012



WHY COORDINATE ASSESSMENTS?



Why coordinate assessments?

 Be3er ar@culate needs of people affected by emergencies

 Be3er priori@sa@on of needs to ensure the most vulnerable receive appropriate and @mely assistance

 Crea@ng a common opera@onal picture on which to carry out strategic planning and development of appeals

 Making linkages between assessments and monitoring: are we responding to the needs of the popula@on?



IASC Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF) OperaIonal Guidance Opera@onal Guidance on Coordinated Assessments in Humanitarian Crises Joint assessment approach for sudden-‐onset emergencies MIRA: Mul@-‐cluster Ini@al Rapid Assessment Data ConsolidaIon Key Humanitarian Indicators/ Humanitarian Dashboard Capacity building and support Roster for response and preparedness Training



IASC OperaIonal Guidance for Assessment in Humanitarian Crisis -‐ Overview

•  Shared commitment to work together on iden@fying needs, and collec@vely agreeing on the characteriza@on of and strategic priori@es in response to an emergency.

•  Provides defini@ons, roles, responsibili@es, and recommended methodologies and tools for use at different points in an emergency.

•  Includes guidance on Mul@-‐Cluster/Sector Ini@al Rapid Need Assessment and Humanitarian Dashboard.



Uncoordinated o  Mul@ple Assessments o  Mul@ple Methodology o  Mul@ple Reports

Harmonized (coord.) o  Mul@ple assessments

with common ques@ons o  Single Methodology

Joint (coord.) o  Single assessment form o  Single methodology o  Single report

Increasing Coo

rdinaI

on

BeVer CAP

/WP/Flash Ap

peal and

targeted

hu

man

itaria

n respon

se

Types of Assessment



Disaster First 3 days First 2 weeks

Second 2 weeks Onwards

1 3 2 4 0 Prepare-‐dness

Preliminary Scenario Defini@on (PSD)

Mul@-‐Sector Ini@al Rapid Need Assessment

MIRA Report

Single cluster/sector rapid assessment

Phases of Emergency

+

MIRA



Phase 0: Preparedness Mechanisms in place to undertake @mely and quality collec@on and analysis of data on needs

  Data preparedness   SOPs with agreed roles and

responsibili@es   Agreed methodology and

data collec@on tool   Exis@ng capacity in-‐country

with required skills and knowledge



Phase I/II: MIRA

1 Secondary Data Analysis (IniIal MIRA report)

2 Primary Data Review

+ MIRA -‐ Community Level Assessment

3

Final MIRA Report + Response Plan



Phases 3/4

  Harmonize single cluster/sector data collec@on   Survey of Surveys   Aggregate and analyze data at inter-‐sectoral level   Establish monitoring systems   Develop Humanitarian Dashboard   Linkages with early recovery.



Assessment CoordinaIon

•  Establishment of Assessment and Informa@on Management Working Group (AIM WG) -‐ Chaired by OCHA

•  Par@cipa@on should be open to all IASC Members and includes sector leads/coordinators (or focal points appointed by sectors), as well as other relevant actors

Assessment CoordinaIon

InformaIon Management

Technical Experts

Sector Leads/Coordinators



Roles and ResponsibiliIes HC

  Overall responsibility for assessment coordina@on.   Ac@vates coordina@on mechanism (AIM WG, ICWG)   Calls for MIRA, Humanitarian Dashboard   Holds actors accountable

Government

  Lead and/or par@cipate in undertaking of joint assessment, as appropriate

OCHA   Provides assessment coordina@on support (i.e. Assessment Coordinator or Focal Point, Data Analyst)

  Chairs AIM WG, ICWG   Coordinates and manages MIRA process, and Humanitarian Dashboard

  Supports data and assessment harmoniza@on



Roles and ResponsibiliIes

Cluster/Sector Leads   Coordinate NA within sectors, notably MIRA, assessment and data harmoniza@on and Humanitarian Dashboard.

Cluster/Sector Members

  Engage with coordina@on structures.   U@lize methodologies and tools to allow for harmoniza@on of data and informa@on.

  Share data collected and par@cipate in inter-‐agency and inter-‐cluster analy@cal processes.



SESSION 2: GROUP WORK – CUSTOMIZING THE ASESSMENT

FRAMEWORK FOR SUDAN

 Contextualize Assessment Framework for Sudan: which elements are relevant to Sudan and where, link to exis@ng planning and appeals processes

 Propose an assessment coordina@on structure for Sudan


Inter-‐Agency Standing Commi3ee C SESSION 3: PRESENTATIONS AND DICUSSION OF GROUP WORK – CUSTOMIZING THE ASESSMENT

FRAMEWORK FOR SUDAN




SESSION 4: REVIEW OF BASIC ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY




Terms Sources of Data: Secondary Data : •  Secondary data is informa@on which has undergone analysis •  Secondary data can be published research, internet materials,

media reports, such as an agency or sector specific monitoring reports

Primary Data: •  Data gathered from the informa@on source and which has not

undergone analysis before being included in the needs assessment.

•  Primary data is collected directly from the affected popula@on by the assessment team through field work.



Types of Data QuanItaIve: • Informa@on based in quan@@es or else quan@fiable data • Analysed numerically, the results of which are typically presented using sta@s@cs, tables and graphs. QualitaIve: • Descrip@ons or dis@nc@ons based on some quality or characteris@c rather than on some quan@ty or measured value • Qualita@ve data are oaen textual observa@ons that portray abtudes, percep@ons or inten@ons.

Terms






Preliminary Scenario Defini@on (PSD)

Mul@-‐Sector Ini@al Rapid Need Assessment

MIRA Report


Phases of Emergency

+

MIRA



Disaster

Designing the assessment phases Day 1 Day 30

Phase I Phase II Phase III

Day 3 Day 15

WASH

Food Security

Health

EducaIon

Environment

Cross cufng

ProtecIon

NutriIon

..........

?

 

      • 

 

      ?

?

?

WASH LFS

Health EducaIon

  • 

•  •  • 

......



Time and Cost

Depth of inform

aIon

Defining the level of assessment


Community level

Household level

Individual level

Community/Group level



Representa@ve sampling

Time and Cost

“Gen

eralizab

ility”

RepresentaIveness…

Purposive sampling


Convenience sampling



Key Informants interviews

Focus Groups discussions

Households Survey

Time and Cost

ParIcipa

tory fo

cused tools

Interview Type

Direct observa@ons


Individuals Survey

Secondary data review



Sampling and site selecIon

•  MIRA is based on purposive sampling data collec@on •  Data collec@on tool focuses on observa@on and key informant interviews

•  The sampling size or the number of visited sites is determined by the availability of staff, @me and logis@cal support, as well as by the geographic spread of the disaster

•  Purposive sampling cannot represent the whole disaster-‐affected popula@on and its results cannot be generalized beyond the target popula@on.



Sampling

•  Community Level –  Time –  Access –  Logis@cs

•  Avoid Household or individual level data collec@on within the first 2 weeks



Site selecIon

•  If you can visit just one…which do you select? –  Most “representa@ve” or “typical” –  Most severely affected –  Represen@ng disadvantaged minority popula@on –  Represen@ng affected area on which no info exists



Site SelecIon ConsideraIons

•  Urgent Need-‐limited to areas of greatest need or highest vulnerability

•  Accessibility

•  Gaps in exis@ng knowledge

Remember: •  Need to clearly explain what the selected site represents •  Phase 1 and 2 assessments are not representa@ve

samples-‐ purposive sampling is usually applied



SESSION 5: MULIT-‐SECTOR INITIAL RAPID

ASSESSMENT (MIRA)







Ini@al IRNA report

Ini@al Rapid Need Assessment (Mul@-‐Cluster)

IRNA Report


Phases of Emergency

+

IRNA



MIRA Main ObjecIves

  IdenIfy strategic humanitarian prioriIes

  Provide “good enough” data on Ime. Methodologically sound, realisIcally feasible.

  Feed into funding decisions – CERF, Flash Appeal

  Guide in-‐depth sectoral assessments -‐ not to replace them!

  Consider the views of beneficiaries – a cross sectoral approach



MIRA Approach: Main Elements 1.  Ini@ate the MIRA

2.  Collect, collate and analyze secondary data and ini@al primary data

3.  Collect primary data to fill informa@on gaps using standardized data collec@on tool (Community Level Assessment)

4.  Conduct joint analysis and determine strategic humanitarian priori@es

5.  Prepare and disseminate the MIRA Report



MIRA: Addressing challenges to assessments in an emergency •  Limited resources and access mean that a limited number of

locaIons can be assessed –  Limited physical access –  Limited @me –  Limited human/financial resources

•  Privilege the quality of the assessment relaIve to the size of the assessment –  Qualita@ve informa@on –  Assessors/Emergency Specialists (vs. enumerators)

•  Integrate the perspecIves of affected people –  Iden@fica@on of key concerns –  Ranking of key concerns



uHumanitarian Incident

v IniIal MIRA Report (Secondary Data Analysis)

YES or NO

wMobilize Inter-‐Sector Assessment team

x Primary Data CollecIon

z Assessment Report: Consolida@on of primary and secondary data

{ AcIon/Response Plan: Agree amongst sectors response through a response plan

yJoint Analysis



Team ComposiIon

  Assessment team leader   Male and female team members   Team members with local language skills and knowledge of cultural norms

  Ensure mul@-‐sector representa@on   Mix of technical and func@onal skills



SESSION 6: PLENARY DISCUSSION – APPLYING THE ELEMENTS

TO SUDAN




SESSION 7: REVIEW OF DAY 1

Group Work:

 Write down one key message or important piece of informa@on that you learned yesterday.

 Write down one ques@on on the MIRA or Opera@onal Guidance you s@ll have.

 Discuss in your groups. Answer all ques@ons to the extent that you can. Please give to Kim any ques@ons that you cannot answer.



SESSION 8: SECONDARY DATA AND

THE PRELIMINARY SCENARIO DEFINITION




Key Messages: Secondary Data

•  Recognize that a lot of informaIon is already available: “secondary data” –  Secondary data is neither be3er nor worse than primary data; it is

simply different. –  The source of the data is not as important as its quality and its

relevance for the purpose. •  The systemaIc and conInuous collaIon and analysis of secondary

data is essenIal. –  Pre-‐disaster informa@on to understand pre-‐exis@ng vulnerabili@es –  Post-‐disaster informa@on to understand current crisis situa@on –  Past lessons learned

•  Use a gender and generaIonal perspecIve to idenIfy differences between sexes and age groups. –  An overall understanding of a situa@on is impossible if the needs of

significant segments of the popula@on are ignored.



Secondary Data Analysis

KEY STEPS

IdenIfy quesIons to be answered

MIRA Analy@cal Framework, Preliminary Scenario Defini@on, Humanitarian Dashboard

Collect and collate data

SoS

Assess Data Standards for reliability and validity.

Turn data into informaIon

Contextualize data. Compare against pre-‐crisis situa@on, Sphere standards.

Interpret Iden@fy most affected areas/groups, key priori@es

IdenIfy informaIon gaps

Outstanding informa@on that is needed. Recommenda@ons for primary data collec@on.



AnalyIcal Framework

•  Guides iden@fica@on of informa@on needs •  Guides systema@c collec@on, colla@on and analysis of data; and

•  Supports joint analysis. and •  Headings/content directly linked to other ‘products’ such as SitReps, Flash Appeals, CAP/Work Plan, Humanitarian Dashboard, and Preliminary Scenario Defini@on to allow for informa@on to be interoperable.



Themes

  Drivers of the crisis and underlying factors   Scope of the crisis and humanitarian profile   Condi@on of affected popula@ons   Na@onal capaci@es and response   Interna@onal capaci@es and response   Humanitarian access   Coverage and gaps   Strategic humanitarian priori@es



Survey of Surveys (SoS)

•  Database managed by OCHA that records assessments taken place in the field and summarize assessment findings, response.

•  Database also helps in sharing data/reports.



Country X Assessment Database – Surveys of Survey 49 Assessments recorded since 2010

Natural Disasters 28%

Health Related 21%

Conflict 51%



Survey of Survey Analysis – Country X

State B 4%

State C 19%

State D 31%

State E 12%

State F 12%

State G 6%

State H 8%

State I 2%

State J 4% State A 2%



SESSION 9: GROUP WORK – MAPPING EXISTING SECONDARY DATA SOURCES

 What are the secondary data sources that you currently use to inform your analysis of the situa@on and planning?



SESSION 10: PRESENTATION AND GROUP WORK ON SECONDARY DATA



SESSION 11: SECONDARY DATA ANALYSIS AND PREPARING A PRELIMINARY SCENARIO

DEFINITION (PSD)



SESSION 12: PRESENTATION AND DISCUSSION OF GROUP WORK ON

PREPARING A PRELIMINARY SCENARIO DEFINITION



SESSION 13: PRIMARY DATA COLLECTION –

COMMUNITY LEVEL ASSESSMENT



Primary Data CollecIon

MIRA

Direct Observa@on Key Informant

Affected Sites + Sites where affected popula@on are residing or in transi@on



Terms Data CollecIon Methods Direct ObservaIon: •  Observing condi@ons and specific features of an affected site from a range of viewpoints and loca@ons to provide an overall view of the affected area and by no@ng these observa@ons in a checklist.

•  Look, hear, smell….. •  Structured versus unstructured



Data CollecIon-‐ Direct ObservaIon

Be aware : •  Provides a snapshot of a situa@on-‐limited use when crisis evolves rapidly/conflict

•  Assessors own percep@ons and expecta@ons



Terms Data CollecIon Methods Key Informant: •  A KI is a primary data source with prior knowledge of the affected community who can provide informa@on on behalf of the community on the impact of the disaster and on the priority community needs.

•  Data from KIs can be combined and analysed to develop an understanding of how an emergency has affected different (sub) groups of a popula@on



Data CollecIon-‐ Key Informants

Pro:   Valuable in assessing remote and hard to reach communi@es

  Give a holis@c and qualita@ve overview of the impact of the disaster

Con:   Biggest limita@on is their subjec@ve nature: Informa@on is biased by: respondents personal opinions and cultural background



Terms Data CollecIon Methods Focus Group Discussion (FGD): •  A FGD is a group discussion with persons of similar ages and backgrounds (and usually gender) whose experience of the disaster will likely be similar. Informa@on gathered from an FGD enables analysis and understanding of a selected topic on the basis of common characteris>cs of the groups.

•  Ini@al days aaer a crisis it may not be possible to form discrete FGDs that meet specific FGD criteria. In addi@on, it may not be possible to include someone with FGD facilita@on skills in the assessment team.



CriIcal steps in Assessment (Part 1)   Begin preparing for assessment immediately aaer the emergency alert

and convene an AIM WG/Inter-‐Sector WG mee@ng   Iden@fy and consolidate PSD, unless a secondary data analysis has been

undertaken recently or there is access constraint to start the assessment Refer to assessment plan and methodology and agree as a group on plan, scope and objec@ves Consider appropriate team composi@on (for example, gender balanced, mul@-‐sector representa@on). Ensure that the assessment team has agreed and iden@fied the geographic focus of field assessment. No of sites and why specific site has been chosen Confirm that adequate logis@cs and administra@ve planning has been done to ensure safety and effec@veness of the team.



CriIcal steps in Assessment (Part 2)

Plan and iden@fy priority informa@on needs, and data collec@on methods and tools. Ensure team member go through the MIRA data collec@on tool before the assessment as part of briefing. Collect and analyse data from a range of Key Informants, Observa@on and discussion groups. Ensure daily debriefs to undertake first level analysis. Jointly analyze aggregate of assessment findings. Develop clear recommenda@ons on how respond to the emergency. Document and share assessment findings along with response plan as part of MIRA final report



SESSION 14: JOINT ANALYSIS



Joint Analysis and Response Planning •  Convene a debriefing a;er the assessment to reach

common stand point •  Convene in an AIM WG/Inter-‐sector WG. Analyse

assessment data to produce common analysis. •  The team should work together to ensure the

informa@on obtained by different team members can be cross-‐referenced with others before reaching conclusions.

•  All assessment team members should dedicate @me to complete the final MIRA report

•  Inter-‐sector working group to agree on appropriate response immediately a;er assessment to be included in FINAL MIRA report



Report and Response Plan

•  Communicate ini@al findings through PSD (secondary data analysis)

•  Ensure raw data is made available to humanitarian actors.

•  Ensure a MIRA assessment report builds on PSD and is finalised and circulated to stakeholders building.

•  Ensure response plan is agreed as part of MIRA report.



Allow sufficient Ime for analysis.



SESSION 15: GROUP WORK -‐ SOPs for each Phase of the Assessment Framework for Sudan

 Each group is assigned one Phase of the Assessment Framework (0, 1, 2 or 3) and asked to develop SOPs as for how needs assessment and analysis would be approached/strengthened in that phase.

 Remember to link to planning/funding documents (i.e. Flash Appeal, Work Plan) to ensure they have an evidence base.



SESSION 16:

RepresentaIve from each group presents SOPs to Assessment

Coordinator



SESSION 17: A COORDINATED ASSESSMENT

APPROACH FOR SUDAN

 Summary of discussions and results from group work over past 2 days

 Outline next steps

Documents

Coordinated)Assessments)in) HumanitarianCrises...Beer priori@saon +of+needs+to+ensure+the+most vulnerable+receive+appropriate+and+@mely+assistance+ Creang+acommon+operaonal+picture+on+which+to+