Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkitunicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs...The...

Humanitarian Performance Monitoring - Toolkit and Guide 01 June 2011

1

Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkit See UNICEF Intranet http://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM1

Executive Summary

Background

The global humanitarian context is continually evolving with increasing frequency of

disasters and continuing complex emergencies. At the same time there is an increasing

examination of the effectiveness of the international humanitarian system and continued high

expectations for improved coordination and greater accountability, including to affected

populations. In 2010, UNICEF further reinforced its commitment to its humanitarian

mandate with the release of the revised Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian

Action (CCCs), the organization’s central policy on humanitarian action, which now brings a

stronger results focus to UNICEF humanitarian work and aligns UNICEF commitments to

global standards such as SPHERE and Education in Emergencies standards (INEE).

Building on existing experience of UNICEF and partners, this Humanitarian Performance

Monitoring (PM) Toolkit takes this further with a view to strengthening UNICEF performance

monitoring in humanitarian situations. As the UNICEF CCCs can only be realized through

close collaboration with UNICEF implementing partners, the Toolkit includes elements that

are intended for use with partners and can be promoted for use at cluster/sector level.

Why is this important?

In on-going humanitarian situations, strong performance monitoring is essential to support

effective response. Operating in humanitarian situations is associated with high risk:

programme design risks of ‘doing harm’ in complex contexts; implementation and financial

management risks due to a scale up in operations, often after a sudden increase in

resources; and reputational risk. More and more attention is being paid to the effectiveness

of humanitarian response. The best way to demonstrate effectiveness is through solid, high

frequency performance information, showing results for affected population. For more

information see Humanitarian PM Background Note.

What is different?

In on-going humanitarian situations, there is a higher frequency demand for information

about programme implementation and operational support. For UNICEF, there are three

overarching questions that need to be answered, both to effectively manage the response

and for accountability. These are: (1) How well are UNICEF and implementing partner

programmes contributing to strategic results and targets; (2) As country cluster/sector lead

agency (CLA) how well is UNICEF leading cluster/sector coordination; and (3) How well is

the clusters/sector UNICEF is leading delivering on results for the affected population? NB.

The country cluster/sector lead agency is not solely accountable for cluster/sector results (it

is a joint accountability for the whole cluster/sector). The cluster/sector lead agency role is to

ensure that systems are in place for the cluster/sector to monitor results and identify gaps.

To monitor at these three levels, UNICEF needs to go beyond input data, which is the

‘traditional’ method of performance monitoring in humanitarian situations, that may include

elements situation monitoring as well as budget monitoring. UNICEF can no longer solely

rely on low-frequency and high-cost outcome level surveys. UNICEF and partners need light


2

systems appropriate to context to get a combination of rough high-frequency data on outputs

and estimates of coverage.

What is the proposed approach to strengthen Humanitarian Performance Monitoring?

For UNICEF, humanitarian PM in this Toolkit is designed to feed into the Situation Report or

SitRep. The SitRep, now aligned to the CCCs, is proposed as the minimum monitoring and

reporting requirement for UNICEF COs in on-going humanitarian situations. With this,

UNICEF will be able to provide light but systematic results-focused reporting to the

Humanitarian Country Team as well as other partners and external audiences.

The Humanitarian PM Toolkit supports data collection feeding into the SitRep including:

• Improved and simplified programme implementation monitoring for UNICEF implementing partners – through PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum;

• Field Monitoring systems providing systematic light high coverage and high-frequency data on quality of programmes, bottlenecks in implementation, end use of supplies, negative impact and as a minimum feedback mechanism for affected populations;

• Light, high frequency assessment of progress in meeting Cluster/Sector Lead Agency accountabilities (where UNICEF is country cluster/sector lead agency).

• Periodic surveys (lower frequency outcome monitoring) where funding allows and ideally

as an Inter-Cluster/Sector exercise.

When should Humanitarian Performance Monitoring be Used?

The Humanitarian PM is designed to be flexible and adaptable to country contexts; UNICEF

CO and implementing partner capacity and to the resources available.

Supporting Cluster/Sector Performance Monitoring1 This Toolkit has been developed

for UNICEF and implementing partners however the approach and key tools are also

intended for sharing and use with cluster/sector partners. Tools can also be easily adapted

to support Cluster/Sector level monitoring and facilitate agreement on what to monitor within

Clusters/sector working groups.

Support for UNICEF CO Humanitarian PM. To support UNICEF COs in applying the

Humanitarian PM Toolkit a Community of Practice has been established that guarantees a

48 hour response to any queries. In addition a roster of trained internal and external

candidates suitable for surge capacity for Humanitarian PM. A programme performance

monitoring E-tool for use by UNICEF and implementing partners (and more widely where no

such national or Humanitarian Country Team platform is in place) has been developed2.

Feedback The Humanitarian PM Toolkit is based on focused pilot work in Pakistan and

South Sudan, and input from an internal reference group and key external partners.

UNICEF is committed to building on the Toolkit based on new experiences, adaptations and

refinements. Please provide feedback to Kate Alley ([email protected])

1 UNICEF’s Coordination accountability under Humanitarian Reform and the revised CCCs is for the

sector/cluster UNICEF leads at the country level. This means it is not contingent on any formal activation of the cluster approach in a country. UNICEF’s coordination accountability remains.

2 This will allow UNICEF and implementing partners to input, share and draw reports on a few common priority

indicators, and to feed into Humanitarian Country Team performance management.


3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ 1

1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 4

Background – the Core Commitment for Children in Humanitarian Action (CCCs) ............ 4

What is different about Humanitarian PM? ........................................................................ 5

What is the proposed approach for Humanitarian PM? ...................................................... 6

How does Humanitarian PM link with other processes? .................................................... 6

2. Guide to Strengthening Humanitarian Performance Monitoring ............................... 10

Steps to Strengthen CO Humanitarian Performance Monitoring ...................................... 10

Accountabilities for CO Humanitarian Performance Monitoring ....................................... 16

Simplified Humanitarian Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Plan (IMEP) and Results

Framework ...................................................................................................................... 20

3. Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Tools ............................................................. 30

Situation Report ............................................................................................................... 30

Indicator Guide ................................................................................................................ 40

PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum ...................................................................... 47

UNICEF PCA / Intervention Mapping ............................................................................... 59

Field Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 61

UNICEF Cluster / Sector Coordination Milestone Monitoring Tool ................................... 82

Cross-Sectoral Communication for Development (C4D) .................................................. 86

Outcome Surveys ............................................................................................................ 91


4

1. Introduction

Background – the Core Commitment for Children in Humanitarian

Action (CCCs) The purpose of the Humanitarian PM Toolkit is to support the effective implementation of

UNICEF Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action (CCCs). This entails

strengthening UNICEF Humanitarian PM to monitor progress of results for children at a

greater frequency. It also entails equipping UNICEF to monitor progress for its country

cluster/sector Lead Agency responsibilities.

The CCCs are UNICEF’s core humanitarian policy to uphold the rights of children affected by

humanitarian crisis. They are a framework for humanitarian action, around which UNICEF

seeks to engage with partners. The intent of the updated CCCs remains to promote

predictable, effective and timely collective humanitarian action, putting forth clearly the results

where UNICEF can best contribute. Initially issued in 2000 and revised in 2004, the current

revision of the CCCs brings policy up to date with changes in global context for humanitarian

action, including new evidence and best practices, as well as humanitarian reform, in

particular the Cluster Approach. The CCCs include specific commitments to establish and

support coordination mechanisms (relevant to UNICEF’s role as cluster lead or partner), with

interagency assessments and strategies being critical parts. The commitments combine

cluster / sectoral, operational, and cross-cutting issues. The CCCs also bring a stronger

results focus to UNICEF humanitarian work while at the same time aligning UNICEF

commitments to global standards such as SPHERE Humanitarian Charter and Minimum

Standards in Humanitarian Response and the InterAgency Network for Education in

Emergencies (INEE) Minimum Standards in Education. See more…

The Cluster Approach, introduced as one of the pillars of Humanitarian Reform at the end of

2006, is intended is to strengthen system-wide preparedness and technical capacity to

respond to humanitarian emergencies by ensuring that predictable leadership in the main

sectors leads to predictable humanitarian response. UNICEF is Global Cluster Lead Agency

in Nutrition and WASH, co-lead in Education (with Save the Children), focal point agency for

the child protection and gender-based violence ‘areas of responsibility’ in the broader

protection cluster; and co-chair of the cross-cutting IASC Reference Group on Mental Health

and Psychosocial Support in Emergency Settings. UNICEF’s role at the country level may

differ across countries since country-specific arrangements are determined based on

agencies’ in-country strengths and contextual factors. The role of cluster/sector leads at the

country level is to facilitate a process aimed at ensuring well-coordinated and effective

humanitarian responses in the sector or area of activity concerned. Specific responsibilities of

cluster/sector leads at the country level are detailed in the Terms of Reference for

Cluster/Sector Lead at Country Level and include performance management.

For further background see Background Note for CMT

Why higher frequency Humanitarian PM is important.

• It allows UNICEF and implementing partners results for children to be regularly

monitored and tracked

• It helps manage risks: programme design risks of ‘doing harm’ in complex contexts and

rapid scale-up; financial and implementation management risks when there is sudden

increase in resources; reputational risks where UNICEF is unable to say what its

progress is


5

• The international community and especially donors are demanding increased

accountability and demonstration of results. Evaluations continue to show humanitarian

PM as a weakness for both the wider humanitarian system and for UNICEF specifically.

• For UNICEF, Humanitarian PM is a CO accountability as detailed in the CCCs

What is different about Humanitarian PM? In on-going humanitarian situations, there is a higher frequency demand for information

about programme implementation and operational support. For UNICEF, there are three

overarching questions that need to be answered, both to effectively manage the response

and for accountability. These are: (1) How well are UNICEF and implementing partner

programmes contributing to strategic results and targets; (2) As country cluster/sector lead

agency (CLA) how well is UNICEF leading cluster/sector coordination; and (3) How well is

the clusters/sector UNICEF is leading delivering on results for the affected population? NB.

The country cluster/sector lead agency is not solely accountable for all cluster/sector results

(it is a joint accountability for the whole cluster/sector), the cluster/sector lead agency is

accountable to ensure that systems are in place for the cluster/sector to monitor results and

identify gaps.

To monitor at these three levels, UNICEF needs to go beyond input data, which is the

‘traditional’ method of performance monitoring in humanitarian situations, that may include

elements situation monitoring as well as budget monitoring. UNICEF can no longer solely

rely on low-frequency and high-cost outcome level surveys. UNICEF and partners need light

systems appropriate to context to get a combination of rough high-frequency data on outputs

and estimates of coverage.

In humanitarian situations, UNICEF and implementing partners need light monitoring

systems that are appropriate to the context to provide ‘good enough’ high-frequency data on

outputs that allow estimates of programme coverage. This is also needed at the level of

cluster/sector coordination. Without this the gap in coverage will be unknown for too long –

adversely affecting effective response to the population (and UNICEF reputation). In

addition, UNICEF and implementing partners need similar high-frequency data on quality of

programme implementation through Field Monitoring visits. As the scale of the response

increases, so must the coverage of Field Monitoring to give greater confidence in rough

coverage data, to identify bottlenecks and to allow feedback from affected populations.

What is the objective of Humanitarian PM?

The objective of Humanitarian PM is to support UNICEF CO management in assessing

performance through;

• Contributing to improve predictable, effective and timely humanitarian action of UNICEF

and it partners, both UNICEF implementing partners and cluster/sector partners.

• Strengthening (wherever possible) the links between national government frameworks,

UNICEF humanitarian action programmes and UNICEF regular programmes.

• To reinforce accountability at UNICEF Headquarters, Regional and Country Offices in

line with the CCCs, within the broader framework of UNICEF’s global Performance

Management.

When should Humanitarian Performance Monitoring be Used?


6

What is the proposed approach for Humanitarian PM?

Humanitarian PM builds on the existing UNICEF CO Situation Report (SitRep) an

established reporting mechanism in humanitarian situations. The SitRep is the proposed

minimum reporting requirement for all UNICEF COs in Level II and III emergencies. It has

been re-designed to serve as a CO management tool (or ‘overview dashboard’) with key

overview data for CO senior management to assess the progress of the response.

The Humanitarian PM Toolkit provides guidance and tools to support data collection to feed

into the SitRep. What is appropriate to each context will vary, starting with the most basic

and extending to higher levels of investment:

• Low Cost Option: Improved and simplified programme implementation monitoring through selection of priority high frequency indicators for inclusion in cooperation agreements (through the PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum)

• Medium Cost Option: Field Monitoring providing systematic light high coverage and high-frequency data on quality of programmes, bottlenecks in implementation, end use of supplies and negative impacts as well as a minimum feedback mechanism for affected populations;

• Low Cost Option: Assessment of progress in meeting country Cluster/Sector Lead Agency accountabilities (where UNICEF is country cluster lead agency).

• High Cost Option: Periodic surveys (lower frequency outcome monitoring) where

funding allows and ideally as an Inter-Cluster exercise.

The Humanitarian PM Toolkit focuses primarily on performance monitoring of UNICEF

support to service delivery and cluster/sector coordination (where UNICEF is country

cluster/sector lead agency). Where COs humanitarian response role is primarily focused on

capacity development and advocacy strategies with national partners, the focus of

performance monitoring efforts will be more in line with mainstream UNICEF CO

performance monitoring approaches. In such contexts some elements of the Toolkit may be

useful to promote for national partners use.

How does Humanitarian PM link with other processes?

• The Humanitarian PM Toolkit focuses specifically on Performance Monitoring.

• It does not provide detailed guidance or tools on initial Needs Assessment or

humanitarian evaluation. Both are covered in Inter-Agency resources.

Needs Assessments

• Accountability for Sudden Onset Response coordination and overall information

management lies with OCHA (in coordination with the national government)

• The scope of OCHA’s role will be a factor of its pre emergency presence, resources

available and role of national government.

• The UNICEF CO should determine the UNICEF role in Rapid Needs Assessments and

plan accordingly, see Steps to Strengthen CO Humanitarian PM

Situation Monitoring

• Options for Outcome Surveys are contained within the Humanitarian PM toolkit and guide


7

• Low frequency survey indicators contained in the Indicator Guide tool are mapped onto MICS indicators where relevant

Real Time Evaluations

• Real-time evaluations often take place at the Inter-Agency level.

• UNICEF will likely be involved as a key informant. UNICEF CO involvement in the

evaluation method itself will be determined on a case-by-case basis

Learning/Accountability Processes

• The following diagram shows the Humanitarian PM Toolkit in relation to wider Learning

and Accountability processes

• See the Simplified Humanitarian IMEP for additional details and resources

Figure: Humanitarian Learning/Accountability Options

Early Warning / Early Action Platform

• Note that Humanitarian PM also includes performance monitoring of preparedness

measures.

• For UNICEF COs, this is covered through the regular updates to the Early Warning-Early

Action System

• The overview tool Steps to Strengthen CO Humanitarian PM contains some light,

specific, preparedness steps that can be considered for Humanitarian PM.


8

VISION

• Programme-related data in humanitarian PM will be at a higher level of detail than

Programme Component Results (PCRs) and Intermediate Results (IRs) in the Revised

Results Structure (RRS) (e.g. an IR will at best be equivalent to the macro level nutrition

CCC strategic result); however, programme-related data in humanitarian PM can feed

into VISION performance data.

• Humanitarian PM will draw on operations performance data from PROMS/VISION (e.g.

financial data) as well as from other stand-alone data management ‘systems’ such DHR

tools on surge capacity management.

• In Humanitarian PM, programme-related data must be outside VISION as this must feed

into and be shared with national partners, NGO partners (with whom we have

cooperation agreements), wider Cluster members and HCT

• From 2012 (after VISION is introduced), it is proposed that the current microsoft word

SitRep template could be replaced with an electronic SitRep tool for greater ease and

efficiency in reporting.

• This would draw from the country level electronic humanitarian partner reporting format

(to be developed Q3/42011) as well as VISION, while allowing space for COs to add in

written analysis as in the current template.

• The E-SitRep would handle production of internal and external versions of the report as

well as allow storage of data (monthly time series) and would feed into aggregation of

key data at global level.

Key Assessment Questions for COs in humanitarian situations

• Do you have adequate monitoring systems to manage UNICEF humanitarian response

taking into consideration the context, scale and scope of the response?

o Do you know the rough levels of coverage being achieved in key programme activities

with regular frequency? (If No consider prioritising a few key high frequency output

indicators per sector – selected from the Indicator Guide - and including them in

UNICEF cooperation agreements using the PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum

tool)

o Do you have some form of systematic verification of the quality of implementation? (If

No then consider using Field Monitors)

o Do you have an overview of the financial, human resources and supply support to

programmes and where the gaps are? (If No then consider using SitRep format within

Humanitarian PM)

o Do you know the status of cluster/sector coordination processes? (If No consider

using Cluster-Sector Coordination Milestone Monitoring Tool)

o Are you collaborating with other partners to get key outcome level data?

• What can UNICEF build upon and link up to; for example, monitoring systems that are in

place or planned by national and international partners, cooperation agreement partners

and wider Cluster partners?

• Who in the CO will be responsible for implementing, supporting and reporting on HPM?

• Are additional resources (human and financial) needed for UNICEF contribution to

Humanitarian PM?

o If yes can CO resources be reallocated


9

o Are additional Humanitarian PM resources included in any appeal documents (this

is highly recommended).

o Is HPM surge support needed

• See more under Accountabilities for CO Humanitarian Performance Monitoring

Definitions

Emergency; A situation that threatens the lives and well-being of a population and requires extraordinary action to ensure their survival, care and protection (UNICEF PPPM 2009, and CCCs as per CF/EXD/2010-02, 2010) Complex Emergency: A humanitarian crisis in a country, region or society where there is total or considerable breakdown of authority resulting from internal or external conflict which requires an international response that goes beyond the mandate of any single agency/or the ongoing UN Country Programme (IASC 1994). Levels of Emergency Response3: Level 1: the scale of the emergency is such that a Country Office can respond using its own staff, funding, supplies, and other resources, and the usual RC/HQ support Level 2: the scale of the emergency is such that a Country Office needs additional support from other parts of the organization (HQ, RO, and COs) to respond and that the RO must provide leadership and support. Level 3:the scale of the emergency is such that an organization-wide mobilization is called for

3 Taken from Ex Dir CF/EXD/2011-01: UNICEF’s Corporate Emergency Activation Procedure


10

2. Guide to Strengthening Humanitarian Performance Monitoring

Steps to Strengthen CO Humanitarian Performance Monitoring

Q&A Guide on Using Tool

Contents of this section

• Why is this important (what the Country Management Team should know)

• What does it take to do it

1. As preparedness actions;

2. Following a sudden onset emergency4

3. During chronic humanitarian situation

Why is this important (what the Country Management Team should know)

• This section is a quick reference guide to actions to strengthen CO Humanitarian

Performance Monitoring (PM).

• It recognises that there are different contexts for implementing Humanitarian PM and will

consider steps; as preparedness actions5; following a sudden onset emergency, and

during chronic humanitarian situations

What does it take to do it

1. As Preparedness Actions

The following actions should take place both as part of preparedness and immediately

following the decision to implement Humanitarian Performance Monitoring.

Accountabilities (Recommend decision by Deputy Rep)

Decide who within the CO will be:

• The focal point / lead and who will be involved in CO Sudden Onset Response Planning

(where a Response Plan is required) - recommend Dep Rep; Emergency Officer and CO

Planning unit – with someone from the monitoring section

• The focal point / lead for Humanitarian PM (recommend CO Monitoring unit but will

depend on capacity of CO)

• The focal point for CO SitReps (recommend staff with link to CO Monitoring unit;

Emergency Officer and Programme Sections)

4 Following a sudden onset emergency the priority for which steps to take would differ depending on when the

decision to implement Humanitarian PM is taken; i.e. Immediately following the sudden onset trigger; 4 weeks

after the sudden onset trigger; 8 weeks etc. At some point during a chronic emergency. The UNICEF staff leading

for Humanitarian PM needs to adapt the steps and priorities to the CO priorities. 5 Preparedness actions currently outside the EW/A system


11

Assessing Existing CO Monitoring mechanisms (Recommend CO Monitoring unit)

Examples of questions:

• Is latest baseline information on population centralised and easily accessible – If not

recommend CO Monitoring unit collates

• Does baseline info provide data against age groups specified within the CCC

commitments6 - If not recommend map gaps and possible solutions for finding data

High Frequency monitoring

• Can current CO monitoring mechanisms provide information on delivery of UNICEF

supplies - If not recommend map gaps and possible solutions

• Can current CO monitoring mechanisms provide information on UNICEF interventions in

terms of numbers of people reached? - - If not recommend map gaps and possible

• Where sector working groups / clusters are used can current CO monitoring mechanisms

provide information on UNICEF progress in meeting sector/cluster lead agency

accountabilities - If not recommend map gaps and possible solutions

• Do current CO monitoring mechanisms provide a structured process for Field Monitoring

visits to UNICEF intervention sites, that includes a qualitative component and

discussions with end-users. I.e. Use and usefulness of supplies; bottlenecks; unintended

negative impacts (exclusions, ‘Do No Harm’) - If not recommend map gaps and possible

solutions

Resourcing (Recommend decision/plan by Deputy Rep in coordination with monitoring

section)

• Based on the gaps and solutions from the Assessment of existing CO monitoring

mechanisms - What extra UNICEF monitoring and reporting human and financial

resources would be needed to;

o Implement higher frequency monitoring in a chronic humanitarian situation

o Implement higher frequency monitoring during a Level 2 or Level 3 sudden onset

emergency response

2. Following a Sudden Onset Emergency

First week

Actions as detailed in Preparedness Actions above

• Accountabilities

• Assessing Existing CO Monitoring mechanisms

• Resourcing

In addition:

Determine UNICEF role in Rapid Needs Assessments (Recommend Deputy Rep in

coordination with CO monitoring unit)

• Accountability for Response coordination and overall information management lies with

OCHA (in coordination with the national government)

6 See Target/Baseline calculator in Indicator Guide


12

• At present draft OCHA guidelines7 are seeking to agree the scope of the initial Rapid

Needs Assessment (OCHA accountability) to one or two (depending on size of

emergency) – desk based, qualitative assessment “guestimates” of the response ‘Needs’

to inform the Flash Appeal8 and the revised Flash Appeal.

• Within the proposed MIRNA framework a Needs Assessment survey would be the

responsibility of the country cluster/sector lead agency

• If this context immediate steps are required for the CO to secure the resources (both

human and financial) to carry out a Needs Assessment survey

• Necessary resources should be included in the appeal. Additional dedicated surge staff

would be required to lead the survey(s). An option to consider is ‘contracting out’ the

Needs Assessment survey work, e.g. to CDC (Centre for Disease Control) who can

adapt questions to suit the sector and context.

Agree SitRep Reporting format9 (Recommend decision by Deputy Rep in coordination with

Rep and Regional Office - REA)

• Decision to adopt revised SitRep format

• Task staff member with production of SitRep

• Support SitRep production through clear communication to Programme and Operational

sections, at national, provincial and zonal levels (where applicable)

• SitRep reporting for weeks 1-4 will likely include programme supplies and inputs; and

progress on key operational functions (resource mobilization, supply and HR)

o At week 2-3 SitReps to begin to include progress on UNICEF cluster/sector lead

coordination progress

o After week 4 SitReps can begin to report progress from implementing partner reports

(providing framework for Humanitarian PM has been established)

Week 2-3: Establishing Humanitarian PM framework

Align and strengthen UNICEF cooperation partner monitoring and reporting – Priority

– low cost (Recommend CO Monitoring unit lead, supported by relevant Programme

Sections)

• Prioritize Humanitarian PM (CCC) programme output indicators10 that can realistically be

monitored by implementing partners with the available resources (i.e. 2 or 3 per sector

selected from the Indicator Guide).

• Validate with Programme sections (and ideally with potential UNICEF implementing

partners as time allows. An ideal alternative is to share the UNICEF priority indicators in

advance, noting that these are not the limit of the UNICEF planned interventions)

• Introduce the priority 2-3 indicators into relevant UNICEF cooperation agreements with

partners11, along with agreement that partners will report at a higher frequency (i.e.

monthly following sudden onset; quarterly in chronic emergencies)

7 Multi-Cluster Initial Rapid Needs Assessment guidelines (MIRNA) draft 18April2011

8 For Flash Appeal guidelines see

9 See SitRep format of Humanitarian PM toolkit

10 See Indicator Guide of Humanitarian PM toolkit

11 See PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum tool of Humanitarian PM toolkit


13

Establish Field Monitoring Visits to UNICEF projects: 2 options – medium cost

(Recommend decision on option by Deputy Rep in coordination with monitoring section)

A) UNICEF Programme staff visit programme sites to verify cooperation partner reports as

well as discussions with end-users. I.e. Use and usefulness of supplies; bottlenecks;

unintended negative impacts (exclusions, ‘Do No Harm’);

B) Where there are access issues or not enough UNICEF capacity for visits – hire Field

Monitors12 (either through an organizational SSA or directly through SSAs with individuals)

to carry out Field Monitor Visits on behalf of UNICEF

Develop a Simplified IMEP and Results Framework – low cost (recommend CO

Monitoring unit)

• Within the first 2 weeks the CO is likely to produce a CO Sudden Onset Response plan13

This is outside the scope of the Humanitarian PM toolkit and the format and guide is

contained in the Emergency Response toolkit

• The Results Framework expands on the Sudden Onset Response plan and includes

both high and low frequency indicators.

Challenges and Solutions Preparedness / First Week

Potential Challenges Possible Solutions Where Challenges not addressed

Accountabilities for

Humanitarian PM not clear

• Early decision (Dep Rep) on

who should lead based on CO

monitoring capacity

• CO Monitoring section says its

Programme section responsibility -

Programme sections don’t have

time/capacity/existing high frequency

monitoring mechanisms.

• Humanitarian PM does not happen

• Poor quality SitRep – adverse effect on

resource mobilization.

Assessing existing CO

monitoring mechanisms

does not happen / takes

too long

• Assess as part of

preparedness and during 1st

week after decision to

implement Humanitarian PM

• Suitable / appropriate elements of

existing CO monitoring not utilized for

Humanitarian PM

Resourcing

• Resourcing (human and

financial) considered in

appeal and in country plan

• Insufficient CO monitoring capacity

• Insufficient funds for Field monitoring

visits (through 3rd

party organization)



12

See Field Monitoring Visits - Contracting and Managing Humanitarian PM toolkit 13

See Sudden Onset Response Plan – Emergency Response Toolkit


14

Potential Challenges Possible Solutions Where Challenges not addressed

Sit Reps

No-one to write

• Early decision (Dep Rep) on

who should lead for report

writing with sufficient capacity

and links to monitoring,

programmes and Emergency

Officer

• Various staff write SitReps, lack of

continuity in format and content.



SitReps

Format does not include

programme performance

tables

• Establish framework for

Humanitarian PM

• Early decision (Dep Rep) to

adopt SitRep version with

programme performance

tables

• CO unable to report beyond inputs and

cluster/sector information where

country cluster/sector lead agency.

• Mixing of UNICEF and cluster/sector

progress.


resource mobilization. External

criticism

Week 2-3

Assess UNICEF progress in country cluster/sector coordination14 where UNICEF

country cluster/sector lead agency

• (Recommend led by CO Monitoring unit)

• After start of sector working groups / cluster: Can be carried out periodically through one-

to-one interviews/discussion with UNICEF cluster/sector coordinator/focal point.

• Where sector working groups / clusters have been operational for some time : Utilise one

of the more in depth cluster / sector coordination tools (e.g. Q-SAC developed by

APSSC)

Supporting Cluster/Sector performance monitoring where UNICEF country

cluster/sector lead agency

• (Recommend led by programme section in coordination with Monitoring unit)

• The PCA Addendum tool of the Humanitarian PM toolkit supports cluster/sector

performance monitoring through inclusion of the commitment to report:

o In line with cluster-sector reporting frequency

o To country Cluster/sector lead agencies

o Using the OCHA 3W.

• Cluster/Sector performance monitoring can be further supported through the sharing of

UNICEF priority programme performance indicators for use as a starting point for

clusters/sectors in agreeing what to monitor.

• CO monitoring sections should support UNICEF cluster/sector coordinators / focal points

to develop and agree realistic, appropriate and useful performance monitoring indicators.

Week 4 onwards

14

See Cluster/Sector Coordination Milestone monitoring tool of Humanitarian PM toolkit


15

• CO SitReps to begin to include programme performance progress tables – incorporating

information from UNICEF cooperation partner progress reports (NB. This will only be

possible providing Humanitarian PM has been established – particularly prioritising

indicators and including them in PCAs)

Week 12 or 16 (approximately)

• External CO progress report to include latest information on 2-3 prioritized indicators per

sector with latest assessment results of status of UNICEF meeting cluster lead agency

accountabilities.

At week 26 or 52 (as appropriate)

• Outcome survey of programme results – carried out on inter-agency basis

3. Chronic Humanitarian Situations

• The Humanitarian PM toolkit can be adapted to ‘chronic’ humanitarian situations,

however the variety of chronic situations means a higher level of adaption is required.

• Ongoing work includes adapting HAC planning, mid-year and end of year reporting

requirements to reflect more standardized Humanitarian PM

• A different definition of ‘high frequency’ is likely than in sudden onset responses (i.e.

quarterly or twice yearly)

• Chronic humanitarian performance monitoring should try to build on existing planning

and reporting mechanisms wherever possible.

The following steps outlined above should also be considered for Humanitarian PM in

chronic emergency contexts

• Agree SitRep Reporting format

• Align and strengthen UNICEF cooperation partner monitoring and reporting

• Standardise / Establish regular Field Monitoring Visits to UNICEF projects

• Assess UNICEF country Cluster/sector coordination progress

Challenges and Solutions Chronic humanitarian situations

* Please share Challenges and Solutions through the Humanitarian PM Community of

Practice for inclusion in future drafts of the Humanitarian PM guide.

http://intranet.unicef.org/CoP/EMOPSHPM/CommunityContent.nsf


16

Accountabilities for CO Humanitarian Performance Monitoring





• Establishing Humanitarian PM

• Options to consider when applying


• The clarification of CO accountabilities for establishing and leading for Humanitarian PM

is essential.

• Without clear accountabilities Humanitarian PM will always be ‘someone else’s job’ and it

will not happen.

• The following key decisions are required at the CO Deputy Rep / Senior Management

level

• Tasking of Humanitarian PM within CO, including production of SitRep

• Reallocation of CO resources / including Humanitarian PM into appeals / proposals

• Request for additional Humanitarian PM surge support where necessary

• Endorsement of the revised SitRep format as a CO management tool to inform the

response, document UNICEF CO progress and mobilize resources

• Senior CO management support is essential for Humanitarian PM to have any chance of

successful implementation and providing progress results for UNICEF

• The following are recommendations15 for CO Accountabilities, recognizing that a

decision will based on a CO staff and monitoring capacities


Key Decisions and Actions Proposed CO Accountability

Lead Supported by

Senior Management Decisions

Dep Rep

Emergency Officer /

Head of monitoring

15

Recommendations assumes that the CO has sufficient Monitoring capacity to lead for establishing Humanitarian PM – otherwise additional Humanitarian PM capacity / surge support will be required


17


Lead Supported by

Tasking of Humanitarian PM within CO

Reallocation of CO resources / including

Humanitarian PM into appeals / proposals

Dep Rep Emergency Officer /

Head of Ops

Endorsement of the revised SitRep format Rep / Dep Rep /

Emergency Officer Emergency Officer

Establishing Humanitarian PM

Tasking of SitRep production

Dep Rep / Emergency

Officer

Emergency Officer16 /

Head of monitoring

Development of Simplified IMEP and Results

Framework from: a) Response Plan; OR b)

Existing Country Plan

Monitoring Unit Programme Sections

Prioritizing 2-3 indicators per sector for high

frequency monitoring (i.e. monthly) Monitoring Unit Programme Sections

Development of PCA Monitoring and Reporting

Addendum Monitoring Unit

Use of PCA Monitoring and Reporting

Addendum Programme Sections Dep Rep

Ensuring UNICEF PCA partners report frequently

against priority indicators Programme Sections Dep Rep / SitRep

Completion of regular Sit Reps Reports Officer17 Dep Rep / All

sections

As required:

Establishing Field Monitoring mechanisms: either

a) 3rd party monitoring organization or direct hire

a) Monitoring Unit

16 Where a CO has an Emergency Unit / Specialist 17

Reports Officer may be part of Communications (external reporting), or the monitoring unit (donor reporting). It is recommended that CO clearly tasks SitRep production to staff with a strong operational link to both the monitoring unit and programme sections.


18


Lead Supported by

b) Sector specific monitoring agreements b) Programme Sections Monitoring Unit

As required:

Management / tasking of Field Monitors / 3rd party

monitoring organization

Monitoring Unit Programme Sections

Proposing UNICEF HPM priority programme

indicators to relevant clusters/sector groups

Programme Sections

Monitoring Unit

Completing high frequency assessment of UNICEF

progress in meeting CLA accountabilities

Monitoring Unit

Cluster/Sector

Coordinators / IMs

Inputting / Designing and implementing outcome

survey (through Inter-Agency)

Monitoring Unit

Cluster/Sector

Coordinators

Maintenance of Humanitarian PM Monitoring Unit Dep Rep


19

Challenges Solution

Humanitarian PM is ‘someone else’s

job’

• Clear tasking of roles from CO Senior

Management

Additional monitoring work for:

a) CO

b) Monitoring section

c) Programme sections

d) Implementing Partners

a+b) Obtain extra monitoring capacity –

Humanitarian PM surge support

c) Monitoring sections support Programme sections

d) Priority indicators (2-3 / sector) for PCAs + Light

reporting format for PCA partners– share in advance

Existing / regular ole of CO Monitoring

section is not suited for higher

frequency humanitarian monitoring

• Obtain extra monitoring capacity – Humanitarian

PM surge roster through EMOPS

• CO monitoring section buy-in essential

SitRep is weak

• Dep Rep supports SitRep production

• SitRep is tasked to staff with sufficient capacity

• Humanitarian PM is established to produce

monitoring outputs for SitRep





20

Simplified Humanitarian Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Plan

(IMEP) and Results Framework


Contents

• Why is this important? (What the Country Management Team should know)

• What the User Should Know

• What does it take to do it?

• Simplified IMEP Template - tool

• Simplified IMEP Diagram

• Results Framework - tool Why is this important (What the Country Management Team should know)? • The Humanitarian IMEP and Results Framework are intended for use following a sudden

onset emergency or significant scaling up of humanitarian response with increase in CO resources requiring increased monitoring and evaluation activities in addition to those in the regular annual IMEP/Results Framework.

• Both the Simplified Humanitarian IMEP and the Results Framework are internal UNICEF planning documents.

• A simplified presentation of the IMEP is useful to explain to donors the measures UNICEF is taking for accountability and performance management and to manage expectations. See Simplified IMEP diagram for example.

• Both the Simplified Humanitarian IMEP and the Results Framework can be a reference for UNICEF advocacy at Inter-Agency level to (1) promote a coordinated cross-sectoral planning of major monitoring and evaluation activities and (2) promote agreement within clusters on 2-3 prioritized indicators for high frequency monitoring.

The Simplified Humanitarian IMEP • The purpose of the Simplified Humanitarian IMEP is to ensure that adequate resources

are allocated to performance monitoring and evaluation of the humanitarian response.18 Note that Appeal formats encourage M&E resources to be integrated in project sheets and not appearing as a separate line.

• The range of Humanitarian PM activities in the IMEP will depend on the country context, including level of resources available and the degree to which major monitoring activities take place at the Inter-Agency level and are therefore coordinated and led by OCHA.

• The CO needs to take strategic decisions on the UNICEF role in Needs Assessment as detailed in Steps to Strengthen CO Humanitarian PM.

• In ongoing humanitarian situations, the Humanitarian PM should be integrated in the annual IMEP.

The Results Framework • The Results Framework is the link between the Inter-Agency Appeal, the CO Sudden

Onset Response Plan and the IMEP. It re-states the UNICEF-supported Expected Results (Outcome level) and maps out the indicators for high and low frequency performance monitoring against expected results.

18 The UNICEF Programme Policy and Procedures Manual advise that the older recommendation for monitoring

and evaluation resource allocation of 2-5% of Country Programme expenditure for activities is too low.


21

• Ideally the identification of priority. High frequency indicators will be in the Sudden Onset Response Plan. If this is not the case the Results Framework can clarify high frequency indicators.

• The critical issue for Humanitarian PM is that the Response Plan and/or Results Framework prioritise 2-3 high frequency Indicators per sector that UNICEF and Implementing partners can realistically track.

• These priority high frequency Output Indicators should be included in the UNICEF PCAs Monitoring and Reporting Addendum, SitReps, Humanitarian Progress reports and on to CO Annual Report and Appeal Reports

• The Results Framework also encourages identification of lower frequency Outcome Indicators that can be monitored through survey work. These can be further defined at a later stage in the response as necessary.

What the user should know? The Simplified Humanitarian IMEP • The IMEP Template should be adapted to include only those M&E activities that are

appropriate and feasible to the humanitarian situation.

• Links to additional information on Needs Assessment and Humanitarian Evaluation are

shown in the IMEP Template.

The Results Framework • The scope of the Results Framework, like the Sudden Onset Response plan, is

focused on UNICEF-supported response with cooperation agreement partners (INGOs, NGOs, CSOs, government etc.). Reference to the Cluster/Sector Target is intended to help situate and distinguish overall coverage from UNICEF-supported coverage. The Results Framework does not serve as a framework for monitoring the Cluster/Sector response.

• The Expected Results in the Results Framework are drawn from the UNICEF Response Plan and should align with CCC programme commitments that are relevant to the country context. Where this formulation is weak or missing from the Response Plan, the Results Framework should clarify and ensure that results are measurable and have appropriate indicators that can be realistically monitored at higher frequency (i.e. monthly through implementing partner reporting and field visits) as well as lower frequency (i.e. bi-year or annual through an outcome survey).

• The priority Output Indicators (for high frequency monitoring) are mapped to the Expected Results (not Activities). This means fewer indicators. Potential Challenges Solutions

Too many indicators,

identified without

consideration of

practicalities / capacities /

cost of data collection

• Indicators should be few and remain at a higher

level

• If you have too many indicators it is likely results

have been framed at too lower level - reframe

• Activity indicators are NOT necessary or helpful in

the Results Framework – though it is recognised

that Programmes may need their own work-

planning to the activity level


22

• A selection of Output Indicators for high frequency monitoring, mapped onto CCC benchmarks, has been developed as part of the Humanitarian PM Toolkit - Indicator Guide

• Priority indicators should be validated with programme sections however care should be taken that the validation process does not mean an unrealistic increase in numbers of indicators, or a focus on indicators that will not yield information for an extended period.

• Basic information on the Target Affected Population (numbers, location) should be available from the Inter-Agency Needs Assessment, led by OCHA19 or the equivalent National Government Disaster Management authorities.

• The Humanitarian PM Toolkit Sudden Onset Response Plan and Indicator Guide both include a Target Population Calculator to help determine concrete numbers for specific UNICEF and Implementing partner programme interventions. Potential Challenges Solutions

• UNICEF planning

takes place before the

Needs Assessment is

finished

• Needs Assessment

data is too weak to

effectively plan

• It should be accepted within the CO Planning in and

for a sudden onset response will never have the

same level of accuracy, or have “enough”

information as regular country planning processes.

• A limit should be set on CO planning to obtain a

“good enough” plan to move forward with a proviso

to revisit at a later stage (i.e. after 3months)

• UNICEF Targets will need to be revisited

periodically based on projected funding of the

response and any changes to the overall Response

target

• UNICEF Targets are those that the CO and implementing partners can realistically achieve with its resources (assuming appeal is fully funded). o It can be calculated in real numbers or as an estimated % of coverage of the total

Cluster/Sector response. o UNICEF targets are likely to require adjusting periodically as the evolution of the

context and funding projections become more clear or change.

• Means of Verification for high Frequency Output Indicators will include: o Implementing partner (PCA) reporting (See PCA Monitoring and Reporting

Addendum); o Field Monitoring visits; o Cluster/Sector Coordination milestone assessment tool.

• MoVs for Outcome level indicators will typically be measured through a survey, normally at the Inter-Agency level.

What does it take to do it?

• CO capacity will often determine who is most appropriate to complete the Results Framework and this decision should be made by the Dep Rep/Rep/CMT.

19 The Flash Appeal is usually produced prior to the completion of the Needs Assessment based in pre-crisis data (DHS, MICS, SitAns etc. and best guestimates). The revised Appeal is usually issued after the Needs Assessment with updated

numbers for affected populations (average 3 weeks after an emergency is declared)


23

• Where COs have adequate planning and monitoring capacity it is recommended that this be tasked to the Planning Section/Unit (or surge support to that unit) to ensure coherence with the existing Country Plan.

Planning Language used

• The flexibility given to COs to determine the level of their PCRs and IRs means a generic Results Framework suitable for every CO cannot be developed.

• Therefore standard OECD-DAC Results Based Management language has been used with standard definitions - see Defining Terms on the next page.

• COs can map their PCRs and IRs accordingly, see following table

• OECD-DAC Language20

Revised Programme Structure Language21

Can be mapped onto Monitored through

Impact Programme Component Result

• UNDAF result • Inter-agency Appeal Result

Outcome Intermediate Result

• Cluster Strategic Result CCC Strategic Result

• CCC Commitment • UNICEF Partner agreement Outcome

Low frequency indicators --typically monitored through surveys at Inter-Agency level

Output • UNICEF Partner agreement outputs

Higher frequency indicators --typically monitored through reporting by cooperation partners and field visits

Defining Terms Impact -- Positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. (OECD-DAC p.24) Outcome -- The likely or achieved short-term and medium-term effects of an intervention’s outputs (OECD-DAC p.28) Objective -- Intended impact contributing to physical, financial, institutional, social, environmental, or other benefits to a society, community, or group of people via one or more development interventions (OECD-DAC p.20) Output -- The products, capital goods and services which result from a development intervention; may also include changes resulting from the intervention which are relevant to the achievement of outcomes. (OECD-DAC p.28)

Programme Component Result -- (PCR) describes a significant change that is expected, often at outcome level, to which the UNICEF Country Programme will contribute, in partnership with the government, development partners, civil society and others for the sustained realization of development goals and children’s and women’s rights. The PCR should represent a substantive contribution by the UNICEF Programme of Cooperation to priority issues for children (UNICEF Updated Technical Note Sept 2010) Intermediate Results -- describe UNICEF‟s planned contribution, in collaboration with others, to the achievement of the respective Programme Component Results. Intermediate results are normally at

20 UNICEF has traditionally used RBM language – see http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf and is now moving

toward “Revised Programme Structure” 21 “Revised Programme Structure” language, see http://intranet.unicef.org/EXD/Implement360.nsf/0/BF1E629543AA1FB9852578390078AB2E/$FILE/ATTE0D8O.pdf


24

the output level (but may be at outcome level in some country contexts or for some results). The achievement of PCRs is dependent on the achievement of the respective IRs (and in most cases the achievement of results of other partners and on certain assumptions). The UNICEF Country Office, in partnership with others, has a high degree of accountability for their achievement. (UNICEF – Updated Technical Note Sept 2010)

UNICEF Humanitarian Performance Monitoring - Toolkit and Guide 01 June 2011

25

Simplified Humanitarian IMEP Template (Delete lines and edit as needed)

Key

mile

sto

nes

Activity

Description

(Thematic Scope;

Geographic Coverage)

UNICEF CO Resources

required

(staff, $)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CAP Process (Flash/Appeal and Mid- and End-year Review)

Sit

ua

tio

n M

on

ito

rin

g

Initial Needs

Assessment

Inter-Agency, All Programme Depends on UNICEF role; consider

surge or secondments. See IA

resources

X

Post-Disaster Needs

Assessment

Inter-Agency, All Programme Important to decide level of

engagement by UNICEF; consider

surge

X X

Rolling needs

assessments

Inter-Agency, All Programme, localized

crisis or new access

CO should participate, allocate staff,

obtain surge as necessary

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cross-sectoral

Outcome Survey

Inter-Agency, selected Programme

indicators

Significant resources, comparable to

streamlined MICs

X X

Per

form

ance

mo

nit

ori

ng

SitRep (frequency

agreed with RO)

UNICEF, All Programme and

Operations

Reports Specialist for larger

emergencies

XX XX X X X X X

HAC Reporting UNICEF, All Programme Reports Specialist for larger

emergencies

X X

Partner implementation

reporting

UNICEF & implementing partners;

ideally Blusters; All Programme;

Input/Output indicators

IM support as possible X X X X X X X


26

Key

mile

sto

nes

Activity

Description

(Thematic Scope;

Geographic Coverage)

UNICEF CO Resources

required

(staff, $)

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4

CAP Process (Flash/Appeal and Mid- and End-year Review)

Field Monitoring UNICEF & implementing partners;

Ideally Clusters; Programme Quality;

Verification Supplies

IM support as possible; option of pool

of field monitoring staff ORl institutional

agreement for Third-Party monitoring

X X X X X X X X X X X X

Cluster Coordination

Milestones

UNICEF and CC; ideally whole

Clusters involved

Depends on approach; existing M&E

staff or consultant if less frequent

X X X X X X X

Eva

luat

ion

s an

d R

evie

ws

Action Learning

Review

UNICEF; may be with partners; overall

response

Range of options X X X

IA Real-Time-

Evaluation (RTE)

Inter-Agency UNICEF focal point advisable. X X

Other Evaluation Ideally with partners;

Programme-specific

Follows standard evaluation design

considerations.

X X


27

Simplified IMEP Diagram


28

UNICEF Results Framework – Template with Example

Programme Sector: WASH

Impact: CCC Strategic Result: Girls, boys and women have protected and reliable access to sufficient, safe water and sanitation and hygiene facilities

Outcome Result

From the CO Sudden Onset Response

Plan

Total Affected Cluster/Sector

Target23

Estimated Most

Vulnerable

Population24

(include timeframe)

UNICEF Target25

(include

timeframe)

Key Output Indicator

For High frequency monitoring

(NB. Recommend select 2-3 per

sector for high frequency

monitoring)

Means of Verification

For High Frequency

Monitoring

Key Outcome Indicator.

Low frequency monitoring.

MoV Usually through Inter-

Agency survey after 6 or 12

months

Expected Outcome Result from CO Response

Plan

Maps onto CCC Benchmark

• In the early days of

planning this figure

may not be known

• It is likely to

change as the

situation changes

• Target population

from Total affected

population

• Specific for each

CCC commitment

Expected UNICEF

+ cooperation

partner Result as

% of target

population

Select from Section A of Indicator

Guide (Humanitarian PM Toolkit)

If not done in the Response Plan,

prioritize 2-3 indicators / sector for

immediate inclusion in UNICEF

PCAs and cooperation

agreements

• MoV for Cluster-Sector

Coordination through

‘Milestone’ assessment

tool

• MoV for Programme

Outputs through partner

reporting and field

monitoring visits

• MoV for supplies,

UniTrack

Select from Section B of

Indicator Guide (Humanitarian

PM Toolkit)

Coordination mechanism provides guidance

to all partners on common approaches and

standards; ensures that all critical WASH

gaps and vulnerabilities are identified; and

provides information on who is doing what,

where, when and how, to ensure that all gaps

are addressed without duplication (CCC1)

N/A N/A N/A Achievement of Cluster / Sector

Coordination Milestones

Cluster/Sector

Coordination Milestone

Assessment

Higher quality assessment of

cluster requires a more analytical

evaluative approach; Q-SAC or

similar/ Cluster – Sector

Coordination assessment /

evaluation tool

22

Should refer to data from either National Disaster Management Authorities or OCHA 23

Cluster Target Population, reflect the TOTAL estimated affected population in need by the relevant sub-population group as per the result statement 24

Refer to Baseline / Target calculator in Humanitarian PM Indicator Guide 25

UNICEF + Implementing partner Target Population should be specific to UNICEF + Implementing partners, should refer to the relevant sub-population as per the result statement; (i.e. All affected, OR children 6-59 months; OR new mothers); should be based on an assessment of the capacity and funding of UNICEF and its partners to respond


29

Outcome Result

From the CO Sudden Onset Response

Plan

Total Affected Cluster/Sector

Target23

Estimated Most

Vulnerable

Population24

(include timeframe)

UNICEF Target25

(include

timeframe)

Key Output Indicator

For High frequency monitoring

(NB. Recommend select 2-3 per

sector for high frequency

monitoring)

Means of Verification

For High Frequency

Monitoring

Key Outcome Indicator.

Low frequency monitoring.

MoV Usually through Inter-

Agency survey after 6 or 12

months

Children and women have access to at least

7.5 - 15 litres of clean water per day (CCC 2)

1,000,000 people 1,000,000 people 500,000 people # and/or % of affected population

provided with sufficient water of

adequate quality

Cooperation Partner

reporting

Field Monitoring Visits

# and/or % of affected

population provided with

sufficient water of adequate

quality

Hygiene education / information is provided to

70% of women and child-caregivers

pertaining to safe and hygienic child care and

feeding practices (CCC 4)

1,000,000 people 650,000 women and

child caregivers

400,000 women

and child

caregivers

# information 'packages' or #

events reaching # population

to give % total of expected

coverage

Cooperation Partner

reporting

Field Monitoring Visits

% people able to identify 3 key

hygiene practices

Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkit and Guide 01 June 2011

30

3. Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Tools

Situation Report


Contents



• What does it take to do it?


• SitRep template - tool


• Under the revised CCCs, as part of the accountabilities for humanitarian performance

monitoring, all COs in ongoing humanitarian situations26 are expected to produce regular,

standardized SitReps.

• The SitRep template has been re-framed as a management tool comparable to the CO Management Report and useful to COs, RO and HQ in tracking an overview of the response.

• It covers; o The situation analysis in terms of the regional and global policy/political context; o Both programme implementation and operations requirements focusing on few priority

indicators; o Status of cluster coordination and performance data for clusters where UNICEF is lead

• The SitRep template is also designed to streamline and ensure quality, effective and

timely flow of information in emergencies. It is divided into two parts:

o the first for External Use to ensure consistent regular communications with the media,

NatComs, Donor Governments and partners and support resource mobilization;

o the second part for Internal Distribution with more sensitive information and for

internal management, identifying key gaps to be addressed at the CO level including

through RO/HQ support; informing advocacy initiatives undertaken at regional and

global level.

Humanitarian Performance Monitoring activities are intended to feed into and

populate the SitRep. Without some focused humanitarian PM activities the CO SitRep

will be a weak product in terms of programme results

• CO Senior Management is responsible to clear the SitRep and ensure quality control before

sending it to OSPCEN for dissemination to internal and external partners • The SitReps provide an important record on the progress of the response and thus basis for

any major donor report (e.g. a 6-month report in a major emergency) or evaluation.

26

The simplest way to determine this is to consider access to humanitarian funding through Flash Appeal, Consolidated Appeal Process or Humanitarian Action for Children (HAC – formerly HAR)


31

Options to consider when applying

• Frequency of SitReps will vary depending on the phase and type of the emergency and follow a schedule agreed upon by the CO in consultation with the RO and EMOPS

• Daily or Weekly Situation Reports27 are suitable for those COs facing new emergencies or a significant upsurge of humanitarian needs – often accompanied by submission of an Immediate Needs Document (IND), CERF, EPF, Flash Appeal documents. Once the situation has stabilized this will become a monthly SitRep.

• The Daily/Weekly SitRep is meant to be lighter (concise bullet points only) for more frequent updates. Provisions are also made for more limited reporting during the first 1-4 weeks of a new emergency while monitoring systems may not yet be generating programme data.

• Where a CO is responding to multiple emergencies, a decision is required on whether to try to aggregate reporting on the overall humanitarian response or keep them separate. Since planning, funding and CO budget mechanisms are likely to be separate for multiple responses – SitReps may be more useful and clear if they are kept separate.


• Decision to establish the schedule for SitRep reporting in consultation with RO and HQ – see Accountabilities for CO Humanitarian Performance Monitoring and Steps to Strengthen CO Humanitarian PM;

• Agree on the priority high frequency programme indicators to be included in the SitRep.

• Until implementing partner reports begin to arrive SitReps should report inputs – see Indicator Guide, Column B of appropriate Section.

• Info from implementing partner reports should arrive after one month signing the PCA

• For countries in chronic crises, reporting should be aligned to CAP/HAR targets.

• Frequency in chronic crises should be agreed between CO, RO, HQ – likely to be quarterly.

• Ensure that the SitRep is used as a common reference for information uses with external media communications and other advocacy efforts ongoing.

• Additional guidance for completing the SitRep are contained within the body of the SitRep template in blue text.

Potential Challenges Solutions

Attribution • UNICEF must clearly acknowledge that it contributes to programme results achieved together with partners

• Programme Section PCA partners should be includes in the relevant tables

Double counting • Every effort and care should be made not to double count across UNICEF sections.

• In instances where larger international NGOs are supporting smaller NGOs (often national), care must be taken to ensure there is not overlap if they are all reporting.

Mixing UNICEF and

cluster/sector

performance information

• A clear distinction should be made between UNICEF and PCA partners results and wider cluster/sector results




27

It is recognized that for daily or weekly SitReps (in the intitial period after a sudden onset emregcny response, that the SitRep will focus on the information available such as progress against process for setting up the response, UNICEF inputs (as outlines in the Indicator Guide, section B)


32


Situation Report (Country) Date: xx

Reporting period: (indicate if daily / weekly / monthly)

Guidance Notes for the Template in Blue below. Further Questions and Answers Guidance at the end of this document Please delete blue guidance instructions and Q&A when completing Overview

• All COs accessing humanitarian funding through HAC are now required to produce regular, standardized Situation Reports (SitReps)

• SitReps should be submitted on a monthly basis; unless otherwise agreed between CO, RO and HQ depending on the humanitarian situation

• More frequent SitReps use a daily/weekly format, less frequent use a monthly format

• The SitRep templates are split into two parts: 1. External: for sharing with a wide audience (partners, NatComs, government donors, etc); 2. Internal (UNICEF only)

• Where there is no change in information provided (i.e. staffing levels, funding levels), the previous report figures can be repeated noting date of last change (“information as of …date…”)

• Tables and sections highlighted in YELLOW may be omitted until information is available

• CO SitReps cannot be prepared in isolation and represent the CO overview of performance management data that captures both the humanitarian situation and UNICEF humanitarian action.

• Without addressing Humanitarian Performance Monitoring a CO is unlikely to be able to produce a good quality SitRep

Sit Rep Support

• The production of the SitRep is supported by the UNICEF Humanitarian Performance Monitoring toolkit and guide – see http://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM1

• Ongoing feedback on use and quality of Sit Reps is available from Regional Offices or EMOPS.

For External Use Situation Overview & Humanitarian Needs (sources included to the extent possible)

• Brief contextual analysis – including status of emergency threats (conflict, disaster); political and other developments on the ground

• Key humanitarian issues and key changes since the last SitRep, specifically impact of the emergency on children and women with data disaggregated by sex, age, geographical area wherever possible (estimates for disaggregated data can be given using standard sex/age breakdowns)

• Note any assessments done by UNICEF and/or by Inter-Agency teams, their coverage, focus and key results, as well as major assessments in preparation/ongoing

Inter-Agency Collaboration and Key Partnerships • Humanitarian Coordination Structure -- Brief description of coordination structure in country; this

can stand as a standard description repeated in future SitReps for context; UNICEF engagement in humanitarian coordination structures; key areas/strategies of inter-cluster and inter-agency collaboration and progress in these.

Highlights (for weekly reports only - bullet points with key issues only):

• Changes in the situation (since last SitRep)

• Number of affected population with a focus on children and women

• Key humanitarian needs and challenges

• Major programme results/significant achievements for the reporting period (as estimated percentage

of total affected population)

• Any major programmatic gaps (as estimated percentage of total)

• Any major funding issues


33

• Partnerships with INGOs, NGOs – Provide an overview of numbers of partnerships under cooperation agreements by sector reflecting both international and national NGOs.

Programme response • The CO has two presentation phases for reporting programme results; Phase 1) Descriptive text

(narrative), and Phase 2) Results tables including of 2-3 priority indicators per sector

• COs may also opt for a mix where progress is different across sectors.

• COs using descriptive text should have a plan in place to scale up (in capacity and partnerships) in a finite time to be able to use the Results tables.

Phase 1: Descriptive text Used alone when there is little available in terms of monitoring / reporting on the UNICEF programme response, i.e. following sudden onset emergency. From an external communications perspective (i.e. to NatComs and donors) it is important to present information in terms of “estimated population that can be reached” wherever possible. For each programme CCC sector include:

• Planned activities as relevant to the specific commitments under the programme CCC sector

• Any significant process milestones achieved

• Any salient supplies in pipeline or distributed that can be presented in terms of target number of people to be reached, or as soon as there are rough figures on the affected population, in terms of estimated % of the target population. (Note that total value of supplies in pipeline/distributed by sector are presented in a table below).

• Key qualitative aspects from field monitoring visits, i.e. programme approach (gender in humanitarian situation, Communication for Development etc.)

Nutrition Health

WASH

Child Protection

Education

HIV/AIDS Phase 2: Programme results tables and descriptive text

• The results tables should be introduced during chronic emergencies, or latest 4-6 weeks after sudden onset trigger, populated as programme implementation data from partners becomes available.

• The indicators presented below are the recommended priority indicators for monthly monitoring per sector, acknowledging that this depends on programming contexts.

• Experience shows that it is only manageable to track two-three priority indicators per sector, with Child Protection sometime requiring more depending on key issues in the context.

• For guidance on suitable Indicators see Humanitarian PM Toolkit http://www.intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM1

• Reporting on these same priority indicators throughout the response will feed into any major external CO progress reports.

• Programme Results Table can be used even if targets are still “to be determined” or need to be noted as “preliminary targets”.

• Where UNICEF develops performance indicators in advance of the relevant cluster, UNICEF as cluster member can propose the use of UNICEF determined indicators as a starting point for cluster indicator discussions to facilitate coherence.

• As much as possible data collection should disaggregate data between men, women, boys and girls, though this will more often be possible in ongoing humanitarian situations and/or when population-based surveys are possible.


34

Estimated #/% coverage

UNICEF & operational partners Sector / Cluster

UNICEF Target

Cumulative results

Change since last

report

Cluster Target

Cumulative results

Change since last

report

NUTRITION

Children <528 with Severe Acute Malnutrition in Therapeutic Feeding programmes

# 000000

000 ▲▼ # 000000

000 ▲▼ % target 00 % target 00

Children <5 with Moderate Acute Malnutrition in supplementary feeding programmes

# 000000

000 ▲▼ # 000000


Children with SAM under treatment recovered

# 000000 000 ▲▼

# 000000 000 ▲▼

% target 00 % target 00

Comments: Include here any qualitative information and explanation of downward trends as well as any major process milestones including towards capacity development with national partners UNICEF Operational Partners:

HEALTH

Children <5 receiving measles vaccination

# 000000 000 ▲▼

% target 00

Children 6-15years receiving measles vaccination

# 000000 000 ▲▼

% target 00 Emergency affected families receiving 2 ITNs

% target 00


WASH

Emergency affected population provided with access to an improved water source

# 000000

000 ▲▼

# 000000


% target 00 % target 00 Emergency affected population living in faeces free environment

# 000000 000 ▲▼

# 000000 000 ▲▼



CHILD PROTECTION

Children reached through safe environments

# 000000 000 ▲▼

# 000000 000 ▲▼


Children unaccompanied/ separated from primary care reunified or placed in alternative care arrangements

# 000000

000 ▲▼ # 000000


Emergency affected population reached by efforts to mobilize communities to prevent and address violence, abuse and exploitation, including GBV

# 000000

000 ▲▼

# 000000


Children enrolled in psycho-social activities

# 000000 000 ▲▼

# 000000 000 ▲▼

% target 00 % target 00 Emergency affected population reached by mine/UXO risk education activities

# 000000 000 ▲▼

# 000000 000 ▲▼



28

Children 6 to 59 months


35

Estimated #/% coverage

UNICEF & operational partners Sector / Cluster

UNICEF Target

Cumulative results

Change since last

report

Cluster Target

Cumulative results

Change since last

report

EDUCATION

School- aged children / adolescents reached by re-established school and/or non-formal learning programmes

1,000,000 # 000000

000 ▲▼ # 000000


School- aged children / adolescents in learning programmes in temporary facilities

1,000,000 # 000000

000 ▲▼ # 000000


School-aged children/ adolescents accessing psychosocial support thru schools

# 000000

000 ▲▼ # 000000



HIV/AIDS

Emergency affected population with access to appropriate post-rape prevention, care and treatment including use of PEP

# 000000

000 ▲▼

% target 00

Pregnant women with access to prevention, care and treatment including PMTCT

# 000000

000 ▲▼

% target 00


Where relevant, UNICEF, as cluster lead agency, is responsible for information management of the cluster and sharing overall results achieved by the cluster collectively.

Cluster Coordination • Summarize highlights from more detailed internal section on cluster coordination below including

key milestones, key results in terms of coverage, coverage gaps and challenges. When reporting results for the clusters, it is important to communicate to external audiences that “UNICEF, as cluster lead agency, is responsible for information management of the cluster and sharing overall results achieved by the cluster collectively.”

• In first daily/weekly SitReps after a rapid onset emergency or in crisis phase, if performance monitoring systems are not in place to report cluster level results in terms of affected population reached (i.e. if the option of Results Table 1 is selected), include here key highlights for each cluster on numbers of partners engaged and any estimates on planned clusters targets/coverage and projected gaps.

Supply and Logistics • Figures on total supplies by sector, in pipeline

29 and delivered to partners (USD); this can be a

summary from more detailed internal table on supplies below. • Summary as relevant of In-Kind Donations (USD Value) by programme committed and received

and indicating major partners. Not that an additional row may be necessary • Include narrative on any supply and logistics system arrangements and challenges.

Human Resources • Total human resources mobilized including total number of staff and surge on the ground (noting

stand-by partner organizations)

• Total numbers of staff (temporary and fixed) and surge under recruitment; and total staffing needs unfunded

29

“Pipeline” defined as PGM raised, not yet in UNICEF Warehouse


36

Media and communication • Key media messages

• Key media activities/events undertaken and planned

Funding30 • Update on any appeals issued (date, total amount) or in preparation

• Brief statement or summary in table on UNICEF’s funding requirements, funds received to date and remaining funding gap. This can be summarized in text when little information is available and replaced by the tables below when possible.

Appeal Sector

Requirements Funds received Funding gap

Total Cluster

Coordination Total Cluster

Coordination Total Cluster

Coordination

NUTRITION

HEALTH

WASH

EDUCATION

CHILD PROTECTION

GBV

SHELTER & NON-FOOD ITEMS

OTHER

TOTAL

• COs may remove the Cluster Coordination column where the Appeal does not disaggregate cluster costs.

Next SitRep: • Date of next sitrep

For further information, please contact Name Representative Country Office Country Telephone: Facsimile: E-mail:

Name Deputy Representative Country Office Country Telephone: Facsimile: E-mail:

Name Communication Officer Country Office Country Telephone: Facsimile: E-mail:

30

Data for the funds received are available on the PARMO intranet

http://www.intranet.unicef.org/PFO/PFOInfoV3.nsf/Site%20Pages/Page020103) and can be used by the COs to

obtain the total contribution amounts for the contributions that have been received. The COs should report on the

total contribution received, and not just on the programmable amount. The CO can contact PARMO if they have

any queries regarding the contribution amounts.


37

Internal distribution only

Issues for Inter-Agency/Governmental Advocacy • Identification of key issues (political and interagency) that impact on UNICEF response and/or

children and women requiring advocacy at HQ/regional levels. Consider IASC, ECHA, Policy Committee, Interagency discussions, as forums HQ can engage with to help advocate on behalf of the CO as well as processes such as PDNA/RF, RTE’s, and changes in humanitarian leadership etc. that need HQ/RO support.

Programme Response • Highlight any critical programmatic issues which are not suitable for an external audience • Key qualitative aspects from field monitoring visits, i.e. unintended impacts, bottlenecks in

implementation etc. • HQ or RO support needed

Cluster Coordination • Adjust table to clusters where UNICEF is Cluster Lead in country.

• Fill in only that which is relevant; it is expected that full achievement of cluster coordination milestones will not be achieved in the first 4-6 weeks.

• It is important in managing communications around cluster performance that these milestones be carefully represented distinguishing that which is specifically UNICEF accountability. This is an issue for CO senior management attention.

• Amend table as necessary (additional columns, rows etc.) where clusters are activated at the sub-national level

Cluster Coordination Progress Milestones

NUTRITION WASH EDUCATION CHILD PROTECTION

GBV

CC function filled [1] Indicate

Yes – dedicated CC Yes – dual role No

(Where Co-lead). Have areas of responsibility been defined and agreed Yes/No

Coord mechanism/ TOR established Yes/No

Cluster Strategy developed Yes/No

Standards promoted Yes/No IM system established [2] Yes/No

Cluster Performance management system agreed Yes/No

Have gaps in response been identified [3] Yes/No

[1] Indicate – Level CC; date arrived/existing staff assigned; duration assignment; or duration of gap in weeks [2] Indicate: Accountability for cluster IM established within cluster staff or CLA office; IM role staffed; 3W maintained and circulated at agreed frequency; Information on coverage collected and shared [3] Indicate: gaps monitored regularly; resources redirected to respond; advocacy undertaken • Narrative: Include any concerns / constraints by sector

• Include Action taken to fill identified gaps in response • HQ or RO support needed


38

Supply & Logistics At the onset of an emergency, in first weeks, the following are relevant milestone indicators to report

on:

• First Response Supply Plan completed. See Supply Calculator

• Supply and Logistics Strategy completed. Guide and tool forthcoming, see SD emergency page

• Tracking system for logistics and procurement established.

•

• Table of total value of Supplies in USD by programme CCC sector. • Where relevant an additional row can be added on general support supplies such as office set up

or re-establishment costs, security and telecommunications equipment. • Additional data on Volume and Weight by commodity can be provided in the “Field Supply

Monitoring Table”, if necessary, which can be attached for internal use. • Totals should include both local and offshore procurement as relevant. • This table is exclusive of the value of freight charges.

• Any additional issues or areas of concern not suitable for external audiences

• HQ or RO support needed

Media and Communication • Sensitive issues to be flagged

• Key messages, including for public advocacy


Security and Access • Update on security situation and incidents

• Overview of impact on programme implementation and CO operations

• Update on key measures regarding staff safety and security HQ or RO support needed


Sector Total Amount

Committed Total Amount Raised PGMs

In pipeline Total Amount

Received In UNICEF

Warehouse�

Delivered to partners -- Cumulative

Delivered to partners -- Since last

report

NUTRITION

HEALTH

WASH

CHILD PROTECTION

EDUCATION

HIV/AIDS

�current inventory = previous including prepositioned + new

“Pipeline” defined as PGM raised, not yet in UNICEF Warehouse


39

Human Resources

Surge Capacity

International (TA/FT/Mission/SSA/ERT/RRT)

Total positions In position Identified and arrival awaited

Vacant/Sourcing

National (New TA positions, including clusters

Total positions In position Under recruitment/Hold

# National Staff redeployed in country

Resource Mobilization • Update on any UNICEF or Inter-Agency efforts on fundraising as relevant, donor meetings that

have taken place and planned for. .


Finance and Administration • HQ or RO support needed

Information and Communication Technology • HQ or RO support needed


40

Indicator Guide (NB. Full Indicator guide is an Xcel document)



• What users should know

o Uses for the Indicator Guide

o Structure of Indicator Guide

• Additional considerations in using the Guide

• What does it take to do it / Indicator Guide Walk through


• For a manageable (i.e. realistic and achievable) Humanitarian PM system it is essential

to agree on a prioritized set of indicators that can be monitored at a high enough

frequency to inform the response.

• The Indicator Guide provides a reference for selecting priority high frequency

indicators, for both UNICEF implementing partners and for reporting in the UNICEF

SitRep.

• Experience suggests two or three priority high frequency indicators per sector are

realistic and feasible for partner data collection (with the exception of Child Protection

where more may be required depending on the context).

• Inclusion of two or three priority high frequency indicators per sector have been

incorporated into the new Sudden Onset Response Plan template and guide that has

been developed for the Simplified Standard Operating Procedures (SSOP) on Planning,

Monitoring and Evaluation for Level 3 emergencies.

• As country cluster/sector lead agency, UNICEF should advocate for a similar

agreement on a few priority high frequency performance monitoring indicators with

national government partners and within the cluster/sector

• As cluster/sector member UNICEF should strive to align the monitoring framework of

PCAs with indicators established nationally and /or at the cluster/sector level.

What users should know

• The Indicator Guide is a separate Xcel document with high frequency, input and low

frequency indicators for each CCC programme commitments and benchmarks.

• The Humanitarian PM Indicator Guide was developed from the revised UNICEF Core

Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action and for advocacy with implementing

partners and cluster/sector members.

• The Indicators Guide is aligned to the 2011 revision of the SPHERE Minimum Standards

in Humanitarian Response and INEE (Inter-Agency Network for Education in

Emergencies) Minimum Standards for Education, both updated in 2011. It is also

aligned with draft IASC Needs Assessment Task Force indicators.

• Selection of priority indicators must of adjusted to fit the country-specific humanitarian

response however some indicators can be standardized globally and these should be

used wherever applicable.


41

Uses for the Indicator Guide

Selecting 2-3 priority indicators per sector for high frequency monitoring

• Included in the Sudden Onset Response plan

• Included in relevant PCA agreements through PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum

• Included in the SitRep

Developing the Simplified Humanitarian IMEP and Results Framework

Structure of Indicator Guide

• The Humanitarian PM Indicator Guide is structured following the CCC programme

sectors; commitments and corresponding benchmarks

• For each benchmark, the Indicator Guide provides:

o High frequency indicators (Part A) -- These are intended for lower cost data

collection through partner reporting.

o Proposed indicators for high frequency monitoring are shaded in yellow. NB.

Child Protection has more indicators.

o They will provide lower levels of precision in measuring results and should be

accompanied by systematic Field Monitoring.

o It is recommended that UNICEF advocate for the national and cluster/sector

agreement on prioritization of the same priority high frequency indicators for

monitoring by cluster/sector level members.

o Initial process and input indicators (Part B) -- These are suitable for inclusion in

SitReps until partner reporting data begins – typically one month after PCAs are

signed.

o Outcome indicators (Part C) – These are normally population-based surveys for

data collection and will therefore be lower frequency and higher cost.

o In most cases, data collection on outcome indicators should be cross-sectoral /cross-

cluster for greatest efficiency and should figure in Inter-Agency monitoring plans

• Guidance is provided on disaggregation for each indicator, Means of Verification or

source, how indicators are calculated and any considerations specific to monitoring the

programmatic activity in question.

• Cluster/Sector Coordination indicators are standardized across all sectors where

UNICEF is country Cluster/Sector Lead Agency


42

Additional considerations in using the Guide

• Outcome indicators in the Guide are intended for measurement through a representative

population-based survey (as opposed to service-based implementation monitoring).

• Such surveys may be limited by security-related access issues. Where such situations

prevail and it is impossible to carry out a representative survey of the full affected

population, it is possible and meaningful to carry out a survey in accessible areas as long

as the limitations and population not covered are clearly reported.

• Where CO capacity allows it is recommended that surveys are led by the CO Monitoring

unit and validated through discussion with the relevant programme sections

• This process requires both the lens of programme priorities and the lens of monitoring

methodologies and what is feasible in the context (i.e. programme staff to clarify

priorities; monitoring staff to remain realistic in terms of how much data and how many

indicators can be monitored on a monthly basis).


Prioritizing indicators (i.e. a tendency to be over ambitious)

Clear messaging within UNICEF on UNICEF and implementing partners capacity to monitor

Piloting shows 2-3 indicators / section is a best case scenario

Focus on what information is “Need to Know”, over what is “Nice to Know”

Consistencies on integrated programming across sectors

Cross reference priority indicators between sections (i.e. WASH in Schools) and agree with sections Who will monitor and report

It is important to define how organizations will interpret the "affected population" and what monitoring will cover the "affected population" or "affected areas" – for UNICEF, UNICEF implementing partners and ideally as Clusters/Sectors

Efficiencies in cross-sectoral/cross-cluster monitoring

It is often challenging to coordinate monitoring activities across sectors/clusters. It is advisable to focus on the greatest efficiencies, i.e. on high cost monitoring activities such as cluster/sector surveys and larger third-party monitoring systems

Monitoring C4D activities are more efficiently monitored as a cross-sectoral activity. They are rarely prioritized for high frequency monitoring which is difficult; however they can be effectively addressed through survey methodologies and Field Monitoring.





43

What does it take to do it / Indicator Guide Walk through

Structure of Indicator Guide

• The Humanitarian PM Indicator Guide is structured following the CCC programme

sectors; commitments and corresponding benchmarks

• Each CCC commitment (column A) is shown with the CCC benchmark (column B) – the

benchmark is broken down where it addresses more than a single standard

• Column C indicates whether the indicator is considered a Priority (for high frequency)

with a guide for adaption to the country context

• Column D is only completed where relevant and shows simplified language for

representing the indicator in the SitRep

Columns A - D

A B C D

Reference in CCCs

CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark Prioritization and Adaptation of

Indicators to Country Context

Simplified presentation of Indicator

in SitRep

EDUCATION

E1. Effective leadership is established for

education cluster/ inter-agency

coordination (with co-lead agency), with

links to other cluster/sector coordination

mechanisms on critical intersectoral issues.

Coordination mechanism provides

guidance to all partners on common

standards, strategies and approaches,

ensuring that all critical education gaps and

vulnerabilities are identified, and provides

information on roles, responsibilities and

accountability to address all gaps without

duplication.

- Priority indicator for monthly reporting

where UNICEF is CLA

- Adaptation in additional milestones but

core milestones will be standardized

See Cluster/Sector Coordination

Milestone Monitoring Tool --

Humanitarian PM Toolkit [hyperlink]

- SitRep includes text description of

coordination milestones in external section;

table with milestones in internal section

E2. Children including preschool age

children, girls, and other excluded

children, access quality education

opportunities

Schools re-opened and child-friendly and

adolescent-friendly emergency non-formal

programmes, including play and early

learning for young children, established for

affected communities

- Priority indicator for monthly reporting

- Standardized; note indicator is framed

broadly enough to capture different

approaches

# and % of school-aged children in

affected areas in schools/learning

programmes

Note includes aggregate of schools (this

row) and non-formal education (next rown

down)

Core Commitments for Children in

Humanitarian Action

Education


44

A) Columns E-H – High Frequency Monitoring Indicators

• Columns E represent high Frequency Monitoring indicators – these are lower quality and higher frequency indicators – typically monitored monthly (following sudden onset, quarterly in chronic) and data collected through Routine Project monitoring (i.e. UNICEF PCA partner reporting).

• High Frequency Monitoring indicators in Column E can be selected for: o Sudden Onset Response Plan (2-3 per sector, those recommended shown in yellow) o Included in the relevant PCAs – using the PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum

(2-3 per sector) o Included in the SitRep (2-3 per sector) o Included in the Simplified Humanitarian IMEP and Results Framework o Denominators for High Frequency Monitoring indicators will be the relevant

population groups of the affected population within UNICEF and PCA partner project areas.

o Where relevant, and for reference, the indicator is mapped onto the corresponding Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF) indicators (v. May 2011).

• Column F shows indicator disaggregation

• Column G shows the data source

• Column H provides any relevant guidance notes for using the indicator Columns E-H


45

B) Column I – Input Indicator

• Columns I shows Input indicators

• Data source will likely be the CO Supply / Logistics unit and can be extracted from UniTrack where established (after 2012 they will be available from VISION).

• They are suitable for inclusion in SitReps until partner reporting data begins – typically one month after PCAs are signed following a sudden onset response (assuming Humanitarian PM is/has been established).

Column I

A B I

BFor monitoring and reporting until

PCA partner progress reports

received

Reference in CCCs Lowest quality indicators

CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark Input indicators and process milestones of relevance for

initial weeks of response in rapid onset

EDUCATION

E1. Effective leadership is established for

education cluster/ inter-agency

coordination (with co-lead agency), with

links to other cluster/sector coordination

mechanisms on critical intersectoral issues.

Coordination mechanism provides

guidance to all partners on common

standards, strategies and approaches,

ensuring that all critical education gaps and

vulnerabilities are identified, and provides

information on roles, responsibilities and

accountability to address all gaps without

duplication.

----

E2. Children including preschool age

children, girls, and other excluded

children, access quality education

opportunities

Schools re-opened and child-friendly and

adolescent-friendly emergency non-formal

programmes, including play and early

learning for young children, established for

affected communities

- school supplies in pipeline or delivered for # of children

- # of tents provided for temporary facilities with capacity for # of

children and adolescents

Core Commitments for Children in

Humanitarian Action

Education


46

C) Columns J-M – Low Frequency Outcome Indicators

• Columns J represent Outcome indicators - normally population-based surveys and will

therefore be lower frequency and higher cost.

• In most cases, data collection on outcome indicators should be cross-sectoral /cross-

cluster for greatest efficiency and should figure in Inter-Agency monitoring plans

• Low Frequency Monitoring indicators in Column J can be selected for: o The Simplified Humanitarian IMEP and Results Framework o Population based surveys o Where relevant, and for reference, the indicators are mapped onto existing Multi-

Cluster Indicator Survey indicators o Where relevant, and for reference, the indicator is mapped onto the corresponding

Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF) indicators (v. May 2011).

• Column K shows indicator disaggregation

• Column L shows the data source

• Column M provides any relevant guidance notes for using the indicator


47

PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum






• PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum Templates – tool (NB. Templates are pre-

completed with recommended priority high frequency indicators. CO should change as

necessary – refer to Indicator Guide)


• The 2010 version of the PCA legal document specifies a default reporting requirement of

3months for financial and 6 months for the narrative.

• This can, and should, be adapted for higher frequency monitoring during humanitarian

situations through selection of a few priority high frequency indicators per section and

including them in PCAs, along with a ‘lighter’ higher frequency31 reporting requirement

• The PCA Addendum agrees a systematic approach to monitoring and reporting by partners, at an adequate frequency and according to a minimum set of indicators.

• This tools supports implementing partners by having fewer indicators – recognising the

realities of data collection, partner (and UNICEF) monitoring capacity and use of

collected data in Humanitarian Situations

• Incorporating standard priority indicators into the PCA should support the CO

Programme Review Committee approval process. I.e. Ensuring that monitoring

frameworks are simplified and clear therefore less likely to become a reason for delay.

• The Indicator Guide proposes priority indicators for inclusion in the Sudden Onset

Response Plan, PCAs (using this tool) and SitReps


• The PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum will be primarily used by UNICEF

programme Sections (it is recommended that they are prepared by CO monitoring

sections)

• It provides a platform for discussion and agreement on a more frequent and lighter

reporting process for UNICEF PCA partners based on a number of key results indicators

that aim to be monitored throughout the UNICEF response.

• It is an easy reference tool to support programme sections and implementing partners in developing a monitoring framework

• It ensures UNICEF PCA monitoring remains realistic by identifying a few priority sector

indicators that are standardized across partners.

• The PCA Addendum is made up of,

31

UNICEF and Implementing Partners should agree an appropriate frequency for reporting. Following Sudden onset emergencies this may be monthly. During chronic emergencies this may be quarterly. It should be aligned with cluster/sector reporting requirements where possible.


48

Part I: Priority programme performance indicators (2-3 / sector) derived from the Indicator Guide;

Part II: A simple reporting format for PCA partners to report on a regular basis (i.e. monthly following sudden onset emergency, quarterly during chronic emergencies)

• The Addendum can be shared with potential UNICEF implementing partners in advance

to facilitate discussion / agreement on project monitoring

• The Addendum also includes a UNICEF implementing partner commitment to facilitate

Field Monitoring visits for UNICEF and/or their representatives. In addition it agrees that

UNICEF implementing partners will report to relevant Cluster/Sector Lead agencies and

to OCHA using the 3W reporting format.


• It is recommended that the PCA Addendum is prepared by CO monitoring sections

• The following template includes the recommended priority indicators from the Indicator

Guide.

• Non applicable Sections, Commitments and Benchmarks can be deleted.

• Refer to the Indicator Guide for alternative priority indicators

Potential Challenges Solutions Too many indicators in PCAs • Experience in piloting HPM shows that 2-3

indicators per sector is a realistic amount to expect in terms of regular data collection.

• UNICEF should focus on what information is Needed and can be Used.

• Too many indicator are a significant burden on partner data collection

Insufficient UNICEF capacity to monitor

• UNICEF Monitoring units should support programme sections in developing tools and analysing data

• UNICEF programme sections must hold their PCA partners accountable for programme reporting

• Additional monitoring capacity can be explored through recruiting and training additional short term monitoring staff or through a 3rd party organization

Staff mindsets: Different approach to monitoring

• HPM advocates a different approach to monitoring than the traditional UNICEF non-humanitarian approach

• This is necessary for UNICEF for upward accountability for funds administered; and downwards accountability that humanitarian programmes achieve the desired results for the targeted people





49

Part I – Priority programme result indicators by sector

• Delete as Programme Section / CCC Commitments Benchmark and Indicators as appropriate

Nutrition CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark High frequency Indicator Guidance notes

Children and women with acute malnutrition access appropriate acute malnutrition management

Effective management of acute malnutrition (recovery rate is >75%, and mortality rates are <10% in therapeutic care and <3% in supplementary care) reaches the majority of the target population (coverage >50% rural area, >70% urban area, >90% camp)

# and/or % children 6-59 months with SAM enrolled in TFP or community-based programmes or facilities

Numerator = # children 6-59 mo with SAM enrolled or admitted in TFP or community based programmes or facilities Denominator = estimated # children 6-59 mo with SAM based on most recent survey

# and/or % children 6-59 mo with MAM enrolled in supplementary feeding programmes

Numerator = # children 6-59 mo with MAM enrolled in supplementary feeding programmes Denominator = estimated # children 6-59 mo with MAM based on most recent survey

% of exits from targeted supplementary feeding programmes of children 6-59 months who have: - Died (should be less than 3%) - Recovered (should be more than 75%) and - Defaulted (should be less than 15%)

The time needed to achieve the exit indicators for a supplementary feeding programme is 1 to 2 months. This will be a more advanced stage of high frequency monitoring. Exits from a feeding programme are those no longer registered. The population of exited individuals is made up those who have defaulted, recovered (including those who are referred) and died. Those admitted after discharge from therapeutic care should be reported as a separate category. See SPHERE 2011 Food Security & Nutrition Standard1 Guidance Note 5 for details on measurement p.167


50


Health

CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark High frequency Indicator

Guidance notes

Children and women access lifesaving interventions through population-based/community-based activities e.g. campaigns and child health days

95% coverage with measles vaccine,

# and % of children 6 - 59 months and 6mo-15y vaccinated for measles

Numerator = # of children 6 - 59 months and 6mo-15y vaccinated for measles Denominator = estimated # of children 6 - 59 months and 6mo-15y in affected areas (adjust up where registration higher than expected)

All families in the affected area receive 2 insecticide-treated bed nets (ITNs) in malaria endemic areas

# and % of families receiving 2 ITNs

Numerator = # of families receiving 2 ITNs Denominator = estimated # of families in affected areas (adjusting as above)


51


WASH

CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark High frequency Indicator Guidance notes

Children and women access sufficient water of appropriate quality and quantity for drinking, cooking and maintaining personal hygiene

Children and women have access to at least 7.5 - 15 litres of clean water per day

# and/or % of population with access to 15 litres of water per person per day

Numerator = # of water sources for each type of water source X # of people to be served by each type of water source (see below) Denominator = # people in the affected area See # of people per source by yield: 250 people per tap based on flow of 7.5 L/min. 500 people per hand pump based on flow of 17 L/min 400 people per single user open well based on 12.5 L/min (See SPHERE Wather Supply Standard 1-Guidance Note 4 and 5, p. 199) Where water tankering is used numerator reqiures also adding #L delivered divided by 15 L.

Children and women access toilets and washing facilities that are culturally appropriate, secure, and sanitary, and are user friendly and gender appropriate

A maximum ratio of 20 people per hygienic toilet / latrine squat hole.

# and % of people living in faeces free environment AND # and % of people with access to appropriately designed toilets

Options as situation evolves (see also early input/process indicators): Numerator = # of communal toilets established for women + # communcal toilets established for men + # of family toilets X # of people targetted for each type of toilet (See SPHERE Excreta Disposal Standard 2-Guidance Note 1-4 for details on appropriate coverage p. 109) Denominator for all = # of people in affected areas Note: Assumptions must be agreed ideally at cluster level on what figure will be estimated for existing % of people with access to toilets or living in a faeces free environment based on pre-crisis practices and toilet/atrine coverage and how this has changed from pre-crisis contexts. Also care must be taken to avoid double counting where improved latrines are being constructed to replace immediate options such as trench latrines. This does not increase % living in faeces free environment. For this reason, it is important to

track both indicators.


52


Child Protection CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark High frequency Indicator Guidance notes

CP2. Monitoring and reporting on grave violations and other serious protection concerns for children and women is undertaken and systematically triggers response (including advocacy)

2: Periodic reports are available and utilized on grave violations and other serious protection concerns for children and women

Achievement of milestones toward established of monitoring and reporting (qualitative)

AND/OR

% of population covered by monitoring systems

Milestones include: - active monitoring and reporting on grave violations against children and other serious child protection concerns; - measurable and verified data exists on grave violations and other serious child protection concerns (by violation); - periodic reports available; - development and implementation of prevention and response mechanisms; - systematic data is available on grave violations and other serious child protection concerns over time.

CP3. Key child protection mechanisms are strengthened in emergency-affected areas

Safe environments are established for the most vulnerable children

# and % of children reached through child-friendly spaces in displacement sites and camps

'Numerator=# of children enrolled in Child Friendly Spaces Denominator=# of children agreed as targeted "most vulnerable" overall in affected area. This may for example be all displaced children. A decision Is required on targeting. Field monitoring is required to explore quality issues of CF spaces, including success of cross-sectoral coordination of services.

CP4. Separation of children from families is prevented and addressed and family-based care is promoted.

All separated and unaccompanied children are identified and are in family-based care or an appropriate alternative

# of separated and unaccompanied children identified.

'- while denominators are estimates for all indicators in emergency settings, denominators for separated children are especially unclear, i.e. unknown until children are identified and at the same time are integrated in programmes. This is one of few indicators where reporting the simple number is considered adequate and meaningful

# and % of separated children in emergencies reunified

Numerator = # of separated children reunified Denominator = total # of separated identified since beginning of crisis or, for ongoing situations, in current year


53


CP5. Violence, exploitation and abuse of children and women is prevented and addressed, including GBV

5: Affected communities are mobilized to prevent and address violence, exploitation and abuse of children and women: existing systems to respond to the needs of GBV survivors are improved

# and % of population in communities where ongoing work to mobilize and strengthen social support networks to prevent and address violence, abuse and exploitation, including GBV

Numerator = # of communities where ongoing work to mobilize and strengthen social support networks to prevent and address violence, abuse and exploitation, including GBV x # population in each community Denominator = total affected population

CP6. Psychosocial support is provided to children and their caregivers

6: All CP programmes integrate PSS in their work in line with the IASC MHPSS guidelines

# and % children enrolled in psycho-social activities

Numerator = # children enrolled in CP programmes that have integrated IASC MHPSS guidelines Denominator = total child population (for target age group if strategy is age targeted) Important that this is supported by systematic field monitoring to ensure quality of adherence to MHPSS guidelines.

CP7. Child recruitment and use; illegal and arbitrary detention is prevented and addressed for conflict-affected children

7: Inter-agency plan developed and implemented for prevention and response to child recruitment; advocacy against illegal and arbitrary detention for conflict-affected children is conducted.

# of children newly released from armed forces and groups

'-Newly' means since last reporting period; both cumulative and newly released figures can be presented - No % is reported as denominator is especially unclear - this serves as a proxy indicator for success in advocacy

# of children reached through response and reintegration programmes and services.

'- while denominators are estimates for all indicators in emergency settings, denominators for CAFFare especially unclear even where MRM established. This is one of few indicators where reporting the simple number is considered adequate and meaningful

# and % of children reintegrated into their families and communities.

Numerator = # of children male/female reintegrated Denominator = # of children reached through response and reintegration programmes and services.


54


CP8. The use of landmines and other indiscriminate or illicit weapons by state and non-state actors is prevented and their impact addressed

8: Children and communities in affected areas have access to mine/UXO risk education and are better protected from the effects of landmines and other indiscriminate and/or illicit weapons

'# and % population exposed to mine/UXO risk education activities

'Requires detailed monitoring by type of activity and either estimated coverage by type or reported coverage. Depends on C4D strategy developed. See separate guidance on monitoring C4D activities


55


Education CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark High frequency Indicator Guidance notes

E2. Children including preschool age children, girls, and other excluded children, access quality education opportunities

Schools re-opened and child-friendly and adolescent-friendly emergency non-formal programmes, including play and early learning for young children, established for affected communities

# and % of school-aged children including adolescents reached by schools (including in schools in affected areas still functioning, re-opened schools and/or temporary facilities established)

Numerator = # schools still functioning + # schools re-opened + # temporary facilities X estimated average # of children per type of facility agreed at cluster level

Denominator = total # school aged children in affected area (aged 4-6 years as target for pre-primary; aged 6-14 as target for basic; aged 15-18 as target for post-basic)

Option to disaggregate by age group covered in both numerator and denominator

Estimated average # of children should be periodically cross-checked through field monitoring

# and % of school-aged

children including adolescents

reached by child-friendly and

adolescent-friendly emergency

non-formal education

programmes, including play and

early learning for young

children

% made up of # non-programmes still functioning added to # re-opened or new multipled by the estimated average # of children per facility agreed at cluster level per total # school-aged children in affected area


Important in reporting that child-friendly education programmes are clearly distinguished from protection- or health- oriented CFS to ensure no double counting and avoid confusion by data users


56


E4. Psychosocial and health services for children and teachers is integrated in educational response

All education humanitarian response integrates appropriate psychosocial, health and nutrition interventions

# and % of children with access to Humanitarian Education programmes that incorporate psychosocial support

[Note: NATF indicator: % of schools/learning spaces offering psychosocial support for (a) children and youth; (b) teachers (E8)]

Option 1:

Numerator = # of educational programmes where psychosocial programming is integrated (by type of programme) X average # children by type of programme (agreed at cluster level)

Denominator = total # of school-aged children in affected area (aged 4-6 years as target for pre-primary; aged 6-14 as target for basic; aged 15-18 as target for post-basic)


Option 2:

Numerator = # of teachers trained to agreed cluster or national standard for adequate knowledge, skills and good practices for supporting children's pychosocial needs X average # children reached by teacher (agreed at cluster level)

Denominator = as above


57


HIV/AIDS

CCC Commitment CCC Benchmark High frequency Indicator

Guidance notes

HIV2. Children, young people and women access HIV and AIDS prevention, care and treatment during crisis

2: 80% of emergency affected population access relevant HIV and AIDS prevention, care and treatment services, e.g. post rape care including Post-Exposure Prophylaxis (PEP), Sexually Transmitted Infections (STI) treatment, prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) and antiretroviral (ART)

# women, young people and children victims of sexual violence provided with PEP

'This is an area where denominators are especially problematic therefore the raw # served is used in monitoring. This should not be pursued if there are any concerns about safety of data collection in terms of negative repercussions for victims. Disaggregation of data collection by age is recommended to use >18; 10-18 and <10. Qualitative field monitoring should include verification if there are any instances of young children being turned away or referred to PMTC clinics due to concern about appropriate dosage

HIV3. Prevention, care and treatment services for children, young people, and women are continued

3: 80% of emergency affected population previously on HIV related care treatment continue to receive ARVs for prevention of mother-to-child transmission (PMTCT) and, children and young people on antiretroviral treatment (ART) continue receiving ART.

# and % HIV positive pregnant women continuing to receive ARVs for PMTCT

Option 1 recommended where, as per normal practice in emergencies, new PMTCT is not initiated : Numerator = # of HIV positive pregnant women receiving ARVs for PMTCT Denominator = # previously receiving ARVs for PMTCT Option 2 recommended where monitoring more advanced with patient identification cards allowing tracking of: - # new patients - # new from other locations - # continuing patients - # lost to follow-up In such cases both # and% continuing can be tracked as above as well as # and % new cases


58

Part II – Simplified Reporting format for Monthly PCA progress reporting

UNICEF and _________________ Civil Society Organization / Partner

PCA Reference No.___________________________

Reporting Period: From______________to ______________ Project Duration: From__________________ to _______________________

% Project Duration Passed__________________ Total UNICEF Contribution________________ % Project funding spent____________________

Expected Result /

Outcome Progress Indicator Cumulative Result to date

Issues / Constraints /

Comments Necessary Actions

UNICEF PCA partners agree to facilitate Field Monitoring visits for UNICEF and/or their representatives.

UNICEF PCA partners agree to report against the OCHA 3W template

UNICEF PCA partners agree to report according to relevant Cluster/Sector Lead agencies according to the framework and mechanism agreed


59

UNICEF PCA / Intervention Mapping






• PCA Mapping template


• The rapid scale up of UNICEF interventions following a sudden onset emergency has a

number of risks:

o Programme design risks of ‘doing harm’ in complex contexts and rapid scale-up;

o Financial and implementation management risks when there is sudden increase in

resources and UNICEF implementing partners32;

o Reputational risks where UNICEF is unable to say what the progress is in reaching

affected population, or the progress in country cluster/sector coordination where lead

agency

• In this context the opportunities for harmonized cross-sector thematic programmes and

administration efficiencies of partner agreements can easily be missed

• This tool seeks to fill any gap in UNICEF CO intervention mapping

• The initial mapping exercise is likely to be timely and clear tasking is required.

• Unless the mechanism for intervention mapping already exists – it is proposed that it is

carried out by the CO Monitoring section


• Unless the mechanism for intervention mapping already exists – it is proposed that it is

carried out by the CO Monitoring section

• CO Programme section chiefs are likely to know where interventions are within their own

sector - In this case a collation exercise is required to bring all sector interventions

together in a single document or map

• Where there is a significant scale up of operations and rapid increase in interventions it

will be useful to map UNICEF interventions to allow opportunities for harmonized cross-

sector thematic programmes and administration efficiencies of partner agreements to be

utilized


• A map, some coloured pins and a camera (to photograph map and share on e-mail) is an

appropriate alternative to hiring a GIS specialist and converting the data into a database

• Mapping software is useful, however if it is not already well established in the CO then

serious consideration should be given to the cost to establish versus potential benefits

• If GPS units are available then interventions be plotted onto Google maps

32

See UN Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers (HACT) for resources on reducing financial risk


60

Intervention mapping template – Provincial, Country example, Pakistan 2010 flood response (extract from Xcel document)

Date: 10-07-10

S# Section

PCA/SSA/SSFA

No.

PCCA/SSA/S

SFA Start Date End Date

Total UNICEF

Share PKR Name Partner Govt/NGO

Partner;s Address

Contact Details

Focal Point

(Partner)

Focal Point

Contact Details

Location of

Interventions

(District/UCs) GPS Coordinates Major Activities Benfciaries

1 Health PAK/10/124 PCA 01-Aug-10 31-Dec-10 21,418,654 RI NGO Matta, Swat

Community Mobilization,

OTP,

Stabilization Centre,

388,954

2 Health PAK/2010/124 PCA 01-Jul-10 31-Dec-10 23,545,983 CERD NGOJalozai IDP Camp

Tough Sarai Camp Hangu

Provision of access to PHC at Tough Sarai Camp Hangu

Provision of access to MHC at Tough Sarai Camp Hangu

Provision of CMAM services at Tough Sarai Camp Hangu

Provision of access to MHC at Jalozai IDP Camp

Provision of CMAM services at Jalozai IDP Camp

105,000

3 Health PAK/10/125 PCA 01-Jul-10 31-Dec-10 22,477,202 MERLIN NGO Jalozai IDP CampProvision of CMAM services at Jalozai IDP Camp

106,000

4 Health PAK/10/169 PCA 01-Sep-10 31-Dec-10 15,876,486Abaseen

FoundationNGO

Civil Hospital Kabal Swat

and its linked 8 health

facilities

Provide immediate access to Women and Children to Static

life interventions

Communities have improved access to quality health services

through community organization and participation.

Community awareness through standard health messages

Development of Public Private Partnership Agreement

225,000

5 Health PAK/10/149 PCA 16-Aug-10 15-Oct-10 3,960,200 PPA Semi Govt Nowshera & CharsaddaProvision access to Children to Child Health Care services

Manage Acute Watery Diarrhea per IMCI protocol120,000

6 Health PAK/10/148 PCA 16-Aug-10 31-Dec-10 21,127,141 NRSP NGO 12 Ucs of Nowshera

Provision of Adequate nutritional care and treatment for

children, pregnant women and lactating women.

Prevetion of malnutrition in early childhood.

Revention of micro nutrient defeciencies in children

To strengthen local tehnical capacity

327,897

7 Health PAK/10/77 PCA 01-May-10 31-Oct-10 13,638,268

The Johanniter

International

Assistance

NGO 6 affected Ucs of Kohat Emergency nutritional interventions for IDPs 171,781

8 Health PAK/10/78 PCA 01-May-10 31-Oct-10 13,604,748 CDO NGO 6 affected Ucs of Hangu Emergency nutritional interventions for IDPs 144,000

9 Health PAK/10/79 PCA 01-May-10 31-Oct-10 16,087,801 PHRP NGO 8 affected Ucs of KohatProvision of Quality Nutrition services to IDPs and host

population192,000

10 Health PAK/10/80 PCA 01-May-10 31-Dec-10 21,495,496 FPHC NGO8 affected facilities at

Mohmand Agency

Provision of Quality Nutrition services to returnee IDPs and

stayed back committees224,000

11 Health PAK/10/81 PCA 01-May-10 31-Dec-10 26,806,485 RI NGO12 affected UCs at

District Lower DirCommunity Based Management of Acute Nutrition 299,600

Planning , Monitoring and Evaluation (PME), UNICEF Peshawar, Details of PCAs/SSAs/SSFAs


61

Field Monitoring






• Field Monitor Visit Checklist - tool

A) Input Monitoring

B) Cooperation Partner progress report verification

C) Qualitative Monitoring and Observation

• Guide for Using the Field Monitor Checklist - tool

o Field Monitor deployment plan

o Weekly Field Monitor Summary Report

• Contracting Field Monitors – Template for SSA with Organization

• Contracting Field Monitors – Template for Individual staff SSA


• “Field Monitoring” is used to describe systematic visits to UNICEF projects or where

UNICEF supplies are distributed, which are carried out by UNICEF staff or their

representatives.

• Field Monitoring visits give UNICEF an essential reality check of what is happening on the

ground in environments where much can go wrong. It involves the affected population in

monitoring the UNICEF response.

• CO senior management needs to consider their current capacity to carry out Field Monitoring visits and decide whether to increase CO capacity and how.

• The Humanitarian PM Field Monitoring approach proposes that UNICEF COs recruit

additional capacity through a 3rd party organization or through direct hire of Field Monitors

• Field Monitors are not intended to replace technical visits by UNICEF programme staff but

to ‘put more feet on the ground’ to support higher frequency humanitarian monitoring

• To be useful, field monitoring must be higher coverage/frequency (more ‘feet on the

ground’) and needs to be a structured and systematic approach with clear criteria on Where

to go and What to verify. It should utilize CO PCA mapping

• The Humanitarian PM toolkit proposes three objectives for Field Monitoring visits

Field Monitoring Visit Objective How a) Monitor the status of delivery of UNICEF supplies

beyond leaving the UNICEF warehouse (reducing financial risk to UNICEF)

Checking status of UNICEF inputs based on Supply Distribution Lists

b) Cross-check PCA partners progress reports (reducing financial risk to UNICEF)

Verifying cooperation partner progress reporting based on latest PCA partner reports

c) Inclusion of the affected population, that interventions are appropriate, identify any areas of exclusion and that UNICEF interventions ‘Do No Harm’ (through interviews and observations)

Through observation and discussions with end-users at UNICEF intervention sites


62

• Parts a) and b) are generic, however part c) will require adapting to the specific country

context to reflect local priorities and issues – this is likely to require adapting to specific sub-

national contexts.

• The PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum tool supports the Field Monitoring approach

by agreeing a higher frequency of lighter progress reporting based on a few prioritized

indicators for each section.


• Scaling up UNICEF monitoring capacity requires

a) Resources: funds for Field Monitor contract, ideally GPS units

b) Clear tasking within CO, i.e. which unit will manage the Field Monitors (recommend the

CO Monitoring unit where feasible)

c) Clear tasking in terms expected outputs from Field Monitors

• A 3rd party research organization can be hired through a single SSA.

• Individual Field Monitors can be hired through staff SSAs

• As part of pre-emergency planning suitable 3rd party organizations can be identified and

budgeted for.

Options to consider when applying

CO capacity for carrying out monitoring visits

• In stable contexts Field Monitoring visits are carried out by the relevant Programme Section

and their PCA partners.

• Following a sudden scale up of operations, or where access is an issue, additional

monitoring capacity will be required.

• Options for scaling up UNICEF monitoring capacity include,

a) Hiring of a 3rd party organization to manage a team of Field Monitors on UNICEF’s

behalf (managed by the CO Monitoring unit), OR;

b) Direct hiring and training of UNICEF field monitors (lead by the CO Monitoring unit)33

• Field Monitoring visits can begin when UNICEF inputs start being distributed.

Training Field Monitors

• The level of training and specialization of Field Monitors will vary from country to country

• Field Monitors may not be programme specialists and regular training and familiarization with UNICEF programme staff is likely to be necessary.

• Where feasible specific training (i.e. Participatory Rural Appraisal, Rapid Rural Appraisal) should be carried out for Field Monitoring34.

33 Where a suitable organization exists it is recommended that COs hire an organization. Hiring an organization may be more expensive in financial cost,

however hiring and managing 10 or 15 Field Monitors each on individual SSA

contracts, organizing transport, DSA etc. has significant hidden costs in time, transport, administration etc. 34

There is an abundance of resources on PRA/RRA resources and how to undertake them. For an overview with strengths and weaknesses of the approach see the Oxfam Development Handbook:


63

Managing Field Monitors • While Field Monitors provide additional generic capacity to monitor, they should not replace

visits by UNICEF programme staff who provide technical oversight.

• Field Monitoring visits should be based on UNICEF supply distribution (for the initial weeks) and then be a mix of UNICEF supply distribution and cooperation agreement project sites through UNICEF PCA mapping.

• As much as possible Field Monitor visit should be coordinated with as many UNICEF sections as possible.

• Sections (A) and (B) of the Field Monitoring visit checklist are generic and apply to UNICEF Supply Distribution lists and Cooperation Partner reports

• Section (C) is programme and context specific. The checklist provides some key themes to guide observations and discussions however they should be adapted to the local context to ensure information collected is usable to UNICEF.

• The exact format of Section (C) is flexible from country to country, as well as within countries.

• Continuous revision of Section (C) of the Checklist is critical to remain focused on the real-time information needs for UNICEF programme sections. Propose that the Checklist is reviewed every 2-4 weeks with CO monitoring section and Programme staff

Information Management

• Information collected by Field Monitors need to remain useful to the UNICEF and sector response. Regular feedback meetings with UNICEF programme staff and retaining a flexible approach can ensure that information collected can be utilized.

• Field Monitoring reports should be regular (i.e. weekly) and be based on UNICEF intervention PCA mapping.

• As a guide the role of the Field Monitors should be to flag issues for programme colleagues. Programme sections determine what, if any, action to take.

• A “database” for Field Monitoring information is unlikely to be necessary unless one already exists and can be easily updated. Field Monitoring information can compliment PCA mapping (GIS mapping capacity is not necessary)


Who manages Field Monitors in UNICEF

• Best suited to the CO Monitoring Unit

• ToR for 3rd

party organization includes Field Monitoring Coordinator to manage day-to-day and collate reports

What to do with Field Monitoring information

• FM information should be shared primarily with CO programme staff who decide what, if any, action is necessary (programme decision)

• Information relevant to the wider cluster should be shared through cluster meetings

• FM information is important both for the specifics (a serious problem in a given site) and the overall trend. Aggregating data is important. (Note that a simple database that allows UNICEF and partners to input, share and analyse data is under development.)

• If FM information is not useful to UNICEF programme sections then the collection of the information should be reviewed and adjusted in the checklist

Overlapping Field Monitoring initiatives by multiple agencies

• UNICEF should share that it is carrying out FM visits with OCHA and others

Sensitivities when monitoring government partners

• If FMs are planned for use with government partners then some outreach work may be necessary to ensure government partners are aware and facilitate FM visits


64

Examples of challenges and proposed solutions from Pakistan flood response 2010

Challenges Proposed Solution

Punjab

PCA partners have started viewing FMs as ‘watchmen’ and develop tendency to hide information. Similar feelings can develop amongst programme staff as well

The role of FMs need to be defined in PCAs and MOUs to inform PCA partners

Request for use of FMs for validation, use in surveys/ assessments and other similar assignment

The FMs should not be involved in tasks beyond their capacity.

Balcohistan

PCA partners have a poor response to FMs UNICEF POs to ensure PCA partners are aware of the role of FMs The role of FMs need to be defined in PCAs and MOUs to inform PCA partners

Beneficiary (receipt of supplies) monitoring –people have the tendancy of saying that they did not receive anything regardless

• Random visits to differnet households in a single locality

• Cross checking

• Observation

Sindh

Sustaining remote field monitoring after the contract ends

Incorporate budget for field monitoring as part of program cost

Limited sector specific technical knowledge of Field Monitors

Regular meeting with programme sections and sharing of relevant documents (description/pictures of distribution materials and definitions of technical terms) and joint field monitoring visits

PCA partners poor response to Field Monitors A letter to be sent from UNICEF to all PCA partners informing that UNICEF assisted programs are subject to monitoring. This would be in addition to the clause on monitoring in the PCA.

KP

FM have limited sector specific technical knowledge of field monitors

Regular meeting with programme sections and sharing to relevant documents (description of distribution materials and definitions of technical terms)




Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkit and Guide 01June2011

65

Field Monitor Tools

Field Monitor Visit Checklist

A) Input monitoring



Field Monitors should complete the sections of this Checklist, continuing on additional sheets as

necessary. One sheet should be completed for each location that is visited. A weekly summary of

visits should be prepared and shared with UNICEF Monitoring focal point.

A) Input Monitoring

When: Can be carried out as soon as UNICEF inputs are delivered to partners / affected population

Objective: To identify any bottle-necks in supply of UNICEF inputs after delivery to cooperation

partner or affected population

Name of Site Visited: Date of Visit:

Programme Section: Cooperation Partner(s):

Location (sub-district/district/Province: GPS:

Items Provided Field Monitors Comments

• Details of Items delivered should be obtained from the Supply Distribution List from the relevant

Country Office Programme Section and/or Supply and Logistics Unit through UniTrack

• If there are too many items on Supply Distribution List then Field Monitors should pick a random

sample, i.e. every 2nd

items, or every 3rd

item to check

• Continue of additional sheets as necessary


66


When: As soon as UNICEF cooperation partners begin submitting progress reports, typically one

month after initial signing of PCA including the PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum.

Objective: To verify cooperation partner progress reports, in coordination with cooperation partners

and in place/ or in conjunction with UNICEF programme section field monitoring visits.



PCA Number: Cooperation Partner report dated:

Location (sub-district/district/Province: GPS:

Progress Reported Field Monitors Comments

• Details of Items delivered should be obtained from the Cooperation Agreement Progress Report

from the relevant Country Office Programme Section. For example of the Progress Report see the

PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum tool from the Humanitarian PM toolkit.

• If there are too many outputs to monitor then Field Monitors should pick a random sample, i.e.

every 2nd

items, or every 3rd

item to check

• Continue of additional sheets as necessary


67


When: Can be carried out as soon as UNICEF inputs are delivered to affected population and

UNICEF cooperation agreement projects begin.

Before use this section requires reviewed, adapted and validated at the country office level by

programme sections. Where using at the provincial or sub-provincial level it should be adapted to the

local context. This may mean a different qualitative section for different provinces, sub-provinces.

Objective: To asses suitability of UNICEF project approach through observation and interviews with

recipients and end users.



Location (sub-district/district/Province): GPS:

Nutrition

OTP (Outpatient Therapeutic Programme) Stabilization Centre

Cooperation Partner Discussion Cooperation Partner Discussion

Is the OTP working o Yes o No

Is the SC working

o Yes o No

Is there counselling on Infant and Young Child Feeding

o Yes o No

Is a Doctor / Health worker available at the SC

o Yes o No

How many acute, malnourished, children have been omitted in the centre reporting period

Number ____________ Report period___________

Is there counselling on Infant and Young Child Feeding

o Yes o No

What is the recovery rate of the treatment centre

___________% What is the recovery rate of the treatment centre

___________%

What is the medical and food stock

Food type Days of stock ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________

Does the centre have sufficient medical and food stock

Food type Days of stock ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________ ________

Discussion

When was the last distribution of nutrition kits

When was the last distribution of high emergency biscuits

Who in the family uses which items in the nutrition kit

Can people demonstrate they know key UNICEF messages

Is anyone excluded from services, if yes, Who, Why and how many

Are there community based facilities to serve malnourished children


68

Health

Discussion

How many days since the last visit by the Community Health Worker (CHW)

How long did you wait the last time you saw the CHW

To pregnant / new mothers, did you receive any antenatal/postnatal care from health care provider?

o Yes o No


Is support available for delivery

o Yes o No

Are delivery kits available o Yes o No

If CHW in the community, are stocks sufficient, if not – what is missing


Are locally based health workers trained in Health Service Systems, if Yes, How many, How recent

What is the role of local government authorities involved in providing services?

WASH

Observation Discussion

What are the main sources of drinking water

How much water is used per person per day (estimate use from number and size of container used)

Litre Per person per day

How does community dispose of excreta

How far do people walk to access water

Is there open defecation? Where Aqua tab and pure Sachet, does the community know how to use and mix

Where there are latrines: How many people use how many latrines

Does everyone access latrines - if not why not

Are latrines in use – if not why not?

Is community participative in operation of latrines – if yes How

How is garbage disposed Have families in the community received hygiene kits

Did the site appear clean, if not Why

Who in the family uses which items in the hygiene kit

Is there bathing facilities available in the community with separate facilities for women





69

Child Protection

Observation Discussion with community / Cooperation Partner

How many Child Friendly Spaces (CFS) and how many children using them

How many children are registered/attending CFS (by sex, by age)

How many care givers are there at a single CFS?

What are the criteria for registration in CFS?

Is there any recreational activities going in CFS, if yes what type

Are there any children not yet reunited? How many

Which basic services are available at CFS? (water, sanitation, safety, hygiene)?

What actions are taken to reunite children with their family?

Do children have safe space in the community to play

Is there Psycho social support for children, if Yes in what form

Are children involved in labour? If yes, what type of labour


Are children involved with armed groups

Are referral services available at CFS?


Education

Observation Discussion

Where does teaching take place

Are any children excluded from services, if yes, Why and how many

Is school in the community operating

Are there enough school supplies

Is the learning facility damaged, how much

Is there drinking water and toilet facilities at teaching places

Do boys and girls access toilet facilities, if not Why

Do they wash their hands after using toilet, if not Why

Where there is a TLC Is TLC functional, if Not why?

Where there is a TLC What are the criteria used to enrol children in TLC?

What are the basic services (water, hygiene) available at TLC?

Who is teaches students at TLC?

How many children use the TLC (boys and girls)

Can children demonstrate they know key UNICEF messages



70

Guide for Using the Field Monitor Checklist

• This guide supports the UNICEF section / unit / staff in managing the use of the Field

Monitoring Checklists and compliments the Field Monitoring ToR35.

• The guide and checklist can also be used by UNICEF programme section staff as part of

their regular UNICEF project visits

• The guide is intended for use by UNICEF CO to plan and manage the organization

responsible for the Field Monitors – or individual Field Monitors contracted by UNICEF -

and provides clarity on the expected information outputs to support the UNICEF and

UNICEF led cluster/sector response.

• To avoid spending too much time travelling, and to maximise time with affected

population Field Monitors should aim to spend one day per location. This can be

adjusted to suit the local context.

1. Objective of Field Monitors

• Field Monitors have been contracted to complement input and output monitoring

undertaken by UNICEF programme officers. Field Monitors DO NOT replace Remote

monitors or technical oversight visits by UNICEF programme staff and should not be

tasked with collecting the same information.

• As a guide additional field monitors provide extra ‘feet on the ground’ for UNICEF –

providing capacity to visit UNICEF projects where access is an issue, or where a rapid

scale up of operations means the CO does not have the capacity to monitor

• The objective of Field Monitors should be adapted to suit the country context, as a guide

the following areas are recommended for focus:

a) Monitoring UNICEF supplies (beginning from when UNICEF supplies are distributed)

b) Cross-check PCA partners progress reports (beginning when UNICEF partner reports

are submitted – typically one month after the project start date36

c) Observations and Discussions with the affected population (beginning when UNICEF

supplies are distributed)

d) Special monitoring task (as and when necessary, determined by CO)

2. Approach

• Field Monitors will use various approaches to collect information. The Emphasis is on

qualitative data

• Enumerators are NOT collecting information for a quantitative survey. Provincial PME

should be clear on the Field Monitoring Outputs expected with the contracted

organization. We are NOT looking for statistical significant data for generalisation across

a certain population group

Field Monitoring Visit Objective How a) Monitor the status of delivery of UNICEF supplies beyond leaving the UNICEF warehouse (reducing financial risk to UNICEF)

Checking status of UNICEF inputs based on Supply Distribution Lists


Verifying cooperation partner progress reporting based on latest PCA partner

35

The Field Monitor ToR for the contract includes the provision that Field Monitors should be made up of equal numbers of men and women and 2 person teams should include one male and one female 36

This is facilitated by the use of the PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum – Humanitarian PM toolkit


71

reports

c) Discussions with the affected population, that interventions are appropriate, identify any areas of exclusion and that UNICEF interventions ‘Do No Harm’ (through interviews and observations)

Through observation and discussions with end-users at UNICEF intervention sites

a) Monitoring UNICEF supplies

• Will require Supply distribution lists from both CO Supply and Logistics and Programme

sections depending on supply management arrangements at CO

• Verify delivery of UNICEF supplies to end-users (i.e. tracking of UNICEF supplies from

UNICEF warehouse to the end user, identifying any delays, bottle necks and undelivered

supplies)

b) Cross-check PCA partners progress reports

• UNICEF PCA partners should be reporting on the simplified, higher frequency reporting

format contained in the PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum on a monthly basis.

• Verify with PCA partners, affected population and through observation the reported

progress

c) Observations and Discussions with the affected population

• There are a number of methods for discussion with affected populations.

• The CO will determined the most appropriate method for which groups.

The following table are some suggestions for consideration

Subject Information Source Utility of intervention Key informant interviews (with service providers)

Focus group discussions with users (All; women; children)

Access / Exclusion Key informant interviews (with women; children; marginalized groups; dissabled)

Safety Key informant interviews (with women; children)

Role of the government Observation, Key informant interviews (with local government authorities), Focus group discussions with all users

Do No Harm Focus group discussions with users (all, women, children)

Observation Walk through community

• Through use of part c) the checklist (adapted to the country context) identify any

issues/difficulties with regard to the UNICEF programme response (WASH, Health,

Nutrition, Education, Child Protection)

• Identify any urgent unmet needs of women and children in the affected areas

d) Any special assignments

• On a case-by-case basis undertake any special assignments required by the

management in regards to quick assessments, in-depth analysis of specific case/s


72

• E.g. verification of particular PCA partner report, investigate any reports of misuse of

UNICEF supply inputs etc.

3. Expected Outputs of Field Monitoring

• Consolidated weekly report with results of Field Monitor visits presented by objectives;

location and UNICEF intervention.

• See sample reporting template, Annex A

Propose information is presented through

• Weekly Presentation of Field Monitor Findings: Organization focal point to Provincial

PME

• Weekly presentation by Provincial PME to Provincial Management meeting (including

Program Sections and Provincial Cluster Coordinators)

• Every one or two week - Presentation of Field Monitor Findings from Field Monitors to

UNICEF Programme sections

4. Step by Step

STEP (i) – Prior to departure

• UNICEF (recommend monitoring unit in coordination with Programme sections) to

formulate a plan of which UNICEF intervention sites will be visited in the following week.

NB. Requires the CO to have some form of PCA/UNICEF intervention mapping by

location. See Annex A for example of Field Monitor deployment plan

• Field Monitors should have the following information prior to departure and UNICEF

(recommend monitoring unit) should ensure it is available:

Objective Pre-departure information required

From

Location of UNICEF intervention to be visited

Suitable information to locate (ideally by GPS reference) Name of Implementing partner

PCA Mapping, Or Programme Sections

a) Monitor the status of delivery of UNICEF supplies

Supply Distribution Lists

Programme Sections Supply Section


Latest PCA partner report

Programme Sections

c) Discussions with the affected population, that interventions are appropriate, identify any areas of exclusion and that UNICEF interventions ‘Do No Harm’ (through interviews and observations)


73

STEP (ii) – Upon Arrival at Community/Site

Walk through community (utility in winter? - alternative)

• Observe areas relating to checklist part c)

• Map available public service (water, health, school) – simple drawing

a) Monitoring UNICEF supplies

• Using Supply distribution lists - verify delivery of UNICEF supplies to affected population

• Note any bottlebecks (i.e. supplies in UNICEF partner warehouses) and the reason

b) Cross-check PCA partners progress reports

• Using UNICEF PCA partner report - verify with partners the progress detailed in the

report

• Note any delays, bottlenecks, access/exclusion issues (marginalized groups), safety

issues for women and children

c) Observations and Discussions with the affected population

Identify 4-5 households randomly (near road, away from road, poor, less poor)

• Using checklist part c) as a guide to key informant interviews

• As a guide do not use more than 1 hour with each household.

Arrange group discussions with key groups based on checklist part c)

STEP (iii) – Completion of Checklists

• Complete the checklist, using additional paper as necessary

• Field Monitor coordinators (either a specific person recruited directly, or part of the 3rd

party research organization contract) to summarise information, see guide to reporting

template Annex B.

• Summarise your general observations and note the gaps in both UNICEF’s project

response and the situation for women and children

5. Review of Process

• Continuous revision of the Checklist is critical to remain focused on the real-time

information needs for UNICEF programme sections

• Propose that the Checklist is reviewed every 2 weeks with relevant programme staff

Provincial PME


74

Field Monitor deployment plan

Last Updatd on: Oct. 08, 2010

Monitor Name Contact No Districts Assigned Partners working 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Faiz Muhammad 0333 648 4659 Jacobabad

HELP, Save the

Children &

HANDS

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Nida Barohi 0332 285 6545 Shikarpur

HELP, Save the

Children &

HANDS

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Ghulam Murtaza 0334 2904670 Sukkur

HANDS, Save the

Children, World

Vision, GSF

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Maria Nawaz 0331 929 6527 KhairpurHANDS, World

Vision

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Imran Memon 0333 727 2096 Larkana GOAL

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Qamber ShahdadkotHELP, HANDS &

Action Aid

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Nowshehroferoze HANDS

Arshad Ali Shaikh 0301 220 7173 GhotkiTakhleeq

Foundation

Meeting

with

Meeting

with

Khair Bano 0334 262 3656 Kashmore HANDS

Meeting

with

unicef

Meeting

with

unicef

Syed Jamil-ur-

Rehman

(0333) 260 1517

ja mi l_ra 2000@ya hoo.com

Yasir Majeed(0345) 518-8627

yas i r.ma jeed@a pexconsul ting.biz

APEX

Team

Based in Hyderabad with frequent visits to field and client meetings

Based in Islamabad with frequent visits for meetings and field visits

0332 308 4527Shanila Kiran

Team C

Team D

Team B

Team A

APEX Consulting Pakistan

UNICEF - Field Monitros & Reporters

Week 3 - Oct. 25 to Oct 30Week 2 - Oct. 18 to Oct 23Week 1 - Oct. 11 to Oct 16

Workplan & Team Deployment Matrix - upto October 31, 2010


75

Weekly Field Monitor Summary Report

SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Field Monitors Name of Organization:

Guide - 1 Location visit per day UNCEF Supplies PCA Report Verification Discussion with Key Informants and Affected Populations Other Issues

Date of

Visit

Name of Individual

Field MonitorsDistrict Sub-District Village/Camp Name of Site GPS Summary of status and observations Summary of accuracy of project reports

Issues around utility of project approach, exclusion, safety,

role of local government.Any urgent issues, unmet needs etc

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

Location (Adjust to local conext)


76

Definitions

Focus Group Discussions

A focus group is a form of qualitative research in which a group of people are asked about

their perceptions, opinions, beliefs and attitudes towards a product, service or concept.

Questions are asked in an interactive group setting where participants are free to talk with

other group members

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA)37

Participatory rural appraisal (PRA) aims to incorporate the knowledge and opinions of rural

people in the planning and management of development projects and programmes

Hundreds of participatory techniques and tools have been described in a variety of books and newsletters, or taught at training courses around the world. These techniques can be divided into four categories:

• Group dynamics, e.g. learning contracts, role reversals, feedback sessions • Sampling, e.g. transect walks, wealth ranking, social mapping • Interviewing, e.g. focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews, triangulation • Visualization e.g. Venn diagrams, matrix scoring, timelines

To ensure that people are not excluded from participation, these techniques avoid writing wherever possible, relying instead on the tools of oral communication like pictures, symbols, physical objects and group memory. Efforts are made in many projects, however, to build a bridge to formal literacy; for example by teaching people how to sign their names or recognize their signatures.

37

See PRA Method and Application


77

Contracting Field Monitors – Template for SSA with Organization

UNITED NATIONS CHILDREN'S FUND

Terms of Reference for Institutional Consultancy “Field Monitor and Reporters”

1. Programme information:

Programme (No. & Name) :

Project (No. & Name) :

Sub-project (No. & Name) :

2. Purpose of assignment (Attach background documents, if necessary):

• Brief details of Humanitarian Situation

• Brief details of UNICEF interventions in humanitarian situation

• Brief detail on UNICEF humanitarian monitoring

• Overview of Role and requirements of Field Monitors: objective, purpose, timeframe,

numbers etc.

3. Duty Station:

4. Supervisor:

UNICEF Position / Unit /Section / Location

5. Major tasks to be accomplished:

Following is an example that can be adapted to suit the country / humanitarian context

a. Provide a team of Field monitors able to conduct monitoring and reporting based of

UNICEF interventions with a Coordinator to manage the day-to-day operations.

b. Ensure regular monitoring of UNICEF interventions in operational areas (in close

consulations and guidance from UNICEF) with timely, weekly reports on:

i) Delivery of UNICEF supplies to end-users (i.e. tracking of UNICEF supplies from

UNICEF warehouse to the end user, identifying any delays, bottle necks and

undelivered supplies)

ii) Specific issues/difficulties with regard to the UNICEF programme response (WASH,

Health, Nutrition, Education, Child Protection) including the effectivness of the

approach from the view of the end-user.

iii) The progress and performance of UNICEF cooperating and implementing partners

iv) The unmet needs of women and children in the affected areas

v) Key emergeing issues arising from Field monitoring, any social issues affecting

children or young, girls and women in general and any other related issues in the field,


78

inluding outbreaks, malutrition etc.

vi) Any special assignments required by the management in regards to quick

assessments, in-depth analysis of specific case/s

vii) Regular meetings between Field Monitors and UNICEF programme staff for direct

feedback / discussion. (Frequency to be determined with UNICEF provincial office)

6. End Products

Following is an example that can be adapted to suit the country / humanitarian context

Weekly summary report in the agreed format including:

a. Supply distribution and delivery progress (end-use information with identified gaps)

b. Progress of program response and intervention

c. Emerging issues

d. Progress and performance ofUNICEF cooperating / implementing partners

e. Original Field monitor reports for reference

7. Time Frame/Duration:

8. Qualification/Special Knowledge/experience: (to be worked out)

• Registered organization, preferably assessed by the UN with its own office and

qualified staff and able to undertake fulltime assignment at the specified provincial

project areas

• At least five years experiences with capacity to carry out field monitoring and

reporting of development/humanitarian interventions with reference to similar

projects

• Trained and qualified female and male (50% each) staff available for monitoring

and reporting (young energetic people with graduation from university/institute,

good endurance for rough conditions, and good communication in local ethnic

languages)

• Capacity to arrange all the logsitical arrangements for field staff, training and actual

field work

• Willingness to undertake the assingment in the given time period

9. Estimated Costs:

Esimated budget for 40 Field Monitors + 5 coordinators for 30 weeks

Province

(adapt as

necessary)

Number of

Field Monitors

(Jan-Jul 2011)

Average cost per

person

Estimated Cost for X

months

USD

Total

NB. Above figure includes all logsitics costs and US 20/week/Field Monitor cellphone airtime


79

10. Payment Schedule:

• 30% upon signing of contract and initial hiring and training of staff

• 40% end of the fourth month, subject to receipt of satisfactory timely, weekly

summary reports with accompanying background documents (original Field

monitor reports) and satisfactory organizational performance appraisal carried out

by provincial PME and verified by Chief Field Office.

• 30% end of the contract period, subject to receipt of satisfactory timely, weekly

summary reports with accompanying background documents (original Field

monitor reports) and satisfactory organizational performance appraisal carried out

by provincial PME and verified by Chief Field Office.

11 Prepared by:

Name Signature:_____________________

PME Officer Date:

12. Cleared by:

Name Signature:_____________________

Supply Officer Date:

13.. Approved by:

Name Signature:_____________________

UNICEF Representative Date:


80

Contracting Field Monitors – Template for Individual staff SSA

UNICEF

Terms of Reference for Individual SSA

Position Title: Field Monitor

Location:

Duration:

Reports to: Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Section

Justification

Brief details of Humanitarian Situation

Brief details of UNICEF interventions in humanitarian situation

UNICEF is committed to effective transparent decision-making processes that are evidence-based

and facilitate timely and predictable humanitarian response. Furthermore, UNICEF is a results-

based organization. The broader humanitarian sector, largely through the IASC and the

humanitarian reform agenda, is committed to ensuring that the humanitarian sector continues to

strive to be more accountable in terms of results and impact in humanitarian response.

Brief detail on UNICEF country specific humanitarian monitoring

Overview of Role and requirements of Field Monitors: objective, purpose, timeframe, numbers etc.

Scope of work

As part of a UNICEF managed team of Field Monitors ensure regular monitoring of UNICEF

interventions in operational areas with a focus on:

i) Delivery of UNICEF supplies to end-users (i.e. tracking of UNICEF supplies from UNICEF warehouse

to the end user, identifying any delays, bottle necks and undelivered supplies)

ii) Specific issues/difficulties with regard to the UNICEF programme response (WASH, Health,

Nutrition, Education, Child Protection) including the effectivness of the approach from the view of the

end-user.

iii) The progress and performance of UNICEF cooperating and implementing partners

iv) The unmet needs of women and children in the affected areas

v) Key emergeing issues arising from Field monitoring, any social issues affecting children or young,

girls and women in general and any other related issues in the field, inluding outbreaks, malutrition

etc.

Note (delete as necessary)

Where feasible it is recommended that a 3rd

party organization is hired

to provide the management, coordination and hiring of Field Monitors

along with a Coordinator.

Directly hiring and managing 10-15 Field Monitors on SSAs has

hidden costs in time, transport and management and does not

address Access issues since they will be subject to the same UNICEF

movement restrictions


81

vi) Any special assignments required by the management in regards to quick assessments, in-depth

analysis of specific case/s

vii) Regular meetings between Field Monitors and UNICEF programme staff for direct feedback /

discussion. (Frequency to be determined with UNICEF provincial office)

Major duties, responsibilities and expected results

Major duties and responsibilities Expected results

80% • Field Visits to UNICEF operational areas to undertake monitoring activities

Record of performance of

UNICEF interventions

10% • Production of Field Visit reports

• Timely Field Visit Reports

5% • Debrief with PME and programme sections

• Direct feedback of Field Visits to UNICEF

5% • Ongoing orientation on UNICEF programme interventions

• Improved knowledge of UNICEF work

Desired background and experience

• At least five years of work experiences with capacity to carry out field monitoring and reporting of

development/humanitarian interventions with reference to similar projects

• Trained and qualified female and male (50% each) staff available for monitoring and reporting

(young energetic people with graduation from university/institute, good endurance for rough

conditions, and good communication in local ethnic languages)

Management

The post falls under the supervision/management of the Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Section (or similar CO arrangement).

The post will work in collaboration with the following, in particular:

• Programme Sections

• Supply and Logistics

• UNICEF PCA Partners

Submissions

Interested candidates should send their CV to _________________________


82

UNICEF Cluster / Sector Coordination Milestone Monitoring Tool






• PCA Monitoring and Reporting Addendum Templates – tool (NB. Templates are pre-

completed with recommended priority high frequency indicators. CO should change as

necessary – refer to Indicator Guide)


• UNICEF accountabilities as country Cluster/Sector Lead Agency are an integral part of the

CCCs and the Humanitarian Reform agenda.

• The UNICEF Cluster/Sector Coordination Milestone Monitoring Tool is intended for quick use

as a Country Office management tool for high frequency monitoring of UNICEF’s progress in

meeting its cluster lead agency coordination accountabilities38.

o It is intended as a ‘minimum’ and provides a snapshot of UNICEF progress recognizing the

often limited CO monitoring capacity in the early stage of a response.

o It highlights the gaps that need to be addressed and can identify ‘quick wins’, i.e. ways to

strengthen clusters by sharing good practices across clusters and/or locations

• The Humanitarian PM tool is not intended for use by all cluster members and it does not seek

to assess the quality of UNICEF cluster coordination.

• Cluster performance monitoring tools that look at the performance of the entire cluster

response and quality of coordination which are often implemented with cluster partners, and

are more suited to lower frequency, in-depth monitoring, review or evaluation, have been

developed39 and links to these tools can be found on the Humanitarian PM Communities of

Practice filtered library40.

o Cluster performance monitoring tools are better suited for monitoring the Cluster / Sector

coordination in longer term chronic emergencies where clusters / sector working groups

have been long established.

• The Humanitarian PM tool attempts to distinguish Cluster Lead Agency responsibilities that

UNICEF can be expected to achieve alone, and those that require wider agreement and

cooperation with cluster / sector group members.

• UNICEF as country Cluster/Sector Lead Agency should be able to report on cluster coverage, but is not solely accountable for cluster/sector performance/coverage.

38

Derived from the Inter-Agency ToR for Country/Sector Cluster Lead 39

Tools developed through individual cluster initiatives and/or UNICEF Regional Office initiatives (e.g. draft CEE-CIS

cluster monitoring framework; current work on APSSC cluster monitoring framework) 40

http://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCpm6


83


• The tool can be applied in different ways: i.e. a self-assessment by the Cluster Coordinator; a

survey approach with one staff member carrying out one-to-one interviews with cluster

coordinators (ensuring some standardization in responses); or in a participatory assessment

by the cluster itself (suitable when the cluster is more mature).


• The key informant interview approach: in Pakistan, one-to-one telephone interviews were

carried out taking approximately 30minutes per interview

• Participatory assessment by the cluster may require a neutral, trusted facilitator.

See Communities of Practice Document Library for additional information on UNICEF role as

country Cluster/Sector Lead Agency

• Provider of Last Resort - definition

• ToR Generic Terms of Reference for Sector/Cluster Leads at the Country Level Operational

Guidance on cluster lead and OCHA Information Management

• Guidance Note on Determining Field-Level leadership of a Gender-Based Violence (GBV)

Area of Responsibility (AoR) Working Group in a cluster context

• Mental Health and Psychosocial Support in Humanitarian Emergencies

• Cluster Lead Agency joint letter on dual responsibility

• Draft Guidance on Cluster Co-Lead Chair arrangements

• Generic UNICEF Job Description for country Cluster Coordinator

Potential Challenges Solutions The cluster is not activated UNICEF accountabilities are the same for sector

working group coordination where the clusters are not activated

The government leads the clusters UNICEF has a stronger advocacy and supporting role to government to ensure accountabilities of cluster/sector coordination are met

Cluster members / donors are criticising UNICEF for cluster leadership

Assess UNICEF progress in reaching Cluster/sector coordination milestones Identify what the bottlenecks are and whether they are a sole UNICEF accountability or wider cluster/sector member accountability





84

Cluster / Sector Coordination Milestone Monitoring Tool (where UNICEF country cluster/sector – or sub-cluster- lead agency41)

Milestone Indicator MOV Responsibility Additional Guidance

Cluster / Sector Coordinator function is filled

Yes – Dedicated person Yes – Dual role / Interim Duel role42 No – Length of time function not filled

Arrival at duty station (Level/ Duration of Assignment)

UNICEF

Guide: "Filled" defined as • Dedicated person; • Person with dual role, • In some situations a dedicated person may not be appropriate or possible for cluster / sector working group coordination. • A decision on the need for a dedicated person (i.e. without a duel role) is best taken by the UNICEF CO in coordination with RO / HQ

Where UNICEF Co-lead. (Education, GBV) Have areas of responsibility been defined and agreed

Y (date) / N TOR / MOU UNICEF + Save UNICEF + UNFPA

Country example: Pakistan UNICEF and Save the Children See CoP Document repository

Partners are convened

List of cluster members on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

UNICEF

Agreement / ToR for Coordinating Mechanism is established

No – No action by UNICEF

TOR/MOU on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

UNICEF TORs should: • address key functions in the IASC Generic TOR for cluster coordinator http://OCHAonline.un.org/OCHALinkClick.aspx?link=OCHA)&docid=1085357 (ref IASC policy) • define roles and responsibilities including means of establishing committees or sub-groups to carry out different functions (ref good practice) • define clear mechanisms for overall coordination across sub-groups (ref good practice)

Partial – Drafting of TOR Cluster Coordinating Mechanism has been proposed/ is under development

Joint Cluster

Yes -- Cluster Coordinating Mechanism is finalized/agreed

Joint Cluster

Cluster Operational Strategy/ Action Plan is established


Strategy or MOU on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

UNICEF A good strategy should: • present an analysis of context and corresponding programming priorities(ref good practice) • be revisited periodically based on analysis of progress/constraints and changes in context(ref IASC generic TOR) • be reflected in overall country strategy e.g. CHAP (ref IASC generic TOR) • include a exit or transition strategy for cluster(ref IASC generic TOR)

Partial – Drafting of Cluster Strategy has been proposed/ is under development

UNICEF

Yes -- Cluster Strategy is finalized/agreed Joint Cluster

41

Global Cluster Leads WASH, Nutrition, Education co-lead with Save the Children; Sub-cluster lead Child Protection, GBV co-lead with UNFPA 42

Specify if a Duel role is interim, i.e. until a dedicated person arrives


85

Milestone Indicator MOV Responsibility Additional Guidance

Programme standards43

established and promoted


Programme standards documents; partner organization reports on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

UNICEF IASC Cluster TOR: “It is important that cluster members are aware of relevant sector policy guidelines and standards as well as relevant government commitments in line with international law” Cluster programming should also integrate attention to cross-cutting issues: diversity, environment, gender, HIV/AIDS and human rights, Do no harm

Partial – Drafting/development of programme standards has been proposed/ is underway

UNICEF

Yes established – Programme standards are finalized/agreed

National govt or Joint Cluster

Yes promoted – Programme standards are being promoted within member organizations

Joint Cluster

IM capacity established

No – No action taken TOR, workplan or JD; arrival at duty station (Level/ Duration of Assignment)

UNICEF

Yes -- Accountability for cluster IM established within cluster staff or CLA office and position staffed IM role staffed

UNICEF

Basic IM systems mapping coverage established (3W)

No – no 3W sharing mechanism initiated

Status and date of 3W tool as last updated; circulation or accessibility of tool on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

UNICEF

Partial – system or templates for sharing 3W circulated or posted on cluster e-platform in last 2 weeks

UNICEF

Yes – information contributed and circulated at agreed frequency

Joint cluster

Performance management systems in place

No – no action taken UNICEF

Partial stage 1 – process of agreeing monitoring indicators has been initiated44

Cluster minutes on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

UNICEF

Partial stage 2 – monitoring indicators have been agreed AND reporting frequency


Joint cluster

Yes – performance monitoring data has been shared by 80% of cluster members at the agreed schedule

Performance monitoring reports or data available on shared Inter-Agency (OCHA) platform

Joint cluster

Action taken to "fill identified gaps" and to address duplication (yes/partial/no)

No – monitoring data is not available to identify gaps or has not been used to do so Yes - Actions taken to fill gaps: programme response, advocacy or fundraising


Joint cluster

43

It is recognized that while programme standards may have been agreed at the global level, at the national level there is likely to be the need for some adaption to the local context and for UNICEF national partners to agree and formalize their commitment 44

UNICEF as cluster member can propose agreed UNICEF priority sector indicators as a starting point for discussion on cluster performance indicators


86

Cross-Sectoral Communication for Development (C4D)


Contents



• Draft C4D Indicators

• Annex: Relevant Extracts on C4D in UNICEF and Inter-Agency Policy

Why is this important? (What the Country Management Team should know) Communication for Development is critical for humanitarian action results from several different angles:

• Promoting lifesaving behaviour changes including: hygiene and safe water treatment; safe infant and young child feeding practices; use of bednets; response to mine/ unexploded ordinance risk and HIV/AIDS prevention, care and treatment.

• Accountability to affected populations on the scope and nature of the humanitarian action (which also contributes to Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by humanitarian actors).

• Engagement of affected populations as rights holders in defining needs and priorities, and in implementing and reviewing/assessing humanitarian action.

Justification for the above is well-established in various Inter-Agency references including

• SPHERE standards which also draws on experience of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership45

• IASC Generic TORs for Cluster Coordinators46 Given the complexity and frequent cross-sectoral nature of this kind of C4D activity as well as the need to use the same channels to access affected populations, there are huge benefits and efficiencies to be gained from Inter-Agency coordination. Similarly, performance monitoring of the above, should be coordinated at an IA level. What the User Should Know Performance monitoring of C4D initiatives will require data collection at a selection of different levels: At the level of inputs, indicators are very limited but can give a preliminary perspective on the estimated potential coverage to check early implementation. They do not merit setting up an extensive monitoring system. They allow estimated coverage based on the catchment population of mass communication channels (e.g. radio messages, billboards), organizations or institutions that are enlisted in C4D activities. Estimates must take into account known constraints on communication channels such as literacy rates and access to radio as well as patterns in terms of groups accessing services or institutions used. At the level of outputs, performance indicators will be very much shaped by the strategies adopted. They should provide rough but realistic estimates on potential population coverage differentiating different levels of exposure to messages and/or engagement in behaviour

45

http://www.sphereproject.org/ http://www.hapinternational.org/default.aspx 46

http://ochaonline.un.org/OchaLinkClick.aspx?link=ocha&docid=1085357


87

change, participation or ownership. The indicators allow estimates based on numbers of events and estimates for different types of approach including:

• Mass media channels based on tracking numbers of radio spots aired, billboards placed, posters distributed;

• Public or facility-based events; • Small group discussion processes facilitated by trained communicators and community-

level workers; • Community-led processes.

At the level of quality of implementation, qualitative data collection can be used, piggy-backing on systematic field visits or using dedicated resources. This can provide important information on:

• how well messages are delivered;

• how well messages are received and barriers in terms of understanding and attitudes/beliefs;

• who is/is not reached with messages or engaged in a participatory manner and why/why not.

At the level of outcomes, statistical surveys are required to explore actual change in knowledge, attitudes and practices.


88

Draft Indicators

Indicators MOV Considerations

Life-saving messages Accountability to Affected Populations Input indicators # of radio stations engaged/ transmission radius/ % access radio # partner organizations engaged and estimated programmes catchment population

• # partner organizations engaged/ # agreed points for providing information/ receiving feedback /estimated catchment population

• Partner agreements

Output indicators

• Estimated # / % of total population exposed through: o Radio based on # spots aired / # radio stations/ transmission radius x % access radio; o Public events based on # events x category of size of event47; o Group discussion events based on # of events x estimated average persons/event / targeting general, men-women, boys-girls / county o Discussions/teaching in schools based on # of schools visited or involved / county o Community-led processes based on # of communities engaged

• Estimated # / % of total population informed about humanitarian programmes48 through: o Radio based on # spots aired / # radio stations/ transmission radius x % access radio; o Programme outreach or delivery points based on # of sites with information mechanisms set up to agreed standards (information boards) and/or # of meetings/group discussions # of events providing information on x estimated # participants / county o Community-led processes based on # of communities engaged

• Estimated # / % of total population with access to feedback mechanisms49 o # of sites with information mechanisms set up to agreed standards

• Partner reporting through Ministries/ Clusters

• Requires agreement on formulation of indicators across partners, sectors/clusters • Providing information on response and feedback mechanisms require agreement on standards for both.

Quality of implementation

• % of observed communications activities where messages were delivered accurately; • % of focus groups where messages were understood and received positively (no concerns or contradictory attitudes/beliefs) • % of focus groups or sites where issues were identified about who was reached/not reached through C4D / which groups were excluded (age, gender, ethnicity, host/ displaced, disability, HIV/AIDS) and reasons50

Same as for Life-saving messages, as well as: • % of sites where there were concerns/complaints about programme delivery that were/were not raised; reasons and nature of concern

• Joint monitoring missions or Third-Party Monitoring

Requires standardization of core issues to explore and qualitative methods for reliability of data; requires a high enough coverage of sites with clear criteria for sampling to ensure confidence in data

Outcome indicators

• % of target population recalling key messages; e.g. key hygiene and safe infant feeding practices

• % of population demonstrating changed behaviour; e.g. households with area for washing hands and soap

• % of affected population with awareness of humanitarian action in their community

• % of affected population with complaints/concerns having accessed feedback mechanism

• % satisfactory response to feedback – for affected population; by agreed standards

• Statistical Survey

47 Even in industrialized countries, techniques for estimates on participation in large public events are highly inaccurate and often politicized, with estimates often differing by 100%. It can be useful to simply categorize events for a rough calculation: e.g. <100; 100-250; 250-500; 500-750; 750-1000 etc. 48 See Humanitarian Accountability Partnership quality checklist. Providing information should ideally cover: what agencies are providing support; scope of response programmes; criteria for targeting affected population; progress updates and how feedback can be provided/complaints lodged. http://www.hapinternational.org/standards.aspx 49 See Humanitarian Accountability Partnership quality checklist. A safe and accessible system: allows affected populations know how they can feedback; clarifies the scope of dealing with complaints; includes a way of checking that they understand their right to complain; includes a means of tracking and responding to complaints or feedback. 50 Reasons can be categorized before or after based on analysis of open response


89

Annex: Relevant Extracts on C4D in Policy

Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action (CCCs)

1.7 Human rights-based approach to programming UNICEF, with the support of its partners, is

committed to reinforcing a human rights-based approach to programming in humanitarian actions

by:...• Promoting the participation of children, adolescents, women and affected populations,

including in the analysis, design and monitoring of humanitarian programmes.

1.15 Communication for development Communication for development in emergencies seeks to

share relevant, action-oriented information so that when disaster strikes, people in affected

communities know what actions to take to maintain and protect the health and wellbeing of all

their members, including those with disabilities, the elderly and other especially vulnerable

groups. It is a consultative process among programme and communication specialists, local

authorities, change agents and communities. It is misguided to presume that communities

affected by humanitarian situations are too shocked and helpless to take on responsibilities. In

fact, many people, including children, are able to return to normalcy more quickly when they

participate in helping others and themselves during and after an emergency. Communication for

development can help to:

• Support programme sectors in consulting adults, children and young people in affected groups

from the onset of a crisis. This has been shown to be a key factor in reducing deaths and

promoting psychological healing, cohesion and social mobilization.

• Forge alliances and bring stakeholders together.

• Establish a central health education and communication coordination centre.

• Focus on establishing or re-establishing positive individual and social practices.

• Conduct a rapid assessment of communication channels and resources.

• Participate in sectoral assessments that help to identify high-risk practices that have implications

for behaviour change communication, as well as opportunities for developing community-based

response mechanisms.

Nutrition Commitment 6: Children and women access relevant information about nutrition

programme activities. Benchmark: Communication activities providing information on nutrition

services (including how and where to access them) and entitlements are conducted in all

emergency-affected areas

Health Commitment 4: Women and children access behaviour-change communication

interventions to improve health-care and feeding practices. Benchmark: All affected populations

are exposed to key health education/promotion messages through multiple channels.

WASH Commitment 4: Children and women receive critical WASH-related information to prevent

child illness, especially diarrhoea. Benchmark: Hygiene education and information pertaining to

safe and hygienic child-care and feeding practices are provided to 70% of women and child

caregivers.

Child Protection Commitment 8: The use of landmines and other indiscriminate or illicit weapons

by state and non-state actors is prevented, and their impact is addressed. Benchmark : Children

and communities in affected areas have access to mine/ unexploded ordinance risk education

and are better protected from the effects of landmines and other indiscriminate and/or illicit

weapons.


90

Education Commitment 5: Adolescents, young children and caregivers access appropriate life

skills programmes and information about the emergency, and those who have missed out on

schooling, especially adolescents, receive information on educational options. Benchmark:

Relevant education programmes are implemented, including for adolescents and young children.

HIV/AIDS Commitment 1: Children, young people and women have access to information

regarding prevention, care and treatment. Benchmark: 90% of affected population is reached and

provided with information on prevention, care and treatment.

IASC Country Cluster Coordination Terms of Reference

Sector/cluster leads at the country level are accountable to the Humanitarian Coordinator for

facilitating a process at the sectoral level aimed at ensuring the following:… Participatory and

community-based approaches • Ensure utilization of participatory and community based

approaches in sectoral needs assessment, analysis, planning, monitoring and response.

SPHERE

Common standard 1: participation The disaster-affected population actively participates in the

assessment, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the assistance programme.

Note also that the forthcoming revision of SPHERE will include a newly framed common standard of “People-centred humanitarian response” which includes participation, community mobilisation, psychosocial, complaints and redress, information sharing)


91

Outcome Surveys




• What does it take to do it? Why is this important (What the Country Management Team should know)? • Where funding allows periodic population based surveys should take place, ideally as an

Inter-Cluster/Sector exercise.

• Data collection for surveys will be lower frequency (e.g. at 6 or 12 months) and higher cost

• UNICEF monitoring and programme sections should seek opportunities with planned

Cluster/Sector surveys to inform wider Humanitarian performance monitoring.

What the user should know? • Outcome (survey) indicators are included in the Indicator Guide (Part C) and can be

included in the Results Framework

• Planned surveys should feature in the Simplified IMEP

What does it take to do it? The following gives some example of Survey types

CO monitoring sections are best placed to advise on the best survey method in coordination

with relevant clusters/sectors

a) Nutritional SMART Surveys – http://www.smartindicators.org/

Purpose: The SMART Methodology Version 1 provides a basic, integrated method for

assessing nutritional status and mortality rate in emergency situations.

Use: It provides the basis for understanding the magnitude and severity of a humanitarian

crisis.

Content: for Reference see SMART Methodology

http://www.smartindicators.org/SMART_Methodology_08-07-2006.pdf

An optional food security component provides additional context for nutrition and mortality

data analysis.

b) Multi-Cluster Rapid Assessment Methodology (McRAM) – http://www.mcram.org/

Purpose: It provides a mix of quantitative and qualitative cross-sectoral situational data with-

in a short timeframe (where preparedness measures are in place that includes training in

use of Personal Digital Assistant (PDA) technology). It provides situational data using a


92

purposive sampling of sites. It was originally developed in Pakistan adapting from the IA

Initial Rapid Assessment tools, simplifying and adapting these to the context. It can be used

for this form of IRA at the beginning of a rapid onset emergency and in repeat exercises

where the situation changes significantly. It is generally organized as a coordinated inter-

Cluster exercise.

Content: Questionnaire, PDAs and pre-trained field research teams. These can be adapted

to cover a range of issues in the situation of the affected population.

Use: The questionnaire is designed to be used with community groups (separate male and

female groups at each site). A site may be specific, i.e. a village or camp; or an area where

people have been displaced to.

It can be used to assess the needs of affected populations displaced to host communities

and camps (formal and non-formal).

Adapting to Country Context: The decision to utilize McRAM should ideally take place at the

Inter-Agency level as part of preparedness planning.

c) Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey (MICS) http://www.childinfo.org/mics.html

Survey tools

The MICS survey tools are developed by UNICEF after consultations with relevant experts

from various UN organizations as well as with interagency monitoring groups. UNICEF

works closely with other household survey programmes, in particular the Demographic and

Health Surveys (DHS) programme, to harmonize survey questions and modules and to

ensure a coordinated approach to survey implementation, with the objective to provide

comparability across surveys and to avoid duplication of efforts. The survey questionnaires

are modular tools that can be adapted to the needs of the country.

Implementation and capacity building

MICS surveys are typically carried out by government organizations, with the support and

assistance of UNICEF and other partners. Technical assistance and training for the surveys

is provided through a series of regional workshops where experts from developing countries

are trained on various aspects of MICS (questionnaire content, sampling and survey

implementation, data processing, data quality and data analysis, and report writing and

dissemination).

Survey results

Results from MICS, including national reports and micro level datasets, are widely

disseminated after completion of the surveys and can be downloaded from the MICS pages

on childinfo.org.

Increasing periodicity in MICS4

Starting with MICS4, UNICEF now provides assistance to countries at more frequent

intervals - every three years instead of every five years. This provides the opportunity for

countries to capture rapid changes in key indicators, particularly the MDGs.


93


•

•

•




Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkitunicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs...The...

Documents

Transcript of Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkitunicefinemergencies.com/downloads/eresource/docs...The...