Humanitarian Needs Assessment Indicators Database
This short working document is intended to a) provide explanatory notes for the attached table and b) lay out some of the technical and policy issues which underpin the work on indicators of the Needs Assessment Task Force (NATF) in the framework of the development of the Operational Guidelines. Both this document and the attached table must be seen as work in progress. Notes and remarks are presented in the document in italic.
In order to facilitate the NATF reflection, the table as a whole aims at this stage to contain all the indicators provided by the clusters, sectors and the cross-cutting issues, and to present them in a structured manner, with the possibility of sorting them according to various criteria.
At the time of writing (15 January 2010), a list of indicators has been provided by Health, Education, Nutrition, CCCM, and by the Mental Health and Psycho-Social Support group. Early Recovery has committed to provide a list shortly. Submissions by WASH, Shelter, Protection. Logistics and Cross-Cutting Issues are still awaited. Food Aid, not having a global Cluster, remains problematic.
The working definition of indicator adopted here is “a characteristic of a population or environment which is subject to measurement (directly or indirectly) and can be used to describe one or more aspects of a humanitarian emergency”. This is intentionally a broad definition, one which fits the vast majority of the indicators provided. A way to understand more precisely what different indicators actually describe will be proposed later in the document. As much as possible, indicators should be expressed relative to a denominator (e.g. as a rate, a percentage).
A few of the indicators proposed so far either do not match the broad definition provided above or are formulated in a somehow problematic way. They are highlighted in the table with a shaded background for further consideration by the NATF.
The area columns of the table provide a way identify overlaps and duplications. Indicators are assigned to a primary sector of humanitarian assistance (S1) and, when relevant, to a secondary sector (S2). The column CLU indicates which cluster has provided them. By sorting the table by sector, it will become evident that in some cases different Clusters ask basically the same questions.
One example is “Number of admissions to SFC and TFC”, proposed by Health, and “Number of children enrolled in TF programme”, proposed by Nutrition.
Through the cells in the phase columns of the table, indicators will be marked as relevant for assessment during the different phases of humanitarian response.
P1: the indicator can be used during the first 72 hours for preliminary scenario definition (also refereed to as initial needs assessment): estimate scale & severity of the impact of the event and locate affected populations to inform (i) initial response decisions, and (ii) focus of phase-2 assessment.
P2: the indicator can be used during the first 2 weeks for coordinated rapid multi-sector assessment: inform planning of humanitarian response and define focus for follow-on assessments.
P3: the indicator can be used during the second 2 weeks for coordinated expanded sectoral assessment: (i) adjust ongoing response (ii) inform detailed planning for humanitarian relief and early recovery, and (iii) establish baseline for operational and strategic monitoring.
P4: the indicator can be used from the second month onwards for in-depth sectoral assessments and joint situation monitoring.
The work of assigning indicators to phases should be done jointly by the members of the NATF, ideally in a workshop environment.
During the discussion held in the preparatory phase of this work, it has been argued that many of the essentially qualitative questions asked during the scenario definition phase (P1) do not lend themselves to be answered through indicators, and that many – if not most – of the indicators contained in the database have little or no relevance for that phase.
Through the cells in the type of disaster columns of the table, indicators will be marked as relevant for assessment following different kinds of disasters.
ND: the indicator is suitable for use in natural disaster situations.
CE: the indicator is suitable for use in complex emergency situations.
SL: the indicator is suitable for use in slow-onset emergencies.
SU: the indicator is suitable for use in sudden-onset emergencies.
The work of assigning indicators to phases should be done jointly by the members of the NATF, ideally in a workshop environment.
The definition of type of disaster is not without uncertainties (e.g., are there sudden onset emergencies which are not natural disasters?). More in general, the very usefulness of such classification for indicators has been questioned.
The classification by type can be difficult, but, if successful, it may greatly help the NATF understanding not only what exactly is described by indicators, but also what exactly is intended by needs in needs assessments.
In the table, it is proposed that “type” indicates whether the indicator describes an input (what is available in terms of resources or infrastructure), an output (the quantity of goods or the level of services – what we provide) or an outcome (the actual achievements of the provisions of goods or services – what we want to improve). The outcome is an expression of what a particular sector of humanitarian assistance directly aims to achieve. The following table, which is incomplete and should really be seen as work in progress, attempts to provide some guidance.
INPUTindicators describe / OUTPUT
indicators describe / OUTCOME
indicators describe
Health / The human/material resources available for the provision of health services
e.g.: number of health facilities / The level of health services provided to the population
e.g.: number of consultations / The health status of the population
e.g.: prevalence of a disease
Nutrition / The human/material resources available for correction of malnutrition
e.g.: number of SF Centres / The services provided for the correction of malnutrition
e.g.: number of children enrolled in TF programmes / The nutritional status of the population
e.g.: prevalence of SAM
Food Security / Availability of food
e.g.: % of markets by availability of staple foods / The level of commodities and services provided to improve people's access to food
e.g.: quantity of food distributed / The population's access to food
e.g.: % of households by duration of staple foods
Water, Sanitation and Hygiene / The infrastructure, facilities and services available
e.g.: number of latrines / The quantities delivered
e.g.: number of litres of water pumped / The population's access to water and to sanitation facilities
e.g.: % of households by time to collect water
Shelter
Education
Camp Management
Non Food Items
Protection
It is understood that, broadly speaking, all sectors of humanitarian assistance end up having an impact on mortality and on its immediate determinants (health status and nutritional status). Whilst people's access to sanitation facilities, for instance, is key to improving their health status, the aim of humanitarian assistance in that sector is seen here primarily to “improve people's access to water and sanitation facilities” and not directly to “improve people's health”.
As said earlier, such classification can be helpful as in it corresponds to the meanings of “needs” which are commonly used in the humanitarian sector: needs as something the humanitarian may provide (input indicators), needs as something people are lacking (output indicators) and needs as desired change in the target population or their environment (outcome indicators).