Humanitarian Innovation and Evidence (HIEP) Programme

Humanitarian Innovation and Evidence (HIEP) programme

Project annual report template and guidance

(Adapted from the Department for International Development: Research and Evidence Division, PROGRAMME ANNUAL REPORT FORMAT, May 2016)

Research and Evidence Division (REii455D) has updated the format for annual reporting by research and evaluation projects. Our aim is to enable projects to report on their activities in a logical and proportionate manner. To that end, we have specified a tightly defined structure with page limits. There is, though, a section for further information. Please complete all sections, but avoid duplication (by referring, where appropriate, to material presented elsewhere).

Please speak to Tarah Friend () in the Humanitarian Innovation and Evidence Programme Secretariat if you have any questions about this template/guidance.

TEMPLATE

Summary sheet (1 page)

A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT (1-2 pages)

A1. Project Description

A2. Context (update)

B - PERFORMANCE AND CONCLUSIONS (3-4 PAGES)

B1. Overview of progress

B2. Annual outcome and impact assessment

B3. Overall output assessment

B4. Key lessons

B5. Key actions

B6. Has the logframe / project results framework been updated since the last report?

C - PROJECT OUTPUTS (1-2 pages per output + 2-3 pages for C4-6)

C1. Key Points

C2. Summary of responses to issues raised in previous annual reports or reviews (where relevant)

C3. Recommendations

C4. Communication, uptake and engagement with research users and/or beneficiaries

C5.Gender

C6. Research Capacity Building

D - VALUE FOR MONEY, FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE, AND MANAGEMENT (1-3 pages)

D1. Key cost drivers

D2. VfM performance

D3. Financial Performance

D4. Financial Management

E – RISKS (1-2 pages)

E1. Overview of Programme Risk

E2. Outstanding actions from risk assessment

F – COMMERCIAL CONSIDERATIONS (1-2 pages)

F1. Work Plan & Timetable

F2. Performance of partnerships

F3. Asset monitoring and control

G - MONITORING AND EVALUATION (1-2 pages)

H – Aid Transparency(1/2 page)

I – FURTHER INFORMATION

ANNEXESGUIDANCE

SUMMARY SHEET (1 page)

Complete with highlights of progress, lessons learnt and action on previous recommendations

Title: From evidence to action: Filling the data gap by enhancing the availability and use of quality disability data by humanitarian actors
Start Date: 01/07/2016 / End Date: 01/03/2019
Programme Value: £542,532 / Report Date: 25/10/2017
Spend to date:£93,330 / Report author & email contact:Pauline Thivillier

1. Summary of progress and lessons since last annual report (half a page)

This is the first annual report. Since the project started the following progress were made:
(1)Staffing of the project: The Project Manager (PM) and in-country project officers (PO) were hired in the first 6 months of the project and trained.
(2)Finalising the steering group: the terms of references of the steering group and list of members were finalised, the two first meetings of the steering group also took place in March and July 2017.
(3)Developing the action-research protocol in March 2017. Associated tools were then developed by the PM and in-country PO.
(4)Implementation of the first phase of the action-research by engaging with humanitarian actors in the three countries in order to formalise collaboration. The project team reached out to a wide range of humanitarian actors (Disabled People Organisation (DPO), local NGO, international NGO (INGOs), UN agencies and governments departments) working in different sectors in order to gather learning in all the areas of humanitarian action. At this stage, 31 collaborations are on-going and capacity-building of these actors is taking place.
(5)Dissemination activities also started in first year of the project. A project website was created ( and the PM took part in various international events (UNHCR NGO Consultation, University College London (UCL)/Leonard Cheshire Disability (LCD) Working Group on Disability Data, Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Task Team for the drafting of guidelines on inclusion of persons with disabilities, UN Flagship Report on disability inclusive development, UNHCR webinars on identification of persons with disabilities).
There is an increasing interest and demand from humanitarian actors regarding the collection of disability data using the Washington Group (WG) questions. As such it was easier than expected to engage partners in the research – especially in-country where Handicap International (HI) as existing inclusion work. However it still takes a long time to formalise collaborations as organisations can be reluctant to share data. Adapting data management information systems also takes time – it requires talking to different stakeholders and different levels in each organisation and adapting systems on a case by case basis. Therefore, even though enthusiasm is there, half of the the action research was dedicated to stakeholder engagement work.

2. Summary of recommendations / actions for the next year (half a page)

Most of the work done so far was on partner engagement, training and adaptation of the data collection tools. Next year, the project team will focus on the remaining stages of the action-research (data collection and analysis of data). This means that the project team will not be reaching out new partners and will focus on existing partners to support them during data collection and analysis of the data. The action-research will be finished by May 2017 and the report will be available by July 2017.
The data and learning analyst has now been recruited and will start on 27th of November 2017. As such, work on the development of learning materials and guidance will also start next year. It is expected that a strategy for the development of learning materials will be available by June 2018 and the learning materials will be available by September 2018.
Dissemination activities will continue to take place to keep the momentum going:

• The project team will start developing its advocacy strategy and hire the advocacy officer. A meeting with the International Disability Alliance (IDA) will take place in October 2017 and the work will continue throughout the year.
• A dissemination event will also be organised by the end of 2017 to bring together disability experts and humanitarian data experts and discuss the action-research and learning materials.

Thinking ahead, the project team will also start thinking about the next steps of the project. The project team will continue discussing with DFID Syria and Disability Team the possibility of a cost extension in Syria and a secondment within DFID Syria Team. A concept note and terms of references will be developed.

A - PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONTEXT (1-2 pages)

A1. Project Description
Briefly outline the programme, expected results and the countries you worked in during this reporting period. The introduction should be aimed at a reader who may not be familiar with the project.
Include:

• brief description of purpose and activities, lead & partner organisations, and countries covered(add Budget spend by country – see sample attached)
• which business case within the Humanitarian Innovation and Evidence Programme (HIEP) the project is reporting against. The business cases are available on the DFID external website:

-Business Case 1: improved analysis of disaster risk and increased capacity to deliver humanitarian assistance (link)
-Business Case 2: greater use of evidence and innovation in humanitarian responses (link)
-Business Case 3: improving the evidence base for humanitarian practice (link)
Please speak to the HIEP Secretariat if you do not know which business case your project is reporting against
From July 2016 to March 2019, HI is running a project to improve data collection on persons with disabilities in humanitarian crises. The project will test and assess the WG questions for use in humanitarian response contexts, and use the learning to develop guidance on the use of these questions by humanitarian actors.
The project is composed of three main phases:
1)Test and assess the use of the WG questions in humanitarian action in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Jordan, and the Philippines.
2)Use the results of the action research to create learning materials and guidance designed specifically for humanitarian actors.
3)Disseminate the learning materials, advocate for the use of the WG questions in humanitarian action, and build the capacity of humanitarian actors.
The project is currently half-way through the action-research phase, the project team is working with a wide range of partners (UN agencies, INGO, local NGOs, government services and DPO) on capacity-building and adaption of tools and management information systems.
Budget spent by Country (without overheads):

• Philippines: £6,595.89 (total budget £30,428)
• Jordan: £17,516.48(total budget £63,069)
• Democratic Republic of Congo: £3,279 (total budget £55,992)
• United Kingdom: £51,757.08(total budget £393,043)

This project is reporting against Business Case 3: improving the evidence base for humanitarian practice.
A2. Context (update)
Outline any key contextual changes, as well as noting major additions to the relevant literature or data. Is there any new evidence available that supports or challenges the project design or rationale?
Security issues in DRC and the Philippines meant twofield trips were cancelled:

• Emerging security issues in the Philippines since May 2017 due to a conflict in the island of Mindanao Davao Del Norte between the army and ISIS affiliated groups. The conflict forced hundreds of thousands of people to flee in the neighbouring area. Martial law in now imposed in this area of the country until the end of 2017.
• The situation in DRC and the Kasai region remains fragile.

The ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen are also creating demands for support and training on collection on disability data. Partners on the ground reported that people with disabilities are not properly identified. As most organisations operating in Jordan are also operating in these countries (through cross border project in Syria), the support has been extended to these countries. It is believed that this will bring valuable information to the research as the contexts in Syria and Yemen are very different from Jordan.
HI is also involved in the drafting of the IASC guidelines on inclusion of persons with disabilities. As data is a recurring theme in the discussion of the guidelines, HI will ensure that the projects are aligned and that the learning of the action-research can fit in the drafting of the guidelines.
Following the UNHCR NGO consultations on the implementation of the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF), a recommendation was issued to disaggregate data by disability during reception and admissions procedures using the WG questions. As such, the project will also ensure that it is involved in discussions around the Global Compact on Refugees and Migrants.

B - Performance and conclusions (3-4 pages)

B1. Overview of progress
Briefly outline progress of activities, key achievements, and challenges or disappointments since the last annual report.
This is the first annual report. The project has been experiencing delays in the implementation of the action-research due to difficulties in recruiting local in-country PO and adapting partners’ management information systems. At the end of year 1, the action-research is now well underway with the action-research and all the planned activities will be carried out in the expected timeframe.
Key achievements this year:

• Facilitation by the PM of a session at the UNHCR-NGO Annual Report on Reception and Admission, where the project was presented by the Jordan PO. Following the presentation, the report included a recommendation on the use of the WG questions in reception and admission procedures.
• The number of partners in the action-research has exceeded expectations (31 at this stage).
• Ongoing discussion with DFID Syria and disability teams regarding a secondment and cost extension of the project in Syria.

Key challenges:

• Signing data sharing agreement and adaptation organisations’ management information system is a lengthy process that requires the engagement of a wide range of stakeholders and is not always feasible – especially for centralised data management information systems (like the UNHCR ProGres data base)
• The length of the action-research (and the time it takes to adapt management information systems) will limit the research to how humanitarian actors collect and analyse data on persons with disabilities. It will not allow HI to investigate how data can then be used by humanitarian actors to ensure disability inclusive projects.

B2. Annual outcome and impact assessment
Provide a brief assessment of whether you expect to achieve your project outcome(s) by the end date.
Please report on occurrences of outcomes and impacts, including intended and unintended, positive and negative outcomes. You should consider the business case and project logframe’s ‘outcome’ and ‘impact’ (singular). But please do not limit your reporting to these, as we are interested in outcomes and impacts (plural) more broadly defined:
Outcomes are all the effects which may be linked causally to a programme’s outputs and work;
Impacts are the development-level effects which can be attributed to a programme through comparison with the counterfactual (that is, the absence of the programme); or for which there is reasonable evidence that the programme made a direct contribution.
Finish with a brief update on your plans to generate outcomes.
NB. We do not expect detailed annual reporting here, partly because we recognise that key outcomes & impacts may well occur towards the end or after the completion of a programme. However, if at any time you would like to document outcomes and impacts more fully, please do contact us.
Occurrence of impact:

• Project Impact: Contribute to the systematic collection and use of Washington Group questions by humanitarian actors to improve access, effectiveness and impartiality of humanitarian response
• HIEP Impact: Humanitarian actors use evidence and innovation in the design, financing, planning and delivery of humanitarian policies, programmes and practices to deliver effective responses in humanitarian crises.

Humanitarian actors participating in the research are already collecting data on disability. The project is challenging their existing practices and making them think about how they can adapt their management information systems The project is engaging humanitarian actors at country level but also at global level with the steering group. As such it is hoped that the action-research will push these actors to carry outsystematic collection of data on persons with disabilities and use of Washington Group questions. Organisations like UNHCR, International Medical Corps (IMC), WFP and ICRC are already thinking about how data could be collected across the board. As adapting centralised data collection systems takes time so it is expected that these changes will occur after the end of the project.
To ensure global intake of the questions, HI is also working on other global initiatives such as CRRF and IASC to advocate for the inclusion of disaggregated data by disability to ensure that responses are effective, accessible and inclusive of persons with disabilities.
Occurrence of outcomes:

• Project Outcome: Evidence generated will ensure key humanitarian actors have the knowledge, skills and tools to count and plan for people with disabilities in humanitarian programming
• HIEP Outcome 2: Local, national and international humanitarian actors show changes in skills, behaviours, relationships, cultures and systems to promote the regular integration of evidence in the design, financing, planning and implementation of humanitarian response.
• HIEP Outcome 3: Local, national and international humanitarian actors invest in and support innovation that benefit people affected by humanitarian crises.

The action-research is now well underway and some tools have already been developed and are being piloted (training materials and checklist for data collectors). Feedback is being collected after each training materials and will be used by the data and learning analyst to develop the learning materials. At this stage, over 430 people have been trained. Further trainings have taken place at global level, including IMC UK Office and UNHCR registration staff in Europe, Middle East and Africa.
B3. Overall output assessment
Brief assessment of progress against outputs detailed below
Output 1: An action research is carried out to test and assess the use of the WG questions in humanitarian action.
The action-research methodology and associated tools have been developed and are implemented. The WG questions are currently being tested in 3 countries by 31 partners and 430 people have been trained on the questions so far. The in-country PO are monitoring closely the use of the questions as per the action-research methodology. At this stage, the project team has mainly collected information on stakeholder engagements, training needs and tools and data management information system adaptation.
Output 2: Selected humanitarian actors are trained on the WG questions and learning materials are made available to all.
Feedback on the training and use of the WG questions are being gathered by in-country PO using the action-research protocol. Feedback will be compiled at the end of the action-research (1st half of 2018) by the data and learning analyst in order to create training and learning materials on the use of the WG questions. Once these materials have been developed, more organisations will be trained on the WG questions (2nd half of 2018).
Output 3: Learning from the pilots are disseminated to key humanitarian actors in internal events and promote the collection of data on persons with disabilities using the WGSS
The project team is participating in various forums to ensure that the project is visible and other actors are aware of the upcoming guidance and training materials (UNHCR NGO Consultation / IASC Task Team / UN Flagship report on disability inclusive development…). Frequent steering group meetings are also taking place to ensure dissemination of progress and learning gathered so far.
B4. Key lessons
Any key lessons you and your partners have learned from this programme.
Have assumptions changed since design? What would you do differently if re-designing this programme?
How will you and your partners share the lessons learned more widely in your team, across DFID and beyond.
There is a demand for a tool to identify persons with disabilities but it is not always straightforward to adapt data collection systems (especially in large organisations). In addition, before data collection can start many stakeholders need to be consulted at different levels of the organisations and it takes time to find the appropriate decision-maker.As such, for these organisations the action-research will be limited to how the WG questions can be integrated in the data collection but will not be able to go in details into the analysis and use of the data.To be able to investigate the use of the data, HI is now reaching out to smaller organisations that tend to have more flexible data management information systems and could implement the full action-research methodology.
Looking at decision-making, it appears that the decision of collecting data on disability is made based on different factors such as (1) Decision from Headquarters as this is becoming a priority at global level and/or a donor requirement (top-down). (2) Decision from field teams who have noticed the scale of the issue on the ground (bottom-up). Each of these cases needs to be approached differently in terms of stakeholder engagement. In top-down cases it appears that the stakeholder engaged in the project are not always aware of the issues faced on the ground and the complexity of their data management systems. There is also a risk that in-country team see data on persons with disabilities as a requirement imposed on them. In bottom-up cases, it is often easier to adapt data collection tools as teams are very familiar with their data management information systems. However there is a risk that the data is collected in isolation and does not feed in the organisations’ strategy. When implementing the action-research, the project team has to remain flexible and adapt to each organisation’s decision-making process.
Data is a sensitive matter and organisations are not always willing to share it. HI has created and signed data sharing agreement with organisations to give reassurance of data protection and confidentiality, but these take time to put in place. Moreover, often when partners share data, they only share the answer to the WG questions but not other characteristics (age, sex etc.) which limits the analysis that can be carried out and highlight that partners see disability in isolation and do not look at intersectionality. The project team tries as much as possible to obtain the entire data set (anonymised) when possible.
Integration in the tool in multi-agency tools such as the vulnerability assessment framework in Jordan and the UNOCHA pre-crisis mapping in the Philippines appear to facilitate buy-in. These tools are created by agencies that are lead in the humanitarian responses and are widely used by others.
Lesson learnt will be shared in the action-research report and disseminated at various in-country and global events.
The assumptions have not changed but nevertheless, if the project was to be redesigned, HI would allow more time for the action-research. As it takes a long time to engage stakeholder, sign data sharing agreement and adapt management information system, the research will be limited to how data can be collected and analysed. However it will be not be able to investigate how data on persons with disabilities can be used to inform inclusive project design and implementation.
B5. Key actions
Including timelines for completion and team member responsible
Please refer to the workplan in the annex
B6. Has the logframe / project results framework been updated since the last report?
What (if any) are the key changes (please highlight) and what does this mean for the programme?
No changes since the last revision during the inception report

C -PROJECT OUTPUTS (1-2 pages per output + 2-3 pages for C4-6)