PIIRS Digitization
PIIRS FY16
PIIRS FY17
PIIRS FY18
PIIRS FY19
- FY19 guidance - defining participants
- FY19 guidance - treating double counting
- FY19 guidance - reporting on carbon footprint
- FY19 Frequently Asked Questions
PIIRS FY20
- FY20 guidance - reporting on carbon footprint
- FY20 guidance - reporting on gender pay gap
| INDICATOR 5: % of disaster/crisis affected people in areas of CARE responses who report satisfaction with regards to relevance, timeliness and accountability of humanitarian interventions |
| Why this indicator? What will it measure and provide information for? This indicator relates to performance targets laid out by CARE’s Humanitarian Accountability Framework (HAF) as well as to global commitments required of all humanitarian actors as stipulated in the Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS). In order to achieve high levels of relevance, timeliness and accountability to disaster/crisis affected people both, CARE’s HAF and the CHS, call for humanitarian responses that are responsive: * to impartially verified assistance needs expressed by all groups in the disaster / crisis affected population, * to feedback and complaints expressed by disaster / crisis affected population groups especially women, girls and other marginalized groups, and * to the resources and capacities of all humanitarian actors. The basis of these commitments is the right of disaster/crisis affected people to be engaged in decisions and actions on which depend their physical and mental health, their livelihood and their stronger-than-before-crisis recovery. |
| Target (CARE Humanitarian & Emergency Strategy 2013-2020) : 90% of households affected by a particular disaster / crisis consider the humanitarian assistance provided by/through CARE and/or its partners (in a particular technical area) as timely and relevant, and the approaches used as promoting their engagement in design, decision making and monitoring. |
| What Humanitarian Standard and Humanitarian Indicator is this indicator connected to? This indicator refers to the **Core Humanitarian Standard** in particular Commitment 1: Communities and people affected by crisis receive assistance appropriate to their needs. Performance indicator 1.1 states:Communities and people affected by crisis consider that the response takes account of their specific needs and culture. Related performance indicators can be found under CHS commitment 2: # Communities and people affected by crisis, including the most vulnerable groups, consider that the timing of the assistance and protection they receive is adequate. # Communities and people affected by crisis consider that their needs are met by the response. # Monitoring and evaluation reports show that the humanitarian response meets its objectives in terms of timing, quality and quantity. Furthermore CHS commitment 4 establishes concrete expectations about the means by which communities and people affected by crisis should be able to express their considerations and expectations: Indicator 4.4 states: Encourage and facilitate communities and people affected by crisis to provide feedback on their level of satisfaction with the quality and effectiveness of the assistance received, paying particular attention to the gender, age and diversity of those giving feedback. **ALNAP Resources on effective Feedback mechanisms**provides guidance for establishing feedback mechanisms and monitoring their effectiveness. **AusAid/OECD Gender Equality Toolkit** requires women’s participation in all aspects of humanitarian responses as well as effective gender-responsive feedback and complaints procedures. |
| Definitions and key terms (CHS guidance notes) * Effectiveness:the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives. The effectiveness of humanitarian response is a responsibility that is shared between responders and outcomes should be assessed in conjunction with crisis-affected communities. * Efficiency:the extent to which the outputs of humanitarian programs, both qualitative and quantitative, are achieved as a result of inputs. * Engagement:processes to communicate, consult and/or provide for participation of interested and/or affected stakeholders, ensuring that their concerns, desires, expectations, needs, rights and opportunities are considered in the establishment, implementation and review of the programs assisting them. * Vulnerability:the extent to which some people may be disproportionately affected by the disruption of their physical environment and social support mechanisms following disaster or conflict, resulting in an increased risk of exploitation, illness or death. Vulnerability is specific to each person and each situation. |
| Data and information required to calculate the indicator Unit Description: Number and percentage Numerator: Number of households/people having received assistance by/through CARE (partners) expressing high levels of satisfaction with effectiveness, efficiency and engagement of CARE and/or its partner(s) caseload satisfied Denominator: (a) Total number of affected households / people overall caseload; (b)Number of households / people having received assistance by/through CARE (partners) caseload reached Disaggregation: Mandatory: Sex, age and disability/special needs (specify Head of Household); Sector specific: Type of assistance received; Role in participatory mechanisms Context specific: legal status (host, IDP, refugee, registered / not registered); type of relevant service providers |
| Suggested method for data collection & Possible data sources Monitoring this indicator will rely on a combination of primary and secondary/tertiary data sources with more or less comparable methodologies of data collection. Triangulation might be needed in order to consolidate confidence levels of data used. Nominator: Survey and scorecard with adequate sample of population groups representative of relevant sex, age and vulnerability categories amongst disaster/crisis affected population having received assistance by/through CARE. Technical guidance for FDG and scorecard exercise are required in order to ensure data consistency and comparability (e.g. coding of responses, scoring). Denominator: (a) mainly from secondary sources such Government/UN sanctioned general assessments (including MIRA or other multi-sectoral / interagency assessments); (b) data from CARE’s records of assistance provided and people reached (reference: guidance note for participant reporting, PIIRS project categories). | Specific lines of inquiry that should be looked at when measuring this indicator: % of disaster/crisis affected people in areas of CARE responses who report satisfaction with regards to assistance received is… * … appropriate and relevant to their needs. * … respectful of their rights * … effectively enhancing their resilience to future shocks / reducing their risks * … receptive to their aspirations and opinions * … responsive to feedback & complaint indicator_5_document.docx also guidance for community FGD and scorecard exercise as part of CARE standard Rapid Accountability Reviews |
| Level of effort needed for data collection and reporting: HIGH Household specific monitoring for nominator and denominator data requires high level of effort including * detailed databases of households / people having received assistance * robust sampling for FGD and scorecard exercises with experienced facilitators * high frequency of data collection in order to ensure early feedback and corrective action if required. Minimum requirement: * FGDs with structured discussion guides at early stages and at the end of each intervention * Scorecard exercise during Rapid Accountability Review / After Action Review |
|
| Data analysis and interpretation of results for this indicator: explaining trends (e.g. caseload needs, actors providing assistance) during reporting time, how and why the outcome was reached, and how CARE contributed to the outcome This indicator requires constant adjustment of data with the documentation of trends on * caseload (overall, sector specific, reached by CARE) and disaggregation especially by vulnerability * needs as identified by comprehensive as well as sector specific and impartial assessments * assistance provided by CARE and others (blanket vs targeted, type of intervention) As affected populations are invited to provide feedback on relevance, timing and effectiveness of the assistance received their responses and perceptions should be analyzed against: * actions taken to adapt the response strategy in a timely manner based on changing needs, capacities, risks and the context (e.g. accessibility, urgency, safety & security, other actors) * consideration given to social and contextual factors that contribute to vulnerability, such as discrimination and marginalization as well as local capacities * CARE’s internal policies and guidance regarding timely, impartial and independent action * CARE’s internal procedures for referral of unmet needs to other relevant actors as well as advocacy * CARE’s efforts to take corrective efforts and/or to mitigate adverse effects of deficiencies |
|
| Other considerations This indicator is a necessary but insufficient on its own, indicator for CARE’s alignment with CHS commitments and performance indicators. Full alignment can only be assessed through coherent application of the full CHS verification framework either within a self-assessment or as part of a third-party verification. |
