Evaluation of the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy (IHSS)

4 Issues for the IHSS
This section addresses Terms of Reference numbers 1, 3, 4 and 5. It also examines additional
perceived impediments to effective and efficient service delivery commonly raised by stakeholders,
primarily service providers.
The points made in this section are of a global kind, ie relating to all or many of the parts of the IHSS
service. Reference is made by way of examples to individual services. However more detailed
consideration of issues relating to individual services is reserved for a separate section of this report
(section 5).
4.1 Meeting the initial settlement needs of clients
As noted in section 3, on the whole the IHSS is able to identify and meet the initial settlement needs
of humanitarian entrants in an equitable, effective, efficient and timely manner. However there is a
number of areas highlighted by the evaluation which require further consideration for the IHSS to
operate more effectively. The first of these is the very fundamental question of what constitutes initial
settlement needs to be delivered by IHSS and the extent to which there is common agreement among
all stakeholders on what these include and most importantly what they do not include (and by
implication therefore what is not included in the pricing structure). Inextricably linked with this is the
extent to which the nature of client need can be identified and agreed, given that client need is not
necessarily static and inevitably changes as the client group itself also changes. From this flow both
perceived and real gaps in meeting the initial settlement needs of clients under the IHSS. In
summary, the issue is how much service under IHSS is appropriate and required, where are the gaps
within this amount of service and how well is this understood by all stakeholders.
How much service is required?
Very clearly there is a lack of common understanding of what constitutes initial settlement needs
although technically these should be identified in the service providers’ contracts. For example, many
service providers reported that they were routinely filling ‘gaps’ in service delivery, which were not
covered by their contracts and were therefore undertaken in their own time, at their own expense.
Often service providers find themselves being ‘on call’ for more needy clients, responding to any and
all problems that arise at any time of the day or night. Some providers had a perception that
undertaking such ‘extra’ work had become an expectation of DIMIA.
A consequence of the perceived almost unlimited need for support and help on the part of entrants
matched by the deeply-felt commitment by workers (and volunteers) to assisting refugees results in a
situation where many workers feel an obligation to go to any lengths to help. Service providers
consistently argue that the most needy clients have very real, significant and immediate needs and
they cannot with conscience walk away from them without continuing support. It is the judgement of
many service providers that withdrawing services will result in their clients sinking, not swimming.
Many do not see their work as having boundaries and experience stress and burn-out as a result.
On the other hand, it may be that, counter to IHSS principle (d) of discouraging dependency, in some
instances service providers are over-servicing clients and not encouraging them to ‘sink or swim’. In
18
Evaluation of the Integrated Humanitarian Settlement Strategy 27 May 2003