Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Humanitarian ... - OCHANet

More documents

Recommendations

Info

IA RTE of the humanitarian response to Pakistan’s 2010 Floods crisis and tasks of the evaluation team, are presented as Annex I. Between January and February 2011, a team of four consultants working for DARA 13 , an independent organization specialized in humanitarian evaluation, conducted this RTE. It is the fourth IA‐RTE and the second in Pakistan that DARA carried out. 13. The evaluation commenced with a home based in‐depth documentation review. Upon arrival, the team travelled directly into the field, following the river Indus from Karachi to Peshawar visiting Sindh, Punjab and KPK Provinces to grasp operational response realities on the ground. Balochistan could not be visited due primarily to security constraints as well as time restrictions. Field visits were complemented by meetings with a range of stakeholders in Islamabad. 14. An initial feedback session was organized in both Multan (Punjab) and Peshawar (KPK) at the end of each of field visit, and an overall debriefing session was held at the Humanitarian Country Team HCT at the end of the field mission to present initial findings and conclusions. Workshops will be carried out in Pakistan in mid February both at provincial and federal level to further validate the findings of the report and draw Specific, Measurable, Accountable, Reasonable and Time bound (SMART) recommendations and draw a process action plan. 3.1 Structure of the report 15. This report is structured according to the different dimensions of the IA‐RTE Framework as outlined in the ToR, namely context, needs assessments, funding, response, coordination, connectedness and cross‐cutting issues. Each dimension is subdivided into a number of key issues addressing the questions outlined in the ToR. 3.2 Methodology 16. The evaluation followed a deductive analysis based on a mixed methods approach for data collection. Data collected has been entered into an evidence table organized according to key issues outlined in the ToR 14 . The findings of the evaluation are based on: � A desk review of key documents, web‐pages and other relevant publications – references are outlined in the bibliography in Annex 8 � Semi‐structured individual interviews (interview guide for semi structured interviews ‐ Annex 5) and group interviews with some 1,107 key stakeholders of which 421 were carried out with representatives from the UN agencies and programmes, the Red Cross Movement, international and national non‐governmental organizations (INGOs), government at the central and local level, the military and donors. Annex 4 outlines the 13 The team consisted of two international consultants (Riccardo Polastro and Nicolai Steen) and two national consultants (Farwa Zafar and Aatika Nagrah). See bio’s in annex 9. 14 The evidence table contained 2700 pieces of evidence gathered from the desk review, interviews and observations. Riccardo Polastro, Aatika Nagrah, Nicolai Steen and Farwa Zafar 22
IA RTE of the humanitarian response to Pakistan’s 2010 Floods crisis full list of people met, by organization, affiliation and the type of interview method used. � Group interviews held with over 686 people from the affected population including people still displaced in spontaneous camps and people that had returned to their land annex 3.1 outlines the list of camps and locations visited and the number of affectees interviewed at each. � Direct observation of coordination process both at district, provincial and federal level as well as the outcomes of relief and recovery responses. � Field visits to 20 different locations in three different provinces and the Federal Capital. The locations visited include two provincial capitals and 11 districts. An overview of localities visited can be found in annex 4 17. The evidence collected was used as basis to draw conclusions and recommendations. To the degree possible, the evaluators triangulated data and drew on multiple sources to ensure that findings could be generalised and were not the result of bias or views of a single agency or single type of actor involved in the response. Recommendation Figure 1: Triangulation. Information from interviews and the findings of the desk review were validated from the findings and cross‐validation. 18. Adopting utilization focused approach in order to boost the ownership of the process, conclusions and recommendations were validated, prioritized and organizations responsible to implement them and timelines were defined through three Provincial workshops and one national workshop (see annex 4). Following the workshops in Pakistan, headquarters debriefings were held with IASC representatives in Geneva and New York. 19. Evaluation Constraints Conclusion A Conclusion B Finding 1 Finding 2 Finding 3 Finding 4 Finding 5 Focus Group 1 Interview 1 Data Analysis 1 Focus Group 2 Observation 1 Observation 2 Interview 2 Document 1 Observation 3 Observation 4 Interview 3 Interview 4 Issue 1 Issue 2 Issue 3 Document 2 Interview 5 Interview 6 � Timing of the evaluation; although this IA RTE was fielded at an earlier stage of the humanitarian response to the epic floods disaster, as compared to the previous IA‐RTE Riccardo Polastro, Aatika Nagrah, Nicolai Steen and Farwa Zafar 23
Page 1 and 2: Inter‐Agency Real Time Evaluation
Page 3 and 4: Annex 4.1 Group meetings with the a
Page 5 and 6: Conclusions and recommendations bas
Page 7 and 8: Area Finding Conclusion Recommendat
Page 15: Area Finding Conclusion Recommendat
Page 18 and 19: IA RTE of the humanitarian response
Page 52 and 53: 7.2 Monitoring IA RTE of the humani
Page 62 and 63: 9 ‐ Annexes Annex 1: Terms of Ref
Page 64 and 65: 4. METHODOLOGY IA RTE of the humani
Page 66 and 67: The ‘IA RTE Framework’ as Diagr
Page 68 and 69: Needs IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK D
Page 70 and 71: Access, Principles, Advocacy IA RTE
Page 72 and 73:
M&E IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dim
Page 74 and 75:
IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dimensi
Page 76 and 77:
IA RTE EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Dimensi
Page 78 and 79:
� Have relevant, prioritized, inc
Page 80 and 81:
Action, HAP 2007 Standard in Humani
Page 82 and 83:
� Approves the final IA RTE repor
Page 84 and 85:
(details see row below) � Sindh:
Page 86 and 87:
words and a main text of no more th
Page 88 and 89:
UNICEF United Nations Children Fund
Page 90 and 91:
Baltistan and Pakistan‐Administer
Page 92 and 93:
continues to impede returns. The ND
Page 94 and 95:
Surname, Forenames Org. ♂♀ Meth
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Summary of interviews by category o
Page 112 and 113:
21. Ashfar Ahmad Save the Children
Page 114 and 115:
19. Farrusch Mirza UNICEF 20. Hamad
Page 116 and 117:
13 . Dube Alfred WHO 14 . Masooma H
Page 118 and 119:
14. 15. 16. 17. 18. Fareeha Ummar O
Page 120 and 121:
Annex 4.3: Field Work Itenerary Dat
Page 122 and 123:
Date Riccardo Polastro Nicolai Stee
Page 124 and 125:
Date Riccardo Polastro Nicolai Stee
Page 126 and 127:
Annex 5 Interview Guide IA‐RTE In
Page 128 and 129:
. With whom (military, government,
Page 130 and 131:
6‐ Did the needs assessments take
Page 132 and 133:
Millions 900,0 800,0 700,0 600,0 50
Page 134 and 135:
Annex 7: Cluster Output Review Tabl
Page 136 and 137:
Source: Logistics Cluster, Feb 2011
Page 138 and 139:
Pakistan Initial Floods Emergency R
Page 140:
Ms. Aatika Nagrah, a development pr
show all

Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation of the Humanitarian ... - OCHANet

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?