Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of the UNICEF ......THE EVALUATION Presented below is the ToR...

EVALUATION OFFICE

EVALUATION REPORTJanuary 2019

Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of the UNICEF Humanitarian Response in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

VOLUME TWO ANNEXES

http://unicef.org

EVALUATION OFFICE

EVALUATION REPORTJanuary 2019

VOLUME TWOANNEXES

Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of the UNICEF Humanitarian Response in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies

http://unicef.org

EVALUATION OF THE COVERAGE AND QUALITY OF THE UNICEF HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE IN COMPLEX HUMANITARIAN EMERGENCIES2

Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of the UNICEF Humanitarian Response in Complex Humanitarian Emergencies© United Nations Children’s Fund, New York, 2019

United Nations Children’s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017

January 2019

The purpose of publishing evaluation reports produced by the UNICEF Evaluation Office is to fulfil a corporate commitment to transparency through the publication of all completed evaluations. The reports are designed to stimulate a free exchange of ideas among those interested in the topic and to assure those supporting the work of UNICEF that it rigorously examines its strategies, results and overall effectiveness.

The contents of the report do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The views expressed in this report are those of the evaluators. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for error. The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on the legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers.

The copyright for this report is held by the United Nations Children’s Fund. Permission is required to reprint/reproduce/photocopy or in any other way cite or quote from this report in written form. UNICEF has a formal permission policy that requires a written request to be submitted. For non-commercial uses, the permission will normally be granted free of charge. Please write to the Evaluation Office at the address below to initiate a permission request.

See the full evaluation report at: https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_103536.html

For further information, please contact: Evaluation Office United Nations Children’s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017 <[email protected]>

https://www.unicef.org/evaldatabase/index_103536.html

mailto:[email protected]

CONTENTS

Summary ToR for the evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Evaluation matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

List of people interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

Humanitarian coverage and quality analysis tool . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .31

Humanitarian coverage and quality analysis from the case study countries . . . . . . 34

Approach to engaging communities . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

Summary of community engagement during the evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .47

Selection criteria for case study countries . . . 48


© U

NIC

EF

/UN

04

83

75

/PIR

OZ

ZI

The arm of a young boy, who is sitting in his mother’s lap is measured during a growth-monitoring session at a basic health unit in Punjab Province, Pakistan.

ANNEX ONE: SUMMARY ToR FOR THE EVALUATIONPresented below is the ToR for the evaluation. It has been summarized from the original to reduce the length of the report. The full evaluation ToR is available online.

1. BACKGROUND

Complex high-threat environments refer to humanitarian contexts that are multi-dimensional in nature, where multiple complexity factors converge and most are political and politicized. This includes but is not limited to armed conflict, restricted access to affected populations, civil or political upheaval, and large-scale violations of international humanitarian and human rights law. While programme interventions for all humanitarian situations have their fair share of challenges, the general consensus is that humanitarian response in complex high-threat environments has some unique challenges vis-à-vis risks management and principled humanitarian action (which comprises assistance, protection and advocacy). Many of these environments are characterized by fragile or failing political and social institutions, weak governance, limited state capacity or will to respond to needs, and/or affected populations living in areas under the control of non-state entities.1 In 2015, UNICEF responded to 301 humanitarian situations in 102 countries, of which 63 were socio-political crises, including in countries such as the Syrian Arab Republic, South Sudan, Yemen, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Ukraine and Nigeria.

Children in countries affected by armed conflict face grave threats and are affected in various ways, ranging from direct killings and injuries, of becoming victims of sexual violence, of being separated from their families, of being recruited and used by parties to conflict, and suffering extreme distress, to subtler, yet persistent and

1 Harmer, A., and J. Macrae, eds., Beyond the Continuum: The changing role of aid policy in protracted crises, Humanitarian Policy Group (HPG) Report 18, Overseas Development Institute (see: <www.odi.org/sites/odi.org.uk/files/odi-assets/publications-opinion-files/279.pdf>).

2 For definitions of humanity, neutrality, impartiality and independence please refer to: <https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OOM-humanitarianprinciples_eng_June12.pdf>.

3 <www.unicef.org/publications/files/CCC_042010.pdf>.

irreversible effects on schooling, health, nutrition, future opportunities and overall well-being. In complex high-threat environments, the most vulnerable people are often located in hard-to-reach or the most insecure locations. Humanitarian response in these settings is conducted in a difficult political and highly insecure environment. As a result, coverage and quality of the humanitarian assistance has been a significant challenge in most complex high-threat environments, since insecurity and inaccessibility have limited organizations’ capacity to implement, manage and adequately monitor humanitarian response.

UNICEF aims to meet humanitarian needs in a timely, appropriate, effective and efficient manner, in adherence with the humanitarian principles of humanity,2 neutrality, impartiality and independence, and in line with UNICEF’s Core Commitments for Children3 (CCCs) and equity approach, endeavouring to reach the most vulnerable and marginalized. Complex high-threat environments can pose significant challenges to these principles and objectives, including in working with other humanitarian partners to provide humanitarian assistance to affected populations. Under Humanitarian Reform, sector coordination among the wider Humanitarian Country Team is guided by the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Cluster Approach. The aim of the Cluster Approach is to strengthen system-wide preparedness and technical capacity to respond to humanitarian emergencies by ensuring that predictable leadership in the main sectors leads to predictable and effective humanitarian response. UNICEF is the global and country cluster lead agency for nutrition and WASH, and with Save the Children, co-lead agency for education.


https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OOM-humanitarianprinciples_eng_June12.pdf

https://docs.unocha.org/sites/dms/Documents/OOM-humanitarianprinciples_eng_June12.pdf


SUMMARY TOR FOR THE EVALUATIONANNEX ONE

UNICEF is also the lead agency for the Child Protection AoR, which falls under the Protection Cluster.

Coverage is important in reflecting UNICEF activities in terms of geography and reach, sectoral or thematic focus, in resource allocations and expenditure. Where UNICEF’s humanitarian access is hindered due to high security threat environments or as a result of restrictions imposed by authorities or other actors, it has become critical to adopt innovative approaches in order to deliver on UNICEF’s mandate and the CCCs. For example, remote programming and third-party monitoring have been options used in various locations, given the negative consequences of suspending UNICEF activities which outweigh the risks of implementing the remote programming modality.

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION The overall purpose of the evaluation is to generate practical solutions for the improvement of the coverage and quality of UNICEF response to humanitarian crises in complex high-threat environments. It aims to provide a deeper, more systematic and objective analysis across country contexts, of the extent to which UNICEF is succeeding or failing to reach affected populations with high-quality programming in complex high-threat environments; and how this is attributable to the limits of humanitarian action vis-à-vis political spheres and the conflict dimension (where applicable). This, in turn, should enable UNICEF to innovate and introduce alternative approaches and mitigation measures that will improve the coverage and quality of UNICEF action in such challenging contexts. This evaluation has three specific objectives:

To assess UNICEF performance in achieving coverage and quality in its humanitarian action in a sample of complex high-threat environments, using both desk and field-based studies.

To identify the internal and external enabling factors and challenges to UNICEF’s performance in responding to humanitarian crises in complex high-threat environments.

4 For further information on MRM, click here.

5 Evaluation of Humanitarian Action Guide, ALNAP/ODI, 2016, p. 114.

6 <https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/the-standard>.

7 <www.sphereproject.org/>.

To provide the analysis required to allow UNICEF to clarify how it fulfils its role in complex high-threat environments as a United Nations agency with a protection mandate, including its designated role in the Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism4 derived from United Nations Security Council resolutions on children affected by armed conflict.

3. SCOPE OF WORKPeriod to be covered: The evaluation will assess coverage and quality of the UNICEF response in selected, ongoing humanitarian responses in complex environments for the period January 2015 to the present. With respect to past responses in complex high-threat environments, the evaluation will only rely on evidence from evaluations and reviews.

Thematic focus (UNICEF and partners): The evaluation focuses on coverage and quality of UNICEF’s humanitarian response in complex high-threat environments:

nn Coverage is defined as: ‘The extent to which major population groups facing life-threatening suffering are being (or were) reached by humanitarian action’.5 For UNICEF, the concept of coverage also includes the extent to which UNICEF is identifying and reaching the most vulnerable, and is addressing differences in vulnerability due to, for example, age and gender, and disability.

nn Quality of humanitarian response does not have a unified definition in UNICEF. For the purposes of the evaluation, the assessment of quality is understood to be the degree to which UNICEF is adhering to the benchmarks set out in its Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action (CCCs) in complex high-threat environments, and also supplementary commitments the organization has made to: 1) the Core Humanitarian Standard,6 2) technical standards for humanitarian programming (primarily the Sphere standards7 and INEE minimum

https://corehumanitarianstandard.org/the-standard

standards8), 3) Accountability to Affected Populations, and 4) commitments made by UNICEF at the World Humanitarian Summit, especially within the Grand Bargain.9 In assessing performance, the evaluation will recognize that this list represents a mixture of well-established and new commitments by UNICEF.

SECTORAL COVERAGE: The evaluation has no specific sector focus and will assess performance in all sectors where UNICEF plays a leading role in complex high-threat environments.

8 <www.ineesite.org/en/minimum-standards>.

9 <https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/working-group/documents-public/grand-bargain-shared-commitment-better-serve-people-need>.

GEOGRAPHIC COVERAGE: This is a global evaluation and aims to generate learning and proposals for the enhancement of UNICEF’s performance in all the complex high-threat environments where UNICEF operates.

The evaluation will generate evidence using a case study approach, with a total of 12 case studies covering four to five UNICEF regions.

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

012

67

62

/DIC

KO

At Timbuktu hospital in Mali, Harzatou Boucar Maïga and Zenebou Haïdara hold their children, Ibrahim, 7 months, and Addramane, 6 months.


SUMMARY TOR FOR THE EVALUATIONANNEX ONE

https://interagencystandingcommittee.org/working-group/documents-public/grand-bargain-shared-commitment-better-serve-people-need


EVALUATION QUESTIONS/SUB-QUESTIONS INDICATORS DATA COLLECTION

METHODS AND SOURCESANALYTICAL METHODS

OUTCOMES

EQ1: To what extent is UNICEF achieving coverage and quality in humanitarian action in an equitable way and what good practice, lessons and practical solutions can be identified to inform improvements across UNICEF’s response in complex humanitarian emergencies?

1.1 How successful has UNICEF been in achieving and maintaining coverage (geographic and demographic) in its humanitarian assistance and protection response?nn Which factors have enabled or constrained coverage?

nn To what extent has UNICEF been able to overcome the constraints?

nn What good practice, lessons and practical solutions could be applied in other contexts?

nn Evidence of overall humanitarian needs and coverage as outlined in the Humanitarian Needs Overview, HRP and RC/HC annual report

nn Evidence of the coverage achieved by UNICEF against its targets and the total population in need for nutrition, health, WASH, education, HIV and AIDS and child protection

nn Evidence of disaggregated data on UNICEF’s coverage targets and results (age, gender, disability) and of vulnerability analysis based on disaggregated data or localized analysis on vulnerability patterns

nn Evidence of use of disaggregated data and analysis of disaggregation to reach the hardest-to-reach, most marginalized, and most vulnerable

nn Evidence of factors that have influenced coverage and approaches that have been taken to improve coverage

nn Document and literature review including Humanitarian Needs Overview, UNICEF country reporting documents and sectoral programme reports, good practice case studies and evaluations

nn Interviews and focus groups at field level, including with UNICEF staff, United Nations agencies, international NGOs, donors, and affected communities and populations

nn Humanitarian coverage and quality analysis tool

nn Cross-country case study analysis

1.2 To what extent is UNICEF aware of, and meeting, its CCC and other commitments and international humanitarian programme standards?nn To what extent is UNICEF contributing to the programming results outlined in the CCC results in a way that is relevant to the context?

nn Which other humanitarian programme quality standards are applied in practice by COs?

nn Which factors have enabled or constrained quality?

nn To what extent has UNICEF been able to overcome the constraints?

nn What good practice, lessons and practical solutions could be applied in other contexts?

nn Evidence of the knowledge, use of and results from the implementation of the CCCs for each of UNICEF’s programme sectors

nn Evidence of the knowledge and use of other quality standards (Sphere, Core Humanitarian Standard, INEE Minimum Standards, Child Protection Minimum Standards, Harmonized Approach to Cash Transfers)

nn Evidence of factors that have influenced quality and approaches that have been taken to improve it

nn Document and literature review including UNICEF country reporting documents and sectoral programme reports

nn Interviews and focus groups at field level, including with UNICEF staff, United Nations agencies, international NGOs and affected communities and populations

nn Humanitarian coverage and quality analysis tool


1.3 How does UNICEF balance coverage and quality in complex humanitarian emergencies where it is hard to maintain high-quality across hard to access areas?Does UNICEF have a systematic way of assessing the level of quality that can be achieved against coverage (geographic and demographic) that needs to be achieved?What are challenges, lessons, good practice, and practical solutions that could be applied in other contexts?

Evidence of a systematic analysis of coverage (against a disaggregated vulnerability assessment) and assessment of quality standardsEvidence of a decision-making process weighing up trade-offsEvidence of routine re-assessment of trade-offs

Document review, including UNICEF country reporting documents and sectoral programme reportsInterviews with UNICEF staff, implementing partners, cluster members

Humanitarian coverage and quality analysis toolCross-country case study analysis

ANNEX TWO: EVALUATION MATRIXPresented overleaf is the evaluation framework, consisting of evaluation

questions, sub-questions, indicators, data sources and analytical methods.



WAYS OF ACHIEVING OUTCOMES

EQ2: In what ways and how effectively has UNICEF influenced others to strengthen protection and to increase the quality and coverage of humanitarian action?

2.1 How actively is UNICEF speaking out against grave violations against children in situations of armed conflict, conflict-related sexual violence against children and women, and advocating for the protection of civilians and compliance with international humanitarian law?nn What lessons do successful examples of humanitarian advocacy provide for the organization?

nn Evidence of the knowledge and use of child protection MRM

nn Evidence of the effect of the MRM on the lives of children

nn Evidence of where and how UNICEF has successfully advocated and influenced decision-making on issues relating to protection of civilians and compliance with IHL

nn Document and literature review including previous reviews/evaluations

nn Interviews and focus groups at field level, including with UNICEF staff, United Nations agencies, international NGOs, donors, RC/HC, government officials

nn Context analysis


2.2 In what ways, to what extent and with what success has UNICEF been able to influence the government, implementing partners, the HCT and Integrated Missions at country level to improve principled humanitarian access?

nn Relevance of UNICEF’s guidance on Advocacy in Emergencies

nn Evidence that UNICEF has used advocacy to improve access in complex humanitarian emergencies at the agency or inter-agency level (HCT)

nn Interviews with UNICEF HQ, RO, CO staff

nn Interviews with HCT members, RC/HC, United Nations Mission staff, government officials

nn Document and literature review


EQ3: What programme approaches and partnership strategies has UNICEF employed at the field level to gain principled access and improve coverage and quality, and with what success?

3.1 To what extent has UNICEF’s engagement in complex humanitarian emergencies been guided by the humanitarian principles of humanity, impartiality, neutrality and independence, and what effect have these had on coverage and quality?nn How successfully has UNICEF been able to manage constraints imposed by the application of the principles, as well as any trade-offs between the principles?

nn Evidence that staff have an understanding of humanitarian principles (UNICEF’s humanitarian principles)

nn Evidence that a principled approach has guided decision-making to support improvements in coverage and quality

nn Evidence that application of principles has had positive impact on coverage and quality


nn Interviews with UNICEF HQ, RO, CO staff; RC/HC, cluster members, donors, implementing partners

nn Identification, review and documentation of case studies


nn Analysis of decision-making criteria around application of approaches to improve access

3.2 What partnership strategies has UNICEF adopted to deliver assistance in complex humanitarian emergencies, and to what extent have they strengthened the coverage and quality of humanitarian action?nn To what extent, and to what effect, is UNICEF building national and local systems and capacities for humanitarian coordination and rapid scale up or maintenance of life-saving services and protection?

nn How well is UNICEF managing the transfer of risk to its implementing partners?

nn Evidence of initiatives to engage and support national and local first responders (2018 –21 strategy, WHS)

nn Evidence of partnership approaches that have improved coverage and quality in UNICEF’s humanitarian action

nn Evidence that UNICEF is strengthening the capacity of its local/national partners that are delivering humanitarian assistance

nn Evidence that UNICEF is routinely engaging with its partners to assess and manage risk

nn Evidence of the use of relevant guidance from the Enhanced Programme and Operational Support for Fragile Contexts initiative


nn Interviews with UNICEF HQ, RO, CO staff; RC/HC, cluster members, donors, implementing partners, government officials, integrated mission staff




EVALUATION MATRIXANNEX T WO





3.3 To what extent has UNICEF successfully employed relevant approaches to strengthening programme coverage and quality in complex humanitarian emergencies?nn Application of remote programming, or alternative programming approaches

nn Integrated sector programmingnn The use of Rapid Response Modalities in selected countries

nn Access negotiations and engagement with parties to the conflict on issues of humanitarian assistance and protection

nn Implementation of the inter-agency ‘Stay and Deliver’ strategy

nn The use of other innovative approaches for programming

nn Relevance and use of UNICEF and inter-agency guidance on programming in complex high-threat environments (including EMOPS Guidance on Civil-Military Coordination, Programming Guidance on Engagement with Non-State Actors, Engaging Effectively with United Nations Integrated Presences, UNICEF Guidance on Remote Programming, UNICEF Integrated Programming in Humanitarian Action, IASC Stay and Deliver strategy)

nn Evidence of the effect that different approaches have on the quality and coverage of humanitarian action in complex high-threat environments

nn Evidence of new and innovative approaches being taken by UNICEF to improve the quality and coverage of humanitarian action (UNICEF’s approach to humanitarian innovation)



nn Interviews with UNICEF staff at HQ, RO and CO level, United Nations agencies, NGOs, implementing partners and other donors, government ministries and officials

nn Interviews and focus groups at field level, particularly with communities and affected populations



3.4 To what extent do risk management and security systems and approaches enable or constrain UNICEF’s humanitarian coverage and access in complex humanitarian emergencies?nn What internal UNICEF capacity exists to analyse risk and manage security for access?

nn How well is UNICEF managing the financial risks associated with its humanitarian programming?

nn To what extent is UNICEF using multi-dimensional risk mitigation approaches, including mitigating risks and increasing access by building ‘acceptance’ within communities/through acceptance-based approaches?

nn What role has the UN’s security management system played in enabling or hindering access?

nn Evidence that UNICEF at a CO level routinely analyses and manages risks and receives high-quality and timely managerial support for this

nn Evidence that UNICEF has a risk tolerance that permits it to work effectively in complex humanitarian emergencies

nn Evidence of the use and relevance of UNICEF’s financial systems and procurement/logistics procedures in complex humanitarian emergencies

nn Evidence that financial and logistics procedures incorporate effective risk management and anti-corruption measures

nn Evidence that UNICEF proactively adopts a range of strategies to reduce risk which includes acceptance through community engagement

nn Evidence of the relevance and use of the UN Programme Criticality Framework

nn Evidence of the relevance and use of UNICEF’s risk management guidance (including Risk-Informed Programming, 2018–21 strategy)

nn Review of financial risk and other documentation, financial data and UN security management systems


nn Interviews with UNICEF staff at HQ, RO and CO level (including finance staff)

nn Interviews with United Nations agencies, NGOs, implementing partners and donors


nn Context analysis


3.5 How well is UNICEF using programme monitoring to identify and address gaps in coverage and quality?nn What challenges do complex humanitarian emergencies present to programme monitoring and how is UNICEF seeking to address these?

nn What are the trade-offs in strengthening this monitoring?

nn Evidence of the relevance and use of UNICEF’s HPM approach and IM approaches

nn Use of AAP approaches and community engagement to strengthen programme monitoring

nn Evidence of challenges in implementing robust monitoring in complex humanitarian emergencies

nn Availability of documented good practice and case studies for monitoring

nn Review of programme monitoring data and systems

nn Review of IM mechanismsnn Interviews with UNICEF staff at HQ, RO, CO level

nn Field-level interviews with community members

nn Analysis of M&E and reporting mechanisms




EQ4: To what extent is UNICEF’s humanitarian response designed to be relevant and is adapted to ensure its ongoing relevance evolving needs and priorities?

4.1 How well does UNICEF’s context, conflict and political economy analysis underpin the relevance of its humanitarian response strategy and its programme design, and to what extent does UNICEF adjust these as situations evolve?nn How well prepared is UNICEF at HQ, RO and CO levels for new humanitarian crises in situations at risk of becoming complex high threat?

nn Evidence of ongoing context analysis in complex humanitarian emergencies

nn Availability of updated context, conflict and political economy analyses, and evidence that these are linked to programme strategies

nn Existence of actionable preparedness plans at CO level (and relevance of the UNICEF Preparedness Guidance Note)

nn Evidence of the effective use of UNICEF’s Corporate emergency activation procedure

nn Evidence of the effectiveness of humanitarian surge in case study countries

nn Review of needs assessments and conflict and political economy analysis

nn Programme and strategy document review

nn Review of recent evaluations of UNICEF humanitarian action in complex and high-threat environments

nn Interviews with UNICEF staff at HQ, RO, CO level


nn Analysis of UNICEF policies and strategies

4.2 How well has UNICEF engaged with communities to ensure that programmes are designed and adjusted to meet communities’ own perceptions of their humanitarian needs and priorities?

nn Evidence that UNICEF has adopted AAP and community engagement strategies in complex humanitarian contexts that routinely elicit input and feedback on its programmes (2018—21 strategy, AAP Checklist for the CCCs)

nn Evidence of the relevance and use by UNICEF of the IASC AAP Operational Framework

nn Focus groups with affected communities

nn Review of accountability mechanisms



4.3 To what extent is UNICEF’s humanitarian programming coherent with or link to longer-term development programmes and strategies?

nn Evidence of coherent programme planning in humanitarian contexts

nn Evidence that UNICEF’s programmes are consistent with UNICEF’s emerging guidance (Draft Humanitarian-Development Nexus paper)

nn Evidence that programme linkages have strengthened the quality and coverage of UNICEF’s assistance in complex humanitarian emergencies (Study on Linking Development and Humanitarian Programming)

nn Programme and strategy document review



nn Analysis of UNICEF policies and strategies


INPUTS

EQ5: To what extent do UNICEF’s human and financial resource management, and systems and procedures support an effective response in complex high threat environments?

5.1 How appropriately are UNICEF COs staffed by technical experts and senior management for delivering humanitarian coverage and quality?nn How well have COs been supported by senior management and technical specialists from Regional Offices and headquarters in improving coverage and quality?

nn Evidence that UNICEF is able to recruit people with the right skills and competencies for complex high-threat environments and fill staff positions

nn Evidence that UNICEF is meeting CCC commitments on HR for rapid deployment (commitment 1) and well-being (commitment 2)

nn Evidence that high-quality and relevant managerial and technical support is available to UNICEF Representatives and programme staff in complex high-threat environments








© U

NIC

EF

/UN

013

93

76

/NIA

Z



5.2 How successful has UNICEF been in mobilizing flexible resources and other innovative financing modalities for complex high-threat environments?nn To what extent has UNICEF succeeded in advocating with donors to address funding shortfalls affecting humanitarian action?

nn To what extent does UNICEF apply programme criticality or other criteria to prioritize limited financial resources for complex humanitarian contexts?

nn Evidence of donor engagement by UNICEF at HQ, RO, CO level to leverage funding for complex high-threat environments

nn Evidence of UNICEF adopting innovative financing modalities for complex humanitarian emergencies

nn Evidence of UNICEF ensuring flexibility of funding

nn Evidence of a decision-making process to prioritize funding allocations

nn Review of presentations, speaking notes and other documenzts prepared for donors

nn Interviews with UNICEF staff at HQ, RO and CO level, and United Nations agencies and other donors in country


nn Analysis of decision-making criteria

5.3 To what extent have UNICEF’s systems and procedures improved its response in complex humanitarian emergencies, and could these be further adapted to improve performance?

nn Evidence of the relevance and use of UNICEF’s systems and procedures including:

nn Enhanced Programme and operational support for fragile contexts

nn UNICEF simplified SOPnn Supply Division’s ‘no regrets’ policy

nn Review of procedures and systems


nn Analysis of resource allocation and management


A front-line health worker administers polio drops to a baby in Sindh Province, Pakistan.

ANNEX THREE: BIBLIOGRAPHY

10 This number may include some overlap for documents that were cited in more than one case study report.

11 This includes one report for each country case study, a pilot phase report, a methodology lessons report and the final evaluation report.

12 These comprise the thematic documents that relate to the issues under evaluation (i.e., outcomes, ways of achieving outcomes, inputs).

Listed below are the key documents and reports that were reviewed during the evaluation synthesis and a summary of the documents referenced and reviewed during the field missions and desk reviews. Across the evaluation, nearly 600 documents were cited (37 per cent internal and 63 per cent external).10 In addition, more than 1,400 documents were reviewed (53 per cent internal, 47 per cent external).

DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THE EVALUATION REPORTS11

AFG

HA

NIS

TAN

BU

RU

ND

I

CEN

TRA

L A

FRIC

AN

R

EPU

BLI

C

MA

LI

NIG

ERIA

PAK

ISTA

N

PHIL

IPPI

NES

SO

MA

LIA

STA

TE O

F PA

LES

TIN

E

SY

RIA

N A

RA

B R

EPU

BLI

C

UK

RA

INE

SY

NTH

ESIS

TOTA

L

Internal 16 22 11 11 20 17 19 14 10 13 25 50 228

External 25 13 23 24 44 33 33 36 20 37 24 79 391

Total 41 35 34 35 64 50 52 50 30 50 49 129 619

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR THE EVALUATION SYNTHESIS REPORT12

THEME INTERNAL EXTERNAL THEME INTERNAL EXTERNAL

Accountability 3 9 Supply and logistics 9 0

Access 15 23 Surge 8 0

Advocacy 3 1 United Nations integration 2 0

Cash 10 2 WHS 1 10

Quality standards (including CCCs) 3 10 Nexus/fragile contexts 28 4

Engagement with NSEs 3 2 Preparedness 4 10

Programme monitoring 4 5 Programme sectors 7

Innovation 3 4 Remote programming 9 25

Integrated programming 2 0 SHA 32 0

L2-L3 10 0 Programme criticality 0 7

MRM and CAAC 6 1 Saving Lives Together 0 3

RRM 3 2 State leadership 0 12

Donor funding/conditionality 5 2 Leadership and management 2 5

Risk management 6 16 Coverage/quality 4 7

Risk-informed programming 6 2 Humanitarian principles 1 12

Partnership and localization 6 13

TOTAL 88 92 TOTAL 107 95



BIBLIOGR APHYANNEX THREE

ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS REVIEWED FOR THE COUNTRY CASE STUDIES13

IN - INTERNALEX - EXTERNAL

AFG

HA

NIS

TAN

BU

RU

ND

I

CEN

TRA

L A

FRIC

AN

R

EPU

BLI

C

MA

LI

NIG

ERIA

PAK

ISTA

N

PHIL

IPPI

NES

SO

MA

LIA

STA

TE O

F PA

LES

TIN

E

SY

RIA

N A

RA

B R

EPU

BLI

C

UK

RA

INE

In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex In Ex

Access 3 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 9 0 7 0 0 9 12 0 0 3 1 3 9

Strategy 14 53 10 4 9 19 7 21 2 2 12 37 1 13 58 55 0 7 8 5 2 2

Policies 8 0 0 0 4 0 1 0 11 0 16 0 1 0 31 0 1 0 3 0 11 0

Programme 66 116 4 0 6 0 1 0 7 3 5 0 2 11 24 9 0 4 6 0 7 0

Security 0 2 0 0 1 1 3 2 2 1 0 0 1 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 2 1

Sit rep 6 25 31 3 10 4 5 0 60 26 6 8 3 4 49 0 3 0 5 5 44 25

Total 97 201 45 7 30 24 17 23 85 41 34 52 8 28 171 80 4 11 25 11 69 37

SUMMARY

TYPE OF DOCUMENTS DESCRIPTION INTERNAL EXTERNAL TOTAL

Documents cited Documents cited in the evaluation reports 218 375 593

Documents reviewed Additional documents reviewed during the evaluation 780 702 1482

TOTAL 998 1077 2075

13 These comprise the documents the internal and external documents that were referred to during the process of the country case studies but which were not cited in the documents.

Evaluation synthesis report

UNICEF DOCUMENTSUNICEF, Access Field Manual, Draft 0, EMOPS, 2 August 2018.

UNICEF, Brief on Setting Humanitarian Response Target Levels, Humanitarian Planning and Monitoring Learning Resources, November 2016.

UNICEF, Engaging with Non-State Entities (NSEs): Programme guidance note, Draft, forthcoming.

UNICEF, Guidance on Risk-Informed Programming, April 2018.

UNICEF, Annual Results Report 2017: Humanitarian action, 2017.

UNICEF, Guidance on Risk-Informed Programming (GRIP) Module, 2017.

UNICEF, HR Surge Guideline: A Guide to UNICEF’s Human Resources SURGE MODALITIES in Humanitarian Crises, 2017.

UNICEF, Humanitarian Action for Children 2017: Overview, 2017.

UNICEF, Putting People at the Centre of Humanitarian Action: Integrating accountability to affected people, draft, June 2017.

UNICEF, Rapid Response Mechanism: Past, present and future, EMOPS, May 2017.

UNICEF, UNICEF Reference Document for Emergency Preparedness and Response, September 2017.

UNICEF, UNICEF Humanitarian Cash Transfers Programmatic Guidance, EMOPS, 2017.

UNICEF, Decision-Making Procedure for Public Advocacy on Grave Violations of Child Rights in Complex and High-Threat Environments, June 2016.

UNICEF, Enhanced Programme and Operational Support in Fragile Contexts, Programme Division and EMOPS, November 2016.

UNICEF, Preparedness for Emergency Response in UNICEF: Guidance Note 2016, December 2016.

UNICEF, Study on Linking Development and Humanitarian Action, January 2016.

UNICEF, UNICEF Procedure on Preparedness for Emergency Response, 29 December 2016.

UNICEF, Evaluation of UNICEF Supply Division’s Emergency Supply Response, 2015.

UNICEF, Internal Review of the South Sudan Rapid Response Mechanism, 15 April 2015.

UNICEF, Simplified Standard Operating Procedures for Level 3 Emergencies (L3 SSOPs), 2015.

UNICEF, Supply Manual, Chapter 10: Emergencies, 2015. See also L2/L3 SSOPs.

UNICEF, Engaging Effectively with Integrated UN Presences: Technical note, 2014.

UNICEF, Study on Integrated Programming in UNICEF Humanitarian Action: Final report, February 2014.

UNICEF, UNICEF Procedure for Level 2 Emergencies, Annex 1 to CF/EXD/2013-003, 2013.

UNICEF, Remote Programming in Humanitarian Action: Programme guidance, EMOPS, 2012.

UNICEF, Programme Guidance Note on Engaging with Non-State Entities in Humanitarian Action, July 2011.

UNICEF, UNICEF’s Corporate Emergency Activation Procedure, From the Executive Office, CF/EXD/2011-001, 2011.

UNICEF, Core Commitments for Children in Humanitarian Action, 2010.

UNICEF, Recruitment and Staffing in Emergency Situations, CF/EXD/2010-005, 2010.

UNICEF, Saving Lives, Protecting Children: Advocacy in emergencies, June 2008.

UNICEF, Programme Policy and Procedure Manual: Programme operations, revised February 2007.

UNICEF, UNICEF’s Humanitarian Principles, July 2003.

UNICEF, Accountability for Delivering Results for Children through Managing Risk in Somalia, n.d.

UNICEF, Non-Paper: Humanitarian policy issues relevant to operating in complex and high-threat environments.

UNICEF, Strengthening Humanitarian Action Initiative, W1-1 – Adaptability to Context, n.d.

UNICEF Afghanistan, Standard Operating Procedures for HACT Programmatic Checks, 2018.

UNICEF Afghanistan, UNICEF Afghanistan Health and Polio Programme Strategy Note (2017—2019), 2018.

UNICEF Emergencies and Surge Recruitment Section, Annual Report 2016, Division of Human Resources, 2016.

UNICEF Evaluation Office, Towards Improved Emergency Responses: Synthesis of UNICEF Evaluations of Humanitarian Action 2010–2016 – Synthesis report, June 2017.

UNICEF Field Results Group, UNICEF Procedure for Country and Regional Office Transfer of Resources to Civil Society Organizations, FRG/PROCEDURE/2015/001, 2015.

UNICEF Mali, UNICEF Country Office Annual Report 2017, 2017.

UNICEF Pakistan, Pakistan Consolidated Emergency Report 2016, March 2017.

UNICEF Pakistan, Hygiene Kit Feedback in Rural Pakistan Using the RapidPro SMS System, May 2016.

UNICEF Philippines, UNICEF Philippines Supply and Logistics Preparedness Strategy, 2018.

UNICEF Philippines, Marawi Conflict Emergency after Action Review: Final report, 3 November 2017.





UNICEF Somalia, Humanitarian Cash Transfer, May 2018.

UNICEF Somalia, Draft Country Programme Document: Somalia, United Nations, E/ICEF/2017/P/L.13, 2017.

UNICEF Supply Division, Supply Annual Report 2017, 2017.

UNICEF Syria, Country Office Annual Report, 2017.

UNICEF Ukraine, Accountability Framework: Management of UNICEF Field Offices in Ukraine, Draft, 2018.

EXTERNAL DOCUMENTSACAPS, Compared to What? Analytical thinking and needs assessment, Norwegian Refugee Council, Assessment Capacities Project, 2013.

Africa’s Voices Foundation and UNICEF, Using Digital Communications for Accountable and Adaptive Humanitarian Programmes, October 2017.

ALNAP, The State of the Humanitarian System, ALNAP Study, ALNAP/ODI, London, 2018.

ALNAP, The State of the Humanitarian System 2018: Inception report, 2017.

ASiST/European Commission, Somalia: In pursuit of a safety net programme in the short term paving the way to a social protection approach in the long term – Issues and options – Final report, 2017.

ATHA, Understanding Humanitarian Negotiation: Five Analytical Approaches, ATHA White Paper Series, ATHA, Humanitarian Academy at Harvard and Sida, December 2015.

Avenir Analytics and Everywhere Humanitarian Response and Logistics Service, Evaluation of UNICEF’s Cluster Lead Agency Role in Humanitarian Action, UNICEF, 2013.

Belliveau, J., Red Lines and Al-Shabaab: Negotiating humanitarian access in Somalia, NOREF, March 2015.

Boston Consulting Group, UNICEF/WFP Return on Investment for Emergency Preparedness Study, 2015.

Campbell, L., and P. Knox-Clarke, Making Operational Decisions in Humanitarian Response: A review of the literature, ALNAP, 2017.

Chaudhri, S., K. Cordes and N. Miller, Humanitarian Programming and Monitoring in Inaccessible Conflict Settings: A literature review, February 2017.

Clarke, N., et al., Report of the Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Response to the Crisis in South Sudan, Valid International, November 2015.

Collinson, S., et al., Paradoxes of Presence Risk Management and Aid Culture in Challenging Environments, Humanitarian Policy Group, ODI, London, 2013.

Darcy, J., et al., Evaluation of the UNICEF Level 3 Response to the Cholera Epidemic in Yemen: A crisis within a crisis – Evaluation report, June 2018.

Development Initiatives, Global Humanitarian Assistance Report 2018, 2018.

Egeland, J., A. Harmer and A. Stoddard, To Stay and Deliver: Good practice for humanitarians in complex security environments, OCHA Policy Development and Studies branch, 2011.

Fabre, C., Localizing the Response: World Humanitarian Summit – Putting policy into practice. The Commitments into Action Series, OECD, Paris, 2017.

Featherstone, A., Learning from Disaster: How governments gain insight and how regional and international bodies can help, ALNAP Study, ALNAP/ODI, London, 2014.

Global Emergency Group, Centre for Humanitarian Change, Humanitarian Response Consulting.

Gordon, S., and A. Donini, ‘Romancing Principles and Human Rights: Are humanitarian principles salvageable?’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 97, no. 897/898, 2016, pp. 77–109.

Global Public Policy Institute, ‘Evaluation and Review of Humanitarian Access Strategies in DG ECHO Funded Interventions’, GPPI, Berlin, June 2012.

Hanley, T., et al., IASC Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Typhoon Haiyan Response, Valid International, October 2014.

Harmer, A., and H. Fox, Research on Good Practices on Humanitarian Access and its Relevance for UNICEF, Humanitarian Outcomes, July 2018.

Harvey, P., Towards Good Humanitarian Government: The role of the affected state in disaster response, Humanitarian Policy Group, Report 29, ODI, London, September 2009.

Haider, N., et al., Evaluation of Humanitarian Assistance, UNICEF Yemen Country Office, 2016. Final Report, AAN Associates/UNICEF, 2016.

Haily, P., et al., Real Time Evaluation on the Emergency Drought Situation Response in Kenya, 2017: Final report, 30 March 2018.

Haver, K., and W. Carter, What It Takes: Principled pragmatism to enable access and quality humanitarian aid in insecure environments, Secure Access in Volatile Environments, Humanitarian Outcomes, November 2016.

Haver, K., et al., Independent Review of Programme Criticality: Part 1 – Main report, Humanitarian Outcomes, 21 July 2014.

Humanitarian Outcomes Aid Worker Security Report, 2018.

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

07

39

54

/CL

AR

KE

FO

R U

NO

CH

A

Internally displaced persons (IDPs) collect water as a sandstorm approaches in Abs IDP settlement, Hajjah Governorate, Yemen.





Hussein, P., Interoperability: Humanitarian action in a shared space, OCHA Fit for the Future Series, OCHA Policy and Studies Series, 013, July 2015.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee Humanitarian Financing team, Donor Conditions and their Implications for Humanitarian Response, April 2016.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee, A Framework for Improving Security Arrangements among International Non-Governmental Organizations/International Organizations and the United Nations, October 2015.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Introduction to Humanitarian Action: A brief guide for Resident Coordinators, October 2015.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee, IASC Reference Module for Cluster Coordination at Country Level, revised 2015, August 2015.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Guidance Note on Using the Cluster Approach to Strengthen Humanitarian Response, November 2006 (used as a reference in the Core Commitments to Children).

International Federation of the Red Cross, World Disasters Report 2018: Leaving no one behind, 2018.

International Federation of the Red Cross and International Committee of the Red Cross, The Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and Non-Governmental Organizations in Disaster Relief, 1994.

IPE Africa, Somalia: UNICEF Gender Programmatic Review, June 2017.

Itad, Evaluation of UNICEF’s Coverage and Quality in Complex Humanitarian Situations: Methodology lessons report, June 2017.

Jackson, A., and S. Zyck, Presence and Proximity: To stay and deliver five years on, NRC and OCHA, 2016.

Knox Clarke, P., Between Chaos and Control: Rethinking operational leadership, ALNAP Study, ALNAP/ODI, 2014.

Lawday, A., et al., Evaluation of UNICEF’s Response to the Ebola Outbreak in West Africa, 2014–2015, March 2017.

Lawday, A., et al., Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the Response to the Central African Republic’s Crisis, 2013–2016, Advanced Unedited Version, Kon Terra Group. March 2016.

Lawday, A., et al., The UNICEF Response to the Crisis in the Central African Republic, Final Report, DARA/UNICEF, 2016.

Lawry-White, S., and V. Huls, Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of UNICEF Humanitarian Response in Complex High-Threat Environments: Learning Phase Synthesis Report, 29 August 2017 (internal report).

Leonardi, E., J. Alexander and D. Bassiouni, Review of the Fast-Track Recruitment Process, UNICEF Division of Human Resources, 2013.

Macdonald, I., and A. Valenza, Tools for the Job: Supporting Principled Humanitarian Action, Norwegian Refugee Council and Humanitarian Policy Group, 2012.

Majwa, P., R. Abbas and T. Abdelsadig, Evaluation of Humanitarian Action: Child survival in North Darfur, Sudan, 2010–2015, 2016.

Mazurana, D., et al., Sex and Age Matter, OCHA, Tufts University, Care International, August 2011.

Mulla, J., Influence of RUTF Markets in Programme Countries in the Horn of Africa (Ethiopia, Kenya and Somalia), Supply Division, UNICEF, n.d.

Nascimento, D., ‘One Step Forward, Two Steps Back? Humanitarian challenges and dilemmas in crisis settings’, The Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, 15 February 2018.

No author, Saving Lives Together: A review of existing NGO and United Nations security coordination practices in the field, May 2014.

OCHA, Global Humanitarian Overview 2018, 2018.

OCHA, Mali Humanitarian Response Plan, 2018.

OCHA, Afghanistan Humanitarian Needs Overview, 2018–2021, December 2017.

OCHA, OCHA on Message: Humanitarian access, version 1, April 2010.

OCHA, OCHA’s Structural Relationships within an Integrated UN Presence, Policy Instruction, May 2009.

OCHA, Guidelines on the Use of Foreign Military and Civil Defence Assets in Disaster Relief, Revision 1.1, November 2017.

OCHA and UNDP, Multi-Stakeholder Regional Workshop on The New Way of Working: West and Central Africa, 31 May and 1 June 2018, Dakar.

Perry, S., Review of Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Approach, Formative Assessment, December 2016.

Philippines Child Protection Working Group and GBV Working Group Philippines, Child Protection Rapid Assessment Report: Marawi Displacement, October 2017.

Ramalingam, B., and J. Mitchell, Responding to Change Needs? Challenges and opportunities for humanitarian action, Montreux XIII Meeting Paper, 2014, and ALNAP, Montreux XIII Humanitarian Retreat, Convenors Conclusions, 2014.

RRM, UNICEF and European Union, Rapid Response Mechanism: République centrafricaine. Grille d’évaluation rapide des dégâts et des besoins, n.d.

Sagmeister, E., and J. Steets, The Use of Third Party Monitoring in Insecure Contexts: Lessons from Afghanistan, Somalia and Syria, Secure Access in Volatile Environments Resource Paper, October 2016.

Schenkenberg van Meirop, E., ‘Coming Clean on Neutrality and Independence: The need to assess the application of humanitarian principles’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 97, no. 897/898, 2016, pp. 295–318.

Schenkenberg, E. and Wendt, K., Principled Humanitarian Assistance of ECHO Partners in Iraq,

HERE-Geneva, Norwegian Refugee Council, European Commission, May 2017.

South Sudan Food Security and Livelihoods Cluster, South Sudan: Food Security and Livelihood Cluster Bulletin, August 2017.

Steets, J., et al., Evaluation of WFP’s Policies on Humanitarian Principles and Access in Humanitarian Contexts, WFP, Rome, 2018.

Steets, J., E. Sagmeister and L. Ruppert, Eyes and Ears on the Ground: Monitoring aid in insecure environments, Secure Access in Volatile Environments, October 2016.

Stoddard, A. et al., State of the Humanitarian System 2015, Humanitarian Outcomes for ALNAP, 2015.

Sutton, K., et al., Drawing on Our Diversity: Humanitarian leadership, Humanitarian Advisory Group, August 2018.

Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Humanitarian Access in Situations of Armed Conflict: Practitioners’ manual, Version 2, Swiss FDFA, Geneva, 2014.

United Nations, Afghanistan Humanitarian Response Plan, 2018–2021, December 2017.

United Nations, HNO Guidance, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, July 2017.

United Nations, IASC Humanitarian Population Figures, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, April 2016.

United Nations, Guidelines: Monitoring and Reporting Mechanism on Grave Violations against Children in Situations of Armed Conflict, June 2014.

United Nations Security Council, Children and Armed Conflict: Sustaining the Agenda, Research Report, 2017, No. 4, 27 October 2017.

Vine Management Consulting, Study on Integrated Programming in UNICEF Humanitarian Action: Final report, February 2014.

WFP, Technical Note, Evaluation Criteria and Questions, WFP Office of Evaluation, April 2016, p. 3.




ANNEX FOUR: LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED

14 Some interviewees requested that the evaluation team use their designation rather than names during the Afghanistan field mission. This approach was taken for all non-UNICEF staff for the Afghanistan field mission. A similar approach was adopted for interviewees in other case studies where this was requested.

15 For the Syria desk review, the evaluation team were only permitted to speak with UNICEF staff.

Listed below are the internal and external staff who participated in interviews for

the evaluation. In total, 504 people were interviewed, 30 per cent of which were

female and 70 per cent of which were male. A summary table of interviewees and

a full list of names and designations are provided below.14, 15

COUNTRY CASE STUDY UNICEF STAFF NGOS/UNITED NATIONS GOVERNMENT OTHER

Afghanistan Field mission 32 39 20 1

Burundi desk review 10 7 0 1

Central African Republic field mission 16 24 4 0

Mali desk review 20 4 0 1

Nigeria field mission 31 18 0 3

Pakistan desk review 17 4 0 0

Philippines field mission 27 22 18 0

Somalia field mission 23 24 4 4

State of Palestine desk review 13 6 0 0

Syrian Arab Republic desk review 25 0 0 0

Ukraine desk review 18 5 0 1

Sub-total 232 153 46 11

Other UNICEF CO staff 7

Regional Offices 11

Headquarters 42

External informants 13

Sub-total 60 0 0 13

TOTAL 292 153 46 13

UNICEF HEADQUARTERS STAFFKate Alley, Assessment, PME Specialist, EMOPS

Antonio Galli, Humanitarian Access Policy Advisor, EMOPS

Cecilia Sanchez Bodas, Programme Specialist, Humanitarian Action, Programme Division

Hamish Young, Chief, Humanitarian Action & Transitions Section, Programme Division

Anna Knutzen, Humanitarian Affairs Officer, MENA Regional Office

Ayda Eke, Humanitarian Policy Advisor for Complex High-Threat Environments, EMOPS

Majed Altwal, Deputy Security Coordinator, EMOPS

Riccardo Polastro, Regional Evaluation Advisor, EAPRO

Jane Mwangi, Evaluation Specialist

Koorosh Raffii, Evaluation Specialist

George Laryea-Adjei, Director of evaluations

Rafael Obregon, Chief, Communication for Development

Lisa Bender, Education Specialist/Education in Emergencies Lead

Grant Lieaty, Deputy Director of Emergency Programmes

Segolene Adam, Chief, Humanitarian Policy Section

Toby Wicks, Data Strategist, Field Results

Sanjay Wijesekera, Assistant Director, WASH

Abheet Solomon, Senior Advisor, Health

Frederic Sizaret, Human Resources Manager, Surge

Anne Favreau, Chief, Emergencies and Surge Recruitment Section

Myungsoo Cho, Programme and Planning Manager, HIV/AIDS Section

Catherine Langevin-Falcon, Senior Advisor, HIV/AIDS

Diane Holland, Senior Advisor, Nutrition

Cornelius Williams, Assistant Director, Child Protection

Ted Chaibin, Director of Programmes, Programme Division

Manuel Fontaine, Director, Office of Emergency Programmes

Shanelle Hall, Deputy Executive Director, Field Results

Chris De Bono, Deputy Director, Division of Communication

Sikander Khan, Deputy Director, EMOPS Geneva

Megan Gilgan, Deputy Director, Public Partnerships

Isa Achoba, Associate Director, Field Support

Cynthia McCaffrey, Director, Office of Global Innovation

Ana Cristina Matos, Supply Specialist (data), Supply Division

Peta Barns, Emergency Logistics Coordinator, Supply Division

Charles Okoth Menya, Emergency Logistics Coordinator, Supply Division

Jonathan Veitch, Deputy Director, Natcomm Relations

Charles-Antoine Hoffman, Senior Advisor, Accountability and Community Engagement

Claire Mariana, Humanitarian Cash Transfers Coordinator, EMOPS

Erik Castlander, Chief, Global Cluster Coordination Unit

Maria Agnese Giordano, Global Education Cluster Coordinator

Michael Copland, Child Protection Area of Responsibility Coordinator

Dominique Porteaud, Global WASH Cluster Coordinator

Gavin Wood, Emergency Specialist (Information Management)

UNICEF REGIONAL OFFICE STAFF

UNICEF ESARO, Nairobi

Leila Pakkala, Regional Director, ESARO

Jamie Hedge, Planning Specialist, ESARO

Bo Viktor Nylund, Deputy Regional Director, ESARO

Pete Manfield, Head of Humanitarian Action, Resilience and Peacebuilding Section, ESARO

Rodwell Scotty, Head of Regional Security, ESARO

Geert Cappelaere, Regional Director, MENARO

Michele Servadai, Regional Emergency Advisor, MENARO

Robert Stryk, Regional Evaluation Advisor, MENARO

Marie-Pierre Poirier, Regional Director, WCARO

Michele Tarsila, Regional Evaluation Advisor, WCARO

Mads Oyen, Regional Emergency Advisor, WCARO


LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWEDANNEX FOUR



AFGHANISTAN FIELD MISSION

UNICEF CO, KabulAdele Khodr, Representative

Mohammad Fayazzi, Chief of Field Operations

Stefano Savi, Deputy Representative

Ian Fuller, Chief of Operations

Emma Maspero Supply & Logistics Manager

Walter Bruzzoni, Access Advisor, Polio Programme

Karen Edmond Chief, health Section

Sevara Hamzaeva, Evaluation specialist

Fred Odonekara, Communications Specialist (donor relations)

Ramesh Bhusal, WASH Cluster Coordinator & WinE Manager

Anteneh Dobamo, Nutrition Cluster Coordinator

Aisling Falconer, Quality Education Specialist

Tatjana Colin, Chief of Child Protection

Alfred Mutiti, Child Protection Specialist

Shah Wali, Information Management Associate

Manan Kotak, Education in Emergencies Specialist

Eserada Musisi, Human Resources Manager

Rory Williams, Operations Manager HACT, Risk assurance

Government ministries and departments, KabulInternational Relations Director, State Ministry for Disaster Management and Humanitarian Affairs (ANDMA)

Deputy of Policy & Coordination, ANDMA

Technical Advisor, ANDMA

Director of Policy & Planning Department

Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development

Multisectoral Coordinator, Public Nutrition Department, Ministry of Public Health

Child Protection Secretariat Director, Ministry of Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled (MOLSAMD)

Senior Child Protection Specialist, MOLSAMD

Technical Assistance, Child Protection Action Network, MOLSAMD

Director of PME, Ministry of Education

Senior Officer, Education in Emergencies, Ministry of Education

United Nations agencies and NGOs, Kabul

Humanitarian Coordinator/Resident Coordinator/Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary General

Humanitarian Access Coordinator, Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)

Country Director, Relief International

Deputy Director, Danish Committee for Aid Afghan Refugees (DACAAR)

Managing Director, Coordination of Afghan Relief (COAR)

Deputy Country Director, Relief International

WASH Officer, International Medical Corps

WASH cluster co-lead, Norwegian Church Aid

Head of Programmes, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)

Deputy Protection Coordinator, International Committee of the Red Cross

Project Manager, United Nations Office for Project Services

Nutrition Technical Officer, World Health Organization (WHO)

Head of Nutrition Unit, World Food Programme

Program Manager, AADA (BPHS implementer)

Head of Department, Surveillance, Action Contre la Faim

Country Director, Medair

Education in Emergencies (EiE) Specialist and EiE Working Group Co-Lead, Save the Children

Managing Director, COAR

Education Program Manager, War Child Canada

Child Protection Manager, Children in Crisis

Programme Manager, War Child UK

Head of Admin and Finance, Tabish Social Health Education Organization

Project Manager, Tabish Social Health Education Organization

Project Officer, Human Resources Development Agency

Donors, Kabul

Humanitarian Advisor and Team Leader, DFID Afghanistan

UNICEF FO, JalalabadTrevor Clarke, Chief, Jalalabad Field Office

Eng. Mohammad Ibrahim, WASH Officer

Abdi Khalid Saghar, Child Protection Officer

Anpuj Panchanan Achari, Programme Specialist (Polio)

Field Extender, Polio Programme

Research Officer, Polio Programme

Regional manager, Afghan Planning Agency

Field extender, Nutrition (third-party consultant)

Government directorates and departments, JalalabadDepartment of Public Health

Provincial Education Department

Rural Rehabilitation and Development

Department of Labour, MOLSAMD

Afghanistan National Disaster Management Authority

United Nations agencies and NGOs, JalalabadRegional Manager East, DACAAR

Education Programme Manager East, NRC

Child Protection Office War Child UK

Humanitarian Affairs officer, UN OCHA

Humanitarian Affairs officer, UN OCHA

WASH Project Manager, COAR

Regional manager, Tabish Social Health Education Organization

UNICEF FO, HeratAhmad Zia Noori, WASH Officer

Romal Omari, WASH Officer

Muhammad Farzan Hussaini, Child Protection Officer/Emergency Focal Point

Susan Yazdani, Education Officer

Nutrition Officer and Nutrition Cluster Coordinator

Rabbani Wardak, Health Specialist

United Nations agencies and NGOs, HeratProject Manager, War Child UK

Head of Sub-office, OCHA

Naik Mohammad Azamy, Head of Protection section, United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees

Sayed Abobakar Rasooli National Health Coordinator/Health Cluster Lead, World Health Organization

Ahmad Shakib Popal, Health Sector Lead/Co-lead of Health cluster in Western Region

Mohammad Fazil, Emergency Officer, Bakhtar Development Network

Education Officer, NRC Herat

Government directorates and departments, HeratProgramme Manager, Herat Provincial Rural Rehabilitation and Development

Senior WASH Officer, Rural Water Supply, Sanitation and Irrigation Programme

Director, ANDMA

Director, Public Education Department

Director, Department of Public Health

BURUNDI DESK REVIEW

UNICEF CO BujumburaAhmedou Ould Sidi Ould Bahah, Chief WASH

Nathalie Fiona Hamoudi, Chief Emergency/OIC Deputy Representative

Nancy Catherine Bauman, Child protection specialist (MRM) ¬– Zambia

Frank Kashando, Child Protection Specialist in Emergencies

Mark Belliveau, Security Advisor

Johary Randimbivololona, Chief communication and C4D (now in Senegal)

Cinthia Douable, Education in Emergencies (now in Yemen)

Diamangan Coulibaly, Supply and logistics Specialist

Bo Viktor Nyland, Country representative (now Deputy Regional Director, ESARO)

Marie-Claude Desilets, Chief Health and Nutrition (now in Madagascar)

United Nations agencies and NGOs, BujumburaAmadou Sow, 1st OIC chief (in 2015), OCHA

Soufiane Adjali, Head of programmes, UNHCR

Martin Kabaluapa, Deputy Representative, WFP

Abbe Jean Bosco, Executive Secretary, Caritas

Vénérand Nzigamasabo, Head of Programmes, CRB





Jacques Nshimirimana, President, FENEDAB

Douglas Anderson, Country Director, World Relief

DonorsLeif Davenport, Food for Peace, USAID

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC FIELD MISSION

UNICEF CO, BanguiAlexandra Jonnaert, Fundraising and Reporting Specialist

Aliou Maiga, Chief Child Protection

Christine Muhigana, Country Representative

Dr. Amah Klutse, Chief WASH

Dr. Meoundo Faton, Chief Child Survival and Development

Fabrice Laurentin, Chief C4D

Guillaume Woehling, Emergency Specialist / RRM Coordinator

Joyce Patrica Bheeka, Chief Education

Kobehi Guillaume Toutou, Chief Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation

Olivier Corbet, Chief Emergency and Field Operations

Amadou Tall, Supply and Logistics Manager

Sekou Traore, IMO WASH Cluster

Yves Nzigndo, Nutrition Cluster Coordinator

Government, BanguiConstant Nganowa, DRGH, National Coordinator WASH Cluster

United Nations agencies and NGOs, BanguiAurélien Descieux, Solidarités, Emergency Coordinator

Baptiste Hanquart, Comité Coordination des ONGI en RCA, NGO Coordinator

Benjamin Martin, Acted, Project Development Manager

Colin Zombe, ACF, Manager, Bossangoa

Crepin Nambenganana, War Child UK, Programme Manager

Emmanuel Illunga, ACF, Emergency Coordinator

Hala Gheradi, ACF, Assistant Country Director

Mattia Cucchia, Acted, Coordinator for RRM

Thierry Hippolyte Dongobada, Caritas, Project Manager

Karen Perrin, OCHA, Deputy Head of Office

UNICEF FO, BambariOlivier Chiza Mirindi, Head of Office

Aline Kica Miyonicuru, Child Protection Specialist

Prosper Simbe, Education Specialist

Government, BambariJacques Gonekra, IACE, Secretary General

Olga Patricia Sanwe Malingao, IACE, Inspectrice

Raymond Lalignwe, Ministry of Social Affairs, Project Manager

United Nations agencies and NGOs, BambariAbbé Vincent Paulien Mboronda, Caritas, Executive Director

Astrid Anaf, Triangle, Education Project Manager

Benoît Nguipouganza, Caritas, WASH Programme Manager

Guy Alain Angamba, Caritas, Child Protection Programme Manager

Joachim Dehaba, Esperance, Projects Coordinator

Joseph Fassa Ouendeno, Triangle, WASH Project Manager

Ken Angao, Esperance, Child Protection Supervisor

Sufe Hubert Bangui, JRS, Project Manager

Cedric Makamide, UNDP, Associate Admin Officer

Gabbrielli Giacomo, IOM, Project Officer

Ibrahim Diallo, WFP, Officer in Charge

Jean Buino Ngandate, FAO, Head of Office

Raou Stoicescu, IOM, Project Officer

Sylvain Batiangoa-Kinzi, OCHA, Head of Office

MALI DESK REVIEW

UNICEF CO, BamakoChristine Gaignebet Chef de section, Planification, Suivi-Evaluation

Debora Di Dio, M&E specialist, Nutrition

Chrystelle Tsafac, Chef de Section, Social Inclusion

Mamoutou Dembélé, Spécialiste Budget

Jesus Barral-Guerin, Manager de section, Supply et Logistique

Fassou Noramou, Coordinateur cluster national, Coordinateur cluster WASH

Veronique Misticky, Spécialiste Partenariat, Coordination

Sacha Greenberg, Chef de section, WASH

Felix Ackebo, Représentant adjoint, Coordination

Marc Nene, Manager de section, Nutrition

Lucia Elmi, Représentant

Ndiaga Seck, Chef de section, C4D

Jainil Didaraly, Coordinateur cluster national, Coordinateur cluster WASH

Daniela Luciani, Chef de section, Protection de l’Enfance

Luc Mukuluderha, Child Protection Specialist/ Coordinateur, Joint interview

Sharmila Pillai, Education Specialist/Coordinatrice, Coordinateur cluster Education

Moussa Kone, Planning Specialist, Planification, Suivi-Evaluation

Elena Locatelli, Chef de section, Education

Benny Krasniqi, Chef Section Coordination des Urgences, Coordination des Urgences

Adele Rustobe, MRM Specialist, Joint interview

United Nations agencies and NGOs, BamakoDavid Cibonga, Chef Coordination, Coordination Inter-Cluster

Robert Tshibangu, Coordinateur des Opérations Terrain Coordination, IEDA

Domitille Galli, Coordinatrice, Urgence, NRC

Chegaly Ould Al-arby, Coordinateur de programme Coordination, SOLISA

Donors, BamakoLuc Verna, Chef de Mission, Représentation, ECHO

NIGERIA FIELD MISSION

UNICEF CO, AbujaJonathan Addo, Security Officer

Wilberforce Tengey, Chief of Operations

Nicola Bennett, Emergency Chief

Olayinka Afolabi, Humanitarian Specialist

Isiye Ndombe, Deputy Representative

Michael Zanardi, Chief Supply Section

Sanjana Bhardwaj, Chief, Health Section

Maher Farea, Child Protection Specialist (MRM)

Donors, AbujaEmma Massey, Humanitarian Advisor, Department for International Development

Charles Wanjue, DART Team Leader, Senior Humanitarian Advisor, United States Agency for International Development

Marianna Franco, Technical Assistant, European Commission Humanitarian Office

UNICEF FO, Borno StateEsther Van De Woert, Emergency Coordinator

Alfred Kana, Information Management (Humanitarian Programme Monitoring) Specialist

Geoffrey Ijumba, Head of Field Office

Asta Kone, Health Specialist

Dr. Hassan Saidu Malgwi, Health Specialist

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

015

08

29

/GIL

BE

RT

SO

N V

Grade 8 students practice reading at secondary school number 5, in Krasnohorivka, Donetsk Oblast, Ukraine. The students are among those who had to be transferred from nearby school number 2 after it was severely damaged by a shell in May 2017.





Mohammad Ibrahim, Immunisation Officer

Gerida Birukila, Communication for Development Specialist

Dr. Danjuma Almustafa, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

Geoffrey Ijumba, Chief, Borno Field Office

Sanjay Kumar Das, Nutrition Specialist

Senathirajah Ravindran, Child Protection Officer

Essau N’Gatta, Supply Specialist

Dr. Nwokedi Barth Onyekochi, Third-party consultant

Dr. Franklyn Nnakwue, Third-party consultant

Dr. Jimoh Mohammed Muslmdeen, Third-party consultant

Dr. Amara Ebere-Ashagba, (third-party consultant)

Dr. Elisha Joseph, Third-party consultant

Ishaku Usman, Logistician and third-party consultant

Souleymane Sow, WASH Sector Coordinator

Dr. Yusuf Ismail, Education Specialist

Kabuka Banda, WASH Specialist

WASH facilitator, Gwoza (third-party consultant)

Health officer, Gwoza (third-party consultant)

Nutrition facilitator, Gwoza (third-party consultant)

UN agencies and NGOs, Borno State

Programme Coordinator, Intersos, Maiduguri

Health and nutrition officer, Intersos, Maiduguri

Health and nutrition programme Manager, Intersos, Maiduguri

Saba Rahman, Centre for Integrated Development and Research (CIDAR)

Nafees Khan, CIDAR

Andrew Asaph Rufi, Psychological support officer, Centre for Community Health and Development (CHAD)

Elkannah Sani, Community Capacity Building Officer, CHAD

Shadrack Adoura, Case management officer, CHAD

Rhoda Bello Wakirwa, Nutrition coordinator, Ekklisiyar Yanuwa A Nigeria (EYN)

Mubwa Viyasu Chama, Programme Manager, EYN,

Lami Jinatu Wamdeo, Nutrition Officer, EYN

Emmanuel Bello, M&E Officer, EYN

Crispen Rukasha, Deputy Head of Office, OCHA

Steve McGrory, Civ-Mil coordination officer and access officer, Logistics Cluster

Andy Aitkin, Security Officer, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC)

Mustafa Lawan, Assistant Humanitarian Field Officer, NRC

Mohammed N. Usman, Access Advisor, NRC

PAKISTAN

UNICEF CO Islamabad

Cristian Munduate, Deputy Representative

John Agbor, Chief, Polio Programme

Masooma Qazilbash, Programme Specialist, DRR

Nicholas Homes, Security Officer

Qazi Saifullah, Security Analyst, Polio Programme

Sohail Ahmadi, Child Protection Officer

Syed Fawad Ali Shah, Head of Education

Syed Fida Hussain Shah, WASH Emergency Focal Point

Syed Saeed Qadir, Nutrition Emergency Focal Point

Wassaf Syed Kakakhel, WASH Officer

Muhammad Shoaib, WASH Officer

UNICEF FO Peshawar

Charles Nzuki, Chief of Field Office

Aien Khan, Nutrition Specialist

Dr. Abdul Jamil Health & Nutrition Specialist

Qurat Ul Ain, Operations Officer

Zaheer Ahmed Durrani, Programme Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting Officer

Zeeshan Lateef, Reporting and Monitoring Specialist

United Nations agencies and NGOs, Peshawar

Dr. Emal Khan, CEO, Frontier Primary Health Care

Dr. Saeed Anwar, CEO, Prime Foundation

Dr. Atta Rahaman, Country Director, Relief Pakistan

Khan Muhammad, CEO, Centre of Excellence for Rural Development

PHILIPPINES FIELD MISSION

UNICEF CO, ManilaLotta Sylwander, Representative

Julia Rees, Deputy Representative

Charles Parks, Chief of Operations

Louise Maule, Chief of WASH

Wigdan Madani, Chief of Health and Nutrition

Martin Porter, Chief of PME

Andrey Demidovich, Chief of Supply & Logistics

Psyche Vetta Olayvar, ECD Specialist

Rene Gerard Galera Jr, Nutrition Specialist

Rodeliza Barrientos, Child Protection Officer

Ramon Socco, HR Officer

Glecy Nolasco, Budget Specialist

Dennis Cruz, Fundraising Officer

Victoria Sales, Fundraising Officer

Verity Rushton, Emergency Specialist (former)

Zafrin Chowdhury, Chief, Communications

Marge Francia, Communications Officer

Dennis Salvacion, ICT officer

UNICEF FO, CotabatoAndrew Morris, Chief of Field Office

Yul Olaya, Education Officer

Rosalia Bataclan, Health and Nutrition Officer

Rasul Abdullah, WASH Officer

Yvan Tarong, WASH Officer

Joan Osantos, Education Officer

Rohannie Baraguir, Child Protection Officer

Crisanto Cayon, Emergency Specialist

Farouk Lim, M&E Officer

United Nations agencies and NGOs, CotabatoOla Almgren, Humanitarian Coordinator/Resident Coordinator/Designated Official

Maria Agnes Palacio, National Disaster Response Advisor, OCHA

Richard Higgins, Humanitarian Affairs Officer, OCHA

Abdelmajid Hammouqa, Field Security Coordination Officer, UNDSS Manila

Melindi Malang, Humanitarian Affairs Analyst, OCHA, Cotabato Sub-Office

Muktar Farah, Head of Cotabato Sub-Office, OCHA

Gemma Asis, Information Manager, OCHA, Cotabato Sub-Office

Alpha Carole Pontanal, Assistant Protection Officer, UNHCR Iligan City

Susan Batutay, Business Support Assistant, WFP Iligan Sub-Office

Dr Gerry Medina, Humanitarian Coordinator, WHO

Guy Halsey, Country Director, Action Against Hunger

Steven Muncy, Executive Director, Community and Family Services International (CFSI)

Luwalhati F. Pablo, Director for Viet Nam Programme, CFSI

Farida Mangkaan, Head of Iligan Sub-Office, CFSI

Fahada Camim, Project Coordinator, Iligan Sub-Office, CFSI

Samera Moniv, WASH Programme Manager, Action Against Hunger, Iligan City

Zacaria A. Salik, Humanitarian Response Manager, Single Drop of Safe Water/HRC, Iligan City

Julkeffel O. Sinarimbo, Nutrition Program Manager, HOM

Vince Delector, Area Coordinator, Samaritan’s Purse

Cecilia Vios, HR Manager, Samaritan’s Purse

Ginelle Fabros, Nutrition Traininer, Samaritan’s Purse

Joseph Ong, Community Nutrition Officer, Samaritan’s Purse

Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) Government departments, CotabatoRon Aray, Regional Humanitarian Emergencies Director, Department of Health

Marjuni M. Maddi, Assistant Secretary for Academics, Department of Education

Kay Ebos Lintongan, Social Welfare Officer IV, Department of Social Welfare and Development

Zaman Enok, Disaster Response Focal Point, Department of Social Welfare and Development

Ramil Masukat, ARMM Humanitarian Emergency Action and Response Team (HEART)

Alfhadar Pajiji, Assistant Secretary to Special Programmes, Department of Education





Other government representativesDirector Gloria Bilboa, Health Emergency Management Bureau, Department of Health (Manila)

Nasser Sangcopan, Marawi City DRRM Officer

Bash Macarandas, Planning Officer, Marawi City DRRMO

Junalyn Rafcim-Maruhun, Marawi City Mayor’s Office Staff

Rocaira C. Botawan, Rural Health Midwife, Regional Health Unit (Marawi)

Nurhanisa Sani Carim, Chief Nurse, Provincial Health Office LGU Clinic (Marawi)

Dacilo M Adap Jr., Public Health Nurse, Provincial Department of Education (Marawi)

Jhohanessa L. Derogongan, Provincial Welfare Officer – Child Protection, Provincial Social Welfare and Development Office (PSWDO) (Marawi)

Hafiz A. Muti, Vice Mayor, Saguiaran Municipality

Shahrima M. Basheron, Municipal Social Welfare and Development Officer, Saguiaran Municipality

Norhaya B. Umpan, Assistant Municipal Social Welfare Officer, Saguiaran Municipality

Sapiyah M. Abdulmoin, Gender and Development Focal Point, Saguiaran Municipality

SOMALIA FIELD MISSION

UNICEF CO, MogadishuSteven Laurier, Representative

Jesper Moller, Deputy Representative

Mahboob Ahmed Bajwa, Chief of WASH

Tsedeye Girma, Emergency Manager

John Ntambi, Nutrition Manager

Jean Lokenga, Chief, Child Protection

Martin Laffey, Head of Security

Analee Pepper, Gender Specialist

Jeremy Shusteman, Chief, PME

Nana Essah, Child of Supply & Logistics

Chantal Umutoni, Head of Health Section

Ephrem Belay, M&E Specialist

United Nations agencies and NGOs, MogadishuSarah Olive Otku, Humanitarian Affairs Officer (access), OCHA

Lamii Koromah, Humanitarian Affairs Officer (civ-mil), OCHA

Vincent Lelei, Deputy Humanitarian Coordinator, Somalia (formerly)

Godfrey Lokuju Peter, Inter-cluster coordinator, OCHA

Mohamed Abdurahman, Health Coordinator, Physicians Across Continents, Mogadishu

Kirsten Pool, Head of Programme, Polish Humanitarian Action

Abdulahi Jama Hassan, Vice-Chair, Somali Public Health Professional Association (SOPHPA)

Abdurasheed Mohammed Addani, Somalia Community Concern (SCC)

Amina Arale, Somalia Women’s Development Centre (SWDC)

Abdimahad Ibrahin Salad, Programme Officer, Somali Young Doctors’ Association

Omar Ahmed Ali, WASH Manager, WARDI

Everlyne Adhiambo, Head of Programme, Skills Active Forwards (SAF)

Ali Abdi, Programme Manager, Child Protection Manager, CISP

Mohamed Musse, Programme Manager, Danish Refugee Council

Fartun Adan, Executive Director, ELMAN

UNICEF FO, Central South ZoneEzatulah Majeed, Chief of Field Office CSZ,

Victoria, PME CSZ

UNICEF FO, Northeast ZoneMohamoud Ali Yusuf, Child Protection Specialist

Mahwish Batool, Education Specialist

Derek Kim, WASH Section Chief

Dr. Sabir Ahmed Bahrami, Head, Health & Nutrition

United Nations agencies and NGOs, Garowe (northeast)Mohamed Osman, Head of Field Office, UNOCHA

Ali Saleban, Acting Puntland Manager, NRC

Ahmed Said, Bossasso Officer in Charge, NRC, Bossasso

Siraad Mohamed, Somali Red Crescent Society

Mohamad Salah, Liaison Officer, UNHCR

Asad Osman, Protection Coordinator, TASS

Abdul Rahman, Programme Associate, WFP

Ahled Abdullahi Hassan, Health & Nutrition Coordinator, World Vision

Government staff, Garowe (north-east)Eng. Abdirahman, PASWEN

Abdinasir Osman Isse, Minister for Health, Government of Puntland

Mariam Ali, Minister for Women’s Welfare & Family Affairs, Government of Puntland

Abdirahman Ahmed, General Manager, HADMA, Puntland

UNICEF Somalia Support Office, NairobiAli Asghar, Senior Advisor, Change Management

Danielle Trotter, Social Policy Specialist, Somalia Support Office

Ombretta Mazzaroni, Programme Specialist (HACT)

Natalie Burton, Human Resource Manager

Alejandro Guzman, Emergency Specialist

United Nations Regional Staff, NairobiGemma Connell, OCHA Regional Director

Donors, NairobiJohan Heffinck, Head of Somalia Office, ECHO

Morten Petersen, Technical Advisor, ECHO

Emily Gish, USAID Regional Advisor

Seb Fouquet, Senior Humanitarian Advisor, DFID

STATE OF PALESTINE DESK REVIEW

UNICEF CO, East JerusalemEtona Ekole, Deputy Representative

Rajesh Kayastha, Chief of Operations

Mariane Daibes, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

Gregor von Medeazza, Chief of WASH

Matthew Dalling, Chief of Child Protection

Chantal Neuweiler, Child Protection Specialist

Maida Pasic, Chief of Education and Adolescents

Selena Bajraktarevic, Chief of Health and Nutrition

Yuji Miyoshi, Rapid Response Mechanism

Fatina Shahin, Human Resources Associate

UNICEF FO, GazaTania McBride, Chief of Field Office

Shereen Obaid, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist

Safa Nasr, Child Protection Officer

United Nations agencies and NGOsDr. Adnan Wahidi, Executive Director, Ard El-Insan Palestinian Benevolent Association

Fadi Abu Shammala, Executive Director, General Union of Cultural Centers

Hussam Al-Madhoun, Ma’An Development Centre, Gaza

Gonzalo Codina, Country Director, Action Against Hunger oPT

Samah Helou, Programme Office, Head of West Bank Operations, WFP

Catherine Cook, Head, Advocacy and Communications Section, OCHA

SYRIAN ARAB REPUBLIC DESK REVIEW

UNICEF CO, DamascusMohamad Kanawati, Youth and Adolescent Specialist

Mette Nordstrand, Chief, Education

Fiaz Shah, Education Specialist

Charles Nabongo, Education Specialist

Sihma Zakaria, Education Officer

Ibrahim Elsheikh, Chief, C4D

Evan Rai, Child Protection Specialist

Fida Alahmad Alobeid, Child Protection Officer

Basem Farhoud, Child Protection Officer

Lama Shabani, Child Protection Officer

Sawsan Youssef, Resource Mobilisation and Partnership Specialist

Salam Al Janabi, Chief, Communications

George Fom Ameh, Chief, Health and Nutrition

Hala Darwish, Social Protection Officer

Moudar Sibai, WASH Officer / OIC, Chief Homs Field Office

Mazen Issa, WASH Officer / OIC, Chief Tartous Field Office

Eyad Aldubai, WASH Manager

Maher Garfari, OIC, Chief Aleppo Field Office





Himalaya Guatam, OIC, Chief Qamishili Field Office

Ahdab Al Mobayed, Chief, Damascus Field Office

Fran Equiza, Country Representative

Alain Balandi Domsam, Chief, Operations

Gianluca Buono, Chief, Field Operation

Geofrey Osubu, Supply and Logistics Specialist

Ali Abdallah, Logistics Officer

UKRAINE DESK REVIEW

UNICEF CO, KievGiovanna Barberis, Representative

Laura Bill, Deputy Representative

Kateryna Lytvynenko, Operations Manager

Artur Ayvazov, Chief, Social Policy section

Natasha Stojkovska, Emergency Specialist

Valeria Markova, Supply & Logistics Officer

Olena Sakovych, Chief, Education & Youth section

Sebastien Truffaut, Chief, WASH section

Nataliia Kolomiiets, WASH Officer

Mark Buttle, WASH Cluster Coordinator

Sofiya Popovych, Child Protection Officer, Former Head of Mariupol Zone Office

Maryanna Schmuki, Education Cluster Coordinator

Anna Sukhodolska, Chief, C4D section

Olena Kheylo, HIV/AIDS Officer

Gaspar Bergman, Head of Donetsk field office/Field Coordinator

Susanna Lehtimaki, Health Specialist (until Sept. 2017)

Naira Avestiyan, Chief, Child Protection

Lina Levenshtian, HR Officer

United Nations agencies and NGOsAnastasiia Skyba, Donbass Development Centre (DDC), Chairwoman

Tatiana Lomakina, Mariupol Youth Union, Chairwoman

Artem Dikhtiaruk, ADRA, Programme Director

Viktor Zavodovsky, Voda Donbasa, Deputy Director

Nicolas Fégeant, TGH, Country Representative

DonorSamuel Marie-Fanon, European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO), Ukraine, Head of office

UNICEF CO STAFF (NON-PARTICIPATING OFFICES)Meritxell Relano, Representative, UNICEF Yemen (written input)

Zainab Al-Azzawi, Chief of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, UNICEF Yemen (written input)

Mahimbo Mdoe, Representative, UNICEF South Sudan

Peter Hawkins, Representative, UNICEF Iraq

Hamida Ramadhani, Deputy Representative, UNICEF Iraq

Boniface, Head of Programme Monitoring and Evaluation

Annmarie Swai, Chief of Field Operations (and emergency), UNICEF Iraq

GLOBAL EXTERNAL INFORMANTSClaude Brauderlein, Director, Centre of Competence on Humanitarian Negotiations

Paul Knox-Clarke, Head of Research and Communication, ALNAP

Abby Stoddard, Humanitarian Policy Analyst, Humanitarian Outcomes

Wendy Cue, Senior Humanitarian Affairs Officer, IASC Secretariat

Lars-Peter Nissen, Director, ACAPS

Jeremy Shoham, Director, Emergency Nutrition Network

Marie Magrath, Director, Emergency Nutrition Network

James Darcy, Evaluation Consultant

Brian Lander, Deputy Executive Director, WFP

Frederique Matras, Office of Partnership, Advocacy and Capacity Development, FAO

Rosanne Marchesich, Senior Emergency Manager, FAO

Amina Saoudi, Preparedness and Response, IOM

David Preux, Senior Emergency Preparedness and Response Officer, IOM

ANNEX FIVE: HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE AND QUALITY ANALYSIS TOOLThis annex presents the tool used by the evaluation team to assess the quality and

coverage of UNICEF humanitarian action.

T he HUM A NI TA RI A N OV ERV IE W WORKSHEE T (WORKSHEET 1) comprises two tables for country-level humanitarian data and sector/cluster information. This will provide an overall indication of countrywide humanitarian needs. The sheet will be filled in by the Itad evaluation team member using the data available in the respective

Humanitarian Needs Overview, Humanitarian Response Plan and HC/RC Annual Report. Relevant Sector staff from UNICEF should review the accuracy of the figures when they complete the sectoral worksheet (see below). The purpose of the section is to provide a consistent means of summarizing humanitarian need across the case study countries.

WORKSHEET 1: HUMANITARIAN OVERVIEW AND EXAMPLES OF NUTRITION AND WASH SECTORS

SECTION 1: Total humanitarian need, populations targeted and needs metInstructions: This section provides an overview of humanitarian needs in the country during the period under evaluation (2015 - 2018) and seeks to compare total humanitarian needs with targets that were set and coverage achieved. It will be completed by the evaluation team based on a review of the HNO, HRP and RC/HC annual report. UNICEF CO staff should review the data for accuracy and make changes if required.

Country:

Over

view

of h

uman

itaria

n re

spon

se

Total humber of people in need, targeted and whose needs have been met

Source 2015 2016 2017

Total people in need e.g., HNO

Total people targeted e.g., HRP

Total needs met by all agencies

HRP monitoring report

Total humanitarian needs by sector and needs met by all humanitarian agencies

Sector Source 2015 2016 2017

# in need (HRP)

# targeted

(HRP)

# reached

% reached / targeted

% funded # in need # targeted

# reached


% funded # in need # targeted

# reached


% funded

Nutrition

Health

WASH

Child protection

Education

HIV and AIDS



HUMANITARIAN COVER AGE AND QUALIT Y ANALYSIS TOOLANNEX F IVE

The SECTORAL WORKSHEETS (WORKSHEETS 2—7) comprises five questions for each of UNICEF’s six programme sectors (Nutrition, WASH, Health, Education, HIV and AIDS, Child Protection). The purpose of the questions is to give an indication of the quality and coverage achieved by UNICEF in its humanitarian operations in each of the countries to be visited and desk reviewed by the evaluation team. Self-assessment questions have been included on UNICEF’s performance in maintaining quality, on achieving coverage with equity, and to determine the trade-offs in decision-making about coverage and quality and to indicate the key enablers and inhibitors of access and coverage. Worksheets for sectors which UNICEF are not working in should be left blank.

QUESTION 1: Programme quality standardsTwo commitments per sector from UNICEF’s CCCs have been extracted from the UNICEF CO sitreps and included in the table. They comprise the commitments that lend themselves most easily to quantitative analysis. Each Commitment has a benchmark which provides an indication of quality. Where alternative or modified standard were used, these were added (e.g., Sphere, cluster, other). The relevant evaluation team member has used public documentation (UNICEF sitreps, HRP, HNO, dashboard data etc.) to pre-populate each of the sectoral results sections. The relevant UNICEF staff member is requested to validate this and where there are gaps, to endeavour to provide the required information.

QUESTION 2: Maintaining quality standardsIn complex humanitarian emergencies, it is anticipated that humanitarian agencies may struggle to consistently deliver programmes which meet quality standards. This question

seeks to explore how consistently UNICEF have been able to achieve this in each of the respective countries and for each sector in 2017. It is a self-assessment question and the responses will be followed up by the evaluation team during the country mission/desk review.

QUESTION 3: Coverage with equityThis question investigates to what extent UNICEF have been able to achieve coverage with equity during 2017. It requires an examination of the extent to which UNICEF routinely disaggregates data on assessed humanitarian needs, uses this assessment data to plan to reach the most vulnerable, and then delivers assistance to these groups. It is a self-assessment question and the responses will be followed up by the evaluation team during the country mission/desk review.

QUESTION 4: Trade-offsThis question seeks to identify the basis on which operational decisions on coverage and quality are made when access is constrained. It is a self-assessment question and the responses will be followed up by the evaluation team during the country mission/desk review.

QUESTION 5: Enablers and inhibitorsThis question allows sectoral staff to identify and provide details of the key enablers and inhibitors of coverage and quality. Relevant sectoral or monitoring staff should indicate the three most significant factors that have facilitated or constrained the achievement of programme coverage and quality standards. It will assist the evaluation team in preparing for the evaluation. It is a self-assessment question and the responses will be followed up by the evaluation team during the country mission/desk review.

WORKSHEET 2: SECTORAL WORKSHEETS (THE WORKSHEET BELOW IS FOR THE HEALTH SECTOR)16

16 Please note that the figure is for illustrative purposes only and the tool will be circulated to the Reference Group for comment at the same time as the inception report is submitted.

SECTION 2: UNICEF humanitarian targets, coverage and qualityInstructions: This section seeks to document UNICEF’s coverage and quality by programme sector. It includes quantitative questions on needs for humanitarian assistance, targeting and reach. The evaluator will seek to populate question 1 from UNICEF sitreps or the CERs to be validated by relevant section staff. Also included are a number of self-assessment questions on issues of equity, trade-offs and enablers and inhibitors of programme coverage and quality which should be completed by relevant UNICEF programme section staff.

WAS

H

Question 1: Programme quality standards 2015

Selected CCC commitments Local CCC commitments # in need of assistance

# targeted by UNICEF

# benchmark reached


Commitment 2: Children and women access sufficent water of appropriate quality and quantity for drinking, cooking and maintaining personal hygiene.

Benchmark: Children and women have access to at least 7.5 – 15 litres of clean water per day.

Commitment 3: Children and women access toilets and washing facilities that are culturally appropriate, secure, sanitary, user-friendly and gender-appropriate.

Benchmark: A maximum ratio of 20 people per hygiene toilet or latrine squat hole ; users should have the means to wash their hands with soap or an alternative.

Sphere (please enter if applicable): Benchmark:

Cluster standard (please enter if applicable): Benchmark:

Other applicable standard (please enter if applicable): Benchmark:

Question 2: Maintaing quality standards

Please select the most relevant answer from the four options Always Mostly Sometimes Never

For the beneficiaries reached by UNICEF in 2017, to what extent has it been possible to maintain the CCC Commitments/quality standards reported in question 1 throughout 2017?

Question 3: Coverage with equity

Please select 1 to 4, with 4 indicating excellent disaggregation/coverage and 1 indicating poor disaggregation/coverage 4 - Excellent 3 - Good 2 - Partial 1 - Poor

To what extent has UNICEF been able to routinely disaggregate data on assessed humanitarian needs? (gender, age, disability, and other factors of marginalisation, exclusion and vulnerability).

To what extent has UNICEF used the disaggregated data to do a vulnerability analysis and plan for reaching the hardest-to-reach and/or the most vulnerable (NB: normally hardest-to-reach are de facto most vulnerable, but there may be other vulnerable groups who are not necessarily hard to reach but are ‘invisible’ eg. adolescent girls in camps, child detainees).

To what extent has UNICEF been able to reach the hardest-to-reach and/or most vulnerable?

Question 4: Trade-offs

Please select the most relevant answer from the four options Based on coverage

Moderately on coverage

Moderately on quality

Based on quality

Where it is necessary to find a balance between maintaining quality standards and achieving coverage (geographical and demographic) how is this trade-off decided?

Question 5: Enablers and inhibitors

What were the most significant enablers and inhibitors of UNICEF’s coverage and quality (please list the three most important enablers/inhibitors in the boxes below)

Factors that enabled the delivery of coverage and quality:

1)

2)

3)

Factors that inhibited the delivery of coverage and quality:

1)

2)

3)


HUMANITARIAN COVER AGE AND QUALIT Y ANALYSIS TOOLANNEX F IVE


The table provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage by section over the period of the evaluation (2015–2017). It uses data from the HRP and UNICEF’s CER to show the number of people in need of assistance by Sector and modified CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. A system of colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and so funding information was extracted from the CERs to indicate the percentage of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

Nut

ritio

n

Question 1: Nutrition Programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments Local CCC commitment # in need of assistance

# targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd

# in need of assistance



# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd

CCC Commitment 4: Children and women with acute malnutrition access appropriate management services

Children aged 0-59 months affected by SAM admitted for treatment

No data 160,160 160,000 160,160 100% 100% 46% No data 97000 97,000 154,474 159% 159% 76% No data 236000 236,000 224,938 95% 95% 128%

CCC Commitment 5: Children and women access micronutrients from fortified foods, supplements or multiple micronutrient preparations

Children aged 6 to 23 months that receive multiple micronutrient supplementation

No data 600,000 600,000 306,733 51% 51% 46% No data 333,013 57,000 141,503 248% 42% 76% No data 30000 20,000 13,520 68% 45% 128%

WAS

H

Question 1: WASH Programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


IDPs and host communities provided with sufficient quantity of water ofappropriate quality for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene.

1,900,000 1900000 300,000 144,779 48% 48% 11% 1,800,000 1020000 200,000 121,700 61% 12% 188% 2,300,000 750000 200,000 149198 75% 20% 107%


IDPs and host community supported with appropriate sanitation facilities and living in an environment free of open defecation

1,900,000 1900000 300,000 62,909 21% 21% 11% 1,800,000 660000 100,000 39,100 39% 6% 188% 2,300,000 450000 100,000 62,130 62% 14% 107%

Heal

th

Question 1: Health Programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments (from UNICEF sitreps/consolidated emergency report)

CCC benchamrks # in need of assistance



# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd

Commitment 2: Children and women access life-saving interventions through population and community-based activities (e.g. campaigns, and child health days)

Pregnant women and children under 5 years that benefitted from standby capacity for coping with any humanitarian crsis/essential health services

2,723,000 No data 200,000 191,852 96% No data 4% 3,700,000 No data 224,000 250,000 112% No data 1% 6,300,000 No data 80,000 111152 139% No data 182%

Commitment 3: Children, adolescents and women equitably access essential health services with sustained coveage of high-impact preventative and curative interventions.

Children aged 9-months to 10 years that receive measles vaccination

2,723,000 No data 200,000 267,825 133.9% No data 4% 3,700,000 No data 224,000 250,000 112% No data 1% 6,300,000 No data 130,000 129,895 100% No data 182%

Educ

atio

n

Question 1: Education Programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017


Local CCC benchamrk # in need of assistance



# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd

“Commitment 2: Children, including preschool-age children, girls and other excluded children, access quality education opportunities.”

School-aged children, including adolescents, accessed formale and informal education

No data No data 40,000 20,150 50% No data 13% No data No data 40,000 50,239 126% No data 5% No data 300,000 100,000 69500 70% No data 18%

“Commitment 4: Psychosocial and health services for children and teachers are integrated in educational response.”

School aged children, including adolescents, accessed education programmes that have incorporated pschosical support.

No data No data 40,000 25,000 63% No data 13% No data No data 40,000 1,279 3% No data 5% No data No data No data No data No data No data

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Question 1: Child Protection Programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017


Local CCC benchmark # in need of assistance



# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached


% reached / total in need

% funding rcvd

Commitment 3: Key child protection mechanisms are strengthened in emergency-affected areas.

Children protected and supported through case management.

Different results data was reported by UNICEF 0% No data 7500 7,500 1,358 18% 18% 43% No data 40235 3,000 3781 126% 0.1% 107%

Commitment 6: Psychosocial support is provided to children and their caregivers.

“Children accessing psychosocial support through child-friendly spaces.”

Different results data was reported by UNICEF 0% No data 12500 12,500 18,372 147% 147% 43% No data 81739 40,000 52,239 131% 70% 107%

UNICEF reach/UNICEF target UNICEF reach/Cluster target0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +

0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +

No data reported by UNICEF (Cluster led by UNICEF)

No data reported by UNICEF (Cluster not led by UNICEF)

No data

No data

AFGHANISTAN

ANNEX SIX: HUMANITARIAN COVERAGE AND QUALITY ANALYSIS FROM THE CASE STUDY COUNTRIES


HUMANITARIAN COVER AGE AND QUALIT Y ANALYSIS FROM THE CASE STUDY COUNTRIESANNEX SIX


Nut

ritio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017


# targeted by Sector


# benchmark reached


% reached / Sector target

% funding rvcd


# targeted by sector


# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd


Children under 5 with SAM admitted into therapeutic feeding programme

No data 47,500 47,500 34,215 72 72 Health & Nut 56.5%

No data 48,500 48,500 50,693 104.5 105 274% No data 62,500 50,000 59,168 118.33 95


Children aged 6 to 59 months assessed for acute malnutrition through mass screening

No data No data No data No data No data No data Health & Nut 56.5%

No data 1,431,468 1,152,000 907,569 79 63 274% No data 700,000 600,000 0 0.0 0

WAS

H





# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd


Affected people with access to at least 7.5 litres of clean water per person per day

No data 53,000 53,000 60,620 114 114 49% No data 342,500 161,500 52,263 32 15 52% No data 393,155 170,000 48,835 28.7 12


People provided with education/information on good hygiene practice

No data 97,000 97,000 63,220 65 65 49% No data 342,000 280,000 87,178 31. 1 25 52% No data 646,030 300,000 172,081 57.4 27

Heal

th



CCC benchmarks # in need of assistance



# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd


Children under 15 and pregnant women reached with essential drugs

No data 1,000,000 175,000 175,000 100 18 Health & Nut 56.5%

No data 442,000 175,000 175,000 100 40 128% No data 442,000 175,000 1,075,000 614 243

Commitment 3: Children, adolescents and women equitably access essential health services with sustained coverage of high-impact preventative and curative interventions.

Children under 5 years vaccinated with Measles vaccination

No data 45,600 45,600 333,936 732 732 Health & Nut 56.5%

No data 163,000 46,000 46,000 100.0 28 128% No data 90,053 90,052 4,126,421 4582 4582

Educ

atio

n






# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd


Emergency-affected children (including adolescents) accessing quality education (including through temporary structures)

No data 68,000 38,300 250,000 652 368 0 No data 213,000 75,000 82,978 110.6 39 15% No data 225,000 100,000 68,401 68.4 30

“Commitment 4: Psychosocial and health services for children and teachers are integrated in educational response.”

Emergency-affected children accessing life skills training and psychosocial support

No data 100,000 20,000 13,340 66.7 13 0 No data No data 100,000 135,730 135.7 No data 15% No data No data 125,000 104,120 83.3 No data

Child

Pro

tect

ion






# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd




# benchmark reached



% funding rvcd


Number of children and adolescents benefitting from critical child protection services?

No data No data No data No data No data No data 25.70% No data 44,468 13,000 27,741 213 62 52% No data 50,000 30,000 21,679 72.26 43


Number of vulnerable children having daily access to care and psychological support through 50 established CFS centres

No data No data No data No data No data No data 25.70% No data 10,000 8,000 25,353 316 254 52% No data 25,000 20,000 18,829 94.1 75


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data

BURUNDI

© U

NIC

EF

BU

RU

ND

I/2

018

/HA

RO




Nut

ritio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards - nutrition 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments (from UNICEF sitreps) Local CCC benchmarks # in need of assistance



# benchmark reached


% reached / total need

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Children under 5 yeas with SAM admitted into therapeutic feedinb programme

32,348 26889 26,889 26,156 97% 81% 44% 38,999 29249 29,249 25,458 87% 65% 31% 40,694 30521 30,521 26,812 88% 66% 21%


Nb d’enfants atteints en supplémentation en vitamine A (deux fois l’annee)

767,730 767,730 767,730 23,032 3% 3% 44% 776,730 776,730 776,730 0 0% 0% 31% 801,459 801,459 801,459 0 0% 0% 21%

WAS

H

Question 1: Programme quality standards - WASH 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Number and % of affected people that have access to improved sources of water as per agreed standards

No data 1400000 450,000 348,730 77% 7% 48% 1,400,000 700000 400,000 538,864 135% 38% 65% 2,200,000 1,600,000 600,000 1,038,753 65% 63% 30%


Number and % of internallhy displaced persons and returnees who have acces to improved sanitation

No data 468000 250,000 191,255 77% 42% 48% 1,400,000 700000 250,000 92,254 37% 7% 65% 2,200,000 450000 417,529 93% 20% 30%

Heal

th

Question 1: Programme quality standards - health 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


children under 5 immunised in IDP sites and epidemic areas

No data No data 250,000 139,766 56% No data 35% No data No data 18,570 33,162 179% No data 44% No data No data 647,252 614,889 95% No data 14%

Commitment 3: Children, adolescents, women equitably access essential health services with sustained coveage of high-impact preventative and curative interventions.

people that have received access to basic health services and medicine in the affected areas

No data No data 1,171,400 850,000 73% No data 35% No data No data 500,000 212,976 43% No data 44% No data No data 500,000 162,397 32% No data 14%

Educ

atio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards - Education 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 2: Children, including preschool-age children, girls and other excluded children, access quality education opportunities.

Number and % of children between 3 and 18 years who benefitted from education supplies/learning materials

No data 350000 300,000 240,737 80% 76% 41% No data 350000 300,000 59,114 20% No data 26% No data 204,600 85,000 54,994 65% No data 14%

Commitment 4: Psychosocial and health services for children and teachers are integrated in educational response.

Number and % of children participating in ETAPE activities (temporary learning spaces)

No data 83909 60,000 69,378 116% 87% 41% No data 70000 60,000 40,258 67% No data 26% No data No data No data No data No data No data 14%

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

02

39

51

6/G

ILB

ER

TS

ON

V

A UNICEF convoy heads to IDP camps north-east of Bambari, Central African Republic.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data



The table above provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage in Mali by section over the period of the evaluation (2015–2017). It uses data from the HRP and UNICEF’s CER to show the number of people in need of assistance by Sector and CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. A system of colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and so funding information was extracted from the CERs to indicate the percentage of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

Nut

ritio

n

Question 1: Nutrition programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments Local CCC commitment # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF target

% reached/cluster target

% funding rcvd # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Children aged 0-59 months affected by SAM admitted for therapeutic treatment

136,000 136,000 150,405 110.6% 110.6% 66% 135,000 135,000 145,395 107.7% 107.7% 87% 107,000 107,000 120,510 112.6% 112.6% 60%


Children aged 0-59 months and pregnants women who reached by 2 rounds of vitamin A supplementation.

6,507,742 6,507,742 6,140,185 94.4% 94.4% 66% 3,823,027 3,823,027 4,060,227 106.2% 106.2% 87% 4,653,705 4,653,705 533,900 11.5% 11.5% 60%

WAS

H

Question 1: WASH programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments Local CCC commitments # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Number of affected population provided with access to safe water (construction/rehabilitation)

649,800 300,000 122,100 40.7% 18.8% 15% 372,454 65,000 78,800 121.2% 21.2% 10% 495,600 185,600 91,200 49.1% 18.4% 3%


Number of affected population provided with temporary access to safe water (aquatabs, chlorine)

136,000 30,000 10,609 35.4% 7.8% 15% 150,000 135,000 74,316 55% 49.5% 10% 294,327 54,400 27,276 50.1% 9.3% 3%

Heal

th

Question 1: Health programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments CCC benchamrks # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Nbr children aged 9 months - 15 years in measles affected areas reached with vaccination activities - northern regions and Mopti

no data 735,690 750,972 102.1% no data 26% no data 13,882 15,734 113% no data 49% no data 302,650 57,658 19% no data 0%


Number of children under five reached each round polio campaign in northern region

no data 633346 626760 99% no data 26% no data 487,708 551,225 113% no data 49% no data 242,792 536,644 221% no data 0%

Educ

atio

n

Question 1: Education programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments Local CCC benchamrk # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


260,921 100,000 2,886 2.9% 1.1% 51% 300,000 150,000 142,082 94.7% 47.4% 126% 162,197 140000 328,888 203% 202.8% 21%

Commitment 4: Psychosocial and health services for children and teachers are integrated in educational response

Teachers trained to provide psychosocial support to students

10,000 5,000 1,495 29.9% 15.0% 51% no data no data no data no data no data 126% 67,500 45,000 98,110 145% 145.3% 21%

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Question 1: Child Protection programme quality standards 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments Local CCC benchamrk # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 5: Violence, exploitation and abuse of children and women, including GBV, are prevented and addressed

Number of survivors of GBV who receive appropriate care and support

no data 1,000 402 40.2% no data 34% no data 260 no data #VALUE! no data 34% no data 645 965 149.6% no data 27%

Commitment 6: Psychosocial support is provided to children and their caregivers (Note: CO standard is as follows; Number of children reached with psychosocial support (including through CFS and child clubs).

Number of children victims of/or at risk of violence, abuse and exploitation with access to psychosocial support, referral services, family reunification and reintegration opportunities.

5,000 1,500 1,325 88.3% 26.5% 34% 173,156 23,000 1,430 6.2% 0.8% 34% no data 2500 10580 423.2% no data 27%

MALI

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

02

92

21

8/

MA

IGA

UNICEF field staff meet with the local population in Ogossagou-Peulh, a village in Bankass, central Mali.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data



The table above provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage in Nigeria by section over the period of the evaluation (2015–2017). It uses data from the HRP and UNICEF’s CER to show the number of people in need of assistance by Sector and CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. A system of colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and so funding information was extracted from the CERs to indicate the percentage of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

Nut

ritio

n

Programme quality standards - nutrition 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments (from UNICEF sitreps) CCC benchmarks # in need of assistance


# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd # in need of assistance


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached


% funding rcvd


Benchmark: Effective management of acute malnutrition reaches the majority of the target population (see CCCs for recovery, mortality and coverage %)

No data 75,859 62,685 82.6% No data 100% 398,188 398,188 159,819 40.1% 40.1 100% 449,300 220,190 208,746 94.8 46.5% 100%


Benchmark: Micronutrient needs of affected populations are met (see CCCs for coverage rates)

No data No data 6,585 No data No data 100% No data 126,565 137,962 109% No data 100% 801,437 280,539 507,168 180.8 63.3% 100%

WAS

H

Programme quality standards - WASH 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Benchmark: Children and women have access to at least 7.5 - 15 litres each of clean water per day

No data 224,254 197,982 88% No data 60% 3,656,764 1,220,995 744,997 61% 20.4% 25% 3,831,159 1,028,000 766,779 74.6% 20% 72%


Benchmark: A maximum ratio of 20 people per hygenic toilet or latrine squat hole; users should have a means to wash their hand with soap or an alternative.

No data 87,381 53,733 61.5% No data 60% No data 1,033,547 1,125,652 108.9% No data 25% 1,631,000 217,000 244,139 112.5% 15% 72%

Heal

th

Programme quality standards - health 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 2: Number of children 6months-15years vaccinated against measles

Benchmark: 95% coverage with measles vaccine No data No data No data No data No data 54% No data 5,731,507 397,470 6.9% No data 22% No data 1,763,711 4,218,136 239.2% No data 41%


Benchmark: 90% of children aged 12-23 months fully covered with routine EPI vaccine doses (see CCCs for full description of benchmark)

No data 392,034 559,674 142.8% No data 54% 3,726,966 4,267,534 4,211,257 98.7% 113% 22% 6,900,000 3,919,357 4,435,746 113.2% 64.3% 41%

Educ

atio

n

Programme quality standards - Education 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 3: Safe and secure learning environments that promote the protection and well-being of students are established. (Note: CCC adapted as follows; Number of school-aged children including adolescents reached by schools/temporary facilities in safe learning environment.

Benchmark: Schools are safe and free from violence, and children, including girls, can safely move between home and school.

400,000 181,048 46,359 25.6% 11.6% 12% 1,000,000 586,400 106,882 18.2% 10.7% 72% 2,900,000 1,260,000 904,578 71.8% 31.2% 78%

Other standard: Number of school-aged children reached with learning materials (note: other CCC results not provided in sitrep)

Benchmark: n/a 1,005,700 362,095 94,397 26.1% 9.4% 12% 1,000,000 586,400 200,302 34.2% 20% 72% 2,900,000 1,260,000 468,803 37.2% 16.2% 78%

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Programme quality standards - Child protection 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments CCC benchmarks # in need of assistance


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 4: Separation of children from families is prevented and addressed, and family-based care is promoted.

Benchmark: All separated and unaccompanied children are identified and are in family-based care or an appropriate alternative.

No data 2,000 1,678 83.9% No data 48% 20,000 8,355 5,939 71.1% 29.70% 21% 32,000 9,200 4,738 51.5% 14.8% 41%

Commitment 6: Psychosocial support is provided to children and their caregivers (Note: CO standard is as follows; Number of children reached with psychosocial support (including through CFS and child clubs).

Benchmark: Adapted CCC - benchmark not stated No data 53,000 59,651 113% No data 48% 2,730,000 436,201 185,839 42.6% 6.80% 21% 3,267,081 375,000 201,420 53.7% 6.2% 41%

NIGERIA

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

011

90

20

/SO

KH

IN

A child walks through a puddle inside Shuwari 8 camp, Medinatu, Borno State, Nigeria.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data



The table above provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage by section over the period of the evaluation (2015–2017). It uses data from the CER to show the number of people targeted for assistance by cluster by CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. For other case studies, UNICEF targets are calibrated against total needs as indicated in Humanitarian Response Plans but for Pakistan this data was not available. A colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and the table uses UNICEF data from the CERs to indicate the level of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

Nut

ritio

n

Programme quality standards - Nutrition KP/FATA 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments (or alternative standards from CER)

CCC benchamrks # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached


% reached / cluster target



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Benchmark: Effective management of acute malnutrition reaches the majority of the target population (see CCCs for recovery, mortality and coverage %)

47,584 47,584 21,334 45% 44.8% 43% 126900 89,366 47,541 53.2% 37.5% 28% 21700 21,700 18857 87% 87% 12.7%


Benchmark: Micronutrient needs of affected populations are met (see CCCs for coverage rates)

737,750 737,750 561,306 76% 76.1% 43% 508411 358,036 335,867 93.8% 66.10% 28% 620000 620,000 222,612 35.9% 35.9% 12.7%

WAS

H

Programme quality standards - WASH KP/FATA 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


Benchmark: Children and women have access to at least 7.5 - 15 litres each of clean water per day

491505 294,903 559,463 190% 113.8% 74% 640362 320,100 229,820 71.8% 35.9% 52% 406200 203,100 148594 73% 36.6% 23%


Benchmark: A maximum ratio of 20 people per hygenic toilet or latrine squat hole; users should have a means to wash their hand with soap or an alternative.

389,915 194,957 427,396 219% 109.6% 74% 400226 200,100 160,060 80% 40% 52% 286875 143,400 96,574 67% 33.7% 23%

Heal

th

Programme quality standards - Health KP/FATA 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Indicator: Number of children (9-months to 12-years) vaccinated against measles

Benchmark: n/a No data 188,061 195,079 104% No data 59% No data 334,163 206,620 61.8% No data 56% No data 222,070 326348 147% No data 10.2%

Indicator: Number of women provided with antenatal care Benchmark: n/a No data 50,055 49,796 99% No data 59% No data 50,743 11,396 22.5% No data 56% No data 30,350 10,909 36% No data 10.2%

Educ

atio

n

Programme quality standards - Education KP/FATA 2015 2016 2017




# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 3 (adapted): Number of children (camp, off-camp and returnee) enrolled in IDP camp and host community schools

Benchmark: n/a 145935 87,561 52,769 60% 36.2% 22% 204,000 124,032 110,447 89% 54.1% 20% 130630 78,400 53000 68% 40.6% 1%

Other standard: Schools supported with safe and secure environment

Benchmark: n/a No data 22% 2091 1,271 1,571 123.6% 75.1% 20% 1000 1,050 474 45% 47.4% 1%

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Programme quality standards - Child protection KP/FATA 2015 2016 2017


CCC benchmarks # targeted by cluster


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Other standard: Number of women and children reached through child protection awareness raising

Benchmark: n/a No data 24% 122,247 73,350 46,690 63.7% 38.2% 38% 31663 19,035 23690 124% 74.8% 22%

Other standard: Number of targeted women and children with safe access to protective spaces

Benchmark: n/a 367006 220,205 56,594 21% 15.4% 24% 417,560 250,536 36,635 14.6% 8.80% 38% 148,255 75,991 7,427 9.8% 5% 22%

PAKISTAN

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

I94

36

9/R

AM

ON

ED

A

A facilitator plays with children at a UNICEF-supported child-friendly space at the Goverment Primary School Prang in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Province, Pakistan.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data



The table provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage for the Marawi response (undertaken in 2017). It uses data from the HRP and UNICEF reports to show the number of people in need of assistance by Sector and modified CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. A system of colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and so funding information was extracted from the CERs to indicate the percentage of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

WAS

H

Question 1: Programme quality standards - WASH 2017

Selected CCC commitments (from UNICEF sitreps) # in need of assistance


# benchmark reached




No data 20,000 18,841 94% No data


210,500* 65,000 94,229 145% 45%

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Question 1: Programme quality standards - Child protection 2017

Selected CCC commitments # in need of assistance


# benchmark reached



Commitment 3: Key child protection mechanisms are strengthened in emergency-affected areas. No data 17 17 100% No data

Commitment 6: Psychosocial support is provided to children and their caregivers. No data 200,000 382,162 191% No data

Heal

th

Question 1: Programme quality standards - health 2017



# benchmark reached




No data 30,000 6,416 21% No data

Nut

ritio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards - nutrition 2017



# benchmark reached



CCC Commitment 4: Children and women with acute malnutrition access appropriate management services No data 30,000 28,511 95% No data


No data 30,000 14,427 48% No data

Educ

atio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards - Education 2017



# benchmark reached




125,000** 22,700 5,000 22% 4%

Commitment 3: Safe and secure learning environments that promote the protection and well-being of students are established.

125,000** 22,700 31,400 138% 25%

* The figure on the total number of people in need of assistance is taken from: OCHA, ‘Philippines Humanitarian Country Team: Response and Resources Overview, Conflict in Marawi City’, September 2017.

** The figure on the total number of people in need of assistance is taken from: Department of Education, ARMM, ‘Education Sector Strategy Note: Back-to-School and Stay-in-School Initiatives for Conflict-Affected Children and Youth in Marawi City, Lanao Sur and Lanao Norte’, June 2018. ©

UN

ICE

F/U

NI1

75

87

4/R

EY

NA

At the UNICEF Warehouse in Palo Municipality, in Leyte Province, Philippines, UNICEF is dispatching life-saving emergency supplies such as water kits, hygiene kits, collapsible water tanks, water purification tablets, oral rehydration salts and generators for health units as Typhoon Hagupit bears down on the country.

PHILIPPINESUNICEF reach/UNICEF target UNICEF reach/Cluster target

0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +

0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data




Nut

ritio

n





# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


# of children under-5 with Severe Acute Malnutrition admitted in Therapeutic Feeding programmes

No data 150000 150,000 112,829 75.2% 75.2% 48% No data 150,000 108,750 122,072 112.3% 81.3% 153% No data 346,000 277,000 269,714 97.4% 78.0% 127%

WAS

H





# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


# of people with new, sustained access to safe water No data 1,230,000 221,200 316,845 143.4% 25.8% 64% No data 1,230,000 250,000 439,306 175.7% 35.7% 93% No data 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,801,991 90.1% 60.1% 100%


# of affected people with new access to sanitation facilities

No data 600000 105,000 27,196 25.9% 4.50% 64% No data 600000 200,000 135,000 67.5% 22.5% 93% No data 830,000 500,000 298,882 59.8% 36.0% 100%

Heal

th






# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


# of crisis affected women and children provided with emergency lifesaving health services

No data No data No data No data No data No data 24% No data No data 450,000 617,953 137.3% No data 34% No data No data 1,122,000 1,311,823 116.9% No data 80%

# of children immunised against measles No data No data 300,000 102,341 34.1% No data 24% No data No data 445,000 857,225 192.6% No data 34% No data No data 4,200,000 602,344 14.3% No data 80%

Educ

atio

n






# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


# of children and adolescents (girls/boys) accessing education in emergencies (note: variations in the phraseology each year)


# of children (girls/boys) benefitting from teaching and learning supplies, including recreational materials


Child

Pro

tect

ion






# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd

# of unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) identified and registered

No data 1800 1872 723 38.6% 40.2% 102% No data 6500 3,000 1,496 49.9% 23.0% 69% No data 5,115 5,000 4,275 85.5% 83.6% 86%


# of children received psychosocial support and care No data 6000 3530 2891 81.9% 48.2% 102% No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

SOMALIA

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

02

39

33

5/

Aided by modern puppets and a traditional Somali wooden bell, Mushara Hassan, a professional storyteller from Awjama Omar Culture Centre, brings stories of Somali history to the children. “When I speak they laugh and want more. It’s very important to tell the stories of Somali history to our children,” says Mushara.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data



The table provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage by section over the period of the evaluation (2015–2017). It uses data from the HRP and UNICEF’s CER to show the number of people in need of assistance by sector and modified CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. A system of colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and so funding information was extracted from the CERs to indicate the percentage of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

Heal

th a

nd N

utrit

ion





# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd

CCC Commitment 3: Children, adolescents and women equitably access essential health services with sustained coveage of high-impact preventative and curative interventions.

Number of children and women benefiting from emergency health care services / supplies

No data 160160 160,000 160,160 100% 100% 46% No data 97000 97,000 154,474 159% 159% 76% No data 236000 236,000 224,938 95% 95% 128%


“Number of children and women who have received micronutrient supplements”

No data 600000 600,000 306,733 51% 51% 46% No data 333,013 57,000 141,503 248% 42% 76% No data 30000 20,000 13,520 68% 45% 128%

WAS

H





# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


IDPs and host communities provided with sufficient quantity of water ofappropriate quality for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene.

1,900,000 1900000 300,000 144,779 48% 48% 11% 1,800,000 1020000 200,000 121,700 61% 12% 188% 2,300,000 750000 200,000 149198 75% 20% 107%


IDPs and host community supported with appropriate sanitation facilities and living in an environment free of open defecation

1,900,000 1900000 300,000 62,909 21% 21% 11% 1,800,000 660000 100,000 39,100 39% 0.06% 188% 2,300,000 450000 100,000 62,130 62% 14% 107%

Heal

th






# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


Pregnant women and children under 5 years that benefitted from standby capacity for coping with any humanitarian crsis/essential health services

2,723,000 No data 200,000 191,852 96% No data 4% 3,700,000 No data 224,000 250,000 112% No data 1% 6,300,000 No data 80,000 111152 139% No data 182%


Children aged 9-months to 10 years that receive measles vaccination

2,723,000 No data 200,000 267,825 133.9% No data 4% 3,700,000 No data 224,000 250,000 112% No data 1% 6,300,000 No data 130,000 129,895 100% No data 182%

Educ

atio

n






# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


School-aged children, including adolescents, accessed formale and informal education

No data No data 40,000 20,150 50% No data 13% No data No data 40,000 50,239 126% No data 5% No data 300,000 100,000 69500 70% No data 18%

Commitment 4: Psychosocial and health services for children and teachers are integrated in educational response.

School aged children, including adolescents, accessed education programmes that have incorporated pschosical support.

No data No data 40,000 25,000 63% No data 13% No data No data 40,000 1,279 3% No data 5% No data No data No data No data No data No data No data

Child

Pro

tect

ion






# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd




# benchmark reached

% reached / UNICEF

target

% reached / Cluster

target

% funding rcvd


Children protected and supported through case management.

Different programme standard reported by UNICEF 0% No data 7500 7,500 1,358 18% 18% 43% No data 40235 3,000 3781 126% 0.1% 107%


“Children accessing psychosocial support through child-friendly spaces.”

Different programme standard reported by UNICEF 0% No data 12500 12,500 18,372 147% 147% 43% No data 81739 40,000 52,239 131% 70% 107%

STATE OF PALESTINE

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

I17

98

70

/EL

BA

BA

On 20 February, during cold winter weather, a person walks amid rubble and the bare frames of destroyed buildings in an area heavily damaged during the hostilities, in the city of Beit Hanoun, in the northern Gaza Strip.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data



The table above provides an overview of UNICEF’s coverage in Mali by section over the period of the evaluation (2015–2017). It uses data from the HRP and UNICEF’s CER to show the number of people in need of assistance by Sector and CCC commitments, together with UNICEF data on the number of people that UNICEF targeted and those it reached with assistance. A system of colour coding has been used to indicate UNICEF’s percentage coverage against target (the darker the colour, the higher the percentage). Funding is often cited as a key factor that influences both coverage and quality and so funding information was extracted from the CERs to indicate the percentage of required funding that each sector received in each of the three years.

WAS

H

Question 1: Programme quality standards - WASH 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


1,300,000 1,300,000 814,418 63% 63% 26% 2,900,000 1,200,000 2,555,665 213% 88% 6% 3,700,000 1,900,000 962,347 51% 26% 28%

Hygiene promotion standard 2: Identification and use of hygiene items 400,000 200,000 70,756 35% 18% 26% 515000 300,000 339,470 113% 66% 6% 2,000,000 200,000 159,696 80% 8% 28%

Child

Pro

tect

ion

Question 1: Programme quality standards - Child protection 2015 2016 2017

Selected CCC commitments # in need of assistance


# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Commitment 6: Psychosocial support is provided to children and their caregivers No data 15,000 57,474 383% No data 72% No data 400,000 257,828 64% No data 26% No data 100,000 82,962 83% No data 63%

Commitment 8: The use of landmines and other indiscriminate or illicit weapons by state and non-state actors is prevented, and their impact is addressed.

No data No data 280,000 No data No data 72% No data 400,000 511,761 128% No data 26% No data 500,000 712,290 142% No data 63%

Heal

th

Question 1: Programme quality standards - health 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


No data 900,000 1,681,384 187% No data 34% No data 5,731,507 397,470 7% No data 18% No data 20,000 676 3% No data 20%

Commitment 5: Women and children have access to essential household items. No data 200,000 130,000 65% No data 34% No data n/a n/a n/a No data 18% No data n/a n/a n/a No data 20%

Nut

ritio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards - nutrition 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd

Infant and young child feeding standard 2: Basic and skilled support No data 30,000 73,400 245% No data 34% No data 80,000 43,879 55% No data 0% No data 20,000 1,380 7% No data 0%

Educ

atio

n

Question 1: Programme quality standards - Education 2015 2016 2017



# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached





# benchmark reached



% funding rcvd


No data 225,000 203,700 91% No data 53% No data 169,000 146,446 87% No data 57% No data 220,000 194,956 89% No data 27%

UKRAINE

© U

NIC

EF

/UN

02

07

77

5/S

AM

OIL

OV

A

In Ukraine, a 12-year-old, stands in front of a school canteen that was totally destroyed by shelling in 2014.


0–25%25–50%50–75%75% +



No data

No data


ANNEX SEVEN:APPROACH TO ENGAGING COMMUNITIESThis annex outlines the methodology that the evaluation will employ to obtain

community feedback on UNICEF coverage and quality.

1. BASIC PRINCIPLES

1.1 Approach and selection of community groups » Focus group discussions (FGD)s are ‘semi-structured’;

we do not need to read the questions as a list, but rather the questions are a guide to allow conversation to flow naturally.

» For this evaluation purpose “people from similar backgrounds or experiences” will be understood as sex and age disaggregation.

» Groups should include the following:

ÇÇ Older Adolescent girls / young women17 (15–24 years)

ÇÇ Older Adolescent boys / young men (15–24 years)

ÇÇ Women (over 25 years)

ÇÇ Men (over 25 years)

17 In some contexts it is appropriate/necessary to speak with married adolescent girls / young women and unmarried adolescent girls / young women separately.

1.2 Logistics and set-up considerations

UNICEF COUNTRY OFFICE PREPARATION

Find an implementing partner willing to host a visit to a project with willing to host a visit from the evaluation team as per the intention, methodology, and logistics as set out in this note. It should be noted by UNICEF and explained to the project partner that the evaluation team is not conducting an evaluation of the partner or the project, but simply attempting to collect data on community perceptions of the quality and coverage of the services that they are receiving. There is no need for concern on behalf of the partner and the evaluation team will willingly share the findings with the project partner for their learning and support.

GENERAL SET-UP REQUIREMENTS » Maximum 10 people of the same demographics

(sex and age as per above) per group;

The years 15–24 is the United Nations ‘youth definition’ and it is important to allow young people the opportunity to speak honestly which normally cannot be done in front of the older generation. It is generally considered appropriate to engage adolescents aged 15 and above: CPiE Minimum Standards and other ethical guidelines strongly dissuade interviewing younger children unless there is no other way that particular information can be obtained due to the very high risk of doing harm, and then only by evaluators highly experienced in child protection issues.

WHO Scientific and Research Group ethics of child participation: Parents and guardians have a legal and ethical responsibility to protect very young and dependent

adolescents and to provide them with preventative and therapeutic care. If the results of an assessment will lead to an improvement in preventative and therapeutic care then parents/guardians should not oppose assessment. Parents/guardians generally do not have the legal power to overrule older (mature/competent) adolescents who wish to participate (but local law and parents’ understanding of parental rights should be respected). The goal of the assessment must be to obtain information that is relevant to adolescents’ health needs and well-being and it must relate to information that could not reliably or accurately be gained from adult sources. The risk of conducting assessment must be considered low in comparison with benefit that will be obtained with the information.

FIGURE 1: NOTE ON DEFINITIONS

» A quiet, private area where the group is comfortable and where other people don’t wander in or out or interrupt;

» Same polite rules as in a workshop, evaluation staff and translators to turn off mobile phone and give full attention to the group for the duration of the FGD;18 and

» The evaluation team and the translators to be fully conversant and comfortable with the FGD questions before the FGD starts.

GENERAL GUIDELINES FOR ENGAGING WITH COMMUNITIES

» The FGD should be conducted in the language people are most comfortable with;

» The translator to translate everything that everyone says (even if it is a repetition of other comments);

» Only one person should be running the FGD even if there are other people there translating or taking notes – this should be clear before the FGD starts;

» Do not give information you are not clear on;

» Do not read out a list of questions – this is a discussion, not an interview – so be flexible, jump around the questions, as long as most get covered it is fine; and

» If some people are not comfortable with the ranking section, or do not understand it, do not force it – just average those that do participate and note the number who have abstained.

1.3 Ethical considerations

» The quality of the data collected by the evaluation team will depend on:

ÇÇ What we ask – what questions are we asking

ÇÇ Who we ask – are we asking women/men/boys/girls separately – what about other key vulnerable groups such as people with disabilities (PwD), how do we ensure their opinions are heard? What about different ethnic, religious, caste, linguistic or tribal groups?19

18 Note that these rules apply to the evaluation team and the translators, NOT to the participants. An FGD is not a workshop and we treat FGD participants with respect as community members who are freely giving their time to talk with us, not as staff members.

19 We cannot ask for separate FGDs with these demographics but we should ask UNICEF partner staff who are setting up the FGDs to a) try and make them as inclusive as possible and b) ensure we are able to speak one on one with any representative of distinct groups, such as a representative of a local PwD group.

ÇÇ How we ask – are we asking questions in a compassionate/respectful manner

ÇÇ How we record, collate, analyse and interpret the information collected

» Do no Harm;

» Children – see above – CPiE Minimum Standards and other ethical guidelines strongly dissuade interviewing younger children unless there is no other way that particular information can be obtained due to the very high risk of doing harm: even then we would need to ensure that all members of the team, including all translators, have extensive experience in child protection matters, and that is not feasible within this evaluation;

» PwD and/or other minority, excluded, or vulnerable groups – how will we make sure their voices are heard?

» What if recent or ongoing abuse is reported during the FGD? The facilitator/translator should know in advance at what point they will suspend the discussions if issues of abuse or misuse of aid are raised during the discussion – evaluation team members should know how to report these.

RECORDING CONSIDERATIONS

Everyone takes notes in different ways. However, all FGDs should be written up against the agreed template of FGD questions (see below).

2. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY 2.1 Introduction (to explain at the beginning of the exercise)

» Who we are (introduce everyone), and we greatly appreciate everyone’s time – the exercise will take approximately one hour (but we should plan for 90 minutes).


APPROACH TO ENGAGING COMMUNITIESANNEX SEVEN


APPROACH TO ENGAGING COMMUNITIESANNEX SEVEN

» What we are doing and why.

» No one has to participate if they don’t want to, and no one has to answer any questions they don’t want.

» That this will not lead to immediate further assistance but will be able to inform future programming.

» That we will be taking notes only as we want to remember what people are telling us, but everything is anonymous and we are not recording peoples’ names. The information gathered will all be anonymous and will only go to UNICEF or their partners to help them improve their assistance and protection in the future.

» Generally, the provision of small snacks and drinks is appreciated – UNICEF should be able to advise whether this is appropriate.

2.2 Community perceptions of coverage and quality (‘spokes’ exercise)

Purpose: To elicit community perceptions of the quality of the assistance provided by UNICEF/IP. The ‘spokes’ technique is a useful way of identifying the characteristics shaping a topic, such as ‘what makes humanitarian assistance most useful for you?’ or ‘Which members of the community have received the assistance?’ The question is at the centre of a wheel and each spoke represents one characteristic. It is then possible to measure each characteristic. For example, if timeliness is a characteristic that makes humanitarian aid useful for an affected community, it is possible to measure the timeliness of the assistance on a scale of 0–5 or 0–10 and mark this on the spoke (with the centre of the wheel representing 0 and the outer edge of the spoke representing the high score).

MATERIAL REQUIRED » Two pieces of flip chart paper (one as a back-up)

» Three different coloured marker pens

QUESTIONS FOR THE EXERCISE » Ask the group, what they consider to constitute

‘quality assistance’;

» Write each aspect of ‘quality’ on a piece of flip chart paper as the ‘spokes’ of a wheel (the translator should do this in the local language);

» For each of the ‘spokes’, ask the community how they would rate that aspect of quality for the assistance they receive from UNICEF/IP.

NOTES ON HOW TO GET THE MOST OUT OF THE ‘SPOKES’ EXERCISE

» Allow the group plenty of time to discuss and propose each different aspect of quality.

» Make a mark on each ‘spoke’ to indicate the groups opinion (the higher the quality, the closer the mark should be made to the ‘wheel’; conversely, the lower the quality, the closer the mark should be to the hub.

» If the group is divided, indicate this by making several marks on the spoke.

» After all the different aspects of quality have been discussed, summarize the results to the group so they can confirm that their views have been captured correctly.

» The evaluation team member should take a picture of each flipchart for the purposes of collation between the four groups and cross-country analysis during the reporting stage of the evaluation

FIGURE 2: ILLUSTRATION OF THE SPOKES EXERCISE

e.g. arrives on time

e.g. relevant to my needs

e.g. will last for 1-year

e.g. receives regular assistance

ANNEX EIGHT: SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT DURING THE EVALUATIONPresented below is a summary of the community consultations that were undertaken in four of the five field missions. The methodology outlined in annex 7 was used for each of these focus group discussions For the Somalia field mission, informal discussions were conducted in IDP camps in Garowe, Puntland.

AFGHANISTAN FIELD MISSIONLOCATION DESCRIPTION MALE FGDS FEMALE FGDS

15–24YRS 25YRS+ 15–24YRS 25YRS+

Behsud district, Nangahar Woch Tangi 25 15

Behsud District, Nangahar Samarkhail village 10 10

Herat District, Herat Kadhistan IDPs 0 10 10 10

Herat District, Herat Maslakh IDPs 10 10 10 10

Herat District, Herat Karizak, Kahdistan, Shaidayee 0 0 10

TOTAL 65 75

CENTRAL AFRICAN REPUBLIC FIELD MISSIONLOCATION DESCRIPTION MALE FGDS FEMALE FGDS

15–24YRS 25YRS+ 15–24YRS 25YRS+

Bambari, Ouaka Prefecture Sangaris IDP Camp 15 20 18

Bambari, Ouaka Prefecture Elevage IDP Camp 15 19

TOTAL 30 57

NIGERIA FIELD MISSIONLOCATION DESCRIPTION MALE FGDS FEMALE FGDS

15–24YRS 25YRS+ 15–24YRS 25YRS+

Borno State Gwoza LGA 9 30

Borno State Ngala LGA 10 10 10

Borno State Muna Garage IDP camp 13 13 10 13

TOTAL 75 43

PHILIPPINES FIELD MISSIONLOCATION DESCRIPTION MALE FGDS FEMALE FGDS

15–24YRS 25YRS+ 15–24YRS 25YRS+

Marawi City Evacuation centres 15 18

Marawi City Home-based participants 13 16

TOTAL 28 35

SUMMARY OF COMMUNITY CONSULTATIONSLOCATION DESCRIPTION MALE FEMALE

Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Nigeria and Philippines

Focus group discussions 198 (48%) 210 (52%)



ANNEX NINE: SELECTION CRITERIA FOR CASE STUDY COUNTRIESAn initial analysis of potential case study countries was undertaken by UNICEF and presented as an annex in the ToR for the evaluation which is reproduced below. As outlined in the evaluation report, countries from this list were purposively selected according to their willingness to participate, the availability of senior staff and the absence of other, similar evaluative activities.

UNICEF EVALUATION – HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE IN COMPLEX HIGH THREAT ENVIRONMENTS (CHTES)COUNTRY CASE STUDY SELECTION CRITERIA

CRITERIA

CASE

UN

ICEF

REG

ION

LEV

EL 3

/2/1

/ N

ON

E BY

UN

ICEF

?

SPE

ND

201

2-15

O

RE

ON

LY, U

S$M

HA

C %

AG

E FU

ND

ED

LEA

RN

ING

PO

TEN

TIA

L H

IGH

/M

ED/

LOW

?

CU

RR

ENT

CR

ISIS

/MEM

OR

Y A

VA

ILA

BLE

?

CO

NS

ULT

AN

TS

CA

N A

CC

ESS

LOC

AL

INFO

RM

AN

TS?

MID

DLE

INC

OM

E C

OU

NTR

Y?

CO

UN

TRY

OF

CA

AC

AG

END

A

UN

SA

NC

TIO

NS

CO

MPU

LSO

RY

PRO

GR

AM

ME

CR

ITIC

ALI

TY

?

UN

INTE

GR

ATE

D

MIS

SIO

N?

HIG

H R

ISK

OF

NEW

/REN

EWED

C

RIS

IS?

Afghanistan SA 0 82.5 41% High Yes Yes Low Yes SCR 1988 Yes Yes Chronic with peaksCentral African Republic

WCA 2 86.1 39% High Yes Yes Low Yes SCR 2127, 2262 Yes Yes Chronic with peaks

Democratic Republic of the Congo

WCA 0 254.6 28% High Yes Yes Low Yes SCR 1533 Yes Yes Chronic with peaks

Iraq MENA 3 274.8 25% High Yes Yes Upper middle

Yes SCR 1518, 1267, 1989, 2253

Yes Yes Chronic with peaks

Libya MENA 0 1.9 - High / medium

Yes Yes / No Upper middle

Yes SCR 1970, 1267, 1989, 2253

Yes Yes High risk

Mali WCA 0 96.1 14% High Yes Yes (limits) Low Yes - Yes Yes Medium riskMyanmar EAP 0 30.3 43% High Yes No Lower

middleYes - No (no UNM) High risk

Philippines EAP 3* 156.9 28% Medium Yes Yes Upper middle

No - No (no UNM) Nat. dist risk.

North-East Nigeria WCA 3 31.6 24% High Yes Yes (limits) Lower middle

Other* - Yes (no UNM) High risk

Pakistan SA 0 147.5 34% Medium / high

Yes Yes (limits) Lower middle

Other* - Yes (no UNM) Chronic with peaks

Somalia ESA 0 328.5 24% High Yes Yes (limits) Low Yes SCR 751, 1907 Yes Yes ChronicSouth Sudan ESA 3 279.0 34% High Yes Yes Low Yes SCR 2206 Yes Yes ChronicState of Palestine MENA 0 52.0 53% High Yes Yes (limits) Lower

middleYes - No No High

Sudan MENA 0 165.9 34% High Yes Yes (limits) Lower middle

Yes SCR 1591 Yes No Chronic

Syrian Arab Republic***

MENA 3 302.9 44% High Yes Yes (limits) Lower middle

Yes SCR 1267, 1989, 2253

Yes (no UNM) Chronic with peaks

Georgia CEE/CIS 0 1.1 7% High Yes Yes Lower middle

No - No (no UNM**)

Medium risk

Ukraine CEE/CIS 0 13.46 47% High Yes Yes Lower middle

No - No? (no UNM) High risk (becoming chronic)

Yemen MENA 3 156.59 26% High Yes Yes (limits) Low Yes SCR 2140, 1267, 1989, 2253

Yes (no UNM) Chronic with peaks

Burundi ESA 0 8.78 30% High Yes Yes Low No - No (no UNM) High risk

Notes: ORE Other Resources Emergency; HAC Humanitarian Action for Children (Appeal Document); * ‘Other situations’; ** While there is no United Nations mission in Georgia, until mid-2009 there was a Department of Peacekeeping Operations mission (UNOMIG) and to date there is a special monitoring mission of the EU (EUMM). Similarly so, while there is no United Nations mission in Ukraine, there is a special monitoring mission of the OSCE (OSCE SMM); *** Excluding the refugee crisis in Lebanon, Jordan, or Turkey, which are not complex high-threat environments (except for immediate border areas).

For further information, please contact:Evaluation OfficeUnited Nations Children’s FundThree United Nations PlazaNew York, New York [email protected] www.unicef.org/evaluation

© United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) November 2018

mailto:[email protected]

http://unicef.org

Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of the UNICEF ......THE EVALUATION Presented below is the ToR...

Documents

Transcript of Evaluation of the Coverage and Quality of the UNICEF ......THE EVALUATION Presented below is the ToR...