Context analysis; The operating environment within which the beneficiaries are living and we are working. Assuming we have not conducted a formal "Contextual Analysis" (as defined by our key institutional donors) then we draw on 3rd party sources of information to put into context our rationale for engaging in this environment. The context should link to potential donor's broad strategy/priorities for that country (e.g. The priority for Trocaire's East Africa Appeal was "saving lives by providing emergency food, clean water and medical care"). 3rd Party soures can include PEA, HEA, recent baselines (inc. from other organisations), published literature (ICRC, ICG, Enough, etc.) and UN assessment papers (inc. FSNAU, FEWS NET, etc.). Evaluations of past programmes/projects provide a "lessons learnt" for operating in this environment
Situation analysis: This is our stated understanding of the current situation. It is at this stage that we will identify the cross-cutting themes that underpin our approach including our (Trocaire & partners) capacity to engage actively & pro-actively in responding to beneficiary needs. We draw on monitoring reports, partner feedback, recent baseline surveys, etc. to link the "context to the current” situation. The situation analysis is an indication of the escalation of specific issues within the operating context that cause us concern and support the need for our engagement at this time. This is the first point when we start to define potential cross-cutting considerations (e.g. observed coping strategies) we must address, either through direct intervention, M&E processes, accountability procedures, referral systems; engagement with coordination (inc. bilateral arrangements); approach to advocacy or simply documenting issues
Needs analysis: The specific needs of the beneficiary group, supporting our targeting methodology, beneficairy eligibility & selection criteria. Included here are cross-cutting themes as they apply to beneficiaries - including coping strategies and consequences of humanitarian crisis. Community-based needs assessments, partner feedback, monitoring reports, current updates thru' UN system/cluster; internal early warning monitoring.
• Context is the operating environment in which we are operating (National, State & Diocese);
• Situation is the present-day environment in which the intervention is justified/based (security, political, coordination, capacity; season; etc.);
• Needs brings the analysis down to the community, family & beneficiary (vulnerability) level. The needs analysis is the point where we decide what we can directly intervene on and what we can do to assist beneficiaries in their other requirements to get through this period (situation)
Note: Coping Strategies: Not all coping strategies emerge in a needs assessment, particularly when it is conducted at a geo (diocese)-level. The following is a table outlining the escalation of coping strategies that would be expected to be observed – including their severity & reversibility:
What we identify as a Coping Strategy should link back to the Context, Situation and Needs assessments (i.e. why have people adopted these coping strategies?) These coping strategies link into either the direct programme interventions or cross-cutting considerations.
Protection & Cross-cutting considerations:
In the case of Ethiopia and the protection component of the Theory of Change and design principles that underpin the ERRP are based on sound protection practices. The humanitarian interventions across each of the three objectives look to embed into the individual projects – as described both in the mainstreaming approaches outlined below to key cross-cutting themes, but also in the core concepts of the modalities of assistance that will support the LRRD approach. That is to say:
• By strengthening existing traditional community structures as part of an integrated approach to CMDRR we create an entry point for women, youth and marginalised groups to become involved in these structures – increasing their participation (their voice) in community decision-making on risk prevention and preparedness, periods when vulnerability can change to exploitation;
• By identify the needs of both the community and the individual as part of the mobilisation of crisis response (both chronic and acute) we can design modalities of assistance that address the causes of vulnerability at both community and household level – linking not only relief to recovery and development but also linking assistance to durable solutions to vulnerability within communities
• By providing more durable solutions in cash and food/dietary assistance we will be proactively protecting the beneficiary households against future vulnerability to crisis – making them less vulnerable to exploitation of future assistance.
• By adhering to good humanitarian standards during project interventions - as embodied in the approaches outlined below, we can mitigate the instances for exploitation during times of crisis
Prioritisation & targeting:
This is particularly relevant where the geographical area is too wide for any one programme/intervention to cover all communities/needs. We must justify the decision-making process for prioritising certain communities over others (e.g. number of returnees; other NGOs (avoid duplication); seasonal access; etc.). Partner knowledge of population movements (at local level); observation of seasonal changes & impact on communities/roads/livelihoods; geo-specific needs assessment (e.g. the paragraphs of FEWSNet, UN, SRA/LRA reports etc. specific to diocese); etc. Geo or Community targeting is the first key decision-point on defining vulnerability, eligibility and capacity (to assist) and requires a methodology & evidence to support the decision to target specific communities (note: it does not have to justify "why not" but must demonstrate the rationale & reasoning behind the "why")
When we are not targeting 100% of the vulnerable population we must understand how the actual targeting & selection will occur so that we can demonstrate either:
• the prioritisation of vulnerability (i.e. the comparison between communities and families to demonstrate how we chose one of another) that was the basis of beneficiary eligibility & selection; or
• the reasoning behind why we did not use a vulnerability & prioritisation approach to beneficiary eligibility & selection – there can be justifiable reasons why one locality, community &/or family is chosen but we need to document this and link it back to “cross-cutting considerations” as, although not directly involved in the programme, all communities & families within our target AoOs will be affected by the intervention.
Risks, Assumptions & Dependencies (RAD) are an output of the Context, Situation & Needs Analysis; they are our assessment of the factors that influence the design of our intervention and as such we must continuously monitor these factors so that we can make promt decisions should our assessment have been incorrect or should the context, situation or needs change during the course of implementation.
• Risk: Those things that we can describe, define but cannot predict with certainty but that we presume WILL happen (e.g. There is a risk of rain). As a result we must put contingencies in place that will draw on our resources & become part of our work plans & reporting (wear gum-boots & carry an umbrella)
• Assumption: Those things that we can describe, define but cannot predict with certainty but that we presume WILL NOT happen (e.g. we assume it will not rain so no need to buy an umbrella). We monitor our assumptions to ensure that they remain sound during the course of the programme
• Dependency: Those things that we can describe, define and predict but are under the control of a 3rd party (we are dependent on the UN/state-led coordination mechanisms; on WFP supplies arriving; etc.). We monitor dependencies in the same way as we monitor assumptions as we must make decisions during the course of the intervention, that will draw on our resources, become part of our work-plans and that we must report on if we cannot depend on these 3rd parties.
There is a fourth (4th) component of RAD - Issues (RAID). Issues are emerging challenges or opportunities that we could not describe or define at the outset but which impact on our intervention. Issue management draws on Accountability requirements (e.g. complaints handling) & links directly to cross-cutting themes (e.g. documenting human rights issues for referral &/or reporting). In addition to general management, the management & monitoring issues is the continuous "needs analysis" to support advocacy, referral systems, coordination, etc. (the cross-cutting considerations not directly addressed within the direct intervention)
Programme & Partner Monitoring:
The "rule of thumb" is that if it is not reported (or at least documented in a structured way) then it did not happen. Any decision made (note: every decision will have a resource implication) requires supporting evidence which should draw upon a structured monitoring system (so that every decision is not seen as an exception).
Monitoring is Performance Management and should provide sufficient information support decision-making that allows you to continue as planned or make changes, on an on-going basis, to activities that contribute to the achievement of the objectives/outcomes.
• The progress made on agreed activities
• The impact of risks that have materialised on Progress (activities) and Purpose (objectives/outcomes)
• The impact of assumptions that were incorrect on Progress (activities) and Purpose (objectives/outcomes)
We monitor in order to gather sufficient information to make good decisions during the course of the intervention (see diagram above):
• Progress monitoring (process & control procedures; and team & work plans)
• Partner Monitoring (against agreed objectives/intervention)
• Financial Monitoring (budget; expenditure; financial controls)
• Risk (& Issue) Management (see RAD above)
• Emergency Monitoring (Early Warning)
• Context & Situation Monitoring (Assumptions & Dependencies)
• Needs & Community (changes in the original justification &/or the current conditions)
• Performance Monitoring (Results & decision-making)
The opportunity of successful monitoring is continuous improvement where we capture practical lessons that can be applied to Performance Management (decision-making & resource optimisation) during the programme.
Remember, good decision-making impacts on resources as all activities use resources, so performance management is resource optimisation. There are only three resources that are affected by decision-making:
•Time: the number of people that you have, their skills, experience and ability to complete the activities
•Things: the tangible things that are available to you to help you complete the activities
•Money: the flexibility to buy either more time (1) or more things (2) that will help you complete the activities
Evaluation is Impact Assessment & Lesson Learning - that is to say, did we achieve what we set out to achieve and how did we do it. This is measured in two phases:
1.Did we do what we said we would do (meet the objectives/outcomes)
2.Did we meet the expectations of the various stakeholders (the Goal)
Evaluation is “a systematic and impartial examination of [humanitarian] action intended to draw lessons to improve policy and practice and enhance accountability" (ECHO) - "To know that you do not know is already to know something" (Confucius))
Audit on the other hand is the determination of whether and to what extent activities and procedures conform to norms and criteria set out in advance. The “Four E”s in audit:
1.Effectiveness: doing the right things
2.Efficiency: doing things the right way
3.Economy: doing things cheap
4.Equity: doing right (being socially responsible in a social audit perspective)
