Standards for Assessments & Analysis

This section focuses on the use of assessment and analysis to frame programmatic strategies by a means that uses appropriate information to inform interventions to be timely and relevant, while staying responsive as needs change based on the evolution of the crisis environment.

Assessments begin as soon as possible, incorporating ongoing processes that contribute to program monitoring ¹⁴.

Indicators (Read in conjunction with the guidance notes):

• Assessments are initiated as soon as possible during or after the crisis.
• Analysis is ongoing and integrated into program operations to allow for monitoring as the political environment and markets evolve (see guidance note).

Guidance note:

Ongoing assessments: Conflict and crisis environments are dynamic. Data collection and analysis need to be continuous in order to stay responsive to the rapidly changing environment. This is best achieved with regular and systematic monitoring that tracks program outputs, outcomes, and critical factors in the external environment, and is linked to successful outcomes and the expected impacts.

Assessments synthesize relevant information about affected households’ livelihoods, market systems, and socio-political factors.

Indicators (Read in conjunction with the guidance notes.)

• Assessments provide a comprehensive picture of affected households and enterprises’ assets and skills; key social and economic relationships; and their access to and use of markets in terms of employment, services, outputs and inputs (see guidance note 1).
• Assessments use a dynamic approach. They consider how affected markets, households, and enterprises operated prior to the crisis; how they were impacted by the crisis; and how they cope now.
• Assessments use a systemic approach. They place economic recovery strategies within a wider context of market systems, economic trends, and political and socio-economic institutions (see guidance note 2).
• Assessments are sensitive to ethnic, gender, and wealth differences within populations. They measure the differences in economic opportunities between these groups and identify important existing or potential causes of conflict or marginalization.

Guidance Notes

1. Comprehensive approach: At the household level, livelihood strategies depend upon effectively integrating assets and skills, social and economic relationships, and access to both consumption and output markets. Households may have several diverse sources of income, and it is important to understand the balance and trade-offs between them. Similarly, the success of enterprises in weathering the crisis period depends on a set of internal factors, such as human and technical capacity and capital, as well as their interactions within larger market systems with customers, financing, services, and products. Assessments should recognize this complexity, and identify and analyze the interdependencies involved.

2. Systemic approach: Economic strategies for households and enterprises are always embedded within the wider economic, political, and institutional contexts. The assessment team should attempt to include these contexts in their assessment or bring in outside expertise on the political and cultural contexts.

Assessment data is gathered using methods that ensure data quality and participants’ security.

Indicators (Read in conjunction with the guidance notes.)

• The sources of data are varied, accurate, and high quality, and the information-gathering process is collaborative when possible (see guidance note 1).
• The methods used to collect data are sensitive to the biases of informants and interest groups, while staying mindful of the potential for aggravating conflict (see guidance note 2).
• The methods used do not put at risk the security of those conducting the survey or those surveyed (see guidance note 3).

Guidance Notes

1. Sources of information: Assessments should use existing research and information on livelihoods and economic activities prior to the conflict. They should rely on local sources and local actors, such as heads of households, storekeepers, and traders, as well as macro-economic, political, and international sources. The information methods should be sensitive enough to identify hidden sources of information, such as marginalized groups and informal or black market economic activities. Assessments should triangulate data from multiple sources, including assessments from other organizations, and where possible, use both primary and secondary data sources. However, in high-risk situations or in rapid-onset hazards, programs may not be able to engage in a fully collaborative process or have full access to primary data.

2. Biases and interest groups: The assessment should be sensitive to different interest groups and to bias among informants. Researchers should use non-leading questions, triangulation, and a basic “coherency test” to assess whether data is accurate.

3. Security of assessors and informants: The location or time of an assessment interview may constitute a risk to either the assessment team and/or those being surveyed. The assessment team should consider local custom and the physical security of interview locations in determining appropriate places and times to conduct interviews. At no point should an assessment interview put either the interviewer or the interviewee at undue risk of physical harm.

Analysis of assessment data is timely, transparent, and relevant to monitoring and program decision needs.

Indicators (Read in conjunction with the guidance notes.)

• Data analysis is coherent, timely, and conducted in a transparent way (see guidance note 1).
• Analysis attempts to answer the most relevant and pertinent questions of decision-makers responsible for program design and management (see guidance note 2).
• Programs use assessment results from monitoring and evaluation to test key assumptions, check expected impacts, and make revisions as needed, based upon a change in assumptions (see guidance note 3).

Guidance Notes

1. Transparent analysis: Within the field of economic recovery, practitioners may use any of numerous analytical frameworks. Researchers should clearly state the assumptions and methodological approaches applied, in order to provide the end user with a basis for evaluating the validity of the results.

2. Relevancy: Assessments must be founded on a clear understanding of what decision makers need to know and how decisions are made. An assessment scope should clearly outline the objectives for the assessment and how the resulting information and analysis will be utilized as a relevancy test.

3. Monitoring and evaluation: Program monitoring and evaluation should track both project activities and outputs, as well as continually check the assumptions upon which program activities and envisioned impacts are based—keeping a clear, documented link between program activities and desired impact. This keeps the program responsive to changing conditions so that, if needed, its activities, progress, and performance indicators can be adjusted.

Example: A program is running a project intended to increase women’s income via credit-to-purchase small livestock after a crisis. The aim is that the women will repay the loan in two years, with the anticipated impact that they will double their baseline income in three years. The under lying assumptions are that 1) goat prices will remain stable or grow over the next three years; 2) there is sufficient pasture available for the goats; 3) the women will have access to, and be able to afford, veterinary care for their animals; and 4) the women will not be forced to sell their goats to buy food. Therefore, it is important to set up a monitoring system that tracks these factors throughout the program: available and access of pasture land; access and affordability of veterinary services; household food security.

In the final two years of the program, when the women begin to sell their goats, it is important to monitor livestock prices.

Assessment results are disseminated to provide comprehensible guidance to appropriate decision makers.

Indicators (Read in conjunction with the guidance notes.)

• Assessment results are communicated in language and a format that is clear and understandable to a non-technical audience (see guidance note 1).
• Assessment results are published and disseminated promptly, both to implementing organizations and to the communities affected, in order to maximize their influence on decision-making processes (see guidance note 2).

Guidance Notes

1. Appropriate formats: The results of assessments should meet the specific needs and comprehension levels of different audiences. Decision makers in a crisis often have hectic schedules and severe time constraints. The type and length of the information product and level of technical detail should be catered to the requirements of the user. For example, top program managers may require a one- or two-page brief, collaborating partners may want a presentation, and a longer technical report would be appropriate for monitoring and evaluation specialists. Particularly large or comprehensive assessments and findings can be disseminated in more than one format.

2. Dissemination: Disseminating the results of assessments encourages necessary collaboration in economic recovery programming. Engaging decision makers, collaborating partners, and local authorities throughout the assessment process brings assessment results to everyone’s attention as soon as they are generated, and encourages trust and cooperation. When an assessment indicates that action is required, this can be effectively accomplished by a joint presentation to the key decision makers (donors, NGOs, government), building momentum and a sense of joint responsibility and ownership. The results of the assessments and the decisions taken should also be clearly communicated to affected actors.

Bibliography of Assessment Tools

This is an illustrative, not an exhaustive, list, and is not intended to endorse any one assessment tool or methodology ¹⁶.

Anderson, Mary, ed. Options for Aid in Conflict: Lessons from Field Experience. Cambridge, MA, USA: Collaborative for Development Action, 2000. http://www.cdainc.com/publications/dnh/options/OptionsManual.pdf

Conflict Sensitivity. Web site. http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/

De Luca, L. Business and Decent Work in Conflict Zones: A “Why?” and “How?” Guide. Geneva : International Labor Organization, 2003.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/crisis/download/busguide.pd…

FEG Consulting and Save the Children UK. Online document. The Practitioner’s Guide to Household Economy Approach. FEG Consulting and Save the Children UK: Regional Hunger and Vulnerability Program, 2008. http://feg-consulting.com/resource/practitioners-guide-to-hea/practition…

FEWER, International Alert, and Saferworld. Online document. Conflict-Sensitive Approaches to Development, Humanitarian Assistance, and Peace Building: Tools for Peace and Conflict Impact Assistance. Fewer, International Alert, and Saferworld, 2004. Reference document including list of existing conflict analysis tools. http://www.conflictsensitivity.org/resource_pack.html

International Alert. Online document. Conflict-Sensitive Business Practice: Guidance for Extractive Industries. London: International Alert, 2005. A step-by-step analysis and implementation guide for business investments. http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2005/security_conflict_sensitive_business.pdf

International Labor Organization. Crisis Response: Rapid Needs Assessment Manual. Geneva: ILO. 2002.

———. ILO’s Generic Crisis Response Modules. InFocus Program on Crisis Response and Reconstruction. Geneva: ILO, Recovery and Reconstruction Department, 2001. http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/crisis/download/modules.pdf

———. Manual of Training and Employment Options for Ex-combatants. ILO, 1997.
http://www.ilo.org/public/english/employment/crisis/download/excombe.pdf

OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation Development). “Guidance on Evaluating Conflict Prevention and Peace-Building Activities.” Working draft. Paris: OECD, 2008. http://www.oecd.org/secure/pdfDocument/0,2834,fr_21571361_21570391_39774…

OxfamGreat Britain, International Rescue Committee, InterAction, and Practical Action Consulting with support from US Office for Foreign Disaster Assistance. Emergency Market Mapping and Analysis (EMMA) Toolkit. Forthcoming 2009.

U.K. Department for International Development. Conducting Conflict Assessments: Guidance Notes. London: UK DFID, 2002. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/pubs/files/conflictassessmentguidance.pdf

United Nations Global Compact. Online document. Global Compact Business Guide for Conflict Impact Assessment and Risk Management. UN Global Compact, 2002. http://www.unglobalcompact.org/docs/issues_doc/7.2.3/BusinessGuide.pdf

U.S. Agency for International Development. Conducting a Conflict Assessment: A Framework for Strategy and Program Development. Washington, DC: USAID, Office of Conflict Management and Mitigation, 2005. http://www.usaid.gov/our_work/cross-cutting_programs/conflict/publicatio…

World Bank. The Conflict Analysis Framework: Identifying Conflict-related Obstacles to Development. Dissemination Notes, no. 5. Washington, DC: World Bank, Conflict Prevention and Reconstruction Unit, 2002.
http://siteresources.worldbank.org/INTCPR/214578-1111751313696/20480168/...