Shelter Cluster Palestine Building cluster capacity for assessments Shelter Cluster Coordination Workshop, Geneva, 2nd October 2017

Gaza Shelter Response Evaluation Rationale: $236m recorded on FTS between 2014-2016 $626.5m recorded on norg.report - $9m initial emergency response/winterization; $6m T-shelter/caravans; $<90m cash for rent; $207m repairs; $335m reconstruction Two-phased approach with support of REACH: Phase I: Qualitative Lessons Learned exercise To gather and collate collective knowledge, experiences and best practices Phase II: Quantitative Data collection To test/validate qualitative data and gain statistically significant data on key achievements and residual needs  Overall recommendations for future response

Phase 1: Qualitative participative evaluation July - September 2016: ‘Lessons Learned’ exercise to capture sector knowledge Secondary data review Lessons Learned workshop Online survey Purposively sampled semi-structured KIIs Reflections: External REACH facilitator with good knowledge of context Focus on humanitarian (emergency response, temporary assistance and durable repairs) clarified cluster scope Results: Need for better prioritization and targeting of assistance Need for agreed minimum shelter standard Need for quantitative data verification of findings

Phase 2: Quantitative data collection October – December 2016: Household survey of 1,037 households (vs 1,195) Sampled per damage category 95% confidence +/- 5.64% 25 teams, 14 days, budget $30,000 incl partner contributions Reflections: Keep ToR/objectives in mind Be clear on roles/responsibilities Clarity in questions: Damage asst data vs beneficiary perception Lack of distinction in cash assistance Results: Presented to donors to highlight recommendations for future response and outstanding needs MPWH revised shelter assistance policy (discussions ongoing)

Minimum standards housing conditions survey Minimum standards TWG: Support from GSC Technical Surge Coordinator 30 criteria agreed by SC partners Coordination and buy-in from MPWH Housing conditions survey: 2012 report by NRC – no quantitative information Representative sample from two sources MCIT population registration MoSA hardship cases 95% confidence +/- 4.56% 20 teams, 10 days, budget $13,000 (+ in kind)

Building cluster capacity for assessments REACH evaluation: Buy in from cluster members on outcome level/better monitoring Set agenda for cluster workplan/TWGs Influence on MPWH policy and CB on IM Housing conditions survey: Experience used to inform cluster-led survey Shelter standard in MIC, coord with MPWH/MoSA Data used for HNO PiN Definition of IDP? Now in process of data analysis  Capacity building for IM/report writing