According to Need? Needs assessment and decision-making in the humanitarian sector Study Launch London, 25 September 2003 Humanitarian Policy Group

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Background and problem statement Origins – defining the problem Impartiality & the inequity of allocations Prioritising the most urgent cases Proportionate and appropriate response Trust and credibility An agenda of common concern – agency and donor

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group The ODI study Aim Scope, approach, constraints 3 main areas of focus – Conceptual: definitions, criteria, thresholds – Practice of needs assessment – Decision-making and needs analysis

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Findings 1: definitions, criteria, thresholds Assessing severity – need and risk Needs and rights – a false dichotomy Lack of consistently applied thresholds Different interpretations of ‘humanitarian need’ and ‘crisis’

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Findings 2: Assessment practice Lack of formal, stand-alone assessments Progress on technical level. But process is haphazard and largely uncoordinated Inconsistent measurement of key indicators: mortality, morbidity, manutrit. A ‘front-loaded’ process

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Findings 3: Assessment practice cont’d Assessing food security and nutrition Assessing health needs ‘Response’ vs ‘needs’ assessments Criteria for good assessment

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Findings 4: Decision-making Resource led? Assessment tied to funding processes Assessments conducted by implementing agencies - trust, objectivity? Mutual ‘construction’ of crises Needs analysis and other factors in decision-making

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Findings 5: Decision-making cont’d Disconnect between needs assessment and top-level decision-making? Transparency of donor and agency entry/exit criteria Assessment and accountability

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Issues arising Demographics ‘Numbers affected’ and ‘vulnerable groups’ Assessing protection threats The cost of assessments Needs responsiveness and the dangers of ‘normalisation’ Assessed and unassessed need

‘People affected’: spheres of risk Threats that are: 1.Actual 2.Imminent 3. Potential

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Recommendations 1 Core criteria: threats to life, health, subsistence, physical security –actual or imminent threats => Levels of acute risk Agreed thresholds, universally applied: - mortality, morbidity, malnutrition - protection?

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Recommendations 2 Routine measurement of key indicators => surveillance Assessment task forces - heads of sectoral working groups; CHAP - independent assessors?

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Recommendations 3 Sectoral issues - e.g. WHO and UNICEF joint health assessment Assessment task forces - heads of sectoral working groups; CHAP - independent assessors?

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Some questions for discussion 1  Is the analogy with emergency medicine appropriate?  Risk and needs analysis  The link with impact assessment  What do we assume about levels of dependency on relief?

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Some questions for discussion 2  Expert consensus and sectoral working groups  A humanitarian ‘index’?  Independent assessment capacity?  Funding assessments  Assessment, monitoring, evaluation

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Implications for donors and the CAP Objectivity, credibility, trust A proposal is not an assessment… What goes into the CAP? Prioritisation etc. Need for a ‘deal’ between agencies & donors Agency commitment to quality of assessment Donor commitment to consistent needs- based responses

HPG Humanitarian Policy Group Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD Tel: Fax: Website: