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

2. Gaza Shelter Response Evaluation
Rationale:
$236m recorded on FTS between
$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

3. 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

4. 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)

5. 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)

6. 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