Jordan - humanitarianresponse.info · 10/3/2018 · 10/3/2018 Prime 1/48 Final report Cluster...

10/3/2018 Prime

https://primewho.org/reports/publish?projectId=1104&reportGenerator=ccpm 1/48

Final report

Cluster Coordination Performance Monitoring

Jordan Level : National Completed on: 03 October - 2018

10/3/2018 Prime



Overall response rate (Based on the number of organizations that are part of the cluster

Total

0 %Total number of partners

0

Number partners responding

22

International NGOsTotal

0 %Total number ofpartners

0

Number partnersresponding

14

National NGOsTotal


0


2

UN AgenciesTotal


0


4

National AuthoritiesTotal


0


0

DonorsTotal


0


2

OtherTotal


0


0

10/3/2018 Prime



Effective response rate (Based on the average number of organizations participating to cluster meetings

Total

0 %Total number of partners

0

Number partners responding

22

International NGOsTotal


0


14

National NGOsTotal


0


2

UN AgenciesTotal


0


4

National AuthoritiesTotal


0


0

DonorsTotal


0


2

OtherTotal


0


0

10/3/2018 Prime



Overall Performance

Score

> 75 % 51 % - 75 % 26 % - 50 % < 26 %

Performancestatus

Good Satisfactory Unsatisfactory Weak

1 Supporting service delivery

1.1 Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven bythe agreed strategic priorities

Good

1.2 Developing mechanisms that eliminate duplication of servicedelivery

Good

2Informing strategic decision-making of the HumanitarianCoordinator/Humanitarian Country Team

2.1 Needs assessment and gap analysis Satisfactory

2.2 Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles,duplication, and cross-cutting issues

Satisfactory

2.3 Prioritizing on the basis of response analysis Unsatisfactory

3 Planning and strategy development

3.1 Developing sectoral plans, objectives and indicators thatdirectly support HC/HCT strategic priorities

Satisfactory

3.2 Adherence to and application of standards and guidelines Satisfactory

3.3 Clarifying funding needs, prioritization, and clustercontributions to HC funding needs

Satisfactory

4 Advocacy

4.1 Identifying advocacy concerns that contribute to HC andHCT messaging and action

Good

4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of clusterparticipants and affected people

Satisfactory

5Monitoring and reporting on implementation of clusterstrategy and results Satisfactory

6 Preparedness for recurrent disasters Satisfactory

7 Accountability to affected populations Good

10/3/2018 Prime



Performance per function and review


1.1 Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities

List of partners regularly updated 0%

Adequate frequency of cluster meetings 100%

Attendance of cluster partners to cluster meetings 100%

Level of decision making power of staff attending cluster meetings 50%

Conditions for optimal participation of national and international stakeholders 100%

Writing of minutes of cluster meetings with action points 0%

Usefulness of cluster meetings for discussing needs, gaps and priorities 75%

Useful strategic decision taken within the cluster 75%

Attendance of cluster coordinator to HCT and ICC meetings 0%

Support/engagement of cluster with national coordination mechanisms 0%

Indicative characteristics offunctions

Established, relevant coordination mechanism recognising national systems,subnational and co-lead aspects; stakeholders participating regularly andeffectively; cluster coordinator active in inter-cluster and related meetings.

Constraints, unexpectedcircumstances and/or successfactors and/or good practiceidentified

*Constraints: -In mid-2017, gap in HCC for so. Syria. Momentum was lost. -Major gap in Information Management Officer (IMO) support for so. Syria HCCthroughout response (2014 – 2018) -Sharing contacts was a challenge givenconfidentiality of cross border context -Lack of face-to-face access to localauthorities -Content of discussions w/ other bodies not always shared. -Decision-making authority may need to revert back to HQ or donor policies. *GoodPractice: -regular, predictable monthly meetings -IA collaboration was strong -Efficient, comms/sharing of information by HCCs

Follow-up actions, withtimeline and/or supportrequired (when status isorange or red)

-Co-lead structure and WHO (who has mandate) should ensure gap coverage forHCC role. -Ensure dedicated IMO support -Coordination actors (health clusterplus other sectors and OCHA) should “universalize” an information-sharingprotocol to protect individual actors but ensure ease of information-sharingacross levels, sectors and hubs -Cluster should increase visibility CBTF/ ISWGparticipation and discussion.

Good

10/3/2018 Prime



1.2 Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery

Mapping of partner geographic presence and programme activities updated as needed 0%

Inputs of health partners into mapping of partner geographic presence and programme activities 75%

Involvement of partners into analysis of gaps and overlaps based on mapping 100%

Analysis of gaps and overlaps based on mapping used by partners for decision-making 75%


Cluster partner engagement in dynamic mapping of presence and capacity (4W);information sharing across clusters in line with joint Strategic Objectives.


*Constraints: -Lack of regular mapping exercises -Mapping of partners’activities was often uncertain due to funding uncertainties -Mapping a challengealso because: a) support to a health facility wasn’t holistic; b) facilities oftenaspired to classify themselves at higher service level -Mapping also constrainedby strict information sharing protocol (ISP) *Good Practice: Cluster leads heldbilateral/trilateral meetings with partners whenever duplication was detected


-Cluster should ensure dedicated IMO support to enable mapping -Longer term,multi-year funding modalities could help in protracted crisis setting like Syria -Cluster should promote adoption of Essential Health Services Package (orsimilar) to help with mapping of support -Donors’ requests for proposals shouldbe gaps-driven and should be linked to adoption of/ compliance with essentialservices package. -Cluster should improve collab/coord with other hubs -OCHA& sectors should “universalize” an information-sharing protocol to protectindividual actors but ensure ease of information-sharing

Good

10/3/2018 Prime



2 Informing strategic decision-making of the Humanitarian Coordinator/Humanitarian Country Team

2.1 Needs assessment and gap analysis

Use of cluster agreed tools and guidance for needs assessments 75%

Involvement of partners in joint needs assessments 75%

Sharing by partners of their assessment reports 62%


Use of assessment tools in accordance with agreed minimum standards,individual assessment / survey results shared and/or carried out jointly asappropriate.


*Constraints: -As in 1.2, mapping of partners activities was constrained by strictinfo sharing protocol (ISP) -Delays in key info sharing (e.g. HeRAMS) byWHO/HCC -Inconsistency in IM forms (many changes and updates) -Remotecontext and access challenges made it difficult to train staff and roll out a“universal” monitoring / assessment tool -Lack of universal Health InformationSystem (HIS) and operational constraints like access, internet, etc. *GoodPractice: -Meta-analysis effort of Health Services and Population Health StatusReport was helpful in the absence of cluster-wide survey


-Cluster should carry out monitoring of partners (compliance) -As mentioned in1.1 and 1.2, coordination actors (health cluster plus other sectors and OCHA)should “universalize” an information-sharing protocol to protect individualactors but ensure ease of information-sharing across levels, sectors and hubs -Cluster should prioritize HeRAMS roll out to allow comparison and dataaggregation across hubs

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



2.2 Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and cross-cutting issues

Analyses of situations done together with cluster partners 100%

Analyses of situations identified risk 75%

Analyses of situations identified needs 75%

Analyses of situations identified gaps in response 75%

Analyses of situations identified capacity in response 87%

Analyses of situations identified constraints to respond 87%

Age (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 75%

Gender (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 75%

Diversity – other than age and gender- (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 50%

Human rights (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 75%

Protection, including gender-based violence (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 100%

Environment (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 50%

HIV/AIDS (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 50%

Disability (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses 50%


Joint analysis for current and anticipated risks, needs, gaps and constraints; crosscutting issues addressed from outset.


*Constraints: -Unclear relationship with local authorities/non-state Directoratesof Health (DOH) -Lack of IMO to aggregate and support analysis of 4W dataand other data sources. -Lack of joint gaps analysis and strategy developmentwith other sectors (e.g. protection, WASH) *Good Practice: -Good engagementwith partners in one-off issues of duplication -Whenever partners had doneassessments, they used the cluster as a platform to disseminate results viapresentation and discussion.


-Cluster should ensure more field involvement and participation in prioritizationand strategy -As mentioned in 1.1 and 1.2, cluster should ensure dedicated IMOsupport to enable analysis AND support partners with data collectionimprovement and implementing some kind of universal data collection tool. -Cluster should involve other sectors in planning exercises.

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



2.3 Prioritizing on the basis of response analysis

Joint analyses supporting response planning 50%


Joint analysis supporting response planning and prioritisation in short andmedium term.


*Constraints: -Priorities seemed to be driven more by donors than assessments -Analysis was largely focused on geography rather than at-risk populations


-Cluster should ensure Duty of Care is ready BEFORE crisis -Cluster shouldconduct analysis and prioritization around vulnerability, at-risk populations,under-served populations, etc -Cluster should use analysis and prioritization toregularly message / advocate for health sector needs.

Unsatisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime




3.1 Developing sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support HC/HCT strategic priorities

Strategic plan developed 0%

Partners involved in the development of strategic plan 75%

Sectoral strategic plan includes objectives, activities and indicators 0%

Sectoral strategic plan reviewed against host government strategy 0%

Age (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Gender (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Diversity – other than age and gender- (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Human rights (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Protection, including gender-based violence (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Environment (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

HIV/AIDS (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Disability (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan 0%

Strategic plan shows synergies with other sectors 0%

Strategic plan used by partners for guiding response 75%

Deactivation criteria and phasing out strategy formulated together with partners 0%


Strategic plan based on identified priorities, shows synergies with other sectorsagainst strategic objectives, addresses cross cutting issues, incorporates exitstrategy discussion and is developed jointly with partners. Plan is updatedregularly and guides response.


*Constraints: -1 year work plan was created but change in context preventedfrom completion -No holistic analysis of cluster’s “coverage” under HRP;neither geographic need nor funding. -No mid-term review -No integrated exitplan *Good Practice: -Sharing of all emails from OCHA related to HRP so theycan serve as a reference point for partners’ planning


-Cluster should work more closely with and empower the local authorities/non-state Directorates of Health -Whole of Syria HCC should develop a StrategicPlan that can be easily monitored at hub level -Cluster should ensure pro-activeexit planning which should include guidance on duty of care, closing out ofprograms and de-activation of cluster. -Cluster should ensure that any exitplan/transition strategy should involve DOH and Damascus colleagues inaddition to cluster.

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



3.2 Adherence to and application of standards and guidelines

National and international standards and guidance identified and adapted as required 0%

Technical standards and guidance agreed upon and used by partners 75%


Use of existing national standards and guidelines where possible. Standards andguidance are agreed to, adhered to and reported against.


*Constraints: -Essential Health Services Package (EHSP) never implemented -Referral network was not implemented due to funding constraints -Qualityframework was not finalized -For HRP, partners may have had a gap inunderstanding how to align and harmonize with HRP. -Key gaps in decision-making and setting of standards like finalizing salary scale. -Duality of structureslike NGO working group, non-state DOH


-Cluster should endorse and implement existing guidelines -Cluster shouldmonitor implementation of and adherence to guidelines and standards. -Clusterleadership and guidance is needed for partners to align with HRP -Cluster shouldtackle salary scale uniformity early on to prevent difficulties among staff on theground and among cluster members.

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



3.3 Clarifying funding needs, prioritization, and cluster contributions to HC funding needs

Prioritization of proposals against the strategic plan jointly determined with partners based on agreedtransparent criteria

75%

Prioritization of proposals against strategic plan fair to all partners 75%

Cluster supported and facilitated access to funding sources by partners 0%

Regular reporting on funding status 75%


Funding requirements determined with partners, allocation under jointly agreedcriteria and prioritisation, status tracked and information shared.


*Constraints: -Not all partners are part of HRP and therefore, FTS data collectionis incomplete


-Cluster should conduct regular data collection on funding status of partners inorder to link with messaging on gaps and needs mentioned in 2.3

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



4 Advocacy

4.1 Identifying advocacy concerns that contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action

Issues requiring advocacy identified and discussed together with partners 100%


Concerns for advocacy identified with partners, including gaps, access, resourceneeds.


*Constraints: Geographic area of focus was not well-defined (e.g. EasternGhouta) Best Practice: -Active involvement and participation of Syrian NGOs -Regular communication with local authorities / non-state DOH -Observermembers had active role in the cluster -Active participation of donors in cluster -Active participation of OCHA in sector


-Cluster should continue to engage a range of diverse actors to ensure broad-based support of health cluster advocacy issues. -Cluster should engage withSyrian NGO Forum (SIRF) -Cluster should continue to engage regularly withdonors

Good

10/3/2018 Prime



4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and affected people

Advocacy activities agreed upon and undertaken with partners 75%


Common advocacy campaign agreed and delivered across partners.


*Good Practice: -For restricted supplies, cluster engaged in co-advocacy withOCHA and donors -Cluster leads met regularly with key stakeholders andmanagement bodies -Cluster leads engaged regularly and provided consistentinputs to humanitarian architecture which provided a platform to advocate forhealth priorities.


-Cluster should continue to advocate for protection of health care workersbefore, during and after crisis. This should engage Global HCC, OCHA, WHOand others. -Cluster should strengthen advocacy for Hard-to-Reach andneglected areas -Cluster should promote inclusive Duty of Care policies(irrespective of contract type) among agencies. -Particularly in a remote context,health cluster should continuously advocate for: a) unrestricted movement ofcritically ill patients in order to access care; b) access to health care workers forcapacity-building

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



5 Monitoring and reporting on implementation of cluster strategy and results

Monitoring and reporting on implementation of cluster strategy and results

Programme monitoring formats agreed upon and used by cluster partners 75%

Information shared by partners reflected in cluster reports 0%

Regular publication of progress reports based on agreed indicators for monitoring humanitarian response 0%

Regular publication of cluster bulletins 0%

Changes in needs, risk and gaps highlighted in cluster reports and used for decision-making by partners 75%

Response and monitoring of the cluster taking into account the needs, contributions and capacities ofwomen, girls, men and boys

75%


Use of monitoring tools in accordance with agreed minimum standards, regularreport sharing, progress mapped against agreed strategic plan, any necessarycorrections identified.


*Constraints: -As mentioned above, no dedicated IMO -As mentioned in 2.1,inconsistency in IM forms (too many changes and updates) -Delays in sharingresults -No health cluster bulletins published at start of response (2015 – 2017) -No progress reports (due to lack of strategy and indicators) -Lack of authorityand capacity within cluster to monitor or enforce decisions -Partners reportingand participation was not consistent


-As mentioned in 1.1, 1.2, and 2.2, cluster should ensure dedicated IMO support-Key health cluster products should be produced (e.g. HCC bulletin, HeRAMS,etc)

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



6 Preparedness for recurrent disasters

Preparedness for recurrent disasters

National contingency plans identified and shared 0%

Partners contributed to initial or updated risk assessments and analysis 0%

Partners involved in development of preparedness plan 100%

Partners committed staff and/or resources towards preparedness plan 50%

Early warning reports shared with partners 0%


National contingency plans identified and shared; risk assessment and analysiscarried out, multisectoral where appropriate; readiness status enhanced; regulardistribution of early warning reports.


*Constraints: -While preparedness and response plan was put in place, wasn’tsufficiently rolled out. -Unconventional emergency: extended period of relativecalm that also included elements of health system strengthening followed by asudden onset of events, the speed of which was so quick and brief, still wereunprepared -IDP movements did not match predictions -Restricted access limitedability to pre-position -Lack of “forcing function” to engage in advancepreparedness – elements of denial in mindset *Good Practice: -Planningworkshop was very helpful and had broad participation


-Cluster should monitor partners to ensure preparedness plan is implemented,that partners are complying by dedicated resources to the plan, and that the planis updated in real time. -Cluster should include Duty of Care in preparednessplanning -Cluster should include cross-line response in preparedness planning -Cluster should include key operational constraints like access to cash and fuel inpreparedness planning

Satisfactory

10/3/2018 Prime



7 Accountability to affected populations

Accountability to affected populations

Mechanisms to consult and involve population in decision-making agreed upon and applied by partners 75%

Mechanisms to receive, investigate and act upon complaints about assistance received agreed upon andapplied by partners

100%


Accountability to affected population; agencies have investigated and, asappropriate, acted upon feedback received about the assistance provided.


*Constraints: -Although each agency had its own complaints mechanism, noinvolvement of or sharing with cluster -Remote context made it challenging toengage beneficiaries in project design -Funding constraints / changes in donorapproach made it a challenge to keep promises to populations


Cluster should: -Convene a consortium and/or task force to ensure review andresponse to complaints across the sector. -Explore use of alternate monitoringmechanisms, e.g. social media. -Collaborate w/ other sectors to: a) improveaccountability and protection (espec. in remote context) and b) developguidelines for working with local authorities to help them serve as a safeguard -Hire third party monitors to improve oversight/monitoring in remote context(e.g. protection cluster engaged an independent agency to do regularlycommunity-based monitoring) -Conduct CPM regularly

Good

10/3/2018 Prime



Answer distributions and comments

0 General

Comments

UNFPA is the GBV sub-cluster lead, and is a member in protection cluster

I am GBV sub cluster coordinator

none

Attended mainly to receive information without the ability to share a high amount of information as the operation in the related area was mainly conducted byvolunteers on a small scale.

10/3/2018 Prime




1.1 Provide a platform to ensure that service delivery is driven by the agreed strategic priorities

1.1.1 List of partners regularly updated

1.1.2 Adequate frequency of cluster meetings

PartnersHas the list of cluster partners (including members and observers) been updated as needed?

No meetings have been held

Not at all satisfied

Rather unsatisfied

Fairly satisfied

Very satisfied

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

10/3/2018 Prime


1.1.3 Attendance of cluster partners to cluster meetings

PartnersAre you satisfied with the frequency of cluster meetings?

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Always

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60%

1.1.4 Level of decision making power of staff attending cluster meetings

PartnersHave minutes been taken at cluster meetings, with action points?

They had limited decision-making authority and some ability tofollow-up on decisions made

They had full decision-making authority and were fully able to follow-up on decisions made

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60%

10/3/2018 Prime


1.1.5 Conditions for optimal participation of national and international stakeholders

PartnersHave members and observers attended cluster meetings?

It was very difficult to attend and participate in cluster meetings

It was quite difficult to attend and participate in cluster meetings

It was fairly easy to attend and participate in cluster meetings

It was very easy to attend and participate in cluster meetings

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

1.1.6 Writing of minutes of cluster meetings with action points

1.1.7 Usefulness of cluster meetings for discussing needs, gaps and priorities

PartnersHave cluster meetings been useful in helping partners to discuss needs, gaps and priorities?

No

To a limited extent

Quite a lot

Definitely

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

10/3/2018 Prime


1.1.8 Useful strategic decision taken within the cluster

PartnersHave you regularly attended humanitarian inter-sectoral coordination meetings, such as inter-cluster coordination meetings or country team meetings?

No strategic decisions were taken

Strategic decisions were taken but they were not useful

Strategic decisions were taken and they were somewhat useful

Strategic decisions were taken and they were mostly useful

Strategic decisions were taken and they were very useful

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

1.1.9 Attendance of cluster coordinator to HCT and ICC meetings

1.1.10 Support/engagement of cluster with national coordination mechanisms

1.2 Develop mechanisms to eliminate duplication of service delivery

1.2.1 Mapping of partner geographic presence and programme activities updated as needed

10/3/2018 Prime


1.2.2 Inputs of health partners into mapping of partner geographic presence and programme activities

PartnersHas the cluster regularly mapped what partners are doing and where they are working (via 3W and similar mechanisms)?

Mapping has been done but my organization did not contribute

Mapping has been done and my organization contributed far lessoften than required

Mapping has been done and my organization contributed less oftenthan required

Mapping has been done and my organization contributed almost asoften as required

Mapping has been done and my organization contributed as often asrequired

Not applicable (for example, because my organization is a donor)

No mapping has been done

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

1.2.3 Involvement of partners into analysis of gaps and overlaps based on mapping

PartnersHow many partners have helped to map programme activities and their geographical presence?

Analyses have been done but my organization was not invited toparticipate

My organization was invited to participate but did not do so

My organization participated but its contribution was not adequatelytaken into account

My organization participated and its contribution was taken intoaccount somewhat adequately

My organization participated and its contribution was adequatelytaken into account

Not applicable (for example, because my organization has observerstatus or is not engaged in this cluster activity.)

No analyses of capacity and complementarity have been undertaken

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

10/3/2018 Prime


1.2.4 Analysis of gaps and overlaps based on mapping used by partners for decision-making

PartnersHas the cluster used information on programme activities and partners’ geographical presence to analyse capacity and complementarity (gaps and overlaps).Has that information influenced cluster partners’ decisions?

Never

Seldom

Sometimes

Often

Always

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Comments

The cluster has been very proactive and responsive to service delivery through development of assessment tools, convening sub-committee and ad-hocmeetings to follow up on decisions and actions

Health cluster actively engage with GBV WG in terms of joint initiative and mainstreaming

I answered not applicable because my feeling is that, even tough the information have been shared to the Cluster lead, no actual mapping was then shared backto the INGO (MMU mapping, HF mapping as just two example - INGO provided the information but no map was shared to INGO to help in the strategicplan)

As mentioned before, we mainly participated to receive information in order to start our projects as we did not implement in a bigger scale yet in the relatedarea.

10/3/2018 Prime



2 Informing strategic decision-making of the Humanitarian Coordinator/Humanitarian Country Team

2.1 Needs assessment and gap analysis

2.1.1 Use of cluster agreed tools and guidance for needs assessments

PartnersHave cluster partners used jointly agreed sectoral needs assessment tools and guidance?

Assessment tools and guidance have been agreed but my organizationhas not used them

Assessment tools and guidance have been agreed but my organizationhas seldom used them

Assessment tools and guidance have been agreed and myorganization has sometimes used them

Assessment tools and guidance have been agreed and myorganization has often used them

Assessment tools and guidance have been agreed and myorganization has always used them

No assessment tools and guidance have been agreed

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.1.2 Involvement of partners in joint needs assessments

PartnersHave cluster partners been involved in coordinated sectoral needs assessments and surveys?

Coordinated assessments and surveys have been done but myorganization has not been involved

My organization has rarely been involved in coordinated assessmentsand surveys

My organization has sometimes been involved in coordinatedassessments and surveys

My organization has been involved in most coordinated assessmentsand surveys

My organization has been involved in all coordinated assessments andsurveys

Not applicable (for example because my organization has observerstatus or is not engaged in this cluster activity.)

No coordinated assessments or surveys have been done

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2.1.3 Sharing by partners of their assessment reports

PartnersHave cluster partners shared their own surveys and assessments with the cluster?

My organization has shared none of its survey or assessment reports

My organization has shared few of its survey and assessment reports

My organization has shared some of its survey and assessment reports

My organization has shared most survey and assessment reports

My organization has shared all its survey and assessment reports


No surveys or assessments have been done

Do not know

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

2.2 Analysis to identify and address (emerging) gaps, obstacles, duplication, and cross-cutting issues

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.1 Analyses of situations done together with cluster partners

PartnersHave you done situation analyses together with cluster partners?

No

Yes

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60%

2.2.2 Analyses of situations identified risk

PartnersHave these analyses identified risks, needs, gaps, capacity to respond, and constraints?

Not identified

Partially identified

Mostly identified

Fully identified

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.3 Analyses of situations identified needs


Not identified


Mostly identified

Fully identified

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

2.2.4 Analyses of situations identified gaps in response


Not identified


Mostly identified

Fully identified

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.5 Analyses of situations identified capacity in response


Not identified


Mostly identified

Fully identified

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

2.2.6 Analyses of situations identified constraints to respond


Not identified


Mostly identified

Fully identified

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.7 Age (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses

PartnersHave these analyses considered cross-cutting issues?

Not considered

Partially considered

Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

2.2.8 Gender (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.9 Diversity – other than age and gender- (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

2.2.10 Human rights (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.11 Protection, including gender-based violence (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

2.2.12 Environment (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

10/3/2018 Prime


2.2.13 HIV/AIDS (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2.2.14 Disability (cross-cutting issue) considered in analyses


Not considered


Mostly considered

Fully considered

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

2.3 Prioritizing on the basis of response analysis

10/3/2018 Prime


2.3.1 Joint analyses supporting response planning

PartnersHave these analyses supported response planning and prioritization?

Never

Sometimes

Often

Always

Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60%

Comments

Another example is the HERMAS that was done in June 2017 and never shared back

10/3/2018 Prime




3.1 Developing sectoral plans, objectives and indicators that directly support HC/HCT strategic priorities

3.1.1 Strategic plan developed

3.1.2 Partners involved in the development of strategic plan

PartnersHas a cluster strategic plan been developed?

A plan has been developed but my organization was not asked toparticipate

My organization was asked to help develop the plan but it did notcontribute

My organization helped develop the plan but its contribution was notadequately taken into account

My organization helped develop the plan and its contribution wastaken into account somewhat adequately

My organization helped develop the plan and its contribution wasadequately taken into account


The cluster has not developed its strategic plan

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30%

3.1.3 Sectoral strategic plan includes objectives, activities and indicators

3.1.4 Sectoral strategic plan reviewed against host government strategy

3.1.5 Age (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.6 Gender (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.7 Diversity – other than age and gender- (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.8 Human rights (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.9 Protection, including gender-based violence (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.10 Environment (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.11 HIV/AIDS (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

10/3/2018 Prime


3.1.12 Disability (cross-cutting issue) considered in strategic plan

3.1.13 Strategic plan shows synergies with other sectors

3.1.14 Strategic plan used by partners for guiding response

PartnersDoes the cluster’s strategic plan include objectives, activities and indicators?

A strategic plan exists but it has not been shared with my organization

The strategic plan has been shared but my organization has not usedit

The strategic plan has been shared and my organization hassometimes used it

The strategic plan has been shared and my organization has oftenused it

The strategic plan has been shared and my organization has alwaysused it

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

3.1.15 Deactivation criteria and phasing out strategy formulated together with partners

3.2 Adherence to and application of standards and guidelines

3.2.1 National and international standards and guidance identified and adapted as required

10/3/2018 Prime


3.2.2 Technical standards and guidance agreed upon and used by partners

PartnersHave national and international standards and guidance been identified, adapted in consultation with national authorities (when necessary), and shared withpartners?

No technical standards/guidelines have been agreed

Technical standards/guidelines have been agreed but my organizationhas not used them

Technical standards/guidelines have been agreed and my organizationhas sometimes used them

Technical standards/guidelines have been agreed and my organizationhas often used them

Technical standards/guidelines have been agreed and my organizationhas always used them

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

3.3 Clarifying funding needs, prioritization, and cluster contributions to HC funding needs

3.3.1 Prioritization of proposals against the strategic plan jointly determined with partners based on agreed transparent criteria

PartnersHave cluster partners participated in prioritizing proposals against the strategic plan? Were transparent criteria agreed?

No transparent criteria were agreed and partners did not jointlyprioritize proposals

Transparent criteria have not been agreed but partners jointlyprioritized proposals

Transparent criteria were agreed but partners did not jointly prioritizeproposals

Transparent criteria were agreed and partners jointly prioritizedproposals to some extent

Transparent criteria were agreed and partners were fully involved inprioritizing proposals

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

10/3/2018 Prime


3.3.2 Prioritization of proposals against strategic plan fair to all partners

PartnersWere proposals prioritized against the strategic plan in a manner that was fair to all partners?

Proposals were not prioritized against the strategic plan

Proposals were prioritized but in a manner that was unfair to partners

Proposals were prioritized in a manner that was unfair to the majorityof partners

Proposals were prioritized in a manner that was fair to the majority ofpartners

Proposals were prioritized in a manner that was fair to all partners

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

3.3.3 Cluster supported and facilitated access to funding sources by partners

3.3.4 Regular reporting on funding status

PartnersHas the cluster assisted partners to access funds (for example by including their proposals in appeals or applications to the Emergency Response Fund orCommon Humanitarian Fund)?

Never

Far less often than needed

Less often than needed

Almost as often as needed

As often as needed

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

10/3/2018 Prime


Comments

The contribution of the Cluster was very poor and did not take the lead in coordinating among INGO

10/3/2018 Prime



4 Advocacy

4.1 Identifying advocacy concerns that contribute to HC and HCT messaging and action

4.1.1 Issues requiring advocacy identified and discussed together with partners

PartnersHas the cluster identified issues requiring advocacy and discussed them with partners?

No advocacy issues have been discussed

Advocacy issues have been discussed but my organization was notinvited to participate

My organization was invited to discussions of advocacy issues but didnot participate

My organization participated in advocacy discussions but its viewswere not adequately considered

My organization participated in advocacy discussions and its viewswere adequately considered


Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

4.2 Undertaking advocacy activities on behalf of cluster participants and affected people

10/3/2018 Prime


4.2.1 Advocacy activities agreed upon and undertaken with partners

PartnersHave advocacy activities been agreed and undertaken together with partners?

The cluster has undertaken no advocacy

The cluster has undertaken advocacy but my organization was notinvited to participate

The cluster invited my organization to participate in its advocacy, butit did not do so

My organization has participated in some of the cluster’s advocacyactivities

My organization has participated in most of the cluster’s advocacyactivities

Not applicable (for example, because my organization has observerstatus or is not engaged in this cluster activity)

Do not know

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

Comments

No real advocacy activities were undertaken and even information requested by INGO didn't receive answer from the Cluster and it's link with Damascus orDonors or UN agency

Strong advocacy on duty of care for partners operating in SW.

10/3/2018 Prime



5 Monitoring and reporting on implementation of cluster strategy and results

5.1 Monitoring and reporting on implementation of cluster strategy and results

5.1.1 Programme monitoring formats agreed upon and used by cluster partners

PartnersIs the information that partners send reflected in cluster bulletins and updates?

No standards for monitoring and reporting have been agreed

Standards have been agreed but my organization does not use theseformats for reporting

Standards have been agreed and my organization has sometimes usedthese formats when it reports

Standards have been agreed and my organization has regularly usedthese formats when it reports

Standards have been agreed and my organization has used theseformats very regularly for reporting

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

5.1.2 Information shared by partners reflected in cluster reports

5.1.3 Regular publication of progress reports based on agreed indicators for monitoring humanitarian response

5.1.4 Regular publication of cluster bulletins

10/3/2018 Prime


5.1.5 Changes in needs, risk and gaps highlighted in cluster reports and used for decision-making by partners

PartnersHave partners used programme monitoring and reporting formats that cluster partners have agreed?

Cluster bulletins and other reports have not highlighted risks, gapsand changing needs.

My organization has not used cluster information on needs, risks andgaps for decision-making

My organization has sometimes used cluster information on needs,risks and gaps for decision-making

My organization has often used cluster information on needs, risksand gaps for decision-making

My organization has always used cluster information on needs, risksand gaps for decision-making

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

5.1.6 Response and monitoring of the cluster taking into account the needs, contributions and capacities of women, girls, men and boys

PartnersHas progress on programmes or the strategic plan been reported using agreed indicators for monitoring the humanitarian response? *

No

To a small extent

Partially

Mostly

Fully

Not applicable

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

Comments

10/3/2018 Prime



6 Preparedness for recurrent disasters

6.1 Preparedness for recurrent disasters

6.1.1 National contingency plans identified and shared

6.1.2 Partners contributed to initial or updated risk assessments and analysis

6.1.3 Partners involved in development of preparedness plan

PartnersHave national preparedness or contingency plans (sectoral or multi-sectoral) been identified and shared?

A preparedness plan has not been written or updated

A preparedness plan was drafted/updated but my organization wasnot invited to participate

My organization was invited to help develop/update the preparednessplan but did not do so

My organization helped develop/update the preparedness plan but itscontribution was inadequate

My organization helped develop/update the preparedness plan and itscontribution was adequate


Do not know

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

10/3/2018 Prime


6.1.4 Partners committed staff and/or resources towards preparedness plan

PartnersHave cluster partners contributed to initial risk assessments and analysis (including multi sectoral), or updates?

No staff or resources have been committed

Limited staff or resources have been committed

Adequate staff or resources have been committed

Not applicable (for example because my organization has observerstatus or is not engaging in this cluster activity.)

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

6.1.5 Early warning reports shared with partners

Comments

The preparedness was based on assessment and analysis there were wrong, misleading all INGO intervention in the area - INGO lost warehouses andpropositioned in the wrong places

10/3/2018 Prime



7 Accountability to affected populations

7.1 Accountability to affected populations

7.1.1 Mechanisms to consult and involve population in decision-making agreed upon and applied by partners

PartnersHave cluster partners agreed and applied mechanisms (procedures, tools or methodologies) for consulting and involving affected people in decision-making?*

Mechanisms have been agreed but my organization has not appliedthem

Mechanisms have been agreed but my organization has seldomapplied them

Mechanisms have been agreed and my organization has sometimesapplied them

Mechanisms have been agreed and my organization has often appliedthem

Mechanisms have been agreed and my organization has alwaysapplied them

No mechanisms for consultation/involvement have been agreed

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30%

10/3/2018 Prime


7.1.2 Mechanisms to receive, investigate and act upon complaints about assistance received agreed upon and applied by partners

PartnersHave cluster partners agreed and applied mechanisms (procedures, tools or methodologies) to receive, investigate and act on complaints about assistancereceived?*

An investigation/complaint mechanism has been agreed but myorganization has not applied it

An investigation/complaint mechanism has been agreed but myorganization has seldom applied it

An investigation/complaint mechanism has been agreed and myorganization has sometimes applied it

An investigation/complaint mechanism has been agreed and myorganization has often applied it

An investigation/complaint mechanism has been agreed and myorganization has always applied it

No investigation/complaint mechanism has been agreed

Do not know

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Comments

Although no agreement on AAP has been agreed collectively at the cluster level, some partners including my organization has this built in the partnershipagreement documents with implementing partners

questions on PSEA are misleading. my organization has PSEA mechanism but it is not sector responsability to set it the responsability is with the HC/RC

Very poor performance on this by the cluster lead.

Has not been relevant to our organization.

10/3/2018 Prime



8 Others

Comments

The cluster had experienced some break in continuity as a result of gap in filling the posts of the HSWG and WoS coordinators; also there has been delay infilling the IMO post with resultant gaps and inadequacies in the cluster bulletin and data which needs improvement in the future.

The answers above are for the South Syria Health sub-cluster.

The health cluster helped in putting an arranging the strategic and preparedness plans, but honestly speaking they were not really useful because partners werenot using them and they were reacting regarding their own plans which confused the others. I think the cluster should intensify the activity monitoringmethods in order to know what other INGO's ( participating in the cluster) are really doing or at least have them on the same line of what MOST of the otherINGO's agreed on.

The recent exercise of putting the contingency plan was very helpful and helped us and our IPs to procure supplies to fill the gap.

Overall the cluster Lead didn't provide any actual Coordination and moreover didn't shared back the documents and the mapping for which NGO providedinformation. As an example exercise that started with the Cluster (incentive list, HF mapping) were not continued when the cluster changed the leading personand the information sheared from there on where not shared back to provide guidance and help in strategic planning. My feeling was that the Cluster wasgathering information for their own internal reporting rather than coordination purposes. AS a result INGO created an informal working group in order toshare information and support each other when possible.

In spite of challenges as XB cluster, the cluster performed well.

Coordinators have done a good job of connecting actors with each other. Thank you

I would like to thank for the quick responses and availablity especially with the changing situation in Syria right now.

Date post:	21-Jul-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	0 times
Download:	0 times

Jordan - humanitarianresponse.info · 10/3/2018 · 10/3/2018 Prime 1/48 Final report Cluster...

Documents