Humanitarian Quality Assurance - Jordan: Evaluation of Syria crisis response | Oxfam | Jordan

Please download to get full document.

View again

of 2
All materials on our website are shared by users. If you have any questions about copyright issues, please report us to resolve them. We are always happy to assist you.
Information Report



Views: 14 | Pages: 2

Extension: PDF | Download: 0

Related documents
This evaluation report is presented as part of the Effectiveness Review series 2013/14, selected for review under the humanitarian response thematic area using the application of Oxfam’s Humanitarian Indicator Toolkit (HIT). The report presents the findings from the evaluation carried out between October and December 2013, of Oxfam’s humanitarian response to the Syria crisis in Jordan between March 2012 and December 2013. Three years of civil war in Syria has resulted in 2.2 million people fleeing across the border into neighbouring countries. Since 2011, more than 600,000 people from Syria have sought refuge in Jordan with several thousand arriving on some days in the peak period of January to April 2013. Oxfam worked with two partners providing food and hygiene items to refugees in a border community
  EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW SERIES ‘enhancing effectiveness through evidence-based learning’  EFFECTIVENESS REVIEW SERIES 2013/14: ARMENIA BOLIVIA COLOMBIA DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGOENGLAND ETHIOPIA GEORGIA HAITI HONDURAS INDONESIA JORDAN LEBANON MALAWI MALI   NEPAL NIGER PAKISTAN RUSSIA RWANDA SCOTLAND VIETNAM ZAMBIA ZIMBABWE The programme was evaluated using the Humanitarian Indicator Tool (HIT), a methodology designed to estimate the degree to which the programme meets recognised quality standards. The tool has 13 quality standards each with dened benchmarks, which allow evaluators to assess and score whether the standard was ‘met’, ”almost met”, ‘partially met’ or ‘not met’. The score is weighted and scored with a rating out of 6 for the rst three standards due to their relative importance. The other standards are given a rating out of 3. The HIT is carried out as a desk study by an external evaluator using documented evidence that then generates a score against each standard and a cumulative total. For details on evaluation design, see the ‘How are effectiveness reviews carried out?’ document, and the full report for how these designs were tailored by individual reviews. Evaluation Design Response date: June 2012 - December 2013 Evaluation: January 2014 Publication: February 2015 Jordan Three years of civil war in Syria has resulted in 2.2 million people eeing across the border into neighbouring countries. Since the start of the violence in 2011, over 600,000 people from Syria have sought refuge in Jordan with several thousand arriving some days in the peak period of January to April 2013. Over three quarters of the refugees live in poor quality and overcrowded rented accommodation in urban centres such as Balqa, Amman and Mafraq while 150-200,000 reside in refugee camps such as Zaatari that opened in July 2012. Oxfam has worked with two partners providing food and hygiene items to refugees in a border community; providing protection and advocacy work for Syrian refugees; WASH facilities in Zaatari camp; cash for rent vouchers and basic needs and recently Oxfam has also started to form peer support networks and provide technical support to local water authorities in host communities. By the end of 2013, Oxfam had reached over 120,000 beneciaries across the various components of the programme in Zaatari camp, Amman, Balqa and Zarqa, and continues to adapt its programme to the needs of older and new refugees from Syria. The response continues to date, as the conditions within Syria continue to deteriorate and the ow of refugees into neighbouring countries, including Jordan, is unabated. Evaluation of Syria crisis response Humanitarian 2013/14  Full version of this report and more information can be found at Oxfam’s Policy and Practice website: For more information, contact Oxfam’s Programme Quality Team - Going forward The effectiveness review highlighted areas that were essentially strong in the programme but also pinpointed some areas for improvement. The team are now addressing the fact that standards were not being used to measure technical quality: in Jordan the clusters together with NGOs are nalising Humanitarian Consortium standards that will incorporate Sphere and will be used across all programmes. The team have all started training on Sphere as well as ensuring that the standards are included in all future proposals. As partnerships were identied as a weakness, the team is trying to broaden the partnership base and has begun a mapping of potential partners especially for the longer term work in water and governance. Protection and advocacy has been strengthened by hiring qualied staff and doing training on protection; an advocacy strategy is being developed and will give a better steer to the advocacy work for the country programme in the coming year. Other areas being addressed is ensuring inclusion of vulnerable groups by revising the vulnerability criteria used; the nalisation of the Refugees perception study and a community consultation carried out around future programme design. Gender and safe guarding training was also carried out for all staff. All data will now be disaggregated by age and gender as this was an area identied as a gap. A contingency plan is being drawn up to cope with the continuing inux of refugees from Syria into Jordan. Results Photo credit: Jane Beesley/Oxfam 1. Timeliness: Rapid appraisal of facts within 24 hours, plans and scale-up or start-up commenced within three days 3. Technical aspects of programme measured against Sphere standards 2. Coverage uses 10% of affected population as a planned gure4. MEAL strategy and plan in place and being implemented using appropriate indicators 5. Feedback/complaints system in place and functioning and documented evidence of consultation and participation leading to a programme relevant to context and needs 1456 4 6 4 1.5 3 Almost met  Almost met Met Half met Fully met 6. Partner relationships dened, capacity assessed and partners fully engaged in all stages of programme cycle7. Programme is considered a safe programme9. Programme (including advocacy) addresses specic concerns and needs of vulnerable groups 8. Programme (including advocacy) addresses gender equity and specic concerns and needs of women, girls, men and boys 10. Evidence that preparedness measures were in place and effectively actioned12. Evidence of appropriate staff capacity to ensure quality programming 11. Programme has an advocacy/campaigns strategy based on evidence from the eld 21 Half met  Almost met Half met Partially met Partially met Half metHalf met 1.5 23 1.51.5 13. Programme has an integrated approachNot assessed Quality standard evaluated Final RatingPercentage Equivalent Rating 12328.5 / 4563% 1 1.5Level of achievement The rst three standards are weighted and scored out of 6 due to their relative importance. The other standards are scored out of 3.
View more...
We Need Your Support
Thank you for visiting our website and your interest in our free products and services. We are nonprofit website to share and download documents. To the running of this website, we need your help to support us.

Thanks to everyone for your continued support.

No, Thanks