Difference between revisions of "Indicators"

From IMSMA Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 9: Line 9:
 
}}
 
}}
  
−
== Important notes ==__NOEDITSECTION__
+
== Important meeting notes ==__NOEDITSECTION__
 
* Indicators cannot be isolated! They always have to be put in context with outcomes/objectives/etc.
 
* Indicators cannot be isolated! They always have to be put in context with outcomes/objectives/etc.
 
* Approach: cause-effect ("what leads to what")
 
* Approach: cause-effect ("what leads to what")

Revision as of 14:07, 16 May 2014

This page summarises an initial, internal brainstorming on indicators.

Note.jpg THIS IS WORK IN PROGRESS!
Note.jpg Further ideas/TODOs:
  • For each indicator, mention appropriate display mechanisms! --> For this, define categories of display mechanisms
  • For each indicator, mention if it is quantitative or qualitative, and maybe even how it could be calculated/where the data could be taken from.
  • --> Define a matrix for the main indicator characteristics
  • The overall goal is to come up with a reference set of indicators per mine action area (Land release, MRE, Victim assistance, etc.)

Important meeting notes

  • Indicators cannot be isolated! They always have to be put in context with outcomes/objectives/etc.
  • Approach: cause-effect ("what leads to what")
  • Short-term objective: in MINT/Geoportal, get started with output indicators and validate them with Russell (are they good ones? could they be presented in a better way? etc.)
  • Mid-term objective: GICHD publication on (outcome) indicators, their development, etc. by mid-2015

Principles for the development of indicators

From a presentation from DDG:

  • Valid - Does the indicator directly represent the change it is intended to measure? Is the change within the scope of the project?
  • Objective - Is the definition precise, simple and unambiguous about what is to be measured?
  • Reliable - Is the data needed to measure the indicator consistent or comparable over time?
  • Practical - Can data be collected easily, on a timely basis and at reasonable costs?
  • Useful - Will the indicator data be useful for programme decision-making and learning?
  • Owned - Do the local communities and programme management agree that this indicator makes sense?

Other approaches?

SMART - SMARTER:

  • Specific
  • Measurable
  • Achievable
  • Relevant
  • Time-bound
  • (Evaluate)
  • (Reevaluate)

See [1]

Categories/Levels of indicators

This is just to have different sets of indicators, for different levels/purposes/areas...

  • Output-level indicators
  • Outcome-level indicators
  • Performance indicators
  • Impact-level indicators?
  • Activity-level indicators?

Collection of indicators

This is an initial collection of indicators encountered so far in the mine action context. It is not yet an assessment regarding their applicability/usefulness/relevance!

Indicators mentioned in the Copenhagen initiative output document:

Outcomes Indicators
Physical and Psychological Safety
  • Reduced number of mine/ERW related accidents/incidents reported in area of operation
  • Reduced at-risk behaviours of target population at high risk of a mine/ERW accident
  • Increased feeling of safety among beneficiaries
  • Number of mine/ERW accidents/incidents
  • Number of beneficiaries at risk of a mine/ERW related death or injury
  • Number of reported instances of unsafe behaviour
  • Level of awareness about mines/ERW in at-risk communities
  • Level of concern about mines/ERW on the part of the target population
  • Level of confidence in use of released land by target population
Land Use and Livelihoods
  • Released land contributing to improved livelihoods
  • Safe access to previously contaminated land
  • Improved productive use of released land
  • Proportion of released land put into productive use
  • Number of people directly benefitting from use of released land
  • Numbers of people accessing previously blocked resources and infrastructure
National Mine Action Ownership
  • Improved national ability to oversee, manage and implement mine action activities
  • Realistic estimation of mine and ERW problem
  • Proportion of mine action activities driven by national strategy
  • Level of national implementation capacity
  • Level of compliance of database and information management system with national and international standards
  • Proportion of mine action budget funded by national contribution
  • Percentage of national staff in management and operational advisory positions

Indicators mentioned in DDG's publication on output monitoring

Objective Indicator Evidence to collect at baseline and impact assessment
Increase in productive use of released land
  • Changes in use of released land
  • Amount of released land brought into productive use e.g. housing or agriculture and grazing land
  • Number of men and women benefiting from released land
  • Describe current and former use of land
  • Estimate the percentage of different land uses (e.g. 25 % agriculture, 30 % housing, 10 % infrastructure (roads), 20 % unused etc.)
  • Estimate number of men and women benefiting from targeted land

Enable resettlement and return

  • Number of men and women resettled on released land
  • Number of refugees and / or IDPs returning to communities benefiting from mine action
  • Describe current and former population in terms of IDP, refugee and host population

Improve access to markets and natural resources

  • Changes in infrastructure
  • Meters to market, main road, cultural important buildings...
  • Time spent on collecting water
  • Number of potential users, men and women
  • Estimate meters to market, main road, cultural important buildings
  • Estimate time spent on collecting water
  • Estimate the number of potential users of infrastructure (e.g. users of roads, schools etc.)

Do no harm

  • Changes in the number of conflicts over land
  • Level of equal participation in decision making over use of released land
  • Describe the situation e.g. the number of and nature of conflicts over land in the target area
  • Describe the decision making process focusing both on men and women

Reduced violence and conflict

  • Number of people who have had a violent encounter
  • Men, women and children’s perceptions of the level of armed violence
  • Estimate the ratio of violent encounters e.g. in the past twelve months
  • Perceived level of armed violence amongst the people today

Reduced threats from explosive remnants of war

  • Number of accidents (human and domestic animals)
  • Number of people who worry about accidents with mines or remnants of war (feeling of safety)
  • Level of knowledge on mine risks among the population
  • Number of identified private owners of explosive remnants of war
  • Number of accidents, men, women, children, animals
  • Number of people who say they worry about accidents with mines or remnants of war
  • Estimate awareness of mines and UXO in the population, disaggregate by gender and age
  • Estimate number of identified private owners of explosive remnants of war

Improved security provision and conflict management

  • Level of trust in policy
  • Change in the percentage of people willing to report incidents of armed violence
  • Formation of local strategies for armed violence prevention and reduction
  • Measure community willingness to report
  • Incidents of armed violence to police
  • Number of local initiatives to counter armed violence

Reduced treats from SALW

  • Number of firearm related accidents
  • Percentage of people who say they worry about firearms

Estimate number of firearm related accidents

Indicators mentioned in the UN M&E framework:

TODO

Inspirational indicators from WHO document

Indicators mentioned in a discussion about operational efficiency

From a discussion between Helen, Rana and Elisabeth:

  •  % of areas worked on that had mines
  •  % of areas worked on that had UXOs
  • Average size of cleared area
  • Average size of surveyed area

References (external links)

Retrieved from "http://mwiki.gichd.org:8090/mediawiki/index.php?title=Indicators&oldid=14820"