Indicators: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
* Percentage of national staff in management and operational advisory positions | * Percentage of national staff in management and operational advisory positions | ||
|} | |} | ||
=== Indicators mentioned in DDG's publication on output monitoring === | |||
{| class="wikitable" | |||
! 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 | |||
|} | |||
[[Category:NoPublic]] | [[Category:NoPublic]] | ||
Revision as of 13:49, 13 May 2014
This page summarises an initial, internal brainstorming on indicators.
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?
Categories 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
|
|
Land Use and Livelihoods
|
|
National Mine Action Ownership
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
Enable resettlement and return |
|
|
|
Improve access to markets and natural resources |
|
|
|
Do no harm |
|
|
|
Reduced violence and conflict |
|
|
|
Reduced threats from explosive remnants of war |
|
|
|
Improved security provision and conflict management |
|
|
|
Reduced treats from SALW |
|
Estimate number of firearm related accidents |