1. Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels1

2.  SMART Methodology  Annually in emergency settings  Internal / external  Multi Indicator – anthropometric, mortality, demographic, WASH, livelihoods, education, public health, HIV Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels2

3.  Building trends over time (eight years in Twic, S Sudan)  Easy to select sample size and clusters – SMART / ENA  Easy analysis of anthropometric and mortality data – SMART / ENA  Multi indicators build bigger picture  Results used internally and externally  Build staff capacity Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels3

4. Planning  Requires an estimation of populations - difficult when populations are mobile  Good estimation of under 5 year old population needed  Need an estimation of household size  Insecure/inaccessible areas excluded  High demand on manpower, vehicles, equipment  Insecurity Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels4

5. Implementation  Methodology designed for rural situations not the best for urban  Population data skewed / population gone / different village name  Distance to travel / sleep out / security  Households exaggerating their situation  Community have element of expectation.... survey...... no change.... anger, hostility  Cost – time, financial, manpower  Quantitative v qualitative – currently too much focus on quantitative Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels5

6. Analysis  Quality of data collected – plausibility check  Closed questions – response options, best fit option  Time  Software – SMART, SPSS, Epi Info, Stata, Excel..........  People want to use results to show causality Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels6

7.  Conflicting methodologies – NGO v MoH  Size of questionnaires – quantity of data collected  Estimating population figures / identifying villages (over/under estimation of populations, movements, several names for one village......) Conflict Data Workshop, 9-10 June 2011, Brussels7