1. IRAQ Assessment Working Group: Challenges, Priorities and Capacity
Tuesday, 16 January 2018

2. GENERAL INFORMATION
Total responses: 25
Complete Responses: 17

3. Q1: Type of organization
Answered: Skipped: 0
*Other: Cluster, charity, Social Enterprise, UNHCR partner

4. Q2: Sector or group that best describes your work
Answered: Skipped: 0
*Other: Mine Action

5. Q3: Participation in needs assessments
Answered: Skipped: 0
*Other: conducting surveys on security and protection needs in specific areas of Iraq (vs. needs assessments)

6. Q4: Use of assessment data and reports
Answered: Skipped: 1
*Other: to inform the programming decisions of local partners; to feed into local dialogue events about the research findings

7. KEY CHALLENGES

8. Q5: Familiarity with the Grand Bargain outcomes on needs assessments
Answered: Skipped: 7

9. Q6: Thematic assessment areas in which the AWG should be more active
Answered: Skipped: 7

10. Q7: Biggest challenge related to planning and coordinating assessments
Answered: Skipped: 7
*Other: the quality of the current assessments (content) is very low

11. Q8: Biggest challenge related to the design of data collection in Iraq
Answered: Skipped: 7

12. Q9: Biggest challenge related to data acquisition in Iraq
Answered: Skipped: 8
*Other: Security of enumerators in the field; limited info-sharing overall

13. Q10: Biggest challenge related to data processing and analysis in Iraq
Answered: Skipped: 8

14. Q11: Biggest challenge related to reporting/disseminating needs assessment data in Iraq
Answered: Skipped: 7

15. CAPACITY

16. Q12: Cluster/organization has capacity to provide the following:
Answered: Skipped: 8
*Other: Partners/enumerators to conduct assessments should be re-discussed with partners; none of the above; the cluster is extremely weak.

17. Q13: Time allocation for assessment-related work
Answered: Skipped: 8
*If not time at all, please explain why assessments are not prioritized within your cluster/organization: “the cluster does not seem to have prioritized needs, gap analysis, or information as the basis for anything.”

18. Q14: Cluster/organization overall experience in assessments (across all stages from planning to reporting)
Answered: Skipped: 9

19. Q15: Interest to support and facilitate coordinated assessments
Answered: Skipped: 8

20. RECOMMENDATIONS & NEXT STEPS

21. Q16: Recommendations to make AWG meetings more useful and inclusive
Answered: Skipped: 8
SUGGESTIONS?
MINI-WORKPLAN
TOR REVISION

22. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS Coordination and planning (56%)
Map out assessment initiative and ensure data complementarity (44%)
No clear methodology for coordinated assessments (33%)
Data processing and analysis (22%)
There is no agreement on a core set of tools to use for analysis (e.g. agreed questionnaires, methodologies, reporting requirements).(29%)
No validation/analysis of the information to determine priorities and guide planning of the response.(24%)
Data collection (11%)
No Secondary Data Review framework is in place to help develop a shared understanding of the situation (35%)
Lack of clarity on the use and sequencing of the existing data collection tools (preliminary, initial, rapid and detailed assessments) (29%).
Reporting (6%)
Needs assessment data is not shared/reported in a timely and systematic manner. (50%)
Design of data collection (6%)
Monitoring information gaps is not possible due to a lack of agreed-upon common set of indicators (56%)

23. SOLUTIONS Coordination and planning (56%)
Mapping ongoing/recurrent assessment initiatives, followed by ongoing monitoring of available information sources.
Inventory of common indicators and follow up to refine these for future use (scale, frequency, source)
Identify different data/information and their sources from your context and present in a analytical framework structure as a matrix
Data processing and analysis (22%)
Agree on recurrent datasets to trust and disseminate and consider for SDR, joint analysis
Consider a smaller task force to take leadership on analysis of information (secondary, primary) with IMOs/IMWG
Data collection (11%)
Design joint secondary data review methodology to identify gaps and reach a common operational picture.
Map out and streamline existing recurrent multi-sectoral data collection tools (institutions, community, hh, individual) and agree on types of assessment, existing tools and their use (initial assessments – 72 hrs; rapid assessments – 2 weeks, in depth-assessments)
Reporting (6%)
Strengthen use current Assessment Registry (with IMWG support) to identify info gaps
Train on Assessment Registry and give rights to key NGOs conducting assessments
Design of data collection (6%)
Agree on common indicators to form the basis of multi-sectoral assessments

24. NEXT STEPS Proposed tasks
Map out AWG validated tools/Tool matrix + Guidance note on tools, data resources
Develop an indicator pool to form the basis for multi-sectoral assessments + Guidance
Trainings
RNA trainings
Assessment Registry Training (IMWG)
Sector-specific data collection tools
Bi-monthly updates on assessment resources, new tools, released datasets, etc
Monthly meeting – collect updated, overview of who does what where (collection/collations of assessments – IMOs to update on SoS/AR; OCHA to consolidate)
Proposed TOR revisions
Open up AWG to interested NGOs and assessment units, i.e. IOM TRU, DRC, NRC, etc.
Include an annex with the focus areas/tasks agreed upon (see above)
Issues to discuss going forward
Engagement with Governments
Common tool
Info-sharing with sub-national clusters

25. AOB
MCNA Report
Info-sharing with subnational clusters