field monitoring checklist (guide at end of …€¦ · web viewfield monitoring checklist (guide...

Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkit Updated 04 July 2012

Field Monitoring Checklist (Guide at end of checklist)

Meta Data and Visit Preparation

Date of Site VisitName of Site VisitedP-codeProgramme Partners on Site(with PCA Number if relevant)

Site Population

Field Monitors Name and Organization

Programme Activities Expected (Note priority activities to explore in site visit where time limited)Activities/Services(and key components)

Issues of Concern Supplies Expected

Nutrition

Health

WASH

Child Protection

Education

HIV/AIDS

Limitations in carrying out site visit:

UNICEF Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkit 2012-07-05 1

All boxes in grey are to be filled out prior to field visit based on inputs from programme and supply/ logistics colleagues.

Extend supplies list as needed.

Issues of concern are optional. Only identify additional concerns beyond those covered in reporting format.


NUTRITION


CO can add in 1-2 questions on a few priority standards appropriate for generalists to probe


Outpatient Therapeutic Programme (OTP)Observation & key informant at service1. Is the OTP working now? Yes No Why?2. Any interruption in service in the past month? Yes Why? No3. Is there any counselling, orientation, training to caregivers on each of the following and to how many caregivers:o Infant & Young Child Feeding None Some Most Allo Water purification None Some Most Allo Hand washing None Some Most All

.......add as appropriate None Some Most All4. Are other expected cross-sectoral elements of this programme in placeo Are children who fail to respond to therapeutic

care tested for HIV?Yes No Why?

o Is safe water supply available at the centre? Yes Noo No. of latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:o If there are gaps in relation to standards, specify

(e.g. lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

5. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the programme – factors preventing the good functioning of the service or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services ?

Key informant at service and review of OTP records(if time for the site visit is limited & recent report is available skip to #14-16)

Total Male Female6. No. U5s with SAM newly admitted last calendar month?7. No. currently enrolled at start of last month?8. No. deaths reported in last calendar month?9. No. defaults in last calendar month?10. No. recovered in last calendar month?11. No. referred to in-patient care?12. No. U5s with SAM admitted since start of month?13. No. of trained staff at the OTP?14. List food and

medical supplies that are out of stock now OR will be in one month?

Type of food/medical stock Out of stock nowEstimated # days stocks

will last if < 1 month

15. What was distributed in the last month? (check expected items)o Nutrition kits Yes How many Noo Hygiene kits Yes How many Noo Yes How many Noo Other Yes How many & specify No


Q3 -- CO must adapt to relevant cross-sectoral counselling/ C4D priorities

CO to adapt list as appropriate to planned distributions

Q4 -- CO must adapt to relevant cross-sectoral priorities

If time available


In-patient ServicesObservation & key informant at service1. Is the facility working now? Yes No Why?2. Is a doctor/health worker available at the service Yes No Why?3. Any interruption in service in the past month? Yes Why? No4. Is there any counselling, orientation, training to caregivers on each of the following and to how many caregivers:

o Infant & Young Child Feeding None Some Most Allo Water purification None Some Most Allo Hand washing None Some Most All

None Some Most All5. Are other expected cross-sectoral elements of this programme in place

o Are children who fail to respond to therapeutic care tested for HIV?

Yes No Why?

o Is safe water supply available at the centre?

Yes No

o No. of latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:o If there are gaps in relation to standards,

specify (e.g. lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

6. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the programme – factors preventing the good functioning of the service or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services ?

Key informant at service and review service records (if time limited & recent report is available skip to #15-16)

Total Male Female7. No. U5s with SAM newly admitted last calendar month?8. No. currently enrolled at start of last month?9. No. deaths reported in last calendar month?10. No. defaults in last calendar month?11. No. recovered in last calendar month?12. No. U5s with SAM admitted since start of month?13. No. of other trained staff at the OTP?14. List food and

medical supplies that are out of stock now OR will be in one month?

Type of food/medical stock Out of stock now Estimated # days stocks will last if < 1 month

15. What was distributed in the last month?o Nutrition kits Yes How many Noo Hygiene kits Yes How many No





If time available


o …. Yes How many Noo Other Yes How many & specify No

HEALTHPrimary health care service (PHC) & Outreach ServicesObservation & key informant at service1. Is the health centre functioning now?

o Basic PHC Yes No Why?o Support available for delivery? Yes No Why?o EPI Yes No Why?o Malaria control and prevention Yes No Why?o Outreach – Measles vaccination Yes No Why?o Outreach – Vitamin A Yes No Why?o Outreach – De-worming medication Yes No Why?

2. Any interruption in services in the past month? Yes Which services & why? No3. Is a CHW on staff at the service Yes No4. If not, how many days since the CHW’s last visit?5. Is there any counselling, orientation, training to caregivers on each of the following and to how many caregivers:

o Infant & Young Child Feeding None Some Most Allo Water purification None Some Most Allo Hand washing None Some Most All

None Some Most All6. Are other expected cross-sectoral elements of this programme in place

o Referral to HIV/AIDS testing and care? Yes No Why?o Is safe water supply available at the centre? Yes Noo No. of latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:o If there are gaps in relation to standards, specify

(e.g. lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

7. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the programme – factors preventing the good functioning of the service or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services?

Key Informant at service and review of PHC records (if time limited & recent report is available go to #12-13)Total Male Female

8. No. children 6-59 months vaccinated for measles?9. No. children 6-59 months received Vitamin A?10. No. of trained staff at the PHC

o CHWso Skilled community workers

11. List medical supplies that are out of stock now OR will be in one month? (Check ACT, antibiotic, ORS, zinc, measles

Type of medical stock Stock outage now Estimated # days stocks will last if < 1 month


CO to adapt list as appropriate.

Q1 - CO to adapt list as appropriate.






vaccine)12. What was distributed in the last month?

o Bednets Yes How many Noo Yes How many Noo Other Yes How many & specify No

WASHObservation & key Informant for WASH (community leader, authorities)1. List main sources of water supply by type and for each indicate location and status Type P-Code / GPS Status Visited by FM

Functioning Not Yes No Functioning Not Yes No Functioning Not Yes No Functioning Not Yes No Functioning Not Yes No Functioning Not Yes No Functioning Not Yes No

2. How common is open defecation? None Some Most All3. How many households have latrines None Some Most All4. If latrines are often not used, why?5. Number of community latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:6. Spot check min.3 latrines male/ 3 latrines

female. Discuss w KI. If there are gaps in relation to standards, specify (e.g. lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

7. Number of community bathing facilities available?

Male: Female: Mixed:

8. Note any issues with standards (e.g. segregated M/F, lighting, locks)

9. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the programme – factors preventing the good maintenance of water services and latrines or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services ?


CO to adapt list as appropriate.

CO to refine types as per agreed at cluster


CHILD PROTECTIONObservation & key informant at Child Friendly Spaces (repeat for no. CFS spaces visited)1. Is the CFS functioning?2. Any interruption in service in the past month? Yes Why? No3. Does the CFS provide the following? For girls For boys Adolescent

girlsAdolescent boys

None

o Recreational activitieso Safe play spaceo Psychosocial activitieso Referral services (to health, nutrition) Yes No

4. Are other expected cross-sectoral elements of this programme in placeo Is safe water supply available at the centre? Yes Noo No. of latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:o If there are gaps in relation to standards,

specify (e.g. lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

5. Do partner staff report any problems in running the CFs – factors preventing its good functioning or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services ?

Key informant at CFS and review of records (if time limited & recent report is available go to #8-10)6. No of children registered at the end of last month?

Age group Total Male Female

16-24--Young peopleAge 11-16 – School age/adolescenceAge 5-10 – School age/youngerAge <5 – Early childhoodTOTAL

7. No of trained facilitators working at the CFSKey informant at relevant authorities/ organizations

Total Male Female8. No. of separated children identified9. No. of CAFF identifiedKey informant at CFS or observation10. Are children observed associating with armed forces? Yes No





Because situation monitoring on child protection is so challenging, the CO may choose to add 1-2 questions on a few priority CP issues that can be monitored through non-specialist observation or simple key informant questions.

Q4 -- CO will adapt to age groupings in use at cluster/sector level

If time available


EDUCATIONObservation & key informant at school1. Is the school(s) in this community functioning now? Yes Why? No2. Any interruption in service at school in the past month? Yes Why? No3. Are there critical gaps in school supplies? Yes What? No4. Is the school relying on temporary structures? Yes For how many classes No5. Is the school needing temporary structures? Yes For how many classes No6. Are other expected cross-sectoral elements of this programme in place

o Is safe water supply available at the school? Yes Noo No. of latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:o If there are gaps in relation to standards, specify (e.g.

lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

7. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the school – factors preventing its good functioning or factors stopping people from accessing or using the school and its services?

Observation & key informant at Temporary Learning Centre (TLC) (non-formal education)8. Is there a TLC functioning now? Yes How many No9. Any interruption in service at the TLC in the past month? Yes Why? No10. Are there critical gaps in learning supplies? Yes What? No11. Is the school relying on temporary structures? Yes For how many classes No12. Is the school needing temporary structures? Yes For how many classes No13. Are other expected cross-sectoral elements of this programme in place

o Is safe water supply available at the school? Yes Noo No. of latrines available? Male: Female: Mixed:o If there are gaps in relation to standards, specify (e.g.

lighting, locks, segregated M/F, cleaned of excreta, washing facilities with soap or alternate)

14. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the TLC – factors preventing its good functioning or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services ?

Key Informant at service and review of school/TLC recordsTotal Male Female

15. No. enrolled in formal education programmes (5-16 yrs)16. No. enrolled in non-formal education programmes(5-16

yrs)17. No. of qualified teachers working at the school18. No. of qualified teachers working at the TLC19. No. of trained community facilitators working at the TLC





HIV/AIDSObservation & key informant at service1. Is the PMTCT programme functioning now? Yes Why? No2. Any interruption in service in the past month? Yes Why? No3. Do partner staff report any problems in implementing the programme – factors preventing its good functioning

or factors stopping people from accessing or using the services ?

Key informant at service and review of recordsTotal Male Female

4. No. of children identified as HIV-infected through testing5. No. children HIV-infected receiving ARV treatment now?6. No. children HIV-infected receiving ARV treatment prior to this crisis?

Total7. No. pregnant women identified as HIV-infected through testing?8. No. pregnant women HIV-infected receiving ARV for PMTCT?9. No. pregnant women receiving ARV for PMTCT prior to crisis?



CROSS-CUTTING FEED BACK FROM COMMUNITY(questions to be re-phrased appropriately to context by Field Monitors)Same questions to be probed in at least 4 group interviews. Aim for at least three different locations (nutrition/health facilities/centres; water points; educational services; child protection programming sites). Aim for three-quarters of the groups to be with women only. Try wherever possible to carry out 2 additional group interviews with youth (one male, one female). Try to focus each group on the more/most disadvantaged (distance from centre, ethnicity, poverty).Define groups according to: sex, age, location used to gather participants, other defining featuresGroup 1:Group 2:Group 3:Group 4:Group 5:Group 6:1. Does the group report any interruption in programmes/services in the past month? Specify which and why?Probe nutrition programmes, health centres, water service, schools, child friendly spaces, PMTCT as relevant to siteGroup 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

Group 5:

Group 6:

2. Do groups report knowledge of any items distributed to affected families in the past monthProbe specifically those items reported by KIs from programmes visited.Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

Group 5:


If items are well established, option to restructure as a table with specific items in rows and columns for each group


Group 6:

3. Is there anything distributed that groups report could not be used or was not useful and why? (Probe first question before going to next on positive points.) Was there anything useful and why? For each issue raised, explain issue and note if high/medium/low consensus.

Not useful Useful

Grou

p 1

Grou

p 2

Grou

p 3

Grou

p 4

Grou

p 5

Grou

p 6

4. Does the group report any individual/families/groups within the community who do not use or get access to services or receive items distributed? For each issue raised, explain who is excluded by characterization, from what service and why and note if high/medium/low consensus. Does the group have any ideas on how this could be addressed? Probe specifically: women vs. men; age groups; ethnic groups; people away from centre of community; poorest people (who are they); displaced people vs. host families.Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

Group 5:



Group 6

5. Do programmes involve community structures, authorities or organizations in the programme in any way (design, management, getting their feedback, etc), and if so, which programmes and who do they involve and how? If there are problems in terms of by-passing local capacities, which programmes are referred to and what are the problems? For each issue raised, explain and note if high/medium/low consensus.Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

Group 5:

Group 6:

6. Do groups interviewed report any concerns about or problems with programmes in the community? If so which programmes and what concerns? For each issue raised, explain issue and note if high/medium/low consensus.Group 1:

Group 2:

Group 3:

Group 4:

Group 5:

Group 6:



7. For at least 4 group interviews, take the time to probe their understanding of key messages aligned to C4D priorities. Does the group have a weak/medium/strong knowledge of the key messages below. Probe the group using an open question “What do you know about ...e.g. handwashing?” Does the discussion highlight any challenges around acceptance of messages?Breastfeeding?(Exclusive breastfeeding up to 6 months)

Group 1: Weak Medium StrongGroup 2: Weak Medium StrongGroup 3: Weak Medium StrongGroup 4: Weak Medium Strong

Challenges identified:

Handwashing? (Washing with soap/substitute and running water after defecating or cleaning a child; before eating, nursing or preparing food)



Safe disposal of excreta?(Cleaning latrines; disposing of excreta if no latrines)



Purification of water? Group 1: Weak Medium StrongGroup 2: Weak Medium StrongGroup 3: Weak Medium StrongGroup 4: Weak Medium Strong



CO to adapt list as appropriate to C4D priorities in programming.


Guide

Added Value – What field monitoring should do for you?

Field monitoring can be used in many ways in different contexts. It is a generic methodology. What is proposed here in the UNICEF Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Approach is to orient field monitoring to provide the following for country office and programme managers:

It provides a means of triangulating results tracked through partner reporting, giving UNICEF and partners an essential reality check of what is happening on the ground in environments where much can go wrong.

It allows UNICEF and partners to probe and identify bottlenecks and barriers to achieving the desired programme results.

It provides a unique opportunity to systematically get feedback from the emergency affected people in monitoring the UNICEF supported response.

Key preparedness actions

(The following are draft key actions, currently being tested for inclusion in UNICEF Early Warning-Early Action System end 2012, for UNICEF Country Offices in high emergency risk exposed countries.) Options for Field Monitoring have been assessed a proposed approach

decided upon if dedicated Field Monitoring capacity is required. Where emergency risks are recurrent seasonal disasters and capacity

development programming is possible, a capacity development plan is developed and implemented to strengthen national field monitoring capacities deployable to affected areas in the event of an emergency.

Issues for management attention in gearing up field monitoring

If the first weeks of the response, Country Office management must take a decision on the scale of field monitoring required. Obviously this depends on the scale of response, and the expected duration of the response at large scale; this requires an estimation of how many site visits per month would give stakeholders confidence in assessing on . Where an emergency Appeal is issued with UNICEF requesting more than US$ 15 million (Other Resource Emergency, ORE), then it is expected that the Country Office will scale up Humanitarian Performance Monitoring in general and field monitoring in particular, with some form of additional dedicated resources.1

The choice on modality of field monitoring will depend on the scale required above as well as: existing national capacities and systems for field monitoring; existing UNICEF Country Office practices of field monitoring with partners; whether the bulk of UNICEF response is with national government or NGO partners and their capacities; discussions with partners on their level of involvement (i.e. joint field monitoring visits); and any systems in place or under development at cluster level. Options from a UNICEF perspective include: Third-party monitoring where an organization/instititution is engaged to carry out systematic field monitoring

on behalf of UNICEF or potentially on behalf of UNICEF and partners, contracted under a Programme Cooperation Agreement (PCA) or institutional Special Service Agreement (SSA). This is advantageous when UNICEF staff cannot access certain regions; when the scale of field monitoring is bigger and where there are strong national organizations/institutions with capacities in qualitative field data collection.

1 This is based on an assumption that UNICEF will be able to raise at least 60% of the Appeal amount and with ORE income of US$10 million and up, investment in field monitoring is both possible and advised; in some cases where there are concerns about the fundraising potential, this must be discussed with the RO in the context of an overall discussion on the M&E plan and reporting requirements.


What is field monitoring?The field monitoring presented here is similar to standard good practice field visits, but it is scaled up. It is systematic, with an established frequency, a sampling rationale, a tool structuring data collection on key points and feedback mechanism to programme management. The higher frequency allows both feedback on the specific site AND aggregation of data to identify trends. A cross-sectoral approach is proposed for efficiency and logistics. Field Monitors do not replace field visits by sector specialists; they ‘put more feet on the ground’ to support higher frequency humanitarian monitoring and can trigger follow-up by specialists.


Contracting individual field monitors on individual SSAs. This is advantageous when the scale of field monitoring is smaller, e.g. a total of 2 to 10 dedicated field monitors; corresponding logistics costs are smaller. In some contexts, there may be other advantages to having field monitors.

Working with existing staff may be necessary in smaller emergencies (under US$10 million ORE) and possible where there are staff in the M&E team that can be allocated to focus on field monitoring. The same principles will apply, though coverage will be limited.

Agreement with partners on the field monitoring approach may be necessary if not done in preparedness mode. This may require skilled advocacy emphasizing the value for shared programme results and learning as well as feedback on UNICEF inputs. For NGO partners, field monitoring agreements should be established in the PCA addendum in this Toolkit.

Allocating financial resources and staff time to set up field monitoring and doing so early in the response will be key. There is a lag of at least a month before a field monitoring system will be feeding back good information to managers.

In assigning responsibility within the Country Office for initial set up and management, recognize that it is intense at the outset. This is a job well suited to short term surge support drawing from within UNICEF to ensure familiarity with procedures. Even where third-party monitoring options are chosen, staff time is needed to manage contracting, work with the selected institution on adapting the tool, quality assurance on training of field monitors until a system is working. Similarly, regardless of modality, ensuring a close project management and quality assurance of field monitoring is key – this is the activity that triggers quality assurance on the response overall.

If the scale of field monitoring is larger, Information Management (IM) systems will be necessary. Again depending on scale, this may be coupled with work on IM for partner reporting.

Field monitoring is only useful if it is feeding back to programme managers and adjusting as the response and managers’ priority concerns and questions evolve. Feedback must be managed on two channels – immediate feedback on specific localized issues requiring action or further probing; and periodic (e.g. weekly or monthly) on the trends and patterns that are emerging from the field. As the response progresses, the field monitoring can shift to add in specific issues of concern to programme managers. Regular feedback meetings with UNICEF programme staff and retaining a flexible approach will help ensure that information collected is used.

Setting up and managing field monitoring systems in emergenciesThe following is useful guidance whether UNICEF is managing field monitors directly or through third-party arrangements.

Key Issues in field monitoring tool design

The Model Field Monitoring Checklist included in the Toolkit is intended for adaptation. It is structured to respond to key questions that field monitoring should answer for programme managers each aligned to purpose as shown below. It is also structures to clearly separate out types of data needed by source/methodology. It must be adapted to country context considering: specifics of the sector and cross-sectoral programme strategies; numbers and capacities of field monitors; logistics dictating how much time will be possible in the community.

In adapting, it is essential to preserve the time for consultation with affected people.

Purpose Key questions FM should answer How UNICEF Humanitarian Performance Monitoring Toolkit 2012-07-05 15

Tools to support Field Monitoring Model Field Monitoring Checklist Field Monitoring Checklist User

Guide Model Field Monitoring Planner Model Weekly Field Monitoring

Summary Report Model Field Monitoring IM

Spreadsheet PCA Mapping Tool


Triangulation with partner reporting

Is the programme working as expected: Key components of services functioning

(specified for each programme) Key standards being met (specify for each

programme, a prioritized few standards that can be assessed by a generalist)

Key cross-sectoral dimensions

Observation Key informant at service Consultation with

affected people

Level of service use Key informant at service Service records

Identifying key bottlenecks at local level

Are there any challenges/barriers affecting the effective functioning of the service (supply): Essential materials and supplies available and

used/distributed, robing specifically UNICEF provided supplies;

Observation Key informant at service Service records Consultation with

affected people Adequate staffing -- number, qualifications if

these can be specified, male/female Key informant at service Service records

Are there any barriers to the equitable access to and use of services (‘demand’) such as geographic, financial, social and cultural factors, Specifically are there any patterns of

exclusion? Are the any unintended negative impacts

(“do no harm”)? Are local capacities – local authorities,

organizations, leaders – involved in the programme in anyway (design, delivery, management, feedback) (integration of early recovery locally)

Key informant at service Consultation with

affected people

Consultation with affected people

See column 3 “How”

Selecting Field Monitors

The level of training and specialization of Field Monitors will vary from country to country. Composition of field monitoring teams will take into consideration how field monitors will be received and perceived in the community and who they can access; this means considering ethnicity, language and addressing gender balance. See Model Terms of Reference (TORs)

Training Field Monitors

Training of Field Monitors will be necessary regardless of the profile and experience at the very least to familiarize field monitors with the tool and harmonize approach. Training should cover: Orientation to the purpose and content of the tool and simulated application; Familiarization with UNICEF programming, and specifically on the expected components of programmes to be

visited and key standards to be assessed; Data collection skills including managing/conducting key informant and focus group interviews; observation

techniques (transect walk); as well as other techniques from Participatory Rural Appraisal or Rapid Rural Appraisal that may be useful;

Gender analysis; Ethics of data collection, especially with children



Managing Field Monitoring

Field Monitoring site selection should be a sampling of UNICEF partners and programming areas. It should also take into consideration: different geographic regions that may be differently affected by the emergency; different ethnic or language groups; partner capacity assessments (sampling more with lesser known partners); and areas or issues of concern.

Preparation of the field monitoring visits requires coordination with programme and supply & logistics staff to have the best possible information on what should be expected at the site, in terms of programme activities ongoing and supplies delivered. The UNICEF PCA mapping tool can facilitate this. The first page of the Model Field Monitoring Checklist provides the space to summarize the relevant information for Field Monitors. Once feedback meetings with programme staff are in place, these same meetings can be used to provide more qualitative orientation to field monitors on specific concerns or background on sites to be visited.

Logistics management will be a significant effort where field monitors are on individual SSAs. This includes travel authorizations, security clearance, transportation requests, coordinating lodging etc.

Quality assurance on field monitoring is essential. This requires UNICEF staff member managing the contract(s) to accompany field monitors, providing coaching and feedback as needed. Only where UNICEF staff members do not have access to the regions where field monitors work can this be dropped.

Information Management

Reporting must be regular including: Field Monitors’ site reports after each site visit; a weekly summary weekly report that provides site specific, weekly summary and cumulative data (see Model Weekly Field Monitoring Summary Report). Field monitoring reports should flag issues for programme colleagues; programme sections determine what, if any, action to take.

A full “database” for field monitoring information is unlikely to be necessary. However, a few simple IM ‘systems’ can be easily put in place: Storing all site reports and summary reports on a share drive for easy access by all programme staff; Maintaining a simple xcel spreadsheet with standard meta data (date, site P-code, partners, field monitors), key

issues found, and hyper links to the referred site report. See Model Field Monitoring IM Spreadsheet (forthcoming). This complements the PCA mapping.

Potential Challenges SolutionsWho manages Field Monitors in UNICEF Best suited to the CO Monitoring Unit

ToR for 3rd party organization includes Field Monitoring Coordinator to manage day-to-day and collate reports

What to do with Field Monitoring information

FM information should be shared primarily with CO programme staff who decide what, if any, action is necessary (programme decision)

Information relevant to the wider cluster should be shared through cluster meetings

FM information is important both for the specifics (a serious problem in a given site) and the overall trend. Aggregating data is important. (Note that a simple database that allows UNICEF and partners to input, share and analyse data is under development.)

If FM information is not useful to UNICEF programme sections then the collection of the information should be reviewed and adjusted in the checklist

Overlapping Field Monitoring initiatives by multiple agencies

UNICEF should share that it is carrying out FM visits with OCHA and others

Sensitivities when monitoring government partners

If FMs are planned for use with government partners then some outreach work may be necessary to ensure


http://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM4

http://intranet.unicef.org/emops/emopssite.nsf/root/PageCCCPM4


Potential Challenges Solutionsgovernment partners are aware and facilitate FM visits

Examples of challenges and proposed solutions from Pakistan flood response 2010

Challenges Proposed Solution

PunjabPCA partners have started viewing FMs as ‘watchmen’ and develop tendency to hide information. Similar feelings can develop amongst programme staff as well

The role of FMs need to be defined in PCAs and MOUs to inform PCA partners

Request for use of FMs for validation, use in surveys/ assessments and other similar assignment

The FMs should not be involved in tasks beyond their capacity.

BalcohistanPCA partners have a poor response to FMs UNICEF POs to ensure PCA partners are aware of the role of

FMsThe role of FMs need to be defined in PCAs and MOUs to inform PCA partners

Beneficiary (receipt of supplies) monitoring –people have the tendancy of saying that they did not receive anything regardless

Random visits to differnet households in a single locality Cross checking Observation

SindhSustaining remote field monitoring after the contract ends

Incorporate budget for field monitoring as part of program cost

Limited sector specific technical knowledge of Field Monitors

Regular meeting with programme sections and sharing of relevant documents (description/pictures of distribution materials and definitions of technical terms) and joint field monitoring visits

PCA partners poor response to Field Monitors

A letter to be sent from UNICEF to all PCA partners informing that UNICEF assisted programs are subject to monitoring. This would be in addition to the clause on monitoring in the PCA.

KPFM have limited sector specific technical knowledge of field monitors

Regular meeting with programme sections and sharing to relevant documents (description of distribution materials and definitions of technical terms)

Please share Challenges and Solutions through the Humanitarian PM Community of Practice for inclusion in future drafts of the Humanitarian PM guide. http://intranet.unicef.org/CoP/EMOPSHPM/CommunityContent.nsf


http://intranet.unicef.org/CoP/EMOPSHPM/CommunityContent.nsf

field monitoring checklist (guide at end of …€¦ · web viewfield monitoring checklist (guide...

Documents