sphere tot report

8/13/2019 Sphere ToT Report

1/53

Training of Trainers onThe Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in

Humanitarian Response

New Delhi, India 12 th -19 th February, 2012

Supported & organized by:


2/53

Training of Trainers on The Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standardsin Humanitarian Response

12-19 February, 2012New Delhi, India

Page 2 of 53

Training of Trainers on The Sphere ProjectHumanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards inHumanitarian ResponseSphere India, a National Coalition of Humanitarian Agencies in

India, in collaboration with Oxfam India, Concern Worldwide,CASA, Plan India, EFICOR, PCI India and Lutheran World Relieforganized eight days residential Training of Trainers on TheSphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standardsin Humanitarian Response at New Delhi, India on 12 th -19 th February, 2012. The TOT was attended by 23 participantsincluding from from Sri Lanka, Bangladesh and different statesof India. The training received high level of acclaim andappreciation by the participants. The report narrates thebackground, key purpose, specific objectives, training

activities, session observations, feedbacks and evaluations ofthe TOT.

Dates: 12-19 February, 2012

Duration: 8 days (residential)

Venue: Hotel Atrium, New Delhi (India)

No. of Participants: 23

Facilitators: Mr. Vikrant MahajanProf. Kartikeya MisraMr. Mayank JoshiMs. Chandrani BandyopadhyayMr. N. M. Prusty

TOT Coordinator: Mr. Raman Kumar

Report compilation: Mr. Vikrant MahajanMr. Raman Kumar


3/53


4/53



Page 4 of 53

a. To Sphere Project and other trainers: .............................................................................. 31

b. To the Organizing Committee .......................................................................................... 31

7. Annexes ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... .......... ........... ...... 33

a. List of participants .......................................................................................................... 33 b. TOT schedule .................................................................................................................. 37

c. Learning monitoring index .............................................................................................. 39

d. Confidence meter ........................................................................................................... 40

e. Discussions in Quality Circle: ........................................................................................... 42

f. Revised training schedule (Participants led sessions):....................................................... 44

g. Session Designs and reports of participants led sessions ................................................. 45


5/53



Page 5 of 53

1. Executive SummaryThis report presents an overview of the background, key purpose, specific objectives, training -

activities, session observations, feedbacks and evaluations of the Sphere Training of Trainers (ToT)program conducted in New Delhi, India from the 12 th February to 19 th February, 2012.

The training was facilitated by a team of resource persons, all from India. The lead facilitator was theChief Operating Officer of Sphere India (Sphere India steers the inter-agency coordination andSphere processes in India). One of the co-facilitators was from the Administrative Training Instituteof State Govt. of Rajasthan (primarily contributed in soft skills and adult learning sessions) and onewas from the National Institute of Disaster Management, Govt. of India (primarily contributed inSphere sessions, she is also a Sphere TOT trained). One more resource person was from ProjectConcern International and had prior experience of Sphere TOTs.

The TOT was attended by 23 training participants (3 Females and 20 Males) out of which 6 camefrom Sphere India member agencies (EFICOR-2, CASA-1, Plan India-3), 6 from other humanitarianagencies in India (WSPA-2, Compassion India-1, NCDHR-1, IDF-1, MSF-1), 2 from South Asia (PCI-Bangladesh, CHA-Sri Lanka), 6 from State Inter-Agency Groups (Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Orissa,Tamil Nadu, Bihar-2), and 3 were from from Sphere India secretariat. There were 3 more participants(2 females and 1 male) who attended the training but since they did not meet the above criteria,they were awarded with certificate of participation in Sphere Training instead of TOT. (They hadlimited knowledge knowledge of Sphere handbook and no experience of training).

The participants profile varied from senior management to middle and field level staff. Theparticipants also had different levels of understanding on Sphere and training processes. Theparticipants comprised of mixed profiles and had minimum understanding of Sphere and the adultlearning processes. There has been considerable learning obtained along the process which wasclaimed by the participants as indicated in the learning records and participant reactions, as well asby the facilitator team.

This TOT was the first one conducted using the latest edition of Sphere handbook (2011) in India.The new training materials for Sphere introduction, Protection and humanitarian charter were usedby facilitator team as inspiration to design their specific sessions. The TOT manual for SphereHandbook 2004 was introduced to participants for their inspiration, however, the focus was ondeveloping capacities in participants to design their own training sessions using different Sphereresources. In few of the sessions, the facilitators modified the delivery, methodology and strategy tomeet participants expectations and needs.

The participants led sessions were useful in developing a curriculum for 2-day Sphere training infield. The session designs are compiled as a sample in annexure. The participants felt that more timecould be given for the preparation of such exercise.

The participants feedbacks were highly encouraging and it was recorded in the feedbacks that theparticipants found the Sphere handbook 2011 edition very comprehensive and useful in their work.

Few of the participants also shared that although they were aware of the handbook but they haverealized the strength of this handbook only in this training and that, now they feel more comfortable


6/53



Page 6 of 53

in not only using the handbook but also in its application in their organization in their respectiveroles. It was recorded during the discussions and quality circles that most of the participants hadbeen using the handbook in one or other ways in their work particularly in assessments, reliefpackage selection, in implementing their project (core standards), coordination etc. Most of theparticipants were eager to transfer the knowledge they have gained during the TOT to theircolleagues in their organization, their partners, and in communities.

The daily feedbacks by the participants and the daily review by facilitators on the training processhave helped to make improvement for the next-day training. The final training evaluation confirmedthe perception that the majority of the participants rated high on the achievement of the trainingobjectives and the relevance of the training to their work. The training was evaluated using thestandard evaluation form and the outcomes are captured in the report. The evaluation results maybe adopted for future Sphere trainings as it helps the facilitators to improve with more objectiveassessments.

At the end of the training sessions, there are some specific recommendations and observationsforwarded by the facilitators and the participants for different external stakeholders which can beconsidered for insertion in the future trainings. In general, the training was deemed by theparticipants as a high learning event.


7/53



Page 7 of 53

2. BackgroundIndia being a country of diverse geographical features and also with diversity in the people faces a

large number of disasters. The nature of hazards and vulnerabilities of the people are very diverseand required lot of contextualization for effective solutions. Largely its the poor and themarginalized communities, the women, children and other vulnerable groups who get affected theworst, as their socio-economic vulnerability are further exposed by disasters, making them victims ofcircumstances.

The recent experience in disaster situations in India viz. Kosi Floods in Bihar, Cyclone Aila WestBengal, Leh flash floods, Sikkim Earthquake, floods in different states have opened up the need formulti-pronged approach and strategies to build resilience among the communities and to work incollaboration to reduce disaster risk among the communities. The varying capacities of

organizations/agencies responding to recent disasters in India, especially on needs assessments,prioritization, response management and targeting, have given enormous opportunity to worktowards improving the overall response mechanism towards disasters through extensive capacitybuilding efforts at various levels.

The Sphere handbook has become one of the most widely recognized tools for improvinghumanitarian planning and response. Since the publication of the 2004 handbook, there have been anumber of technical advances, new cross-cutting issues have evolved, and the humanitarianenvironment has changed with the launch of the Humanitarian Reform process and the Clusterapproach. On 14 th April 2011, the 2011 edition of Sphere handbook was launched, with protection

principles, updated humanitarian charter, qualitative and quantitative indicators, key actions,guidance notes and enhanced linkages between sectors. The handbook has been most widely usedby the agencies and professionals involved in humanitarian interventions across the globe. Trainingson Sphere process and the handbook have been the most effective way to manifold the reach of thehandbook to number of agencies and professionals.

In view of growing interest from Sphere India member agencies on the new edition of the Spherehandbook, Sphere India TCBP sub-committee felt the need of organizing Sphere TOT to meet theneed. The need was also high as there had been no TOT organized in the last few years in India.

Sphere India along with Oxfam India, Concern Worldwide, CASA, Plan India, EFICOR, PCI India andLutheran World Relief have come together to host a training of trainers on the newly developedSHPERE 2011 to assist in developing capacity of humanitarian practitioners to build capability, toshare their knowledge, promote good practice and raise awareness about the importance ofappropriate humanitarian delivery.


8/53



Page 8 of 53

3. Training processThe training process has been very elaborate to follow the necessary steps for preparation,

implementation and evaluation. The details of the process are illustrated below:

a) Organizing Committee for the TOT

Sphere India Training and Capacity Building Programme (TCBP) sub-committee comprising of CRS,UNDP, UNFPA, NIDM, IIPA, VASUDEVA, IFRC, Plan India and EFICOR decided to have an organizingcommittee for the TOT. The Organizing committee was formed of TCBP sub-committee membersand OXFAM, LWR, Concern Worldwide and CASA. The key role of the organizing committee was tooversee the planning, preparations, participants selection, and course material and to ensure

overall quality of the program.

The organizing committee discussed electronically and telephonically on the planning andpreparations of the TOT and had a meeting on 23 rd January, 2012 to review the preparations,participants, trainers, course materials etc.

b) Terms of reference

The terms of reference for the TOT were developed in consultation with the Organizing Committee.

c) General purpose of training

The general purpose of the TOT was to strengthen facilitation knowledge and skills in delivering theSphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian response training.

The objective of this training was not to thoroughly study the content of The Sphere Project or itsHandbook, since participants were expected to have prior knowledge, use of and/or practicalexperience in utilization of the Sphere Guidelines prior to the start of the course.

d) Specific objectives

By the end of the training of trainers, training partners will be able to :

Apply the Sphere Handbook as a tool for disaster response Define the links between the Humanitarian Charter and humanitarian action Describe the structure and content of the Sphere Handbook State the principles of adult learning and apply them to designing and running a Sphere

learning event Define content, and write aims and objectives for Sphere training workshops Demonstrate a range of training and facilitation skills

Prepare for running a Sphere learning event in the field or for your organization Devise tools and techniques for assessing learning needs and for evaluating training.


9/53



Page 9 of 53

e) Participants

The SPHERE 2011 ToT was expected to host between 25-26 people from the below groups:

Sphere India member agencies 10 participants

Participants from South-Asian countries 6 participants *Seats for other countries 4 participants *Sphere India and State IAGs internal participants 5-6 participants

The total number of participants was 23 out of which 6 came from Sphere India member agencies(EFICOR-2, CASA-1, Plan India-3), 6 from other humanitarian agencies in India (WSPA-2, CompassionIndia-1, NCDHR-1, IDF-1, MSF-1), 2 from South Asia (PCI-Bangladesh, CHA-Sri Lanka), 6 from StateInter-Agency Groups (Rajasthan, Uttarakhand, Orissa, Tamil Nadu, Bihar-2), and 3 were from fromSphere India secretariat.

The following criteria were considered for participants selection, the participants w ere expected to:

Has attended the Basic Training on the Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and MinimumStandards in Humanitarian response;

Has experience in the use of the Minimum Standards in Humanitarian response. Has been commissioned by their institution/organization; Willing to prepare some background material prior to training Available for the complete duration of the training. Has a plan to utilize the lessons learnt from the ToT early after the training has finished. Able and willing to provide recommendations for the improved design of advanced capacity

building activities both within and externally of their organizations. Preparations: Prior to attending the ToT, all participants were expected to review the

handbook "the Sphere Project Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards inHumanitarian response" 2011 Edition, Prepare a basic draft training plan, and provide somefacilitation materials.

There were 3 more participants who attended the training but since they did not meet the abovecriteria, they were awarded with certificate of participation in Sphere Training instead of TOT. (Theyhad limited knowledge knowledge of Sphere handbook and no experience of training).

f) Facilitation team

The TOT was facilitated by the following team:

Mr. Vikrant Mahajan Lead Facilitator, [email protected] , +91 9818666831 Mr. Mayank Joshi Co-facilitator, [email protected] , +91 9825046643 Ms. Chandrani Bandyopadhyay Co-facilitator, [email protected] , +91 9811767403 Prof. Kartikeya Misra Co-facilitator, [email protected] , +91 9414238197

The Organizing Committee has provided inputs for identification of the facilitation team.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


10/53



Page 10 of 53

g) Training Design preparations

The facilitator team initially engaged online through emails, and via telephone to review participantprofile, organize learning need assessment of the participants, participant group and expectationanalysis and decide on the strategic training approach, Training Design, Schedule, methodologies,

specific session designs, training materials and logistical arrangements.

h) Participant Group Analysis and Learning assessment

There were 23 participants, 3 Females and 20 Males. The participant group had a rich experience ofworking in disaster management in India (Indian participants, except one). The participants from SriLanka and Bangladesh had rich experience of humanitarian work and added a lot of value in thegroup. More than 70 % of the participants had experience of delivering trainings and had someunderstanding of training processes. The participants profile varied from senior management tomiddle and field level staff. The participants also had different levels of understanding on Sphere andtraining processes.

To sum up, the participants comprised of mixed profiles and had minimum understanding of Sphereand the adult learning processes. However, the facilitators had a wide range of adult learningmethodologies especially to engage participants in the field level trainings.

The list of participants is attached as Annex 1.

i) Strategic Training Approach

Looking at the participant group analysis and the findings from learning need assessment andparticipant expectation analysis, the training team decided to follow a flexible approach to thedelivery of the specific sessions. They tweaked the session designs for few sessions to meetparticipants expectations and to accommodate the variety in the participants profile. Some of thesession specific decisions were consulted with the participant groups.

The strategic approach was focused towards building the facilitation and platform skills in theparticipants and later, test and improve on these skills during the participants led sessions on the

Sphere handbook. More emphasis was given on adult learning approach and engaging theparticipants in the learning environment through variety of participatory approaches. The primaryfocus was to develop both the facilitation skills necessary and the adult and organizational learningapproach required for successful implementation with all participants.

The new modules of the Sphere handbook 2011 edition (Humanitarian Charter, Protection Principlesand Core Standards) along with the document of significant changes in the new edition of thehandbook were given to each participant. The 2004 training package module was also provided tothem as reference for designing their sessions, and adopting / contextualizing the tools andmethodologies for their use.


11/53


12/53



Page 12 of 53

Part 4: Other Global Quality and Accountability Initiatives

4.1 Introduction to HAP4.2 Introduction to INEE4.3 Introduction to LEGS

4.4 Introduction to ALNAP, SEEP etc.

k) Training Methodology

This training used variety of adult learning participatory methods such as:

1) Micro-facilitation/teaching2) Self-Study3) Interactive presentations4) Discussion groups5) Games/outdoor activities6) Fish Bowl7) Bus stop8) Brainstorming9) Reflection10) Consensus building11) Group work12) Case study13) Plenary dialogue/discussion/debate14) Sharing (expectation, experiences)

15) Question & answer, Quiz16) Peer coaching17) Role play

l) Learning aids used:

1) White Board2) Flip Charts3) PowerPoint4) Video presentations5) Handouts6) Gallery7) Meta clips8) Post It9) Visual aids

m) Training Materials

Informed by the participant group analysis and decisions on training approach, the new trainingmaterials for Sphere introduction, Protection and humanitarian charter were used by facilitatorteam as inspiration to design their specific sessions. The TOT manual for Sphere Handbook 2004was introduced to participants for their inspiration, however, the focus was on developing capacitiesin participants to design their own training sessions using different Sphere resources. For better


13/53



Page 13 of 53

understanding and quick references, additional handouts for both Sphere and Adult learningresources were planned for the participants.

Besides, number of materials was provided in soft copy to participants for their future reference anduse. Soft copies of INEE booklet, HAP booklet, LEGS etc. were also provided to them.

n) Participants evaluation and feedback

The participant-led sessions were evaluated by the peer group and the training team. Theconstructive feedback as individuals and groups were given to the participants by the peer groupand the training team. An analysis of the participant led sessions was developed for the organizingcommittee for their future reference. The analysis may also be used to inform the processes forrevision of Sphere Project Training Policy.

o) Accredi ta tion

The accreditation was provided to those participants that attended and were proactively engaged inthe complete duration of the course. There were 3 participants who attended the training but sincethey did not meet the training criteria, they were awarded with certificate of participation in SphereTraining instead of TOT.


14/53


15/53



Page 15 of 53

PARTICIPANTS EXPECTATIONS : The participants were also asked to share their expectations fromthe training, which are as below:

Sphere related: Articulation of Sphere Vocabulary and Humanitarian Charter Application of Sphere for Disaster Response and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR)

Forming more Sphere Trainers so as to take Sphere to a wider Group Come to know how limited resources could be used to meet minimum standards fordisaster affected people

Sphere Handbook as a tool for disaster response Get to know the structure and content of Sphere Handbook & how to use it Lessons learnt and experiences from training partners How to materialize Sphere standards, in our organization/work How the Protection issues are being considered in ER How to contextualize indicators

Training related How to use the handbook for training of response team or capacity building of CSOs To be a good trainer Promoting the humanitarian charter & minimum standards among the Govt. Sector,

District/local coordinators To learn post training evaluation/follow up with the participants/ organizations To learn Scientific and Proper Training Needs Analysis Improved presentation/ knowledge transfer skills

Others Learning New things More knowledge from the experiences of others All the facilities going on right way or proper manners

To achieve at least 70% of the training objectives perfectly Improve my communication skills in a way people find interesting and engaging Confidence to take up any random query How we can do advocacy with government level Well participation for improvement It will produce an intensive collaboration for a long term basis with right process To learn mechanism of making government delivery system sensitive To be able to know the persons/agencies in state with whom collaboration may be

done to take the Sphere training forward

MINI-PRESENTATIONS:

The participants were given post- its on which Tom and Jerry were written. They had to identifytheir buddy pairs and introduce each other to the rest of the group. Subsequently, they had to maketheir 5 minutes presentation on the topic of their choice. This whole session was vedio-recorded andlater, the videos were given to all participants for review and self-reflection.


16/53



Page 16 of 53

4.2 Day 2:

The facilitator introduced the matrix of confidence meter and daily learning index to the participantsand asked them to self-rank themselves on the ranking of 1-10 in which 1 represents the lowest and

10 the highest. This was to be done everyday so that the participants can rank themselvesprogressively and know the progress in their learning and confidence.

The learning index and the confidence meter matrix are attached as annexure (c) and (d).

4.5.1 Flip tips (KM)

The facilitator gave tips on using flip charts as a training aid. He explained the benefits andlimitations of flip charts in comparison to LCD projector (PowerPoint). Selection of pen colour alsoplays very important role in the effectiveness of using flip charts. The below two principle should be

kept in consideration while using flip charts:

KISS: Keep It Short and SimpleThis applies for use of sentences on flip chart.The sentences should be short, prefereablybullet points.

KILL: Keep It Lerge and LegibleThis applies for use of fonts on the flip chart. Thefonts should be large and preferebly in capitalletters.

4.5.2 What is Sphere (CB)

Few of the participants had used Spherehandbook in their work earlier but most of theparticipants did not know about the changes inthe Sphere handbook 2011 edition and majorityhad little understadiing of the contents of thehandbook and using the technical standards. Thefacilitator used variety of methodlogies tointroduce them to the Sphere process and thehandbook. The new video of the Sphere was

shown to the participants to make themunderstand the rationale and development of theSphere handbook.

The new presentation on 2011 edition was introduced to the participants and it helped them tounderstand the Sphere process and the structure of the handbook. The participants were asked torefer to various sections in the handbook which made them undestand the structure and how to findany specific topic in the handbook.

The session was received well by the participants and they shared that now they are able to use thehandbook when required. They were also able to appreciate the importance of the process and

minimum standards in disaster response.

Figure 2: Ms. Chandrani leading the session on What is

Sphere


17/53


18/53



Page 18 of 53

4.5.5 The Project Cycle, Core Standards and Cross CuttingIssues (MJ, CB)

The facilitator asked participants experiences on

project cycle and captured them in the session toreflect on the project cycle and various phases.He linked it to various core standards and crosscutting issues and used the experiences of theparticipants to correlate them. The facilitatorasked the participants to read the cross cuttingissues in their groups and make a flip chartpresentation and explain it to other groups.

The session helped the participants to interlink

the core standards and cross cutting issues withthe project cycle.

4.3 Day 3:

4.5.1 Power point tips (MJ)

The facilitator showed a video on powerpoint mistakes that few presenters happen to do whilemaking powerpoint presentations. The video was quite helpful to explain the basic points of usingpowerpoint in a funny way.

There was another video shown by the facilitator which again helped participants to understand thedos and donts in a powerpoint presentation. These tips were quite useful and were appreciated bythe particiapnts.

4.5.2 Using technical standards and indicators (Vik)

The facilitator used a table top exercise to makethe participants understand minimum standards,key actions, key indicators and guidance notes;and also how to use them. The facilitator gave 1sentence (all words mingled) to each group andasked them to find out the sentence in thehandbook and indetify whether it is a minimumstandard, a key action, or a key indicator. Futherthe groups had to go through that particularsentence, and explain that to other groups in alogical flow (minimum standard, key action, key

Figure 5: Mr. Mayank facilitating discussions on projectcycle and its relation to core standards

Figure 6: Participants in a table-top exercise on Spherehandbook


19/53



Page 19 of 53

indicator and then guidnace note). The presentations were done in bus stop method.

The facilitator explained all the participants about the use of technical standards and the indicatorswith the p resentations made by each group. He also shared the participants on How to use thestandards from page number 7 in the English version of the handbook. The session was well

appreciated by the participants and majority of them expressed that now they feel more confidentin using the handbook.

4.5.3 Code of Conduct (MJ)

The facilitator made the participants to gothrough the code of conduct principles in Spherehandbook and present it to the rest of the groups.

The facilitator added to the discussions with hisexperience and understanding from differentscenarios. The IFRC video on Code fo Conduct wasused to build deeper understanding of theprinciples. The discussions among the participantson the topics of code of conduct helped the wholegroup to learn and understand the importance ofcode of conduct.

A handout on staff code of conduct and mini Case

studies to illustrate the cases were also used to link code of conduct principles to practical situationsin the field.

The session was appreciated by the participants however, they shared if more time could have beengiven to this important session and discussions.

4.5.4 Introduction to other Global Quality and AccountabilityInitiatives (Vik, Ashish)

The facilitator started the session with a role play.He asked two participants (volunteers) to do arole play on how few agencies may behav withdisaster victims in disaster situations. This wasfocused on how resources convert into power in adisaster situation. Further, discussions were builton the role play to make the participantsunderstand the important of code of cunduct foragencies as well as humanitarian aid-workers.

The facilitators shared the participants aboutother global quality and accountability initiativesincluding Humanitarian Accountability Partnership (HAP), Livestock Emergency Guidelines and

Figure 7: Participants going through the Code of Conductin Sphere handbook and having discussions on the sameto build further understanding

Figure 8: A role play done by 2 participants to represent

how resources covnert into power during emergencies


20/53



Page 20 of 53

Standards (LEGS), Inter-Agency Network forEducation in Emergencies (INEE), Active LearningNetwork for Accountability and Performance(ALNAP).

One of the participants was from World Societyfor Protection of Animals (Dr. Ashish) and heshared a presentation on LEGS to rest of thegroup.

The facilitator used a debate among theparticipants on the importance of educationduring emergencies and further built on the understanding of the participants on the subject withexperiences and views of other participants.

The session was perceived well and participants shared that more involvement of participants couldbe done in sessions.

4.4 Day 4:

4.5.1 Cross cultural tips (Vik)

The facilitator shared about various aspects of cross-cultural issues in different set of people,enviornment and situations. The understanding of non-verbal communication and body language isvery important when we deal with people of different cultures.

Cross cultural communication is about dealing with people from other cultures in a way thatminimises misunderstandings and maximises yourpotential to create strong cross cultural relationships.

This session was highly appreciated by the participantsand they shared that this has helped them inunderstading behaviour and communications indifferent scenarios and with different people.

FEW TIPS ON CROSS CULTURALCOMMUNICATION:

Even when English is the commonlanguage in a cross cultural situation,this does not mean you should speak atnormal speed. Slow down, speak clearlyand ensure your pronunciation isintelligible.

Effective cross cultural communicationis in essence about being comfortable.

Giving encouragement to those withweak English gives them confidence,support and a trust in you.

In many cultures business is taken veryseriously. Professionalism and protocolare constantly observed. Many cultureswill not appreciate the use of humourand jokes in the business context. Whenusing humour think whether it will beunderstood in the other culture.

Many cultures have certain etiquettewhen communicating. It is always a

good idea to undertake some crosscultural awareness training or at leastdo some research on the target culture.

Non-verbal communication in IndiaIn Indian context, sometimes the non-verbalcommunication is very different from western countries.One motion that is hard to decipher is the movement ofthe head to denote yes or no. Some Indians shake theirhead from side to side when they mean yes while someothers move it up and down to say yes and sideways tosay no. And then there is a third head movement that ishard to describe. It is between a nod and a shake, andinvolves moving the head in a kind of a semi-circularmotion. It means yes too but can baffle someone who isnot aware of its existence. Another sometimes perplexingpractice is plain silence, which could be used to mean

either yes or no. Of ten keen observation of the bodylanguage is necessary to throw light on a persons truereactions.

Figure 9: Dr. Ashish (WSPA) sharing about LEGS to thegroup


21/53



Page 21 of 53

4.5.2 Adult learning principles (KM, MJ)

The facilitator started with discussion on difference between education and training and then sharedthem about differnet ways of learning. He also shared about different styles of learning. He shared

about the principles of adult learning and discussed with them on differences between child learningand adult learning styles. The participants were shared about the Kolbs exeriential learning cycle. The Kolbs learning style inventory was practiced by all participants to understand their own leanringbehaviour and needs. the facilitator shared handbouts to the participants on learning styles. Thesession was perceived well by the participants.

4.5.3 Assessing Learning Needs, Planning Trainings (KM)

The facilitator started from the learning of the previous session and introduced the participants thatdifferent people may have differnet learning styles and so different learning needs. The participants

were shared about different levels of training needs analysis and the facilitator shared that a trainingintervention is required in case the TNA reflects on some gaps in attitude, skills and knowledge ofthe assesses. The participants were also shared about the various steps in a TNA exercise.

The facilitator added to it with the theory of confort zone and shared that challenging situations alsomake an individual learn a lot in some cases.

4.5.4 Designing trainings (KM, MJ)

The facilitator shared the participants about how to design a training on the identified need through

a TNA and how to set learning objectives. He shared about the various steps of a learning event andother requirements for designing a training.

The facilitator also shared that the key learning messages in a particular training could be dividedinto three sections. One of this is the must know part which the participants must know during thecourse of the session itself. The other is should know which the participants may pick up duringthe session as the facilitator shares about the topic and the discussions proceed. The third one iscould know which a participant may know by refering to the documents provided of the links,reference sources etc. This was perceived well by most of the participants.

4.5.5 Training methodologies (MJ, CB)

The facilitators shared the participants that there may be different methodologies to deliver anyparticular content. The facilitator shared that given the principles of adult learning, training methodsplay an important role in transferring knowledge and skills and changing attitudes. Appropriatetraining methods cut across knowledge, thinking, doing, and feeling. Different training methods mayinclude Demonstration with return demonstration, Talk or presentation, Role-play, Buzz group, Casestudy, Group discussion, Plenary discussion, Field visit, Brainstorming, Drama etc.


22/53



Page 22 of 53

Selecting an appropriate training method depends on variety of factors including what are thelearning objectives, content of session, participants profile (how many participant, theircharacteristics, learning style), whether the trainer is comfortable with the method, time availability,cost associated, space and equipment required etc.

The participants were engaged in a game win as much as you can to understand experientiallearning method. The session was well received by the participants.

4.5 Day 5:

4.5.1 Managing Nerves (Vik)

The facilitator started the session with asking the participants about what difficult situations theyhave felt during delivering trainings. Some of the points were as below:

Sl. No. Difficult situation How to deal with1. Time management Transfer the control to the participants groups.

Form training management team Set norms in the beginning of the training

2. Informed /dessent participants Having informed participants may be a strength.They can be used as a good resource to solvemost of the participants questions.

3. Diverse group Have content which is suitable for a basic levelparticipant as well as can create challenge for an

experienced participant.(handbout on group dynamics was distributed by thefacilitator)

4. Differnet expectations Divide the key learning messages in must know,should know and could know

5. Trainer not knowing the content A facilitator may not always the master of thecontent/subject. His/her role is largely to createthe environment in which learning may happen.He/she has to link the learner to the content byusing variety of methods, environment etc.

6. Trainers rapport with participants Meet individuals during breaks and evening

Take feedbacks and improve7. Space management Improve various sitting / space usage

Reach to participants and groups, interact withthem

8. Contextualization of the content Thinking of a trainer should not start from thecontents, rather it should begin with theidentified objectives and aim to deliver the keylearning message through any suitable methodand tools.


23/53



Page 23 of 53

4.5.2 Constructive feedback and evaluation (KM, Vik)

The facilitator shared tips on constructive feedbacks and how to give and receive feedbacks. thefacilitator shared that feedback is one of the most effective ways of learning more about our self. It

has been said that the last thing we learn about ourselves is the effect we have on others. Thefacilitator engaged the participants in practicing it by giving and receiving feedback in peer group.The need and significance of evaluation was discussed and a handout was shared illustrating fourlevels of evaluation. Different methods of the immediate evaluation as being used in this trainingwere discussed.

4.5.3 Training tips, dialouge, question-answer: Quality Circle(MJ, KM)

The facilitators opened the floor for question-answer and dialouge between the participants and thetrainers. It was done through a process of quality circle and participants were engaged very activelyin the process. The key questions and discussions annexed in annexure (g).

4.5.4 Introduction to participants led sessions

The participants were provided opportunity to lead sessions and practice the learning they have gotin the TOT. The participants designed a 2 day training on Sphere and they delivered on the sessions.The 2 day participants led training design included:

Assessment Technical Standard WASH Technical standard Food & Nutrition Technical Standard Shelter, Settlement & NFI Technical Standard Health Action Convergence and Coordination Monitoring and Evaluation Simulation

The facilitators familiarized the participants with the existing and revised modules of Sphere ToT andhow to use them in designing trainings and sessions on Sphere. The norms for the participant ledsessions to put the learning into practice was shared again with the participants.

The participants were formed in groups of 3 people each and every group had 90 minutes time fortheir topic. They had to make presentations (20 minutes each person) and then a slot of discussionand feedbacks by peer group and facilitators was kept for 30 minuts for each group.

The evaluation was based on:

Individual performance in the presentation Team performance (of session)

Performance of entire group (2 days training)


24/53



Page 24 of 53

5. Training evaluationAll the participants have expressed the interest to use the training process forward to strengthen

their programs and take Sphere work forward in their respective organizations. During thepreparation time it was decided to evaluate the training at different levels to demonstrate differentevaluation methodologies and the complete evaluation process to the participants.

Accordingly, the daily participant feedback and facilitation team reviews were conducted every day.The reaction level evaluation of the training was performed after the training. The indicators ofSphere institutionalisation at the agency level were also shared for agency level evaluations onmainstreaming Sphere.

From both the anecdotal feedback and the participant feedbacks collected at the end of every dayand post training evaluation by the participants, organising committee and training team, the DelhiTOT seems to have met the training objectives and in many cases surpassed expectations. Thesummary of learning from participant daily feedback and facilitation team review process and thepost training participant evaluation is discussed below:

5.1 Summary of participants daily feedbacks

The daily feedbacks were collected from participants through a range of methodologies proved veryuseful to progressively improve the quality of training delivery. The feedbacks were incorporated inthe forthcoming sessions to the extent possible and others were recorded for reporting and betterplanning of future TOTs. Below are some of the points recorded from the daily feedbacks of theparticipants:

Training could have been better if more trainers were involved. It could have benefited theparticipants with diversity of thoughts, experience, background etc.

Community dinner had helped participants to form a team. The facilitato rs friendly and openbehavior made us easy and the environment became more conducive and friendly.

Lead trainer (Vik) tried to accommodate all (or most) of the suggestions given by the participantsin his sessions and PPTs. It was good and important.

Logistics was perfect (food, hotel, accommodation etc.) 8 days are very long and it was not easy, but the training was wonderful and we learnt a lot. Tips on using PowerPoint and flip chart could have come later (instead of coming in the first 2

days) because as a participant, I observed whether the trainer is following them or not. Lot of emphasis was given on learning process. Groups were not shuffled and this limited the learning from other people and groups. Training coordinator (Raman) very well managed all things simultaneously. He always had

positive response to everyone whoever approached him for anything. Using local language could have been avoided as there were foreign participants as well. The session on constructive feedback was very helpful. On the whole the tips learned in the ToT

are very good.


25/53



Page 25 of 53

Participants were happy because all participants got chance to lead sessions. Many participants shared that lots of things were new to them and it was quite useful for them

to be part of this learning process. Comfort zone concept was good. It was being realized that many of the participants experienced

it. Links to real life experiences are very useful. Many new things especially the use of boards, tools in training session, evaluation & feedback

well explained. Methodology was more interactive. The participants interest in learning was very high and immediate reactions were demonstrating

quick learning. The matrix for daily learning index and confidence meter were very useful. Flexibility in schedule to meet participant expectations was good; however the time

management could have been better.

Schedule was very tight. It may be little relaxed. More time could have been given at the beginning of the training to orientate participants with

course materials and the existing sphere modules.

5.2 Summary of Facilitators daily and end of training reviewprocess

The facilitator team and the organising committee overall felt very happy with the outcome of thetraining, the achievement of the training objectives and the expectations. The spirit of the learninggroup was positive and a strong commitment was evident in their forward plans to implementSphere within their organisations and as inter agency efforts.

Overall the facilitation was very effective and there was a lot of learning noted by each facilitator forfuture trainings. Some of the observations were:

The participants profile was very dialectic. It could have been more uniform with majority atleast at desired level of understanding of Sphere. The participant selection criteria for the TOTshould be adhered to.

Daily facilitator planning and de-briefing strengthened the process. There could be better coordination in the training team. In some cases the session preparations could have been better. The lead trainer shall examine the readiness and preparedness of the trainers for their sessions

well in advance to avoid changes and last minute anxieties. It would be better if facilitator s session plans were available to share before the Course starts. A proper time for preparation should be allocated. Follow-up of training needs to be done with the participants and respective organizations. Good facilitation and 1 half-day break kept energy levels high and reduced need for energizers.


26/53



Page 26 of 53

5.3 Summary of particip ants evaluation at the end of thetraining

The summary of consolidated feedback collected through the standard evaluation form of Sphere

ToT and the evaluation form designed by the organising committee is given below.

Achievement of workshop aims and objectives Relevance of content to your work

Impact on the way you work Pace and balance of the workshop

Quality of the learning materials and aids Facilitation and presentation of the training

NA

Poor

Average

GoodExcellent

NA

Poor

Average

GoodExcellent

NA

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent

NA

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent

NA

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent

NA

Poor

AverageGood

Excellent


27/53



Page 27 of 53

Quality of pre-training information Quality of the venue and accommodation

5.3.1 Which part of the workshop was most useful for you?

Almost 39% of the participants shared that the Sphere training was very helpful in enriching theirunderstanding on Sphere handbook, humanitarian charter, standards and their inter-linkages.Approx. 30% of the participants shared that the contents of adult learning were very helpful andhelped them in enhanciing their training skills. More than 26% of them liked the participants ledsessions and shared that it helped them in building their confidence. Tips on using flip charts,powerpoint, managing nerves and cross cultural tips were also liked by many participants. Sessionson code of conduct, protection principles, humanitarian laws were also mentioned by fewparticipants. The experiential learning during the training was also shared as useful part of thetraining by few participants.

5.3.2 What improvements/changes would you suggest for anotherworkshop?

Pre-training information can be given much in advance. Some more pre-training materials couldbe given for better preparations.

More inter-sectoral sessions could be planned. More tools and methodologies in the training so that they can be practiced at later stages by the

participants. More time for preparation of participants led sessions 2

More number of facilitators/resource persons having diversified experience 3 Slightly loose schedule, it was very hectic. Correlating theories with humanitarian actions Time management according to schedule 2 Better content and delivery (there is always room for improvement) International experts could be brought in the training Consider the time spent on daily basis Consideration of the limitation of language More participatory style is suggested

Prior intimation to agencies so that desired participants could be allowed to participate. More number of learning handouts

NA

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent

NA

Poor

Average

Good

Excellent


28/53



Page 28 of 53

There is need to inform well in advance. The resource persons have to be changed according to the contents. The sitting style, arrangements has to be changed everyday to make more comfortable and

meaningful. Classes should begin at 9:00 AM. Incorporating trainees experiences (Like LEGS sharing by WSPA person) should be more. Incorporate more case studies Its only regarding pace of workshop/training. If we are learning, there is need to be very careful.

Some messages might not be communicated properly due to extra pace.

5.3.3 How will you use the Sphere handbook in your work?

Designing project, in planning new proposals (2) Training of staff, In conducting trainings specially in disaster programs (4) At least minimum standards are met during the time of disaster response, In disaster

management and relief work, On collective process towards disaster response, in reliefdistribution (4)

Using core standards, protection and cross cutting issues in field. To prepare a group of cadres for trainings in community level Internalizing the Sphere in different domains It could be used in planning, implementation and monitoring I will utilize Sphere standards in my work such as project implementation, format, assessment,

trainings etc.

Effort would be to familiarize Sphere handbook among the stakeholders and adherence ofminimum standards

Have to discuss with Director as we have our own tools Its directly connected to look forward to weave the concepts into practice. First of all I would like to train my co-workers and colleagues. Then once disaster will occur, we

will try 100% use of the handbook and its practical use. I will aware the community about the standards Sphere handbook is dedicated primarily for disaster response, but to me, everything is relevant

to other sectors. Key actions could be emphasized with local context.

5.3.4 Any other comment/suggestion

We could bring people from various other facets of field The team formation process for the participants led sessions should start early after 2-3 days of

the workshop. Well done Sphere India Team !!! It was beautifully organized and managed programme Inauguration of training could be done by senior person, stakeholder

Totally a fantastic and useful training TOT is my first experience so I do not have any idea


29/53



Page 29 of 53

This workshop needs to be organized with Government level for easy adoption andimplementation.

A dedicated Hindi TOT should be organized. Please give more emphasis to context rather than training methods. Good people and good training Learning should be practiced in a live project/ environment

5.3.5 Structure and content of the TOT

Sl.No.

Topics

Recommendation for the next/futureSphere ToT

Maintain

Revise/improve

Replace with

1. Introduction to Sphere Training of Trainers 20 3 02. Introduction to Sphere 20 2 More time3. The Humanitarian Charter 19 4 04. Protection Principles 18 5 0

5. The Project Cycle, Core Standards and CrossCutting Issues 14 9 0

6. Using Technical Standards and Indicators

12 10More time and morepractice required

7. Code of Conduct 17 5 Details required.

8. Introduction to companion standards andother quality + accountability initiatives 16 6 Documents could begiven during session

9. Adult Learning Principles 12 10 More time required.

10. Assessing Learning Needs

16 6Methodology can bechanged.

11. Designing and Planning Trainings

15 7Methodology can bechanged.

12. Training Methods 16 7 0

13. Constructive Feedback and Evaluation

17 5More detailsrequired.

14. Flipchart Tips

18 4Demonstration wasrequired.

15. Managing Nerves 17 5 Practice required.

16. PowerPoint Tips

15 7More practice andexamples

17. Cross cultural Tips 12 10 More examples18. Training Tips Dialogue, Questions and Answer 16 7 0

19. Design of Training and Process of SessionDesigns for participant led sessions 17 6 0

20. Participants led sessions 15 8 0

21. Sphere Mainstreaming and Institutionalizationin India and South Asia 15 8 0


30/53



Page 30 of 53

22. Forward Action Plans

15 7Written actionplanning required.

23. Personal/group consultation with facilitators 18 5 024. Social Evening and break for Surajkund Fair 20 2 Could be better


31/53



Page 31 of 53

6. Summary of key recommendationsfor future TOTs:a. To Sphere Project and other trainers:

There should be a new training manual for 2011 edition handbook. This may also includecase stories, field stories and examples from the practitioners who have used the handbookin their work.

There are many humanitarian professionals who have enough experience and understandingon Sphere process and handbook to be part of the TOT training team. The Sphere Projecttraining policy may be modified to involve these professionals as trainers in the TOT trainingteam.

All TOT graduates may not be accreditated as Sphere trainers. They may require furtherexposure and handholding from senior trainers in delivery of Sphere trainings. The trainingteam may give ranking/ recommendations on the TOT graduates on their training skills,performance etc. The Sphere Project training policy may acknowledge this point.

The training team should analyse the participants profile much in advance and prepare thetraining structure accordingly. If required, the training structure may be changed toaccommodate the participants expectations and their varied learning needs. However, theemphasis should be given to get the right profile of participants for the TOT.

The IFRC Video on agency code of conduct and mini case studies on staff code of conductwere used and worked well. Recommended for future trainings.

TOT process and structure worked well. It can be used as it is for future trainings. The general perception of Sphere in Asian context (validated from India, South Asia,

Indonesia and Philippines experience) is that it is about numbers (indicators) and standards(quantitative indicators are perceived as standards). More materials may be developed tobuild the understanding on what is Sphere, the complete Sphere framework and how theframework works.

b. To the Organizing Committee

Participant selection criteria shall be strictly adhered to. If not possible it makes sense toorganise and two day Sphere orientation training before TOT.

A participant profile and status quo report should be sent out to the training team at leasttwo week prior to the training.

Lead trainer shall assess the level of preparedness of other trainers. Facilitators sessions plans and presentations shall be prepared well in advance, assessed and

agreed by the training team. This can happen before training team preparatory meeting andthere should be an opportunity to critique each others session plans using conference or

skype calls for discussion.


32/53



Page 32 of 53

The facilitation team size of 3 is ok if all trainers are experienced with ToT. In case ofinexperienced/not confident trainers, additional trainer shall be planned. Optional guesttrainers may be involved for specific sessions.

In case there are senior trained professionals among the team and there is a window toinvolve them with the training, this shall be explored.

Training schedule shall not exceed 8 hours of training time in a day. Adequate breaks andparticipants own time shall be there to maintain participant energy levels especiall y duringlast days of training.

Participants views and feedbacks shall be respected, discussed, agreed or disagreed withproper reasoning; otherwise it may disengage the participant from learning process and mayalso be distracting for other participants.

Logistics: The venue is ideal for training workshops of small groups of 20-30 people.Recommended for future trainings. The support team was excellent.


33/53



Page 33 of 53

7. Annexesa. List of participants

Sl.No.

Picture Name Phone E-mail Organization

1. Mr. GreenThomas

9971688007 [email protected] EFICOR

2. Mr. PramodPal

8051304224 [email protected] EFICOR

3. Mr. SatishKumar Singh

09430744160,08092489741

[email protected],[email protected]

CASA, Bihar(LWR)

4. Mr. RajanGautam

9304377259 [email protected] IDF, Bihar(LWR)

5. Mr. TusharKanti Das

9771413500 [email protected] Plan-International (Indiachapter)

6. Mr.Harshvardhan Sharma

8800594021 [email protected]

Plan India

7. Mr. HansenThambi

Prem

9810169117 [email protected]

WSPA

8. Dr. AshishSutar

9958595345 [email protected] WSPA

9. Ms. SnehilRathore

8756398845 [email protected] IAGUttarakhand
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


34/53



Page 34 of 53

10. Ms. RupaliKar

9437011940 [email protected] IAG Orissa

11. Mr. ParasNath Sidh 9929830310 [email protected],[email protected] IAGRajasthan

12. Mr.Seemanchal

9439324170 [email protected],[email protected]

NCDHR

13. Md. MostafaKamal

:8801711002436

[email protected];[email protected]

ProjectConcernInternational (PCI),Bangladesh

14. Mr.SimionpillaiMariyadas

: + 94 773064552

[email protected] ConsortiumofHumanitarian Agencies

15. Dr. RajuSMG

9650213203 [email protected] MdecinsSansFrontires

(MSF), NewDelhi

16. Mr. BibhasChatterjee

09415339761,09307021497

[email protected],[email protected]

GramNiyojanKendra(GNK), PlanIndia

17. Mr. SolomonDavidGeorge

9748899507 [email protected] CompassionEast India

18. Mr. MariRajan

9489081852 [email protected] IAG TamilNadu:PeoplesAction forDevelopment (PAD)

19. Mr. KumarVishnupadManu

9430595716 [email protected],[email protected]

Bihar InterAgencyGroup
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


35/53


36/53



Page 36 of 53

29. Mr. MayankJoshi

9825046643 [email protected] PCI India

30. Ms.ChandraniBandhyopadhyay

9811767403 [email protected] NationalInstitute ofDisasterManagement

31. Mr. N. M.Prusty

9811310841 [email protected] Sphere India

SPHERE INDIA ADMIN STAFF

1. Ms. RomitaAnand

9873628227 [email protected] AdminOfficer

2. Mr. SurajBahadur

9891006414 [email protected] LogisticsAssistant

3. Ms. NituSingh

9911439088 [email protected] AdminAssistant
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


37/53



Page 37 of 53

b. TOT schedule

Place & Dates: Hotel Atrium, New Delhi, 12 th February 19 th February, 2012

Day 1,Sun

12 Feb,2012

Day 2,Mon

13 Feb,2012

Day 3,Tues

14 Feb,2012

Day 4,Wed

15 Feb,2012

Day 5,Thu

16 Feb,2012

Day 6, Fri17 Feb,

2012

Day 7,Sat

18 Feb,2012

Day 8,Sun

19 Feb,2012

08:30

Participantarrival,Registration

Review(KM) Flip Tips

Review(MJ) PowerPoint tips

Review(Vik)Crossculturaltips

Review(KM)Managingnerves

Review Review Review

09:00

Block 2Introduction

to Sphere(Vik)

Block 6Usingtechnicalstandards

andindicators(Vik , MJ)

Block 10Assessinglearningneeds,

Planningtrainings(KM , MJ)

Block 14TrainingtipsDialogue,

question-answer( MJ, KM)

Participant-led

Session 1

Participant-ledSession6

Individual timewithtrainers,interactions,ques-

ans etc.asrequired(notcompulsory)

10:30 Break Break Break Break Break Break Break

11:00

Block 3TheHumanitarianCharter(Vik ,

NMP)

Block 7Code ofConduct(MJ , Vik)

Block 11Designingtrainings(KM , Vik)

Block 15Introduction toparticipant-ledsession( Vik , MJ,KM)

Participant-ledSession 2


Departures

12:30 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch

13:30

Block 4ProtectionPrinciples(Vik ,NMP)

Block 8Introduction tootherglobalQ&Ainitiatives(Vik ,Ashish)

Block 12Trainingmethods(CB , MJ)

Break



15:

00 Break Break Break Break Break

15:30

Block 1Introduction to thecourse,participants videointroductions,expectations( Vik , KM,CB)

Block 5Theprojectcycle, corestandardsand crosscuttingissues(CB , MJ)

Block 9Adultlearningprinciples(MJ , KM)

Block 13ConstructiveFeedback&Evaluation(KM , Vik)


Q&Ainitiatives incontextof SouthAsia andIndia(Panel:NIDM,NDMA,Prusty)

17:

00 Break Break Break Break Break

17: Continue Evaluation Evaluation Evaluation Plenary Participa Action


38/53



Page 38 of 53

30 d of the day of the day of the day discussion-1(ifrequiredforpreparations)

nt-ledSession 5

Plans &Recommendation;Evaluation &valedicto

ry(alltrainers)

18:30

BreakGroup/Individualtime withtrainers







20:00 Dinner

Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner

Blocks relating to Sphere training Blocks relating to adult learning Blocks relating to participant practice


39/53



Page 39 of 53

c. Learning monitoring index

Sl. No. Name of Participant Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 71. Green 4 6 6 6 7 8 8.5

2. Pramod 5 6 7 7 7.5 7 83. Satish 5 5.5 5.5 6 6 7 84. Rajan 3.5 4 4.5 5 6 7.55. Tushar 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 8 8.56. Harsh 5 5 5.5 5.8 6 7 7.37. Hansen 4 5 6 7 8 8.5 8.58. Ashish 6 6.5 7 7.3 7.5 8 8.59. Snehil 3 4 5 5 5.5 6 710. Rupali 5 6.5 6.5 7 7.5 8

11. Paras 5 5.5 6 6.2 6.5 6 712. Seemanchal 3.5 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 713. Kamal 5 5 5.5 6 6 6.5 714. Mariyadas 8 8 9 9 9 9 915. Raju 5 6 7 7 8 8 8.516. Bibhas 1 3 4 5 5 5 617. Solomon 4 5 6 7 7.5 8 818. Mari Rajan 2 6 5 4.5 6 7 819. Manu 4 5 6 8 8 8 820.

Kameshwar 6 6 7 6 6.5 7 821. Raman 6 8 8 8 9 9 922. Baleshwor 3.5 4.5 5 6 6.5 7 7.523. Jaya 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 824. Neha 3 5 6 7 7.5 7.5 8

The color codes depict the grading of the participants where lowest value (1) is marked with red,highest value (10) is marked with green and the rest are the shades with yellow as per the values.

The below graph shows the average learning index of the group on each successive day of thetraining.


40/53



Page 40 of 53

d. Confidence meter

Sl. No. Name of Participant Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 71. Green 6 5 6.5 6.5 7 8 8.52. Pramod 5 5 6 7 7 8 83. Satish 4 5 5 5.5 5.5 6.5 84. Rajan 3.5 4 5 5.5 6 8.55. Tushar 5 6 7 7.5 8 8.5 96. Harsh 4 6 6 6.2 6.7 7.8 87. Hansen 5 5 6 7 8 8 88. Ashish 6.5 7 7.5 7.8 8 8 89. Snehil 4 3 4 5 5.5 6 810. Rupali 7 8 8 8 8 811. Paras 5 6 6 6 6.5 7 812. Seemanchal 4 4.5 5 5.5 6 6.5 713. Kamal 5 5.5 5.5 6 6 6 7

14. Mariyadas 6 6 7 7 7 9 915. Raju 5 5.5 7 7 8 8 8.516. Bibhas 2 2 3 4 5 6 817. Solomon 5 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 818. Mari Rajan 1 4 6 5 6 8 8.519. Manu 2 3 5 6 6 7 820. Kameshwar 6 6 6 6 6.5 7 7.521. Raman 7 7 8 8 9 9 922. Baleshwor 3.5 4 5 6 7 7 7.5

23. Jaya 4 5 5.5 4.5 5 5.5 624. Neha 5 6 7 7 8 8 8

4.45.3 6.0

6.36.8

7.37.9

0.01.0

2.03.0

4.05.0

6.07.0

8.09.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

V a

l u e

Day

Average Learning Index of Participants


41/53



Page 41 of 53

The color codes depict the grading of the participants where lowest value (1) is marked with red,highest value (10) is marked with green and the rest are the shades with yellow as per the values.

The below graph shows the average confidence meter of the group on each successive day of thetraining.

4.55.1

5.9 6.36.8

7.38.0

0.0

1.0

2.03.0

4.05.0

6.07.0

8.09.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

V a

l u e

Day

Average Confidence Meter of Participants


42/53


43/53



Page 43 of 53

13. Govt. of India is bringing National Guidelines on Minimum Standards in Disaster Response whichis developed in consultative process. Sphere India has been extensively involved in the processof development of these guidelines and around 90% of Sphere thinking has gone into this. Theassessment checklists and formats have also been inserted into this.

14. Bihar Inter-Agency Group: They are going to organize a workshop soon in which they are goingto link the Sphere standards and Bihar State relief code. The recommendations shall be sharedto the Govt.

15. Cyclone Thane, Tamil Nadu: IAG conducted assessments of the affected areas. They didadvocacy with the govt. and INR 4000/- was provided by the Govt. to each family initially andlater, INR 1500 Crore rupees have been sanctioned by the the Govt. for the affected areas.

MEASURES/MECHANISMS TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER AGENCIES ARE COMPLYING WITH THESTANDARDS

1. Sri Lanka: They have cluster approach in the country and they monitor the compliance.2. So far agencies have not been sharing their reports to all but this could be very important

learning process for all.3. Sphere India is working on developing India Disaster Report 2011 and had sent questionnaire to

number of IAGs and agencies who responded in different disasters in 2011. However, very fewof them have responded to the questionnaire. However, IAGs have been very active platform inthe states and have built strong binding among the members. Information sharing among all,

joint assessments, sharing of individual assessments have been actively done. However, jointmonitoring has not been done so far, and agencies monitoring/evaluation reports have alsobeen not shared among all.

4. Banglades h: They dont have IAGs but ECB (Emergency Capacity Building) which is a smallnetwork. Their activities are largely similar to the core standards of Sphere handbook. In recentfloods, they collected assessments from partners and all of the 19 reports were quite differentfrom each other and it was very difficult for them to collate them. They seek advice andsuggestions from India experience of coordination.

Other key discussion points were as below:

How to use the information collected on the entry level behavior of participants? How to makesub-groups in the participants?

Does the Sphere handbook have guidelines for IEC development?o No. the handbook does not have guidelines for IEC development. It talks about

humanitarian charter, core standards and 4 technical chapters. IAGs and Sphere Indiaare processes. Materials like IEC, tools etc. are developed in consultation with membersin the coordination process.

How do we monitor that the recommendations shared by civil societies to Govt. are followed bythe Govt.:

o There are several experiences on this. One experience was from fisher folk communitywhere NGO had identified the need of appropriate method for drying fishes and theirstorage. After successful intervention in 10 villages by the NGO, now, it has been

incorporated in the Govt. programs and is now sustainable.


44/53



Page 44 of 53

f. Revised training schedule (Participants led sessions):

Day 1, Tue14 Feb, 2012

Day 2, Wed15 Feb, 2012

Day 3, Thu16 Feb, 2012

Day 4, Fri17 Feb, 2012

Day 5, Sat18 Feb, 2012

08:30

Participantarrival,Registration

Review Review Review Review

09:00

Block 2Introductionto Sphere(Vik)

Block 6Using technicalstandardsand indicators(Vik , MJ)

Block 9:Assessment(Seemanchal,Satish, Tushar )

Block 13:Convergence andCoordination(Rupali, Vibashand Pramod)

10:30 Break Break Break Break

11:00

Block 3The HumanitarianCharter( Vik , NMP)

Block 7Code of Conduct(MJ , Vik)

Block 10:TechnicalStandard-WASH(Baleshwor, MariD and Hansen)

Block 14:Monitoring &Evaluation (Manu,Rajan andSolomon)

12:30 Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch

13:30

Block 4ProtectionPrinciples( Vik , NMP)

Block 8Introduction toother global Q&Ainitiatives(Vik , Ashish)

Block 11:TechnicalStandard-Foodand Nutrition(Neha, Paras andAshish)

Block 12:Simulation(Snehil, Jaya andHarsh)

15:00 Break Break Break Break

15:30

Block 1Introduction tothe course,participants videointroductions,expectations( Vik , KM, CB)

Block 5The project cycle,core standardsand cross cuttingissues( CB , MJ)

BREAK

Block 11:TechnicalStandard-Shelter,Settlement andNFI (Raman,Kameshwor andGreen)

Q&A initiatives incontext of SouthAsia and India(Panel: NIDM,NDMA, Prusty)

17:00 Break Break Break

17:30 Continued Evaluation of theday

Block 12:TechnicalStandards: HealthAction (Raju,Kamal. Mari R)

Action Plans &Recommendation;Evaluation &valedictory(all trainers)

18:30BreakGroup/Individualtime with trainers

BreakGroup/Individualtime with trainers




20:00 Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner Dinner

Participants led sessions


45/53



Page 45 of 53

g. Session Designs and reports of participants led sessions

1) ASSESSMENT:

Session design:

Sl. No. Content Time Method Medium Trainer 1) Introduction to

Assessment 10 minutes Lecture PPT Mr. Simanchal

2) Sphere CoreStandard

20 Minutes Lecture &Discussion

PPT Mr. Satish

3) Linkages ofAssessments

20 Minutes Lecture,Discussion,Simulation

PPT, Mr. Tushar

4) key messages &winding up

10 minutes Discussion PPT

Learning objectives: At the end of session participants will be able to know

The importance of assessment in humanitarian response Factors influencing assessment in humanitarian response Linkages with technical standards

Key learning messages:

Assessment is conducted to determine the nature of emergency and who needs support. Remember, all disasters are not emergencies. Assessments are always followed by analysis and are prerequisite for programme planning CVA, PRA are different tools used during assessment. Monitoring is a continuous form of assessment.

2) MINIMUM STANDARDS IN WATER SUPPLY, SANITATION AND HYGIENE PROMOTION:

Session Objectives: At the end of this session participants will be able to:

Explain the importance of WASH in Disaster Response Describe the structure of WASH in the Sphere Handbook Describe the use of Minimum Standards, Key Actions, Key Indicators and Guidance Notes

for disaster response

Key Messages:

The Importance of WASH in Disaster is to promote: good hygiene practices, provision ofsafe drinking water, the reduction of environmental health risk, and the conditions thatallow people to live with good health, dignity, comfort and security .


46/53


47/53



Page 47 of 53

materials, tools etc.o Hosting within communities (with

neighbours, relatives)o Rental support may be given to

families who get hosted with

families in community. Reliefagencies need to facilitate theprocess.

o Temporary communal settlements(self settled unplanned camps)

o Planned and managed campso Information or advice on how to

access grants, materials or otherforms of shelter support from Govt.schemes and NGOs relief programs.

3. List the basicstandards, key actionsand indicators inshelter response

Minimum usable surface area of 45square meters for each personincluding household plots should beprovided.o Includes roads and footpaths,

external household cooking areasor communal cooking areas,educational facilities andrecreational areas, sanitation,firebreaks, administration, waterstorage, distribution areas, markets,storage and limited kitchen gardens

for individual households. All affected individuals have aninitial minimum covered floor areaof 3.5m2 per person.

Cultural practices, safety and privacy ofoccupants in a shelter should beconsidered.

Participatory design Local building practices and resources

should be used. Govt. building codes for disaster

resilient houses should be followed. Negative impact on environmental

must be reduced.4. List the basic

standards, key actionsand indicators in NFIinterventions

Relief packages should becontextualized, need based andaccepted by the community.

Coordination and linkages with theWASH and Food chapters should bedone in NFI response.

Time Topic (linked tolearning objectives) MethodsTeaching

aids,resources

Tools Facilitator


48/53



Page 48 of 53

e.g.flipcharts,pens etc

5minutes

Introducing thesession with learning

objectives

Sharing Slide withLCD

projector

Raman

15minutes

Legal background forimportance of shelterresponse

The facilitator willask the participantswhether shelter is aneed. He/she willask from theparticipantswhether shelterconstitutesimportantcomponent in life,and if it isassociated withright to life. Thenhe/she will askabout if they knowof any legalbackgrounds forshelter or housingfor an individualand for the variousvulnerable groups.

Group readings:5 different set ofreading will beprovided to eachparticipant groupfor reading andreflection. Theparticipants wouldshare about thegiven informationto rest of thegroups.

Trainer willconclude withsharing thathousing is a rightand is obligatoryfor state andhumanitarianagencies to respondin shelter. And alsothat various

vulnerable groupsalso have the rights

Flip chart,marker

Groupreadingmaterialson rightsofdifferentgroupsandvulnerablegroups inshelterandhousing.

Kameshwar


49/53



Page 49 of 53

to receive shelterresponse.

25minutes

Various options inshelter response

And Importantconsiderations inshelter response(based on Sphereminimum standards)

The facilitator willask the participants

if they haveexperience ofshelter response inany emergencies.List the types ofshelter responseson the flip chart.

Ask them if theyknow of any otheroptions for shelter.Ask them aboutwhat the objectiveof shelter programis and how we canachieve it.

Think in yourgroups for 2minutes andquickly give 3options for shelterresponse.

Share them thevarious options.(pg. 249-254)Shelter &Settlement Std 1-2

Facilitator asksthem on any knownindicator on spacefor shelter.Responses arecollected on flipchart anddiscussion done ifrequired.Sharing ofstandards.

Facilitator asksthem on 3.5 sqmeter tarpaulin.Gives them chart

paper to make tentof similar area

PowerPointand Flip

chart,markers

PowerPointand flip

chart

Raman


50/53



Page 50 of 53

(experimentation).

Quick calculationon surface area.

20minutes Importantconsiderations inNon-Food Itemsinterventions

The facilitator giveschart papercuttings to theparticipants groupsand asks them towrite the list ofnon-food items thatthey would like toprovide in adisaster situation.

Facilitator relatedthe lists ofparticipants groupsto the relevantsections in theSphere handbook.

The facilitatorexplains theparticipants aboutthe method ofidentification of

food grade plasticwith livedemonstration.

Flip chart,chartpaper,marker,waterbottle

Green

5minutes

Summing up and keylearning points

Raman,Green,Kameshwar

20minutes

Questions, feedbacks

5) MINIMUM STANDARDS IN HEALTH ACTIONS

Session Topic: Health Action

Team Members : Raju, Kamal and Marirajan

Session Objective: Describe the Impact and Structures of Health Assistance in Disaster

Key Learning Points

to explain the importance of Health Action in Disaster

to understand the linkages of HA in Core standard, Humanitarian Charter and Cross-Cutting

Issues


51/53



Page 51 of 53

to understand the priorities of Health Services in Disaster Response

Methods applied: Lecture, simulation

Tools used: Video, flip chart, group work, discussion, bus stop

6) CONVERGENCE AND COORDINATION: