CI Strategic Direction #1: Emergency Preparedness and Response
CARE International SD #1: Emergency Preparedness & Response
Final Summary Performance & Progress Report for FY11 (July 2010 – June2011)
I. Basic Emergency Data / Total Number of Emergencies / Number of ‘Type 1’ Emergencies / Number of ‘Type 2’ Emergencies / Number of ‘Type 3’ EmergenciesFY06 (Baseline Data) / 18 / 6 / 12 / 0
FY07 (Baseline Data) / 18 / 14 / 3 / 1
FY08 (July 07 – June 08) / 32 / 17 / 15 / 0
FY09 (July 08 – June 09) / 26 / 16 / 10 / 0
FY10 (July 09 – June 10) / 32 / 22 / 7 / 3
FY11 (July 10 – June 11) / 23 / 16 / 7 / 0
Type 2 emergencies for FY11
1.Pakistan Floods ( July 2010)
2.Benin Floods (September 2010)
3.Haiti Cholera Outbreak (October 2010)
4.Côte d’Ivoire Post Election Violence (December 2010)
5.Japan Earthquake & Tsunami (March 2011)
6.SudanSouth Kordofan Conflicts (June 2011)
7.Ethiopia Drought and Food security Crisis ( May 2011)
II. Emergency Response Performance (for type 2 emergencies) / Aggregate performance compared to FY12 targets in CARE’s Emergency Strategy
Baseline1 / FY08 / FY09 / FY10* / FY11
- Timeliness
- Quality & Accountability
- Competence in Core Sectors
- Emergency Expenditure and Funding
- Emergency Capacity Cost Recovery
* FY11 aggregate performance percentages are based on available data, to be updated as additional data becomes available
**Please see the narrative report– there were only 1 type 2 rapid onset emergency this year – Japan earthquake and Tsunami. The remaining 6 type 2 emergencies were slow onset where timeliness is less relevant. .
*** Insufficient information has been provided by the membership to complete this indicator.
KEY / 10% / 20% / 30% / 40% / 50% / 60% / 70% / 80% / 90% / 100%
“Red” less than 50% of Target met
“Yellow” between 50-80% of Target met
“Green” more than 80% of Target met
Performance Metrics Report for FY 11 (July 2010 – June 2011)
Emergencies during this period:Pakistan Floods (July 2010 – Slow onset),Benin Floods (September 2010 – Slow onset), Haiti Cholera Outbreak (October 2010 – Slow onset), Côte d’Ivoire Post Election Violence (December 2010 – Slow onset ), Japan Earthquake & Tsunami (March 2011 – RAPID ONSET) , Sudan South Kordofan Conflicts (June 2011 – Slow onset), Ethiopia Drought and Food security Crisis (May 2011 – Slow onset)
Timeliness
Indicator / FY10 Results Against Target (%) / RemarksDecisions on rapid onset emergencies are made & communicated throughout CI within 24 hours. / N/A / This indicator is applicable only for rapid onset emergencies . During the FY there was only one rapid onset – Japan. CARE Japan is a CI member and decision making is in the hand of CARE Japan. CEG provided support but under current protocols no clarity on who would be on the CCG etc thus marked N/A
FY12 Target 90%
Material emergency response interventions are launched within 48 hours after the rapid onset disaster. / 0% / This indicator is applicable only for rapid onset emergencies. For Japan material intervention was after 6 days rather than 2.it should be noted that although Pakistan is recorded as slow onset for the flooding in Swat CARE provided material support to the affected communities within 24 hours.
FY12 Target 80%
Appropriate level of CI ERF funds to start-up emergency responses are allocated within 48 hours. / FY11 Result 74% / All CI ERF allocations were provided on time except for Côte d’Ivoire.
FY12 Target 90%
Emergency Capacity Assessment is completed and received by CEG within 72 hours (one month for slow onset) / FY 11 Result - 56% / All capacity assessmentswere received in a timely manner except for Haitiand Japan
FY12 Target 90%
Additional international staffs are deployed (en-route) within 72 hours after staffing requests. / FY 11 Result 67% / The requested staff was deployed in Côte d’Ivoire within the expected timeframe.
FY12 Target 90%
Early visit of senior line management staff to disaster sites within an appropriate time frame (see Endnote) / FY11 Result 67% / Pakistan, Haiti and Japan received a timely visit from senior staff.
FY12 Target 90%
Communications material(s) for public messaging about the disaster and CARE’s response are circulated throughout CI within 24 hours of the disaster event. / FY10 Result – 74% / This indicator is applicable for all emergencies except for Sudan
FY12 Target 90%
Quality & Accountability of Response
Indicator / FY10 Results Against Target (%) / RemarksCountry office preparedness plans that have been reviewed/revised within the past 12 months and there is evidence of readiness and use / FY 11 Result 69% / Emergency Preparedness Plans wereavailable in Pakistan, Haiti, Benin and in Côte d’Ivoire but they were not sufficiently used during the emergency responses.
FY12 Target 90%
Emergency strategies are developed within one week of the disaster event and revised as necessary (or one month for a slow onset) / FY11 Result 111% / All the country offices developed timely strategies
FY12 Target 90%
Disaggregated population & gender sensitive emergency response and plans. / FY 11 Result 56% / Pakistan, Benin and Haiti provided disaggregated data within the requisite timeframe.
FY12 Target 90%
Monitoring and evaluation of CARE responses indicate minimum levels of appropriate and applicable humanitarian accountability standards are met or exceeded. / FY 11 Result56% / Results from available After Action Reviews in Pakistan, Benin, and Côte d‘Ivoire
FY12 Target 90%
Competence in Core Sectors
Indicator / FY10 Results Against Target (%) / RemarksSignificant interventions in at least one of the core sectors. / FY 11 Result 107% / Results from available After Action Reviews : Pakistan (Food,WASH,,Shelter), Benin (WASH & Shelter), Haiti (WASH), Côte d’Ivoire (WASH),
FY12 Target 70%
Monitoring and evaluation of CARE responses indicate technical quality in core sectors meets or exceeds accepted standards. / FY11 Result 56% / Pakistan (Food,WASH,,Shelter), Benin (WASH & Shelter), Haiti (WASH), Côte d’Ivoire (WASH).For Japan and Ethiopia we are waiting for the after action reviews/evaluations to determine score.
FY12 Target 90%
Emergency Expenditure and Funding
Indicator / FY10 Results Against Target (%) / Remarks70% of disaster responses funding targets have been met within 3 months / FY 11 Result 67% / Pakistan, Benin, Japanemergencies met and exceeded funding target except Côte d’Ivoire and Haiti. Sudan and Ethiopia are not considered for this calculation
FY12 Target 90%
Average annual leverage of ERF allocations across CI. / FY11 Result 100% / Pakistan, Benin and Côte d’Ivoire, met and exceeded the annual leverage. Haiti, Japan and Ethiopia did not apply for the CI ERF
FY12 Target 90%
Annual CI emergency programme expenditure. / FY11 Result 92% / These figures are based on information made available from CI members.
FY12 Target € 160,000,000
Emergency Capacity Cost Recovery
Indicator / FY10 Results Against Target (%) / RemarksCost recovery on CEG staff deployed to Type II emergencies / FY 11 Result – 86% / For CEG staff – 79% of all costs recovered for Pakistan and 74% for Haiti – costs for Benin are not yet finalised.
FY12 Target 80%
Percentage of CI members’ and CEG’s emergency unit costs covered by restricted funding sources. / FY11 result 54% / Based on reports received from the membership
FY12 Target 50%
SD#1 Implementation Status Second Phase (FY 10 – FY12): revised objectives based on mid-term evaluation
FINANCIAL YEAR
Duration / FY07 / FY08 / FY09 / FY10 / FY11 / FY12
Operational support for preparedness and response is strengthened / 3 years
High quality and timely media/communications supports humanitarian work and profile / 3 years
Consistent understanding across the organization about CARE’s humanitarian work / 3 years
Performance in responding to humanitarian emergencies shows improvement over time / 3 years
CARE is a recognized leader in our humanitarian program focus areas and in accountability / 3 years
Functioning CARE-wide staff roster system enables COs to secure qualified staff on-time for responses / 3 years
Systems and tools are understood and applied throughout CI systems, policies and practices / 3 years
CARE staff from COs and CI members have required skills/knowledge for managing and supporting preparedness and response / 3 years
Programs integrate humanitarian response, DRR, preparedness, recovery, and long-term development / 3 years
CARE NL leads DRR
HAF meets ‘industry’ standards and is coherent within CARE’s overall accountability approach / 2 years
HAF will inform development of a CI Accountability Framework during FY11
CARE’s emergency revenues reach a sustained level of €165 million ($200 million) per year by 2012-2014 / 3 years
Influence humanitarian policies in support of field work and contribute to fulfilling the rights of people affected by humanitarian crises / 3 years
Strengthen the use of appropriate partnership in emergency preparedness and response / 2 years
Key
Planned
Achieved
Extended /
Milestone
partial completion
Guidance Notes for Performance Metrics Indicators
- Starting date of an Emergency Response: for a quick onset emergency, this is usually either the emergency alert that is based on the CO’s assessment and/or communications (media reports, etc.). For slow onset disasters, timeliness indicators are calculated based on the date when the emergency type (1, 2 or 3)2 is determined by the Crisis Coordination Group (CCG).
- Emergency phase: In most cases, the emergency phase is considered to last approximately 3 months. Significant exceptions will be noted in the “Remarks” column.
- Senior line management staff: Are usually senior line managers from Lead Members or, for smaller-scale emergencies Country Directors or ACD-Program in CARE Country Offices, who have sufficient authority to make on-the-spot decisions in terms of funding and/or technical support appropriate to the scale of the emergency. The appropriate timeframe for senior staff to visit the disaster site is determined by the type of emergency. For a large scale emergency (e.g. 2005 Tsunami, 2001 Afghanistan war), visits by senior staff to (or as near as possible) to the disaster sites should take place as early as possible, but usually should take place within 15 days of the starting date of an emergency response. For very large emergencies, these staff members need to have sufficient seniority to facilitate timely decision-making on multi-million dollar commitments and human resource priorities. For smaller-scale emergencies which do not require significant additional resources from outside the country, a visit to the disaster site during the initial days by a CD and/or ACD is often sufficient.
- A “Significant intervention” in the three core sectors is when the scale of CARE’s intervention, measured both in terms of coverage of affected population and/or overall budget allocated to international humanitarian agencies. What is “significant” depends on the context, but is typically around 15-20% of the overall intervention by all international humanitarian actors in that particular sector/cluster.
- CI emergency total revenue: Aggregate of all funds designated for use in emergency response, regardless of donor.
Endnotes:
1 Part of the process of developing the performance metrics system was to systematize data collection, but a number of gaps were encountered when trying to compile data for the baseline (FY06 & FY07). FY06 & FY07 data should therefore be seen as a reasonable snapshot of the strategy’s starting point, but should be treated with some caution since systematic tracking of indicators only began during FY08 and the analysis is based on available data from a selected sample of emergencies during FY06 and FY07.
2 Emergency Typology:
Type 1: Small-scale emergencies in a country where CARE has operational presence,
Type 2: Major emergency in a country where CARE has operational presence,
Type 3: Major emergency in a country where CARE has no, or very limited, operational presence.
3 SD#1 Implementation Status: Gantt chart has been extended to incorporate new activities planned for the second phase of SD1 which began in FY10 based on the results of the SD#1 mid-term evaluation and CARE’s management response.
1