| Humanitarian indicators and data sources
PROCESS and
OUTCOME
indicators |
Humanitarian indicators measure people’s conditions of life. They may take the form of measures of PROCESS—such as the number of children treated for malnutrition; or measures of OUTCOME—such as the percentage of children that are malnourished. The essence of the sanctions assessment methodology is to determine whether there are changes in humanitarian conditions (as measured by indicators) that may be due to sanctions.
This chapter provides guidelines on sources and availability of information and the use of humanitarian indicators in causal models. |
Primary versus
secondary data
collection |
Most of the data used in determining baseline conditions and assessing the possible effects of sanctions are garnered from existing sources, whereas original data are usually generated sparingly, to fill gaps. Existing sources of data are referred to as secondary data sources, while the collection of original data is referred to as primary data collection. more.............
|
Qualitative
information in
causal models
|
The term “qualitative” refers to conditions or information that can at most be only partially enumerated. Qualitative information is essential for developing useful causal models. It captures the contextual setting associated with information or situations affecting people’s lives, and so can assist in characterizing the relationships of one variable in the chain of causation to the next. Qualitative information is derived mainly from: |
Sources of
qualitative
information |
• In-depth interviews with key individuals;
• Focus group discussions (that are semi-structured) with small groups;
• Casual meetings with communities of interest;
• Participant observation, to see what people do, how and why;
• Site visits, to see the context in which they do it and to collect observations;
• Reviews of public records, archives or official transcripts;
• Critical incident questionnaires;
• Snowball interviews, where the first interview leads to a second, more focused interview with another individual. |
| Control groups
|
In many cases, sanctions are national in scope with the result that it may prove difficult to identify control groups (people within the country not affected by sanctions) with which to make comparisons. Control groups are the main way that different outcomes can be attributed to a particular cause. It is likely that “external” control groups (i.e., outside the country/territory) will also be lacking. |
Possible control
groups to use
as comparison |
Possible comparison groups that may highlight the impact of sanctions include: military versus civilians within a country, women versus men, those receiving rationed food versus those who do not, or employees in the public sector versus those in the private sector. |
Cross-time
comparisons |
Changes in conditions experienced by the same population group over time can be used to assess the impact of sanctions. The key principle in undertaking comparisons across time is to ensure that the analysis takes into account factors other than sanctions that may have come into play, or changed in their intensity, over the same time period. |
Priority
PROCESS and
OUTCOME
indicators |
Table 2 provides a list of priority humanitarian indicators across the “4 + 4” human security subject areas. These indicators have been crossreferenced with the indicators used in the UN Common Country Assessment (CCA) framework to ensure maximum compatibility with existing assessment processes. Indicators of PROCESS and OUTCOME have been identified in each human security subject area.
When constructing causal models, the PROCESS indicators will generally relate to measurement of the intermediate steps in the chain of causation (proximal or distal causes), while the OUTCOME indicators will be used to measure humanitarian conditions. more............. |
|
