Health Cluster Performance Assessment and Monitoring Tool: partner form Feedback provided by each health cluster partner agency Date: Country: (and location if at sub-national level) I. Coordination mechanisms and inclusion of all actors within the Health Cluster and inter-cluster Additional I.A. Ensure functioning of health sector coordinating mechanisms 1: The Health Cluster approach duplicates or undermines pre-existing coordination mechanisms; Health Cluster partners express dissatisfaction in the functioning of the health cluster with low participation in Health Cluster meetings (in terms of number of people, level of participation or attendance induced only by financial incentives); cluster leads represent their agency s interest and not the cluster s interest at HCT meetings 2: The Health Cluster builds on, but does not improve pre-existing coordination mechanisms; Health Cluster partners are sceptical about functioning of the health cluster, but there may be reasonable participation; cluster members feel only partially represented at HCT meetings by the cluster lead 3: Health Cluster partners recognize added value of the health cluster and show committed participation in Health Cluster meetings; Partners feel largely represented at HCT meetings by the cluster lead and cluster leads exhibit responsibility for the work within the cluster; Cluster meetings may not be sufficiently strategic and limited attention has been given for avoiding intercluster duplication and enhancing intercluster complementarity; There may also be limited use of Strategic Advisory and Technical Working Groups 4: Health Cluster partners recognize cluster approach as highly relevant to their needs and participate strongly and actively in Health Cluster meetings; Cluster members feel well represented by the cluster lead at HCT meetings; The Health Cluster has effective linkages to all other relevant clusters/sectors; The health cluster is effectively supported by Strategic Advisory and Technical Working Groups; I. B. Mapping health actors and service delivery activities for optimal geographic coverage 1. There is no 3W data base for mapping health actors/projects/activities, or partners are unaware of it. Duplication or gaps not identified 2. The health cluster 3W data base is established but not fully used and not all parners provided inputs, and/or it is not regularly updated. Duplications or gaps may be identified, but not addressed; Duplication of mapping tools may exist, with partners requested to feed into multiple mapping exercises with no exchange of information between mappers 3. The Majority of health cluster partners provide inputs to the health cluster 3W data base, which is regularly updated and used to avoid duplication; geographic coverage is being addressed; No duplication of mapping tools 4. All health cluster partners provide input to the health cluster 3W data base, which is regularly updated and maintained within the OCHA managed 3W data base, and used to avoid duplication; Geographic coverage is optimised I.C. Information management, incl. external communications 2st Draft 25 October 3121 Page 1of 5
1. Health information sharing is not existing or partners are unaware of it. Or information shared is not useful 2. Some health information is shared among Health Cluster partners, but not outside or among the clusters. The means of information circulated is not clear to the recipient and/or only part of the information shared is considered useful 3. Information is shared effectively (regularly updated and easily accessible) within the Health Cluster; some information is shared with relevant non-cluster members and other clusters. Information shared is considered useful and provides an appraisal of the current health situation and possible health threats. 4. Regularly updated information of high quality and technical detail is shared effectively with the Health Cluster partners (incl. MoH), other clusters and stakeholders (including donors) and the news-media in useful, readily understandable formats (database, website and other information products), and linked with the OCHA Humanitarian Information Centre (HIC) II. Cordination with national authorities & other local actors Additional 1: Appropriate national and local health 2: Health Cluster members are actors are not involved in coordination with coordinating at a minimal level with the cluster at national and/or sub-national appropriate local health actors (the MoH, level; Inappropriate actors are involved local authorities and / or civil society) but this is more of an honorary role rather than active involvement 3: There is adequate representation and coordination with the appropriate national health authorities (MoH) and local health actors at national and sub-national level regarding decision making; Information and resources are provided in the relevant local languages 4: There is strong representation and coordination with the appropriate national health authorities (MoH) and local health actors at national and sub-national level regarding decision making, with the MoH playing a leading active role (eg. co-chair) in the organisation of the cluster; Meetings and information products are in the relevant local languages; Existing coordination mechanisms in country are used wherever possible, with no duplication; There is active participation with international and national health actors health coordination mechanisms at national and sub-national level III. Needs assessment & analysing including identifying gaps Additional III.A. Data collection, analysis processes & tools 1: There is no systematic data collection between partners; Global Health Cluster tools are not shared/used or Health Cluster partners did not receive training or briefings on the tools 2. Some Global Health Cluster tools are shared and used among Health Cluster partners, but not outside or among clusters; there is a common surveillance mechanism. Some sub-sectors had indepth assessments 3. Global Health Cluster tools are shared and used effectively (regularly updated) within the Health Cluster; some tools are shared with relevant non-cluster members and other clusters; partners agree on a core set of HIS indicators and common assessment tools. Availability and functionality of health facilities are mapped and information shared, most sub-sectors had indepth assessments 4. Health Cluster partners share and use Global Health Cluster tools, whereby data collection and analysis are shared effectively with relevant non-cluster members, other clusters and the HC/RC and HCT; joint surveys and needs assessments are conducted, including joint analysis of health system performance III.B. Monitoring the health situation and health sector response 2st Draft 25 October 3121 Page 2of 5
1. Less than 35% of the cluster partners required to monitor the health situation and performance of the health services. Aggregated reports do no guide prioritisation or provide feedback on progress 2. About 51% of the cluster partners required to monitor the health situation Aggregated reports provide some analysis of overall progress 3. Almost 75% of the health cluster partners provide regular in time standardised set of data required to monitor the health situation Reports provide usefull information on overall progress 4. Almost all health cluster partners required to monitor the health situation Reports provide effective feedback on progress against the health strategy III.C. Identifying, analysing, & prioritizing problems, risks, gaps and response action 1: No prioritization of key gaps or health risks; quality of Health Cluster assessments or analyses of the health sector is inadequate to identify the key gaps or risks; it is unknown if the capacity of response matches the needs 2: There is prioritization of key gaps and health risks are identified; but the quality of Health Cluster information and analyses of the health sector is insufficiently evidence based to determine the extent to which the response matches the needs; response not timely 3: Prioritization of key gaps or health risks and timely response; quality of Health Cluster assessments or analyses of the health sector is adequate to identify the key gaps, and to analyse health system constraints 4: Tailor-made and timely geographic and thematic response according to priorities; high quality of Health Cluster assessments and analyses of the health sector; the gaps in the response are known and response actions defined accordingly IV. Strategy development & planning, including attention to priority cross-cutting issues Additional IV.A. Developing strategies/plans 1: No shared objectives, fragmented strategies and activities of Health Cluster partners (e.g. no health crisis response strategy setting clear priorities and/or Health Cluster action plan reviewing initial priorities); the Health Cluster and partners have no strategy for handover and exit 2: Common objectives and strategy defined by the Health Cluster, but without adeqaute consultation with the partners; the strategy does not refer to national and/or local strategies; the Health Cluster and partners have developed an exit strategy and have identified capacity gaps, but have not implemented it 3: Health Cluster partners formulated a joint health strategy and health cluster action plans, with complementary activities; where appropriate, the Health Cluster and partners mainstream their strategies into existing national strategies and are beginning to implement early recovery and handover strategies 4: Joint policies and strategies guide implementation by a majority of humanitarian actors; strategies are complementary with other relevant clusters; early recovery included in the Health Cluster strategy, including an exit strategy; when appropriate, effective handover takes place, local frameworks are considered and strengthened, local authorities are engaged and technical knowledge has been transferred IV.B. Mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues within Health Cluster partner's work 1: Inadequate guidance given by the Health Cluster who and how to address cross-cutting issues (e.g. age, gender, sexual violence, HIV, environment) 2: Guidance given by the Health Cluster who and how to address cross-cutting issues only covers 3 out of 5 (age, gender, sexual violence, HIV, environment); the workplan does not include cross-cutting issues 3: Guidance is given by the Health Cluster who and how to address 4 out of 5 crosscutting issues, at least 3 issues are incorporated in the workplans 4: Guidance given by the Health Cluster who and how to address all cross-cutting issues (age, gender, sexual violence, HIV, environment) is clear; cross-cutting issues are incorporated into cluster work plans V. Contingency planning (and preparedness) Additional V.A. Structuring of a contingency plan 2st Draft 25 October 3121 Page 3of 5
1: The Health Cluster and partners have 2: The Health Cluster developed a no preparedness strategy, contingency strategy for preparedness and planning and/or early warning in their work contingencies for mainly communicable plans disease risks, but partners were not widely consulted 3: The Health Cluster, in adequate consultation with partners, developed preparedness, contingency planning and early warning based on an all hazard analysis 4: All health actors were involved and adequately consulted in the development of a contingency plan, that is integrated in a multisector contingency planning under OCHA V.B. Monitoring of contingency measures 1. The health cluster is insufficiently prepared for potential risks, there are no contingency stock or Standard Operating Procedures 2. The health cluster has identified Standard Operating Procedures for some contingencies, but there is no systematic montoring of stocks and/or preparedness capacity of partners 3. The health cluster has organised 4. The health cluster is well prepared for workshops on some of the contingency contingencies, stock are monitored, and plans, stocks are monitored mainly for partners know who does what, when plans preparedness to communicable disease risks get activated VI. Application of standards Additional VI.A. Monitoring Partners' adoption of health standards 1: Relevant health standards do not exist, the need for having them has not been identified or are unknown to the Health Cluster partners 2: Relevant health standards exist or have been defined, where relevant adapted in accordance with national policies and guidelines and are accepted by key stakeholders 3: Health Cluster partners and humanitarian agencies are complying to a large extent to those health standards 4: Relevant health standards are completely implemented VII. Training and capacity building Additional 1: No support by the Country Health Cluster for trainings or capacity building 2: Some trainings and capacity building take place, but not based on a systematic identification of training needs or assessment of capacities 3: Trainings and capacity building at high technical standards provided by the Country Health Cluster, based on training and capacity assessments 4: Trainings and capacity building at high technical standards provided, with impact on practice, by the Country Health Cluster, including on cross-cutting issues VIII. Monitoring and reporting Additional VIII.A. Monitoring the implementation of the health crisis response strategy 1: Inadequate reporting and monitoring of the health crisis response strategy and Health Cluster action plan; no mechanism in place and no systematic reporting formats exists 2: Existing standard forms are used. Adequate reporting but no monitoring measures in place to review the implementation of the health crisis response strategy and Health Cluster action plan 3: Reporting by the majority of partners, and monitoring mechanisms in place to review the implementation of the health crisis response strategy and Health Cluster action plan 4: High quality reporting and monitoring of the health crisis response strategy and Health Cluster action plan; real-time, interim/mid-term or ex-post evaluations of sector response took place; planning adapted when needed VIII.B. Lessons-learned exercise 2st Draft 25 October 3121 Page 4of 5
1: No lessons learned exercise has been held neither with the MoH nor with other important health actors 2: The appropriate timing for a lessonslearned exercise was identified but no support for the proposal from the main stakeholders or Health Cluster partners were not able to contribute to it 3: A lessons learned exercise has been held 4: A consultative process was organized but results have not been shared with Health to identify the broad areas that needed to Cluster partners and no changes have been be explored and the specific questions made as a result of the lessons learned that needed to be answered for a lessons exercise learned exercise; results of the exercise have been shared with Health Cluster partners and changes have been made successfully as a result of the lessons learned exercise IX. Advocacy and resource mobilization, including reporting Additional IX.A. Main interagency planning documents and funding mechanisms 1. The Health Cluster submitted a health component of the appeal mechanisms (Flash appeal, CHAP and/or CAP), but there was limited opportunity for partners to provide inputs. Information on (new) funding mechanisms is not shared 2: The Health Cluster sporadically strengthens the participating Health partners ability to get access to information and resources, help to develop coordinated appeals and proposal development according to needs and identified gaps, but are not always consistent with the Principles of Partnership 3: The Health Cluster seeks inclusion of all partners in the new financing / appeal mechanisms, that often strengthen the participating Health Cluster partners ability to get access to information and resources, help to develop coordinated appeals and proposal development according to needs and identified gaps, and are in most cases in line with the Principles of Partnership 4: The interaction between the cluster approach and the new financing / appeal mechanisms strengthen the participating Health Cluster partners ability to get access to information and resources, help to develop coordinated appeals and proposal development according to needs and identified gaps, and are in line with the Principles of Partnership IX.B. Resource mobilization / allocation / working with donors 1: Health Cluster partners are not included in relevant cluster appeals, and allocation of common funds reflect priorities of one agency only and / or there are open conflicts among Health Cluster partners. There is no mapping of donors interested in health 2: Health Cluster partners are included in allocation of common funds that takes place in a consultative fashion but not on an equal basis; they do not take into account non-cluster members; priorities of one agency dominate in appeals; potential donors interested in health are known 3: The Health Cluster formed a selection committee with representatives of Health Cluster partners and established selection criteria for the allocation of resources to individual agencies and in accordance with the Principles of Partnership ; appeals and allocation of common funds reflect Health Cluster priorities; mapping of donor interest in health is shared between partners 4: The Health Cluster's appeals and allocation of common funds reflect collectively identified needs. A system is established to record contacts with donors (e.g. proposals given, indications of interest received) X. Provider of Last Resort, POLR Additional 1: There is no common understanding within the Health Cluster of the concepts of first port of call and provider of last resort 2: Clear common understanding of the concepts exists (e.g. as defined in the IASC Operational Guidance on the concept of Provider of Last Resort ), and Health Cluster partners are involved in the identification of gaps, but the Health Cluster Lead Agency has not assumed responsibility, despite the necessity 3: Where necessary, the Health Cluster Lead Agency has started to act as advocators of last resort but not as providers of last resort 4: The Health Cluster Lead Agency has acted effectively (e.g. covers gaps that can not be filled by any other mechanism and ensures that gaps are adequately covered) as providers of last resort, where necessary 2st Draft 25 October 3121 Page 5of 5