Multi-cluster/Sector
Initial Rapid Needs Analysis
MIRNA Technical Guidance
Annex to the Operational Guidance for Coordinated Assessments in Humanitarian Crises
Working Draft 18 April 2011
Table of Contents
1. INTRODUCTION
3
2. PURPOSES AND USE OF MIRNA
7
3. THE MIRNA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS
8
3.1 The MIRNA framework
8
3.2 The MIRNA process
9
4. CHARACTERISTICS OF PHASE 1 AND 2
11
4.1 Phase 1
11
4.2 Phase 2
12
5. MAIN SECONDARY DATA SOURCES
13
6. MAIN PRIMARY DATA SOURCES
15
7. THE MIRNA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION
16
8. MIRNA REPORTING
18
ANNEX 1: MIRNA QUESTIONS, AND RELATED PRIMARY AND SECONDARY DATA SOURCES
19
ANNEX 2: PRE-DISASTER AND POST-DISASTER SECONDARY DATA
22
ANNEX 3: SECONDARY DATA REVIEW METHODS
24
What to look for?
25
Who?
25
ANNEX 4: PRIMARY DATA COMMUNITY LEVEL ASSESSMENT METHODS
26
A4.1 The approach of the Community Level Assessments
26
A4.2 Primary data methodology
A4.2.1 Designing an Investigation Form for Community Level Assessments
A4.2.2 How to conduct Community Level Assessments
A4.2.3 Data Analysis
27
27
31
34
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
2
1. Introduction
This document provides a general technical orientation for carrying out Multi Cluster/Sector Initial
Rapid Needs Analysis (MIRNA) in the immediate aftermath of a sudden-onset emergency. It is
intended to supplement the Operational Guidance for Coordinated Assessments in Humanitarian
Crises (hereafter referred to as OG). The assessments described in this document are defined as
« multi-cluster/sector » to indicate their aim to cover multiple technical sectors of humanitarian
assistance. This document assumes that all management and coordination arrangements described
in the OG are in place in the field, and roles and responsibilities have been assigned accordingly.
Definition of MIRNA
The acronym MIRNA refers to the multi cluster/sector initial rapid analysis of needs carried out
during the first two weeks of a sudden onset disaster that should result in the production of an initial
MIRNA report1 after 72 hours (Phase 1) that informs the Initial Flash Appeal, and the production of a
MIRNA 2 Report after two weeks (Phase 2) that informs the revised flash appeal.
Figure 1: Phases and products
Timescale
72 hours
Assessments
PHASE 1
eportsProducts
MIRNA 1.0
1st week
2nd week
PHASE 2
3rd week
PHASE 3
4th week
5th week
PHASE 4
Ad-hoc updates ---> MIRNA 2.0
Humanitarian dashboard
report
---> Cluster/Sectoral pages to support MIRNA report and dashboard
---> recovery assessments
The MIRNA methodology understands needs analysis in phases 1 and 2 as the process of collecting,
collating and analysing data from primary and secondary sources and of interpreting such
information through a judgment process which relies as much on the collective capacity of the
assessors as it does on evidence.
MIRNA provides the 'big picture' of the needs of affected populations and the response priorities for
international support.2 It is a field-driven process, with support provided by country teams, regional
offices and headquarters, as required.
MIRNA is done on behalf of all sectors, and where possible done jointly between key stakeholders.
This 'common' assessment approach should reduce the needs of individual clusters/sectors to
perform multi cluster/sector rapid assessments for the purpose of understanding overall needs and
priorities of affected populations. Its rigorous approach provides transparency on the secondary and
primary data sources used for the quantitative and qualitative estimates of needs and priorities.
Following this initial rapid assessment phase, a more in-depth multi-cluster/sector assessment can
be planned as soon as the situation stabilizes enough to ensure the necessary conditions to
implement surveys based on randomized samples. This is also the time that when agencies deploy in
their areas of operation, they will need to do more in-depth area based assessments and establish
1
This was called the Preliminary Scenario Definition in the Operational Guideline.
MIRNA is developed based on experiences with sudden onset natural disaster. Some further work, in
particular for the primary data collection at community level, is needed for sudden onset complex
emergencies.
2
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
3
adequate monitoring and population based surveillance systems that allow measuring the evolution
of the needs, progress in service delivery and the effectiveness of interventions.
In support of MIRNA and subsequent assessment phases, OCHA will issue CODs (to be added as ref
in annex).
Definition of primary and secondary data: MIRNA = PCLA + SDR
For the purpose of this guideline, we define primary data as post-disaster data collected by the
assessment team in the field, or by others using the same instrument, to inform the MIRNA
reporting. Primary data is data collected through first-hand experience, using questionnaires,
checklist, observations, interviews or other methods that involve direct contact with the
respondents. 3 This is the Primary data from Community Level Assessments (PCLA) part of MIRNA.
All other data sources that are required as inputs to the overall analysis for a MIRNA report are
considered secondary, and can be divided in pre- and post-disaster sources. This is called the
Secondary Data Review (SDR) part of the MIRNA.
Glossary:
Factors that define the MIRNA methodology
Firstly, time limits, resources, logistics, limited access to affected areas, a highly dynamic and
evolving situation, and many other factors related to the immediate post-emergency context impose
limitations on the overall scope of humanitarian needs assessments.
As a result, MIRNA recognizes that there are strict limitations in terms of the quantity and quality of
primary data/information that can be directly collected by an assessment team in the early phases of
an emergency. Secondly, MIRNA acknowledges that a considerable amount of information of high
relevance to the assessment of humanitarian needs in these early phases needs to come from a
range of what are defined as secondary sources.
Primary data collection is minimal in phase 1 and remains limited throughout phase 2. This must be
reflected in the allocation of time and resources to the collection of primary data, and in the levels of
reliance on such data for the overall assessment of humanitarian needs.
The exercise of producing a Preliminary Scenario Definition and a MIRNA report in the field by the
assessment team is generally subject to a number of limitations.




3
In-country sectoral expertise: sectoral experience (whether formalized through Clusters or not) may
be limited.
Access to primary information and Key Informants: primary data collection will vary to a great
degree depending on the context. Randomized sampled surveys are not feasible due to limitations in
the timeframe as well as due to the fact that the situation changes on a daily bases.
Availability of and access to country-level pre- and post disaster secondary information: pre-disaster
information and baseline data may be difficult to access if not gathered during preparedness
activities.
Availability of and access to 'off-site' pre- or post disaster secondary information: communications
may be difficult to access media reports, reports from remote sensing, etc.
Adapted from WFP, FAO
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
4
With regards to accessing and reviewing secondary data sources, the assessment team will have
basic fact sheets and baselines when they are deployed. But depending on the practical
circumstances, notably communication capacity, internet access and speed, the need to organize
their logistics and the PCLA, etc, the team may have limited capacity to do this effectively. As such,
off-site support from HQs with regards to the Secondary Data Review is generally part of completing
a MIRNA analysis. Using the same analysis format and coordinated by OCHA, a SDR can be put
together off-site and sent to the assessment team for their inclusion in the MIRNA analysis.
How the concept of MIRNA changed over time, based on lessons learned.
There several lessons learned from earlier approaches to MIRNA and new insights that led to the
current approach to MIRNA.
1. With regards to primary data collection, there is now a consensus that this can not be collected
through data collection methods using randomized site selection ,at individual or household level.
In the past, such efforts led to large amounts of data that were gathered with the intention to have
validated quantitative measures of needs. Field assessments were seen as the sole source of
information, which often led to attempts to generate all required information (including quantitative
information) through such field assessments. However due to a range of methodological limitations
and constraints imposed by the very nature of the early phases of a disaster context4, many of the
results were of insufficient quality to be useful for its purpose. Furthermore, there were missed
opportunities to use field assessments to give voice to affected population and assess their
perception of key concerns and priorities.
2. There was no acknowledgement of the importance of secondary data, and minimum efforts were
made to generate quantitative information (i.e. key indicators) through appropriate secondary
sources.
3. The realization that the reports coming from phase 1 and 2 address similar questions, that to
answer these questions the same sources are used in both phases, that the headings of the initial
and second MIRNA reports, and the subsequent humanitarian dashboard are consistent.
The only real defining difference between phase 1 and 2 is the deadline to produce initial flash
appeal after 3 days, and its review after 2 weeks. The answers to the key questions will gradually
become more precise, and there will gradually be more emphasis to use primary data collection to
get better understanding of needs as expressed by affected population.
Box 1: MIRNA is the combination of SDR and PCLA
The PCLA is based on purposive sampling at community level. The SDR will allow to produce
quantitative data as needed for the purpose of the initial and revised flash appeal. This requires a
relatively small team of humanitarian experts that are able to deal with large amounts of data and
uncertainties, to make the best estimates and informed judgments. Primary results of the PCLA will
support this process (inference, informed judgment) by providing real-time qualitative information
on the situation.
4
Lack of time and access to all the affected areas, no sampling frame, limited logistics
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
5
The structure of the guideline:
The guideline will explain
 the MIRNA framework and the 5 steps that guide its process
 the key questions that determine the assessment protocol,
 the Characteristics of phase 1 and 2 that influence the weight given to and scope of primary
and secondary data,
 the primary and secondary data sources to find answers to the assessment questions
 the analysis of various sources of primary and secondary data, and the overall MIRNA
analysis
 the outputs/reports (see MIRNA reporting)
 Annexes with more detailed methods and tools for secondary and primary data collection
and review
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
6
2. Purposes and use of MIRNA
The purpose of the MIRNA is to reach a shared understanding of the humanitarian situation and its
likely evolution to support initial response decisions. Its two main outputs, the Preliminary Scenario
Definition and the MIRNA report, are to be produced in time to inform the initial Flash Appeal at the
end of phase I and its revision, the revised Flash Appeal, at the end of phase II.
The specific objectives are to reach a common understanding of:
The impact of the disaster:
1. the scale and severity/impact of the crisis
2. the priority needs of the affected population
3. the risks that the affected population are exposed to, and who are vulnerable to these risks
4. the projected trend of the disaster
The capacity to respond
5. the national response capacity
6. the in-country international response capacity
7. limitation(s) with respect to humanitarian access
The priorities for interventions and coverage of needs
8. the coverage to address needs and risks, and the remaining gaps
9. the strategic humanitarian priorities
In addition, the MIRNA aims at guiding the design of future assessments, particularly by highlighting
information gaps or areas in need of further investigation, as well as at guiding the design of future
monitoring systems.
Who is the guideline aiming at:
This guideline is to be used by those who will implement the MIRNA. This is usually a small team that
arrives within 24 hours in country to initiate the coordinated assessment process. This includes the
UNDAC team. This team will be expanded as necessary with assessments experts already available
'on-site', complemented with external experts. It will also guide 'off-site' colleagues responsible to
support the on-site MIRNA team with the essential secondary data review.
Furthermore, the descriptive part of the guideline is to inform decision makers in more detail
compared to the OG on what can be expected from the MIRNA,
Clusters/sectors can use it to ensure that crucial pre-disaster secondary data is available through
preparedness measures, and plan for their more in-depth sectoral assessments.
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
7
3. The MIRNA framework and process
3.1 The MIRNA framework
During the first two phases of an emergency, data collection is part of a continuum. The difference
between the two phases in terms of information is mainly that the balance in using primary vs
secondary data shifts and that precision of information will become higher over time.
Figure 2 depicts the architecture of a MIRNA assessment for phases I and II and particularly
highlights :
 the various sources of data/information to be used
 their relative importance in the assessment process, depending on the phase of the
emergency
 the different levels of coordination recommended for each component of the assessment
 the outputs
 the Assessment Continuum related to phases 3 and 4
Figure 2: MIRNA framework
Coordinated Assessments
•
•
Relative importance in time of the different Sources of Information in Needs Assessment
Recommended Levels of Coordination (J: Joint or H : Harmonized) for Data Collection, Collation, Descriptive Analysis, Interpretation and Reporting
MIRNA : Multi Cluster/Sector Initial Rapid Needs Analysis
Interpretation /
Reporting
Collection, Collation & Descriptive Analysis
Data/Info Sources
Secondary
Primary
Phase 1
Phase 3
Cluster / Sector
In-Depth Assessments
Phase 2
Ad Hoc /
Specialized
Sources
Remote Sensing
Media Reports - etc. (H)
Remote Sensing
Media Reports - etc. (H)
Remote Sensing, etc. (H)
Monitoring &
Surveillance
Systems
Undisrupted Monitoring
Information Systems (H)
Undisrupted Monitoring
Information Systems (H)
Population
Based
Assessments
Initial Primary Community Level
Assessment (iPCLA)
(J/H)
Undisrupted + Ad hoc
Monitoring Information
Systems
(H)
Baseline
Fact Sheets
Etc.
Country Profiles – Past Disaster
Lessons Learnt – Disaster Fact
Sheets – Survey Reports
(Nutrition, Food Security)
etc . (H)
MIRNA Report 1.0
1.1 1.2 1.n
(J)
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
Phase 4
Cluster / Sector
In-Depth Assessments
Incl. Recovery Consideratio
Remote Sensing, etc. (H)
Undisrupted + Ad hoc
Monitoring Information
Systems
(H)
Primary Community
Level Assessment (PCLA)
(J)
In-Depth Sectoral Assessments
at Community / Household /
Individual Levels
(H/J)
Country Profiles – Past Disaster
Lessons Learnt – Disaster Fact
Sheets – Survey Reports
(Nutrition, Food Security)
etc . (H)
MIRNA Report 2
(J)
National Emergency Response
Systems, etc.. framed by
National Policies and Guidelines
(H)
In-Depth Sectoral Assessme
at Community / Household
Individual Levels
(H/J)
National Emergency Respon
Systems, etc.. framed by
National Policies and Guidelin
(H)
Sectoral (H/J)
Sectoral (H/J)
Inter Cluster
(J)
Inter Cluster
(J)
Humanitarian Dashboard
8
3.2 The MIRNA process
The MIRNA essentially consists of five steps:
1. Define the key questions
2. Define the data sources to answer the questions.
3. Lead SDR and PCLA
4. Analysis & Interpretation of the findings
5. Report writing
1. Define the key questions5
Nine core questions have been formulated, divided further in 23 more specific questions (See
ANNEX 1). The first four questions relate to the impact of the disaster, the next three question are
to understand what the response capacity is, and the last two questions are to define what the
priorities are for interventions. The last 2 questions are the result of the interpretation of the
analysis and information provided through the first 7 questions. The key questions will form the
main headings of the MIRNA 1 and MIRNA 2 report, and they are consistent with the headings of the
Humanitarian Dashboard.
1.
2.
3.
4.
What is the scale and severity/impact of the crisis?
What are the priority needs of the affected population?
What risks is the affected population exposed to , and who are vulnerable to these risks?
What is the projected trend of the disaster?
5. What is the national response capacity?
6. What is the in-country international response capacity?
7. Are there limitation with respect to humanitarian access
8. What is the coverage to address needs and risks, what are the gaps?
9. What are the strategic humanitarian priorities?
2. Define which sources to be used to find answers to each of the questions.
Each question can be answered using multiple primary and secondary data sources. Examples for
each question can be found in annex 1.
3. Lead SDR and PCLA
The assessment team needs to manage the collection of secondary data, including reviews of
secondary data that can be supported off-site. In addition, the team needs to adapt the PCLA to the
specific context, using the databank of Key Interview questions and topics for observation.
4. Analysis & Interpretation of the findings
There are two levels of analysis for the MIRNA. The first level is linked to the respective primary and
secondary data sources. With regards to analysis of secondary data, see ANNEX 3 on secondary data
review (SDR). The analysis of primary data is linked to the specific Primary data Community Level
Assessment method (PCLA). More details on this can be found in ANNEX 4.
5
These are not to be confused with the questions that are formulated for the PCLA
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
9
The second level analysis is that for each question the team compiles answers from both primary
and secondary data analysis, and compare their findings. This is the phase in the analysis that
depends most on the expertise and judgment of the assessors, as they have to weigh their
respective validity, interpret them and add judgment. The result of the analysis related to each
question has to reflect degrees of uncertainty (for example present numbers as a range of low and
high estimates, rather than a absolute number that can create false impressions of precision). At this
stage, the team will also have a better understanding of the gaps in information (the known
unknowns).
5. Report writing
A main challenge for finalizing the report is to strike a balance between the desire to get it right, and
limited ability to have the report 'checked' for factual errors by the sectors. In particular, for
quantitative elements of the MIRNA reports, as well as for the need to make informed statements
about sectoral needs and risks that result from the disaster, sectors should have all relevant material
ready and validated, and make this available in time as part of SDR.
As each disaster will have unique characteristics that make interpretation and forecasting complex,
it would be desirable that the MIRNA reports are seen by the sectors before they are issued. This is
not always feasible for all sectors within the deadlines for the submission of the reports.
As the practice and understanding of MIRNA will grow over time, it is expected that relevant sectors
will be able in the future to provide essential sectoral secondary information to the assessment
team, in formats that are adapted to the subsequent MIRNA reports. See annex 1 for a summary of
essential general and sectoral secondary information that can feeds in the initial MIRNA report or
will become part of the second version.
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
10
4. Characteristics of phase 1 and 2
Essentially the only characteristic for MIRNA that defines the end of phase 1 and 2 is the issuing of
the initial and revised flash appeal. The result of the initial assessment, the initial MIRNA report (i.e.
MIRNA 1.0), has to be ready to inform the initial flash appeal, and the MIRNA 2 Report has to be
ready at the end of phase 2 to inform the revised flash appeal. Nonetheless, the subsequent time
pressure to produce the MIRNA 1 report and the MIRNA 2 report has influence on how to
understand differences in emphasis in sources and methods that in principle apply to both phases.
The sections below will describe characteristics of phase 1 and 2, and how these influence the scope
and depth of seeking answers from various secondary and primary data sources.
Figure 3: Shifts between primary and secondary data
Primary data:
Data sources
iPCLA (including UNDAC field visits, Fly-overs) & PCLA
Secondary data post disaster:
Media report, satellite imagery, NGO reports, sitreps,
Social media, etc..
Secondary Data pre disaster:
Census, P-codes, Sector reports, DHS, MICS, etc..
MIRNA report 1.0
72H
MIRNA report 2.0
2 weeks
4.1 Phase 1
The first days following an acute onset disaster are characterized by the fact that there is very
limited information coming from the affected areas. Initially, such information generally comes from
lesser affected areas, that still have remaining communication and that are the easiest accessible,
for example to the media. Areas from where there is no information are generally worst affected,
and their situation is often not assessed till after several days. Estimates of numbers of affected
population thus increases over time, as the understanding of the impact of the disaster unfolds
itself. Often more exact numbers of deaths are still not defined till weeks after the disaster took
place. The assessment is influenced by high levels of uncertainty, and new information that comes in
every day when new areas become accessible. Conclusions from the assessment are informed
estimates, with ranges when numbers are to be given. The team has to be clear about these
uncertainties, and communicate that updates and corrections will be made as the situation becomes
more stable (MIRNA Report 1.0, 1.1, etc.)
During these initial days, the Assessment Working Group (i.e. on site - refer to OG) will be busy with
initial fly-overs and quick field visits, and organizing the subsequent more structured Primary data
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
11
Community Level Assessment. As they may have limited time and limited internet access, there is a
need for off-site teams to assist in the secondary data collection and analysis, and to produce inputs
to the SDR in a concise way so that they are easily integrated by the assessment team in the overall
analysis.
For the first three days, the team will rely mostly on information from limited sources:
 Post-disaster secondary data: Media, satellite imaging, internet (mobile phone reports from
citizens, YouTube films, social media, crowd sourcing, etc)
 Pre-disaster secondary data: baselines with country profiles and demographic data, and
disaster summary sheets (that include characteristics of different types of disasters, what
impact they normally have on populations, their likely evolution over time, expected
priorities for interventions, based on lessons learned from previous similar disasters)
 Primary data from flyovers (observations) and Initial Primary Community Level Assessment,
using a simplified investigation form mostly based on observations but including possible
interviews with a few key informants.
4.2 Phase 2
In phase 2, more areas will become accessible, and the assessment team will more and more be
challenged by an information overload from various secondary sources. Various clusters/sectors will
become operational and can be called upon to provide crucial information that needs to be fed into
the secondary data review. With regards to the PCLA, the assessment team will shift to a more
structured approach with more time available during site visits. This allows for a shift from mostly
direct observations to more structured interviews with key informants and focus groups.
This is a period where it becomes more and more clear that different areas and populations are
differently affected. There are likely still areas and populations that are not accessible, but will
become so over the period of phase 2. In the first accessible areas in phase 1, national and
international aid efforts will already be initiated. In these areas, humanitarian agencies that deploy
teams to initiate services in their areas of operations will start doing area based assessments (but
often limited to the sector specific services and goods they deliver) and possibly (re)establish, with
national authorities, the necessary monitoring systems that will also start producing relevant
information.
For phase 2
–
–
Secondary data: the assessment team will be able to draw on an increasing range of
pre- as well as post disaster secondary data. For example survey/assessment reports
prior to event, surveillance/monitoring systems, demographic data, sitreps produced
by the various clusters/sectors
Primary data from Primary Community Level Assessment become progressively
more important as source of information, using the more in-depth investigation
form (see paragraph A4.2.1)
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
12
5. Main secondary data sources
Secondary Data Review (SDR) is one of several methods to obtain information during a needs
assessment. Secondary data play an important role within assessments in emergencies, specifically
in phase 1and 2. SDR complements, but does not replace, primary data collection. Within the
MIRNA, the SDR provides the quantitative estimates. It will help to form an initial idea of what the
problems might be and support the identification of information gaps. A secondary data review is
also helpful for designing subsequent primary data collection and provide a baseline with which to
compare your primary data collection results.
While the MIRNA is a country led process, the initial contribution of the secondary data collection
often needs to be supported off-site.
Secondary data collected during phase 1 and 2 provide a unique opportunity to analyse quantitative
information (mainly baseline data) during phase 1 and 2 as well as qualitative information available
(post crisis data), such as:
 Pre-crisis baseline information (sectoral and contextual)
 Vulnerability and Risk Assessment and Mapping
 Disaster summary sheets with lessons learned from past similar types of disasters
 Humanitarian profile of the crisis (Number of affected population, missing, injured,
dead, names of affected areas, etc, as defined in the CODs, see xxxx?)
 Sectors, geographical areas and population affected by the crisis, including
o Availability of key goods and services, accessibility to these goods and services
o Risk factors
o Capacities of both the national government and humanitarian agencies
 Survey of surveys: this is a compilation and analysis of information gathered by
partners, which at the same time gives an indication of partner's geographical presence
in the affected areas (A who does what where (W3) of information of realised, planned
and ongoing assessments)
 Constraints (security, access, etc.)
 Key upcoming events, seasonal/climate trends
Hence, these types of data combined, analysed and interpreted will provide the current
coverage/gaps and risks related to the affected population, and help to define priorities of
intervention. The measurement of the categories listed above (availability, accessibility etc.) will
vary according to the information available at each cluster/sector level. The information gaps and
needs identified may support the definition or reorientation of the primary data collection phase in
the field in phase 2 (emergence of a new affected area or group or concern).
The NATF preparatory work in drafting a set of key humanitarian indicators6 can be linked to the 23
questions, and will assist in selecting relevant secondary data sources for baselines.
Secondary data sources are distinguished in Pre- and Post-disaster data sources:
a) Pre-disaster secondary information. These can be divided in country profiles and disaster profiles:
Country and sectoral profiles: This provides an understanding of the situation prior to the disaster
impact and describes existing vulnerabilities and risks that may be exacerbated as a result of the
6
Annex I of the NATF Operational Guidance
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
13
disaster. This information should regularly be collected by the Country Team as part of on-going
preparedness measures and should include:






Short description of the political and economic system
References to Minimum Common Operational Datasets as defined in the relevant IASC document
General sectoral indicators
Maps of main livelihood zones and food economy areas
Vulnerable groups and related geographical areas (IDH, poverty index, gender and age statistics, etc…)
Risks/hazard calendar and security analysis (equipment and staff).
Disaster profiles. This puts the current disaster into context and helps create understanding of what
the actual impact and priority needs may be, based on experience and lessons learnt from similar
events that have occurred in the past. This information should also regularly be collected by
headquarters and Country Teams during the preparedness phase for disasters that have occurred in
the country and for similar disasters that have occurred in other parts of the world.
b) Post-disaster secondary information. This provides an understanding of what has happened. This
information should be gathered from a variety of sources, including the Government, national and
international media, national and international NGOs present in the area, civil society and religious
organizations, and should cover:
The Survey of Surveys is a repository of information on assessments conducted in a country which
provides a comprehensive picture of those both undertaken and planned. The SoS is used to help
ensure geographical and temporal synchronization of assessments and may be used as a foundation
for both assessment planning (identifying gaps and areas of overlap), and shared analysis of those
assessments which have been harmonized.



DISASTER: What happened? Description of the event, its nature, magnitude and the typology of hazard (e.g.
magnitude of earthquake, Flash flooding or rising floods, extent of flooding) and the aggravating factors.
AREA: Which areas are affected? What is the area profile (mountainous, coastal, urban, rural, livelihood, etc.).
POPULATION: What proportion of the population was affected in the area, how many persons have been affected and
where are they?
Pre-disaster Secondary sources











National institutions (Ministries, research
institute, Universities, etc)
National preparedness and contingency plans,
including knowledge of prepositioned stocks and
availability of trained staff, protocols for National
Disaster Management.
Large Surveys (DHS, MICS, Census, etc..)
International development institutions (i.e. World
bank)
Common operational datasets (COD)
UN, Local and international NGOs survey reports
UN global data sets or Country portals
Disaster summary sheets, based on lessons
learned from previous disaster types
Sector fact sheets
Geospatial data
Online databases (i.e. EM-DAT, prevention web)
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
Post-Disaster secondary sources











National institutions (Ministries,
LEMA, etc..)
Media reports
Assessment reports from local and
international NGOs
Survey of surveys
Funding Appeals
Situation reports (OCHA, clusters, Gvt)
Humanitarian profile (CODs)
Geospatial data
Satellite imagery
Social media
Sector specific risks assessments
14
Pre-disaster Secondary sources


Post-Disaster secondary sources
WHO country epidemiological profile
ALNAP, evaluation report, After Action reviews,
Previous Flash appeal, CAP reviews
6. Main primary data sources
PCLA provides verification of some of the information gathered through the SDR. PCLA also adds
new information to characterize the nature and severity of the problems encountered by affected
populations, and allow for the assessment of needs and priorities as perceived by the
representatives of affected communities.7 The assessment teams, through their direct observations,
will be able to make a better informed judgment.
This information is collected directly by the assessment team, typically through direct observation
(spot visits to the affected area, flyovers) and interviews with generalist key informants (including
government authorities and local level community leaders) and sectoral specialists (health staff,
nutrition specialists, etc.) representing the affected population.
The approach of the Community Level Assessments
The scope of field assessments should take into account both the limitations and potential of field
assessments in Phases 1 and 2 of an emergency. The approach consists of:






Targeting questions and observations at Community Level
Adopting a purposive sampling and selecting a limited (manageable) number of sites (see
Selection of sites)
Focusing the assessment on accessibility to basic services and goods, risks, and priorities as
expressed and perceived by affected populations, and as identified by the assessment teams
In phase 1, the PCLA will rely mostly on direct observation with few questions addressed to
KIs
In phase 2, the PCLA is based mostly on questions to KIs.
The PCLA allows testing the assumptions to define 'predictable' needs and priorities based
on secondary data review, in particular from the disaster summary sheets.
The PCLA should therefore be exclusively aimed at the collection of qualitative information. It is
believed that passed failure in this field have largely been the result of attempts to gather
quantitative information through an inappropriate process.
Short note on annex 4: primary data collection methods and analysis
7
The element of understanding expressed or perceived needs of the affected population in the PCLA draws on
work that was done to develop a validated methodology to measure perceived needs and to rank their
priorities: The Humanitarian Emergency Settings Perceived Needs Scale (HESPER): Manual with Instrument,
WHO & King’s College London. Geneva: WHO, in press.
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
15
7. The MIRNA analysis and interpretation
The integration, analysis and interpretation of the information gathered from the different sources
listed above is the crucial step of the MIRNA.
The aim of the analysis and interpretation is to arrive at a collective understanding about:
1. What is the scale and severity/impact of the crisis?
The assessment should seek to describe the nature of the disaster, its scale (in terms of the intensity
of the hazard event that caused it and the extent of the affected area) and to formulate an overall
judgment on its severity. Severity refers to the impact of the disaster on population and
infrastructure, and the judgment is based on an estimate of the difference between the pre- and
post-disaster situations. The team must also be able to estimate the number, type and locations of
the affected population.
2. What are the priority needs of the affected population?
3. What risks are the affected population exposed to, and who are vulnerable to these risks?
Pre-existing vulnerabilities and aggravating factors should be explained
4. What is the projected trend of the disaster?
The projected trend includes two aspects, one the expected evolution of needs over time, and
second, possible scenarios on how future events are most likely to unfold. With regards to the first,
based on previous experiences with similar types of disasters, different types of needs can be
expected as the disasters unfolds itself over time. For example the need for surgical and wound care
interventions in the early stage of an earthquake, future food-insecurity if harvests have been lost
due to flooding, etc.
The team must be able to make a judgment at the earliest stages of a crisis, the forecast should be
limited to “improvement”, “stabilisation” or “worsening” types of statements, with limited
supporting assumption. As soon as more information becomes available, the team should develop a
more detailed scenario.
5. What is the national response capacity?
The team should identify national capacities to respond, including government, civil society and
community
6. What is the in-country international response capacity?
The team should also identify pre-existing international presence and capacity
7. Are there limitation with respect to humanitarian access
Any relevant operational constraints (such as access, security and logistics).
8.
What is the coverage to address needs and risks, what are the gaps?
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
16
nature and extent of additional international assistance that may be required
9.
What are the strategic humanitarian priorities?
The team should indicate priority sectors for interventions The team should also at this stage
identify the “known unknowns”, areas where information is non-existing or particularly scant, and
for which a high degree of inference was required.
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
17
8. MIRNA reporting
The MIRA reporting is organized around two critical deadlines:
1) The production of a first MIRNA report within 72 hours of the disaster, which will inform the
Initial Flash Appeal. This first report is mostly based on pre and post secondary data and a few
field visits reports. Once the first version of the MIRNA report has been produced, the
assessment team continues to collect information to increase the breadth and depth of the
analysis.
2) The production of a final MIRNA report after two weeks which inform the Revision of the Flash
Appeal. The final MIRNA report will consolidate into one single product the Primary (PCLAs
findings) and Secondary data collected during the first two weeks of the disaster (SDR).
The two reports are answering the same key questions and will have a very similar structure. The
skills of the assessment team to integrate large quantities of very diverse data and to produce a
cogent analysis remain essential.
As necessary, before writing the final MIRA report, ad-hoc updates can be made as shown in the
following timeline. Updates may be prepared on request or if any significant changes of the situation
are observed (increase of affected population figures, new affected areas reported, new vulnerable
groups identified, increasing population movement, etc).
The final report should enable decision-makers (HCT, Sector/Cluster leads and members,
Government, Donors) to understand the nature of the crisis and the types of intervention that are
needed. It may also help donors to decide on the allocation of resources. It is therefore crucial that
the assessment conclusions and recommendations are communicated clearly, as well as their
limitations.
According to needs, specific reports may be prepared for specific audiences (ERC key messages,
executive briefs, presentations, etc.)
An intermediary meeting should be convened at which to present the preliminary results to
partners, who include representatives of Government ministries (if possible, depending on context),
United Nations agencies, National and international NGOs working in relevant sectors/clusters,
Donor agencies.
The purpose of the meeting is to present the key findings and recommendations from MIRNA, and
answer queries on these, receive feedback and suggestions from the meeting participants,
encourage partners’ endorsement of the recommendations, or adjust these if required.
The meeting is an opportunity to share and develop a common understanding of the situation. It
takes place after the conclusions and recommendations have been defined, but before final
decisions about responses have been taken. This means that feedback from the meeting can be
taken into account when finalizing the recommendations.
A template of the MIRNA report headings is enclosed in annex 1. The sectoral information required
as inputs to the MIRNA reports can be found in annex 2. Initially, the assessment team will compile
this largely from secondary sources. As possible, clusters/sectors should start taking responsibility
for the inputs and updates of this sectoral information. This than transforms into the sectoral pages
of the Humanitarian Dashboard.
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
18
ANNEX 1: MIRNA questions, and related primary and secondary data sources
MIRNA REPORT
HEADING
Situation
Overview
What is the
scale and the
severity of the
disaster?
QUESTIONS
1. What is the type of crisis?
2. What is the geographical extent of
the affected area?
3. How many people are affected?
Phase I
Where to find the information from
Secondary & primary data
SD post disaster:
News, OCHA sitreps, Gvt statement, ...
Phase II
Where to find the information from
Secondary & primary data
SD post disaster: as in phase I
PD: spot visits, flyovers
SD post disaster:
OCHA/cluster sitreps, Govt. reports, Un
and NGO initial reports, satellite imagery,
media...
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
SD pre disaster:
Census, demographic data desegregated
by sex, age and admin unit
Needs
4. How does the crisis affect
livelihoods?
5. How does the crisis affect access
to basic services and goods?
Risks
6. What are the risks the population
are exposed to?
SD post disaster:
Satellite imagery, Gvt reports, media,
OCHA humanitarian profile, ...
PD: spot visits, flyovers
SD pre disaster: Fact Sheets (baseline
information), Disaster summary sheets,
Livelihood profiles, Lessons Learned,
previous flash appeal, WHO
epidemiological profile, EM-DAT,
Prevention web, WFP Seasonal and
hazard calendar, HRW, ICG, etc..
SD post disaster: UN/NGO/clusters
initial reports, media, etc..
PD: initial assessment
SD pre disaster: Fact Sheets, DSS,
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
SD post disaster: NGO's/UN
assessment reports
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
MIRNA REPORT
HEADING
Projected
Trend
QUESTIONS
Phase I
Where to find the information from
Secondary & primary data
7. Which groups (IDPs, residents)
are vulnerable to these risks?
Lessons Learned, previous flash appeal,
WHO epidemiological profile, livelihood
profiles, election agendas, WFP Seasonal
and hazard calendar, HRW, ICG, etc..
8. Forecast: How is the situation
likely to evolve? What subsequent
needs are expected?
9. Scenario: What is the political
context and how is it likely to
evolve?
National
authorities
response
capacity
10. How have national / sub-national
private sector, non-governmental
and civil society capacities been
affected?
11. What are the initial interventions
from the national and/or local
authorities to respond to the
emergency?
12. What is the coping capacity of the
local affected communities and
what are their initial interventions?
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
SD Post disaster: UN/NGO/clusters
initial reports, media, surveillance
systems, etc..
PD: initial assessment
SD pre disaster: previous Flash appeal,
CAP, DSS, lesson learned, ICG, HRW,
WFP Seasonal and hazard calendar,
contingency plan, election agendas...
SD post disaster: Media,
NGO/UN/cluster initial reports.
SD pre disaster:
Contingency plans, DRR reports, contact
list.
SD post disaster:
Gvt reports, media, OCHA/Cluster/UN
sitreps, NGO initial reports,...Cluster
activation, LEMA reports
Phase II
Where to find the information from
Secondary & primary data
SD post disaster: NGO's/UN
assessment reports, surveillance
systems
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
SD post disaster: NGO's/UN
assessment reports, surveillance
systems
SD post disaster:
Gvt reports, media, OCHA/Cluster/UN
sitreps, NGO initial reports,...Cluster
activation, LEMA reports
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
20
MIRNA REPORT
HEADING
In-Country
International
Response
Capacity
QUESTIONS
Phase I
Where to find the information from
Secondary & primary data
13. Has the international response
capacity been affected?
SD pre disaster: 3W, IASC contingency
plans, contact list, Reliefweb vacancies,
14. Which agencies/organizations are
located in the area?
SD post disaster:
OCHA/Cluster/UN sitreps, media, 3W,
contact list, NGO initial reports, ...
15. What have they been doing and
what are they likely to do in
response to the situation?
Humanitarian
Access
Coverage
Gaps analysis
SD post disaster:
OCHA/Cluster/UN sitreps, media, 3W,
contact list, NGO initial reports
SD post disaster:
OCHA/Cluster/UN sitreps, media, 3W,
contact list, NGO initial reports, ...
16. What are the logistic
considerations in terms of effects
of the emergency and options for
response?
SD Post disaster:
OCHA/Cluster sitreps, NGO initial reports,
social media, news, logistic cluster,
satellite imagery...
SD Post disaster:
OCHA/Cluster sitreps, NGO initial
reports, social media, news, logistic
cluster, satellite imagery...
17. What is the security
consideration?
PD: spot visits, flyovers
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
PD: spot visits, flyovers
18. Are civil-military relations a feature SD post disaster:
UNDSS brief, ICG, OCHA/cluster sitreps,
of the context?
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
19. What proportion of the affected
population is being reached by
humanitarian interventions?
SD post disaster: Census,
demographic data desegregated by
sex, age and admin unit
20. To what extent are there needs
addressed?
HCT Strategic
Humanitarian
Priorities
Phase II
Where to find the information from
Secondary & primary data
21. Priority sectors for intervention
22. Key issues (protection,
environment, gender, etc..)
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
media, UN risk and threat assessment,
Gvt reports
SD post disaster:
Social media, OCHA/cluster sitreps, NGO
initial reports, News
Census, demographic data desegregated
by sex, age and admin unit
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
PD: initial assessment
PD: Community Level Assessment
(CLA)
21
ANNEX 2: Pre-disaster and post-disaster secondary data
PRE DISASTER CONTEXT AND VULNERABILITY – National and affected area level
Food security
General
information
Sectoral
information
Health & Nutrition
WASH
Shelter & NFIs
Access and security
 Outcome Indicators of:
 life expectancy, Under-five mortality rate (probability of dying by age 5 per 1000 live births)
 Maternal Mortality rate as Deaths/100.000 live births
 Malnutrition prevalence (6-59 months) as % <-2 Z-Scores below mean Weight for Height reference population
 CODs: Population size and spatial distribution by administrative unit and locality (Census, Population projections), administrative boundaries, etc..
 Age-sex structure of the population (Census, Population projections)
 Socioeconomic and cultural characteristics of the population (literacy, economy, ethnic group, language, religion, minorities, marginalized.).
 Livelihood profile, income levels and basic indicators on access to basic services and goods
 Administrative maps
 Reference coordination bodies (ministries, NGOs, Cluster) and contact list
 DRR, disaster management activities and bodies, contingency plans
 Humanitarian system in place (clusters, coordination bodies, etc...), 4w’s
 Security context
 Relevant sectoral indicators, fact sheets, maps
 Livelihood strategies of population groups.
Source of income and expenditure profile
 Available resource materials about agroecological and agro-economic context. Crop
Calendar
 Food supply and food security situation of the
country
 Food security indicators at national (e.g. Food
Balance Sheets) and local level
 Maps of chronic food insecurity areas and GIS
data
 Any recent and comprehensive report on food
security and livelihood
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
 Country health profiles with relevant
sectoral indicators, fact sheets, maps
 Country epidemiological profile (including
risks of potential epidemic diseases, child
health, SRH, NCD, etc, specific vulnerable
populations)
 Health system performance profile (key
indicators HRH, financing, governance,
HIS, pharmaceuticals,
 Availability of health facility type and
localization. Related maps and GIS data
 Previous nutritional surveys at national
and regional level. KAP surveys on the
causes of malnutrition
 National and regional statistics on health:
infant feeding practices, top 10 mortality
and morbidity for the main diseases
 Any recent and comprehensive report on
Health status of the population
 Capacity of the MoH, preparedness plans
and disaster risk reduction programmes
 Relevant sectoral indicators, fact
sheets, maps
 KAP survey and traditional
behaviours information regarding
excreta disposal, hygiene
awareness and water use.
 Statistics regarding national,
regional and provincial
waterborne diseases statistic,
including diarrhoea incidence,
Cholera endemic zone, Malaria
incidence
 Water and sanitation coverage
indicators/data.
 Water source type (urban/rural)
 Relevant sectoral indicators, fact
sheets, maps
 Type of buildings and habitat per
area
 Type of fuel used for cooking and
heating
 Geography, geology and climate
conditions in affected areas
 Relevant sectoral indicators, fact
sheets, maps
 Security incident statistics, human
right violations, threat types and
level
 Targeted or marginalized
population ( women, children,
minorities, ethnics, etc..)
 Transport means, electricity,
phone coverage, logistic hub and
reference bodies
22
DISASTER SPECIFIC INFORMATION – IMPACT AND RISKS - Affected area level
Food security
Health & Nutrition
WASH
Shelter & NFIs
Access and security
Look for data revealing effect on or
existence of risk related to:
Look for data revealing effect on or
existence of risk related to:
Data collection - General and sectoral
 Hazard maps and historic records of past similar shocks, impact and affected population (severity and frequency of the hazards)
 Reports that indicate how exposure and vulnerability to such hazards may have changed as a result of recent environmental or DRR policy or activities.
 Lessons learned and evaluation of past emergencies and relief/recovery interventions
 NGOs presence and crisis related activities (4w). In-country capacities likely to support response to the crisis. Regional capacity
 Humanitarian profile (CODs).Relevant maps, GIS related data
 Situation reports, press release, news, funding decisions, assessment reports,
Look for data revealing effect on or
existence of risk related to:
Access to Food
 Market distribution systems and capacities,
and access of people to those markets
(distance, security, time);
 Peoples access to normal income earning
opportunities
 People’s coping mechanisms and how they
are/may have been disrupted by the shock;
Availability of food
 Availability of food on local markets, shops,
etc.
 Crisis impact on local food production
 Status of household food stocks and
reserves
 Capacity of the government and other
organizations to supplement market
mechanisms, coping mechanisms.
 Severity, impact on Health and Nutrition Status
- (Anticipated) impact of the disaster on the Health and
Nutrition Profile of population: e.g . Incidence of
communicable diseases, effect on NCD, trauma, injuries,
psychosocial and mental health, malnutrition, child
health, sexual and reproductive health
 Expected new risks to health,
- Changes in health risks, determinants of health
- Changes in vulnerable groups and specifications of risks
they are exposed to.
 Expected evolution of health needs
- other needs to be expected in the next phases (e.g. as
no access to treatment for chronic diseases)
 Availability, access and performance of Health and
Nutrition Services
- Proportion of types of Health and Nutrition
infrastructure damaged, still functional
- Effects on numbers and distribution of human resources
for health
- Availability of and access to medicines/pharmaceutical
products
- The need to reduce financial or other barriers to access
of services
- Functionality of HIS and surveillance
- Availability of food Supplies
- Governance Capacity of the MoH and other
organizations for health and nutrition crisis response.
 Current and anticipated health priorities
- most important diseases and health problems that (will)
lead to excess and/or avoidable mortality and morbidity
- most important interventions to support the governance
capacity of the MoH and improve the access to and
performance of service delivery
MIRNA technical guidance draft 18 April 2011
Look for data revealing effect on or
existence of risk related to:
Access to Water and Sanitation
 Distance to water source
 Distance to latrines
 User fee
Availability of water (supply)
 Sources of water
 Quantity of water per person/day
 Quality (safe, protected or not)
 Latrines or defecation sites per
population. Type of latrines used
(HH/ community latrines)
 Capacity of the government and
other organizations to cope/ face
the WASH emergency.
Access to Shelter
 Type of housing affected
 Key community structures
 Typology of shelter used in case of
disaster (tents, school buildings
etc.)
 Access to cooking utensils and fuel
Availability of Shelter
 Availability of shelter materials in
market place, including plastic
sheeting, tents, etc.
 Availability of public buildings for
sheltering
 Capacity of the government and
other organizations for shelter crisis
response
 Any security/risks constraints on
movements and access (for staff
and the affected people
 Others INGOS presence and logistic
capacity response
 UN agencies presence and logistic
capacity response.
 Constraints on logistics/delivery
systems (taking account of the
impact of past events
 Capacity of the government to
ensure safe working conditions and
restore communications (roads and
network)
23
ANNEX 3: Secondary Data Review Methods
Secondary Data Review (SDR): involves collecting and analysing information, statistics, and other
entities’ relevant data at various levels of aggregation in order to conduct a situation analysis of the
area, group or sector of interest.
Secondary data plays a crucial role within assessments in emergencies, specifically in phase I and II
when collecting data and information produced from outside the field assessment will complement
and benefit the primary data collection.
Secondary data review will help to form an initial idea of what the problems might be and support
the identification of information gaps. It is also helpful for designing subsequent primary data
collection and can provide a baseline with which to compare your primary data collection results.
Key principles for data collection:
 Collect data first at national level (large data set and in depth report available on the web or
at country level) and afterwards look for desegregated data at the affected area level (Sex,
age, location). The more aggregated the data is, the most invisible the people are...
 Look for important and relevant quantitative information such as census, humanitarian
profile, pre disaster data sets
 Importance of the data vs. the time need to find it. Some data needed will not exist or will be
difficult to find. Decide whether the importance of the data justifies the time required to find
the data.
 Use/build your information network. Identify key resources (at local, national, regional and
HQ level) who can support and contribute to the data collection. Collect only what you know
you can use.
 Customize your archiving procedures. Standardized architecture should be used while
archiving collected data in order to ensure easy retrieval of documentation or easy handover
to colleagues. For post disaster information, ensure data is stored in such a way that ease daily
update on key figures and needs and allow for trends visualization (E.g. Number of affected
population, missing, injured, IDPs, etc.).
Secondary data collection
Secondary data review comprises the collection and collation of data as appropriate and available
from two different sources:
a) Pre-disaster secondary information. This provides an understanding of the situation prior to
the disaster impact and describes existing vulnerabilities and risks that may be exacerbated
as a result of the disaster. It also refers to the collection of lessons learned from past similar
disaster and the identification of likely risks and the related interventions that may prevent
them. This information should regularly be collected by the Country Team as part of ongoing preparedness measures. Common sources of pre disaster information are as follow:






National institutions (Ministries, research institute, Universities, etc)
National preparedness and contingency plans, including knowledged of prepositioned
stocks and availability of trained staff, protocols for National Disaster Management.
Large Survey (DHS, MICS, Census, etc..)
International development institutions (i.e. World bank)
Common operational datasets (COD)
UN, Local and international NGOs survey reports







UN global data sets or Country portals
Disaster summary sheets, based on lessons learned from previous disaster types
Sector fact sheets
Geospatial data
Online databases (i.e. EM-DAT, prevention web)
WHO country epidemiological profile
ALNAP, evaluation report, After Action, Previous Flash appeal, CAP review
b) Post-disaster secondary information. This provides an understanding of what has happened.
The data should be gathered from a variety of sources, including the Government, national
and international media, national and international NGOs present in the area, civil society
and religious organisations. This information should regularly be collected and updated
across phase 1 and 2 of assessments as part of on-going situation analysis. Common sources
for post disaster information are as follow:









National institutions (Ministries, LEMA, etc..)
Media reports
Assessment reports from local and international NGOs
Funding Appeals
Situation reports (OCHA, clusters, Gvt)
Humanitarian profile (CODs)
Geospatial data
Satellite imagery
Social media
What to look for?
Annex 1 provides more in depth secondary data sources according to the key questions you need to
address during phase 1 and 2 of assessment.
Who?
Data collection may be undertaken by people with limited research training but led by experienced
people providing clear instructions and templates for data consolidation.
Clear responsibilities and communication channels needs to be established between people
conducting pre-disaster and post-disaster data collection as new information may arise about
affected groups or areas that would require further deepening of pre-disaster situation and
conditions.
Conducting secondary data collection is time consuming and will require dedicated staff. In case
resources are not available in-country, secondary data collection may be undertaken off site (HQ or
Regional level) while ensuring strong communication with field offices to ensure information needs
are clearly defined understood and covered.
MIRNA technical guidance
25
ANNEX 4: Primary Data Community Level Assessment
Methods
A4.1 The approach of the Community Level Assessments
The scope of field assessments should take into account both the limitations and potential of field
assessments in Phases I and II of an emergency.
The approach consists in:



Adopting a purposive sampling and selecting a limited (manageable) number of sites
Targeting questions and observations at Community Level
Focusing the assessment on needs, risks and priorities as perceived by affected populations and
assessment teams
The CLA should therefore be exclusively aimed at the collection of qualitative information. It is
believed that passed failure in this field have largely been the result of attempts to gather
quantitative information through an inappropriate process (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Main components of MIRNA
Secondary Sources of Information
QUALITATIVE Information
QUANTITATIVE Information
• Availability
• Accessibility
• Capacities
• Coverage / Gaps / Needs
• Risks
• Priorities
Needs & Priorities
Needs & Priorities
as Expressed by Affected
Populations
as Measured / Inferred
by Experts
Sectoral Core Indicators
Baseline
Information
Primary Sources of Information (CLA)
Lessons learnt
from passed
disasters, etc.
Affected Populations' Perception
Undisrupted
Monitoring
Systems
Community Level Assessment
Remote
Disaster Profiles Sensing
Fact Sheets
Lessons Learnt
Key Informants – Observations
Purposive Sampling
Expert Inter Cluster-Sector Consolidation / Interpretation / Inference
MiRA Conclusions / Report
MIRNA technical guidance
26

Community Level Assessments are community-level field assessments involving the
collection of primary data at the level of communities in a limited number of sites.

The selection of sites will be done through purposive sampling (see Selection of sites) in
order to identify the most pressing issues/concerns/needs and to set up priorities for
immediate action.

The CLAs are an opportunity to assess needs and priorities as expressed by affected
populations.
A4.2 Primary data methodology
Primary data provides verification of some of the information gathered from secondary sources and
allows for the assessment of needs and priorities as perceived by Affected Populations and
assessment teams.
This information is collected directly by the assessment team, typically through direct observation
(spot visits to the affected area, flyovers) and interviews with generalist key informants (including
government authorities and local level community leaders) and sectoral specialists (health staff,
nutrition specialists, etc.) representing the affected population.
A4.2.1 Designing an Investigation Form for Community Level Assessments
Mandatory variables (metadata)
These are the variables common to all field assessments:
 Date of the assessment
 Geographical information:
o Name of the different administrative levels (e.g. name of the province, name of the
district, etc.)
o Name of the assessed site
o P-code
 Type of population:
o Resident
o Host communities – communities that are indirectly affected by the crisis by the
presence of displaced people
o Internally Displaced
o Refugee
o Mixed (when no specific KI representing each type of population)
 Type of setting:
o Urban
o Rural
o Semi-rural
 People living in camps (yes_no)
MIRNA technical guidance
27
Figure 5: PCLA Analysis framework
MIRNA technical guidance
28
Question design
 Design of the Questions/Observations driven by the analysis plan - it is recommended to explicit
clearly the expected outcome in terms of analysis (Figure 5)
 Focus of CLA Questions/Observations on 3 main categories for each sector:



Accessibility (level of access by the population to goods or services)
Risks
Priority concerns and needs (as expressed by the affected population)
 The framework also encourages designers to envisage measuring the impact of the disaster.
Measure of impact should focus mostly on Accessibility issues.
The objective here is to detect possible changes in the situation induced by the disaster.
Box 2: Measuring the Impact
By asking :

Does the community have access to Basic Emergency Obstetric
Care Services?

Did the community have access to Basic Emergency Obstetric
Care Services BEFORE the disaster?
… the following analysis may be expected :
1. Current Status : % of sites/communities assessed that do not have
access to Basic Emergency Obstetric Care Services
2. Impact : % of sites/communities assessed that LOST access to Basic
Emergency Obstetric Care Services
 Questions also need to be designed depending on the type of Key Informant interviewed. Two
types of KI should be interviewed: generalists (community leaders, etc.) and sectoral specialists
(health staff, Water committee representative, etc.)
 It is strongly recommended to use CLOSED questions to improve overall data quality and facilitate
the data management and analysis processes.
This implies pre-defining possible answers (i.e. categories or legal values) for each of the questions
drafted.
The definition of legal values need to be adapted to the local context (e.g. livelihood categories in a
given country, most current diseases, etc.) keeping in mind the:



need to ensure that legal values are mutually exclusive
need to define whether multiple or single answer question
need to consider ranking when appropriate (mostly for priorities/concerns as expressed by affected
population)
The definition of legal values should be refined after pilot testing the questionnaire (by leaving open
fields for pilot testing) (see also Training of investigators).
Structure of the Form for Investigation
 The Form for Investigation should be structured pragmatically (i.e. according to the way/timeline
the form would be used in the field).
 It is therefore recommended to structure the form according to the type of Key Informant
interviewed (rather than by sector) and according to the type of observations that should be done by
investigators.
 The form should have a section where KIs should be asked to prioritize amongst their top
priorities/concerns (including HESPER scale questions) across the different sectors
Figure 5 Severity ranking criteria for analysis
 There should be a section where
the investigators would define their
own priorities and attribute a
severity ranking (see Figure 5) for
each sector.
Finally, investigators would define
priorities across the different sectors
Red
Severe situation: urgent intervention required
Orange
Situation of concern: surveillance required
Yellow
Lack of/unreliable data: further assessment
required
Green
Relatively normal situation or local population
able to cope with crisis; no further action
required
The STANDARD Investigation Form
The collection of primary data during Phase 1&2 community-level assessments cannot be done
through a standard questionnaire valid for all contexts and situations. For this reason, MIRNA
proposes a standard, computer-based methodology for producing a Form for Investigation. This
form is both standardized and highly customisable.
It is standardized in as:



It proposes a standard format, with an introductory part, featuring a mandatory set of variables
common to all sectors/contexts (see Mandatory variables), and a context-specific part, to be
generated by the user.
For the context -specific part, it lets the user choose from a menu of questions, developed by Global
Clusters.
It brings the user to utilize questions covering all sectors of humanitarian assistance.
It is highly customisable in as:


It lets the user adapt the language and the “legal values” of the menu of questions.
It gives the user almost complete control on the questions of the context-specific part (i.e. discarding
questions, adding new questions with their set of legal values).
Once generated, the Form for Investigation can support a wide range of data entry systems, from
traditional pen and paper up to Personal Digital Assistants linked to data management servers.
MIRNA technical guidance
30
A4.2.2 How to conduct Community Level Assessments
Formation of field assessment teams
Assessment teams should comprise from 3 to 5 people each, depending on the number and size of
locations to be visited and the number and skills of team members available. A small team is often
easier to manage and can work faster on site than a large one. If sufficient personnel are available it
is more effective to have a larger number of smaller teams to cover a broader area in a given time.
Teams composed of people who have already worked together are likely to be more effective and
faster than teams who have to get to know each other at the same time as carrying out their work.
As far as possible, each assessment team should include the following characteristics: generalists or
specialists with participatory rapid appraisal experience; gender balance; local knowledge
(specifically language); objectivity and neutrality; international and national team members; multiagency representation; and previous disaster experience. The main priority is getting a team of
people with core skills to the crisis-affected site as quickly as possible. Box 3 presents those core
skills in the form of recommended minimum profiles for assessment team leaders and team
members.
Box 3: Minimum profiles for team leaders and members
Team Leader:
Key skills:
Experience in assessment; emergency assessment experience is preferred but not
essential.
Leadership and inter personal skills.
Broad public health skills and experience in multi-sectoral operations are preferred.
High level of familiarity with MIRNA Tool.
Familiarity with the crisis-affected areas and populations is an advantage.
Community research experience and operational management skills are advantageous.
Example posts: Programme manager with M&E experience, public health manager with inter-personal
skills
Team Members:
Key skills:
Professional experience, either sector-specific or in support areas (e.g. logistician).
Community-level research experience is preferred.
Example posts: Project Manager, project technical staff or project support staff.
The team leader’s role is to facilitate the team’s work, manage logistics and security, and provide a
contact point for country-level colleagues, other field teams and local authorities. The team leader
(or another nominated person) should also ensure that the data outlined in the Investigation Forms
are adequately collected, checked, synthesized, and promptly transmitted to the coordination level.
Roles of other team members should be clearly defined at the outset.
It may be quickest and most effective to constitute teams of people already working in or near the
affected area(s). In this case, team leader(s) may come from the coordination level and join team
members in the field for briefing and then fieldwork, or come from the affected area(s) and lead
briefings and fieldwork there. The data collection teams should be organized quickly once the crisis
MIRNA technical guidance
31
has occurred, drawing from the pool of qualified personnel in close proximity to the site. Whether
the teams are recruited centrally or at field level. Team Leaders should be involved in recruiting
members of the team as much as possible.
Selection of sites
Depending on the scale of the crisis, it may not be possible to visit all of the affected sites. In this
case a sample of sites must be chosen, based on whatever data are available at the time. Choices
must be made to include sites that will enable you to understand the situation in the affected area
as a whole including but not limited to the worst-affected sites and population groups. Selecting
priority areas for assessment entails some form of sampling. In crisis and unstable contexts, formal
sampling is often made impossible by access/mobility issues and/or absence of good population
data for a sampling frame (Internally displaced populations and the deterioration of regular
information systems often make population figures very uneven.) At least initially in a crisis, some
form of non-probabilistic sampling is often necessary. The best choice is often purposive sampling selection according to specified criteria to represent a certain case, i.e. the extremes or the norm.
The criteria to select sites will generally be the following:
Practical criteria
• Urgent need: At the height of the crisis, data collection will be limited to a first fast exercise. Very
practical criteria clearly linked to programme response will guide site selection. First priority will be
to assess areas in greatest need. Consider factors of vulnerability, including population size, density
and influx, reported shortage of food or water, reported epidemics risks or pre existing malnutrition.
• Accessibility: Where overall needs are urgent, widespread and unmet, it is justifiable to focus on
accessible areas. However, where inaccessibility is a widespread problem or coincides with very
urgent needs, the extreme rapid assessment — a two-hour visit — may be necessary to fill
information gaps.
• Gaps in existing knowledge: Cover locations about which little is known or where key information
is lacking, especially where no relief agencies are yet working.
Given time and other constraints, it may be useful to stratify possible localities according to socioeconomic or demographic criteria and visit diverse areas in order to capture the variations in
impacts of the crisis. It may be useful to select sites in different livelihood or agro-ecological zones,
in both urban and rural areas, and with both residents and non-residents (third-country nationals,
refugees or internally displaced persons). Additional criteria for stratifying and selecting sites could
include sites with more/less access to services, sites with higher/lower levels of poverty, sites with
higher/lower prevalence of chronic malnutrition, and sites in both urban and rural areas.
How to calculate the minimum number of sites
A simple way to calculate the minimum number of sites is to draw a matrix with in columns the
name of the different affected administrative entities and in rows e.g. the types of population of
interest (see How to calculate the number of sites). You tick the fields that correspond to the type of
sites that you need to assess, and count the number of ticked fields.
MIRNA technical guidance
32
How to calculate the number of sites
Rural pop.
Urban pop.
Province A
Province B
Province C
Province D
Resident
√
√
√
√
Displaced
√
√
√
Resident
√
Displaced
Total
3
√
√
√
√
3
2
4
Grand total = 12 sites to be assessed
Data collection
On-site tasks should be clearly divided among team members according to skill sets and experience
for maximum efficiency.
Each team member should have a defined role and be ready to conduct his/her own enquiries
related to particular sources of information for completing the investigation form while also being
sensitive to the information needs of the team as a whole.
Identifying and interviewing key informants (KIs):
• At the start of the site visit, meet with local authorities and/or community leaders. (Where
there are no such obvious starting points, contacts with people in the street or in/around the
administrative centre can help identify people knowledgeable on the community situation or
context with regard to each theme in the investigation form.)
• Other KIs (e.g. sectoral specialists) at each site would normally include health workers,
teachers, community development workers, relief workers, traders and NGO programme
managers. All are likely to be sources of important information.
• Where a site includes both resident and displaced populations, some KIs may be able to
provide perspectives on both groups for some issues – e.g. major health issues. However, be
aware of potential bias and select KIs from each population, wherever possible.
• When an interview is clearly not yielding the kind of overview perspective needed, politely
bring the discussion to an end and identify other KIs to talk with.
Observing conditions:
 Observe conditions and particular features from a range of viewpoints and places that can
provide a representative view of the site. If there is a high point, such as a hill or a tall building
or the rapid assessment team arrives at a site by air, the site should be observed from above
to get a sense of the conditions and variations across the site.
 Walk across the site along a transect – not following existing lines such as roads or paths – to
obtain a cross-section of points for observation and provide a balanced, representative view
of conditions.
 Key sites for observation include water collection points, latrines, communal showers, schools,
storage facilities, grave sites, markets, health facilities and drug stocks.
 Direct observation can be used as a means of ‘on-the-spot’ triangulation for the responses,
discussion, and explanations given by beneficiaries. If you are discussing water, ask to see the
water source. If people describe a food which you do not know, ask to see (and taste) it.
MIRNA technical guidance
33
Training of investigators
Investigators will attend two days of training before starting data collection. The first day will be
dedicated to training on the aims of the community level assessment, the importance of data
collection and how to collect data avoiding selection and information biases. The second day will be
spent on the field in order to test the assessment instruments, i.e. data collection devices,
questionnaire (and refining legal values), and verify data collection skills. A final meeting will be held,
so as to share difficulties met during data collection and adjust procedures accordingly.
A4.2.3 Data Analysis
Descriptive Analysis
A. Un-stratified analysis
Description of frequencies for the entire sample.
Box 4: Un-stratified analysis
Examples:
Post-disaster accessibility
Percentage of sites/communities assessed that do not have access to Community Health Care Services (per predefined categories)
Disaster impact on accessibility
Percentage of sites/communities that have lost access to Community Health Care Services (per pre-defined
categories)
Risks
Ranking of vulnerable groups most at risk in terms of nutrition
Priorities (including priorities as expressed by the population and by investigators)
Ranking of priority needs to restore shelter needs (ranking by pre-defined categories)
MIRNA technical guidance
34
B. Stratified analysis
Frequency analysis distributed by metadata, i.e. aggregation of each variable per:
 location,
 type of population,
 type of setting,
 camps vs. non camps
Box 5: Stratified analysis
Examples:
Post-disaster accessibility
Percentage of sites/communities assessed that do not have access to Community Health Care Services (per predefined categories) by location (administrative level)
Percentage of IDPs vs. Residents in rural sites vs. urban sites assessed that do not have access to Community Health
Care Services (per pre-defined categories)
Disaster impact on accessibility
Percentage of sites/communities assessed that have lost access to Community Health Care Services (per pre-defined
categories) by location (administrative level)
Risks
Ranking of vulnerable groups most at risk in terms of nutrition per administrative level
Percentage of sites where potential sources of contamination were observed near shelters per administrative level
Priorities (including priorities as expressed by the population and by investigators)
Ranking of priority needs to restore shelter needs per administrative level
Interpretation
Interpretation should be carried out at several levels.
First level
First level interpretation should be performed at the end of each site assessment. Based on the
identified cross-sectoral priorities, investigators will establish a sectoral severity ranking (see severity
ranking)
Second level
At the end of each assessment day (or after several days depending on the constraints), teams
would meet (physically or virtually) for debriefing. Based on the results of the descriptive analysis,
and their own sectoral severity ranking, they will establish an overall (i.e. cross-sectoral) severity
ranking for each site.

Low accessibility levels may be interpreted as risks per se

Impact measurements on accessibility should always be interpreted in light of resulting
situation (i.e. the greatest loss in access compared to pre-disaster situation may not
MIRNA technical guidance
35
necessarily mean the weakest access following the disaster - or : the most impacted groups
are not necessarily the ones facing most critical needs)
Box 6: Key principles for interpretation

Low accessibility levels may be interpreted as risks per se

Impact measurements on accessibility should always be
interpreted in light of resulting situation (i.e. the greatest loss
in access compared to pre-disaster situation may not
necessarily mean the weakest access following the disaster - or
: the most impacted groups are not necessarily the ones facing
most critical needs)
MIRNA technical guidance
36