Measuring the Impact of Disaster Risk Reduction:

A Learning Companion
Oxfam Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change
Adaptation Resources
 1. About this Companion
Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) and Climate Change
Adaptation (CCA) are corporate priorities for Oxfam GB.
This Learning Companion aims to support Oxfam staff
in developing indicators of disaster resilience1 for any
programmes that aim to reduce the risk of disaster, and
as part of the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL)
system.
This Companion is one of a series of documents
providing information about DRR and CCA. You should
read the Introductory Companion first for definitions of
DRR and the key terminology. It assumes a basic level of
knowledge of the Oxfam GB MEL system and processes,
so, if you require more information on this, please browse
the Programme Quality section of the Intranet or contact
phd@oxfam.org.uk.
This Companion has been produced in response to
requests from programme staff for more guidance on
measuring the impact of their work and, in particular, for
developing indicators that link to national and international
DRR frameworks. It will help you to develop high-quality
indicators, collect data to measure your effectiveness,
and use the data you gather to inform programme-level
decision-making.
Learning Objectives
After reading this Companion, you should:
• understand why MEL is important in DRR work;
• know what the key elements of a MEL plan are
and have a sense of how you can incorporate
this into your programme work plan;
• understand the role of logic models and logical
frameworks, and the differences between them;
• know what indicators are, the critical role they
play in programme monitoring, and how to write
good indicators for DRR programmes;
• understand how to use the ‘Characteristics of
a Disaster-resilient Community’ in developing
outcome indicators for your programme; and
 • understand how the development of indicators
fits into the wider Oxfam MEL system.
2. Introduction: What are the issues?
Monitoring, evaluation and learning are crucial in all
Oxfam programmes. They help us to learn, understand
and increase our effectiveness, make evidence-based
decisions, and ensure accountability to our donors and
the communities with which we work. Monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) of DRR impact to date has not been
systematically applied across the development sector for a
number of reasons, such as the following:
1
•M&E traditionally measures change, but in DRR there
is a ‘reverse logic’, because its success is measured if
disasters are avoided.
• Vulnerability to disaster is most often the result of the
interplay between several factors (see the Learning
Companion An Introduction to Disaster Risk Reduction for
more on this). It is unusual for programmes to address all
risk factors affecting a vulnerable community, which means
that it can be challenging to identify clear programme logic
against which to measure change.
• It is often difficult to attribute cause and effect to specific
measures when there is a wide range of actors working in
a complex environment.
Within Oxfam, there are an increasing number of
programmes with exclusively DRR objectives or that
incorporate a DRR approach. As the need to address
the risk of disaster increases, so does the importance of
demonstrating progress, impact and accountability to all
stakeholders in this expanding area of work.
Globally, five priority areas for reducing vulnerability to
disaster have been identified for states and other actors
in the Hyogo Framework for Action. Developing and
monitoring indicators according to these areas allows
us to monitor our own and others’ progress in these
crucial areas. Specific guidance on indicators of disaster
resilience follows later, but first it is important to understand
how these indicators fit into the logic of our programme
design and how we use indicators as part of a wider MEL
plan.
1 Resilience refers to the ability of a community, society or other

system to continue to function during or after a hazard. It is generally
determined by the extent to which the social system is capable of
adapting and organising itself to manage basic functions during
hazards and to recover afterwards. It is a broader term than capacity,
because it represents the coming together of capacities with the
social, institutional structures that enable their use. (Summarised
from Twigg (2007) Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient Community,
p6, and DFID (2004) Disaster Risk Reduction: A Development
Concern: A Scoping Study, p16.)
Page opposite: Volunteers receive training in flood preparedness in
Bangladesh and practice how to make a raft using local materials.
Photo: Shailan Parker/Oxfam
2
 3. Developing a MEL plan
Good MEL plans contain three different types of
processes – all of which play a key role in improving the
quality of our work. While this Companion focuses mainly
on the first type outlined below, all three are essential.
If you would like more information on any of these
processes, please contact phd@oxfam.org.uk.
1. Systematic monitoring against core programme will be implemented and its theory of change
programme indicators
• Develop programme logic.
• Identify key indicators (e.g. for DRR they are
based on Hyogo Framework priority areas and
using Characteristics of a Disaster Resilient
Community).
• Collect and analyse data which relate to the
indicators and will enable assessment of impact
and better decision-making.
2. Space for reflection and learning
• Monitoring reviews: (twice a year in development
programmes, and as appropriate in humanitarian
responses.)
• These can be used in standalone DRR
programmes and also to consider how
incorporating DRR could improve the quality
of programmes not currently taking a DRR
approach.
3. Rigorous analysis of outcomes and
impact
• Although the Oxfam GB evaluation policy makes it
mandatory for only some programmes to carry out
mid-term and final evaluations, all programmes
should plan for some type of evaluation.
• Evaluations can take many different forms. They
can be internal or external, formative (which help in
developing programmes) or summative (document
impact or learning from a completed programme).
2 This is only a brief introduction to logic models to illustrate how
DRR indicators relate to this. For further guidance, please see the
MEL Guidance Sheet on Programme Logic Models.
3 For more on logframes, please see the Pick Up and Go module: An
Introduction to Logical Frameworks or contact phd@oxfam.org.uk.
3
4. Systematic monitoring against core
indicators
4.1. Developing programme logic2
Good-quality M&E depends on coherent programme
design. Coherent programmes have strong internal
logic which makes clear: what the programme intends
to achieve, how it expects to achieve it, and what
assumptions are being made – both in terms of how the
(i.e. how the programme expects change to happen
within a given context). All of Oxfam’s programmes are
based on the following logical chain:
ACTIVITIES
OUTPUTS
OUTCOMES
IMPACT
Assumptions
Based on the evidence that we have, we
assume that there is a logical progression from
one to another. However, these assumptions
need to be tested during the development of
the M&E framework. It is important to question
whether the outputs will actually lead to the
outcomes, and if so, how they will do so.
4.1.1. What is the difference between a logic model and
a logical framework?
A logic model aims to clarify the overarching logic of
a programme. It can be used in the design phase or
during implementation to review the theory of change
for the whole programme or for a specific component of
it. It is usually no more than one page long and can be
expressed as a table with columns for each stage or in
a free-flow diagram. All programmes in Oxfam need to
demonstrate an understanding of their programme logic.
A logical framework (logframe)3 is a more detailed
document but based on the logic model, generally used as
a programme management tool. Although Oxfam does not
require logframes, many donors that fund DRR projects, such
as the Department for International Development (DFID) or
the European Commission (EC), do ask for them as part
of project proposal and reporting. Although you will use
the same principles to design a logical chain in a logframe,
donors may have their own terminology for the different levels.
 Logframes are also used to document the indicators
at different levels (output, outcome and impact) and
means of verification (evidence/data which will be used
to measure progress towards the indicators). Logframes
can be used as a basis for developing a monitoring
framework.
4.1.2. Testing programme logic through monitoring
Once you have documented your programme logic
and started implementing your programme, checking
the validity of the assumptions in the logic model is an
essential part of programme monitoring. This is key to
assessing the programme’s contribution towards change.
4.2. Developing high-quality indicators
4.2.1. What are indicators?4
Indicators are observable or measurable changes due to
the actions or input from a project. Oxfam describes an
indicator as a “quantitative or qualitative factor or variable
that provides a simple and reliable means to measure
achievement”.5
There are two different types of indicators:
• Process indicators show how the project is progressing,
what is happening, and if the original plan is being
followed. They can measure the amount of work being
done as well as the quality and timeliness. These
indicators are developed at output level.
4 This is a very brief introduction. There is existing generic guidance on developing good-quality programme indicators; please see the MEL
Guidance Note on Indicators or contact phd@oxfam.org.uk.
5 Definition taken from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC)
A cash for work scheme in Cambodia built a system of canals for irrigation. A total of 6 canals are dug in 9 villages and the CFW scheme
directly benefits 270 villagers. Photo: Pariphan Uawithya/Oxfam.
• Impact indicators are quantitative measures or qualitative
judgements (or both) by which the achievements of
outcomes (or the positive or negative ‘impact’ on the
target group) can be judged. These indicators are
developed at outcome/objective or impact/goal level.
Process and impact indicators can be direct or indirect
(‘proxy’) and quantitative and/or qualitative. Here are a
few indicators showing what this terminology means in
practice. Further examples are given below in Section 5.3.
• Direct indicators are straightforward and easy to
measure. They are usually a precise, comprehensive
restatement of the respective objective.
Example: % of households possessing a family
contingency plan developed by their children, where the
head of the household can describe the plan.
• Indirect (proxy) indicators are used when the
achievement of the objective is not directly observable,
measurement would incur very high costs, resources for
measuring are not available, or the achievement of the
objective is only measurable a long time after the activity
has been carried out.
 Example: Level of public health systems working
according to minimum standards, suffering minimal
damages from floods, and easily repaired and functioning
again within three days.
4
 • Quantitative indicators pertain to amounts and answer
the questions: who was it, when, where, how often and
how much? They are expressed in numbers such as units,
prices, percentages, time, scoring or ranking.
Example: % of trained committee members who can
explain the process of setting up and executing small-
scale mitigation works.
a. Outputs (called ‘results’ in EC logframes)
Indicators at this level ask what the result of the
activities was. You held a training (activity), and you
have trained some health workers. It is good to make sure
these indicators incorporate measures of quality, quantity
and time (QQT). It is not enough to just train community
workers if they stop working after the end of the course.

• Qualitative indicators pertain to descriptions and answer Good example of an output indicator for a DRR
questions such as how and why? They are a judgement programme:
and can be expressed as a narrative or by using scoring • Number of village volunteers trained in first aid and able
or ranking. They are used for gathering people’s opinions, to demonstrate skills during a simulation six months after
and monitoring satisfaction and changes that have training.
occurred.
Example: Level of flexibility and appropriateness of b. Outcomes (or ‘specific objectives’ or ‘purpose’ in EC/
credit schemes to the frequency and magnitude of DFID logframes)
shocks and the needs of households. Indicators at this level highlight what happened as a
result of the outputs. Training community workers
It is most useful to employ a balance of quantitative and is not an end in itself; they need to bring about some
qualitative indicators. observable or measurable change that can be attributed
to their presence. Several indicators may be needed
Two of the indicators above start with the words “level
of...”. These are called ‘scoring indicators’. The level of
their achievement needs to be measured, and each level
needs a context and project- or programme-relevant
example. Often, five levels are used for simplicity. Some
generic scoring levels, which could be adapted to the
relevant context, are:
1. no evidence of this at all;
2. some evidence of this but very limited;
3. moderate levels of evidence but with significant scope
for improvements;
4. substantial evidence with recognised limitations; and
5. very positive evidence of comprehensive achievements
which are covering the (for example, local area)
effectively.

4.2.2. How do I develop indicators for each level in my

logic model?
As explained above, it is really important to have a small
number of indicators for each level of programme logic.
Oxfam programmes often have good output indicators,
but then do not have indicators to show change at
outcome or impact level. This is a problem because:
• Without outcome indicators, the assumptions we have
made in our logic model are never tested. We, therefore,
do not know if our theory of change makes sense. We
only know that activities are being completed, but we do
not know if they lead to the change we want.
• We only have anecdotal evidence that we are responsible
for positive change. We cannot authoritatively talk about
the change that we have created. This means that we are
not able to be accountable to donors or beneficiaries.

Note: You do not need indicators at activity level,

because you report against the activities themselves. At
activity level, you need to employ more of a benchmark
– i.e. certain activities will be completed at/by a certain
time.

5
 to give reliable information on the achievement of the
specific objective, but their number should be limited to a
level manageable for data collection.
Good example of an outcome indicator for a DRR
programme:
• Percentage of population who reach shelters quickly
(within x hours/minutes) and safely in the event of a
hazard of x strength.
It is important to note that a number of different outputs
might contribute to each outcome. So, for example, the
outcome ‘vulnerable communities able to access shelters
quickly and safely’ might be made up of a number of
outputs, such as ‘shelters constructed or retrofitted,
‘vulnerable groups trained on evacuation and practising
in regular simulations’ and ‘completion of the small-scale
mitigation works’ that allow safe access to shelters. Only
by measuring the outcome will we know if our outputs
have had the desired effect.
c. Impact (‘principal objective’, ‘overall objective’ or ‘goal’
in EC/DFID logframes)
This is the hardest level at which it is possible to attribute
change to Oxfam’s intervention. In some cases, Oxfam
may not be able to commit to attributing change at impact
level, and some donors, for example, ECHO, do not
require indicators at this level.
However, in other circumstances, it may be useful to
measure change towards the goal, even if it is not entirely
possible to attribute the change entirely to Oxfam’s
intervention. The Oxfam MEL team would encourage this
where possible, because – although there may be other
influencing factors – it can still provide useful data that
test the assumptions made in our theory of change.
For example, if the goal of the programme is ‘to
contribute to the substantial reduction of disaster
losses caused by cyclones (both in terms of human life
and the social, economic and environmental assets of
communities) in four disaster-prone areas’, it may be
possible to include an indicator, such as:

People try to cross a flooded road by foot holding their belongings above their heads to keep them dry in Sultanpur village, West Bengal.
Anisa Draboo/Oxfam GB

Milagros Villagas Nima, 17, picks corn in her back yard. She lives in the tiny hamlet of San Martin de Malingas, Peru, which like many places in the
area is prone to flooding and landslides. As well as supporting civil defence committees to be better prepared when disasters strike, Oxfam is also
supporting families to use new technology such as drip irrigation to adapt to the changing climate.” Photo: Gilvan Barreto/Oxfam

6
 • percentage reduction in the number of human lives
lost during cyclones of x strength within x km of the
programme area by the end of the programme period.
In this instance, it may be possible to use data collected
by the government or other organisations on loss of life.
Similar indicators could be developed for the social,
economic and environmental assets.
4.2.3. What makes a good indicator?
All indicators must be:
• linked to your programme logic model and an important
part of your logframe;
• appropriate – you need different kinds of indicators at
different stages of the project cycle;
• flexible – they are not ‘set in stone’ and can be changed
if found to be impractical or immeasurable if the situation
changes; however, money can be wasted collecting data
against inappropriate indicators, so it is even better to get
it right first time; and
• SMART: specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and
time-bound.
•Qualitative indicators should also be SPICED:
subjective, participatory, interpreted (and communicable),
cross-checked (and compared), empowering, and diverse.6
Impact indicators must:
•include target values;
• help to answer the question ‘how will we know if the result
has been achieved?’; and
• include details of quantity, quality and time.
Make sure:
• Your indicators measure key elements of vulnerability
and coping capacity. The initial analysis of vulnerability
and risk should highlight which elements are most
important for the communities with which you are working.
Indicators covering attitudes, knowledge, behaviour or
access to resources can help to measure these.
• Your indicators measure the outcomes of our work for
vulnerable and socially excluded people, especially
women, older people, men and women with disabilities
or who are affected by HIV/AIDS. See the section on
social exclusion and DRR in the Learning Companion
An Introduction to Disaster Risk Reduction for more
information on why this is so important.
• You select a small number of indicators. Do not develop
similar indicators that require different data, and do not
develop too many indicators. This will make it easier to
gather data and inform decision-making.
• You know how you will collect data (and fund data
collection) to measure the indicator before you put it into
the programme design.
• You avoid using vague and ambiguous terms for
indicators such as ‘to increase awareness…’, ‘appropriate
use of…’, ‘beneficiary involvement…’, ‘increased
participation…’, ‘good understanding…’.
Involve beneficiaries where possible
The involvement of beneficiaries in developing indicators
and collecting data has a number of benefits, including:
7
• ensuring the project is relevant to the beneficiaries’ needs;
• strengthening relationships between the project and the
community, which improves implementation;
• ensuring a shared understanding of what success will
look like in the project, and contributing to downward
accountability;
• improving our ability to measure change by ensuring that
the indicators measure changes that the community feels
are appropriate to the objectives of the project; and
• creating greater beneficiary ownership of the project and,
therefore, contributing to its sustainability.
5. Linking Oxfam’s impact to global disaster risk
reduction frameworks
It makes sense to link how we measure Oxfam’s impact in
achieving DRR to the Hyogo Framework for Action (HFA).
It improves accountability by enabling progress against
HFA priorities to be communicated in a standardised
way across the sector. Likewise, improving how we
measure progress against the HFA enables us to build
the capacity of others, especially governments, to do the
same. The identification of good practice through MEL
linked to the HFA also makes it easier to lobby for the
replication and scale-up of successful interventions. This
section describes two documents which we have used to
produce the tables of example indicators that follow.
5.1. Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community:
A Guidance Note
Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community: A
Guidance Note (CDRC) was produced in response to
calls by NGOs for indicators for the HFA that prioritised
the poorest people and those most vulnerable to
disaster.7 Rather than generic indicators, it contains a
comprehensive list of the ‘characteristics’ of disaster
resilience arranged around the same five thematic areas
as the HFA. These are, therefore, a useful tool when
developing indicators for DRR interventions.
While its focus is at the level of communities, the
document also highlights the importance of wider
institutional, policy and socio-economic factors in
supporting community-level resilience. For each
component of resilience, it also lists ‘Elements of the
Enabling Environment’. These are less detailed than
the characteristics but illustrate the local, national and
sometimes international dimensions of the enabling
environment, which need to be addressed to achieve
community resilience. These elements are extremely
useful to consider when developing advocacy strategies.
Oxfam programmes have used this guidance note in
various ways in MEL and advocacy.
In addition to its use in identifying indicators for MEL,
it has also been used as a scoping tool to support
governments and NGOs to analyse vulnerability and
develop programme interventions. By suggesting what a
disaster-resilient community might look like, and setting
out many different elements of resilience, it can help us to
identify which vulnerabilities exist in our target area and
need to be addressed. Examples of and further advice
 The Jovos, young volunteers for disaster prevention meet regularly to learn about how they can help people to stay safe from flooding and rock
falls. They have regularly training courses including first aid and evacuation skills. Photo: Jane Beesley/Oxfam

on how CDRC has been used are available from the
Adaptation and Risk Reduction (ARR) team in Oxford.
5.2. Oxfam DRR indicator matrix
The ARR team in Oxford has reviewed hundreds of
indicators used in Oxfam’s programmes around the
world. A large number of good-quality indicators have
been presented in a matrix organised according to the
five priority areas set out in the HFA, with an additional
section for those measuring ‘mainstreamed’ objectives.
The full matrix is available on the ARR Intranet pages or
on request by e-mailing phd@oxfam.org.uk.
5.3. Developing indicators using these tools
This section illustrates how the Characteristics of
a Disaster-resilient Community can be turned into
indicators. Examples are all drawn from Oxfam’s
programmes, as documented in the indicator matrix. It
should be noted that:
• Indicators for only 10 of the characteristics are used
here to demonstrate the process of transforming the
characteristics. There are 167 characteristics in total.
• While the characteristics document is a very useful
basis for developing indicators for DRR, it is not
a comprehensive checklist. If appropriate to the
programme, indicators that are not covered by the
characteristics can be used.
• The indicators in this companion only illustrate the
Characteristics of a Disaster-resilient Community, not the
Elements of an Enabling Environment. However, if you
wish to measure the success of lobbying and advocacy
work, you can use the same process to transform the
Elements of an Enabling Environment into indicators.
• This Companion focuses mainly on outcome indicators,
as these are the hardest to write and are most often
missing from Oxfam’s M&E work.
Make sure programme indicators are context specific
The characteristics are generic and aim to represent all
contexts. The indicators which we have suggested give an
indication of how generic characteristics can be
transformed into generic indicators. To successfully
measure the outcomes of your project or programme, the
indicators suggested below must be modified to reflect its
unique context. The process for identifying which indicators
are most useful to your programme and which are feasible
to measure is likely to be a crucial part of the programme
development process. The development of indicators is
most effective when a range of programme stakeholders
are involved so that there is agreement about what is
important to measure and how data will be collected.
Remember that indicators that start with the word ‘level’
or ‘extent’ are ‘scoring indicators’: the level of their
achievement needs to be measured, and each level (1–5)
needs a context and project- or programme-relevant
example. The generic ‘scoring levels’ can be found in
Section 4.2.1.

6 More information about the definitions of SMART and SPICED can be found in Roche C (1999) Impact Assessment for Development
Agencies: Learning to Value Change, Oxford: Oxfam GB.
7 Official Guidelines for Reporting on Progress on the Implementation of the Hyogo Framework for Action have been produced but do not have
a particular emphasis on social justice. See the section on Measuring Progress in DRR on the UNISDR website for more.

8
 Oxfam consulted extensively with women and other vulnerable sections of Darfur society to tailor our projects to meet villagers’ precise
needs. Livelihoods and protection teams worked together to identify low cost items that were urgently needed but which would not increase
the risk of looting and attack. Photo: Adrian McIntyre/Oxfam

9
10
 Thematic Area 1: Governance
Hyogo Priority 1: Ensure that DRR is a national
and local priority with a strong institutional basis
for implementation
Component of Resilience 2: Legal and regulatory
systems
Characteristic 2.2 Community aware of its rights and the
legal obligations of government and other stakeholders to
provide protection
• Potential generic indicator: % of community members
who can list at least x rights and x legal obligations of
governments and other stakeholders to provide protection
•Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: % of
community members who can detail at least x relevant/
specific legislations/regulations/procedures and their
importance
Component of Resilience 4: Integration with
emergency response and recovery
Characteristic 4.1 Community and other local-level
actors in sustainable development and DRR engage in
joint planning with community and local-level emergency
teams and structures
• Potential generic indicator: % of community and other
local-level actors in sustainable development who attend
joint planning meetings with community and local-level
emergency teams and structures and can list at least x of
their contributions to joint plans
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: level of
inputs between communities and Parliaments during the
process of the development/review and deliberation of
DRR legal frameworks
CDRC Thematic Area 2: Risk Assessment
Hyogo Priority 2: Identify, assess and monitor
disaster risks and enhance early warning
Component of Resilience 2: Vulnerability and impact
data and assessment
Characteristic 2.3 Assessment findings shared,
discussed, understood and agreed among all
stakeholders and fed into community disaster planning
• Potential generic indicator: % of stakeholders who
can explain assessment findings and how they feed into
community disaster planning
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: % of
households who can list at least five main issues from the
Participatory Capacity and Vulnerability Analysis (PCVA)
findings
11
CDRC Thematic Area 3: Knowledge and Education
Hyogo Priority 3: Use knowledge, innovation
and education to build a culture of safety and
resilience at all levels
Component of Resilience 1: Public awareness,
knowledge and skills
Characteristic 1.2 Whole community exposed to/taken
part in ongoing awareness campaigns, which are geared
to community needs and capacities (e.g. literacy levels)
• Potential generic indicator: % of community members,
who took part in accessible awareness campaigns,
that are able to describe at least x relevant measures to
approach community needs and capacities
Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: level
of involvement of youth groups in organising DRR
awareness-raising events
Component of Resilience 5: Learning and Research
Characteristic 5.1 Documentation, use and adaptation of
indigenous technical knowledge and coping strategies
• Potential generic indicator: level of documentation, use
and adaptation of indigenous technical knowledge and
coping strategies (e.g. in DRR plans)
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: level of
indigenous technical knowledge and coping mechanisms
used to develop awareness-raising materials
CDRC Thematic Area 4: Risk Management and
Vulnerability Reduction
Hyogo Priority 4: Reduce the underlying risk
factors
Component of Resilience 1: Environmental and
natural resource management
Characteristic 1.2 Adoption of sustainable environmental
management practices that reduce hazard risk
• Potential generic indicator: level of adoption of
sustainable environmental management practices that
reduce hazard risk (e.g. within the parish)
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: level of
sustainability of the system in place for the maintenance
of protection works
Component of Resilience 6: Physical protection,
structural and technical measures (including physical
capital)
Characteristic 6.3 Safe locations: community members
and facilities (homes, workplaces, public and social
facilities) not exposed to hazards in high-risk areas within
locality and/or relocated away from unsafe sites
 A Civil Protection Committee in Haiti runs through a training exercise which teaches them how to save lives in a flood. Abbie Trayler-Smith/Oxfam
• Potential generic indicator: % of community members
with access to and means to reach facilities (homes,
workplaces, public and social facilities) not exposed to
hazards in high-risk areas within locality and/or relocated
away from unsafe sites
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: % of
households of most-at-risk families willing to move to safer
sites or to strengthen their individual dwelling (resources
permitting)
CDRC Thematic Area 5: Disaster Preparedness
and Response
Hyogo Priority 5: Strengthen disaster
preparedness at all levels
Component of Resilience 1: Organisational Capacities
and Coordination
Characteristic 1.6 Sufficient number of trained and
organisational personnel and community members to
carry out specific relevant tasks (e.g. communication,
search and rescue, first aid, relief distribution)
• Potential generic indicator: % of committee members
showing skills in carrying out relevant response tasks
according to minimum standards in a coordinated manner
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: %
of (e.g. committees) having a system for managing
their response equipment and options for replacing
consumables, doing essential maintenance, and
supporting basic organisational activities
Component of Resilience 2: Early warning systems
Characteristic 2.2 Early warning system capable of
reaching whole community (via radio, TV, telephone and
other communications technologies, and via community
early warning mechanisms such as volunteer networks)
• Potential generic indicator: % of community members
who receive early warning messages from at least one
source
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: level of
functioning of the communications/early warning system
for the transmission of alerts that permits information to
reach people in an appropriate and timely manner
Component of Resilience 4: Emergency resources and
infrastructure
Characteristic 4.2: Safe evacuation routes identified,
maintained, and known to community members
• Potential generic indicator: % of safe evacuation routes
that receive regular maintenance, and percentage of
community members able to identify safe evacuation
routes
• Example indicator from an Oxfam programme: %
of community members who are able to reach shelters
safely and quickly
12
 5.4. Collecting data
For indicators to be useful, data must be collected to
show progress against them. The following rules apply
when thinking about the data that you will need to collect.
• Collect the right information. Most programmes already
collect too much information that they cannot use.
Information should only be collected that is essential
for influencing decision-making and accountability and
demonstrating impact. Developing strong programme
logic and selecting a small number of effective indicators
is the best way to ensure that you only collect the most
relevant data.
• Collect the information at the right time. The starting point
for data collection is a baseline that shows the situation
before the intervention. Data collection intervals will then
depend on the needs of the programme and its donors.
• Use the right tools for the job. There are a number of
specific tools for collecting data on the elements that
make up disaster risk – i.e. hazards, vulnerability, and
capacity – which make use of existing participatory
methodologies and tools. For more guidance on what
tools to use when, please email the Programme Help
Desk: phd@oxfam.org.uk.
• Plan and budget for data collection in advance.
Collecting baseline data and carrying out annual impact
assessments require an investment of staff time and
funds. Make sure this is in your plans from the beginning.
You will also need to make sure that annual work plans
Joyce Aneno Oywelo, a Public Health Facilitator (PHF) in Amida camp, northern Uganda. Home visits are used to provide support, but also to
collect data on malaria, diarrhoea and other health problems. Geoff Sayer/Oxfam
13
allocate time for monitoring reviews or ongoing data
collection activities.
6. Space for learning and reflection
Programme Monitoring Reviews, Country Learning
Reviews and Regional Learning Reviews can all be
used to strengthen our understanding of the impact
of our programmes on vulnerability and disaster risk.
These provide critical moments to review information
collected through monitoring and to ensure that this
information feeds into decision-making. If you are working
in a standalone DRR programme, discussions about
vulnerability and disaster are likely to feature in all of your
Monitoring Reviews. However, in programmes where DRR
is not the main objective, it can be really beneficial to use
this time and space to think about how to strengthen the
impact on DRR.
7. Rigorous analysis of outcomes and impact:
evaluation
All Oxfam programmes should plan to evaluate their
impact and learn about how they can improve their work
in future. The Oxfam evaluation policy and accompanying
guidance are available on the Intranet and from phd@
oxfam.org.uk; they exist to help programme teams to plan
and implement evaluations across all thematic areas.
However, more specifically, the following have been
identified as specific goals for DRR evaluations:
• to test the assumptions made during programme
design on the occurrence and severity of hazards and
vulnerabilities;
• to understand the impact (positive or negative, intended
or unintended) of the intervention on the vulnerability of
men and women in the target communities, and ensure
beneficiary feedback;
• to generate learning on interventions which reduce or
contribute to vulnerability, which can be incorporated into
future programme design; and
• to produce a written report, which can contribute to
transparency and accountability and, where relevant,
inform lobbying activities with local or national governments.
For example, a report demonstrating the effectiveness of
certain activities in achieving a specific goal of the HFA or in
implementing national policy could be effective in lobbying
for additional government funding for this activity.
This is not an exhaustive list, and programme staff are
encouraged to contact their regional programme quality
lead or phd@oxfam.org.uk if they would like more support
in thinking through the objectives for an evaluation.
8. Summary of key learning points from Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: The
this Learning Companion
• MEL plans must include monitoring against core
programme indicators, moments for review, and
rigorous analysis of outcomes and impact.
• All good MEL plans are based on clear
programme logic, with high-quality indicators
for output and outcome levels. Impact-level
indicators are desirable but not always possible.
•  An indicator is an observable or measurable
change which results from the intervention of a
project.
• The CDRC Guidance Note is a valuable input to
help develop a MEL plan that will demonstrate
progress against the Hyogo Framework for
Action.
• A matrix of good DRR indicators is available on
the ARR Intranet pages.
• Developing a small number of relevant indicators
will make it easier to collect the right data.
•  Planning and budgeting for data collection
exercises is essential.
•  Space to reflect on monitoring data and to use
it to influence decision-making are an essential
part of any MEL plan. Monitoring reviews can be
used to review our progress against indicators
of vulnerability to disasters in all Oxfam’s
programmes, not just standalone DRR work.
• It is vital to plan and budget for evaluations and
consider how learning from evaluations can be
disseminated and incorporated into decision-
making and future programme planning.
9. Further reading
If you are having difficulty locating any of these
resources, please email phd@oxfam.org.uk for advice.
MEL pages on the Oxfam GB Intranet
http://intranet.oxfam.org.uk/programme/pm/programme_
cycle_management/mel
Contains information about the Oxfam GB MEL system
as well as tools and guidance that aim to support
programme teams to plan and implement MEL processes,
including developing logic models, identifying indicators,
collecting data including baseline studies, and facilitating
moments for review such as Monitoring Reviews and
evaluations.
Benson C and Twigg J (2007) ‘Guidance Note 13 –
Evaluating disaster risk reduction initiatives’, Tools for
Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction: Guidance Notes
for Development Organisations, ProVention Consortium
This guidance note sets out the main steps in planning
evaluations, collecting and analysing data, and using the
results, and it discusses issues associated with these
activities.
Emergency Capacity Building Project (2007) Impact
Good Enough Guide
This pocket guide presents some tried and tested
methods for putting impact measurement and
accountability into practice throughout the life of a
project. It is available to download from the Oxfam
website, on CD-Rom or in hard copy.
ProVention Consortium (2007) DRR and M&E Sourcebook
This follows on from the ProVention Consortium guidance
note mentioned above and is a more comprehensive
online guide to the M&E issues of DRR. It contains many
practical examples of M&E, as well as links to useful
reference material online and a bibliography of off-line
publications.
Roche C (1999) Impact Assessment for Development
Agencies: Learning to Value Change, Oxford: Oxfam GB
This book shows how and why impact assessment can be
integrated into all stages of development programmes –
from planning to evaluation.
For more advice on measuring the impact of DRR,
please contact your regional Programme Quality Advisor
or regional DRR or Humanitarian Advisor, or the PPT
Adaptation and Risk Reduction team in Oxford at arr@
oxfam.org.uk.
14
Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation are corporate priorities for Oxfam GB. The Learning Companions are a set
of articles, which provide accessible and practical guidance to Oxfam staff wishing to integrate DRR and Climate Change adaptation
approaches into programming. To find out about other resources on Disaster Risk Reduction and Climate Change Adaptation, and to
give us your feedback on these resources, please contact the Programme Resource Centre. Email: phd@oxfam.org.uk

Front picture: Participants get ready to apply the techniques they have learnt during Oxfam’s week-long water rescue training, Haiti.
Photo: Maite Alvarez/Oxfam

Oxfam is a registered charity in England and Wales No 202918 and Scotland SCO 039042. Inhouse 4087