BCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRST
2
num 22SectorSub- sectorPillarSub pillarIndicator Name/labelJIAF Priority levelData collection techniqueRecommended source12345Notes from indicator ownerClass
3
1CCCMHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of population in sites requiring access to functioning complaints and feedback mechanisms1HH survey / KICCCM ClusterAll four of the following criteria met:
HH is aware of the existence of CFM;
the CFM is easy to use;
the CFM is appropriate for the population (no language, gender or imparement limitations);
it's trusted for confidentiality, response, timeliness and sensitive issues
Three of the following criteria met:
HH is aware of the existence of CFM;
the CFM is easy to use;
the CFM is appropriate for the population (no language, gender or imparement limitations);
it's trusted for confidentiality, response, timeliness and sensitive issues
Two of the following criteria met:
HH is aware of the existence of CFM;
the CFM is easy to use;
the CFM is appropriate for the population (no language, gender or imparement limitations);
it's trusted for confidentiality, response, timeliness and sensitive issues
One of the following criteria met:
HH is aware of the existence of CFM;
the CFM is easy to use;
the CFM is appropriate for the population (no language, gender or imparement limitations);
it's trusted for confidentiality, response, timeliness and sensitive issues
None of the following criteria met:
HH is aware of the existence of CFM;
the CFM is easy to use;
the CFM is appropriate for the population (no language, gender or imparement limitations);
it's trusted for confidentiality, response, timeliness and sensitive issues
4
2CCCMHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of population in sites requiring appropriate site management services1KICCCM ClusterSize or type of site that does not require site management activitiesSize or type of site that requires infrequent or low level of site management activitiesSize or type of site that requires a moderate range of site managemnt servicesSize or type of site that requires a wide range of site management serviceSize or type of site that requires a comprehensive range of site management services
5
3CCCMHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of population in sites requiring inclusive and representative governance structures1HH survey / KICCCM ClusterAll of the following criteria met: governance structures are representative of the site population; decision-making procesesses include view of women, children, vulnerable groups and host community; governance structures are accountable; governance representatives have sufficent capacity and resourcesThree of the following criteria met:
governance structures are representative of the site population; decision-making procesesses include view of women, children, vulnerable groups and host community; governance structures are accountable; governance representatives have sufficent capacity and resources
Two of the following criteria met:
governance structures are representative of the site population; decision-making procesesses include view of women, children, vulnerable groups and host community; governance structures are accountable; governance representatives have sufficent capacity and resources
One of the following criteria met:
governance structures are representative of the site population; decision-making procesesses include view of women, children, vulnerable groups and host community; governance structures are accountable; governance representatives have sufficent capacity and resources
None of the following criteria met:
governance structures are representative of the site population; decision-making procesesses include view of women, children, vulnerable groups and host community; governance structures are accountable; governance representatives have sufficent capacity and resources
6
4CCCMHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of population with access to basic services within walking distance1HH survey / KICCCM ClusterAll basic services are available within a 30 min walking distance (one way)All basic services are available within a one hour walking distance (one way)All basic services are available within a 1h30 walking distance (one way)All basic services are available within a 2 hours walking distance (one way)No basic services are available within a 2 hours walking distance (one way)Basic services should be defined at country level: Drinking water, primary and secondary schools, food market, NFI market, Shelter construction market, health center, hospital, pharmacy, veterinary services, transport services, water, electricity, livestock market, waste removal, communication device. Distance should be collected for each service. If data is collected at the HH level, then ask from the house. if data is collected from KI, then specify if from the center of the camp or a cleary localized spot. We are not checking here distance to personal itemas such as latrines etc, only community services.
7
5CCCMImpactImpact on people% of population in sites0KICCCM Cluster
8
6CCCMImpactImpact on Services% of population in sites that are not physically and socially appropriate site environments1HH survey / KICCCM ClusterAll four of the following criteria met:
The site is not located in an area of high risk of natural hazards (flooding, landslide etc)
The site has a functional and appropriate administrative space;
The site has functional and appropriate social and communal spaces;
Site facilities are maintained
Three of the following criteria met:
The site is not located in an area of high risk of natural hazards (flooding, landslide etc)
The site has a functional and appropriate administrative space;
The site has functional and appropriate social and communal spaces;
Site facilities are maintained
Two of the following criteria met:
The site is not located in an area of high risk of natural hazards (flooding, landslide etc)
The site has a functional and appropriate administrative space;
The site has functional and appropriate social and communal spaces;
Site facilities are maintained
One of the following criteria met:
The site is not located in an area of high risk of natural hazards (flooding, landslide etc)
The site has a functional and appropriate administrative space;
The site has functional and appropriate social and communal spaces;
Site facilities are maintained
None of the following criteria met:
The site is not located in an area of high risk of natural hazards (flooding, landslide etc)
The site has a functional and appropriate administrative space;
The site has functional and appropriate social and communal spaces;
Site facilities are maintained
9
7CrossDisabilityHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of the population identified as having disabilities (in line with the Washington Group Questions)1HH surveyHH or Individual level surveyAll domains are no difficultiesNo domain is a lot of difficulties or cannot do at all, 1, 2, or 3 domains are some difficultiesNo domain is cannot do at all, 1, 2, or 3 domains are a lot of difficulties OR no domain is a lot of difficulties or cannot do at all; at least 4 domains are some difficultiesNo domain is cannot do at all, 1, 2, or 3 domains are a lot of difficulties OR no domain is a lot of difficulties or cannot do at all; at least 4 domains are some difficultiesAt least 4 domains are cannot do allThese thresholds are for individuals - we are not sure how they can be used at the household/area level. This indicator will likely have to be shifted slightly for use in JIAG so that it's not focused on % of population but rather by severity of disabilities. We are still following up on this.
10
8EducationAccess and learning environmentHumanitarian conditionsCoping Mechanisms% children dropping out of school in the last XX months1HH survey / KIMSNA / EMIS or school database / EiE assessmentHH: No school-aged children in the HH dropped ou
Area: 0% of school-aged children dropped out
Area: <10% of school-aged children dropped outHH: Some school-aged children in the HH attend school
Area: <20% of school-aged children dropped out
Area: <30% of school-aged children dropped outHH: All school-aged children in the HH dropped out
Area: >=30% of school-aged children dropped out
Country-level thresholds should be amended based on the pre-crisis drop-out rate
11
9EducationAccess and learning environmentHumanitarian conditionsCoping Mechanisms% households by highest education level (primary, secondary and tertiary)2HH surveyMSNAHH: at least 1 member completed tertiary degree OR vocational qualificationHH: at least 1 member completed secondary educationHH: at least 1 member completed primary educationHH: at least 1 member started (though did not complete) primary educationHH: No member ever attended school
12
10EducationAccess and learning environmentHumanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% children not attending school by sex and school-level (as a result of the crisis)1HH survey / KIMSNA / EMIS or school database / EiE assessmentHH: All school-aged children in the HH attend school
Area: 100% of school-aged children attended school in the current/most recent school year
HH: NA
Area: >75% of school-aged children attended school in the current/most recent school year
HH: Some school-aged children in the HH attend school
Area: >50% of school-aged children attended school in the current/most recent school year
HH: NA
Area: >25% of school-aged children attended school in the current/most recent school year
HH: No school-aged children in the HH attend school
Area: 0-25% of school-aged children attended school in the current/most recent school year
Country-level thresholds should be amended based on the pre-crisis enrolment rate
13
11EducationAttacks on educationHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of children who have suffered attacks in or on their way to school in the last XX months1HH survey / KIEiE/protection monitoringNo attacksVerbal attacksPhysical assault without serious injuryPhysical assault with serious injuryPhysical assault with fatal injury
14
12EducationAttacks on educationHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of teachers who have suffered attacks in or on their way to school in the last XX months1KIEiE/protection monitoringNo attacksVerbal attacksPhysical assault without serious injuryPhysical assault with serious injuryPhysical assault with fatal injury
15
13EducationAttacks on educationImpactImpact on ServicesNumber of attacks on education personnel in the lat XX months0KIThresholds to be developed by the Education Cluster in country.
16
14EducationAttacks on educationImpactImpact on ServicesNumber of attacks on school in the last XX months0KIThresholds to be developed by the Education Cluster in country.
17
15EducationAttacks on educationImpactImpact on ServicesNumber of schools occupied by armed groups in the last XX months0KI
18
16EducationWASH in schoolsHumanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% children in schools without access to an improved drinking water source2; In epidemic situation, level 1KIEiE assessmentArea: 0-20%
Water available from an improved sources located on the premises
21-40%
Water available from an improved source not on premises
41-60%
Water available from an unimproved source on premises
61-80%
Water from unimproved source not on premises
81-100%
No water source
19
17EducationWASH in schoolsHumanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% children in schools without access to hygienic latrines2; In epidemic situation, level 2KIEiE assessmentArea: 0-20%
Access to gender-segregated improved sanitation facilities, shared with fewer than 50 students
Area: 21-40%
Access to improved sanitation facilities, not gender-segregated, shared with fewer than 50 students
Area: 41-60%
Access to improved sanitation facilities, shared with more than 50 students
Area: 61-80%
Access to unimproved facilities OR access to improved facilities shared with more than 100 students
Area: 81-100%
Disposal of human faeces in open spaces or with solid waste
20
18EducationImpactImpact on Services% of closed/non-functional schools0KIAll schools are open/functionalNr. of closed/non-functional schools < 10%Nr. of closed/non-functional schools = 11-20%Nr. of closed/non-functional schools = 21-40%Nr. of closed/non-functional schools = 41% or higher
21
19EducationImpactImpact on Services% of classrooms destroyed or damaged0KINo classrooms destroyed/damagedNr. of classrooms destroyed/damaged < 5%Nr. of classrooms destroyed/damaged = 6-10%Nr. of classrooms destroyed/damaged = 11-25%Nr. of classrooms destroyed/damaged = 26% or higher
22
20EducationImpactImpact on Services% of schools used as shelter by IDPs0KINo schools used as shelter by IDPsThresholds to be developed by the Education Cluster in country.
23
21EducationImpactImpact on ServicesPupil-Teacher Ratio0KIPTR < 40PTR = 41-50PTR = 51-60PTR = 61-75PTR = 76 or higher
24
22EducationAccess and learning environmentHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsAverage time needed by school-enrolled children to access the nearest education facility (pre-primary)HH survey / KILess than 20 minutesOver 20 minutes
25
23EducationAccess and learning environmentHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsAverage time needed by school-enrolled children to access the nearest education facility (primary)HH survey / KILess than 20 minutes20-40 minutesOver 40 minutes
26
24EducationAccess and learning environmentHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsAverage time needed by school-enrolled children to access the nearest education facility (secondary)HH survey / KILess than 40 minutes40-60 minutesOver 60 minutes
27
25Food SecurityFood AccessHumanitarian ConditionsCoping MechanismsLivelihood coping strategy (basic needs)2HH surveyEssential Needs AssessmentNo stress, crisis or emergency coping observedStress strategies are the most severe strategies used by the household in the past 30 daysCrisis strategies are the most severe strategies used by the household in the past 30 daysEmergency strategies are the most severe strategies used by the household in the past 30 daysNear exhaustion of coping capacity
28
26Food SecurityFood AccessHumanitarian ConditionsCoping MechanismsLivelihood coping strategy (food) - 30 day recall1HH surveyFood security assessmentNo stress, crisis or emergency coping observedStress strategies Crisis strategies Emergency strategiesNear exhaustion of coping capacity1.1 Sold household assets/goods (radio, furniture, refrigerator, television, jewelry etc..)
1.2 Reduced non-food expenses on health (including drugs) and education
1.3 Sold productive assets or means of transport (sewing machine, wheelbarrow, bicycle, car, etc..)
1.4 Spent savings
1.5 Borrowed money / food from a formal lender / bank
1.6 Sold house or land
1.7 Withdrew children from school
1.8 Sold last female animals
1.9 Begging
1.10 Sold more animals (non-productive) than usual
29
27Food SecurityFood AccessHumanitarian ConditionsLiving StandardsFood Expenditure share1HH surveyFood security assessment<50%50-65%65-75%75% - 85%> 85%
30
28Food SecurityFood AccessHumanitarian ConditionsLiving StandardsHousehold Economy Approach (HEA)2HH surveyHEA surveyNo livelihood protection deficitSmall or moderate livelihood protection deficit <80%Livelihood protection deficit ≥80%, survival deficit <20%Survival deficit ≥20% but <50%Survival deficit ≥50%
31
29Food SecurityFood AccessHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingHousehold Hunger Scale (HHS)1HH surveyFood security assessment0 (none)1 (slight)2 or 3 (moderate)4 (severe)5 or 6 (severe)Q1 In the past [4 weeks/30 days], was there ever no food to eat of any kind in your house because of lack of resources to get food?
Q1a How often did this happen in the past [4 weeks/30 days]?
Q2 In the past [4 weeks/30 days], did you or any household member go to sleep at night hungry because there was not enough food?
Q2a How often did this happen in the past [4 weeks/30 days]?
Q3 In the past [4 weeks/30 days], did you or any household member go a whole day and night without eating anything at all because there was not enough food?
Q3a How often did this happen in the past [4 weeks/30 days]?
32
30Food SecurityFood AccessHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingReduced Coping Strategies Index1HH surveyFood security assessment0 to 34 to 18≥ 19≥ 19≥ 191. Relied on less preferred, less expensive food
2. Borrowed food or relied on help from friends or relatives
3. Reduced the number of meals eaten per day
4. Reduced portion size of meals at meals time
5. Restrict consumption by adults in order for young-children to eat
33
31Food SecurityFood Availability/AccessHumanitarian ConditionsLiving StandardsFood Production losses1HH survey, official estimates, remote sensingFood security assessment, Agriculture survey (e.g. CFSAM), Ministry of Agriculture, Satellite imageryIn the averageSmall production losses compared to average <75%Significant production losses compared to average 50-75%High production losses compared to average 25-50%No production or near total crop loss <25%Considering main staple food in the area, compared to a normal year, using five years average or longer if food production has been affected by exceptional factors over several of the past 5 years. Note that these thresholds are not based on international standards, they need to be adjusted to the context.
34
32Food SecurityFood Availability/AccessHumanitarian ConditionsLiving StandardsProductive assets losses1HH surveyFood security, Agriculture, Livelihood assessmentNo livelihood asset lossModerate loss of livelihood assetsSignificant loss of livelihood assetsSevere loss of livelihood assetsTotal loss of all productive assetsProductive assets depending of agricultural subsectors: farming (land or access to land, seeds, perennial crops, key tools), livestock, fishing (access to sea, fishing gear and vessels)
35
33Food SecurityFood Availability/Access/UtilizationHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingFood Consumption Score1HH surveyFood security assessmentAcceptable and stableAcceptable but deterioration from typicalBorderlinePoorPoorFood items/groups:
Cereals or tubers
Pulses and groundnuts
Milk and milk products
Eggs, meat, fish, shells
Vegetables
Fruits
Sugar
Oil
Condiments
36
34Food SecurityFood Availability/Access/UtilizationHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingIPC/CH - for all IPC/CH countries with updated analysis - if up-to-date IPC analysis results are not available, other FS indicators can be used for FS sector1IPC analysisIPC analysis
37
35Food SecurityFood UtilizationHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingHousehold Dietary Diversity Score2HH surveyFood security assessment5-12 food groups and stable5-FG but deterioration ≥1 FG from typical3-4 FG0-2 FG0-2 FG
38
36HealthChild HealthHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingCoverage of DTC3 (DPT3 / PENTA3) in < 1 year old, by administrative unit1HMIS/HIS, Survey>= 95%90% < 95%85% < 89%80% < 84%< = 80%This data may be available through projections, but if so, the quality of the data should be checked and noted.
In some surveys data is collected from children aged 12-23 months. Please be sure to reference the age range that is the focus of the data. Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
39
37HealthCommunicable and Non Communicable DiseasesHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingCase Fatality Ratio (CFR) for most common diseases1Prospective HF based surveillanceMixture of disease severity and of quality of health care. Most likely will be biased upwards because only more severe cases normally go to clinic. This indicator is primarily a country-level measurement and cannot be easily aggregated for use at higher levels.
The list of diseases is context specific.
Data collection can be problematic as health facility surveillance may have low sensitivity for conditions that do not commonly go to clinic. Access to health services is another factor
40
38HealthCommunicable and Non Communicable DiseasesHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingNumber of cases or incidence rates for selected diseases relevant to the local context (cholera, measles, acute meningitis, others)1EWARS, IRA, RHA prospective HF based surveillanceThis indicator is primarily a country-level measurement and cannot be easily aggregated for use at higher levels.
The list of diseases is context specific.
Data collection can be problematic as health facility surveillance may have low sensitivity for conditions that do not commonly go to clinic. Access to health services is another factor
41
39HealthCommunicable and Non Communicable DiseasesHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPercentage of children aged six months to 15 years who have received measles vaccination2VCE, HMIS>95% in camps /urban areas
>90% in scattered or rural areas
>95% in camps /urban areas
>90% in scattered or rural areas
90% >= 95% urban and camps
85% >= 90% in scattered or rural areas
85% >= 89% urban and camps
80% >= 84% in scattered or rural areas
< 85% urban and camps
< 80% in scattered or rural areas
This indicator is used to estimate vaccine coverage of the total EPI strategy. To avoid overestimation, measles vaccination coverage is used as proxy since it is usually lower than DPT3 coverage. Both indicators should be calculated on a yearly basis and can provide good indication of health system performance.
It is necessary to assess the quality of the available data. Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
42
40HealthGender Based ViolenceImpactImpact on Services% of health facilities providing Emergency contraception, Post exposure Prophilaxis and Sexual Transmitted Infection treatment (disaggregate by which of the three services are being provided)0HeRAMS or similar service90%+90%+80% >= 89%70 >= 79%< 70%Comprehensive post-rape care -for this indicator- is defined as offering EC, PEP and STI treatment. Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
43
41HealthGeneral Clinical ServicesHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsNumber of inpatient beds per 10,0000HeRAMS, RHA>= 18>= 1812 < =176 < = 11<= 5Indicator for the availability of hospital beds across crisis areas and proxy indicator of equity in the allocation of resources. Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
44
42HealthGeneral Clinical ServicesHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsPercentage of population that can access primary healthcare within one hour’s walk from dwellings1Survey>= 80%>= 80%70% < 79%60% < 69%< 60%Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
45
43HealthGeneral Clinical ServicesImpactImpact on ServicesNumber of days essential medicines are not available in a one month period1IRA, RHA, Surveys, Broader survey of health facilitiesSPHERE standard. Essential medicines include drugs, vaccines and blood products. Should be based on the national essential medicines list. The indicator will need a list of 'essential medicines' for each context. ANY of those being unavailable for a day counts as 1 day. Expired medicines should not be counted
46
44HealthGeneral HealthImpactImpact on ServicesAverage population per functioning health facility (HF), by type of HF0HeRAMS or similar service
EPI microplanning data from vaccine or NID campaign
This is a proxy indicator of geographical accessibility and of equity in availability of health facilities across different administrative units within the crisis areas
Please note, this will not adequately measure healthcare coverage in all settings and should be used in conjunction with other indicators.
If an existing current population dataset is available, then HERAMS is preferable for broad statements like national or sub-national (but not community) coverage. When planning at LOCAL levels then other methods should be used.
It is important to assess the quality of the data available and make a note of said quality where the indicator is reported.
47
45HealthSexual Reproductive HealthHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsNumber of HF with Basic Emergency Obstetric Care/ 500,000 population, by administrative unitHeRAMS / similar service4+4+32<= 1Proxy indicators for the physical availability and geographical accessibility of emergency obstetric services and their distribution across districts in the affected areas. An unbalance between the availability of BEmOC and CEmOC (with too few BEmOC) is often observed.

Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
48
46HealthSexual Reproductive HealthHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsNumber of skilled birth attendant personnel (doctors, nurses, certified midwives) per 10,000 people1HeRAMS>= 23>= 23>= 19>= 15>= 11Only the first threshold has been tested and has evidence behind it. The others have been arbitrarily selected and should not be considered accurate measures at this stage
49
47HealthSSAImpactImpact on ServicesPercentage of identified SSA incidents verified1 SSA00111+Indicator adjusted to: total number of confirmed incidents over a set period of time. As reporting period and area of interest will change, I doubt it makes sense to provide a fixed cut off.
50
48HealthGeneral Clinical ServicesHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of people reporting they are unable to access healthcare when they require it.2HH SurveyMSNATBDTBDTBDTBDTBDThis is a new indicator and may still undergo some 'tweaks' (e.g. slight re-wording). The thresholds have not yet been set and will be updated as soon as possible. Note that while this is currently set at priority level 2, we do foresee the priority rising in future years once we have data to confirm its use and check the thresholds that have yet to be determined.
51
49NutritionCare and feeding practicesHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsExclusive breastfeeding for infants 0-5 months2HH survey SMART surveys>70%50-70%30 -50%11-30%<11%
52
50NutritionCare and feeding practicesHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsInfants 0-5 months that are not breastfed who have access to Breast Milk Substitutes (BMS) supplies and support in line with the Code and the IFE OG standards and recommendations2HH survey SMART surveys>60%40-60%20-40%10-20%<10%
53
51NutritionCare and feeding practicesHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsInfants 6-11 months that are not breastfed who have access to Breast Milk Substitutes (BMS) supplies and support in line with the Code and the IFE OG standards and recommendations3HH survey SMART surveys>60%40-60%20-40%10-20%<10%
54
52NutritionFood consumptionHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsMinimum Acceptable Diet in children 6 to 23 months1HH survey SMART surveys≥70%40-70%20-40%10-20%<10%
55
53NutritionFood consumptionHumanitarian conditionsLiving StandardsMinimum Dietary Diversity in children 6 to 23 months1HH survey SMART surveys≥70%40-70%20-40%10-20%<10%
56
54NutritionGAMHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) based on BMI-for-Age Z-Score<-2 among Adolescents3HH survey SMART surveys<2.5%2.5-4.9%5-9.9%10-14.9%≥15%
57
55NutritionGAMHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) based on Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC) <125mm and/or bilateral oedema among children 6-59 months1 - only if GAM based on WHZ is not available (line 48)HH survey SMART surveysMUAC <5%: Phase 1-2; MUAC 5-9.9%: Phase 2-3; MUAC 10-14.9: Phase 3-4; MUAC >=15%: Phase 4-5To only use GAm based on MUAC if GAM based on WHZ is not available. Thresholds are based on IPC Acute Malnutrition and cut across multiple phases. Not sure how to present this here.
58
56NutritionGAMHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) based on Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)<210-230 (depending on the contexts) and/or bilateral oedema among Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLW)2 (if the above two indicators are not available in line 52 and 48)HH survey SMART surveys<12.6%12.6%-19.9%20-24.9%25-34.9%≥35%Preliminary thresholds based on Somalia’s Food Security and Nutrition Analysis Unit (FSNAU)
59
57NutritionGAMHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) based on Mid-Upper Arm Circumference (MUAC)<210mm among Older People3HH survey SMART surveys<5%5-9.9%10-14.9% OR
5-9.9%*
≥15% OR
10-14.9%*
*If presence of aggravating factors which include: a general food ration below 2,100kcal per person per day; a disease outbreak (i.e cholera or malaria); inadequate safe water supplies and sanitation; inadequate shelter; war and conflict, civil strife, migration and displacement.
60
58NutritionGAMHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) based on weight for height Z-score (WHZ)<-2 and/or bilateral oedema among children 0-59 months1HH survey SMART surveys<5%5-9.9%10-14.9%15-29.9%≥30%
61
59NutritionMicronutrient deficiencyHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of anemia Hb <11g/dl in children 6 - 59 months2HH survey SMART surveys<5%5-19.9%20-39.9%≥40%Note that the threholds are not 5-points in nature
62
60NutritionMicronutrient deficiencyHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of anemia Hb <11g/dl in pregnant lactating women2HH survey SMART surveys<5%5-19.9%20-39.9%≥40%Note that the threholds are not 5-points in nature
63
61NutritionMortalityHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingCrude Death/Mortality Rate (deaths/ 10,000 persons/ day)HH surveySMART surveys<0.50.5-0.91-1.9≥2Note that the threholds are not 5-points in nature
64
62NutritionMortalityHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingUnder-five Death/Mortality Rate (deaths/ 10,000 children U5/ day)HH surveySMART surveys<11-1.92-3.9≥4Note that the threholds are not 5-points in nature
65
63NutritionOverweightHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of overweight based on weight for height Z-score (WHZ)>2 among children 0-59 months1 in certain contextsHH survey SMART surveys<2.5%2.5-4.9%5-9.9%10-14.9%≥15%Physical and Mental Well-being if GAM is <5%. If not, move to Living Standards
66
64NutritionStuntingHumanitarian conditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of stunting based on height-for-age Z-score (HAZ)<-2 among children 0-59 months1 if for Living StandardsHH survey SMART surveys<10%10-19.9%20-29.9%≥30%Physical and Mental Well-being if GAM is <5%. If not, then move to Living Standards
67
65ProtectionCPHumanitarian ConditionsLiving standardsAccess to/ Availability of core CP services per area2KIChild Protection Services mappingAll 4 core CP services are accessibleCP Referral mechanism + 3 serviceCP Referral mechanism + 2CP Referral mechanism + 1No CP Referral mechanismThresholds to be defined at field level. Support can be provided at global level.

Define CP core services. Data should be collected through a services mapping (including non humanitarian partners)
Core child protection services are services that:
- provide accessible and quality mental health and psychosocial support for children, adolescents, and caregivers;
- protect children from violence, exploitation and abuse; and
- protect children without parental care

Essential services are referral services
68
66ProtectionCP/GBV
Humanitarian Conditions
Physical and Mental Wellbeing
% of girls / boys engaged in hazardous child labour1HH Survey / KI
MSNA / MoSA / MoL / UNICEF
None reportedNone reported<20% of HH reported a child engaged in hazardous child labour

KI = Some children are engaged in hazardous child labour
20%-50% of HH reported a child engaged in hazardous child labour

KI = Many children are engaged in hazardous child labour
>50% of HH reported a child engaged in hazardous child labour

KI = The majority of children are engaged in hazardous child labour
Can overlap with indicator #67 (Harmful activity). Use one or the other depending on the context.
This is an example, thresholds can be based on the type of child labor, with the worst classified at level 5.

MSNA question can be contextualized to also capture work done by children in the house (see ind. on harmful activities)
69
67ProtectionCPHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of girls / boys that have been separated from their parents or other typical adult caregivers1HH SurveyMSNA/ DTMNone reported in the area

at least 1 HH selected:
Left the house to study
Do not know
at least 1 HH selected:
Left the house to seek employment
at least 1 HH selected:
Married and left the house
Arbitrarily detained
at least 1 HH selected:
Left the house to engage with the army or armed groups
Kidnapped/abducted , Missing (left and no news)
Example of thresholds, to be reviewed by CP experts based on the context

Include only if the data collection methodology is representative at HH level
70
68ProtectionCP/GBVHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPrevalence of child marriage1HH Survey / KIMSNA / MoSA / UNICEF<XX% HH's reported a married child in the householdXX% Reported a married child in the householdXX% Reported a married child in the householdXX% Reported a married child in the household> XX% Reported a married child in the householdThresholds to be defined at field level. Support can be provided at global level

Primary (MSNA) or Secondary data (MICS) can be used if collected using a representative methodology at HH/ind. level
71
69ProtectionCP / GBVHumanitarian ConditionsCoping MechanismsHH = % of girls / boys engaging in harmful activities

KI = # of harmful activities per location
1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringNone reported
<10% of HH reported a child engaged in harmful activities

KI = A limited number of children are engaged in 1 harmful activity

10-30% of HH reported a child engaged in harmful activities

KI = Many children are engaged in 1 harmful activity

30-50% of HH reported a child engaged in harmful activities

KI = Many children are engaged in at least 2 harmful activities

<50% of HH reported a child engaged in harmful activities

KI = Many children are engaged in more than 2 harmful activities
Example of thresholds. CP experts to review it based on the context.
Thresholds can also be based on the type of activity, with the worst classified at level 5.
This indicator can overlap with protection indicator #86, one of them should be used to avoid duplication
72
70ProtectionGBVHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards
Availability of core GBV services (GBV Case management, Individual psychosocial support (PSS), Clinical Management of Rape (CMR), Medical services for IPV/other physical violence, Mental Health).
2KIProtection Monitoring / Service mapping & Referral Pathways5 or 4 services available3 services available2 services availableOnly 1 service availableNo GBV service availableThis is a secondary layer indicator, should not be used alone when other core indicators are available.
73
71ProtectionGBVHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of girls / women who avoid areas because they feel unsafe1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringWomen and girls do not avoid areasWomen and girls avoid one area because they feel unsafeWomen and girls avoid two areas because they feel unsafeWomen and girls avoid three areas because they feel unsafeWomen and girls avoid four or more area because they feel unsafe
74
72ProtectionGBV / CPHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of girls / boys / women at risk of GBV
Or
# of GBV risk factors per location
HH survey / KIProtection Monitoring /MSNA/Safety AuditsNo risk factorOne risk factorTwo risk factorsThree risk factorsFour or more risk factorsMapping of present risk factors should be done first at the field level. The provided thresholds here are indicative \ examples only and should be contextualised as needed considering the number and\or the type of the identified risk factors.

Mapping of present risk factors should be done first at the field level. The provided thresholds here are indicative \ examples only and should be contextualised as needed considering the number and\or the type of the identified risk factors.
75
73ProtectionHLPImpactImpact on people% of HHs with housing / shelter damaged or destroyed due to violence, conflict or natural hazards2KIUNOSAT / SDR< 30%30% - 40%40% - 55%55% - 70%> 70%
76
74ProtectionHLPHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of HH reporting incidents of threaths of eviction1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringNoneThreatened with eviction only once in the past six months, and were able to resolve (and stay) without resorting to negative coping mechanismsThreatened with eviction at least once and had to resort to negative coping mechanisms to avoid eviction
OR
Threatened eviction more than once in the past six months but was not evicted
Forcibly evicted /departed under duress at least once in the past 6 months, but were able to find housing immediately following evictionForcibly evicted /departed under duress at least once in the past 6 months, and did not have their own housing for more than one week following eviction
77
75ProtectionHLPHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of household reporting HLP disputes1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringNo disputes reported
Or dispute reported, but they are confident that they will be able to resolve directly with other party without intervention
Dispute reported, but generally confident that they will be able to come to fair resolution with the support of a local governance institutionDispute reported - lack confidence that they will be able to get fair resolution with support of a local governance institutions (either because of access or lack of trust)Dispute reported with threats of violence - no confidence they will be able to resolveDispute reported - violence, displacement, etc, has taken place
78
76ProtectionHLPHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of households accessing their housing/shelter with security of tenure1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringOwner of their house, with offical documentation in their name, and No risk of evictionOwner of the house with no official documentation in their name but feels like their tenure is secure
OR
Renter of house with written contract, can renew contract if desired AND No risk of eviction
OR
Shelter granted by organisations/authorities with permission AND able to stay as long as needed/no risk of eviction
OR
Granted by relatives/family with permission AND able to stay as long as needed/no risk of eviction
Owner of the house with or without document but feel like their tenure is not assured (risk to tenure is non-specific, just general lack of confidence)
OR
Renter without contract, but no apparent risk of eviction
OR
Granted by organisations/authorities with permission but stay is limited to a six month to a year term but no risk of eviction at the moment
OR
Granted by relatives/family with permission AND but stay is limited to a defined six month to a year term, but no risk of eviction at the moment
OR
Squatting without permission but no apparent risk of eviction at the moment
Owner of the house with or without document but feel like their tenure is not assured (specific threat to tenure)
OR
Renter with or without rental contract, but will need to leave within 6 months even if they would prefer to stay
OR
Housing/Shelter granted by organisations/authorities with permission, but will need to leave within 6 months even if they would like to stay
OR
Housing/Shelter granted by relatives/family with permission, but will need to leave within 6 months even if they would like to stay
OR
Squatting without permission, but will need to leave within 6 months even if they would like to stay
Owner of the house with or without document but feel explusion is imminent (under 3 months)
OR
Renter with or without rental contract, but eviction/departure under duress is imminent (under 3 months)
OR
Housing/Shelter granted by organisations/authorities with permission, but eviction/departure under duress is imminent (under 3 months)
OR
Housing/Shelter granted by relatives/family with permission, but eviction/departure under duress is imminent (under 3 months)
OR
Squatting without permission, but eviction/departure under duress is imminent (under 3 months)
79
77ProtectionHLP / MAHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of households without access to land or resources for their livelihoods1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringAccess with confidence of long term usage (adapt to context and livelihood type) without infringementAccess for defined short term period of time (adapt to context and livelihood type). Confident that access and use during that time will be uninfringedAccess with limited confidence on ability to use for any continous period of time - percieve potential risk of infringementAccess or use explicitly threatened by another party - loss of access imminent (before a harvest, or before new pasture can be found)Access or use impeded to land or resource or evidence that livelihood resource acutally damaged or destroyed
80
78ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of persons (SADD) in sites/communities reporting presence of EO without access to risk education1KIProtection Monitoring / Service mapping< 20%20% - 30%30% - 40%40% - 50%> 50%
81
79ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of persons (SADD) who have reduced access to land, resources or livelihood due to EO contamination2HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection Monitoring< 20%20-40%40-60%60-80%80% >
82
80ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of persons (SADD) without access to core Victims Assistance services by community2KIProtection Monitoring / Service mapping< 20%20% - 30%30% - 40%40% - 50%> 50%
83
81ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPersons killed or injured by EO by community (SADD)1KIMA IM Systems
84
82ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingPersons living or returning to areas with EO contamination (SADD)1KIMA IM Systems<5%5-10%11 to 20 %21-30 %Above 30 %
85
83ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of persons (SADD) fearing presence of EO2HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection Monitoring<5%5-10%11 to 20 %21-30 %Above 30 %
86
84ProtectionMAHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of persons whose disability is related to an explosive hazard by community (SADD)1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringNo explosive ordnance
disability in the HH
No explosive ordnance
disability in the HH
No explosive ordnance
disability in the HH
HH member has disability with
a (a lot of difficulty) due to
explosive ordnance
HH member has disability with
(cannot do at all) due to
explosive ordnance
87
85ProtectionMHPSS / CP / GBVHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of HH where at least one member (SADD) is reporting signs of distress (self-diagnosed)1HH Survey / KIMSNA / CP Monitoring (if implemented in all areas)<XX% HH where at least one member (SADD) is reporting signs of distress (self-diagnosed)XX% HH where at least one member (SADD) is reporting signs of distress (self-diagnosed)XX% HH where at least one member (SADD) is reporting signs of distress (self-diagnosed)XX% HH where at least one member (SADD) is reporting signs of distress (self-diagnosed)>XX% HH where at least one member (SADD) is reporting signs of distress (self-diagnosed)Thresholds to be defined at field level. Support can be provided at global level
88
86ProtectionProtection/GBV/CPHumanitarian ConditionsCoping Mechanisms% of HHs engaging in harmful coping mechanisms in the last 30 days1HH SurveyMSNA / Protection MonitoringNo harmful coping strategyNo harmful coping strategyselected: Selling household
property; Buying food on credit;
Borrowing money through
friends and relatives; Reducing
expenditures on NFI
HH Selected: Selling means of
transport; Changing place of
residence; Children under 18
working to provide resources
HH Selected: Children dropping
out from school; Accepting that
adults engage in risky behavior;
Migration of all family; Children
or adult forcefully married
% applies # of HHs from the total of interviewed HHs identifying harmful practices as defined in the different thresholds

For Prevalence data, the thresholds will depend on the standards at country level (national statistics).
For HH survey, the thresholds used for Protection indicator (#86) will apply. CP experts to review the thresholds based on the context.
89
87ProtectionProtection/CPHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of HH members without valid civil documentation and unable to obtain them1HH SurveyMSNA / Protection MonitoringAll household members have valid documentation, including birth certificate, ID card and passportAll household members have valid documentation, including birth certificate and ID cardAt least one member of the HH don’t have valid ID card or passport but can obtain new onesAt least one member of the HH don’t have valid ID card or passport and can’t obtain new onesAt least one member of the HH don’t have birth certificateFor HH survey, the thresholds used by Protection (#61) will apply. For Prevalence data, the thresholds will depend on the standards at country level (national statistics).
90
88ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of HHs reporting protection issues when accessing humanitarian assistance in the last 3 months2HH SurveyMSNA / Protection Monitoring< 20%20% - 30%30% - 40%40% - 50%> 50%
91
89ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of HHs that have experienced movement restrictions in the last 3 months1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringHHs: Total freedom of movement inside or to another country

Area: 0%
HHs: Total freedom of movement inside the country

Area: 1-10%
HHs: Total freedom of movement inside the same province / district

Area: 20-40%
HHs: No possibility for household members to move outside their site / community

Area: 40-60%
HHs: No possibility for household members to move within their site / community

Area: 60%
92
90ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of HHs without access to official law enforcement authorities and/or judiciary system2HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection Monitoring / Service mapping< 20%20% - 30%30% - 40%40% - 50%> 50%
93
91ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsLiving Standards% of population in specific groups excluded or with limited access to services (i.e. UASC, persons with disabilities, older persons, minority groups, etc.)1KIProtection Monitoring< 30%30% - 45%45% - 60%60% - 75%> 75%
94
92ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental WellbeingCivilian population killed or injured by violence, conflict or natural hazards1KIUNDSS / ACLED / Media Monitoring0 - 5% 6- 10% 11-24% 25-49% > 50%
95
93ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of population in sites/communities reporting protection incidents in the last 3 months1KIProtection Monitoring< 20%20% - 30%30% - 40%40% - 50%> 50%
96
94ProtectionProtectionHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of HHs who have suffered incidents affecting HH members in the last 3 months1HH Survey / KIProtection Monitoring/MSNAHH: No security incidents in the last XX days/months

Area: 0%
HHs: Verbally threatened or intimidated

Area: 1-10% HHs have suffered incidents
HHs: At least one serious incident in the last XX days/months

Area: 20-40% HHs have suffered incidents
HHs: At least one severe incident in the last XX months OR At least 2 serious incidents OR

Area: 40-60% HHs have suffered incidents
HHs: At least one critical incident in the last XX days/months OR At least 2 Severe incidents

Area: >60% HHs have suffered incidents
More appropiate in the context of protection monitoring systems linked to referrals and where questions can be asked to different HH members.
97
95ProtectionProtection/GBVHumanitarian ConditionsPhysical and Mental Wellbeing% of HHs reporting concerns from any harm, physical threaths or discrimination in the area where they are livingin the last 3 months1HH Survey / KIMSNA / Protection MonitoringHHs: Sometimes worried about theft or harassment or small/medium injuries OR
Sometimes worried about death, EOs OR abduction

Area: 0%
HHs: Always worried about small/medium injuries OR theft / harassment

Area: 1-10%
HHs: Sometimes worried about sexual violence OR grave injuries

Area: 20-40% HHs reporting security concerns
HHs: Always worried about sexual violence OR grave injuries OR Sometimes worried about death, EOs OR abduction

Area: 40-60% HHs reporting security concerns
Always worried about death OR abduction OR EOs

Area: 60% HHs reporting security concerns
Proxy indicator to include in case HHs directly affected by protection incidents is not available.
98
96ShelterAccess and living environmentHumanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% of households per shelter type or lack of shelter (for a given length of time)1Identification of Shelter Types within a response, and assessing # of people per shelter or those without lack of shelter and for how long in that shelterThe most fundamental indicator for a shelter response should be to map out the shelter typologies and the settlement types in which they are found and the number of people living in the types of shelters. The most severe consequence would be those who have no shelter.
Shelter Typology Guidance developed by country-cluster, Shelter Cluster Assessment, MSNA
Country-level Shelter Cluster examples: Syria: p.3 and Types doc www.sheltercluster.org
Burkina Faso: Shelter Types
Yemen: Shelter Types

Additional resources are found at: https://ourworldindata.org/homelessness Must be adapted to humanitarian settings.
All households have access to some kind of shelter. There is at least 3 months that the shelter conditions will remain adequate and there are plans in place to improve those shelter types.More than 5% of households are living in shelter types beyond the length of time they should stay in those shelters or they have no shelter; there are lack of immediate access to new shelter solutionsMore than 10% of households are living in shelter types beyond the length of time they should stay in those shelters or they have no shelter; there are lack of immediate access to new shelter solutionsMore than 20% of households are living in shelter types that beyond the shelter's shelf life (as described by technical guidance) there are not immediate access to new shelter solutions or there are still a proportion of the population with access to no shelterMore than 40% Households with no shelter or shelters described by the Shelter Cluster as having inadequate performance criteriaLength of duration that a shelter could last are determined by the specifications established by the Shelter Cluster per type of Shelter. Shelter types should be agreed upon by the Shelter Cluster members, and can be included in basic MSNA and all types of Shelter assessments. This indicator is critical to include especially when contexts do not have a lot of access to data, but where basic resources the cluster should have in place (technical guidelines) can be analysed together with shelter types.
99
97ShelterDamage/
Enclosure
Humanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% of Households living in damaged shelter per damage categoryIf the data collection method is done through non-technical enumerators, it is recommended to break down the data collection by assessing the types of damage sustained through each functional aspect of a shelter: 1) Roof 2) Wall 3) Windows/Doors. Obviously the first two connotate more severe damages to the load bearing principle of the shelter. Typically emergency shelter such as tents would be excluded from such a measurement, but is more clear when these objects are damaged by storms etc.Shelter Cluster assessmentMore than 40% of households are living in shelters that have sustained minor damage to windows and doors (Minor damages (several window-glasses are broken, a few windows can be slightly broken).More than 20% of households are living in shelters that have sustained moderate damages to windows and doors, there are minor damages to the roof (minor leakages but no holes), and minor damages to the walls (non-structural cracks, bullet holes, wind does not penetrate)More than 30% of households are living in shelters with moderate damages to the walls (you can see through cracks), and to the roof (there is leaks and exposure to drafts)More than 10% of shelters have severe damages to the roofs and walls. For the roofs (Severe damages (many holes in roof, some are big; would be very difficult to repair); For the walls (Severe damages (large holes in many parts of the walls that you can see through, major cracks in some columns, walls completely destroyed).More than 20% of shelters have severe damages to the roofs and walls. For the roofs (Severe damages (many holes in roof, some are big; would be very difficult to repair); For the walls (Severe damages (large holes in many parts of the walls that you can see through, major cracks in some columns, walls completely destroyed). Walls and door damages are also severe: many windows and doors are damaged or destroyed.Good example of the categories and questionnaire for this type of damage assessment can be found in the Shelter Cluster IMAS toolkit: https://www.dropbox.com/sh/o8xpivs0fxalhec/AABliIaT7iMefDgdQb-XQtFLa?dl=0
100
98ShelterEnclosureHumanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% of HHs whose dwelling enclosure provides adequate safety to the occupants, protection from exposure, and low risk of failure in predictable hazards.Household:  Occupants are fully safe. Dwelling unit is structurally safe and encloses the residents and their property so that they are warm and dry. Little or no intervention required.Household: Occupants are mostly safe. Dwelling enclosure shows cosmetic deficiencies but maintains healthy structural and performance standards for weather protection with possible minor repairable deficiencies.Household: Occupants are moderately unsafe. Dwelling enclosure performance is moderately compromised, some exposure to weather-related (heat, cold, water) and extended living in this state can lead to deterioration of domestic health or building enclosure integrity. Repairs are required.Household: Occupants are severely unsafe. Dwelling enclosure performance is severely compromised so that occupant health/injury is at immediate risk. Significant water/air permeance is present, occupants are hot/cold and possessions regularly get wet during rain events.. Significant contruction required, likely temporary accomodation.Household: Dwelling occupants are fully unsafe. Building enclosure has little or no prevention for water or weather permeance, is severely damaged, and very unsafe or impossible to reside within.
101
99ShelterEnclosureHumanitarian conditionsLiving Standards% or HHs by settlement type 1Shelter Cluster assessmentsArea: Very few (<10%) of HHs is living in unfinished buildings, collective centres, organized camps, informal settlements, open areas.Area: 10% to 50% of HHs live in unfinished buildings, collective centres, organized camps, informal settlements, open areasArea: Over 50% to 70% of HHs live in unfinished buildings, collective centres, organized camps, informal settlements, open areasArea: Over 70% to 90% of HHs live in unfinished buildings, collective centres, organized camps, informal settlements, open areasArea: Over 90% of HHs live in unfinished buildings, collective centres, organized camps, informal settlements, open areasChanged to informal settlements as these are what these types are this one can also be an easier one to collect in data poor contexts as Shelter should be assessed by the context and the settlement where it finds itself.