​​Shelter Vulnerability Classification WG - running notes
​​Key Links:
  • ​​nhpnikq/AABBdXMFjKcfP3M0w2aolzy9a?dl=0
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 9 October 2019 11.00 CEST - GSC Shelter Week Meeting - Working Group Session
​​Present: Neil, Hannoa, Augusto, Chloe; participants from GSC Meeting (around 20)
​​
​​Introduction and outline of session- Neil
  • ​​Introduction of all breakout group members (around 15-20)
  • ​​Background / history of the working group
  • ​​Overview of work completed so far, explanation of progress on framework
  • ​​Current aims of the group
  • ​​Explanation of JIAG overall process, how this affected the process and how it can be connected
​​
​​Initial questions from participants prior to group work
  • ​​Question on the scope of the framework/tools and whether they are supposed to include consideration of host communities and how they are affected.
  • ​​Question on how the process and outputs will impact the HNO 2019 / 2020 process, and how the tool may help to estimate PiN.
  • ​​Question on whether tenure / rental market / housing stock aspects are reflected in the framework. 
  • ​​Question on timelines and when the results / outputs will be available. 
  • ​​Note that some countries (Yemen, Ukraine) have done or are conducting similar or related in-country exercises; it would be useful to gather and incorporate these.
​​
​​Group work
  • ​​Three groups- household, sub-national and national- asked to provide input and suggestions on indicators, as well as prioritise indicators they see as particularly important.
​​
​​Comments related to indicators / framework (general comments; specific comments added to indicator sheet)
  • ​​Suggestion to consider including more of a disability focus (even if this is just disaggregation of certain indicators), to incorporate the fact that people with disabilities are likely to be more vulnerable to shelter issues.
  • ​​Discussion on the potential inclusion of capabilities approach (from development thinking) or aspects of self-recovery within the framework
  • ​​Consideration of how this can be measured- amending / adding indicators within certain sections, viewing the framework from a different lens.
  • ​​Consideration of whether the answer is to look at resilience indicators.
  • ​​May need to split conflict and natural disasters when prioritising indicators.
  • ​​Point raised about the issue of groups which aren't necessarily the 'most vulnerable', but in the middle, so continuously don't receive assistance for years- suggestion to include basic needs aspect.
  • ​​Note that the definition of vulnerability could be clearer- question around whether this is supposed to align with JIAG, whether there is an intended difference for pre/post crisis situations, whether it is supposed to incorporate capability to recover.
  • ​​Could add a greater component on energy and green programming (e.g. no of HH / infrastructure included in such programmes).
  • ​​Can add environmental sustainability to national level frameworks.
  • ​​Suggestion to try to include measures of socio-cultural vulnerability.
  • ​​Could consider merging the contingency planning and coordination/disaster management sub-factors, to reduce overlap in these areas.
  • ​​Could add the presence of in-country cadastre to institutional capacity or preparedness.
​​
​​Wrap-up
  • ​​General agreement that the overarching framework (factors and sub-factors) is comprehensive and covers all or most relevant aspects.
  • ​​Noted that it will be a useful tool at the field level, once finalised. 
  • ​​People are willing to give more detailed input on the framework, if there is a suitable platform. Generally the merged version is easier to visualise as a holistic framework.
  • ​​Invitation to join the working group; interest from ARUP representative.
​​
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 4 October 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Hannoa, Augusto, Chloe
  • ​​Outputs needed from this meeting:
  • ​​Finalise set-up of Wednesday Shelter Week session
  • ​​Action plan to complete a) preparation for session and b) finalisation of indicators
  • ​​Discussion on Wednesday session, which should include:
  • ​​Explanation of what was discussed and decided in the previous year (establishing the themes and factors within the framework)
  • ​​Discussion of progress since the previous year: clarifying sub-factors, revamping framework (with two distinctions- pre-crisis risk / post-crisis vulnerability, and national/sub-national/HH), drafting indicators, preparing for prioritisation exercise
  • ​​JIAG discussion – how this affected/disrupted the process, and also how this exercise fits with the JIAG process – overall message that the work is connected, as it should be possible to determine the JIAG indicators based on the prioritisation exercise.
  • ​​Exercise to be conducted- split participants into three different groups (with national/sub-national/HH) who should provide input on indicators and prioritise high/medium/low
  • ​​Feedback session from groups on their final results, and also on what format they would find it useful for this to be presented in.
  • ​​Action plan for Wednesday session preparation and finalising indicators:
  • ​​WHOLE GROUP to provide final final inputs into the googlesheet indicator doc - MONDAY 7 COB
  • ​​REACH to clean up final framework after inputs received - TUESDAY 8
  • ​​REACH to print large frameworks for each group (national, sub-national and household) - TUESDAY 8
  • ​​NEIL to work on powerpoint over the weekend and send to rest of group - MONDAY 7
  • ​​NEIL to provide session outline to organisers - MONDAY 7
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date:  1 October 2019 14:00 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Augusto, Chloe
  • ​​Neil proposed a framework with 5 levels- 1 national level risk, 2 settlement area risk, 3 settlement area post crisis vulnerability, 4 Household level risk, 5 Household level post crisis vulnerability. Discussed and decided to look at three scales (keeping pre and post crisis differences in mind during indicator creation process). 
  • ​​Augusto and Chloe to merge the framework with the original google doc to create a single, filterable database structure. Filterable by national, area/settlement, household. 
  • ​​All others to add indicators up to Thursday COB, with a potential additional meeting on Friday. 
  • ​​The plan for the Shelter Meeting on Wednesday will be to gather interested practitioners to divide into groups (1) national level, 2 settlement/area level, 3 household level) that will look at a) the underlying framework, b) the catalogue of indicators for that scale, and provide comments/edits/additions to the catalogue we are providing to that point, and, if possible, provide a priority (H, M, L) for each of the indicators in their group to give us an initial understanding of importance, priority, and weighting. Other WG members can agree or disagree with this. 
​​
​​Meeting Date: 27 September 2019 10:00 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Hannoa, Chloe
  • ​​Initial discussion and work to input of indicators and priorities using existing classification matrix.
  • ​​Agreed to continue working on the document and meet the following week to finalise. 
​​
​​Meeting Date: 26 September 2019 15:30 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Hannoa, Renee, Lilia, Cecilia, Augusto, Chloe, Nayana
  • ​​Augusto & Chloe taking over on this WG on REACH side going forward 
  • ​​So far the WG’s engagement with JIAF has been bilateral and ad-hoc
  • ​​Important to keep in mind: Top down approach won’t work — need inputs from coordinators at Cluster level
  • ​​Key next steps to be able to move forward with the WG matrix: 
  • ​​Identify core sub-factors and indicators (1) vs. secondary (2) sub-factors and indicators 
  • ​​Review matrix that has been agreed upon to check alignment with JIAF:
  • ​​Tag existing sub-factors against the JIAF thematic sub-pillars (well-being, living standards, coping mechanisms)
  • ​​Tag existing sub-factors by unit of analysis (household, settlement, context)
  • ​​Create indicators - start with core (1) and move to secondary if time allows (2)
  • ​​Meet tomorrow morning 9-11AM to start on this 
  • ​​At the end of morning, share inputs with those unable to attend for discussion to have an agreement by Shelter Week (October 9th)
​​
​​Meeting Date: 13 June 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Hannoa, Renee, Emese, Nayana, Cecilia 
  • ​​Nayana provided an update on REACH-supported MSNAs  
  • ​​Timeline  for 2019 MSNAs → design phase almost completed for most of the REACH-support MSNAs, might be possible to incorporate for MSNAs in Bangladesh, and potentially CAR, Ukraine
  • ​​Went over comments provided by group on HH analysis for MSNA
  • ​​Core indicators at higher level to understand shelter needs and vulnerabilities 
  • ​​Overall structure is OK
  • ​​Need a methodology for overall severity score 
  • ​​Trying to take a step back and see what the core indicators should be vs. what is good to know
  • ​​One of the core indicators are adequacy of shelter
  • ​​Damage impression indicators are missing
  • ​​We should also look at disability/inclusion and maybe add an indicator to capture particular shelter related vulnerability 
  • ​​Granularity of functionality (energy sources, cooking, heating, etc.) not a core indicator but rather a sub-indicator to inform the core indicator
  • ​​Coping strategies can be defined but the severity weighting to be defined at country level 
  • ​​Identifying cross-cutting indicators that would be relevant for shelter vulnerabilility / severity needs analysis (for e.g. WASH, protection, etc.)
  • ​​Maybe try to reach out to Health Cluster (through Patrice?) to discuss how health indicators can be linked to shelter quality/adequacy 
  • ​​HH’s ability to access basic services (might not be needed  if it’s part of th
  • ​​Any HH level indicators we should factor in for hazard risk exposure? For e.g. perimeter around  X 
  • ​​Key action points
  • ​​Nayana will rework the doc to include our comments and submit to Patrice.
  • ​​the WG will reconvene to also continue the work on the Shelter Cluster vulnerability 
  • ​​Nayana will put WG in touch with person working on GSC Disability & Inclusion WG to see how we can coordinate both work streams 
​​
​​Meeting Date: 4 June 2019 14:00 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Lilia, Hannoa, Cecilia, Patrice, Emese
​​
  • ​​Joined by Patrice Chataigner from the JIAG Framework
  • ​​basically three workstreams are ongoing in parallel to which shelter input is needed:
  1. ​​MSNA, revising the questionaires for REACH assessments collecting HH level needs data; ideally to be finalized a version by end of June to be field tested (did I get that right?) and again reviewed…
  1. ​​JIAG: (upon request from ECHO) to understand severity of conditions/needs across sectors (“interterritorial severity model”)in order to help prioritise geographical areas or particularly vulnerable groups as well as to understand the underlying causes of the problem.
  • ​​Is JIAG at regional or household level? - Patrice: it is both but for the time being it is being developed at household level and can be aggregated upwards
  • ​​JIAG is to improve over the next year
  • ​​Hannoa is the primary focal point of the Shelter Cluster to the JIAG initiative
  • ​​JIAG has several components including severity of conditions, why the situation is like it is, organized through these themes: coping mechanisms, Living Standards, Physical and mental well-being
  • ​​JIAG has so far focussed on severity of needs.  Looking for indicators that are useful at household, usually aggregated to a geographical area level.
  • ​​Looking to weight the pillars of LS, PMWG, and CM differently
  • ​​Attention is mainly on Protracted Crises
  • ​​Timeframe:  running til the end of the year.  
  • ​​c. the vulnerability classification framework that the WG set out to develop, more relying on regional level data. 
  • ​​The WG will continue this work while contributing to the other two workstreams (MSNA and JIAG) as capacity allows (dedicated core group).
​​
  • ​​MSNA is also under discussion.  Nigeria, Bangladesh, Mali are slated for upcoming MSNA
  • ​​for the input into the MSNA and JIAG we will require a dedicated group to focus on development through June.  Proposed Cecilia, Neil, Hannoa, and Angel. (Angel to be approached - need more representation from those with experience in protracted crises)
  • ​​Patrice to post a google doc for us to provide feedback
  • ​​Hannoa to approach Angel to participate.
  • ​​Neil will work with Patrice to set up Google Doc of current document for JIAG
  • ​​
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 26 April 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Neil, Lilia, Nayana, Hannoa
  • ​​Feedback from Hannoa on participation in JIAG workshop in Geneva
  • ​​Donor driven process and workshop convened by OCHA
  • ​​Essentially a step to help OCHA improve HNO inter-sectoral analysis processes → getting clusters involved
  • ​​First two days when Hannoa attended focused on JIAF which will be the new framework for inter-sectoral analysis, a blueprint to inform donors on “where the money should go” 
  • ​​JIAF inspired by IPC without mimicking it
  • ​​JIAF meant to measure severity of needs on a 5-point scale: 
  • ​​Sectoral inputs for ‘Living Standards’ pillar of framework (see screenshot shared on Skype group)
  • ​​Each cluster to provide primary and secondary data to feed into the framework without a coordinated joint assessment. 
  • ​​This is up to clusters to define indicators  and data to feed into this framework → so we need to provide indicators, questions and thresholds to feed into JIAF
  • ​​Neil presented work from Indonesia on vulnerability analysis for recovery planning
  • ​​Categorised conditions of their house which has led to different shelter conditions that population have had to resort to (15 settlement types)- see Slide 1 and 4 of PPT shared on Skype group
  • ​​This categorisation then informs the six types of recovery assistance appropriate (see Slide 5 and 6 of PPT shared on Skype group)
  • ​​Vulnerabilities classified based on geographical setting (but there are overlaps) and houses would have been affected in different ways based on this setting (see Slide 7 of PPT shared on Skype group)- with a likely risk scale going from 1 (low risk) to 9 (high risk)
  • ​​Categorisation on different risk scales was based on feedback during group consultations (not really clear who exactly consulted)
  • ​​On our side, could be useful to review the categories they have used for their analysis to see if anything we can incorporate into our work
  • ​​Action points: 
  • ​​Neil to reach out to Patrice (JIAG Consultant)  to get more details and clarity on (1) how different clusters are contributing their indicators and thresholds for this framework (2) debrief working group on expectations and latest status (3) centralising communications with the Cluster (who was involved before, how to communicate going forward) (4) a document explaining 
  • ​​This needs to be done to increase engagement of the WG in the JIAG process and to ensure WG can make the relevant and timely contributions to feed into framework
  • ​​Review Indonesia presentation shared by Neil to see if anything we can incorporate into our own vulnerability classification framework
  • ​​Arrange a meeting if possible when Neil is in Geneva next week
  • ​​Need to start moving on 2019 workplan! :)
​​
​​Meeting Date: 01 March 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Renee, Neil, Lilia, Cecilia, Nayana, Hannoa, Emese
  • ​​Review of preliminary phase classifications for JIAG workshop in Geneva next week
  • ​​Difficult to come up with detailed area classification criteria in 1 week 
  • ​​How can we take the work on the vulnerability framework to come up with brief, preliminary phase 
  • ​​Maybe as a starting point, what are the core components to be considered for a phase description. For example: 
  • ​​CRITICAL (Phase 5): No availability of or access to adequate shelters, limited prospect for recovery (for example, unable to return, markets not functional to access building materials), aggravating settlement factors (such as climate, lack of governance, high waves of displacement, etc.) secondary impacts of lack of shelter such as mortality due to climatic conditions
  • ​​MINIMAL (Phase 1): Majority of population is able to access adequate shelter (threshold and criteria TBD) without engaging in any negative shelter coping strategies 
  • ​​Alternatively, using the factor types of our matrix as a component for the phase description- to be explored 
  • ​​Follow-up points:
  • ​​Renee & Hannoa to share description of the other three phases with the group to review/ reformulate suggestions next week
​​
​​Meeting Date: 22 February 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Cecilia, Emese, Hannoa, Lilia, Neil, Renee
​​Review of the workplan - Main result 3.G.1.9 to be added to the Workplan
​​The cross-pollination with PSB and Urban WGs was considered vital.
​​Neil to review workplan one more time and circulate before Monday
​​Results of the polling exercise for the sub-factors were discussed and how to proceed to flesh out the Dimension and Class mapping matrix. Key to make sure that we stick purely with shelter indicators and that we drop a lot of indicators that could be covered in more detail with other sectors (Protection and WASH)The exercise really highlighted that we are still thinking with a lens of beneficiary selection and that we need to focus more on the macro level. It is proposed to reduce considerably the factors to the most essential shelter vulnerabilities. Maybe some more reflection is needed to distinguish/weight differently factors that are relevant for more “immediate” (life threatening?) shelter vulnerabilities vs more long term/underlying vulnerabilities.
​​Some more thought needed to define out “measuring stick” or benchmark and develop a new ranking/rating scale. 
​​How do we ensure that it also reflect the humanitarian nature of the work? 
​​It is proposed to trial run a historical response to come up with a ranking of factors for those responses. 
​​Testing out the factors with country-level clusters was also proposed. 
​​Doodle poll to be sent out for next week. 
​​
​​Meeting Date: 15 February 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Renee, Neil, Lilia, Nayana, Hannoa, Emese
  • ​​Discussed briefly the survey monkey polling exercise (see action points for next week below)
  • ​​Neil provided update on progress made with Cecilia on physical vulnerability part of the matrix
  • ​​Promoting Safer Building WG working on a method to classify building typologies to determine physical vulnerability 
  • ​​Consider separating out structural vulnerability of dwelling vs. more broadly vulnerability of physical assets (Cecila currently in workshop with WG, can discuss once back about overlaps/ collaborating) 
  • ​​Keeping focused on shelter & housing! 
  • ​​Need to put together 2019 work-plan for SAG
  • ​​Action points/ next week: 
  • ​​a.  Next group call potentially on Friday (time TBC?)
  • ​​Everyone to complete factor ranking survey monkey prior to next call (at least Wednesday)
  • ​​Renee to add field to (1) provide name of respondent in survey (2) specify while ranking which factor is contextual vs. more generic
  • ​​Based on survey results, need to discuss the balance between what is feasible/ realistic with a global measure vs. more contextual factors 
  • ​​Neil to potentially ask someone from the PSB WG to present to this WG about their work so far
  • ​​Looking over PSB WG work- specifically looking at country profiles and building typologies 
  • ​​Neil to draft workplan and share with WG for feedback 
  • ​​
​​Meeting Date: 31 January 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Renee Wynveen, Neil Bauman, Ceclia Schmolzer, Nayana, Hannoa Guillaume, Shirin Narymbaeva
  • ​​Renee, Nayana, Hannoa attended JIAG meeting in Geneva on inter-sectoral analytical framework discussions on 25/01
  • ​​Key takeaway: Macro-level analysis (strategic level discussions) vs. micro-level analysis (operational planning)
  • ​​Renee looked over resources recommended by SAG (see list in last meeting minutes); particularly useful to look at both as data sources but also for framework/ indicator development are the IDMC Global Internal Displacement Risk Model, Habitat for Humanity, WB resources,  Oxford Multidimensional Poverty Index
  • ​​Group reviewed together Cecelia’s work on the weighting of hazard exposure & physical vulnerability factors
  • ​​Hazard exposure: Weighting hazard types based on (1) probability of occurance and (2) severity of occurance  (based on secondary data sources, for e.g. INFORM index, weather data).  As a first step, can use INFORM index hazard exposure indicators to see what can be applied/ what gaps remain for shelter purposes 
  • ​​Ranking of physical vulnerability factor types and then for each of the sub-factors individually. Some sub-factors might need to be ranked equally because of the equal weighting they carry to determine shelter vulnerability. Alternatively, some sub-factors might need to be double counted in factor types. 
  • ​​Hazard exposure overlapping with physical vulnerability and personal vulnerability, subtracting preparedness levels, to determine overall vulnerability
  • ​​Action points/ next week: 
  • ​​a.  Next group call potentially on Thursday (Nayana to circulate Doodle poll)
  • ​​To discuss: Prioritisation/ ranking done by the rest of the group in their assigned theme areas (see last meeting action points below)
  • ​​b. Renee to share factor ranking/ prioritisation tool with group 
​​
​​Meeting Date: 10 January 2019 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Renee Wynveen, Neil Bauman, Ceclia Schmolzer, Miguel, Nayana, Shirin Narymbaeva
  • ​​Miguel provided feedback from SAG meeting in December
  • ​​a. Reviewing work from Habitat for Humanity, IDMC (specifically for shelter related issues), World Bank housing index to see what can inform ongoing work of this WG
  • ​​b. Take a higher level perspective (for example, working towards developing a rating system of sorts similar to the categorisation of shelter damage done in the immediate aftermath earthquakes) to come up with a severity ranking system similar to the IPC (i.e. what does ‘catastrophe’ mean vis-a-vis shelter vulnerability)
  • ​​Renee summarised feedback received during JIAG meeting in December
  • ​​a. Maybe too much detail and need to zoom out again as a next step
  • ​​b. Think of how this exercise can produce an output which can better communicate shelter vulnerabilities at a macro level
  • ​​Next steps: 
  • ​​a. How to integrate into existing inter-sectoral processes
  • ​​b. Reorganise sub-factors: 
  • ​​i. To identify the most critical (1) themes and (2) sub-factors (and relevant indicators) within the themes to be taken into consideration to explain shelter vulnerability, and assign weighting based on the importance these indicators would carry 
  • ​​-- Each ranked in the order of perceived importance by the group (polling software)
  • ​​-- We would do this individually (by theme) and then review together everyone’s sections as a group: Preparedness (Nayana); Physical Vulnerability (Cecilia, Neil); Shelter & Settlement Impact (Lilia? To be checked); Personal Vulnerability (Shirin); Hazard Exposure (Cecilia);  Secondary Impact (Renee)
  • ​​ii. To identify the feasability of  assessing the different sub-factors (and relevant indicators)
  • ​​iii. To relevant existing benchmarks
  • ​​c. Next meeting the week of 21st January
​​
​​Meeting Date: 14 December 2018 15:00 CEST
​​Present: Renee Wynveen, Lilia Blades, Emese Csete, Ceclia Schmolzer, Nayana
  1. ​​Discussed matrix that was revised in November 2018 to incorporate Shelter Week feedback (primarily the components that were not discussed in the previous call):  
  • ​​a. Preparedness: Additional comments added to keep in mind for the indicator development under government coordination capacity
  • ​​b. Personal vulnerability: Additional comments added to keep in mind for the indicator development under material vulnerability (income and expenditure) 
  • ​​c. Physical vulnerability: Additional comments added to keep in mind for the indicator development under material vulnerability- should re-group under two sub-factors only i.e. assets and accessibility to mitigate the risk of going into too much detail on livelihoods analysis, and only limit it to identifying livelihood-related factors that could impact shelter vulnerability 
​​2.  Discussed what could be presented as the Working Group’s outputs for JIAG workshop in Rome next week (no WG members attending but other colleagues will be present who can discuss this on behalf of WG): 
​​a. Conceptual framework, vulnerability matrix
​​b. Columns A-D of vulnerability matrix, in PowerPoint format (per theme)
  1. ​​Action points:
  • ​​a.  Look at building typologies from updated SPHERE handbook to integrate language into vulnerability matrix (Settlement Impact theme)
  • ​​b. Renee preparing summary of  matrix for colleagues to present at JIAG workshop
  • ​​c. Next meeting: Week of 7th Jan (aim would be to agree on matrix and start developing the second half i.e. indicators and relevant questions)
​​
​​Meeting Date: 9 November 2018 11:30 CEST
​​Present: Renee Wynveen, Lilia Blades, Emese Csete
  1. ​​Based on the action points from the meeting on the 26th of October, working group participants had reviewed the comments from the Shelter Meeting and had a deeper dive look at the following components: preparedness, physical vulnerability, personal vulnerability, shelter and settlement impact, and secondary impact. 
  1. ​​Before the next call: Renee to combine all components into the sheet prepared by Nayana for clarity’s sake. 
  1. ​​It was agreed that the three participants of the call would review and discuss their review of the components. A summary of that discussion is listed in today’s running notes. 
  1. ​​Shelter and Settlements Segment (Lilia)
  1. ​​On the issue of accessibility, categories were added to delineate disability and also road, mobility telecommunications. This has some linkages with other components such as physical vulnerability. Though this is natural in the fact that there is a different in overall vulnerability and the impact of a crisis. 
  1. ​​Factors were added such as healthcare, markets, schools, and income opportunities. 
  1. ​​There was a long discussion on appropriate construction techniques and how to measure this against housing design, BoQs, and the linkages to overall durability. It was agreed to look at building typologies and the new list of typologies that came out this past week in Sphere: For more info, please see: http://www.humanitarianstandardspartnership.org/ViewContent?DocID=1000011&VersionID=2000017&ChapterNumber=7&OrderInChapter=56&Lang=en
  1. ​​There were comments at the Shelter meeting on availability, affordability, and whether housing units/shelter would be appropriate solutions. These were rephrased as questions. 
  1. ​​On Legal/tenure framework- it was agreed that there was a difference on security of tenure and the legal tenure framework. 
  1. ​​Secondary Impacts: (Emese)
  1. ​​On the issue of external displacement, it was agreed that the continuum of displacement is an important aspect of response, and so this was divided between external displacement and the differences between asylum seekers abroad and actual refugees. Two types of returnees are also important.
  1. ​​One of the comments dealt with morbidity: Previously, the chart was limited only to respiratory disease, so malnutrition and communicable disease was added. Perhaps there was a need to consult with health experts on this specific topic. 
  1. ​​Education: There is an issue with including damage to schools, as that is not necessarily a secondary impact of having one’s house damaged directly. It was proposed to remove this category, but to maintain school attendance as a critical secondary impact issue. 
  1. ​​Physical Vulnerability (Reneé) 
  1. ​​On the issue of Infrastructure at settlement level, the assertions that the accessibility of geographical data is key in exposing certain aspects of a settlement’s vulnerability- perhaps this was not directly related to infrastructure. It was suggested to further delineate these items such as CODs, map awareness of a settlements, cadastre in a more detailed geographical factor/sub-factor. 
  1. ​​There was a long discussion concerning livelihood assets. While there may be a lot of associations DRR/EWS in order to make livelihood assets less vulnerable to disaster, what would be the conflict equivalent? It was agreed that the loss of livelihoods could have a direct link with one’s need for housing, but on the specific issue of “vulnerability of livelihood assets” it becomes more topical. Likely, we should consult a livelihoods expert on this particularly on how that would apply in a conflict setting. 
  1. ​​Action Point: Share merged discussion points and get feedback from the remainder of the group. 
  1. ​​Discussion: By dividing the tasks one may note repetitions in other sections, but this could be good, because there should be synergistic elements to the classification.
  1. ​​Reneé had participated in the Inter-sector working group abbreviated JIAG: Joint Inter-Sector Analysis Working Group- can brief other group members when greater quorum is gathered. 
  1. ​​Next meeting should likely be confirmed over Doodle Survey, as limited quorum today 
​​Meeting Date: 26 October 2018 1400 CEST
​​Present: Elisabeth Vikman, Lilia Blades, Emese Csete, Shirin Narymbaeva, Nayana Das, Renee Wynveen
​​Excused: David Dalgado, Cecilia Schmölzer, Neil Bauman
  1. ​​Review of new iteration of conceptual framework
  1. ​​Review of Shelter Week WG session and feedback received 
  • ​​a. Feedback  on framework (focus on secondary impacts, labels for the different ‘boxes’) 
  • ​​b.  Detailed feedback on the matrix (different components, parts that need to be restructured or further developed- details in google doc)
  1. ​​Discussion of Shelter Week feedback on matrix
  1. ​​Next steps to finalise matrix
  • ​​a. Before next call- Revise matrix as per SW feedback jointly by theme: preparedness (Nayana), physical vulnerability (Renee), personal vulnerability (Shirin), shelter and settlement impact (Lilia), secondary impact (Emese)
  • ​​b. Hierarchical ordering in terms of primary and secondary factors
  • ​​c. Detailed definitions only to the extent that the framework is still broad enough to be applicable in multiple contexts 
  • ​​d.  Preliminary mapping of potential data sources for each sub-factors
  1. ​​Nayana to take over from Lis as lead on REACH side going forward
  1. ​​Next meeting: Friday 9th November 11:30:AM
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 28 September 2018 1400 CEST
​​Present: Elisabeth Vikman, Neil Bauman,  Lilia Blades, Cecilia Schmölzer, Bo Hurkmans
​​Excused: Renee Wynveen, David Dalgado, Emese Csete, Nayana Das,
  1. ​​Review of conceptual framework against matrix to ensure alignment / coherence on main themes to be reviewed in the Shelter Week WG session
  1. ​​
  1. ​​
  1. ​​Review of session outline / planning of session
  1. ​​All groups to focus on Phase, Theme, Factor type, Factor (and possibly Sub-factor) - and indicate core factors (priority to measure in order to capture theme)
  1. ​​Group working on Hazard exposure in particular to be instructed to review from conflict / protracted crisis perspective.
  1. ​​Overall group to be asked for suggestions on forthcoming forums where framework can be further discussed / validated (e.g. (UK Shelter Forum?)
  1. ​​Next steps: Neil/Bo reorganising matrix, in particular 1) consolidation of Capacity elements under Pre-Crisis (causal factors) section /remove sections that actually refer to response analysis and 2) Reorganising Hazard Impact and Housing and Settlement Impact into Shelter Impact and Settlement Impact; Lis preparing introduction slides for the WG session; Lis to organise large (plotter) print-outs of matrix on Tuesday; Lis to respond to facilitators.
  1. ​​Next meeting: TBC after Shelter Week
​​
​​Meeting Date: 20.Sept.2018 15h CEST
​​Present:   Elisabeth Vikman, Neil Bauman,  Renee Wynveen, Lilia Blades, David Dalgado,
​​Excused:  Cecilia Schmölzer, Emese Csete, Nayana Das, Bo Hurkmans,
​​
  1. ​​Lis presented the updated draft conceptual framework (link under Key Links section above), with a review of how this is linked to the detailed matrix
  1. ​​Matrix and conceptual framework edited with feedback
  1. ​​Quick discussion re forthcoming Shelter Week and how to best use the 90 minute slot allocated to the WG; suggestion from David to use session to validate factors /sub-factors and pick people’s brains for additional factors we have missed
  1. ​​Next steps - prep for Shelter Week session: Neil preparing paragraph on WG progress (DL 26 September); Lis preparing session outline (DL 24 September) - circulate to the group for feedback.
  1. ​​Next meeting: at IMPACT / REACH office for those in Geneva next week (27 September @15.00 CEST), skype in as usual for those not in Geneva. Focus will be on preparing for the Shelter Week session.
​​
​​Meeting Date: 13.Sept.2018 15h CEST
​​Present: Emese Csete, Nayana Das, Elisabeth Vikman, Neil Bauman, Bo Hurkmans, Renee Wynveen, Lilia Blades,
​​Excused:  Cecilia Schmölzer, David Dalgado
​​
  1. ​​Lilia presented factors related to site and settlement level risk, pre/post-crisis (tab: V3 Shelter and Settlements factors)
  1. ​​Review of Emese’s consolidation effort (tab: Merged v1)
  1. ​​One major area for inclusion will be health or other ‘final’ outcomes - eg mortality, morbidity, respiratory infection… etc. 
  1. ​​For next meeting: 
  • ​​Review and comment on Merged v1, particularly columns A to E 
  • ​​Review conceptual framework
  1. ​​Discussion regarding Shelter Cluster annul meeting - what length session do we have?  To discuss next week
​​Next meeting set for same day and time next week -  : 20th Sept 2018 15h CEST. Focus will be on Shelter Cluster meeting.
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 07.09.2018 15h CEST
​​Present: David Dalgado, Emese Csete, Nayana Das, Cecilia Schmölzer
​​Excused: Elisabeth Vikman, Neil Bauman, Bo Hurkmans, Wynveen, Lilia Blades
​​
  1. ​​recap on what was dicussed last time and update on progress from both groups (causal factors and shelter & settlement factors)
​​→ all agreed that the two spreadsheets can be merged now to go o and clean  potential duplications and overlaps  Emese volunteered to give it a first go;  
  1. ​​Nayana presented a first draft of the conceptual framework to receive feedback
  • ​​find a more fitting word for  “outcomes” for example consequences 
  • ​​the Impact box should be differentiated rather between needs and response and detailed accordingly
  1. ​​brainstorming on what and how to present at the conference
  • ​​would be great to use the opportuity to collect wider feedback. Try to get a +/- 30 mins session of groupwork with intersted participants to provide input on the classification of factors (exercise with post-its); Cecilia will suggest it to the GSC team.
  • ​​shall we try to do an online survey to collect feedback?
  • ​​ideally for the presentation of the WG progress already have an updated version of the framework. Also a final draft of the “what we are trying to do” paper
  • ​​
​​next meeting set for Thursday 13th at 15h CEST tbc with Neil, Bo and Liz. As the ones who will be present at the conference their participation is most important (Cecilia can’t participate on thursday 13th). 
​​Main points to discuss will be the merged spreadsheet and how to present teh WG progress at the GSC conference
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 30 August, 2018
​​Present: Elisabeth Vikman, Cecilia Schmölzer, Neil Bauman, Lilia Blades, Nayana Das
​​Excused: Graham Eastmond, Amin Daneshvar, Renee Wynveen, David Dalgado, Anja Pirjevic, Lilia Blades, Bo Hurkmans, Emese Csete,
​​
​​1 Introducing new WG member, Nayana Das, from REACH Initiative
​​2 Lis ran through he consolidation of the reorganization of Other Causal factors followed by discussion - feedback entered into online spreadsheet
​​3 Next meeting, Friday 7 September
​​4 Next steps / to work on before next week's call: 
  • ​​Other causal factors: integrate feedback, start outlining ToC (flowchart/conceptual framework/visualise relationship between factors)
  • ​​Shelter /Settlement factors: finalise/ align with Phases / themes to enable merging with causal factors
​​5 Next steps / to work on before Shelter week:
  • ​​Update on what we are doing and progress so far, could include?;
  • ​​Overall (draft) ToC/conceptual framework (for people to provide feedback on)
  • ​​Concrete outputs that we are aiming for (e.g. question bank, methodologies, recommended datasets to use to implement the conceptual framework)
​​
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 9 August, 2018
​​Present: Neil Bauman, Elisabeth Vikman, Emese Csete,  Cecilia Schmölzer
​​Excused: Graham Eastmond, Amin Daneshvar, Renee Wynveen, David Dalgado, Anja Pirjevic, Lilia Blades, Bo Hurkmans
​​
​​1  Cecilia, Neil, Bo unavailable next 2 weeks.
​​2  Next Meeting in 3 weeks - August 30
​​3  Agreed to continue progressing in small groups
​​4  Agreed focus of the analysis framework development should be on what we need to measure ideally; then once framework is defined we can focus on the “how” (mitigation techniques where data is not available., e.g. proxy indicators).
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 26 July, 2018
​​Present: Bo Hurkmans, Neil Bauman, Elisabeth Vikman, Emese Csete,  Cecilia Schmölzer,  Lilia Blades
​​Excused: Graham Eastmond, Amin Daneshvar, Renee Wynveen, David Dalgado, Anja Pirjevic
​​
  1. ​​review of the draft of non-shelter causal factors
  1. ​​review of Shelter Adequacy factors
  1. ​​draft ToR for the WG outlining main objecitve and outputsas working doc 
​​
​​
​​
​​
​​========================================================================
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 19 July, 2018
​​Present: Bo Hurkmans, Neil Bauman,  Anja Pirjevic, Elisabeth Vikman, Emese Csete, David Dalgado, Cecilia Schmölzer
​​Excused: Graham Eastmond, Sushil Poudel, Amin Daneshvar, Lilia Blades, Renee Wynveen
​​
  1. ​​Introductions of new WG members Emese Csete (ShelterBox) and David Dalgado (NRC/Independent)
  1. ​​Review of the mapping of existing documentation of vulnerability classes from collected materials
  1. ​​Decision: WG will use dropbox as primary method of documentation collection
  1. ​​Framework considerations;
  1. ​​Scale of vulnerability (regional, community, household)
  1. ​​Scoring and other methodological issues related to data collection and analysis
  1. ​​Development of framework is a combination of both content and scope definition as well as, separately, how that content is captured methodologically
  1. ​​Drafting of initial classes and rough development using IPC framework and initial outline.  Refer to the Google doc for revised outline and people responsible
  1. ​​No AOB
  1. ​​Next meeting - 26 July 2018
​​
​​
​​========================================================================
​​
​​
​​Meeting Date: 4 July, 2018
​​Present: Neil Bauman, Cecilia Schmölzer, Lilia Blades, Renee Wynveen, Anja Pirjevic
​​Excused: Graham Eastmond, Sushil Poudel, Amin Daneshvar, Bo Hurkmans, Elisabeth Vikman
​​
  1. ​​New members to be added (this was not mentioned in the meeting)
  1. ​​David Dalgado (NRC), also the primary consultant for the Promoting Safer Building WG
  1. ​​Emese Csete (ShelterBox)
  1. ​​Review of the initial mapping attempt of the World Risk Report, the UNHCR Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon and the INFORM Index) .  This has since been transferred to a Google Sheet Doc so it can be incrementally added to through the WG membership and act as a repository/log for the WG.
  1. ​​A dropbox for the WG has been created and will (eventually) contain all relevant background documentation and working products for the WG
  1. ​​Next steps:
  1. ​​WG members will add any additional documentation or materials that can better inform the framework with more examples specific to shelter
  1. ​​Suggestions for how to structure the framework are welcome
  1. ​​Next meetings:  Group provisionally agreed to meet every Wednesday to make as much early progress as possible
​​========================================================================
​​
​​Meeting Date: 21 June, 2018
​​Present: Bo Hurkmans, Neil Bauman, Cecilia Schmölzer, Elisabeth Vikman, Lilia Blades 
​​Excused: Graham Eastmond, Renee Wynveen, Anja Pirjevic, Sushil Poudel, Amin Daneshvar
​​ 
  1. ​​Introductions: it was noted that there is a lack of diversity in terms of participation from different agencies as well as profiles (notably statistics and coordination), everybody is encouraged to reach out to colleagues they think would be able to contribute to the WG. The chairs will ensure linkages with relevant colleagues from REACH and with relevant colleagues in other WGs (such as Promoting Safer Building and Settlement Approaches in Urban Areas).
​​ 
  1. ​​Background to the WG: additional relevant publications and initiatives (such as the World Risk Report, the UNHCR Vulnerability Assessment of Syrian Refugees in Lebanon and the INFORM Index) were mentioned as possible sources of inspiration or opportunities for the WG to contribute with shelter vulnerability data once the methodology is rolled-out.
​
​ 
  1. ​​Review of implementation process and Technical Working Group matrix: these two elements were briefly reviewed and found to be relevant, but there was a preference to start with adaptation of the analytical framework first as this would influence the type of stakeholders involved in the process. A Google Doc has been set up that includes both relevant chapters from the IPC manual as well as an extraction of the IPC analytical framework (in the form of a bulleted list for now, please refer to the attached visual for easy reference). Everybody is encouraged to start entering thoughts on what the elements for the shelter context should look like, the points from the adequacy criteria have already been included where deemed relevant. Some considerations that were mentioned revolved around the possibility of including health related shelter-outcomes in the framework, the clarity that is required around the level of data per element of the framework (household vs. community level) and how to already ensure that the framework can facilitate response analysis.
​​ 
  1. ​​AOB: it was agreed that the next meeting two meetings will be held at the same time (14:00 GVA time) 28 June and 5 July.
​
​ 
​​=========================================================================
​​