Perceived Usefulness of Anticipatory Assistance

Outcome

% of recipients who report the assistance enabled them to [specify the purpose of the assistance provided]

This indicator measures the share of recipients of anticipatory assistance who report that the support enabled them to take the intended protective or preventive actions before the hazard occurred. It helps assess whether the assistance was timely, appropriate, and effective, based on recipients’ perceived usefulness and their reported application of the support to reduce expected impacts.

Determine the indicator’s value by using the following methodology:

1) Before data collection, clearly specify what the anticipatory assistance aimed to enable people to do. For example, prepare for evacuation, protect livestock or other assets.

2) Interview a representative sample of recipients of the assistance. Before asking the following question, briefly explain or remind respondents what assistance they received and its intended purpose. Use simple, concrete terms, in line with what you defined in Step 1. Then ask respondents to what extent the assistance helped them achieve this intended purpose.

RECOMMENDED SURVEY QUESTIONS (Q) AND POSSIBLE ANSWERS (A)

Q1: To what extent did the assistance help you [specify the purpose of provided assistance]?

A1: A lot / To some extent / Not at all

 

3) To calculate the indicator’s value:

• Count the number of respondents who reported that the assistance enabled them to achieve its intended purpose (i.e. the answers to A1 were "a lot" or "to some extent").

• Divide this by the total number of interviewed recipients.

• Multiply the result by 100 to convert it to percentage.

Disaggregate by gender, age group, location, type of assistance received and other relevant criteria.

1) Ensure that at the start of the interview, the enumerators clearly explain the assistance being referred to (type, provider, and timing). This is particularly important when respondents may have received multiple forms of support from different organisations.

2) Use the following question to capture additional, unanticipated ways the assistance reduced expected impacts beyond the pre-defined intended purpose in Q1. Responses to Q2 should not be used to calculate the indicator's value. If the answer is “Yes,” consider adding a brief open-ended probe (e.g., “In what way?”) to document examples.

Q2: Did the assistance help you reduce the expected impact of the [specify hazard] in any other way?

A2: Yes / No / I don't know

3) Use the following question to assess whether recipients received the assistance early enough to use it before the forecasted hazard. The question is not used to calculate the indicator value, but should be reported separately because timeliness strongly affects whether assistance can achieve its intended purpose. If many respondents select “No, too late” or “Only just in time,” interpret the answers to Q1 results cautiously and consider improvements to triggers, targeting, and delivery channels.

Q3: Did you receive the assistance early enough to put it to use before the [forecasted hazard]?

A3: Yes, in good time / Yes, but only just in time / No, too late / I don’t know

4) Where applicable, specify in the data collection tool whether the assistance aimed to enable protective action (e.g. evacuation) or mitigate impact (e.g. reduce livelihood losses).