Coverage and inclusion

Definition

Who does humanitarian action reach and how does this relate to humanitarian need, including protection?

Coverage means exploring which members and groups within the affected population have been reached through humanitarian action, and how this relates to humanitarian need, including protection, in terms of focusing on those most affected by crisis. Inclusion means humanitarian action without discrimination (e.g. on the basis of nationality, race or ethnicity, gender, religious belief, class, disability, sexual identity and orientation), while also addressing the specific and diverse needs of different groups/individuals.^[1]

Explanation of the definition

Evaluate coverage by determining who has and has not been supported by humanitarian action, and why. On what basis were decisions made? And how does this relate to humanitarian need, taking into account protection as well as other needs such as shelter, food, water and health services? This is sometimes referred to as proportionality – is the scale of humanitarian action or assistance proportionate to need? This evaluates breadth of coverage.

Coverage can be assessed at different levels:

1. At global and regional levels, have international resources for humanitarian assistance been allocated according to need and proportionate to the scale of humanitarian crises across countries/regions? This may be an important question in evaluations commissioned by donor organisations, and in regional or multi-country evaluations. The availability and allocation of funding is likely to be a key determinant of coverage.
2. At national level, have both international and national resources been allocated based on needs within a country, and at an appropriate scale? This may be an important question when evaluating a humanitarian actor working nationwide.
3. At local level, who has and has not been supported by humanitarian action, and how does this relate to need? This may be an important evaluation question for all humanitarian actors, including those working only with certain communities or in particular parts of a country, such as local civil society actors do.

Inclusion considers whether marginalised and vulnerable groups have been reached. Were efforts made to identify and remove barriers to humanitarian assistance faced by such groups (Barbelet and Wake, 2020)? Were certain groups overlooked (e.g. older people or those living in remote locations) and/or discriminated against (e.g. women; particular ethnic groups; those of a certain sexual orientation, religious belief or class; or those living with disability)? This evaluates depth of coverage.

Early in the evaluation process, identify key factors that drive discrimination and inequality within the population affected by crisis and the context. This shows which marginalised groups to focus on when evaluating inclusion and exclusion, and it avoids a more mechanistic and often superficial approach whereby evaluators aim to cover every potential marginalised group.

Pay attention to how factors of marginalisation intersect to create inequality and discrimination. This intersectional lens helps you avoid seeing marginalised groups in discrete silos.^[2] Be alert to how drivers of marginalisation intersect with the dynamics of the crisis. For example, displaced men of a certain age from ethnic groups associated with one party to a conflict may be automatically denied refuge in IDP camps by the authorities associated with another party to the conflict.

Also evaluate if humanitarian action has been adapted to the diverse and specific needs of different groups and individuals. This might require tailored programmes or activities, for example for people living with disability. And it means evaluating whether all groups and individuals, including those most marginalised, have been able to influence the design and direction of the humanitarian response. Engage with power dynamics and underlying barriers to inclusion for the most marginalised to evaluate if access to assistance and protection has been equitable (Lough et al, 2022). For example, has humanitarian action been informed by an understanding of underlying inequality, such as gender inequality? To what extent has humanitarian action addressed the outcomes or underlying causes of inequality, especially in protracted crises (Pinnington, 2023)?

When to select coverage and inclusion

This criterion is important for many (most) evaluations of humanitarian action because it explores the extent to which action has been needs-based and implemented on an adequate scale. Paying attention to the needs of different groups, ask who has been prioritised and why, and who has been excluded and why. This criterion is particularly important when resources for humanitarian action are constrained. It is an opportunity to investigate how severity of needs has been understood, to guide targeting according to the most urgent cases of distress.

It may be useful, too, to evaluate organisational duty of care to staff. Explore not only if duty of care has been addressed adequately, but also what this means for coverage in practice. Has a trade-off been made between managing staff security and reaching populations affected by crisis in highly insecure areas? How was that trade-off managed and were creative solutions found?

How coverage and inclusion relates to other criteria

Coverage and inclusion relates closely to effectiveness in understanding outcomes and achievements across different groups with diverse needs. Although sometimes absorbed under the effectiveness criterion, separating out coverage and inclusion encourages greater attention to decision-making on programme design and targeting, and the extent to which marginalised groups have been included or overlooked. This criterion also relates to relevance, informing how evaluation methods and data analysis should be disaggregated by groups that have been affected in different ways by the humanitarian crisis.

Consider how power dynamics, identities and histories influence who is reached by humanitarian action, who is excluded, and why. In areas affected by conflict, examine if assistance has primarily flowed through government or majority-group networks, leaving ethnic or religious minorities underserved due to historical marginalisation. These dynamics can affect whose exclusion is rendered invisible.

Biases and assumptions can also shape the way coverage and inclusion is evaluated. For instance, if you rely solely on official lists of recipients of humanitarian support, your evaluation may miss entire populations who are undocumented or unable to access formal registration systems.