Abstract
BACKGROUND: Coordination is key to effective humanitarian response, which is growing in need. The Global Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene (WASH) Cluster developed a Theory of Change (ToC) to revise their Minimum Requirements for monitoring Basic Assumptions and Core Actions as coordination frameworks. This study assessed how the ToC and Minimum Requirements were met in five national coordination platforms (NCPs) with different staffing levels. METHODS: We conducted a six-month mixed-method evaluation across five humanitarian contexts varying in coordination staffing levels: Central African Republic (low), Colombia (low), Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) (medium), Nigeria (medium), and Yemen (high). Overall, 31 monthly activity reports from NCPs, 20 key informant interviews (KIIs) with NCP staff, 94 KIIs with partners, and 475 online surveys with NCP members were conducted. KIIs and online surveys were analyzed to determine whether contexts were meeting Minimum Requirements and ToC outcomes, respectively. Data were triangulated to score contexts (0-3) on whether they met Basic Assumptions and Core Actions. RESULTS: Nigeria had the highest percentage of survey respondents who thought the WASH coordination platform helped them meet ToC outcomes (39%-89%), with Yemen having the lowest (24%-78%). Completing monitoring and evaluation and evaluating program quality were ToC outcomes least reached, as reported by 50% or less of respondents in all contexts. Informants across contexts were similarly meeting Minimum Requirements, especially in Coordination and Information Management, and Response and Gap Analysis. Respondents did not agree regarding Strategic Planning and Advocacy Strategy. As planned, findings revealed a statistically significant difference in meeting Basic Assumption 1: Staffing and Structure between Yemen, scoring 2.58, and DRC, scoring 1.58 (p = 0.026). Over 50% of respondents in all contexts reported that the WASH NCP helped them meet outcomes by making strategic decisions and identifying response gaps. CONCLUSIONS: We found that incorporating the ToC into the Minimum Requirements successfully supported humanitarian WASH responses. Additionally, while staffing levels are necessary to achieve response outputs and outcomes, they are not sufficient. Other factors, such as poor funding, inadequate monitoring and evaluation, and a need for localization, also impacted response outputs and outcomes. In a time of reduced humanitarian funding, investment in Global WASH Cluster coordination has shown to enhance response outputs and outcomes. Recommendations include dedicating staffing, developing standardized monitoring and assessment tools, strengthening inter-sectoral collaboration, and continuing accountability to affected populations. Further research on monitoring and evaluation, funding, affected population needs, and sub-national coordination is indicated.