mercycorps.org
Support for Adolescents and Humanitarian Analysis 
(SAHA)
 
Baseline – 22 May, 2019
MAY 2019
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 2
Background, Location, and Timing 
Support for the Adolescents and Humanitarian Analysis (SAHA) program is funded by 
the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) in the United States Agency for 
International Development (USAID). This program addresses the difficulties 
humanitarian actors face operating in Libya due to weak governance and armed 
power struggles requiring a timely and agile humanitarian response.1 SAHA will 
respond through the provision of reliable and timely analysis on the conflict and 
security environment in Libya in order to increase the context understanding and 
coordination of humanitarian actors operating in the country.
The key strategic principles of the program include an emphasis on: collecting, 
triangulating, synthesizing, analyzing, operationalizing primary data and information at 
the local level by the Humanitarian Access Team (HAT). Through these, the HAT will 
build off of the success of the previous program funded by United Nations Office for 
the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) and inform program interventions 
that are increasingly nimble, adaptive, and integrated, ensuring an impactful 
response to the Libyan crisis.
This baseline study was carried out in May of 2019 among humanitarian actors 
operating in Libya, a few months into the program startup in February of 2019.
Baseline Study Objectives
The baseline study primary aims to:
● Establish the milestones with respect to the SAHA program key reporting 
indicators (see Annex 2) among its targeted beneficiaries
● To identify the humanitarian organizations’ information gaps going forward
● To determine current involvement in inter-sector coordination mechanisms and 
the HAT’s role in the Access Working Group, among other bodies.
Baseline Study Methods, Data Sources and Limitations
As per the guidelines of OFDA, the baseline study was gathered within the first 90 days 
of implementation, primarily in May 2019. For this baseline survey all consumers of HAT 
products (including monthly reports, situation reports, context briefings, and attendees 
to the Access Working Group) were polled for their feedback on the program’s output 
since February 15 and the previous programs since March 2018. 
 1 Note that the present baseline report references the Support for Adolescents and Humanitarian Analysis (SAHA) 
program, which was the program originally approved by USAID OFDA and contained a protection component in 
addition to humanitarian coordination and information management. A request for a modification to that program 
to remove the protection component and focus solely on humanitarian coordination and information management 
is presently in process with USAID/OFDA. As Mercy Corps is not presently operating on the ground in Libya, this 
baseline does not concern the original protection components of the program but refers solely to data collected as 
a baseline for Humanitarian Coordination and Information Management sector activities. Once approved, the 
updated program will be titled Libya Humanitarian Analysis (LHA).
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 3
The beneficiaries for this program include development organizations, humanitarian 
aid agencies, diplomatic entities, research organizations, and stabilization 
organizations (See Figure 1 for breakdown). There are a total of 154 people in all of 
these organizations; however, since 32% of respondents indicated they disseminated 
reports internally it can be assumed that more individuals consume HAT products.
Figure 1: Most organizations receiving HAT products are humanitarian aid 
organizations. A list of all organizations receiving these reports can be found in Annex 
1.
For the purposes of this baseline survey, only development, humanitarian aid, and 
stabilization organizations were assessed so as to match the requirements of the SAHA 
Monitoring Plan. 21 individuals in humanitarian aid organizations, five individuals in 
development organizations, and three individuals in stabilization organizations 
responded. The total number of respondents was 29 people, making this survey a 
sample of 18% of HAT product beneficiaries. 
The main limitation of the baseline methodology was the availability of a full sample of 
HAT beneficiaries and humanitarian analysis working group members to respond in the 
time allocated. It’s possible that the ongoing armed offensive in Tripoli prevented 
many humanitarian aid workers from having time to respond to requests for feedback.
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 4
Figure 2: Respondents Key Information
Total 
Respondents
Sector Implementing 
in Libya
Position Year Started 
Encountering 
HAT Products
29 people Humanitarian Aid -
75%
Development -
17%
Stabilization - 7%
Yes - 72%
No - 28%
Programming - 28%
Head of Mission - 24%
Operations - 17%
Security - 7%
Analysis - 7%
Access - 3%
2017 - 11%
2018 - 61%
2019 - 29%
Figure 2: Most respondents had programming or head of mission roles in humanitarian 
aid organizations. The majority first encountered HAT products in 2018, which means at 
the time of this baseline they have already had extensive interaction with the HAT. 
The survey was gathered digitally using Survey Monkey sent to beneficiaries emails. 
Respondents were given five days to respond. A number of auto-responses indicated 
many individuals were traveling or on leave and unable to complete it.
Main Findings of the Baseline Survey
Mercy Corps’ humanitarian analysis program, as managed by the HAT, is largely 
successful in meeting the SAHA program’s sub-sector objectives. These objectives are 
(1) Humanitarian Coordination, which includes increasing operational access and 
coordination among the humanitarian community and (2) Information Management, 
which includes increasing the humanitarian community’s contextual knowledge of 
communities and security in Libya. In the first 90 days of SAHA the HAT has achieved 
Objective 2, and partly achieved Objective 1. However, more work remains to 
increase Objective 1.
Objective 1: Humanitarian Coordination
The HAT has moderately achieved its aim to increase operational access. Just under 
half of respondents (46%) indicated that the HAT helped them negotiate access at an 
operational level. Respondents indicated that HAT facilitated direct connections to 
Libyans through its extensive network. 
HAT information appears to set a foundation for aid organizations to make decisions 
rather than providing critical facts or data. One implementer noted “The context 
analysis and situation updates mean that more time can be dedicated to operations 
and delivery, rather than essential staff having to analyze and assess the context 
constantly. It's an enabler to operations.” 9% of respondents indicated they would be 
operating blindly in Libya without the HAT, while most indicated a large amount of 
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 5
dependence on the HAT. Only three respondents indicated their ability to operate 
would be unchanged without the HAT (none of whom were donors). See Figure 5. 
Figure 5: Confidence Operating in Libya
Figure 5: On a scale of 1-5 (with 1 being operating blindly and 5 being complete 
confidence in the decisions made), most organizations indicated that the HAT
provided them with greater confidence in their operations. However, 39% indicated 
that they had high confidence or complete confidence operating without the HAT.
The HAT has much room to improve in coordinating the humanitarian community 
around access issues. The vast majority of humanitarian and development 
organizations are part of some form of coordination mechanism, including the INGO 
Forum, sector coordination, and working groups. However, there is very little 
coordination around access. HAT programs intend to facilitate this coordination 
through the Access Working Group, Ad-Hoc Meetings, and Context Briefings. The 
Access Working Group has met four times in 2019, where it has largely concentrated 
on the same agenda items each time. Unfortunately, 76% of respondents indicated 
they do not attend the Access Working Group. Of those that do attend, only 8% found 
it very helpful. One person noted: “it’s not happening at the same speed of changes 
in the field, poor result.” Making the Access Working Group relevant at the operational 
level will take further investment of time and effort on the part of the HAT and 
UNOCHA. At the same time, the Access Working Group will be complementary to 
existing working groups and contribute to the work of other established, sector-specific 
working groups through the provision of timely information on access conditions.
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 6
The HAT also implements Context Briefings, with the aim of increasing the community’s 
contextual understanding and providing a regular forum for discussing current 
approaches. Respondents indicated they found the Context Briefings to be more 
useful than one-on-one meetings, even though most tailored access advice is 
delivered during the one-on-one meetings. The Context Briefings are highly interactive, 
providing attendees the opportunity to question analyses, debate how to respond, 
and surface information as yet unaddressed by the HAT or other INGOs. Heads of 
Mission from humanitarian aid organizations, development organizations, and 
embassies typically attend. This result suggests that Context Briefings are a powerful 
tool for coordination and information sharing, rather than simply a medium to transmit 
information.
It should be noted that there has been a marked increase in access and security focal 
points in the Libya response, particularly among INGOs. When the Libya HAT was 
established in 2017, there were only approximately two security focal points in INGOs. 
As of May 2019 there are six security focal points, increasing sharing and coordination 
among INGOs. While the increase cannot be traced directly to the HAT, a number of 
people have expressed informally their appreciation for the HAT’s work and their desire 
for regular analysis tailored to their programs.
Objective 2: Information Management
Libya has no local news sources that are considered unbiased or factually accurate, 
and international news sources are often superficial and lacking verified information.2
In this environment, the HAT has achieved complete trust in its information, with 100% 
of respondents indicating they believed all HAT products. HAT products also have a 
high readership, with 61% of respondents indicating they read all the reports in full. HAT 
products are therefore key information documents required for humanitarian actors to 
inform their programming and access strategies within the Libyan context.
76% of respondents stated that all information in HAT reports are essential information 
for them. Across all groups, HAT information is largely used for general knowledge and 
security and access decisions (See Figure 3). A number of individuals indicated they 
used HAT information to triangulate their own information. Implementers prioritize 
context around armed groups and politics, while donors prefer information around 
humanitarian needs, used both for general knowledge and strategic decisions (See 
Figure 4).
The medium by which HAT delivers this information is critical. At the current pace of 
violence in Tripoli, the HAT has disseminated situation reports three times a week, 
context briefings every two weeks, and a monthly report each month. Already since 
February 15, HAT has disseminated 19 reports, which is 42% of the target in the SAHA 
Monitoring Plan. According to respondents, Situation Reports are the most useful and 
 2 “Libya Media Assessment: One Year Later,” 2013
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 7
timely document (though all were rated highly). These flash situation reports update 
humanitarian actors, particularly field staff, on new incidents that may lead to 
humanitarian needs and how the humanitarian community can best respond to these 
incidents as they take place. However, a couple respondents noted that rumors were 
occasionally disseminated in the situation reports and one stated “quality of info on 
the sit reps is not always reliable, but we appreciate the timeliness and understand 
there are trade-offs.”
Figure 3: HAT Information is primarily used for General Knowledge, Security & Access, 
and Programming.
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 8
Figure 4: Armed group context and political context is most useful for beneficiaries of 
the SAHA program.
Analysis
Within the first 90 days, the HAT is operating effectively to meet the needs of its 
beneficiary organizations. However, there remains significant ground to cover and 
some potential improvements to consider.
Critical Information: For just under half of organizations, the HAT’s information is not yet 
essential. 39% of respondents indicated they would lose some operational confidence 
without the HAT but would still function effectively or nearly effectively. Notably, the 
HAT also struggles with combining humanitarian and political information, with only 7% 
finding its information about needs useful or sufficiently analyzed. The HAT is also 
severely lacking information on the economic context, a data-intensive effort that it 
has largely not invested in. While there are numerous other needs assessors and reports 
on the economic context (most notably by REACH), HAT products would benefit from 
increased collaboration and data-sharing with organizations that analyze these topics.
Operational Relevance: In its current state, the HAT struggles to make itself relevant to 
implementers. To increase operational access HAT products must provide more use 
than General Knowledge alone. Only 56% of respondents indicated they used HAT 
information for Access Planning and Security Management. Indeed, 53% of 
respondents stated that the HAT had not contributed to their operational access. The 
HAT scaled back many of its one-on-one meetings over the six months prior to SAHA’s 
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 9
start date, and therefore its role facilitating access diminished. While the Access 
Working Group was expected to facilitate access, the Working Group’s slow pace has 
not filled the gap left by the HAT’s prior work in this regard.
For programs, the HAT has only limited influence. About 30% indicated they used HAT 
information for program design, while 30% indicated they used HAT information for 
program implementation. Above all, the HAT in its current form is not a tool for 
Monitoring and Evaluation (as has previously been suggested), with only one donor 
organization indicating they used it as such.
Coordination: The HAT does not play a significant role in coordinating the 
humanitarian community. 68% of respondents were already part of some form of inter￾agency coordination mechanism, but 76% do not attend Access Working Group 
meetings. It suggests that the Access Working Group in its current format may not be 
the HAT’s most useful engagement to increase operational access, and the HAT would 
gain greater benefit cooperating through the sectors who do the bulk of coordination. 
With incoming reforms to the Access Working Group making it more operational, the 
HAT’s role as co-coordinator will likely increase.
With multiple types of beneficiaries with very specific (and sometimes diverging) 
information gaps, the HAT has tried to address everyone’s needs. However, this risks 
leaving no beneficiary satisfied. Therefore, a wider array of products targeted at each 
type of beneficiary might alleviate this issue (for example, donors prioritize big picture 
information about humanitarian needs more than implementers do). Going forward 
the HAT will need to focus on meeting implementers’ information requirements in order 
to meet the SAHA program’s objectives and increase access to lifesaving aid for 
Libyans amidst a swiftly worsening conflict.
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 10
ANNEX 1
HAT Beneficiary Organizations
Type of Organization Number of 
People 
Receiving HAT 
Products
Development
Total beneficiary 
organizations: 11
Total beneficiaries 
receiving products: 25 
people
3
2
2
1
2
1
4
1
4
1
4
Humanitarian Aid
Total beneficiary 
organizations: 27
Total beneficiaries 
receiving products: 83 
people
3
4
2
2
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 11
6
2
2
2
1
5
1
3
1
3
1
3
7
1
6
8
2
2
8
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 12
1
2
2
3
Political & Diplomatic
Total beneficiary 
organizations: 12
Total beneficiaries 
receiving products: 43 
people
8
2
2
9
4
3
3
4
3
2
1
2
Research 1
Stabilization
Total beneficiary 
organizations: 3
1
3
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 13
Total beneficiaries 
receiving products: 6 
people
2
TOTAL Organizations
TOTAL People
ANNEX 2
Indicator Target Baseline Results (20 May, 2019)
Indicator 1.1.1 Number of 
humanitarian organizations 
actively coordinating in 
the proposed area of work 
35 7 (24%) attend the Access Working Group, 
while 22 (76%) do not. 
Indicator 1.1.2 Number of 
humanitarian organizations 
actively participating in 
the Inter- agency 
coordination mechanisms 
15 19 respondents (68%) are currently part of an 
Inter-Agency Coordination mechanism. 9 
(32%) are not. 
Indicator 1.1.3: Number of
humanitarian organizations 
receiving joint assessment 
information
35 54 organizations currently receive joint 
assessment information from HAT products.
Indicator 1.2.1 Number of 
products made available 
by information 
management services that 
are accessed by 
stakeholders
45
Monthly Reports 2
Forecasting Reports 1
Situation Reports 15
Thematic Reports 1
Total: 19
Indicator 1.2.2 Number 
and percentage of 
humanitarian organizations 
utilizing information 
35 and 
69%
100% humanitarian aid organizations 
receiving HAT products. 43% of respondents 
were from humanitarian aid organizations.
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 14
management services
Indicator 1.2.3 Number 
and percentage of 
humanitarian organizations 
directly contributing to 
information products
15 and 
29%
6 organizations (UNOCHA, IOM, UNHCR, 
REACH, WHO, INGO Forum)
MERCY CORPS Baseline report 15
About Mercy Corps
Mercy Corps is a leading 
global organization
powered by the belief that 
a better world is possible. 
In disaster, in hardship, in 
more than 40 countries 
around the world, we 
partner to put bold 
solutions into action —
helping people triumph 
over adversity and build 
stronger communities from 
within.
Now, and for the future.
mercycorps.org