Response/Stakeholder Analysis*

What do we need to know about those RESPONDING to the crisis/emergency?
1. Who are the responders:
          a. INGOS (operational, advocacy)
          b. Civil society
                    i. Local/National NGOs
                    ii. Religious Leaders, Elders, Leaders, Women’s Groups, Youth, volunteers, community-based groups
          c. National Government (duty-bearers)
          d. Armed Groups or other actors
          e. UN agencies
          f. Private Sector
2. What is the capacity of those responding? (Skill, expertise, area of specialty, longevity, newly formed/created); funding, competency levels, fully staffed/management
3. Are there security and/or other blockages that hinder response?
4. What are the resources available to those responding?
5. What are the assumptions and biases of those responding?
          a. Discriminatory practices?
6. What are the mandates of those responding?
7. Are those that respond have internal protection policies and procedures?
8. What is the logic and/or theory of change that each responder comes with?
9. What structure exists within each to support a response?
10. Are those who respond welcomed, pose risk, threats, or increase vulnerabilities and/or resilience of individuals/populations?
11. How are those who respond coordinating with each other? Is there overlap? Ad Hoc response? Strategic direction and purpose? Complimentarity? Synergies? Linkages? Integration?
12. Does the response hinder previous progress prior to the crisis?
13. Are responders influenced or driven by outside and/or internal processes/actors (systems, policies, procedures, funding sources, faith/religion, political will, etc)
14. Those that are funding the response, are they influenced by the political situation, NGO demand, media, constituency, the protection analysis, internal politics/decisions, etc?
15. Has a mapping of what each sector is doing included in the response? Where are the gaps, overlaps, challenges?
*This is a preliminary list of questions that we have compiled that may help to support a more robust and comprehensive protection analysis.  The list continues to be assessed and expanded based on desk reviews and consultation with practitioners.