> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://urd.gitbook.io/compass/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://urd.gitbook.io/compass/evaluating/commitment-1.md).

# Commitment 1

## <mark style="color:orange;">CAN PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES EXERCISE THEIR RIGHTS AND PARTICIPATE IN DECISIONS THAT AFFECT THEM?</mark>

To evaluate whether individuals and communities can exercise their rights and participate in decisions that affect them, we must measure the extent to which responses enable meaningful, inclusive, and safe participation. &#x20;

These commitments extend beyond consultation to ensure that individuals and communities understand their access to activities, have timely and clear information, can influence decisions, and can participate safely without fear of retaliation, stigma, or harm. The perceptions and views of communities and people affected by crises are particularly important to evaluate this aspect.

#### **Key evaluative questions:**

1. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent did people and communities have access to information that enabled them to exercise their rights and make informed choices?**</mark>

* Level of participation by the communities and people affected by the crisis in the response activities
* Evidence that people received timely and accessible information about the organisation, the programme, eligibility criteria, assistance modalities, and expected conduct from staff/volunteers.
* Adjustments of communication channels and formats (language, literacy, disability inclusion, safety, etc.)

2. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent was participation meaningful, inclusive and representative?**</mark>

* What is the expected level of participation of the target population (e.g. what is ‘meaningful participation’ for them?)
* Who participated, who did not, and why (barriers linked to gender, age, disability, migration status, identity, language, etc.)
* Whether participation went beyond consultation to include the influence of affected people over key decisions
* Evidence that participation methods were adapted to the context and expectations
* Community perceptions of fairness and inclusion in decision-making (feedback groups, advisory groups, community committees)
* Analysis of power dynamics and its influence on the participation of affected people, and evidence that staff were trained to mitigate risks of gatekeeping and facilitate inclusive participation.

3. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent did people and communities influence decisions, and can the project demonstrate what changed because of participation?**</mark>

* Documented examples where community input led to changes
* Decision-making documentation (meeting minutes, briefings, etc.) showing that community views were taken into account alongside technical standards, risks, and constraints.

4. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent was the communication strategy relevant and appropriate to the context?**</mark>

* Evidence of responsible data practices
* Accessibility and inclusion impacts (who could/could not use digital channels and why).