> 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-2.md).

# Commitment 2

## <mark style="color:orange;">DO PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES ACCESS TIMELY AND EFFECTIVE SUPPORT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS AND PRIORITIES?</mark>

Evaluating whether the support was timely, accessible and effective, and if it remained aligned with people’s priorities as needs and the context changed, means examining if programmes were designed and adapted using relevant technical standards and good practices.

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

1. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent did people and communities access support that addressed their priority needs and was adapted to the context?**</mark>

* Translation of priorities identified into programme choices.
* Trends of targeted needs (nutrition rates, morbidity, etc.) for and by the different population groups (monitoring data, public health data, etc.)
* Communities and people affected by the crisis's perception of how their needs have evolved and how effective the response has been.

2. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent is/was the assistance delivered in a timely manner?**</mark>

* Level and gravity of needs not covered for timing issues
* Perception of people and communities about the timeliness of the delivery of assistance compared to their expectations and needs
* Adaptation of the activities to local calendars (seasons, agricultural calendar, etc.
* Delays between the planned schedule and implementation (monitoring data)

3. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent is the response strategy (general approach and activities) appropriate to reach the expected results?**</mark>

* Evidence-based on the chosen approach (use of best practices, reference to the current knowledge of the sector, etc.)
* Evidence of corrective actions and triangulation of data sources.
* Opinion of informed staff and stakeholders about the effectiveness of the strategy
* Evidence of referral pathways set up and follow-up with other actors for unmet priorities.