> 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-6.md).

# Commitment 6

## <mark style="color:orange;">DO PEOPLE AND COMMUNITIES ACCESS COORDINATED AND COMPLEMENTARY SUPPORT?</mark>

Evaluating whether humanitarian response is coordinated and complementary involves measuring the extent to which the interventions of different actors are harmonised, promote synergy, and avoid gaps, duplication and resource conflict.

Coordination is not about participating in meetings but a system that improves outcomes, enables effectiveness, reduces burdens for people, and strengthens complementarity with local and national actors.

#### Key evaluative questions:

1. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent are the coordination architecture and the collaborative strategy relevant to the context?**</mark>

* Quality of the (national and/or international) coordination leadership
* Level of participation from organisations in coordination bodies and activities (including local organisations and authorities)
* Adjustments made to adapt the coordination architecture (e.g. national or international leadership) and conditions (e.g. language issues) to the context

2. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent is the coordination architecture and the collaborative strategy implemented and effective?**</mark>

* Quantity and quality of the information shared between organisations and with the main stakeholders of the response&#x20;
* Quality of relationships between humanitarian and other relevant organisations
* Type and quality of coordinated and collaborative activities (such as joint needs assessments, responses by consortia, etc.)

3. <mark style="background-color:blue;">**To what extent is the overall humanitarian response responding to the diversity of needs and tackling the multiple facets of the situation?**</mark>

* Communities and people affected by the crisis’s perception of gaps or overlaps in the response
* Observation of gaps or overlaps in geographic or thematic areas
* Observation that coordination supported equitable coverage and reduced burden for communities