HADR–CPXKNOWLEDGE COMMONS
ไทยContact
Menu
Home/Knowledge/needs-assessment-sitrep
HADR foundationsApplied foundation · information teams and coordinatorsPublic review edition

Assessing needs and writing a situation note

Separate observations, needs, capacities and gaps before writing a decision-useful coordination note with fictional data and explicit limitations.

50 estimated minutesneeds-assessment-sitrep · v0.1.0Updated 15 October 2026
AI-generated illustration of HADR learning and exercise, not an actual event
AI-generated learning illustration, not a record of an actual event.
A learning synthesis based on the listed sources, not yet endorsed by an expert reviewer. Activities and rubrics are proposed by this project.
Knowledge domains connected to this lesson (6)
D03 · Data, GIS and communication systemsD12 · Community organization and resilienceD13 · Protection and inclusionD14 · Governance, law and public policyD15 · Crisis leadership and decision-makingD20 · Risk communication, media and trust
Explore related ISO standards

What will you be able to do?

From outcomes to observable evidence

needs-assessment-sitrep · v0.1.0

Intended outcomes

Knowledge

Distinguish problems, capacities, assumptions and information needs.

Skills

Write a situation note from conflicting reports without inventing confirmed totals.

Ethics

Select information with attention to unheard groups and privacy.

Character

Revise conclusions when new evidence changes understanding.

Practise through an activity

Original activity: use the lesson’s numerical cards and add one card describing fictional capacity. Create a source–time–unit–scope table, write a one-page note for a coordinator, and peer-review overlap, assumptions and unnecessary details. Apply the six-household correction card and submit a revised note with reasons. Collect no real survivor data and do not label the work an official report.

Collect evidence for assessment

Knowledge

A classification of evidence cards with reasons and references.

NEEDS-K
Skills

A one-page note with sources, time, scope and follow-up checks.

NEEDS-S
Ethics

Reasons for excluding identifying details and a plan to hear missing perspectives.

NEEDS-E
Character

Two note versions with a change record and reviewer comments.

NEEDS-C

Project learning synthesis showing proposed outcomes, activity and evidence. This is not a university-endorsed assessment framework.

Module references:[ifrc-icrc-assessment-2008][ocha-undac-situation-2024][ddpm-plan][ifrc-cea-guide-2021]

Suggested preparation: HADR foundations and people-centred assistance Thailand floods 2011: interconnected impacts and recovery From warnings to action

Begin with the decision question

ICRC/IFRC’s 2008 guidance, printed pp. 12 and 17, considers problems alongside capacities rather than starting with a predetermined delivery. DDPM p. 124 links situation information with impacts and resources. This lesson applies those ideas in a classroom task, not fieldwork in hazardous areas.

Original exercise: a fictional coordinator asks, ‘What needs checking before we propose support for community A?’ Create three columns: reported conditions, available community capacity and unknowns. If a card says supplies exist at a storage point, ask whether they are accessible and usable. Do not yet conclude that the need is covered.

Original sources: [ifrc-icrc-assessment-2008][ddpm-plan]

Set scope and review existing information

ICRC/IFRC printed pp. 29–31 address reviewing existing information and defining information needs. Use this to check what already answers the team’s question. The lesson’s assessment covers only facilitator-provided cards; it cannot represent a whole subdistrict or actual affected-population totals.

Original exercise: card A reports 18 households at a morning meeting; card B reports 24 people at an afternoon service point. Record each unit, time and area before comparing them. Add a ‘groups absent from the data’ column and one follow-up question. Do not add people and households into a single total.

Original sources: [ifrc-icrc-assessment-2008]

Handle conflicting information

ICRC/IFRC printed pp. 67–68 discuss comparing diverse sources, checking inconsistencies, and documenting assumptions and follow-up when uncertainty remains. Preserve uncertainty that matters to the proposal; an unexplained average does not resolve disagreement.

Original exercise: change card B to 24 households but add that it may include an adjacent area. Propose two possible explanations and a check that distinguishes them. Write a sentence preserving both counts and their limits. A reviewer should identify what the team has and has not confirmed without needing an extra verbal explanation.

Original sources: [ifrc-icrc-assessment-2008]

Listen and limit unnecessary detail

IFRC/ICRC’s CEA guide, printed pp. 82 and 84, addresses needs, capacities, context and transparent assessment. OCHA UNDAC p. 137 recognizes that personal and non-personal data can be sensitive. Consider disclosure consequences rather than assuming name removal always makes information safe.

Original exercise: one card contains an invented name, house number and private support request. Produce a classroom summary that retains the follow-up issue without identifying details. Explain which fields are unnecessary for the initial question, then role-play explaining the inquiry without promising supplies. Use fictional data even if learners know a real incident.

Original sources: [ifrc-cea-guide-2021][ocha-undac-situation-2024]

Expose reasoning and next checks

OCHA UNDAC p. 180 emphasizes the audience, clarity, evidence and analytical limits. DDPM p. 124 places information linkage and follow-up within incident support. This lesson’s one-page note is project-designed, not an official OCHA or DDPM SITREP form.

Original exercise: choose your own headings, but answer what is known, why it matters to the proposal, what remains unresolved and who will check it. Record the card-set cutoff time. Add a card stating that six households in the later count belong to another area. Revise while retaining version history, and decide whether this changes the proposal or only clarifies its scope.

Original sources: [ocha-undac-situation-2024][ddpm-plan]

See the process at a glance

A synthesized learning diagram. Read it alongside the lesson and original sources.

  1. Set the question

    Name the reader, area and decision the note should support.

  2. Organize evidence cards

    Separate units, times, sources and unknowns.

  3. Test disagreement

    Propose explanations and follow-up questions while retaining limits.

  4. Write and review disclosure

    Draft one page and have a peer review reasoning and unnecessary details.

  5. Revise with new evidence

    Use the update card and record its effect on the proposal.

Fictional learning scenario

Explore a decision

Original fictional scenario: community A reports 18 households unable to contact a service point in the morning. Another team reports 24 households in the afternoon without a clear boundary. A coordinator needs a note before a meeting. What should it say?

From knowledge to evidence

Original activity: use the lesson’s numerical cards and add one card describing fictional capacity. Create a source–time–unit–scope table, write a one-page note for a coordinator, and peer-review overlap, assumptions and unnecessary details. Apply the six-household correction card and submit a revised note with reasons. Collect no real survivor data and do not label the work an official report.

CriterionProficientDeveloping
Question scopeNames the user, scope, problems and capacities.Starts from supplies to deliver without explaining the question.
Evidence qualityPreserves units, times, sources and discrepancies without an invalid sum.Combines incompatible units or turns gaps into certainty.
Respect and disclosureExplains omitted details and missing perspectives.Includes unnecessary identifiers or ignores missing groups.
Revision and handoverRevises conclusions from the new card and assigns follow-up.Changes a count without explaining its effect.

A proposed rubric for educators to adapt, not a university accreditation standard.

Check your understanding

Answer all 5 questions, then review the explanations. This score is for self-study.

1Why does the exercise table include existing capacities?
2What total can be obtained from cards reporting 18 households and 24 people?
3Which detail should be excluded from the classroom-shared note in this task?
4What is missing from a single-total note without limitations?
5What should happen when six households are found to belong to another area?

Continue with connected learning

Lessons that build on this topic. Choose according to your interests.

  • Volunteers working with communitiesPractise matching people to tasks, defining boundaries, listening to feedback and referring matters beyond a role through a reviewable fictional work plan.
  • Drones in HADRChoose missions from actual needs, interpret imagery and delivery limits, protect data and revise a plan through a fictional CPX producing KSEC evidence.
  • Airspace coordination in HADRDistinguish roles and authority, check sources of flight restrictions and coordinate drone, helicopter, medical and logistics requests through three fictional CPX updates.
  • HADR logistics and resource allocationFollow requests from evidence and prioritization through transport, storage, distribution and reassessment. Practise fair decisions in a fictional flood CPX with auditable quantities.
  • Digital technology and innovation for HADRChoose tools around mission needs. Connect GIS, shared information, AI, fallback communication and logistics with evidence checks, privacy and access in a fictional flood CPX.
  • EOC, common operating picture and crisis decisionsConnect Thai roles, conflicting evidence, COP/SITREP, options, decisions and handover through a fictional flood coordination exercise, with KSEC evidence, authority limits and accountability to people waiting for help.

References & further verification

Cite this module

PK-Research. (2026). Assessing needs and writing a situation note (needs-assessment-sitrep, v0.1.0). HADR–CPX Knowledge Commons. https://hadr-cpx.pk-research.work/en/modules/needs-assessment-sitrep/

Found a correction? Contact the developerNext module