Skip to main content

Survey of affected people and humanitarian staff in Afghanistan - March 2019 · Round 2

+ 1 more
Ground Truth Solutions
+ 1 more
Publication date


This research, carried out in Afghanistan, is part of a project to understand how people affected by crises and humanitarian field staff perceive the impact of the Grand Bargain commitments. It is based on answers to two standardised surveys, the first conducted face-to-face in December 2018 with 98 documented refugee returnees, 65 undocumented refugee returnees, 128 Pakistani refugees and 309 internally displaced persons (IDPs). The second with 228 humanitarian staff members from local, international and UN organisations, through an online survey tool.

The research is a joint effort by Ground Truth Solutions (GTS) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Secretariat with financial support from the United Kingdom’s Department for International Development (DFID). Afghanistan is one of the seven countries covered by this research. The others are Bangladesh, Haiti, Iraq, Lebanon, Somalia and Uganda.

This summary covers the key findings from the affected people and humanitarian staff surveys. Detailed answers to all questions are included in subsequent sections, as well as comparisons with the results from the 2017 surveys.

Key findings

• Overall, responses from affected people show a similar pattern as during the previous round of surveys in 2017, with improvements on some questions. Respondents living in Kabul feel slightly more positive about most questions, particularly in comparison to respondents in Balkh, Helmand and Herat, provinces that have been heavily affected by drought in 2018.

• More respondents say that aid providers are taking their opinion into account and people feel more informed about the aid available.

• Affected people also feel slightly more optimistic about being able to live without aid in the future, and prospects of life in Afghanistan more broadly.
Those who are sceptical about their ability to become self-reliant indicate a need for income-generating activities, shelter, increase in the quantity of aid and improved security.

• Affected people still have mixed views on the relevance of available aid, with almost equal shares agreeing and disagreeing on whether aid is meeting their most pressing needs.

• Most respondents from affected communities feel treated with respect by aid providers and trust them to have their best interest in mind. People interviewed (in accessible areas) feel largely safe in their day-to-day life, and displaced individuals feel mostly welcome by host communities.

• The views of humanitarian staff have become more sceptical on two accounts: they believe the support that national and local organisations receive is less sufficient and the collaboration between humanitarian and development actors less effective than in the previous survey round.

• While somewhat sceptical of the capacity of national organisations to deliver high-quality assistance, staff still agree that local and international organisations working together is the best way to deliver aid.