Updated October 2026: this post was first published in September 2018. We have expanded it with a summary drawn from our June 2018 article on putting the IASC Framework into practice in the East and Horn of Africa.
When member agencies set up ReDSS in March 2015, one of the first problems they took on was the lack of a shared way to measure progress towards durable solutions. Without common outcome indicators or a joint understanding of what drives solutions, it was hard to produce the data and analysis that collective responses need. Our answer was the ReDSS Durable Solutions Framework, developed in 2015 by member agencies and grounded in the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Framework on Durable Solutions for Internally Displaced Persons.
How the framework is built
The framework is a rapid analysis tool with a simple visual. It sets out 28 outcome indicators under the eight IASC criteria, grouped into three types of safety. Physical safety covers security, protection and social cohesion. Material safety covers adequate living standards, access to jobs and economic opportunities, and restoration of housing, land and property. Legal safety covers documentation, family reunification, participation in public affairs, and access to remedies and justice. Each indicator compares the displaced population with the host population and is rated with a traffic light, giving a snapshot that can be updated over time. The indicators were revised in 2017, drawing on work by the Joint IDP Profiling Service (JIPS), and a guidance manual and programming guide followed in 2018.
What a solutions analysis answers
Used as part of a solutions analysis, the framework helps answer four questions: what the barriers and opportunities for durable solutions are; to what extent solutions have been achieved; what changes to policy and practice are needed; and where investment should be focused. The process usually runs in three steps: agreeing a common vision of durable solutions among key stakeholders, informing policy and practice through the analysis, and, increasingly, using it to design, monitor and adapt solutions-focused programmes. It has been applied in Uganda, Somalia, Tanzania and Ethiopia, in refugee and IDP contexts, in return situations, and in camp, out-of-camp and urban settings.
What it changed in Somalia
In Somalia, analyses in Lower Juba, Bay and Benadir in late 2016 and early 2017, carried out with the UN Resident Coordinator’s office, recommended a shift to area-based responses, joint analysis and collective outcomes, and early solutions that build self-reliance from the start of displacement. In Kismayo, this fed into a joint area-based durable solutions action plan led by the Deputy Special Representative of the Secretary-General with local authorities. The three EU RE-INTEG consortia for which we are learning partner adopted four common outcomes, measured by 10 indicators drawn from the IASC and ReDSS frameworks and designed to measure contribution rather than attribution.
Where the tool falls short
The article is candid about limits. Indicators set minimum standards, which raises questions about the quality of solutions where local standards are already low. Ratings often reflect humanitarian service provision linked to displacement status, which can blur the picture when hosts are worse off than displaced people. Comparative data, within displaced groups, against hosts and against national standards, is scarce, and in Somalia the lack of quality, disaggregated data was a major obstacle. The framework is a rapid tool rather than an in-depth assessment, and has to be used as one.
Lessons for practitioners
Six lessons stand out. Collective outcome indicators work when they are defined with local stakeholders and authorities. Solutions analysis should start at the onset of displacement, so that an early analysis can serve as a baseline. Analyses must be tailored to context, and sub-national ones give the most useful detail for area-based planning. The process should be collaborative, ideally government-led, with displacement-affected communities at its centre. It need not be expensive: we relied mainly on existing secondary data. And the IASC Framework should guide programming as well as analysis.
Looking ahead, the article calls for solutions analysis to be institutionalised, led by governments working with actors beyond the humanitarian community, and tied directly to area-based strategies and collective outcomes.
Read the full article, the framework guidance manual, the theory of change and the solutions programming guide.
References
ReDSS (2018). Operationalizing the IASC Framework on Durable Solutions for IDPs in the East and Horn of Africa: an adaptive and participatory approach to inform durable solutions processes. Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat. https://www.regionaldss.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/02/ReDSS-Durable-Solution-Framework-East-Africa-Article.pdf
