(2026-Q2) Haïti : analyse des retours communautaires et des orientations, avril à juin 2026

Haiti Operational Community Feedback Q2, 2026 Engagement: What was received? 692 pieces of feedback were received this quarter - a relative 44% drop compared to the baseline of 1,234. Feedback Received by Sector in the last 6 months 1600 1400 1200 1000 People: Who provided feedback? Women and Girls provided 58% of feedback submitted, an increase in participation of 9 percent points (pp) from the baseline. Resolution: What was resolved? 16% of the 507 completed referrals were resolved this quarter, 16pp above the baseline. Expiration: What went unanswered? No completed referrals went unresponded by service providers after 60 days - comparable from the baseline. 800 600 400 200 0 Jan Feb Abris & AME Other 6-Month Avg Mar Apr WASH Sécurité Alimentaire May Jun Santé Education About this Report As part of CCCM minimum standards, Site Management agencies collect and refer community feedback through coordination forums. This report summarizes quarterly trends in feedback collection, referral, and outcomes across participating agencies. It aims to understand how the CFM is used by the affected population, unpack service provider responses, and identify coordination gaps in referral management. Zite Manager supports this process through the Zite platform, training, and technical guidance. For more information, visit our website or email us at zitemanager@iom.int. Report Date: 08 Jul 26 Page 1 Program & Context Overview About the CCCM Program: CFM Coverage Map: IDP Sites, SM Leads & Feedback Received The CCCM Cluster in Haiti, co-led by UCLBP, DGPC, and IOM, coordinates site management and support for displaced populations in a context marked by insecurity, sudden displacement, and growing humanitarian needs. Cluster partners work in collective centres, spontaneous sites, with IDP-hosting families, and in host communities in heavily affected areas, using static, mobile, remote, and area-based approaches depending on access constraints. During the quarter, seven partner agencies operated the CFM across 60 sites. IOM recorded the highest volume of feedback (188 across 10 sites), followed by ATREPA (177 across 12 sites), ASHAPE (113 across 4 sites), APRONHA (86 across 6 sites), ICDH (71 across 11 sites), ACTED (35 across 14 sites), and CESVI (5 across 3 sites). Context: Haiti's humanitarian situation in 2026 and in this quarter, continues to deteriorate as escalating armed violence, widespread displacement, and constrained humanitarian access drive increasing needs across the country. Armed groups continue to expand their influence, particularly across the Port-au-Prince metropolitan area and parts of Artibonite, disrupting population movements, limiting access to essential services, and increasing protection risks for affected communities. Displacement remains one of the primary drivers of humanitarian need, with approximately 1.5 million people internally displaced across Haiti. Ongoing insecurity has placed significant pressure on host communities, displacement sites, and already overstretched basic services, while many households continue to face repeated displacement. Humanitarian operations remain challenged by insecurity, movement restrictions, and logistical constraints that limit access to affected populations and the delivery of assistance. At the same time, humanitarian needs continue to outpace available resources. An estimated 6.4 million people require humanitarian assistance, while funding shortfalls continue to reduce the scale and predictability of the response. Total feedback by Area Implemented in Country by Page 2 Methodology What does this report cover? New feedback is received daily and existing referrals progress at different rates through the CFM cycle. This makes it difficult to take an accurate snapshot at any given moment and compare timeperiods. To ensure clear, reproducible, and enable non-duplicated comparisons, the analysis is based on when actions were completed within the quarter. Engagement: What feedback was received? • Received Feedback: A record of all non-sensitive operational feedback received during the reporting period. This helps us understand who is engaging with the CFM and what feedback they are providing. Key Indicator: # of tickets received by sector & location. • Completed Referrals: refers to fully processed referrals. The date of completion is marked by when the results are communicated back to the feedback submitter. The results of referrals are only analysed in the quarter they were completed—not when first received—to assess how referrals are managed. Baseline Comparison: To understand performance, this quarter's results are compared to a 12-month weighted quaterly average, calculated from the past four quarters prior to the current one. • • • When comparing overall counts (e.g. total feedback or feedback from women), the relative percentage change from baseline is used, written as "+/– 2%" . When comparing percentages (e.g. % expired), we show the change in percentage points, written as "2pp". Percentages in brackets (2%) simply show the current share of a total, not a baseline comparison. All figures and charts are auto-generated through linked Python tools. Limitations: • The report excludes emergency & sensitive feedback (e.g. Code of Conduct or protection cases). Sensitive feedback is referred directly via protection pathways. Only the protection focal point’s contact details are recorded. • Community feedback reflects engagement with the CFM, not a representative assessment of population needs. • Actions not recorded in the CFM system or reported to CCCM are not captured. Findings reflect only what was processed through the CFM and should not be used to assess sector performance or service quality. • This report highlights key results only; some metrics may be excluded if data is insufficient. Covers the feedback received by Sector, location and topic and whether this feedback was referred or closed upon receipt. People: Who shared feedback? Includes who is providing feedback, broken down by demographic information, like sex, age, vulnerability, and disability. Key Indicator: Sex, Age, & Vulnerability disaggregated feedback. Resolution: What referrals were resolved? Explores what referrals were reported resolved by service providers and, if they were not resolved, the reason why they couldn’t be resolved. Only referrals completed within the quarter are analysed. Key Indicator: % of feedback reported resolved by sector & location. Expiration: What referrals went unanswered? Not all completed referrals receive a response from service providers. These "expired" referrals are reported on by Sector and location. Key Indicator: % of feedback expired by sector & location. Interested in learning more? See our methods note and previous reports. Page 3 Engagement: What Feedback was Received? This quarter, 692 feedback entries were received, representing a 44% decrease compared with the baseline and noticeably less than last quarter which received 2,408. The vast majority of feedback (98%) consisted of requests for assistance, services, or repairs, while the remaining 2% were general questions about assistance. As the CFM programme is still relatively new, comparisons with the baseline should be interpreted with caution. Large percentage changes can occur in locations that have historically received relatively few referrals. For example, sites in Boucan Carré recorded the largest increase in feedback volume compared with the baseline. Abris & AME (Shelter & NFIs) and Sécurité Alimentaire (Food Security) received the highest number of referrals overall, largely driven by sites in Portau-Prince. However, referral patterns differed across communes in central Haiti. In Thomonde, Education was the most frequently reported sector, with referrals primarily relating to families being unable to afford school fees. In Hinche, a higher proportion of referrals concerned Sécurité Alimentaire, driven mainly by requests for income-generating activities.In Delmas, the vast majority of feedback related to Abris & AME, particularly requests for "Appui au loyer / Rental Assistance requested". Despite the overall decline in feedback volume, requests for BNA kits (NFI kits) increased this quarter. This rise was driven primarily by Site Kid in Portau-Prince, which accounted for 86% of all BNA kit requests. Sectors receiving most feedback this quarter Locations with Biggest Baseline Changes 212 (31%) 24 | +2300% Abris & AME 200 (29%) Sécurité Alimentaire 109 (16%) WASH 49 | +444% Boucan Carré Top 6 Topics of Feedback 7 | -79% Belladére Pétion-Ville Most Feedback by Top Locations & Sector Activités génératrices de revenus Sécurité Abris & AME Alimentaire -27% Kit BNA +185% Appui au loyer -86% École -36% Distribution monétaire WASH Education Santé Other Port-au-Prince 127 117 58 16 34 15 Hinche 21 50 9 16 3 4 Delmas 45 10 14 3 8 6 Thomonde 5 2 8 23 2 12 Belladère 9 12 15 7 2 4 Boucan Carré 4 6 4 8 2 0 -88% Hôpital -31% 0 20 40 60 80 100 Total Feedback Received & relative -/+ pct from baseline 120 140 Page 4 People: Who Provided Feedback? Most feedback this quarter was submitted through CCCM Staff (82%), followed by Boîte à suggestion (7%) and Community Leaders (6%). Feedback submitted by Community Leaders was notably lower than the baseline, decreasing by 9 percentage points. The majority of feedback (72%) was submitted pour elle-même (on behalf of oneself), while 21% represented l'ensemble du site (the entire site) and 5% was submitted pour un groupe de personnes ou une communauté (on behalf of a group of people or a community). 274 (40%) | -43% Women & Girls 535 (77%) | -49% Men & Boys 7% 398 (58%) | -44% 5% Across all demographic groups, the most common request related to Activités génératrices de revenus (income-generating activities). However, there were some notable differences between groups. Women and girls submitted a higher proportion of feedback relating to Abris & AME (Shelter & NFIs) than men and boys, while men and boys submitted a greater proportion of feedback relating to WASH. Persons with disabilities and older people also recorded proportionally higher rates of referrals relating to Santé (Health). Feedback Channels CCCM Staff Boite à suggestion 82% Vulnerable Households Community Leaders Group Meeting or Activity Other 64 (9%) | -43% Persons with Disabilities Feedback Received by Gender, Vulnerability & PwD Men & Boys 8% 7% 8% 27% 28% 22% Women & Girls 33% 12% 6% 8% 30% 10% Vulnerable Households 28% 11% 7% 8% 31% 14% Persons with Disabilities 27% 6% 14% 22% 25% 0 6% 100 200 WASH Sécurité Alimentaire 300 Santé Other 400 Education 500 Abris & AME Page 5 Resolution: What Referrals were Resolved? Of the 507 completed referrals, 16% were successfully resolved, as reported by service providers. The overall resolution rate increased by 16 percentage points compared with the baseline. Referrals relating to Kit BNA (NFI kits) and Eau de Boisson (Drinking Water) recorded the highest resolution rates, with 71% of 31 referrals and 64% of 11 referrals resolved, respectively. The majority (84%) of completed referrals were reported as unresolved by service providers, a 16 percentage point decrease compared with the baseline. Sites in Belladère and Pétion-Ville recorded the highest unresolved referral rates, with all referrals marked as unresolved. The most common reasons in those locations were were "Future Considerations", and "No reason recorded." 507 | +745% 65 days | 2 days slower Completed Referrals Service Provider Responses to Referrals 250 200 150 100 50 0 Jan Feb Resolved Mar Other Unreachable Apr May No reason recorded 6-Month Avg Average Response Time Completed Referrals Results Compared to Baseline Top reasons feedback goes unresolved 82 (16%)| +16pp 385 (76%) Resolved Jun 425 (84%)| -16pp Unresolved 0 | 0pp No reason recorded Expired 17 (3%) 9 (2%) Unreachable Can't Technically Resolve Completed Referral Results by Top Locations Results by Sector WASH +14pp Unresolved Resolved Expired Port-au-Prince 178 (76%) 57 (24%) 0 (0%) Hinche 120 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Delmas 108 (95%) 6 (5%) 0 (0%) Pétion-Ville 16 (46%) 19 (54%) 0 (0%) Belladère 3 (100%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) -14pp Santé +0pp Education +2pp -2pp Other +5pp -5pp Abris & AME +29pp -29pp Sécurité Alimentaire +16pp 0 20 -16pp 40 60 -/+pp from baseline 80 100 120 Expired Unresolved Resolved 140 160 Page 6 All Sectors Received Referred Completed Referrals Abris & AME 212 | -60% 212 (100%) 153 | +993% 45 (29%) 108 (71%) 0 (0%) Sécurité Alimentaire 200 | -51% 200 (100%) 149 | +1142% 24 (16%) 125 (84%) 0 (0%) WASH 109 | +35% 108 (99%) 79 | +558% 11 (14%) 68 (86%) 0 (0%) Education 73 | -34% 72 (99%) 42 | +4100% 1 (2%) 41 (98%) 0 (0%) Santé 54 | -21% 54 (100%) 65 | +282% 0 (0%) 65 (100%) 0 (0%) CCCM 19 | +3% 19 (100%) 7 | +75% 1 (14%) 6 (86%) 0 (0%) Nutrition 16 | +100% 16 (100%) 11 | +0% 0 (0%) 11 (100%) 0 (0%) Protection 9 | +50% 9 (100%) 1 | +0% 0 (0%) 1 (100%) 0 (0%) Resolved Unresolved Expired Page 7 All Locations Received Referred Completed Referrals Port-au-Prince 367 | -60% 365 (99%) 235 | +343% 57 (24%) 178 (76%) 0 (0%) Hinche 103 | -69% 103 (100%) 120 | +0% 0 (0%) 120 (100%) 0 (0%) Delmas 86 | -29% 86 (100%) 114 | +1529% 6 (5%) 108 (95%) 0 (0%) Thomonde 52 | +0% 52 (100%) 0 | +0% 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Belladère 49 | +444% 49 (100%) 3 | +0% 0 (0%) 3 (100%) 0 (0%) Boucan Carré 24 | +2300% 24 (100%) 0 | +0% 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Pétion-Ville 7 | -79% 7 (100%) 35 | +0% 19 (54%) 16 (46%) 0 (0%) Cité Soleil 2 | +0% 2 (100%) 0 | +0% 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Léogâne 2 | +0% 2 (100%) 0 | +0% 0 (0%) 0 (0%) 0 (0%) Resolved Unresolved Expired Page 8