Skip to main content

Table 1 Main features of approaches measuring the appropriateness of humanitarian assistance

From: Defining, measuring and interpreting the appropriateness of humanitarian assistance

Name of approach Definition of ‘appropriateness’ Methodology Data collection tools Format for reporting of findings ‘appropriateness’
Using OECD-DAC Criteria: ALNAP’s Evaluation of Humanitarian Action and Real-Time Evaluations The tailoring of humanitarian activities to local needs, increasing ownership, accountability and cost-effectiveness accordingly Qualitative No specific tool(s)
Requires development or adaptation of contextualised questions by evaluators
Primarily in narrative format (with the exception of ACF who uses a 1–5 Likert scale for rating)
Some agency-specific reporting templates
Sometimes structured around OECD-DAC criteria
Using OECD-DAC Criteria: Interagency Health and Nutrition Evaluations in Humanitarian Crises The choices of, and the balance between, various health and nutrition services (i.e. whether the right things were done). Mixed methods: qualitative and quantitative data No specific tool(s) Narrative format
No specific template
Structured around the evaluation framework’s components
Using OECD-DAC Criteria: Evaluating Humanitarian Innovation The extent to which the innovation responds to a recognised problem Recommends defining methodologies for each evaluation No specific tool(s) (depends on methodologies used) No specific template
Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountably A response based on an impartial assessment of needs and risks, and an understanding of the vulnerabilities and capacities of different groups Qualitative Tools used should collect information to support scores allocated to pre-defined indicators Scoring summary for 9 indicators and graphical display (bar chart) of 3 percentage scores for commitment 1 (relevance/appropriateness)
IASC: Operational Peer Review (OPR) No specific definition for ‘appropriateness’ Qualitative No specific tool(s) Narrative format
Recommended reporting template (‘Appropriateness’ findings under section for Focus Area 3)
IASC: Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluations of Large-Scale System-Wide Emergencies A context-specific definition of ‘appropriateness’ is developed by evaluators at the start of each evaluation Qualitative No specific tool(s) Narrative format
Recommended reporting template (no dedicated section for ‘appropriateness’ findings)
UK’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact Rapid and Performance Reviews No specific definition for ‘appropriateness’ Qualitative No specific tool(s) Narrative format
No specific template
Uses a traffic light system to rate aspects of a response, but not ‘appropriateness’
Adapted community scorecard methodology Whether relief provided is what the victim needed/ lost due to disaster Qualitative Modified community scorecard Quantitative: score between 1 and 100 for ‘appropriateness’
  1. Some approaches use ‘appropriateness’ and ‘relevance’ synonymously while others draw a clear distinction between them and consider them complementary to each other