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