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’ |