Table 2 Aspects of ‘appropriateness’ considered by different evaluation approaches
From: Defining, measuring and interpreting the appropriateness of humanitarian assistance
Approach | Response is based on an impartial and comprehensive needs assessment | Response caters for the vulnerabilities and capacities of different groups | Response engages and ensures participation of affected communities | Response meets the expressed needs of affected communities | Response is culturally acceptable to the affected community | Response uses the appropriate modality of intervention | Other |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Using OECD-DAC Criteria: ALNAP’s Evaluation of Humanitarian Action (EHA) and Real-Time Evaluations (RTE) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | Response has appropriate choice and balance of interventions Response is based on gender analysis | |
Using OECD-DAC Criteria: Interagency Health and Nutrition Evaluations in Humanitarian Crises (IHE) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | Response shows timely adaptability to a changing context | ||
Using OECD-DAC Criteria: Evaluating Humanitarian Innovation (EHI) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ||||
Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountably (CHS) | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | Response builds on local capacities in affected communities | |
IASC: Operational Peer Review (OPR) | Response coordination mechanisms are appropriate, given the context | ||||||
IASC: Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluations of Large-Scale System-Wide Emergencies (IAHE) | ✔ | Services offered by the response are appropriate | |||||
UK’s Independent Commission for Aid Impact (ICAI) Rapid and Performance Reviews | ✔ | ✔ | Response objectives are appropriate to the context Response is appropriately-resourced | ||||
Modified community scorecard (CSC) methodology | ✔ |