Download
1 / 25
250 likes | 464 Views
EVALUATION of HUMANITARIAN ACTION - an initial discussion around PHT evaluations following future emergencies -. Pacific Humanitarian Team Day 4. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Objective of this session is to: .
E N D
EVALUATION of HUMANITARIAN ACTION - an initial discussion around PHT evaluations following future emergencies - Pacific Humanitarian Team Day 4 United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
Objective of this session is to: Common understanding of Evaluations and evaluation criteria Based on Evaluation criteria, in working groups (Clusters, NDMO, Donor) come up with questions that will be considered in future Evaluation of humanitarian action in the Pacific.
Difference btwnmonitoring and evaluation Monitoring routine assessment of ongoing activities and progress. systematic and continuous assessment of the progress of a piece of work over time. To help all the people involved make appropriate and timely decisions that will improve the quality of the work.
Difference btwn monitoring and evaluation Evaluation episodic assessment of overall achievements of programme objectives. focuses on measuring whether planned outcomes and impacts have been realized.
Purpose of Evaluation: ‘LESSON LEARNING’ and/or ‘ACCOUNTABILITY’?
Purpose of Evaluation: ‘LESSON LEARNING’ and/or ‘ACCOUNTABILITY’?
Evaluation Criteria Relevance and Appropriateness Relevance is concerned with assessing whether the project is in line with local needs and priorities (as well as donor policy). Appropriateness is the tailoring of humanitarian activities to local needs, increasing ownership, accountability and cost-effectiveness accordingly
Evaluation Criteria Relevance and Appropriateness Effectiveness Effectiveness measures the extent to which an activity achieves its purpose, or whether this can be expected to happen on the basis of the outputs
Evaluation Criteria Relevance and Appropriateness Effectiveness Connectedness (sustainability) Connectedness refers to the need to ensure that activities of a short-term emergency nature are carried out in a context that takes longer-term and interconnected problems into account (sustainability – the idea that interventions should support longer-term goals)
Evaluation Criteria Relevance and Appropriateness Effectiveness Connectedness (sustainability) Coverage Coverage is the need to reach major population groups facing life threatening suffering, wherever they are.
Evaluation Criteria Relevance and Appropriateness Effectiveness Connectedness (sustainability) Coverage Coordination Coordination: the systematic use of policy instruments to deliver humanitarian assistance in a cohesive and effective manner. Such instruments include strategic planning, gathering data and managing information, mobilisingresources, etc…
Additional Criteria Include… Efficiency Impact Coherence Proportionality
Additional Criteria Include… Efficiency Efficiency measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative - achieved as a result of inputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving an output, to see whether the most efficient approach has been used
Additional Criteria Include… Efficiency Impact Impact looks at the wider effects of the project - social, economic, technical and environmental – on individuals, gender - and age-groups, communities and institutions. Impacts can be intended and unintended, positive and negative, macro (sector) and micro (household)
Additional Criteria Include… Efficiency Impact Coherence Coherence is the need to assess security, developmental, trade and military policies as well as humanitarian policies, to ensure that there is consistency and, in particular, that all policies take into account humanitarian and human-rights considerations
Additional Criteria Include… Efficiency Impact Coherence Proportionality Proportionality is the extent to which a particular humanitarian response is in proportion to the needs of affected people, and to other similar emergency responses.
Evaluation Stages: 1 - Planning: draft concept note, establish steering group, draft TOR. 2 - Preparation and research: Project/programme research, Interviews, Planning country visits and dissemination strategy 3 - Country visit: Evaluation research, Workshop(s) 4 - Reporting: Draft report and evaluation summary, circulate report for comment 5 - Dissemination: Publication and distribution of report and evaluation summary
Evaluation Stages: 1 - Planning: draft concept note, establish steering group, draft TOR. 2 - Preparation and research: Project/programme research, Interviews, Planning country visits and dissemination strategy 3 - Country visit: Evaluation research, Workshop(s) 4 - Reporting: Draft report and evaluation summary, circulate report for comment 5 - Dissemination: Publication and distribution of report and evaluation summary 6 – Follow-up - Acting on recommendations
joint evaluations? Joint evaluations are overall of higher quality than single agency evaluations, for example: (i) TOR are generally clearer (ii) consultation with local populations and beneficiaries is stronger (iii) more attention is paid to international standards; and (iv) the EHA criteria are more rigorously used.
A category 4 cyclone has just struck port vila and the outer islands of vanuatu Each working group review evaluation criteria and derive a set of questions to be used in a future joint evaluation of PHT response. • Team 1-7: The Clusters • Team 8: Donors and NDMOs • (Donors, NDMOs and OCHA to comprise team 8)
