Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T14:55:16.006Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Expanding the Scope of Humanitarian Program Evaluation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Paul Bolton ,
Judith Bass ,
Laura Murray ,
Katharine Lee ,
William Weiss  and
Sharon M. McDonnell
Paul Bolton*
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Judith Bass
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Laura Murray
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Katharine Lee
Affiliation:
Harvard Business School, Allston, Massachusetts, USA
William Weiss
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA
Sharon M. McDonnell
Affiliation:
Dartmouth Medical School, Hanover, New Hampshire, USA
*
Paul Bolton, MBBS, MPH Center for Refugee and Disaster Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 615 N.Wolfe St., Room E8646 Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA E-mail [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The effectiveness of humanitarian programs normally is evaluated according to a limited number of pre-defined objectives. These objectives typically represent only selected positive expected impacts of program interventions and as such, are inadequate benchmarks for understanding the overall effectiveness of aid.This is because programs also have unexpected impacts (both positive and negative) as well as expected negative impacts and expected positive impacts beyond the program objectives.The authors contend that these other categories of program impacts also should be assessed, and suggest a methodology for doing so that draws on input from the perspectives of beneficiaries. This paper includes examples of the use of this methodology in the field. Finally, the authors suggest future directions for improving this type of expanded assessment and advocate for its widespread use, both within and without the field of disaster response.

Keywords

disasterevaluationhumanitarianimpactmethodobjectiveprogramresponse
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 22 , Issue 5 , October 2007 , pp. 390 - 395
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1.Taylor, AJ, Cuny, FC: Conference report: The evaluation of humanitarian assistance. Disasters 1979;3(1):37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Roberts, L, Hofmann, CA: Assessing the impact of humanitarian assistance in the health sector. Emerg Themes Epidemiol 2004;1(1):3.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3.VanRooyen, MJ, Hansch, S, Curtis, D, et al. : Emerging issues and future needs in humanitarian assistance. Prehospital Disast Med 2001;16(4):216–222.Google ScholarPubMed
4.Griekspoor, A, Sondorp, E: Enhancing the quality of humanitarian assistance: Taking stock and future initiatives. Prehospital Disast Med 2001;16(4):209–215.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5.Hofmann, CA, Roberts L, Shoham, et al. : Measuring the impact of humanitarian aid: A review of current practice.London, UK:Overseas Development Institute, Health Policy Group Report, June 2004. Available at http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/publications_date2004.html. Accessed 11 June 2007.Google Scholar
6. Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Geneva, Switzerland: Sphere Project, 2006. Available at http://www.sphereproject.org/content/view/34/84/lang, English. Accessed 05 June 2007.Google Scholar
7.Bolton, P: Local perceptions of the mental health effects of the Rwandan genocide. J Nerv Ment Dis 2001;189(4):243–248.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response: Appendix 3: Formulas for calculating rates of mortality and morbidity. Geneva, Switzerland: Sphere Project, 2006 Available at http://www.sphereproject. org/content/view/133/0/lang, English/.Accessed 07 June 2007.Google Scholar
9. US Agency for International Development: Standardized Monitoring and Assessment of Relief and Transitions (SMART): Protocols and Methods. Available at http://www.smartindicators.org/protocol.htm.Accessed 07 June 2007.Google Scholar
10.Bolton, P, Bass, J, Neugebauer, R, et al. : Results of a clinical trial of a group intervention for depression in rural Uganda. JAMA 2003;289:3117–3124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11.Walker, P, Leaning, J, Minear, L: Smoke and mirrors: Deficiencies in disaster funding. BMJ 2005;330:247–250.Google Scholar
12.Salama, P, Spiegel, P, Talley, L, et al. : Lessons learned from complex emergencies over the past decade. Lancet 2004;364:1801–1813.Google Scholar
13.Athukorala, P, Resosudarmo, BP: The Indian Ocean tsunami: Economic impact, disaster management and lessons. Asian Economic Papers (in press). Available at http://rspas.anu.edu.au/economics/publish/papers/wp2005/wpecon-2005-05.pdf. Accessed 05 May 2007.Google Scholar
14.Baker, J: Evaluating the Impact of Development Projects on Poverty: A Handbook for Practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank, 2000.Google Scholar
15.Shippee, J: Appendix D: U.S. Organizational Experience with Volunteer Health Programs. In: Mullan, F, Panosian, C, Cuff, P (eds.): Healers Abroad: Americans Responding to the Human Resource Crisis in HIV/AIDS. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, 2005.Google Scholar
16.Ogunmefun, C, Schatz, E: Caregivers' sacrifices: The opportunity costs of adult morbidity and mortality on female pensioners in rural South Africa. Available at http://www.colorado.edu/ibs/pubs/pop/pop2006-0011.pdf. Accessed 11 June 2007.Google Scholar
17.Russell, LB: Opportunity costs in modern medicine. Health Affairs 1992;11(2):162–169.Google Scholar
18.White, H: Challenges in Evaluating Development Effectiveness. Washington DC:World Bank, 2003. Available at http://www.worldbank.org/oed/conference2003/ agenda.htm. Accessed 11 June 2007.Google Scholar
19.Abirafeh, L: Lessons from gender-focused international aid in post-conflict Afghanistan…learned? Bonn, Germany: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, 2005. Available at http://fesportal.fes.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/WORLDWIDE/ ASIEN/BERICHTE/BERICHTE2005/AFGHANISTAN0905 ABIRAFEHGENDER.PDF. Accessed 11 June 2007.Google Scholar
20.Thomas, A: Linking preparedness and performance: The tsunami experience. Humanitarian Exchange 2005;32. Available at http://www.odihpn.org/documents/ humanitarianexchange032.pdf #page=38. Accessed 01 June 2007.Google Scholar
21.Bolton, P: Cross-cultural validity and reliability testing of a standard psychiatric assessment instrument without a gold standard. J Nerv Ment Dis 2001;189(4):238–242.Google Scholar
22.Murray, LK, Haworth, A, Semrau, K, et al. : Violence and abuse among HIVinfected women and their children in Zambia: A qualitative study. J Nerv Ment Dis 2006;194(8):608–615.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23.Weiss, W, Bolton, P: Training in Qualitative Research Methods for PVOs and NGOs: A Trainer's Guide to Strengthen Program Planning and Evaluation. Baltimore, Maryland: Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, 2000.Google Scholar
24.Bolton, P, Neugebauer, R, Ndogoni, L: Prevalence of depression in rural Rwanda based on symptom and functional criteria. J Nerv Ment Dis 2002;190(9):631–637.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25.Bolton, P, Tang, A: An alternative approach to cross-cultural function assessment. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol 2002;37(11):537–543.Google Scholar
26.Sundnes, KO, Birnbaum, ML (eds): Health disaster management: Guidelines for evaluation and research in the Utstein style. Prehospital Disast Med 2003;17 (4, suppl 3):s31–s143.Google Scholar