Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T19:02:19.823Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Enhancing the Quality of Humanitarian Assistance: Taking Stock and Future Initiatives

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 June 2012

Andre Griekspoor  and
Egbert Sondorp
Andre Griekspoor*
Affiliation:
Technical Officer, Department of Emergency and Humanitarian Action, World Health Organisation, Geneva, Switzerland
Egbert Sondorp
Affiliation:
Senior Lecturer Public Health and Humanitarian Aid, Health Policy Unit, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
*
Emergency Health Intelligence and Capacity Building Officer, Department of Emergency and Humanitarian Action, World Health Organisation, 20, Avenue Appia, CH-1211 Geneva 27, Switzerland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During the last five years, the debate on the performance of humanitarian assistance has intensified. The motivation to “do better” has come both from within the humanitarian agencies as well as from pressure exerted by the donors and the media. Paradoxically, until now, the voice of those who are to benefit from this assistance has not been heard.

This paper is an overview of the most important initiatives to increase the quality of humanitarian assistance. The introduction of the logical framework and the increasing body of knowledge made available through guidelines have improved project management by measuring process and outcomes. Increasingly, evaluations are used to give account and to learn from experiences. But, current evaluation practice must develop in a wider variety of approaches more appropriate to create change of the operations in the field. Some agencies oppose new developments like the Sphere and the Humanitarian Accountability Projects, arguing that standards and regulation would undermine necessary flexibility to adjust responses to the local context, or be a threat to their independence. Nonetheless, standards are considered to be a prerequisite as reference to assess performance. Furthermore, it is hoped that a new breakthrough will be achieved by improved accountability towards beneficiaries.

An option to address some of the gaps in the current quality assessment tools was to widen the perspective on performance from projects to the organisations behind them. Quality management models may provide the required framework, and they also can be used to embed current initiatives by organisations. Humanitarian organisations may want to develop forms of self-regulation rather than waiting for accreditation by donors. Another area in which progress is needed is a system-wide approach to performance. At this level, the influence of political actors, donors, national governments, and other representatives of the parties in a conflict also should be assessed. It is their legal obligation to protect the basic right to assistance of persons affected by disasters, as enshrined in international law.

Keywords

accountabilityALNAPassessmentbenefitscomplex emergenciesdisasterdonorsevaluationsframeworkgovernmentsguidelineshumanitarian assistancehumanitarian organizationsinternational lawmanagementmediaperformanceprojectsqualityregulationSphere Project
Type
Part 1. Complex Emergencies: Lessons Learned
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 16 , Special Issue 4: Complex Emergencies , December 2001 , pp. 209 - 215
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2001

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.Reed, H, Keely, CB: Forced Migration and Mortality. Roundtable on the demography of forced migration committee on population. National Academy Press: Washington DC, 2001.Google Scholar
2.Duffield, M: The Political Economy of Internal War: Asset Transfer, Complex Emergencies and International Aid. In: Macrae, J, Zwi, A [eds], War and Hunger, 1994. pp 50–69.Google Scholar
3.Overseas Development Institute (ODI): Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda, Study III: Humanitarian Aid and Effects. ODI: London, UK. 1995.Google Scholar
4.Development Assistance Committee on International Development Statistics: The Total Net Flow of Financial Resources from DAC Countries to Developing Countries and Multilateral Organisations by Type of Flow, Table 2. http://www.oecd.org/dac/htm/dacstats.htm Accessed 27 August 2001.Google Scholar
5.Macrae, J, Leader, N: The Politics of Coherence: Humanitarianism and Foreign Policy in the Post-Cold War Era. Overseas Development Institute: London. 2000.Google Scholar
6.Overseas Development Institute (ODI): The State of the International Humanitarian System. Briefing paper. Overseas Development Institute: London, March 1998 (1).Google Scholar
7.Hakewill, PA, Moren, A: Monitoring and evaluation of relief programs. Tropical Doctor 1991;Supplement 1:24–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8.Médecins Sans Frontières: Refugee Health; An Approach to Emergency Situations. Macmillan: London. 1997.Google Scholar
9.Noji, EK, Toole, MJ: The historical development of public health response to disasters. Disasters 1997;21(4):366–376.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Interaction: Programs and courses for disaster response professionals. An inventory prepared by Interaction, http://www.multidb.com/interaction-training/. Accessed 01 September 2001.Google Scholar
11. Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement and NGOs in disaster relief. Geneva, 1994. http://www.ifrc.org/publicat/conduct/. Accessed 27 August 2001.Google Scholar
12.Commission of the European Communities Evaluation Unit: Manual Project Cycle Management. Integrated approach and Logical Framework. Methods and Instruments for Project Cycle Management. No.l, February 1993.Google Scholar
13.Borton, J: Progress Report on the ALNAP Small Study: Achieving Greater Commonality in the Monitoring and Reporting of Humanitarian Assistance. ALNAP, ODI: London. 1998.Google Scholar
14.Hallam, A: Good Practice Review 7, In: Evaluating Humanitarian Assistance Programs in Complex Emergencies. Relief and Rehabilitation Network. Overseas Development Institute: London. September 1998.Google Scholar
15.OECD/DAC: Guidance for evaluating humanitarian assistance in complex emergencies. 1999. http://www.oecd.org/dac/htm/pubs/p_eval.htm. Accessed 28 August 2001.Google Scholar
16. The Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action, www.odi.org.uk/alnap. Accessed 28 August 2001.Google Scholar
17.The Sphere Project: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response, 1st ed. Geneva 2000. http://www.sphereproject.org.Google Scholar
18.People in Aid: Promoting best practice in the management and support of aid personnel, http://www.peopleinaid.org/. Accessed 27 August 2001.Google Scholar
19.Ombudsman Project: Outcome and Next Steps. Humanitarian Ombudsman Project Meeting. Geneva, 16 March 2000.Google Scholar
20. Humanitarian Accountability Project, http://www.hapgeneva.org. Accessed 27 August 2001.Google Scholar
21.Anderson, MB: Do No Harm: How Aid Can Support Peace—Or War? Revised 1999 Local Capacity for Peace Project www.cdainc.com/lcpp-index.htm. Accessed 30 May 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22.Stockton, N (speaking notes): Keeping the International Community Involved in Zones of Conflict No Longer in Fashion. Taplow Court, 04 March 2000.Google Scholar
23.Gostelow, L: The Sphere Project: The implications of making humanitarian principles and codes work. Disasters 1999;23:4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Griekspoor, A, Collins, S: Raising standards in emergency relief: A debate on the usefulness of the “Sphere” minimum standards for humanitarian assistance. Accepted for publication, BMJ 18 June 2001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25.Personal communication: Marius Buiting, CBO, Institute for Quality in Utrecht, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
26. Platforme des ONG pour une autre approche qualité de l'action humanitaire Groupe URD: May 2000. http://www.urd.org/rech/sphere/platform.htm. Accessed 27 August 2001.Google Scholar
27. Projet qualite projet pour l'amelioration de la qualite de l'action humanitaire. Groupe URD: July 2000. http://www.urd.org/projqual/1prqual.htm. Accessed 27 August 2001.Google Scholar
28.Gaspers, D: Logical Frameworks: A critical assessment. Working paper no.278. Institute of Social Sciences: The Hague: The Netherlands. 1997.Google Scholar
29.Van de Putte, B: Follow-up to evaluations of humanitarian programs. Findings of the ALNAP commissioned study: Improving the Follow-up to Evaluations of Humanitarian Programs. April 2001.Google Scholar
30.ALNAP: Report on the ALNAP ‘State of the Art’ Colloquium on Humanitarian Evaluation. UNICEF House: New York, 02-03 October, 2000.Google Scholar
31. World Health Organization and the Pan-American Health Organization in collaboration with the ICRC, UNHCR, UNICEF, and the Sphere Project. The global virtual library of essential information resources of public health for disasters and complex emergencies. Health Library for Disasters on CD-ROM, www.who.int/eha/disasters/.Google Scholar
32.Salama, P, Buzard, N, Spiegel, P: Improving standards in international humanitarian response: The Sphere Project and Beyond. JAMA 2001;286:5:531–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33.ALNAP: Global study to improve consultation with, and participation by, beneficiaries and affected populations in the process of planning, managing, monitoring and evaluating humanitarian programs. Planned study. 2001.Google Scholar
34.Houghton, R, Robertson, K: ALNAP Annual review 2001: Humanitarian Action: Learning from Evaluation. ODI: London. 2001.Google Scholar
35.Van de Putte, B: Synthesis study of the first 10 evaluations done through the M&E unit. Medecins Sans Frontieres: Amsterdam. May 2000.Google Scholar
36.Reddkk, M, Telford, J: Further Development of the Learning Office Concept with Reference to Sierra Leone and East Timor and a Developed Proposal to Run a Test Office during 2001, October 2000. http://www.alnap.org/alnappubs.html. Accessed 10 September-2001.Google Scholar
37.Taylor, AJ, Cuny, FC: The evaluation of humanitarian assistance. Conference report. Disasters 1979;3(1):37–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
38.NCVO: Quality for the voluntary sector, http://www.ncvo-vol.org,uk/main/about/does/qs.html. Accessed 29 August 2001.Google Scholar
39.Griekspoor, A: From doing good to doing good things right: An analysis on the applicability of the EFQM model for Quality Management to Humanitarian Organisations. Final paper, MPH, Netherlands School of Public Health, Utrecht. 02 June, 2000.Google Scholar
40.Nabitz, U, Klazinga, NS: EFQM approach and the Dutch Quality Award. International Journal of Health Care Quality Assurance 1999;12(2):65–70.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
41. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Assistance. Technical Guidelines for the Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeals Process. Updated draft, August 2001.Google Scholar
42.WHO: 2000: Proposal for a Series of Studies on Public Health and Humanitarian Action. http://www.who.int/disasters/tg.cfm?doctypeID=17.Google Scholar
43.Goma Epidemiology Group. Public health impact of Rwandan refugee crisis: What happened in Goma, Zaire, in July 1994? Lancet 1995;345:339–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
44.Waldman, R: Prioritising health care in complex emergencies. Lancet 2001;357:1427–1429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
45.Curtis, D: Politics and Humanitarian Aid: Debates, Dilemmas and Dissension. Overseas Development Institute: London. 2001.Google Scholar