Download PDF - ReliefWeb

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Editors Rachel Houghton with Kate Robertson Contributors Chapter 1 John Borton with Lucy Carver Chapter 2 Tony Beck Chapter 3 Based on an expanded version Raymond Apthorpe prepared of his symposium paper at ALNAP’s request Chapter 4 Tony Beck with John Borton About Contributors: Prof. Raymond Apthorpe, Visiting Professor at Australia National University, Canberra; Dr Tony Beck, Evaluation and Poverty Specialist, Vancouver; John Borton and Lucy Carver, ALNAP Secretariat, London. © Overseas Development Institute, London, 2001 Photocopies of all or part of this publication may be made providing that the source is acknowledged. ALNAP would appreciate receiving details of any use of this material in training, research or programme design, implementation or evaluation. Requests for commercial reproduction of ALNAP material should be directed to ALNAP. For further copies of this publication please contact: ALNAP c/o Overseas Development Institute 111 Westminster Bridge Road London SE1 7JD United Kingdom Tel: +44 (0)20 7922 0300 Fax: +44 (0)20 7922 0399 Email: alnap@odi.org.uk Website: www.alnap.org
Foreword In April 2000 the full members of ALNAP approved the launch of the Annual Review series. They did so in the belief that an annual summary of evaluation findings, coupled with an assessment of the overall quality of evaluation reports, would provide significant added value to their work and efforts to improve the international humanitarian system’s performance. This first Annual Review confirms that belief. It draws together the principal findings of 49 evaluations of humanitarian action published during 1999 and 2000. The findings highlight areas where the performance of the humanitarian system was judged to have been satisfactory and where poor. The fact that findings are drawn from a large sample of reports gives them considerable force, and they deserve a role in the reflections and dialogues that set the agenda for improving the system’s performance. Synthesising the findings of so many separate evaluations inevitably raises questions about the standards used for assessing performance, and the quality of the evaluation reports themselves. The Annual Review, therefore, combines a synthesis of the evaluations’ main findings with a meta-evaluation of the quality of reports, showing us where evaluation practice deserves emulation and where it needs strengthening. By applying a quality proforma developed by ALNAP, the Annual Review has established a precedent. It is not the last word on what constitutes quality, and there will be further debate. However, in providing a systematic basis for assessment, it promises to be an important tool for monitoring the progress of efforts to improve the quality and effectiveness of the evaluation of humanitarian action mechanism. I firmly believe that this annual opportunity for the humanitarian system to reflect on its performance, and, for those involved in the commissioning, undertaking and use of evaluation to reflect on practice and quality, will prove invaluable. This is a positive addition to the system’s growing repertoire of instruments for measuring performance, enabling it to feel proud of its successes and admit to the continuing challenge to improve. Wayne MacDonald Chair of ALNAP (Head of Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation, ICRC) Geneva, April 2001
Page 1: ALNAP Annual Review Series 2001 Hum
Page 5 and 6: THE EVALUATIVE REPORTS DATABASE (ER
Page 7 and 8: 1.1.1 Chapter 1: Setting the scene
Page 9 and 10: US$ Millions 5000 4000 3000 2000 10
Page 11 and 12: Box 1.1 Principal Accountability In
Page 13 and 14: Box 1.2 The Development of Evaluati
Page 15 and 16: Box 1.3 The Evaluative Reports Data
Page 17 and 18: The principal contextual difference
Page 19 and 20: inactions). However, the presence o
Page 21 and 22: The first two and their sub-heading
Page 23 and 24: About half of the evaluation report
Page 25 and 26: Box 2.1 Successful Impact? ‘Despi
Page 27 and 28: tarian assistance and political act
Page 29 and 30: here. One important area is the pot
Page 31 and 32: and coordination. Evaluation report
Page 33 and 34: Other examples of longer term strat
Page 35 and 36: development bureaucracies. Such pro
Page 37 and 38: humanitarian space hampered agencie
Page 39 and 40: Box 2.6 Flood Preparedness in China
Page 41 and 42: • Improved coordination, includin
Page 43 and 44: Box 2.7 Good Practice: Participatio
Page 45 and 46: Almost none of the reports note how
Page 47 and 48: Almost all reports are based on the
Page 49 and 50: geo-political context, relations wi
Page 51 and 52: CHAPTER 3 EVALUATIONS OF HUMANITARI
Page 53 and 54:
humanitarian issues, is highly sele
Page 55 and 56:
3.2 The Kosovo Conflict: a Set of I
Page 57 and 58:
mandate. For instance: ‘One reaso
Page 59 and 60:
although higher marks for effort an
Page 61 and 62:
3.2.12 A crisis in assistance: assi
Page 63 and 64:
3.3 Agency Response Issues 3.3.1 In
Page 65 and 66:
The non-camped refugee population A
Page 67 and 68:
or slower emergency were followed (
Page 69 and 70:
eports), little provision is made e
Page 71 and 72:
While the need to focus seriously o
Page 73 and 74:
Codes of conduct and operating prin
Page 75 and 76:
3.4 Meta-evaluation: Kosovo Evaluat
Page 77 and 78:
However, little more than introduct
Page 79 and 80:
The final, M-4 layer, ought to guid
Page 81 and 82:
ights-based approach to relief migh
Page 83 and 84:
commissioning, designing and doing
Page 85 and 86:
‘While donor governments gave US$
Page 87 and 88:
accorded more careful consideration
Page 89 and 90:
4.2.6 Linking relief, rehabilitatio
Page 91 and 92:
ECHO evaluation (ECHO, 2000o) UNHCR
Page 93 and 94:
For the most part there is an accep
Page 95 and 96:
Kosovo and non-Kosovo reports were
Page 97 and 98:
agencies should ensure that suffici
Page 99 and 100:
a distinction between assessing whe
Page 101 and 102:
However, the OECD-DAC (1999) guidan
Page 103 and 104:
4.6 Concluding Remarks This Annual
Page 105 and 106:
Chapter 2 1. Use has also been made
Page 107 and 108:
ACT ANNEX 2 ACRONYMS Action by Chur
Page 109 and 110:
WFP World Food Programme (UN) WHO W
Page 111 and 112:
Impartiality An approach to the pro
Page 113 and 114:
DANIDA (1999e) Evaluation of Danish
Page 115 and 116:
Focus: Rehabilitation, resettlement
Page 117 and 118:
Objective: Review whether project m
Page 119 and 120:
Comments: Covers Montenegro, Serbia
Page 121 and 122:
Objective: Assess the impact of act
Page 123 and 124:
ANNEX 5 REFERENCES FOR OTHER SOURCE
Page 125 and 126:
Le Billon, P. (2000) The Political
Page 127:
Valid International (1999) Disaster
show all

Download PDF - ReliefWeb

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?