Date post: | 05-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | gwendoline-scott |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
Humanitarian aid evaluation at Medecins sans Frontieres
Sabine Kampmüller, MIHMSF Vienna Evaluation Unit
http://evaluation.msf.at
Dimensions of evaluation:
Source: SDC (2002)
Evaluation post-disaster: Haiti earthquake response
Evaluation conducted 5 – 10/2010
Evaluation process
1st time (!) all section Review 6 specific reviews: Global/operational,
medical/surg, log/supply, Comms, FR, HR
Quantitative & qualitative methods data, field visits, interviews, qualitative
research - beneficiaries, web survey -staff
Limitations: Incomplete and non-uniform data Recall problems
Patients / Community’s Perception Very positive perception of MSF´s
interventions and services Fear/experience of stigmatisation,
increase of violence in the camps Lack of space for occupational and
educational activities. More attention to socio-cultural and
spiritual needs
Haiti evaluation findings: MSF was one of the biggest emergency
health actors Operational choices in line with emergency
needs; less coherent over time Common data collection difficult to
impossible International platforms / working groups
are underused / undervalued Successful adocacy on some issues,
complicated decision making prevented more
Main recommendations:
1. Organize inter-section capacity for assessment and monitoring of evolving needs and assistance
2. Define strategy on mass casualty 3. Revise emergency supply strategies4. Ensure uniform data collection5. Strengthen technical working groups6. Focus on organisational learning7. Engage with national and international actors
Thematic Evaluation: Response to displacement
Evaluation conducted2009/2010
Evaluation process
Comparison of 6 case studies (urban/rural, low/middle income, etc)
Quantitative & qualitative methods Literature research, document/tools & data
review, field visits, interviews,
Limitations: Availability of data and key people Poor documentation
Particularity of open settings
Lack of clear boundaries : Geographical spread, invisibility, needs difficult to
identify and measure, protection issues
Displaced settle in environment with available resources and existing health system Better survival capacities, but deterioration likely
Protracted, chronic or intermittent character: Mortality near-normal levels (pre-emergency), might rise
slowly over time
Findings on assessment
Complexity of open settings requires more attention to assessment
Critical aspects of information missing Quantitative information difficult to obtain Health system issues, access barriers little addressed
Concerns on the use of surveys Views of displaced and host often omitted Capacities and vulnerabilities not
assessed
Recommendations on assessment
Develop innovative assessment approaches for inaccessible areas
Distance assessment“ Promote systematic use of qualitative
methods Adopt concept of “continual” assessment Develop a frame to assess vulnerabilities,
capacities and coping Provide better support and guidance
assessment toolbox, experts, training
Findings on intervention
Engagement with the health system a main challenge
Outreach workers invaluable, set ups improvable
Non-medical assistance is marginal Overambitious targets of coverage Strategy adapted to the level of
emergency
Recommendations on intervention
Need for new intervention frameworks Adopt existing models
Generalize the practice to cover both displaced and host where appropriate
Define the criteria / scope of “light support”
Develop community based strategies
Evaluation criteria (donors)
Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Impact Sustainability
Appropriateness (Connectedness) (Coherence)
Timeliness Coordination Coverage
Adopted from: Hallam, A. Good practice review (ODI), 1998