Humanitarian action in developing countries: who evaluates who?

Area of Science:

• Humanitarian Aid and Development
• Non-profit Management
• Program Evaluation

Background:

• Current evaluations of humanitarian NGOs and intergovernmental organizations are primarily conducted by funders, not beneficiaries.
• Existing evaluation methods often overlook field surveys, opinion polls, and socioeconomic impact assessments.
• Evaluations commissioned by stakeholders present conflicts of interest, leading to biased analysis and avoidance of critical issues.

Purpose of the Study:

• To propose a framework for developing independent, third-party evaluations of humanitarian organizations.
• To address the limitations and conflicts of interest inherent in current evaluation systems.
• To enhance accountability and facilitate learning within the humanitarian sector.

Main Methods:

• Advocating for evaluations that are neither paid nor commissioned by stakeholders (NGOs, institutional funders).
• Ensuring evaluation methodology and results are publicly accessible to promote transparency and learning.
• Developing a framework that emphasizes qualitative analysis, process focus, and acknowledgment of subjectivity to gain acceptance from evaluated organizations.

Main Results:

• Independent third-party evaluations can mitigate conflicts of interest inherent in funder-led assessments.
• Public accessibility of evaluation data fosters greater accountability and knowledge sharing.
• A framework focusing on process, context, and qualitative insights enhances the utility and acceptance of evaluations.

Conclusions:

• Independent evaluations, free from stakeholder influence and publicly accessible, are crucial for improving humanitarian aid effectiveness.
• The proposed framework offers a more robust and transparent approach to assessing humanitarian organizations.
• Adopting these principles can lead to more meaningful learning and prevent the repetition of past mistakes in humanitarian interventions.