1 / 13

Joint humanitarian impact evaluation: options paper    Tony Beck

This paper outlines a facilitated consultation process for discussing options and mechanisms for joint humanitarian impact evaluation. It highlights the importance of involving various stakeholders such as affected populations, NGOs, government entities, and donors. The aim is to gather valuable insights and perspectives to guide future joint impact evaluation initiatives.

bcarey
Télécharger la présentation

Joint humanitarian impact evaluation: options paper    Tony Beck

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Joint humanitarian impact evaluation: options paper   Tony Beck 25th ALNAP Meeting, London, 18th November 2009 Commissioned by the Evaluation and Studies Section UNOCHA

  2. Purpose of paper • To set out a process for facilitated consultation over six to nine months on options for joint humanitarian impact evaluation • To delineate options for discussion during the consultation process

  3. Purpose of workshop session • To discuss the proposed consultation mechanisms and focus • To discuss whether the options presented are the right ones to discuss NOTE: the purpose of the session is not to have an in-depth discussion of the options, as this is planned to take place over the next 6-9 months

  4. Background • Ongoing discussion on joint impact evaluation among agencies including OCHA, ECB and UNICEF • Evaluability study completed in June 2009 • Need for sustained consultation identified by respondents

  5. Consultation in two countries with: • The affected population • Local NGOs • National and local government • International NGOs • Clusters • UNCT/HCT • Donors • Plus regional level consultation

  6. Consultation at the international level with: • ALNAP members and observers, including the UN, IFRC, INGOs, academics and research bodies, independent evaluators • Evaluation bodies, Paris Declaration evaluation Phase 2 • Donors

  7. Consultation coordination • OCHA forms and chairs a working group on joint impact evaluation • The working group guides the consultation process, synthesizes the consultation results, and makes recommendations on the future of joint impact evaluation

  8. Consultation: process Working group should oversee development of: • a short background brief on each option • a set of key discussion points, and • a method for capturing and writing up the findings from each consultation process

  9. Consultation – what would it look like? • Consultation with the affected population: How can we meaningfully discuss with the affected population their priorities and perspectives on joint impact evaluation? On what kinds of topics would affected people like a joint impact evaluation to focus? Who will lead the consultation process with the affected population; can it be fitted into ongoing consultation processes?

  10. Consultation – what would it look like? • Donors Two donor forums in country hosted by e.g. donor coordination forum, focusing on options: what do donors want joint impact evaluation to look like? Similar forum e.g. in London, Geneva or New York for HQ staff

  11. Options for consultation • Evaluation purpose: judgment, and/or internal lesson learning, and/or generalized knowledge generation? • Evaluation focus: institution, affected population, or both? The entire system, of parts of the system? • Method: mainly quantitative, mainly qualitative, or mixed (if feasible)?

  12. Options for consultation • Capacity: national or international evaluators, or both?   • Method: pilots in which places?   • Co-ordination: a common framework approach?   • Optimal management arrangements for joint impact evaluation: a dual structure?

  13. Areas for discussion today • What should the working group to guide the process look like (e.g. similar to the ALNAP Steering Committee)? • Is there anything missing from the consultation process? • Are there other options that need to be discussed, and/or are some of those presented not needed?

More Related