The HESPER Scale rapidly provides valid and reliable population-based data on perceived needs in humanitarian settings.

No 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.

Spending by aid agencies on emergencies has quadrupled over the last decade, to over US$6 billion. To date, cost-effectiveness has seldom been considered in the prioritization and evaluation of emergency interventions. The sheer volume of resources spent on humanitarian aid and the chronicity of many humanitarian interventions call for more attention to be paid to the issue of 'value for money'. In this paper we present data from a major humanitarian crisis, an epidemic of visceral leishmaniasis (VL) in war-torn Sudan. The special circumstances provided us, in retrospect, with unusually accurate data on excess mortality, costs of the intervention and its effects, thus allowing us to express cost-effectiveness as the cost per Disability Adjusted Life Year (DALY) averted. The cost-effectiveness ratio, of US$18.40 per DALY (uncertainty range between US$13.53 and US$27.63), places the treatment of VL in Sudan among health interventions considered 'very good value for money' (interventions of less than US$25 per DALY). We discuss the usefulness of this analysis to the internal management of the VL programme, the procurement of funds for the programme, and more generally, to priority setting in humanitarian relief interventions. We feel that in evaluations of emergency interventions attempts could be made more often to perform cost-effectiveness analyses, including the use of DALYs, provided that the outcomes of these analyses are seen in the broad context of the emergency situation and its consequences on the affected population. This paper provides a first contribution to what is hoped to become an international database of cost-effectiveness studies of health interventions during relief operations, which use a comparable measure of health outcome such as the DALY.

No abstract

The southern Africa crisis represents the first widespread emergency in a region with a mature HIV/AIDS epidemic. It provides a steep learning curve for the international humanitarian system in understanding and responding to the complex interactions between the epidemic and the causes and the effects of this crisis. It also provoked much debate about the severity and causes of this emergency, and the appropriateness of the response by the humanitarian community. The authors argue that the over-emphasis on food aid delivery occurred at the expense of other public health interventions, particularly preventative and curative health services. Health service needs were not sufficiently addressed despite the early recognition that ill-health related to HIV/AIDS was a major vulnerability factor. This neglect occurred because analytical frameworks were too narrowly focused on food security, and large-scale support to health service delivery was seen as a long-term developmental issue that could not easily be dealt with by short-term humanitarian action. Furthermore, there were insufficient countrywide data on acute malnutrition, mortality rates and performance of the public health system to make better-balanced evidence-based decisions. In this crisis, humanitarian organisations providing health services could not assume their traditional roles of short-term assistance in a limited geographical area until the governing authorities resume their responsibilities. However, relegating health service delivery as a long-term developmental issue is not acceptable. Improved multisectoral analytical frameworks that include a multidisciplinary team are needed to ensure all aspects of public health are dealt with in similar future emergencies. Humanitarian organisations must advocate for improved delivery and access to health services in this region. They can target limited geographical areas with high mortality and acute malnutrition rates to deliver their services. Finally, to address the underlying problem of the health sector gap, a long-term strategy to ensure improved and sustainable health sector performance can only be accomplished with truly adequate resources. This will require renewed efforts on part of governments, donors and the international community. Public health interventions, complementing those addressing food insecurity, were and are still needed to reduce the impact of the crisis, and to allow people to re-establish their livelihoods. These will increase the population's resilience to prevent or mitigate future disasters.

No abstract

The authors focus on the growing international momentum for interagency or joint evaluations of humanitarian response. The Interagency Health and Nutrition Evaluation (IHE) initiative, established in 2003, is described and analyzed 21 3 NEW DIRECTIONS FOR EVALUATION, no. 126, Summer 2010