Can Rigorous Impact Evaluations Improve Humanitarian Assistance?

Abstract

Each year billions of US-dollars of humanitarian assistance are mobilised in response to man-made emergencies and natural disasters. Yet, rigorous evidence for how best to intervene remains scant. This dearth reflects that rigorous impact evaluations of humanitarian assistance pose major methodological, practical and ethical challenges. While theory-based impact evaluations can crucially inform humanitarian programming, popular methods, such as orthodox RCTs, are less suitable. Instead, factorial designs and quasiexperimental designs can be ethical and robust, answering questions about how to improve the delivery of assistance. We argue that it helps to be prepared, planning impact evaluations before the onset of emergencies.

The Double Burden of Female Protracted Displacement: Survey Evidence on Gendered Livelihoods in El Fasher, Darfur

“…4 See Puri et al (2017) for an argument of how to conduct rigorous evaluations in humanitarian emergencies. 5 See https://www.worldbank.org/en/country/sudan/overview (accessed June 30, 2021).…”

Cash and voucher assistance along humanitarian supply chains: a literature review and directions for future research

“…Increasingly, rather than viewing CVA as an alternative to in‐kind assistance, studies have demonstrated the value of offering multiple modalities alongside each other, such as CVA and in‐kind assistance, to cover an assortment of needs across sectors and locales with increased flexibility and agility (see, for example, Lewin et al, 2018; Piotrowicz, 2018; Tappis and Doocy, 2018). Regardless of which modality is employed, Puri et al (2017) state that the objectives of CVA programmes must be aligned with the aims of humanitarian operations to provide agile responses and reduce human suffering, which is dependent on the HAs involved in CVA programmes.…”

“…Such conditions help to determine the degree of success of CVA programmes, which is why the delivery mechanism should suit the setting, not the other way around. Several technology‐based tools and algorithms were also reported in the literature that may support the decision‐making process, such as supply chain modelling (Sodhi and Tang, 2014), algorithms to compare voucher and cash packages (Khoury, 2019; Sahinyazan, Rancourt, and Verter, 2021), and mathematical modelling to evaluate the impacts of the response (Puri et al, 2017).…”

Money can’t buy love but can it buy peace? Evidence from the EU Programme for Peace and Reconciliation (PEACE II)

“…In recent years, the number of third-party peacebuilding interventions has grown markedly (Scherrer, 2012) as has the breadth of programming that comes under the peacebuilding umbrella (UN, 2009). The uptick in attempts to rigorously analyse the impact of these interventions is also welcome, yet the literature most commonly defaults to one of two typologies: those that focus on ‘aid’ as a whole (Azam and Thelen, 2008; Böhnke and Zürcher, 2013; Gutting and Steinwand, 2017; Nielsen et al, 2011; Savun and Tirone, 2011; Young and Findlay, 2011); or those using experimental approaches that require, amongst other things, randomized programme rollout 1 (Ackett et al, 2011; Blattman and Annan, 2011; Blattman et al, 2014, 2017; Fearon et al, 2008; Gaarder and Annan, 2013; Gilligan et al, 2013; Malhotra and Liyanage, 2005; Puri et al, 2017). Although these studies are incredibly useful, the former group lacks nuanced information on what works or why it works at the programme level.…”