ARTICLE - KEY FINDINGS OF ALNAP'S MAPPING AND ANALYSIS

HAITI EARTHQUAKE RESPONSE - KEY FINDINGS FROM ALNAP'S MAPPING AND ANALYSIS OF EVALUATIONS
(Reuters) - By Josh Harris - Source: ALNAP

As of January 2011, at least 45 evaluations are known to have been done of various aspects of the international response to the Haiti earthquake. ALNAP's latest report provides a mapping and analysis of these evaluations, to help support the ongoing efforts by agencies working in Haiti. ALNAP has worked with the OECD-DAC Evaluation Network, the UN Evaluation Group to produce this paper and this blog represents some of the key findings that may be of interest to ALNAP members.

Emerging conclusions The aim of this report is to survey evaluation activity, rather than to synthesize the lessons from evaluations. Nonetheless, a brief summary of the principal conclusions emerging so far can be identified:

1. Despite great personal losses, huge logistical challenges and a disaster of enormous scale, international donors and agencies quickly mobilized to deliver medical care, food, water, shelter and protection for people in need.

2. The quality of the initial response was hindered by: a ceaseless flow of often-inexperienced small NGOs and in-kind donations; a limited understanding of the context, particularly the urban setting; by-passing of local authorities and civil society groups; insufficient communication with affected populations; lack of attention to how assistance could better support coping strategies; weak humanitarian leadership structures, including a weak relationship with military leadership; inadequate systems for data collection and analysis.

3. These weaknesses in the humanitarian response have had a negative impact on the speed and sustainability of recovery going forward. At the same time, the success of Haiti’s recovery will primarily be driven by whether an effective and inclusive government-led plan for recovery and reconstruction exists.

Evaluation challenges
Over the coming months and years, international aid agencies will continue to try to understand – through evaluation – what they could have done better, and what can be still be changed going forward. Looking at the mapping of currently planned evaluations it is clear that several areas need attention:

Expanding the range of methods being used. This could include longer field missions, more engagement with national staff and local partner organizations, more open-ended dialogue with beneficiaries, and more links to programmatic and policy development.

Exploring partnerships to evaluate national actors. The scope for joint evaluations between international agencies and government or civil society groups may exist, so that attention is given to how the two ‘sectors’ worked together in the response and how national actors can be better supported.

Linking up with longer-term monitoring and learning efforts. Aid monitoring will continue for years to come, and the evaluation of humanitarian assistance should link up with these longer-term initiatives, in an iterative process which builds on the advantages of each.

Considering making evaluations more targeted and specific, while working in partnership, so that teams can more realistically cover subjects in depth, and the overall case load of evaluations is more coherent and comprehensive.

Above all, evaluations should focus on how national actors can be better supported to recover faster and truly ‘build back better’. This learning should take place both from key Haitian stakeholders, and alongside them.