The worldwide efforts to improve global health, disaster response, and humanitarian (GHDRH) efforts have gathered momentum. The essential nature of economic development to GHDRH progress is increasingly clear. The concepts of ‘evidence-based medicine’ and the ‘social determinants of health’ have introduced new rigor into the methods utilized to evaluate GHDRH interventions. Yet these methods and skills to evaluate progress are immature. Which programs and projects are effective and should be scaled up? Which efforts were hopelessly inadequate and should be avoided in future years?
There are objective standards to use for measuring effectiveness of some GHDRH programs and projects. Those from the UN’s “Millennium Development Goals” revealed mixed results in 2015, so efforts were expanded with the “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” for 2030. The 17 SDGs and 169 smaller goals (“targets”) are each aspirational and a long reach for the worldwide global health community, and data quality is dubious. Knowing which outcomes were achieved and which were not is a tall order, often requiring more sophistication than is presently practiced.
Nongovernmental organizations have created valuable and objective standards for GHDRH programs to adhere to. The SPHERE project, started in 1997, created consensus standards for refugee camp services. Its USA ‘focal point’, InterAction, is a collaboration of humanitarian groups, built to encourage higher standards and better practices. 3ie (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Inc.) supports evaluation and evidence to improve social and economic development interventions in low and middle-income countries. Financial management of non-governmental organizations is continually evaluated by GiveWell (an independent nonprofit focused on helping people do as much good as possible with their donations), Charity Navigator (independent nonprofit evaluator), and others. How do these rich sources of evaluation guide or mislead GHDRH efforts?
This Research Topic will focus on the analysis and evaluation of GHDRH project and program effectiveness. Authors are invited to submit their work on these and related questions:
• How does one incorporate non-quantitative data into an objective project or program evaluation?
• Which programs or projects showed relatively greater value than competing ones?
• How were long-term impact and unintended consequences best evaluated?
• What methods encourage programs and projects to be planned to facilitate better monitoring and evaluation as they proceed?
• How is stakeholder opinion best gathered and included in the final project or program evaluation?
• Which evaluation methods apply to disaster response but not to other GHDRH efforts?
• Are ‘sustainability’ and an exit strategy always essential to GHDRH project or program effectiveness?
• How do project or program managers avoid creation of focus on the evaluation indicators to the detriment of the preferred outcomes (Campbell’s Law)?
• Do nongovernmental organizations guide or mislead GHDRH efforts?
The answers to these questions and related concerns can be used to guide future evaluation of GHDRH project and program effectiveness.
The worldwide efforts to improve global health, disaster response, and humanitarian (GHDRH) efforts have gathered momentum. The essential nature of economic development to GHDRH progress is increasingly clear. The concepts of ‘evidence-based medicine’ and the ‘social determinants of health’ have introduced new rigor into the methods utilized to evaluate GHDRH interventions. Yet these methods and skills to evaluate progress are immature. Which programs and projects are effective and should be scaled up? Which efforts were hopelessly inadequate and should be avoided in future years?
There are objective standards to use for measuring effectiveness of some GHDRH programs and projects. Those from the UN’s “Millennium Development Goals” revealed mixed results in 2015, so efforts were expanded with the “Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)” for 2030. The 17 SDGs and 169 smaller goals (“targets”) are each aspirational and a long reach for the worldwide global health community, and data quality is dubious. Knowing which outcomes were achieved and which were not is a tall order, often requiring more sophistication than is presently practiced.
Nongovernmental organizations have created valuable and objective standards for GHDRH programs to adhere to. The SPHERE project, started in 1997, created consensus standards for refugee camp services. Its USA ‘focal point’, InterAction, is a collaboration of humanitarian groups, built to encourage higher standards and better practices. 3ie (International Initiative for Impact Evaluation, Inc.) supports evaluation and evidence to improve social and economic development interventions in low and middle-income countries. Financial management of non-governmental organizations is continually evaluated by GiveWell (an independent nonprofit focused on helping people do as much good as possible with their donations), Charity Navigator (independent nonprofit evaluator), and others. How do these rich sources of evaluation guide or mislead GHDRH efforts?
This Research Topic will focus on the analysis and evaluation of GHDRH project and program effectiveness. Authors are invited to submit their work on these and related questions:
• How does one incorporate non-quantitative data into an objective project or program evaluation?
• Which programs or projects showed relatively greater value than competing ones?
• How were long-term impact and unintended consequences best evaluated?
• What methods encourage programs and projects to be planned to facilitate better monitoring and evaluation as they proceed?
• How is stakeholder opinion best gathered and included in the final project or program evaluation?
• Which evaluation methods apply to disaster response but not to other GHDRH efforts?
• Are ‘sustainability’ and an exit strategy always essential to GHDRH project or program effectiveness?
• How do project or program managers avoid creation of focus on the evaluation indicators to the detriment of the preferred outcomes (Campbell’s Law)?
• Do nongovernmental organizations guide or mislead GHDRH efforts?
The answers to these questions and related concerns can be used to guide future evaluation of GHDRH project and program effectiveness.