This working paper, prepared in advance of the Annual ALNAP meeting in Sweden, primarily attempts to reassess the assumptions of how ‘change initiatives’ actually transform the humanitarian ‘system’, seeking to clarify both how change happens and how change can be supported.
This cheat sheet is intended to serve as a reference guide for key terms and concepts frequently used when talking about results-based approaches to protection (RBP).
In this series of tip sheets, InterAction highlights helpful considerations, resources, and examples of good practice to cultivate an evaluative mindset and using evaluation to adapt interventions for protective impact. The previous installments in this series of tips focused on establishing “evaluability” for protection interventions, defining the purpose and determining the criteria for success, and selecting evaluation approaches and methods. Iterative evaluation practice requires an enabling environment that supports feedback loops, whereby analysis and recommendations feed into decision-making and programmatic and strategic adaptation. This final tip sheet highlights a few considerations for the resources, processes, and organizational culture which support iterative evaluation for protection.
In this series of tip sheets, InterAction highlights helpful considerations, resources, and examples of good practice to cultivate an evaluative mindset and using evaluation to adapt interventions for protective impact. The first installment of this series of tips focused on establishing “evaluability” for protection interventions, defining the purpose and determining the criteria for success. This tip sheet outlines the next stages in the process – from refining our evaluation questions to considering which methods and approaches can help us learn and adapt in an iterative way.
In this series of tip sheets, InterAction will highlight helpful considerations, resources, and examples of good practice as it relates to cultivating an evaluative mindset and using evaluation to adapt interventions for protective impact. The first installment of this series of tips focuses on establishing “evaluability” for protection interventions, defining the purpose and determining the criteria for success.
The 2012 Independent Review Panel Report on UN’s Sri Lanka Response highlighted inadequate contextual analysis, little investment in local capacities, and lack of strategic orientation towards protection outcomes
In 2011, the IASC Principals agreed to five Commitments on Accountability to Affected Populations (CAAP) as part of a framework for engagement with communities. The revised version was developed and endorsed by the IASC Principals in November 2017 to reflect essential developments such as the Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS), the work done by the IASC on inter-agency community-based complaints mechanisms including PSEA, and the importance of meaningful collaboration with local stakeholders, which came out as a priority recommendation from the 2016 World Humanitarian Summit and in the Grand Bargain.
These discussions dug deeply into how peace and development programs consider the pressing issues of safety, security, privacy, flexibility, and accessibility in an increasingly tech-enabled world.
The Results-Based Protection Program continues to explore key components in current practice to better adjust and refine the approach and guidance needed to support both program and situation monitoring of a response.
In this short video, leadership expert Simon Sinek talks about how an organizational culture supportive of outcomes and built on strong relationships is achieved through consistency, not intensity.