In a recent blog post with the American Evaluation Association, the University of British Columbia Learning Lab shared their Voices UP! community theatre approach to make the results of a recent evaluation accessible to a broader community audience.
In efforts to cultivate an environment for iterative learning and move us away from “success” and “failure” thinking, the Start Network reflects on recent cases under the Network’s Crisis Anticipation Window, which illuminated valuable lessons in terms of analysis, adaptation, and risk.
On October 14-15, 2018, the co-chairs of the Centrality of Protection Task Team, OCHA, and InterAction supported the Global Protection Cluster (GPC) to convene a workshop to take stock of the implementation of the IASC Policy on Protection in Humanitarian Action (2016) and the IASC Principals Statement on the Centrality of Protection in Humanitarian Action (2013).
InterAction conducted field research in Erbil, Mosul, Kirkuk, Baghdad, Anbar, and Karbala from 23 July-9 August 2018 to assess the most pressing protection issues and how they can be addressed by a whole-of-system response in line with the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s (IASC) Protection Policy.
In 2017, InterAction conducted two such missions to Myanmar. The protection mission focused on NGO roles in relation to the overall protection leadership, coordination, and strategies. During post-mission feedback sessions with the consulted in-country field staff, InterAction was made aware of the need for a follow-up mission to look at the relevance and implementation of the recommendations of the outcome paper. InterAction subsequently conducted a short mission from 2 – 6 June, 2018.
his report distills the good practice and learning gleaned from the 3-years of implementation in Bangladesh, South Sudan, and the Philippines, on methods for engaging communities and collaborative platforms for working toward this end.
This literature review takes a deeper dive to explore the contexts where humanitarian leaders are expected to make decisions, the range of decision-making approaches which exist, and the effectiveness of these approaches in humanitarian crises.
Building on the Humanitarian Policy Group’s (HPG) work on remaking humanitarian action for the modern era, HPG, along with their partner ThinkPlace, initiated a design thinking experiment to capture ideas and discussions of major stakeholders to reimagine humanitarian action.
In their September 2017 report, Mercy Corps and Think Peace (through a series of interviews with youth members of armed groups, non-violent youth, and community leaders in Mali) aim to trace the pathways that youth take to armed groups, as well as the factors that enable others to resist using violence.
This case study report, focusing on adaptive humanitarian action in the Democratic Republic of Congo, highlights the landscape of humanitarian action in DRC, as well as what flexible, adaptive action looks like in this context, drawing out several relevant connections to Results-Based Protection.