Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T03:39:31.277Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Requirements for Independent Community-Based Quality Assessment and Accountability Practices in Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Activities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2012

Thomas D. Kirsch ,
Paul Perrin ,
Frederick M. Burkle ,
William Canny ,
Susan Purdin ,
William Lin  and
Lauren Sauer
Thomas D. Kirsch*
Affiliation:
Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland USA Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland USA
Paul Perrin
Affiliation:
Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland USA
Frederick M. Burkle
Affiliation:
Harvard Humanitarian Initiative, Harvard School of Public Health, Cambridge, Massachusetts USA
William Canny
Affiliation:
Catholic Relief Services, Baltimore, Maryland USA
Susan Purdin
Affiliation:
International Rescue Committee, New York, New York USA
William Lin
Affiliation:
Johnson and Johnson Services, Inc., New Brunswick, New Jersey USA
Lauren Sauer
Affiliation:
Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University Medical Institutions, Baltimore, Maryland USA
*
Corresponding Author: Thomas D. Kirsch, MD, MPH 5801 Smith Avenue Davis Bldg., Suite 3220 Baltimore, MD 21209 USA E-mail tkirsch1@jhmi.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

During responses to disasters, the credibility of humanitarian agencies can be threatened by perceptions of poor quality of the responses. Many initiatives have been introduced over the last two decades to help address these issues and enhance the overall quality of humanitarian response, often with limited success. There remain important gaps and deficiencies in quality assurance efforts, including potential conflicts of interest. While many definitions for quality exist, a common component is that meeting the needs of the “beneficiary” or “client” is the ultimate determinant of quality. This paper examines the current status of assessment and accountability practices in the humanitarian response community, identifies gaps, and recommends timely, concise, and population-based assessments to elicit the perspective of quality performance and accountability to the affected populations. Direct and independent surveys of the disaster-affected population will help to redirect ongoing aid efforts, and generate more effective and comparable methods for assessing the quality of humanitarian practices and assistance activities.

Kirsch TD, Perrin P, Burkle FM Jr, Canny W, Purdin S, Lin W, Sauer L. Requirements for independent community-based quality assessment and accountability practices in humanitarian assistance and disaster relief activities. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012;27(3):1-6.

Keywords

accountabilityassessmentsdisasterdisaster responsehumanitarianismrelief worknon-governmental organizationsquality improvement
Type
Special Report
Information
Prehospital and Disaster Medicine , Volume 27 , Issue 3 , June 2012 , pp. 280 - 285
Copyright
Copyright © World Association for Disaster and Emergency Medicine 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Franco, LM, Silimperi, DR, van Zanten, TV, et al. . Sustaining Quality of Healthcare: Institutionalization of Quality Assurance. Bethesda, MD: Center for Human Services; 2002. http://www.chs-urc.org/pdf/monographinstitQA.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
2. Humanitarian Accountability Partnership Editorial Steering Committee. HAP 2007 Standard in Humanitarian Accountability and Quality Management. Geneva, Switzerland: HAP International; 2007. http://www.hapinternational.org/pool/files/hap-2007-standard(1).pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
3. Emergency Capacity Building Project. Impact Measurement and Accountability in Emergencies: The Good Enough Guide. Cowley, Oxford, UK: Oxfam GB; 2007. http://www.ecbproject.org/inside-the-guide/view-the-good-enough-guide. Accessed May 25, 2012.Google Scholar
4. Campbell, SM, Roland, MO, Buetow, SA. Defining quality of care. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51(11):1611-1625.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Moss Kanter, R, Summers, DV. Doing well while doing good: dilemmas of performance measurement. In: Powell WW (ed). On Profit Organizations and the Need for a Multiple Constituency Approach in the Non Profit Sector: A Research Handbook. New Haven and London: Yale University Press; 1987:154-166.Google Scholar
6. Slim H. International Council on Human Rights Policy. By what authority? The legitimacy and accountability of non-governmental organisations. 2002. Journal of Humanitarian Assistance. http://www.ichrp.org/files/papers/65/118_Legitimacy_Accountability_Nongovernmental_Organisations_Slim_Hugo_2002.pdf. Accessed May 25, 2012.Google Scholar
7. Watson C. Impact Assessment of Humanitarian Response: A Review of the Literature. Medford, MA: Feinstein International Center of Tufts University; 2008. https://wikis.uit.tufts.edu/confluence/download/attachments/19271809/Impact_10_07_08.pdf?version=1. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
8. Center for Global Development. When Will We Ever Learn? Improving Lives Through Impact Evaluation. Washington, DC: Center for Global Development; 2006. http://www.3ieimpact.org/doc/WillWeEverLearn.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
9. Oakley, P, Pratt, B, Clayton, A. Outcomes and Impact: Evaluating Change in Social Development. Oxford, UK: International NGO Training and Research Centre; 1998.Google Scholar
10. Fritz Institute. Evidence of Impact: Challenges and New Directions—The 2006 Impact Conference Proceedings; May 19-20, 2006; Sebastopol, CA. http://www.fritzinstitute.org/prgHI-Conference2006.htm. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
11. Pan American Health Organization. Proceedings of the WHO/PAHO Technical Consultation of Foreign Medical Teams Post Sudden Onset Disasters; December 7-9, 2010; Havana, Cuba. http://new.paho.org/disasters/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=1761&Itemid. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
12. Easterly, WR. The White Man's Burden: Why the West's Efforts to Aid the Rest Have Done So Much Ill and So Little Good. New York, NY: The Penguin Press; 2006.Google Scholar
13. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies. World Disasters Report 2005: Focus on information in disasters. Bloomfield, CT: Kumarian Press; 2005.Google Scholar
14. Code of Conduct for the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and NGOs in Disaster Relief, 1995. International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies Web site. http://www.ifrc.org/en/publications-and-reports/code-of-conduct/. Accessed May 25, 2012.Google Scholar
15. Sphere Project. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Geneva, Switzerland: Sphere Project; 2004.Google Scholar
16. Scheuren JM, le Polain O, Below R, et al. Annual Disaster Statistical Review: The Numbers and Trends 2007. Brussels, Belgium: Center for Research on the Epidemiology of Disasters (CRED). http://www.cred.be/sites/default/files/ADSR_2007.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
17. Development Initiatives. Global Humanitarian Assistance 2007/2008. Somerset, UK: 2008. http://www.globalhumanitarianassistance.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/2007-GHA-report.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
18. Stoddard, A. Humanitarian NGOs: Challenges and Trends. London, UK: Overseas Development Institute; 2003. HPG Briefing 12. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/download/272.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
19. Canny B. A review of NGO coordination in Aceh post-earthquake/tsunami. Study sponsored by International Council of Voluntary Agencies (ICVA). 2005. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/FEA7B9C91F77119949257021001CFEC0-icva-idn-8apr.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
20. United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Beneficiary feedback: “Thanks but no thanks”? http://www.irinnews.org/Report.aspx?ReportId=78640. Published June 9, 2008. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
21. Hoffman CA and the Humanitarian Policy Group, Overseas Development Institute. Measuring the impact of humanitarian aid: a review of current practice. Humanitarian Policy Group Research Report Number 15. London, UK. http://www.odi.org.uk/resources/docs/343.pdf. Published June 2004. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
22. Larose, L, Adams, J. Accountability and quality: uncomfortable bedfellows? Humanitarian Exchange. 2002;21:19-21.Google Scholar
23. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) Strategic plan. In: OCHA in 2011: Annual Plan and Budget—Responding in a Changing World. Geneva, Switzerland: OCHA; 2011:8-10. http://ochaonline.un.org/ocha2011/OCHA2011_jpg2000_200dpi.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
24. Subbarao, I, Wynia, MK, Burkle, FM Jr. The elephant in the room: collaboration and competition among relief organizations during high-profile disasters. J Clin Ethics. 2010;21(4):328-334.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
25. Hilhorst D. Being good at doing good? Review of debates and initiatives concerning the quality of humanitarian assistance. Paper presented at international working conference, Enhancing the Quality of Humanitarian Assistance; October 12, 2001; Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/9CCA704F81272F5FC1256CD3003C409D-neth-good-oct01.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
26. Walker, P, Purdin, S. Birthing Sphere. Disasters. 2004;28(2):100-111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Griekspoor, A, Collins, S. Raising standards in emergency relief: how useful are Sphere minimum standards for humanitarian assistance? BMJ. 2001;323(7315):740-742.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
28. Dufour, C, Geoffrey, V, Maury, H, Grünewald, F. Rights, standards and quality in a complex humanitarian space: Is Sphere the right tool? Disasters. 2004;28(2):124-141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
29. Tong, J. Questionable accountability: MSF and Sphere in 2003. Disasters. 2004;28(2):176-189.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
30. Hilhorst, D. Being good at doing good? Quality and accountability of humanitarian NGOs. Disasters. 2002;26(3):193-212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Aharony, L, Strasser, S. Patient satisfaction: What we know about and what we still need to explore. Med Care Rev. 1993;50(1):49-79.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. Campbell, J. How consumers/survivors are evaluating the quality of psychiatric care. Eval Rev. 1997;21(3):357-363.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
33. Hansson, L, Björkman, T, Berglund, I. What is important in psychiatric inpatient care? Quality of care from the patient's perspective. Qual Assur Health Care. 1993;5(1):41-47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
34. Rutta, E, Williams, H, Mwansasu, A, et al. . Refugee perceptions of the quality of healthcare: findings from a participatory assessment in Ngara, Tanzania. Disasters. 2005;29(4):291-309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP). Humanitarian action: learning from evaluation. In: ALNAP Annual Review. London, UK: ALNAP; 2001. http://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/98A220E8FF3F4EEAC1256C24005D5378-ar2001_all.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
36. Spence, PR, Lachlan, KA. Disasters, crises, and unique populations: suggestions for survey research. New Directions for Evaluation. 2010;126:95-106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
37. Walker, P, Hein, K, Russ, C, et al. . A blueprint for professionalizing humanitarian assistance. Health Aff (Milwood). 2010;29(12):2223-2230.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
38. Burkle, FM Jr. Future humanitarian crises: challenges for practice, policy, and public health. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2010;25(3):191-199.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. World Health Organization. Implementation of the International Health Regulations (2005). Report on the review committee on the functioning of the International Health Regulations in relation to the pandemic (H1N1) 2009. http://apps.who.int/gb/ebwha/pdf_files/WHA64/A64_10-en.pdf. Sixty-fourth World Health Assembly, Provisional agenda item 13.2, May 5, 2011. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
40. Burkle FM Jr, Redmond AD, McArdle DF. An authority for crisis coordination and accountability [early online publication ahead of print October 18, 2011]. Lancet. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60979-3.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
41. Institute of Medicine of the National Academies. Guidance for Establishing Crisis Standards of Care for Use in Disaster Situations: A Letter Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009. http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12749&page=R1. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
42. Coordination SUD. The French national platform of international solidarity. http://www.coordinationsud.org. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
43. People In Aid. Code of Good Practice in the Management and Support of Aid Personnel. London, UK: People In Aid; 2003. http://www.peopleinaid.org/pool/files/code/code-en.pdf. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
44. How do we rate charities’ financial health? Charity Navigator Web site. http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=35. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
45. COMPAS method: a quality assurance method for humanitarian aid. Quality COMPAS Web site. http://www.compasqualite.org/en/compas-method/presentation-compas-method.php. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar
46. Principles and good practice of humanitarian donorship, 2003. Good Humanitarian Donorship Web site. http://www.goodhumanitariandonorship.org/gns/about-us/about-ghd.aspx. Accessed May 15, 2012.Google Scholar