Chf Management Desk Reference

Document Sample
Chf Management Desk Reference Powered By Docstoc
					Common Humanitarian Fund Evaluation Framework
Draft for CHF Working Group Meeting
December 8, 2009




         Prepared by Jessica Alexander, Independent Consultant
               on behalf of the CHF Evaluation Task Force
               Commissioned by the CHF Working Group
  Coordinated by the Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs



                                    1
TABLE OF CONTENTS

I.       BACKGROUND .......................................................................................................... 3
     1.1 Rationale ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
II. DEVELOPMENT OF CHF EVALUATION FRAMEWORK ................................................ 4
     2.1 Evaluation Task Force .............................................................................................................................. 4
     2.2 Document Review ..................................................................................................................................... 5
III. CHF EVALUATION ................................................................................................... 5
     3.1 Uses and Users........................................................................................................................................... 5
     3.2 Scope and Purpose .................................................................................................................................... 5
     3.3 Main Research Questions......................................................................................................................... 6
     3.4 Logic Model Narrative ............................................................................................................................ 7
IV. ADDITIONAL AREAS OF INVESTIGATION ................................................................ 14
V. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY .................................................................................. 15
     5.1 Research approaches ...............................................................................................................................15
     5.2 Timing .......................................................................................................................................................16
VI. EVALUABILITY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 18
     6.1 Causality ....................................................................................................................................................18
     6.2 Lack of Baseline......................................................................................................................................18
     6.3 Country Contexts ....................................................................................................................................19
VII. APPENDICES .......................................................................................................... 20
     Appendix A – TOR for CHF Task Force .................................................................................................20
     Appendix B – CHF Task Force Meeting Agenda ....................................................................................22
     Appendix C – Studies and Evaluations Relevant to Humanitarian Financing ....................................25




                                                                                    2
I. BACKGROUND

The Common Humanitarian Fund (CHF) is a pooled funding mechanism intended to support the
timely allocation and disbursement of donor resources to the most critical humanitarian needs under
the direction of the Humanitarian Coordinator (HC). The CHF aims to improve humanitarian
outcomes by:
    - providing funds more rapidly than under previous arrangements
    - strengthening joint planning and coordination
    - directing funds towards most urgent needs and
    - ensuring funds are available for rapid response to unforeseen circumstances.
The approach seeks to realize the principles and good practices codified in the Good Humanitarian
Donorship (GHD), namely that rapid and flexible aid flows are targeted to priority needs, based on
these needs alone, regardless of political or other considerations.

Established in 2006, the CHF is the result of collaborative efforts undertaken by a group of
government donors to initiate new pooled funding instruments. Under this approach, donors provide
un-earmarked contributions to a common pool from which the HC allocates funding according to
strategic priorities outlined in a joint planning document. This represents a significant departure from
traditional humanitarian financing which is mainly comprised of voluntary, bilateral contributions
from donors going directly to UN agencies and NGOs for specific program activities. It also
represents a policy shift from headquarters level financing to a country level decentralized financing
model. The CHF was first rolled out in Sudan and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in
2006 followed by Central African Republic (CAR) in 2008. Since 2006, donor support to CHFs in
Sudan and DRC alone has been over 1 billion USD. Funding has been allocated to both NGOs and
UN, with NGOs now comprising 40% of the allocation.

Though rooted in the GHD process, the goals of the CHF are also directly linked to the UN reform
initiative which includes promoting better coordination and coverage, reducing duplication of
activities and costs, ensuring a more streamlined and coherent UN operational presence and
providing adequate, timely and flexible humanitarian financing.

1.1 Rationale
This evaluation was commissioned by the CHF Working Group, a body comprised of CHF
stakeholders (UN, NGOs and donors), in order to better understand the impact that the CHF is
having on humanitarian systems and to provide recommendations for improving the effectiveness of
existing and future CHFs. Other countries, such as Somalia, are considering implementing CHFs and
it was deemed important to take stock on how effective these funds have been and what lessons
might be applied in to new and emerging CHFs.

In addition, this evaluation is intended to:
    - provide a clear view of progress made in implementing the recommendations of past
         evaluations



                                                   3
    -     examine the strengths and weaknesses of the funds management, processes and
          accountability structures, and
    -     identify ways to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the funds.

Numerous studies have been carried out around the pooled funds. Aside from the CHF evaluation
conducted in 2006, there has not been an examination of the CHFs in their entirety. There have been
country specific case studies and assessments of individual aspects of the pooled funds (transaction
costs, ERFs, Flash Appeals for example), but this is an opportunity to provide an overview of the
functioning of CHFs in particular, and determine the role that the funds are playing in humanitarian
interventions.

II. DEVELOPMENT OF CHF EVALUATION FRAMEWORK

It was agreed at the CHF WG in March 2009 that a framework and methodological overview for the
evaluation would be developed through an interagency process to be coordinated by OCHA. To this
end, OCHA hired an external consultant who conducted an extensive desk review and undertook
stakeholder consultations.

2.1 Evaluation Task Force
A Task Force comprised of evaluation and program specialists assigned by CHF Working Group
member entities was established to facilitate this inter-agency exercise and ensure the evaluation
framework reflected the collective voice of the CHF Working Group membership. The resulting
work represents the cooperative efforts and views of the Task Force and their representative
organizations.1

The main roles of the Task Force have been to:

        i) Ensure quality control according to standards (UNEG / ALNAP)
        ii) Help define the general approach for the evaluation including how CHF‟s „impact‟ can be
             measured and evaluated, the evaluation‟s scope and its purpose
        iii) Help develop specific indicators for the evaluation
        iv) Provide guidance and suggestions to identify potential material to be used for the
             evaluation
        v) Provide comments on the first draft framework report

The Task Force participated in a one-day workshop in Geneva to collectively develop a draft
framework for the CHF evaluation. This workshop included defining the scope and purpose of the
evaluation and definitions of the relevant levels of measurement See Appendix A for Task Force
Terms of Reference (TOR) and Appendix B for Workshop Agenda.




1Agencies represented in the Task Force are: WHO, Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, OCHA
Swedish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, UNICEF, UNICEF, DFID, UNDP - MDTF, UNDP – BCPR, WFP, FAO, OCHA,
UNCHR


                                                  4
2.2 Document Review
As mentioned above, a number of evaluations/assessments/reviews have already taken place around
pooled funding mechanisms. The framework has incorporated lessons from previous evaluations and
reviews and was constructed so as to position itself among these in a manner that will allow it to add
value to the body of existing work.

See Appendix C for the comprehensive list of documents reviewed. It will be necessary for the
evaluation team to also review these documents and any others that have been produced by that
time. Ensuring that the evaluation integrates and builds upon these evaluations, assessments and
reviews is essential for continued learning.

III.    CHF EVALUATION


3.1 Uses and Users
This evaluation will be used to inform and improve use of the funds at field level. As such, primary
users are at the country level: the Humanitarian Coordinator/Humanitarian Country Team, country-
level fund managers and administrative agents, cluster leads and donors (both existing and
prospective). Secondary users are those at the headquarters or global level.

The evaluation is intended to inform improvements in processes – both CHF-specific and those
associated with the broader humanitarian reform and advocacy efforts. Further, donors will use the
evaluation to monitor the outcomes of this funding mechanism. This is not intended as a policy
evaluation on pooled funds overall.

3.2 Scope and Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to provide evidence of operational effectiveness to date as a basis
for improved priority-setting and performance in future. The evaluators will examine the processes,
outcomes, operational effects and operational impacts of the CHFs as outlined in the below Logical
Framework. The evaluation will uncover the progress and challenges from the inception of the funds
until the end of 2009 in DRC, Sudan and CAR. However, assessment of pre-2008 CHFs will be
based on secondary sources. The evaluation will also examine the level of implementation of
recommendations of earlier evaluations including best practices and challenges. The evaluation will
identify ways for improving the funds and provide a clear set of recommendations on progress.




                                                  5
3.3 Main Research Questions
Research questions for the CHF Evaluation are framed around a modified OECD DAC criteria.
The questions agreed upon are as follows:

Operational Impact
How, and to what extent has CHF contributed to improvements in the humanitarian community‟s
ability to address critical humanitarian needs in a timely and effective manner? Has CHF helped the
humanitarian system operate better than it did before?

Operational Effectiveness
To what extent is the CHF serving its original purpose?
     What programs has the CHF been used for in each country?
     Has the CHF mechanism contributed to enhancing coordination within the cluster approach
         and across clusters and further strengthening the role of the RC/HC?
     Has the CHF helped improve prioritization discussions and decisions within and across
         clusters?
             • Does this prioritization include cross cutting issues such as gender?
     Has the use of CHF funds improved operational outcomes of the humanitarian response?
             • What specific features of CHF have contributed to these improvements?
             • Timeliness and predictability of the fund at country level – has it allowed for a more
                   rapid response?
             • Flexibility afforded by CHF – how has this improved the system‟s ability to
                   respond?
             • Has the un-earmarked nature of CHF allowed better targeting of funds?

Efficiency
      What is the value added of having a CHF as compared to other funding streams?
      How is CHF balancing accountability with flexibility?

Appropriateness and Quality
    Has the CHF allowed the Humanitarian Coordinator to channel more funding to the highest
        priority areas (geographical, thematic, sectoral) within the response?
             • Has CHF funding been directed to the most pressing, underfunded humanitarian
                  needs at the time?
    Has the CHF allowed the clusters to channel (more) funding to the highest agreed priority
        activities within the cluster?
    Are the projects being funded of demonstrated high quality?
    Is the CHF serving to complement other funding streams as intended? How does the CHF
        link with other funds – namely the ERFs, CERF, other MDTFs and what is its
        appropriateness in comparison to the principles of these other funds?

Process Implementation and Progress
      How can CHF continue to be strengthened? How can processes be improved?


                                                 6
       Since the inception of the CHF, what progress has been made?
              • Were shortcomings already identified in previous evaluations addressed
                  sufficiently?
              • What are the lessons learned from implementing these recommendations?

3.4 Logic Model Narrative
The evaluators must first consider those effects or „impacts‟ that the CHFs were intended to have on
operations. The single and fundamental purpose of the CHFs “is to improve humanitarian
response.”2 Within this, the CHF Guidance Note describes the aim of the CHFs as “provid[ing]
financing for the humanitarian operation in a country that is timely, flexible, predictable and based on
identified needs on the ground.3”

As articulated by the Sudan Briefing Paper, “the funds are intended to give the Humanitarian
Coordinator (HC) greater ability to target funds to the most critical needs, encourage donor
contributions and allow rapid response to unforeseen needs. Both the Work Plan and the CHF help
advance humanitarian aid reforms … such as strengthened response capacity, more predictable and
timely funding to organizations, strengthened coordination, as well as donor endorsement of good
humanitarian donorship principles.4”

The logic model below starts with the main processes that are fundamental for the CHFs to function
effectively. Namely, these are a collective prioritization at country level, the existence of
monitoring/reporting and evaluation (M/R &E) systems to monitor project implementation and
inform the prioritization and streamlined allocation procedures which ensure that the funds are
transferred efficiently and that agencies can begin implementing as soon as possible.

The main outcomes of these processes are a needs driven response (as was determined during the
prioritization process), increased inclusiveness and transparency (again, as a result of an open
prioritization process) and strengthened leadership and coordination, as the use of the funds is under
the oversight of the RC/HC and is driven through the cluster approach, thereby strengthening both
of these aspects.

A number of other outcomes associated with the use of CHF funds have been identified that were
not intended at the outset of the CHF development. From a funding perspective, these are
additionality and complimentarity – i.e. the CHFs have enabled participating donors to channel more
funds than they would otherwise have provided, and that CHFs complement other funding
mechanisms - bi-lateral donations, CERF etc. As far as project issues, through the rigorous
prioritization process, it is assumed that a main outcome will be higher quality and more appropriate
projects funded through the CHF.




2 Development Initiatives, “Proposal for a Good Humanitarian Donorship Fund for DRC,” Final Report
(October 2006), 10.
3 Guidelines: Common Humanitarian Funds (Draft version – 13/11/2008)
4 Common Humanitarian Fund, Sudan. 16 July 2008.



                                                   7
The operational effects of these funds are a more predictable, flexible and coherent overall response.
These were the main effects of the CHF as articulated at the outset. Agencies know that there are
CHF funds available, that these funds will be flexible and un-earmarked and that the response overall
will be more cohesive due to the inclusive prioritization process. Finally, the operational impact of
this will be that critical humanitarian needs are met in a timely and effective manner.

The links and relationship to other parts of the humanitarian reform process, in particular,
leadership, coordination, cluster lead role versus agency role during allocation processes, and
planning tools (CAPs and CHAPs), should also be considered and are reflected in the log frame
diagram below. Practical means of mitigating negative influencing factors, as well as the
identification of supportive ones, will form part of the recommendations.

This section provides an expanded description of the various levels of the Logic Model presented in
Diagram 1 and the associated indicators.

          OVERALL IMPACT/PURPOSE: IMPROVE OVERALL HUMANITARIAN RESPONSE

   OPERATIONAL IMPACT: CRITICAL HUMANITARIAN NEEDS ADDRESSED IN A TIMELY AND
                                           EFFECTIVE MANNER
Defining impact in humanitarian action is a source of considerable debate on which consensus is yet to be
reached. While mapping the CHFs for this logical framework, it is suggested that the analysis focus on
„operational impact.‟ Such an approach will offer the opportunity to examine the „impact‟ of the CHF‟s on the
humanitarian system as a whole and whether the existence of CHFs has improved intervention. Assessing the
direct role/contribution of CHF at the beneficiary level impact indicators is outside the scope of this evaluation
although suggestions for how to capture evidence that points to this is suggested in the Methodology section
below.

                                   OPERATIONATIONAL EFFECTS
Flexibility
The timely, un-earmarked nature of funds allows the Humanitarian Coordinator and clusters to act
with greater flexibility to respond.
Indicators                                                               Information Sources
 Fewer conditionalities attached to CHF funding as compared to           Project agreements and proposals
  other funding sources
                                                                          Fund TOR and Donors
 Greater latitude for HC to direct funds to where they are needed         Agreements with
  most as compared to other funding sources                                UNDP/Administrative Agent,
                                                                           compared to agreements with
 Recipient agencies perceive CHF as a more flexible than other
                                                                           bilateral donors, such as USAID,
  donors, allowing them to adapt and respond to unforeseen
                                                                           ECHO, etc.
  circumstances
                                                                          Qualitative feedback from RC/HC,
 The HC and clusters control CHF funds and can direct funding to
                                                                           cluster leads and recipient
  priority activities within and across clusters
                                                                           agencies/NGOs
 Recipient agencies (including NGOs) are afforded leniency vis-à-
                                                                          Project and cluster reports
  vis spending periods allowing agencies to direct funds at critical
  times                                                                   CHF end-year reports
 The CHF Emergency Reserve has enabled the HC to respond                 CHF allocation policy papers


                                                        8
  effectively to unforeseen humanitarian needs during the year
                                                                          Allocations Policy Papers
                                                                          CHF meetings minutes
Predictability
Predictable funding facilitates more effective planning, preparation and a more rapid response to
humanitarian needs.
Indicators                                                               Information Sources
 Donor funding is fully committed by the first quarter                   Dates of signature of donors
                                                                           agreements and receipt of funds
 Donors have provided a predictable schedule of humanitarian
                                                                           (from UNDP /AA)
  funding and if not possible, have shared indicative planning figures
                                                                          Qualitative feedback from HC,
 Response capacity is strengthened given knowledge that CHF is a
                                                                           CHF Advisory Groups, cluster
  reliable source of funding
                                                                           leads, cluster members and
 Faster start up times for projects (than before CHF or than              recipient agencies
  projects without CHF funding) because funding seen as more
                                                                          Project timelines and reports
  reliable and predictable
Collectiveness, and Coherence
A unified plan representing the views of humanitarian community as a whole facilitates better
coverage, both geographical and sectoral, and distribution of work based on capacities and resources.
Indicators                                                               Information Sources
 CHF contributed to ensuring duplication of activities is avoided        Interviews with stakeholders
  and gaps within the system have been filled                              including governments and donors
 Criteria exist and are followed for excluding proposals that would      CAP/Sudan Work Plan
  be accepted through other funding mechanisms
                                                                          OCHA monitoring (geographic and
 Cluster leads and HC have information regarding bi-lateral               sectoral)
  funding levels which feed into prioritization process.
                                                                          Meeting minutes
 More organizations participate in the joint planning process
                                                                          OCHA Financial Tracking System
  (CAP/SudanWork Plan) following the introduction of the CHF
                                                                           (FTS) data
 More organizations participates in cluster coordination meetings
  following the introduction of the CHF
Strategic Humanitarian Focus
With the various prioritization systems done effectively, gaps will be filled, coverage to the most
pressing needs will be met leading to a focused, strategic humanitarian intervention
Indicators                                                               Information Sources
 Degree to which CHF funding has corrected imbalances in
                                                                          FTS data
  funding levels for the CAP
                                                                          CAP/Work Plan funding levels
 Closer alignment between needs assessment documents and
  funding patterns                                                        Qualitative feedback from Cluster
                                                                           leads, recipient agencies,
 Degree to which CHF funding has been channeled to the highest
                                                                           government and donors
  priority areas (geographical, thematic, sectoral) within the overall
  response                                                                Agency budgets (use of CHF funds
                                                                           within their project plans)
 Degree to which CHF funding has been channeled to the highest
  priority activities within clusters                                     NGO budgets and funding
                                                                           timelines


                                                        9
 Degree to which the CHF Emergency Reserve has been used to             CHF allocation data
   address unforeseen critical needs outside the standard allocation
   process.
                   OUTCOMES: IMPROVED IMPLEMENTATION OF COMMON PLANS
Strengthened Leadership and Coordination
Strengthened leadership, of not only the HC, but of the HCT and the Cluster Leads is a key outcome of the
CHF mechanism. Collaborative prioritization process should enhance the collective identity of actors engaged
in the humanitarian response, and further entrench the cluster system.
Indicators                                                              Information Sources
 Extent to which Cluster leads use CHF as a tool to incentivize
                                                                         Qualitative feedback from HC,
    coordination
                                                                           HCT, Cluster leads, RC/HC,
 Coordination within humanitarian response improved with use of           governments and donors
    CHF processes
                                                                         Number of actors attending
 Extent to which RC/HC perceive his/her role as strengthened              sectors‟ meetings (look at trends
    through the ability to oversee distribution of pooled funds such as    since 2005 from meetings‟ minutes)
    CHF
 Cluster identity and role of the cluster lead strengthened as seen
   through cohesiveness of cluster operations, including planning and
   allocations
Inclusiveness and Transparency Enhanced
If prioritization is done as intended, with all actors at the table and with an equal voice, inclusiveness and
transparency within the response should also be enhanced.
Indicators                                                              Information Sources
 % of humanitarian actors engaged in common needs assessments,
                                                                         Meeting minutes and attendance
   joint planning and prioritization process
                                                                         CHF financial data
 Favorable perception of transparency of coordination and funding
   processes by all actors (UN agencies, NGOs and CBOs)                  Qualitative feedback from NGOs
                                                                           and CBOs
 Extent to which local NGOs have access to information about
   application procedures and when funding is available                  Communication records with
                                                                           NGOs
 NGO training to increase their capacity to access resources from
   pooled funds to ensure better performance of national NGO             CAP/Workplan
   participation into CHF
 Increased number of new participating in the CAP/Sudan Work
  Plan
 Trends in CHF funding flowing to NGOs (vs. UN agencies) since
  2006 (taking into consideration other factors as well)
Needs Driven Response
The allocation of resources based on assessed and prioritized needs should be more strategic and based on a
collective analysis of evidence.
Indicators                                                              Information Sources
 Documented links between CHF allocations and CAP/Sudan
                                                                         Needs Assessments
  Work Plan, regional/sectoral priorities and priorities set out in the
  CHF policy papers                                                      CAP/Sudan Work PlanWorkplan
                                                                           and CHF allocation policy papers
 Priorities selected during the prioritization process represent


                                                     10
  articulated needs based on field driven needs assessments
Quality and Appropriateness of Projects Funded
Indicators                                                               Information Sources
 Recipient agencies and NGO‟s selected to implement CHF funded
                                                                          Qualitative feedback
  activities have a perceived comparative advantage
                                                                          Standardization Guidelines for
 Extent to which the three existing funds fit with the
                                                                           CHFs
  Standardization Guidelines for CHFs
Additionality and Complementarity of Funding
Indicators                                                               Information Sources
 Extent to which donor base has expanded since 2006, and extent
                                                                          Internal agency financial documents
  to which additional donors are not traditional bilateral donors to
  the specific CHF country                                                FTS data

 % of CHF funding in overall funding available to UN agencies and        MDTF Office Reporting Portal
  NGOs
                                                                          Interviews with Donors, NGOs
 NGOs and UN have leveraged CHF funding to receive funds                  and UN agencies
  from other sources
                                                                          CHF data and reports
 Extent to which CHF has created additional funding to DRC
                                                                          CERF reports
  Sudan and CAR.
 Extent to which the CHF Emergency Reserve has been used in
  complementarity with the CERF Rapid Response (RR) window to
  respond to unforeseen emergencies
 Extent to which CERF Underfunded Grants (UFE) have been
  used in complementarity with CHF funding and utilizing common
  prioritization frameworks.
                    PROCESS – CHF FUNDS DISTRIBUTED ACCORDING TO NEEDS
Timely Allocation and Disbursement Process
Systems that allow for timely, transparent allocation, disbursement and transfer of funds by OCHA, UNDP,
UN agencies and NGOs are essential.
Indicators                                                             Information Sources
 Duration of prioritization/ decision making processes within the
                                                                        CHF allocation data
  clusters
                                                                        Project records
 Time from finalization of allocation to time of disbursement (How
  long did it take OCHA, the HC and UNDP Administrative                 Internal funding distribution
  Agennt to approve the submission and disburse the funding?)              mechanisms
 Time from NGOs and UN agencies signing project agreements to            Qualitative feedback and
  local implementing partners receiving funding                            documentation from UNDP
                                                                           Administrative Agent
 All actors (the Administrative Agent (UNDP), the Managing
  Agent (UNDP), OCHA, NGO UN Agencies) have implemented                    Qualitative feedback and
  systems to allow for rapid disbursement and/or transfer of funds            documentation from UNDP
  and accountability frameworks.                                              Managing Agent
Collective Prioritization of Needs
Geographic and sectoral priorities are identified collaboratively at country level. This should be done under the
guidance of the HC and driven through cluster leadership to ensure decisions are based on need and
operational knowledge.


                                                       11
Indicators                                                                 Information Sources
 Intra-cluster prioritization process is based on common needs
                                                                            Meeting minutes and reports,
  assessment and inclusive of all relevant stakeholders (including
                                                                             prioritization matrices and
  INGOs and NGOs), and adheres to Principles of Partnership
                                                                             attendance records
 Inter-cluster prioritization process is inclusive of all cluster leads
                                                                            Qualitative feedback from cluster
  and relevant agencies and adheres to Principles of Partnership
                                                                             leads and cluster stakeholders
 Funding analysis completed which informs prioritization process
                                                                            Expenditure data from financial
  and allows for allocating funds where they are needed most
                                                                             reports submitted by Agencies and
 Prioritization undertaken according to commonly agreed criteria            NGOs (for the performance
  and in a transparent manner within the clusters.                           indicators), available with the
                                                                             UNDP/AA and UNDP/MA
 Organization performance (capacity to implement within the
  timeframe of the grant, past performance – efficiency and
  effectiveness- , speed of distribution and absorptive capacity) is
  considered when developing proposal
M/R &E Formalized
The development of a monitoring, reporting and evaluation system was envisaged for the CHFs. Regular
monitoring provides insight into performance both within the clusters and for the overall humanitarian
response at the country level. A strong monitoring and reporting mechanism can also ensure that decisions are
based on information on the ground.
Indicators                                                             Information Sources
 Information management and monitoring processes through
                                                                        Internal cluster documents
   cluster system formalized
                                                                        CHF Reports
 Organizations receiving grants have internal evaluation and
  accountability mechanisms                                             Qualitative feedback from cluster
                                                                           leads and cluster stakeholders
 Systems at cluster level developed or under development to
  monitor progress towards/contribution to cluster objectives being  Qualitative feedback and
  measured to at least output level                                        documentation from UNDP
                                                                           Administrative Agent
 Financial reports from UN agencies are submitted to the
  UNDP/AA in a timely manner                                            CAP/Work Plan reports and
                                                                           reviews
 The CHF reporting and monitoring systems/frameworks provide
  adequate information to the HC, to cluster leads and to donors for
  assessing performance of the recipient organizations, the clusters
  and the CHF
 The CHF reporting and monitoring systems/frameworks supports
  and links to broader CAP/Work Plan monitoring and reporting




                                                           12
Box 1. Results Hierarchy for CHF




                                   13
IV.     ADDITIONAL AREAS OF INVESTIGATION

Additional areas of investigation to be addressed within the evaluation were identified. These
represent unintended outcomes/effects of the CHFs, as well as questions that have arisen during
their implementation.

Accountability vs. flexibility: One of the strengths of the CHF is its flexibility, yet there is question as
to whether increased flexibility comes with decreased accountability. The evaluation will asses the
relationship between these two variables and provide recommendations as to how they might be
effectively balanced.

Rapidness vs. inclusiveness: The CHF strives to engage a wide breadth of actors while also
maintaining its commitment to speed. Does the speed required for a rapid prioritization process end
up excluding actors who are either not present at the capital level (local NGOs in particular) or other
actors who do not have the mechanisms to react so quickly?

Capacity of agencies receiving the funding to implement in a quality way: Cluster leads and the
RC/HC need to ensure that the agencies receiving funds have a comparative advantage in terms of
performance (capacity to implement within the timeframe of the grant, past performance –efficiency
and effectiveness- , speed of distribution and absorptive capacity).

Contextualizing CHF: The evaluation will contextualize CHF within the overall humanitarian
architecture and the other elements of humanitarian reform, recognizing that CHF is a mechanism
which does not operate in isolation whose capacity is limited or strengthened by the effectiveness of
those mechanisms with which it works in conjunction (clusters, HC, CAP, other funding streams,
etc). In addition, CHFs and ERFs make up only a small part of the overall humanitarian funding
system and this must be considered as well. Finally, the external factors (government, security, etc)
which impact on the functioning of CHFs will also be documented. Findings from other evaluations
(Cluster II, CERF, ERF) will be used to this end.

Replication: The evaluation will be review the minimum criteria developed by the CHF Working
Group for the roll out of CHFs in other countries, taking into consideration that the CHF in CAR
was developed based on best practices from its predecessors in Sudan and DRC.

Funding Beyond Pure Humanitarian Objectives: Existing CHFs have been used for funding some
activities categorized as Early Recovery in the respective appeals which are somewhat beyond the
scope originally set out for the funds. Since no structured assessment or analysis of this has been
undertaken to date, it is recommended that the evaluation include this as a specific focus area. Such
work could provide valuable input to (and avoid duplication with) ongoing initiatives and studies
relating to transition financing (e.g. through the INCAF Task Team on Financing and Aid
Architecture and the UNDG/ECHA WGT Task Team 4 on Financing for Transition).

Cluster Processes: Clusters are at the heart of the CHF process and are thus reflected/included in
many of the indicators set out in the evaluation framework. The prioritization process within clusters

                                                    14
is the core of the CHF, and if this component does not function well, other initiatives for improving
the performance of CHFs will have little impact. It is proposed that the evaluation afford time
explore in some depth a number of selected cases of best-practices where cluster CHF prioritization
and coordination worked particularly well. The evaluators shall seek to determine key lessons learnt
and recommendations that can serve as reference for guidance, training and replication in other
clusters. Best case study cases shall be selected in consultation with respective HCs, CHF Teams and
Advisory Groups at country level and with OCHA FCS at global level.

V. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

5.1 Research approaches
The evaluation will use a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data (including from financial
reports, meeting records and any statistical data on immediate effects) will be triangulated with
qualitative data from participatory approaches and interviews with key informants Perspectives from
all stakeholders – both providers and receivers – should be solicited including: recipient agencies, the
HC/RC, the HCT, advisory groups, clusters, OCHA, UNDP, beneficiaries, government
stakeholders, donors, civil society groups and members (teachers, health workers, religious and other
community leaders, local authorities, etc), local NGOs. It is important that opinions are solicited
evenly and that they are triangulated appropriately. Where possible, evaluators should review the
opinions of persons who were in-country before and after the use of CHFs as they can provide
insights into any added value of the approach on operations. All data, quantitative and qualitative,
should be disaggregated by gender and age where possible and feasible.

Beneficiary interviews/ focus groups must ensure that appropriate and ethical standards are used when
speaking to various populations, especially children and women. In addition, it is important that a cross
section of the affected community is heard (namely women, men, youth, various ethnic groups) to
get a realistic representation of the population viewpoints.

As suggested by the Task Force, case studies of certain projects funded by the CHF could be
analyzed. This would provide some insight into the use of funding at the beneficiary level and can
provide a snapshot of the services they are receiving with the funding. An analysis of a few full
project cycles may be helpful in determining the impact that CHF funding had on particular projects.
This information will be anecdotal in nature and is not intended to become an evaluation of the
actual projects themselves.

A list of agencies and individuals to interview at both country and HQ level should be provided to
the evaluators. All of these individuals should be interviewed, as well as any other people that the
evaluators deem as key informants. It will be important for the evaluators to examine field level
processes (not just those in the capital cities) as these are most revealing of the effects of the funds at
the field level. A checklist of the minimum persons to be consulted in each country should be created
so that there is consistency across countries. This information will be provided at the outset of the
evaluation.

The validity of the findings should be judged based on the logical consistency of the arguments, the
quality of the evidence and the degree to which evidence has been corroborated and cross-checked.

                                                    15
Workshops to share and validate initial findings should be built into planning after each country
consultation to ensure that country teams have the opportunity to give feedback to evaluators.

Note that the above outlines a general methodological approach for the evaluation. The evaluation
team is expected to provide a more detailed methodology in their inception report.

5.2 Timing
An evaluation this ambitious in size and scope needs adequate time to collect data and analyze
findings. Recommended timing for the evaluation is as follows, but will certainly need to be adjusted
based on logistics and funding. The envisioned budget for the evaluation currently stands at 250,000
USD. Table 1 below outlines the timing and expected deliverables for each Phase.

Phase I: Development of the Evaluation Framework (Current Phase)
During this phase, an evaluation framework, inclusive of a results framework will be developed via an
interagency process to identify the scope and purpose of the evaluation, defines indicators at the
outcome, effects and impact level, with an accompanying causal logic methodology on which
attribution may be based will be developed. The evaluation framework will include a logic model of
the CHF inclusive of both intended and unintended results, as well as a logical framework, and
outline a methodology to be employed.

Phase II. Development of Terms of Reference (TOR) and Selection of Consultant
The following tasks will be completed by OCHA during this phase:
  Steering/management group formed for the evaluation
  Drafting of the TOR (based on the evaluation framework)
  Dissemination of TOR, solicitation of bids, and selection of consultant(s)
  Preparatory missions to DRC, Sudan and CAR undertaken by Evaluation Manager to engage
   country-level stakeholders, discuss the TOR and address logistics

Phase III: Inception
Selected consultant(s) will work with the Evaluation Manager and Steering/management group to:
  Complete an extensive Desk Review of existing documents and materials including: strategy
    documents, plans, proposals, monitoring data, mission reports, sitreps, previous
    evaluations/assessments agency/government/donor evaluations.
  Consult with global agencies (recipient agencies, OCHA and UNDP MDTF Office to determine:
    o Persons to meet at country level
    o Further insights into CHF functioning
  Draft an inception report which will outline the specific methodologies to be employed, identify
    how challenges will be addressed and delineate a common understanding of the evaluation
    framework. This will become the main reference document for all involved in the evaluation.
  Development of a standard report structure for the country reports to facilitate the comparability
    and analysis
  Finalize itineraries, timelines, logistics for field visits




                                                 16
Phase IV: Country-Level Evaluations
The evaluators will visit Sudan, DRC and CAR to gather data, using the evaluation framework as a
guide. The local CHF Advisory Groups should function as support for the evaluation at country
level. The specific functions during the field visits are:
  Initial introduction meeting with key stakeholders: cluster RC/HC, HCT, UNDP, OCHA,
    Advisory Groups, Cluster leads
  Interviews with key personnel, partners, government officials, local NGOs, donors
  Collection of documents produced at country level
  Focus groups/interviews with beneficiaries
  Visits to selected project/program sites areas
  End visit debriefing to share broad findings with stakeholders
  Production of individual country-level reports for each of CAR, Sudan and DRC

Phase V: Global Synthesis
Findings from the three country evaluations will be synthesized and analyzed in order to distill global
lessons about the CHF in the context of the wider humanitarian reform.
  Report drafted and submitted to Steering/Management Group for review
  A review workshop held in NYC or Geneva to review substantive issues emerging from the
    individual country reports and global synthesis report
  Incorporation of comments and production of second draft
  Sign off by Management Group and wider submission

Table 1.
             Phase                       Timing                           Expected Outputs
Phase I:                               September –             Final Evaluation Framework endorsed
Development of Evaluation             December 2009             by Task Force and CHF Working
Framework                                                       Group
Phase II:                             December –               CHF Management Group formed
Development of TOR                    February 2010            CHF Evaluation Framework translated
                                                                into elaborated TOR by Management
                                                                Group
Selection of Consultants            March – May 2010           TOR disseminated and proposals
                                                                solicited
                                                               Management Group reviews bids and
                                                                selects consultant team
                                                               Contracting undertaken
Phase III:                           May – June 2010           Desk Review undertaken
Inception                                                      Inception Report (including detailed
                                                                methodology) submitted and presented
                                                                to CHF Management Group
                                                               Inception report endorsed by CHF
                                                                Management Group
Phase IV:                          July – October 2010          Country visits undertaken to DRC,
Country Level Evaluations                                        Sudan and CAR


                                                  17
                                                                Presentation/validation    of     initial
                                                                 findings in each country
                                                                Production, review by Management
                                                                 Group, and finalization of individual
                                                                 country reports
Phase V:                                  October –             Production of global synthesis report
Global Synthesis                        November 2010           Review workshop
                                                                Production of final global synthesis
                                                                 report
                                                                Presentation of country level and
                                                                 global findings and dissemination of
                                                                 reports

VI. EVALUABILITY A SSESSMENT

There are a number of limitations for an evaluation of this scope. The evaluation team will be
expected to address how they will handle these challenges in their inception report.

6.1 Causality
It may be difficult to attribute changes in humanitarian outcomes exclusively to the CHF. Any
number of economic, political or social factors, (including the security situation, access to
humanitarian space, the influence of other humanitarian efforts, the political context and the coping
mechanisms of local communities) can significantly impact targeted populations and in fact be even
more important in shaping humanitarian outcomes. Controlling for these factors in a systematic way
will be a significant challenge. However, the evaluation can assess the quality of measures taken (if
any) by CHF decision makers and managers to respond and adapt to these context changes

In addition, comingling of funds at the country level will undoubtedly provide obstacles for
measuring the direct effect of the CHF on beneficiary level outcomes. Trying to tease out the effect
of the funding provided by CHF within the greater funding pools may not be practical. Attempting
to do this, while feasible, requires a different level of analysis and is a different evaluation all together.

6.2 Lack of Baseline
It is difficult to measure the impact of a humanitarian program without knowing how conditions
were prior to the intervention. A possible approach would be to compare CHF outcomes to
outcomes from that country that pre-date the use of CHF, though establishing causality becomes
increasingly challenging under these circumstances.

While some country teams may have baseline information which can be used in the evaluation, it is
likely that many do not. Baseline information can be pieced together (ex-post) by conducting
interviews with beneficiaries and aid workers and by examining project documents and records,
including reviews, situation analyses, and case study reports. Again though, this form of measurement
is not ideal.




                                                     18
6.3 Country Contexts
It will be important to recognize the differences between DRC, Sudan and CAR where the CHF has
been implemented. As stated above, a one-size-fits-all approach will not be possible given the varying
contexts both across and within countries. As such, generic indicators will be developed alongside
indicators that recognize these differences.




                                                 19
VII. APPENDICES


Appendix A – TOR for CHF Task Force

Background
The donors have called for an “impact” evaluation of CHF to take place in 2010. It was agreed at the
CHF WG in March 2009 that OCHA would take the lead in drafting a framework and methodology
for the evaluation. An initial concept was shared at the CHF Working Group meeting on 16 July
2009. The agencies present raised a number of concerns around the term “impact” and how it would
apply to the CHFs in this evaluation.

It was agreed at this meeting that a Task Force comprised of evaluation specialists from respective
organizations (operational agencies, NGOs and donor Governments) would work with a consultant
to develop the evaluation framework and indicators (first phase), with the CHF WG serving as a
Reference Group to whom the Task Force would report.

Previous evaluations
An evaluation of CHF in DRC and Sudan was finalized in 2007 and widely circulated throughout the
humanitarian community5. This evaluation sought to build on the 2006 evaluation and demonstrate
evidence on the operation of the Funds as well as inform key decision-makers on how the main
components of the Funds are operating.

Although efforts to monitor performance of CHF funded projects are ongoing, an assessment of the
CHF‟s impact to date on improving overall system-wide responses and related humanitarian
operations is needed.

Scope of CHF Evaluation Framework
According to the TOR, the tasks associated with the development of the evaluation framework are
to:
    - Develop a framework outlining an approach to undertaking an evaluation of the impact of
        the CHF, developed in collaboration with ESS, HFSU and the Working Group and in
        consultation with relevant country teams. This will include a concise list of indicators and
        benchmarks against which the CHF will be evaluated at the country level.

Research Question(s)
Possible main research questions for this evaluation are as follows:
    - Since the shift in financing policy and the inception of the CHF, has the humanitarian
        community been better able to prioritize funding, strengthen coordination and more rapidly
        respond to urgent humanitarian needs?


5Willitts-Kind, Barnaby. Mowjee, Tanseem. Barham, Jane. “Evaluation of Common/Pooled Humanitarian
Funds in DRC and Sudan.” .

                                                 20
    -   Using proxy indicators from the first question, has the use of the CHF resulted in systems
        that have yielded improved overall humanitarian conditions?
In answering these questions, the evaluation could consider the CHF from the following
perspectives:
    -    Overall outcomes (intended and unintended) associated with the application of the CHF (i.e.
         empowering the HC, supporting coordination, filling gaps, improve targeting of funds).
    -    Specific indicators to measure outcomes (intended and unintended) at the country level

General Timing for the Evaluation
The intended timing for the CHF evaluation is as follows:

Phase I: Evaluation Framework (Framework development – Present Phase)
During this phase, a results framework which identifies baseline data (if any), defines indicators at the
outcome, effects and impact levels, and includes a causal logic methodology on which attribution
may be based will be developed.

Phase II: Country-level Research (First quarter 2010)
    -    The second phase seeks to gather data and gain evidence from the countries in which the
         CHF is operational, utilizing the Framework developed in Phase I. The local CHF Advisory
         Groups should function as support for the evaluation at country level.

Phase III: Evaluation Report (Second quarter 2010)
    -    Findings from the three country evaluations will be synthesized and analyzed in order to
         distill global lessons about the CHF based upon its implementation within three national
         contexts (Sudan, CAR and DRC).

Roles of the CHF Evaluation Task Force
The Task Force will be comprised of evaluation specialists from respective organizations (operational
agencies, NGOs and donor Governments) to increase transparency and objectivity in the process.
The role of the members is envisioned to be as follows:

1) Ensure quality control according to standards (UNEG / ALNAP)
2) Definition / agreement on the general Approach for the Evaluation including how CHF‟s „impact‟
can be measured and evaluated
3) Help develop specific indicators for the evaluation (with the CHF WG serving as a Reference
Group to whom the Task Force would report.)
4) Provide guidance and suggestions to identify potential material to be used for the evaluation;
5) Provide comments on the inception report, the first draft framework report

OCHA envisions conducting a 1-2 day workshop with Task Force members to brainstorm on these
issues and come up with an approach that is methodologically sound and realistic. Dates and agendas
for this workshop will be shared upon finalization of Task Force members.



                                                        21
Appendix B – CHF Task Force Meeting Agenda

                                                Common Humanitarian Fund Evaluation Task Force Meeting
                                                     World Meteorological Organization, Geneva, Switzerland
                                                                        9 October 2009



 AIM              Develop a framework for the CHF evaluation scheduled for 2010, collectively defining scope and purpose of the evaluation, and indicators.


 OBJECTIVES       By the end of the meeting:

                          The scope and purpose of the evaluation will be clearly conceptualized and reflect the collective voice of the Task Force.
                          Definitions of the relevant levels of measurement specific to this evaluation will be clearly articulated.
                          A logical framework for the CHF will be mapped.
                          Indicators for the various levels of the logical framework will be defined.
                          Next steps will be outlined.


 METHODOLOGY      This meeting is designed to be participatory and interactive, using a mixture of focus questions and small and large group discussions, to draw on
                  participant experiences and to sharing of tools and information.


 PARTICIPANTS             Evaluation specialists from CHF donor countries, UN agencies and NGOs
                          Humanitarian programme and/or pooled fund experts from CHF donor countries, UN agencies and NGOs


 PREPARATION      Participants are asked to arrive at the meeting having reviewed all background documents provided prior to the meeting. This will include:
                        Initial draft concept paper
                        Task Force Terms of Reference
                        Other relevant studies
                        Draft logical framework
                        List of draft indicators

                  It is anticipated that views expressed by participants will be representative of their agency or organization. As such, it is requested that any necessary
                  consultations occur prior to the meeting.



                                                                                   22
                                                                         FRIDAY, 9 OCTOBER 2009
    Time         Session One – Introduction and Background                                                                                                    Session Leader
                                                                                                                                                            Kimberly Lietz,
 08.30 – 08.45   Welcome and Introductions                                                                                                                  OCHA

                 Meeting agenda, approach and objectives
                 Background to the evaluation
08.45 – 09.15    Review of Task Force (TF) TOR

                 Session Objective: Clarity on TF roles and responsibilities, and meeting objectives.
                 Overview of CHF: Background information on CHF objectives, operations and scope.
                                                                                                                                                            Michael Jensen,
09.15 – 09.45
                                                                                                                                                            OCHA
                 Session Objective: Common understanding of CHF by all TF members.
 09.45 – 10.00   Tea/Coffee Break

                 Session Two ― Mapping CHF and Developing the Logical Framework

                 Based on a desk review and consultations with TF, the CHF WG and other stakeholders, a draft logical framework has been developed by
                 the independent consultant. It represents a synthesis of information elicited to date through the consultative process. This work is
                                                                                                                                                            Jessica Alexander,
                 intended to serve as a foundation for discussion by the TF to ensure clarity of understanding of the various levels of CHF and to inform
                                                                                                                                                            Independent
10.00 – 11.00    the subsequent discussion on scope and purpose of the evaluation. Specifically, as the TF reviews the focus of previous evaluative work
                                                                                                                                                            Consultant
                 and seeks to position this one, the logical framework will serve to aid in defining process, outcomes effects and impact.

                 Session Objective: Consensus on logical framework with clarity on how each level is defined specific to CHFs.




                                                                                         23
                Session Three ― Scope and Purpose of the Evaluation

                While all are likely to agree that the primary purpose of the evaluation is to influence decision-making or policy formulation
                through the provision of empirically-driven feedback, greater specificity regarding the intended utility of the evaluation, and
                what information would be of greatest benefit is needed. Further, numerous evaluations have been or are being undertaken
                which looked at pooled funding mechanisms. It is necessary that this evaluation be positioned among these, building upon its
                counterparts while ensuring against duplication and repetition.

                Questions for discussion will include:                                                                                            Jessica Alexander,
11.00 – 14.45       Given the existing body of work associated with pooled funds, where might this evaluation be positioned to add value?
                                                                                                                                                  Independent
                                                                                                                                                  Consultant
                    Where are the research gaps, and how might this evaluation fell them?
                    What are the main areas of investigation and issues to be resolved?
                    Impact: Is this where we wish to position the evaluation and, if so, how do we define impact specific to this
                        evaluation?

                Session Objective: Consensus on a clear scope, purpose and set of evaluation questions.

                Session Four― Defining Indicators

                Based on consensus reached on the (1) scope, (2) purpose and (3) CHF logical framework, the TF will discuss indicators for        Jessica Alexander,
                measurement. Our independent consultant has prepared a draft list to again serve as a foundation for discussion.                  Independent
14.45 – 16.00
                                                                                                                                                  Consultant
                Session Objective: Define indicators for measurement.


                Session Five ― Conclusions and Next Steps

                Summary of discussions and conclusions reached.
                                                                                                                                                  Kimberly Lietz,
16.00 – 16.30   Outstanding questions to be addressed via email correspondence.
                                                                                                                                                  OCHA
                Review forthcoming deliverables and dates.




                                                                                          24
   Appendix C – Studies and Evaluations Relevant to Humanitarian Financing

                        Study/ Evaluation                                                                Scope
                                                             Current/Ongoing Studies
“Multi-donor Evaluation of Support to Conflict Prevention and             - Envisaged as comprehensive overview of results of donor support to
Peacebuilding in Southern Sudan”                                         Southern Sudan since signing of the CPA
                                                                          - Inform policy decisions to improve upon relevance, effectiveness and
Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB), Netherlands Ministry  impact of international engagement in peacebuilding processes in Southern
of Foreign Affairs                                                       Sudan
                                                                         - Framework TOR completed July 2009. Scheduled for 2010.
“Baseline 'mapping' of existing donor coordination                      - Study ongoing; no draft report yet (as of 4 June 09)
groups/mechanisms at the field level” Marie Spaak, Ralf Otto (Channel
Research)

Good Humanitarian Donorship (EC/UK)
                                                                   Previous Studies
“Mapping of Transition Financing Procedures and Mechanisms”               - Study to provide an evidence base for the Financing and Aid Architecture
Tasneem Mowjee, Sumedh Rao and Judith Randel                                Task Team of the OECD DAC‟s International Network on Conflict and
                                                                            Fragility to addressing transition financing
SIDA and DFID (on behalf of the International Network on Conflict and
Fragility Task Team on Financing and Aid Architecture, OECD/DAC),
April 2009 (draft report) – to be finalized in September 2009
“Multi-donor Evaluation of Support to Conflict Prevention and Peace - Assessment of the extent of progress made at donor-supported activities to
building in Southern Sudan”                                                establish peace in S. Sudan including conflict prevention and peace building
                                                                           activities between 2005-2009
Policy and Operations Evaluation Department (IOB) Netherlands,
Framework finalized July 2009
“Study of Transaction Costs Associated with Humanitarian Pooled           -Assessment of how pooled funds conditions affect agencies‟ programming
Funds” Dirk Salomons                                                      -Complementarities of coordinating structures
                                                                          -Transaction costs of pooled funds vs. other funding mechanisms
UNICEF, UNHCR, WFP, FAO, WHO; June 2009                                   -Examines issues such as: predictability, coordination, decentralization




                                                                           25
“Review of the Peacebuilding Fund” Nicole Ball, Mariska van Beijnum   - Process level review of activities supported by the PBF

DFID, June 2009
“Making Pooled Funding Work for People in Crisis”                      - Brief overview of the successes and failures of pooled funds and
                                                                       recommendations for their improvement
Oxfam Briefing Note, May 2009
“NGO participation in humanitarian reform mechanisms (financing        - Analyses partnership, accountability and impact of reform on beneficiaries in
and coordination) and accountability to beneficiaries” Tasneem           Afghanistan, DRC, Ethiopia, Zimbabwe
Mowjee, John Cosgrave, Ralf Otto and Antonio Donini (Development       - Experiences of NGOs in relation to humanitarian reform, in particular,
Initiatives and Channel Research)                                        financing and coordination

The NGOs and Humanitarian Reform Project, March 2009
“Sudan Mapping Study: Review of the engagement of NGOs in Sudan        - Review of NGO engagement with the humanitarian financing as part of a
with the Humanitarian Reform process in February 2009” John            series of mapping studies for the Humanitarian Reform Project NGO
Cosgrave                                                               consortium

Managed by the NGO consortium (led by ActionAid); Funded by DFID,
April 2009
“Approaches to NGO financing for humanitarian interventions” Good      n/a
Humanitarian Donorship, 2009
“International Humanitarian Financing:                                - Meta review of recent research on new humanitarian financing arrangements
Review and Comparative Assessment of Instruments” Abby Stoddard       - Descriptive mapping of range of humanitarian financing mechanisms available
                                                                      - Assessment of advantages and drawbacks of financing mechanisms in
Good Humanitarian Donorship Initiative (US OFDA), July 2008             achieving GHD objectives
“Indirect Support Cost Study” Tasneem Mowjee (Development              - Review implications of overhead charges
Initiatives)

Good Humanitarian Donorship (Swedish MoFA) June 2008
“Financing for Early Recovery: Highlighting the Gaps – A Review of
Humanitarian Mechanisms Including Early Recovery”
CWGER, 2008
“Requirements in Flash Appeals: A Phased Approach”                     - Develop a common understanding, especially among agencies implementing
                                                                         ER programmes and donors, on how ER funding requirements should be
Financing Task Force of the CWGER, 2008                                  reflected within FAs



                                                                      26
“Evaluation of Common/Pooled Funds in DRC and Sudan” Barnaby            - Build on evaluation undertaken in 2006 , adding to and consolidating
Willitts-King, Tasneem Mowjee, Jane Barham                                evidence on the operation of the Funds

OCHA ESS, December 2007
“Earmarking and Visibility in Humanitarian Assistance” Judith Randel    - Seeks to determine whether unearmarked funding result in more equitable
(Development Initiatives)                                                 and efficient resourcing for humanitarian assistance?
                                                                        - Examination of the best balance between the need for visibility and the
Danish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, July 2007                             benefits of unearmarked funding?

“Allocating humanitarian funding according to need:                      - Provide an overview of the different ways resources can be allocated, using
towards analytical frameworks for donors” Barnaby Willitts-King            examples from the donor community, operational agencies and disciplines
                                                                           beyond aid including health economics
Irish Aid, March 2007                                                    - Analyses the salient features, pros and cons of these approaches and
                                                                           suggests some questions for humanitarian aid donors about developing
                                                                           more rigorous and systematic allocation approaches
“Review of OCHA Emergency Response Funds (ERFs)” Tasneem                - Examines role of ERFs in humanitarian response and in relation to other
Mowjee, Judith Randel (Development Initiatives)                           funding mechanisms
                                                                        - Provides guidance on optimal ERF functioning
OCHA ESS, January 2007
“Common Funds for Humanitarian Action in Sudan and the                  - Establish baseline for M&E of CHF
Democratic Republic of Congo: Monitoring and Evaluation Study”          - Process level analysis of benefits and disadvantages of CHF
Abby Stoddard, Dirk Salomons, Katherine Haver,
 Adele Harmer (Center on International Cooperation)

December 2006




                                                                       27
                       - Provides guidance on optimal ERF functioning
OCHA ESS, January 2007
“Common Funds for Humanitarian Action in Sudan and the                  - Establish baseline for M&E of CHF
Democratic Republic of Congo: Monitoring and Evaluation Study”          - Process level analysis of benefits and disadvantages of CHF
Abby Stoddard, Dirk Salomons, Katherine Haver,
 Adele Harmer (Center on International Cooperation)

December 2006




                                                                       27

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Description: Chf Management Desk Reference document sample