Humanitarian Performance Project ALNAP Biannual Meeting Madrid, 5th June

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June Presentation structure: Some background and 4 questions 1.Based on the mapping and initial findings, is there a clear need and justification for a “mechanism” for assessing overall system-wide performance? 2.How might such a “mechanism” utilise and add value to existing mechanisms? 3.How would such a “mechanism” be used by different stakeholders in the sector, and what benefits would it yield? 4.What form should the HPP take? “Mechanism” has yet to be defined. It could be a platform, a change process, a series of interlinked mechanisms or a coalition of interest groups. Full members will guide the way “mechanism” is defined.

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June Some background Extensive document search Face-to-face and phone interviews with 45 individuals correspondence with another 30 individuals Draft Inventory of 34 projects, initiatives and approaches relevant to performance assessment Preliminary ‘mapping’ of the entries in the draft inventory The draft inventory and the ‘maps’ need to be checked and verified by the projects and would justify further analysis/’mapping’

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June

5

6

7 Based on the mapping and initial findings, is there a clear need and justification for a “mechanism” for assessing overall system-wide performance? On the basis of my interviews and discussions (conducted before the preliminary mapping work was undertaken) – Yes, there is widespread interest in and general support for work that would lead to overall, system- wide performance assessment The preliminary mapping reveals: a)The majority of current data gathering efforts are focused on initial needs assessments and assessments during operations. There is a deficit in information that will enable system-wide performance assessment b)Comparatively limited attention is currently being given to analysing processes of aid delivery, coordination or assessing outcomes c)Very limited attention or effort is currently being given to seeking the views of the affected population and recipients of assistance. There seems to be both need and justification for a “mechanism” that advocates for, and supports efforts to, fill the deficit

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June How might such a “mechanism” utilise and add value to existing mechanisms? Many of the building blocks are in place – SMART, HNTS, FSAU-IPC, OCHA ACE, CRED’s EM-DAT and CE-DAT, Sphere Standards, Beneficiary Perception Surveys, The Listening Project, etc. What is lacking is:  Adequate orientation of effort towards overall performance assessment  A vision of what an overall performance assessment/”mechanism” would look like and the various elements that should comprise it  A sense of how this might be achieved collectively and fairly DFID’s difficult experience with its 2005 Benchmarking Initiative shows the need for approaches that are collective and inclusive An ALNAP project (HPP) could provide the “vehicle for the journey” It wouldn’t replace or duplicate any existing mechanisms. It would work collaboratively but focused on delivering overall, system-wide performance assessments on a regular basis

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June How would such a “mechanism” be used by different stakeholders in the sector and what benefits would it yield? The process of developing the mechanism would provide those that want such a “mechanism” with a means of achieving it Once the “mechanism” is functioning, the humanitarian system will have a more objective basis for:  Describing and quantifying its overall achievements  Revealing areas that are working well and areas that can be improved  Clarifying what is within its control and for which it is responsible and what is beyond its control and others are responsible for The following benefits could be anticipated:  More willing support from public and private funding sources  Greater self-knowledge and sense of identity  Provide the humanitarian system with an overall performance assessment framework that would help ‘locate’ the various accountability, quality, evaluation and performance ‘tools’ and highlight any gaps remaining if a comprehensive framework is to be achieved

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June What form should the HPP take? This is for Full Members to determine. If Advocacy and Support are accepted as appropriate roles then how should the balance between the two be determined? It may be helpful to approach this in terms of the following dimensions:  Inclusive or Exclusive? (degree of inclusion of wider groups and networks beyond ALNAP)  Operational or Non-operational (degree of involvement in pilots/work at the field level)  Policy or Practice (balance between the thinking/analysis and the doing/practical action)

23rd ALNAP Biannual Meeting, June Breakout Groups 5 breakout groups Appoint a chair and a rapporteur Consider each of the questions 1.Based on the mapping and initial findings, is there a clear need and justification for a “mechanism” for assessing overall system-wide performance? 2.How might such a “mechanism” utilise and add value to existing mechanisms? 3.How would such a “mechanism” be used by different stakeholders in the sector, and what benefits would it yield? 4.What form should the HPP take? Be ready to report back in plenary by ….am