Lead the overall WASH response evaluation process
Multisectoral evaluation do not focus on a specific sector, except in specific cases (evaluation of cholera outbreak might focus more on WASH; evaluation of drought response might focus on FSL etc.). In some context, the WASH coordination platform and UNICEF might find relevant to organize a specific evaluation of the WASH sector response. This has to be differentiated from usual WASH program evaluation, as it is about evaluating the WASH response as a whole, often including an evaluation of the WASH coordination system as well. Depending on the objective and the scope of the evaluation several methodologies can be considered:
Country wide field evaluation
This is a complete evaluation of the whole WASH response at crisis/country level. It involves interviews and site visit of a representative sample of beneficiaries and WASH infrastructure for the whole WASH response. Unless the crisis and the response is very localized, this type of sector specific country wide evaluation is rare and challenging. It would involve considerable resources.
Systematic review of partner’s project
...
Key informants interview & documentary review.
This is the most common sector level type of evaluation. It consist in reviewing main partner's projects and evaluation, perform key informant interview at capital and field level, review data from other cluster such as health and nutrition, review recent coordination monitoring process and draw conclusion upon the WASH response following certain agreed criteria. The DAC/OECD evaluation criteria, generally used by partners, can be use as well at the level for the sector: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability (which can be replaced in emergency by localization and connection with development/emergency sector). This evaluation exercise can requires significant resources and time, as there are usually hundreds of different project implemented by partners, and tens of partners to interview.
...
Systematic review of partner’s evaluation
WASH partners often implement internal or external evaluation of their
...
projects. A systematic review will gather all
...
partners' evaluation, compare their result and extrapolate the results to the whole response. This exercise will be
...
possible if:
...
- Significant number of partners have evaluated their projects
- Partners have used
...
- comparable evaluation criteria
- Evaluation are geographically complementary
- Program evaluated follows HRP/SOF strategy
Consequently, it
...
is critical for the WASH coordination platform to anticipate and
...
harmonize partner’s evaluation process, providing them with some parameters to be respected when carrying their evaluation (same evaluation criteria, evaluation coordinated between partner’s etc…)
...
Key informants interview & documentary review. This is probably the most common type of evaluation carried out at the level of the sector.
Ask participant to browse as an example in their in handouts the Yemen cholera response
...
Evaluation of WASH coordination
This is usually done at the same time as the response evaluation. The objective is to evaluate whether coordination has been efficient, and which impact it had on the response. The coordination performance monitoring questionnaire can be used (see after in this session), as well as time for recruitment/deployment of coordination staff, value for money, achievement of GWC minimum requirement for coordination, coordination platform outputs…
Impact measurement and research
First, have a discussion with participants on what are impact evaluations, giving some examples: Impact of WASH activities on nutrition, on morbidity & mortality, on people’s livelihood, on attendance to school.
Then let participants come up with ways of doing such evaluation:
- Internal or external evaluation
- HH based survey, with representative sampling
- Epidemiology study (especially done for outbreak such as cholera, hepatitis E…)
- Research project: several research designs exist, the main one being “randomized control trials” (blinded or not). Mention ethic issues of using control group.
- Systematic review of partner’s impact evaluation = evaluation of evaluation, to be able to generalize results to the whole population of a country or the planet
Although impact measurement in emergency are not a priority, coordination platforms can take some initiatives in recovery or preparedness phase to evaluate impact of the sector response, to strengthen impact evidences and improve future strategy. As for quality monitoring, one of the difficulty of the process is to be able to obtain representative data from the whole response, while impact evaluation from partners project will tend to be disconnected between them. To address this issue, the coordination platform can set up an impact evaluation framework for the response, to be used by partners when they will carry out evaluation activities. The framework can provide priority response aspects and zone to be evaluated, and propose standard evaluation methodology so meta-evaluation can be done.
...
Although not a priority in emergency, evaluate the impact of the response can be critical to orientate and improve future response, obtain evidence to improve fundraising. Emergency WASH response's overall objective is usually to decrease morbidity & mortality rate, and in some extend, protect people’s livelihood and improve child education. Measure the impact of WASH on these outcome domains is possible but complex, as many other factors will influence them, and accurate data are difficult to obtain in emergency context. It involves the set up of research protocols, and partnership with universities and research institutes. Impact measurement often involves the use of control groups, which has some ethical implication, especially in emergency.