Measuring Commitment to Best Practice
HRI
NEWS
Interview with Augusto López-Claros
“A tool to improve the humanitarian response.”
In recent years, the resources allocated to confront humanitarian crises has increased considerably to a point where it is at the highest amount in history. This reality requires tools and mechanisms that increase the benefits derived from humanitarian actions, promote their accountability and guarantee their transparency. The Humanitarian Response Index (HRI), created by DARA, is in response to the demand for detailed information about each donor. Augusto López Claros, Project Director, explains the methodology used to create this new tool.
What are the main contributions of DARA’s HRI in terms of the methodology?
What we have tried to do is identify factors that tell us something meaningful regarding the efficiency of the donors’ delivery of humanitarian assistance. Humanitarian aid is a very important part of the support that rich countries give in situations of extreme need and there is a growing consciousness that practices and mechanisms need to be developed to maximize its benefits. What we have done is use the Principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship, which were adopted in 2003 by the donor countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) in order to create a quantitative framework that would allow us to evaluate the international response to humanitarian crises for each particular donor. The goal is to provide a tool for the international community to be able to identify the strengths and weaknesses of each country. The moment has arrived to evaluate their humanitarian actions and simultaneously provide an informative platform to identify the best practices and policies.
What exactly is the methodology used for the HRI? How is the information collected and how is it organized?
Once the moment arrived to identify those factors to which I referred earlier, one discovers that some can be quantified, as there are data that have been compiled throughout the years. However, there are others that are more qualitative in nature which are difficult to measure and yet are equally important. To capture these factors, usually a survey is used. In the case of the HRI, a survey was conducted in 8 countries that have experienced some sort of humanitarian emergency during 2006. The goal was to obtain an objective perspective on the donors’ performance in its diverse dimensions from organizations that receive and distribute humanitarian assistance. The questionnaire used during this stage of the project was designed with the Principles of Good Humanitarian Donorship in mind. These Principles establish performancebenchmarks and have the additional virtue of being adopted by the donors. It is the combination of the survey data with the quantitative data from reliable sources that eventually permits a score to be given to each country and therefore, allows us to make a ranking. We have identified almost 70 variables, half of which are from the survey. To facilitate dialogue and promote the use of the HRI, 5 pillars have been identified that capture the different dimensions of the delivery of humanitarian aid.
Why combine quantitative and qualitative data?
The qualitative data (from the survey) allow us to capture important dimensions for which, unfortunately, there is no statistical data, yet simply cannot be ignored. Surveys, however, have a subjective component to them by definition– as a last resort they capture the opinions of the participants. The quantitative data, when they exist, show a more objective dimension that is easier to quantify. A well designed survey supplemented with the best statistical data base that can be identified will allow us to elaborate an index with a good methodological base.
How do qualitative and quantitative data lead to a ranking?
The survey gives the participant the opportunity to respond using a scale from 1 to 7. For example, to the question, “Does the donor provide the necessary flexibility in the use of funds to help you adapt your program to changing needs?” the interviewee is given the options, of responding on one extreme with, “Not at all,” the equivalent of a “1” to “Yes, clearly,” the equivalent of a “7”. Obviously, when his or her opinion is more ambiguous, he or she can opt for intermediate answers. Therefore, the survey already provides numerical data, which will be added to the quantitative data that, by their nature, can be arranged based on their magnitude. This aggregation process allows a score to be obtained for each country that used as the starting point for the ranking.
What sources were consulted?
Among others, we accessed the Financial Tracking System of the United Nations’ Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA), the OECD Creditor Reporting System, the HOLIS 14 Points of the European Commission’s Humanitarian Aid Office (ECHO), as well as data provided by the donors’ development agencies.
Why was this methodology chosen?
Because these methods are typically used to create this type of index. To date, an important volume of empirical work has accumulated internationally in the elaboration of indexes, like the World Economic Forum’s Competitiveness Index, the Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index, and the Center for Global Development’s Commitment to Development Index, among others. The HRI was developed following well established methodology, although proportionally, we probably made greater use of statistical data as a way to reinforce the Index’smethodological bases and access the greatest possible amount of available information.
Why were these eight countries chosen? What crises took place in them?
These eight countries were chosen with the intention of having a good representation, using geographic criteria of the nature of the crisis, its magnitude and also with the hope that in its entirety, the participating donors would encompass all the countries that have adopted the Principles. Some of the crises are natural, others are conflicts that have a political background or have been triggered by human actions. Our desire was to identify a sufficiently large number of crises in order to have a good cross-cutting view of the donors’ humanitarian action.
How were the surveys conducted? Who was interviewed?
The survey was given to organizations that implement humanitarian aid and as a result, a significant portion of the interviewees were representatives of organizations (NGOs for example) with activities in the 8 countries in crisis. However, government officials were also interviewed from organizations working in their central headquarters, which were primarily located in the donor countries. Similarly, interviews were also held with the representatives of the donor countries in order to obtain an additional dimension and frequently, to validate the quantitative data that comprise the HRI.