Bibliography

ACF (Action contre la Faim) (2013) Humanitarian principles in conflict – ensuring humanitarian principles are respected in armed conflicts and other situations of violence: ACF’s experience and position. Paris: ACF (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/humanitarian-principles-in-conflict-ensuring-humanitarian-principles-are-respected-in/).

ALNAP (Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action) (2006) Evaluating humanitarian action using the OECD DAC criteria. ALNAP Guide. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluating-humanitarian-action-using-the-oecd-dac-criteria/).

ALNAP (2016) Evaluation of humanitarian action guide. ALNAP Guide. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-of-humanitarian-action-eha-guide/).

ALNAP (2018) Evaluation of protection in humanitarian action. ALNAP Guide. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://library.alnap.org/alnap-guide-evaluation-of-protection-in-humanitarian-action).

ALNAP (2022) The State of the Humanitarian System. ALNAP Study. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://sohs.alnap.org/2022-the-state-of-the-humanitarian-system-sohs-%E2%80%93-full-report).

ALNAP (2023) Review of the OECD DAC criteria for evaluating humanitarian action: a mapping of literature, guidance and practice. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/review-of-the-oecd-dac-criteria-for-evaluating-humanitarian-action-a-mapping-of/).

Barbelet, V and Wake, C (2020) Inclusion and exclusion in humanitarian action: the state of play. HPG Working Paper, November. London: ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/inclusion-and-exclusion-in-humanitarian-action-the-state-of-play/).

Borton, J, Brusset, E and Hallam, A (1996) The international response to conflict and genocide: lessons from the Rwanda experience – humanitarian aid and effects (JEEAR). London: ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/the-international-response-to-conflict-and-genocide-lessons-from-the-rwanda-1/).

Buchanan-Smith M (2024) The meeting of humanitarian and civic space in Sudan: lessons for localization. HPN Network Paper. London: HPN (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/humanit-and-civic-space-sudan/).

Buchanan-Smith, M and Morrison-Métois, S (2021) From real-time evaluation to real-time learning: exploring new approaches from the COVID-19 response. ALNAP paper. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/from-real-time-evaluation-to-real-time-learning/).

Buchanan-Smith, M and Wiles, P (2022) From Kosovo to Ukraine: lessons from the humanitarian response to conflict and displacement in Europe. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://library.alnap.org/from-kosovo-to-ukraine-lessons-from-the-humanitarian-response-to-conflict-and-displacement-in-europe).

Buchanan-Smith, M, Gaere, E, Okwii, M, et al (2023) Country strategy evaluation for UNHCR South Sudan 2018–2022. Geneva: UNHCR (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/country-strategy-eval-unhcr-south-sudan/).

CDA (n.d.) ‘Do no harm: a brief introduction from CDA’. Cambridge, MA: CDA (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/do-no-harm-brief-intro/).

Center for Theory of Change (n.d.) ‘What is theory of change?. Webpage. New York: Center for Theory of Change (https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/).

Chaplowe, S and Uitto, J (2022) ‘EvalSDGs INSIGHT #14: Mainstreaming environmental sustainability in evaluation’. Better Evaluation, Global Evaluation Initiative (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/mainstreaming-environment-in-evaluation/).

CHS (2024) Core humanitarian standard on quality and accountability. Second edition. CHS (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/core-humanitarian-standard-on-quality-and-accountability-2024/).

Darcy, J and Dillon, N (2020) Missing the point? Reflections on current practice in evaluating humanitarian action. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/missing-the-point-reflections-on-current-practice-in-evaluating-humanitarian-action/).

Davies, G and Spencer, A (2022) ‘Complementary approaches between international and local protection advocacy: don’t speak for me, I’ll speak for myself’. HPG Briefing Note. March (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/complementary-approaches-between-international-and-local-protection-advocacy-dont/).

De Mel, R L, Albiento, D M, Chitrakar, P, et al (2023) Toolkit on indigenous evaluations for Asia Pacific Region. Bulacan, Philippines: Asia Pacific Evaluation Association and EvalIndigenous (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/toolkit-indigenous-evaluations-asia-pacific/).

Doherty, J (2023) From tick box to turning point: getting accountability right for improved humanitarian action. London: ALNAP/ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/from-tick-box-to-turning-point-getting-accountability-right-for-improved-humanitarian/).

Hallam, A (1998) Evaluating humanitarian assistance programmes in complex emergencies. RRN Good Practice Review No 7 September. London: ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluating-humanitarian-assistance-programmes-in-complex-emergencies-good-practice-review-7/).

Haruhiru, HAG (Humanitarian Advisory Group) and lese (2023) Framework for greening humanitarian action in the Pacific. Humanitarian Horizons. Melbourne: HAG (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/framework-for-greening-humanitarian-action-in-the-pacific/).

Hauer, M and Wahlström, E (2023) Environmental responsibility in humanitarian operations. IASC Guidance. Geneva: Inter-Agency Standing Committee (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/iasc-guidance-environment-responsibility/).

HAG, CoLAB and GLOW (2024) Making the results of evaluation findings accessible to communities: why it frequently fails and what to do about it. Melbourne: HAG (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/making-evaluations-accessible-to-communities-why-it-fails-and-what-to-do/).

IAHE (Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation) (2025) Inter-Agency Humanitarian Evaluation of the response to the humanitarian crisis in Somalia. Geneva: IASC (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/inter-agency-humanitarian-evaluation-of-the-response-to-the-humanitarian-crisis-in-somalia/).

IASC (Inter-Agency Standing Committee) (2016) Inter-Agency Standing Committee policy on protection in humanitarian action. Geneva: IASC (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/policy-on-protection-in-humanitarian-action/).

IECAH (Institute of Studies on Conflicts and Humanitarian Action) (2024) Review of regional coordination mechanisms in response to mixed movements in the LAC region. Madrid: IECAH (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/regional-coord-mechanisms-mixed-movements-lac/).

IRC (International Rescue Committee) and USAID (United States Agency for International Development) (2019) Cost-efficiency analysis of basic needs programs: best practice guidance for humanitarian agencies. New York: IRC (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/cost-efficiency-analysis-for-basic-needs-programs-best-practice-guidance-for/).

Jouri (Jouri for Research and Consulting) (2022) BHA RESTORE II: evaluation report. Jouri (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-of-bha-restore-ii/).

Key Aid Consulting (2018) Final evaluation: Nepal earthquake recovery programme. London: British Red Cross (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/british-red-cross-final-evaluation-nepal-earthquake-recovery-programme/).

Lough, O, Barbelet, V and Njeri, S (2022) Inclusion and exclusion in humanitarian action: findings from a three-year study. HPG Report, July. London: ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/inclusion-and-exclusion-in-humanitarian-action-findings-from-a-three-year-study/).

Low, I, Robinson, L, Fatiaki, K, et al (2023) Hunga Tonga – Hunga Ha’apai Disaster Response Program end of program evaluation: evaluation report. London: CARE International (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/end-of-programme-evaluation-report-hunga-tonga-hunga-haapai-disaster-response-program/).

McCommon, J, Sutton, K and Pujiono, P (2021) Undervalued and underutilised: non-humanitarian actors and humanitarian reform in Indonesia. Melbourne: HAG and Pujiono Centre (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/undervalued-and-underutilised-non-humanitarian-actors-and-humanitarian-reform-in/).

Mercy Corps (2022) Value for money report – VenEsperanza. Portland, OR: Mercy Corps (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/vfm-report-venesperanza-emergency-response/).

Minear, L (1994) The international relief system: a critical review. Paper presented to the Parallel National Intelligence Estimate on Global Humanitarian Emergencies, Meridian International Centre, 22 September, Washington, DC.

OCHA (UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs) (2022) ‘OCHA on message: humanitarian principles’, July. New York: OCHA (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/ocha-on-message-humanitarian-principles/).

OECD (2019) ‘Better criteria for better evaluation: revised evaluation criteria definitions and principles for use’. Paris: OECD (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/better-criteria-for-better-evaluation-revised-evaluation-criteria-definitions-and-principles-for-use/).

OECD (2021) Applying evaluation criteria thoughtfully. Paris: OECD (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/applying-evaluation-criteria-thoughtfully/).

OECD (2023) Glossary of key terms in evaluation and results based management for sustainable development. Paris: OECD (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/glossary-key-terms-evaluation-and-rbm-2023/).

OECD (2025) ‘DAC recommendation on the humanitarian–development–peace nexus’. OECD Legal Instruments. Paris: OECD (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/dac-recommendation-hdp-nexus-2025/).

Phoenix Center for Economics and Informatics Studies (2022) Final evaluation for the emergency health care services provision for Syrian refugees in Jordan, 2021. Birmingham: Islamic Relief Worldwide (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/final-evaluation-for-the-emergency-health-care-service-provision-for-syrian-refugees/).

Pinnington, R (2023) Gender, inclusion and humanitarian principles in conflict contexts. Research Paper. International Security Programme. London: Chatham House (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/gender-inclusion-humanit-principles-conflict/).

Quinn Patton, M (2020) ‘Evaluation criteria for evaluating transformation: implications for the coronavirus pandemic and the global climate emergency’. American Journal of Evaluation 42(1) (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-criteria-for-evaluating-transformation-implications-for-the-coronavirus-pandemic-and-the/).

RRN (Relief and Rehabilitation Network) (1996) The joint evaluation of emergency assistance to Rwanda: study III principal findings and recommendations. Network Paper 16. London: ODI (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/network-paper-16-the-joint-evaluation-of-emergency-assistance-to-rwanda/).

Slim, H (2022) ‘Humanitarian resistance: its ethical and operational importance’. HPN Network Paper 87. London: HPN (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/humanitarian-resistance/).

Sphere Project [SG1] (ed.) (2018). The Sphere Handbook: Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Humanitarian Response. Fourth edition. Geneva, Switzerland. Sphere Association. (https://www.spherestandards.org/handbook/editions/).

Thu, S M (2024) Reframing inclusion: integrating intersectionality in humanitarian response in Myanmar, Humanitarian Horizons. Melbourne: HAG (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/integrating-intersectionality-humanit-response-myanmar/).

UNEG (United Nations Evaluation Group) (2016a) Reflecting humanitarian principles in evaluation. Working Paper. New York: UNEG (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/reflecting-humanitarian-principles-in-evaluation-uneg-working-paper-2016/).

UNEG (2016b) Norms and standards for evaluation. New York: UNEG (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/uneg-norms-and-standards-for-evaluation/).

UNEG (2024) Guidance on the integration of humanitarian principles in the evaluation of humanitarian action. New York: UNEG (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/integration-humanit-principles-humanit-evaluation/).

UNHCR (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees) (2023a) Evaluation of UNHCR’s response to the L3 emergency in Afghanistan 2021–2022. Geneva: UNHCR (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/eval-unhcr-response-l3-emergency-afghanistan-2021-22/).

UNHCR (2023b) Country Strategy Evaluation for UNHCR South Sudan. Geneva: UNHCR (https://www.unhcr.org/publications/country-strategy-evaluation-unhcr-south-sudan[SG2] ).

UNHCR (2023a) Country Strategy Evaluation for UNHCR South Sudan. Geneva: UNHCR (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/country-strategy-eval-unhcr-south-sudan/).

UNHCR (2023c) UNHCR Mauritania country strategy evaluation 2020–2022. Geneva: UNHCR (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/country-strat-eval-unhcr-mauritania-2020-22/).

UNHCR (2024) Evaluation of UNHCR’s engagement in situations of internal displacement (2019 to 2023). Geneva: UNHCR (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-unhcr-internal-displacement-2019-23/).

UNICEF (United Nations Children’s Fund) (2019) Evaluation of the coverage and quality of the UNICEF humanitarian response in complex humanitarian emergencies. New York: UNICEF (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-of-the-coverage-and-quality-of-the-unicef-humanitarian-response-in-complex-humanitarian/).

UN Women (2019) Corporate thematic evaluation of UN Women’s contribution to humanitarian action. New York: UN Women (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-un-women-humanit-action/).

UN Women (2022) Intersectionality resource guide and toolkit: an intersectional approach to leave no one behind. New York: UN Women (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/intersectionality-resource-guide-and-toolkit/).

Vaioleti, T M (2006) ‘Talanoa research methodology: a developing position on Pacific research’. Waikato Journal of Education 12: 21–34 (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/talanoa-research-methodology-a-developing-position-on-pacific-research/).

WFP (World Food Programme) (2019) WFP’s corporate emergency response in northeast Nigeria (2016–2018). Rome: WFP (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-of-wfps-corporate-emergency-response-in-northeast-nigeria-2016-2018/).

WFP (2023a) Evaluation of Algeria WFP Interim Country Strategic Plan 2019–2022. Rome: WFP (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/evaluation-algeria-wfp-interim-strategic-plan-19-22/).

WFP (2023b) Evaluation of the corporate emergency response in Myanmar (2018–2022). Rome: WFP (https://alnap.org/help-library/resources/corporate-emergency-evaluation-of-wfps-response-in-myanmar-2018-2022/).

Chapter 1: Introduction

Coherence was first used in the evaluation of the humanitarian response to the Rwanda crisis (RRN, 1996), while coverage, connectedness and appropriateness were originally proposed by Minear in 1994 (Minear, 1994).

View footnote source

Chapter 2: Getting started – definitions and key terms

See Annex 1 for a glossary of other useful terms.

View footnote source
This definition of humanitarian action is adapted from that in ALNAP (2016), to add and reflect the centrality of protection. As well as having their basic needs met, those affected by crisis also need protection – from violence, abuse, coercion and deprivation – and respect for their rights in accordance with the letter and spirit of relevant bodies of law (IASC, 2016).

View footnote source
This definition is drawn from ALNAP (2016).

View footnote source
See ALNAP (2016) for further explanation of some of these challenges and how to address them.

View footnote source
This is adapted from the OECD DAC definition – ‘A criterion is a standard or principle used in evaluation as the basis for evaluative judgement’ (OECD, 2021: 18) – in order for us to make a clear distinction with the priority themes.

View footnote source
In the 2006 guide relevance is combined with appropriateness. In this updated guide the two levels of analysis are maintained, but appropriateness no longer features in the name of the criterion.

View footnote source
However, the OECD (2021) acknowledges that, in humanitarian contexts, the additional criteria of appropriateness (folded here into relevance), coverage and connectedness may be highly relevant to evaluation.

View footnote source
The cross-cutting ‘themes’ in the EHA guide (ALNAP, 2006) are: local context; human resources; protection; participation of primary stakeholders; coping strategies and resilience; gender equality; HIV/AIDS; and the environment. Protection is now regarded as central to humanitarian action and is integrated throughout this guide. Some others now appear as priority themes or they are woven into this guide.

View footnote source
See UNEG (2024) and also UNEG (2016a), which find few references to humanitarian principles in evaluations of humanitarian action.

View footnote source
This includes the International Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, UN agencies engaged in humanitarian action, many international NGOs (INGOs) and some donor governments.

View footnote source
Humanitarian resistance has been described as the rescue, relief and protection of people suffering under an unjust enemy regime, by individuals and groups politically opposed to the regime. Thus, humanitarian resistance means taking sides. Solidarity is a commitment to unity and a common cause, which may mean ‘resisting’ enemy power. Once again, this means taking sides rather than remaining neutral (Slim, 2022).

View footnote source
When presenting evaluation findings on humanitarian principles, either interweave these findings throughout your final report or capture them in a specific chapter on alignment with humanitarian principles.

View footnote source

Chapter 3: Ensuring evaluation is useful – how to apply the criteria

See section 3.3 of ALNAP’s EHA guide (2016) for ways to identify the stakeholders of an evaluation and, among these stakeholders, the intended primary users.

View footnote source
See Darcy and Dillon (2020) for the distinction between ‘technical’ evaluation, providing evidence to inform decision-making, and ‘facilitative’ evaluation, to support reflection and learning.

View footnote source
See also OECD (2021) on applying the OECD DAC evaluation criteria thoughtfully.

View footnote source
See section 6.3 of ALNAP’s EHA guide (2016) for the rationale for selecting a small number of high-level evaluation questions: three to four.

View footnote source
Despite strong recognition of the humanitarian imperative and ethical responsibility to ensure that communities access, and benefit from, monitoring and evaluation knowledge, it is hard to make evaluation findings accessible to communities. Several barriers make this practice less common in the humanitarian sector, including resourcing constraints, lack of prioritisation and logistics (see HAG et al, 2024).

View footnote source

Chapter 4: Relevance

In 2006, ALNAP combined relevance with appropriateness; in this updated guide the two levels of analysis are maintained but appropriateness no longer features in the criterion’s name.

View footnote source
The OECD definition of relevance also includes policy alignment which, in this guide, is covered under coherence.

View footnote source

Chapter 5: Coverage and inclusion

This simplifies ALNAP’s 2006 definition, clearly specifying protection as well as other humanitarian needs. Inclusion is added and we elaborate on what this means.

View footnote source
See UN Women (2022) on how to put this concept into practice.

View footnote source
This draws on an evaluation question from UNICEF (2019). ‘Principled access’ means access that has been negotiated by the respective humanitarian actor(s), guided by humanitarian principles.

View footnote source

Chapter 6: Effectiveness

In humanitarian evaluations, the evaluation of effectiveness often fails to analyse the effects of programme delivery on people affected by crisis. Consequently, evaluations do not provide enough information about the difference humanitarian action makes (Darcy and Dillon, 2020).

View footnote source
There are different standards for different types of humanitarian action. Consider which standards are most appropriate in specific cases (Sphere Project, 2018).

View footnote source

Chapter 7: Efficiency

Economic refers to the conversion of inputs into results in the most cost-effective way possible, compared to feasible alternatives in the context (OECD, 2019).

View footnote source

Chapter 8: Inter-connection

Inter-connection is an additional criterion for EHA; it is not an OECD criterion. The temporal aspect draws on the definition in ALNAP’s EHA guide (2006), with the relational dimension added to reflect the expectation that humanitarian actors engage with other actors to avoid a siloed approach, in the spirit of the triple nexus. Whereas the OECD considers the nexus in terms of internal coherence, inter-connection considers the external dimension.

View footnote source
See UNHCR ‘Terms of Reference Country Strategy Evaluation South Sudan 2018-22’ (UNHCR, 2023b).

View footnote source

Chapter 9: Coherence

This definition differs significantly from that in ALNAP’s 2006 EHA guide, which is rooted in the response to the Rwanda crisis in 1996 where the Joint Evaluation of Emergency Assistance to Rwanda (JEEAR) concluded that international humanitarian action was a substitute for international political inaction (Borton et al, 1996). In that edition, coherence focuses on consistency between security, developmental, trade and military policies with humanitarian policy. This is outdated and inconsistent with principled humanitarian action. Stakeholders consulted for this 2025 edition requested an updated definition and guidance, unpacking what the criterion means. OECD first used the coherence criterion for development and humanitarian evaluation in 2019.

View footnote source
This is also reflected in the OECD definition of coherence.

View footnote source

Chapter 11: Priority themes

Talanoa is ‘a personal encounter where people story their issues, their realities and aspirations’. This approach ‘allows more mo’oni (pure, real, authentic) information to be available for Pacific research than data derived from other research methods’. See Vaioleti (2006).

View footnote source

Annex 3: Evaluation criteria and the CHS

In practice, international and national NGOs are the main users of the CHS, with some choosing an external audit to verify how they apply the CHS.

View footnote source

Membership & governance

Get involved

Events

Explain briefings

Learning links

With learning comes change

Spotlight on learning

ALNAP's focus topics

Current crises in focus

Lessons from past crises

Monitoring and Evaluation

2026 edition

2022 edition

About SOHS

Read the 2025 report

Past editions of the GHA

Search library

Collections

Commentary & Multimedia

Submit a resource