Drifmeyer Jeff, Llewellyn Craig
Center for Disaster and Humanitarian Assistance Medicine, Uniformed Services University of Health Sciences, 4301 Jones Bridge Road, Bethesda, MD 20814-4799, USA.
Mil Med. 2004 Mar;169(3):161-8. doi: 10.7205/milmed.169.3.161.
Although perspectives of military and civilian humanitarians may differ, they share common goals and parallel efforts for more effective humanitarian assistance. Effectiveness measures for military or civilian humanitarian assistance are discussed. Whereas examples cite military medicine, findings and recommendations are widely applicable to all forms of humanitarian assistance especially developmental relief. Humanitarian effectiveness is improved by a straightforward, standard approach to planning and evaluation, such as the logical framework process. Given successful application by a wide variety of private volunteer, nongovernmental, and international humanitarian organizations, the logical framework process is recommended for adaptation by the Department of Defense. More effective humanitarian assistance requires: developing specific, written purpose, criteria, and quantifiable measures, coordinating the purpose, criteria, and measures with all involved, including donor and host nation officials, all other providers (expatriates, private volunteers, nongovernmentals, international organizations), and beneficiaries, and documenting then analyzing results to compare outcomes with project purpose and international consensus standards for minimal performance in humanitarian assistance (i.e., Sphere project, see http://www.sphereproject.org/).
尽管军事人道主义者和平民人道主义者的观点可能不同，但他们有着共同的目标，并为更有效地提供人道主义援助而开展并行的工作。本文讨论了军事或平民人道主义援助的有效性衡量标准。虽然文中举例提及军事医学，但研究结果和建议广泛适用于所有形式的人道主义援助，尤其是发展救济。通过采用一种直接、标准的规划和评估方法，如逻辑框架法，可以提高人道主义援助的有效性。鉴于各种私人志愿组织、非政府组织和国际人道主义组织成功应用了该方法，建议国防部采用逻辑框架法。更有效的人道主义援助需要：制定具体、书面的目标、标准和可量化的措施；与所有相关方协调目标、标准和措施，包括捐助方和东道国官员、所有其他援助提供者（外籍人士、私人志愿者、非政府组织、国际组织）以及受益者；记录并分析结果，以便将成果与项目目标以及人道主义援助最低绩效的国际共识标准（即《斯phere项目标准》，见http://www.sphereproject.org/）进行比较。
