Bolton Paul, Bass Judith, Murray Laura, Lee Katharine, Weiss William, McDonnell Sharon M
Center for Refugee and Disaster Studies, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, USA.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2007 Sep-Oct;22(5):390-5. doi: 10.1017/s1049023x00005100.
The effectiveness of humanitarian programs normally is evaluated according to a limited number of pre-defined objectives. These objectives typically represent only selected positive expected impacts of program interventions and as such, are inadequate benchmarks for understanding the overall effectiveness of aid. This is because programs also have unexpected impacts (both positive and negative) as well as expected negative impacts and expected positive impacts beyond the program objectives. The authors contend that these other categories of program impacts also should be assessed, and suggest a methodology for doing so that draws on input from the perspectives of beneficiaries. This paper includes examples of the use of this methodology in the field. Finally, the authors suggest future directions for improving this type of expanded assessment and advocate for its widespread use, both within and without the field of disaster response.
人道主义项目的成效通常依据有限的若干预先设定目标来评估。这些目标通常仅代表项目干预预期产生的部分积极影响，因此，作为理解援助整体成效的基准并不充分。这是因为项目还会产生意外影响（包括积极和消极的），以及超出项目目标的预期负面影响和预期积极影响。作者认为，这些其他类别的项目影响也应予以评估，并提出一种借鉴受益者视角意见的评估方法。本文包含该方法在实地应用的实例。最后，作者提出了改进这类扩展评估的未来方向，并倡导在灾害应对领域内外广泛应用。
