Center for Refugee and Disaster Response, The Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Prehosp Disaster Med. 2012 Jun;27(3):280-5. doi: 10.1017/S1049023X12000842. Epub 2012 Jun 13.
During responses to disasters, the credibility of humanitarian agencies can be threatened by perceptions of poor quality of the responses. Many initiatives have been introduced over the last two decades to help address these issues and enhance the overall quality of humanitarian response, often with limited success. There remain important gaps and deficiencies in quality assurance efforts, including potential conflicts of interest. While many definitions for quality exist, a common component is that meeting the needs of the "beneficiary" or "client" is the ultimate determinant of quality. This paper examines the current status of assessment and accountability practices in the humanitarian response community, identifies gaps, and recommends timely, concise, and population-based assessments to elicit the perspective of quality performance and accountability to the affected populations. Direct and independent surveys of the disaster-affected population will help to redirect ongoing aid efforts, and generate more effective and comparable methods for assessing the quality of humanitarian practices and assistance activities.
在应对灾害时，人们可能会认为人道主义机构的应对质量较差，从而对其公信力产生质疑。过去二十年来，许多机构提出了多项举措来帮助解决这些问题并提高人道主义应对的整体质量，但收效甚微。在质量保证工作方面仍存在重大差距和缺陷，包括潜在的利益冲突。虽然有许多质量定义，但一个共同的组成部分是满足“受益者”或“客户”的需求是质量的最终决定因素。本文审视了人道主义应对界目前的评估和问责制做法，确定了差距，并建议进行及时、简明且基于人口的评估，以了解质量绩效和对受灾民众的问责情况。对受灾民众的直接和独立调查将有助于调整正在进行的援助工作，并为评估人道主义做法和援助活动的质量生成更有效和可比的方法。
