Annex 6: Evidence assessment

• Author: Directorate-General for European Civil Protection and Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO) (European Commission), Landell Mills International
• Pages: 165-172

Annexes

165

Annex 6: Evidence assessment

Evaluation

Questions

Findings from Desk

review

Findings from KII

and field

observations

Findings from

communities

Conclusive findings

Strength of

evidence

1. To what extent did the

design and

implementation of EU-

funded actions take into

account the needs of the

most vulnerable

population in

Afghanistan, in

particular women,

children, elderly and

disabled people? To

what extent were

beneficiaries consulted

in the design and

implementation of DG

ECHO-funded projects?

ECHO and partners use

multiple methods and

joint needs assessments

to identify the vulnerable

and gaps.

Joint assessment

emphasized, but weak

in data sharing; hence

multiple assessments

are common; focus

mostly on vulnerable,

but selection/targeting

process high in

exclusion errors due to

petitions system in

government areas; no

standard procedure for

joint assessments.

NGOs come and ask

questions a number of

times and find out their

needs; assistance in

cash, WASH and mental

health support received

repeated mention as

highly relevant; hygiene

items and education

was frequently

mentioned by women

groups; people have no

say in what they

needed, but they

accepted everything as

welcome.

Joint assessment is still weak and

the quality of needs assessment

and targeting heavily affected by

the petitions system for ERM,

though the response by partners

is considered relevant and

appropriate by communities.

4

Weak evidence with

regard to participation of

women and

incorporating age and

disability factors.

Women's participation

or consultation during

needs assessment not

done; weak focus on

disability.

Though women were

not consulted during

needs assessment,

most organisations

address their specific

needs of NFI, water,

etc.; disability only

focused by 2-3

organisations

ECHO partners weak on

participation of women and

incorporating age and disability

factors in their actions

4