Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T09:15:46.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Implementation of Evidence-based Humanitarian Programs in Military-led Missions: Part I. Qualitative Gap Analysis of Current Military and International Aid Programs

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 April 2013

Erik J. Reaves ,
Kenneth W. Schor  and
Frederick M. Burkle Jr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: A recent Department of Defense instruction mandates country-specific assessments, identification of interventions, and development of guidance for Department of Defense to plan, train, and prepare for the provision of humanitarian assistance in stability operations. It also directs the use of outcome-based measures of effectiveness and the establishment of processes facilitating transparency of information. Whereas this would align military-led projects closer to the standards of the international aid community, how this process will be developed and implemented within the military has not yet been determined.

Methods: To begin developing an evidence-based program for military-led humanitarian aid, we conducted a qualitative gap analysis comparing information from a Web search of Department of Defense medical after-action reports, lessons learned, and expert interviews with the internationally accepted standards in humanitarian assistance impact assessment.

Results: There is a major gap in the ability of the Department of Defense to assess the impact of humanitarian assistance in stability operations compared with international development standards. Of the 1000 Department of Defense after-action reports and lessons learned reviewed, only 7 (0.7%) reports refer to, but do not discuss, impact assessment or outcome-based measures of effectiveness.

Conclusions: This investigation shows that the Department of Defense humanitarian assistance operations are, historically, recorded without documentation using quantifiable health data identifying which aid activities contributed directly to desired outcomes or favorable public opinion, and rarely are analyzed for effectiveness. As humanitarian assistance operations assume an ever greater role in US military strategy, it is imperative that we investigate useful impact assessment models to meet mission directives and, more important, to maximize coordination in a necessarily integrated and cooperative development environment. These findings provide baseline knowledge for the implementation of an evidence-based impact assessment process to validate future Department of Defense humanitarian assistance operations. (Disaster Med Public Health Preparedness. 2008;2:230–236)

Keywords

humanitarian assistancecivil–military coordinationmilitary medical missionsstability operationsdisaster evaluation and monitoringmeasures of effectiveness
Type
Original Research and Critical Analysis
Information
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness , Volume 2 , Issue 4 , December 2008 , pp. 230 - 236
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Disaster Medicine and Public Health, Inc. 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Joint Publication 4-02 Health Services Support. Chairman for the Joint Chief of Staff. http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp4_02.pdf. Accessed December 13, 2006.Google Scholar
2. Office of The Coordinator for Reconstruction and Stabilization (S/CRS). State Department Web site. http://www.state.gov/s/crs. Accessed November 4, 2006.Google Scholar
3. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America. http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss/2006/nss2006.pdf. Accessed October 16, 2006.Google Scholar
4. United States Department of Defense Directive 3000.05 Military Support for Stability, Security, Transition, and Reconstruction (SSTR) Operations. http://www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/pdf/300005p.pdf. Accessed October 10, 2006.Google Scholar
5. Fields G, Gold T, Keane J, et al. Report of the Defense Science Board Task Force Institutionalizing Stability Operations in the Department of Defense. Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics. http://www.acq.osd.mil/dsb/reports/2005-09-Stability_Final.pdf. Accessed November 12, 2006.Google Scholar
6. Bonventre G. Health Capabilities in Stability Operations. US Joint Forces Command Office of the Command Surgeon. US Dept of Defense. Unpublished.Google Scholar
7.MacMillan, DS. Model describing the effect of employment of the United States military in a complex emergency. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2005; 20: 282–289.Google Scholar
8. Natsios AS. The nine principles of reconstruction and development. Parameters. 2005;Autumn:4–20.Google Scholar
9.Drifmeyer, J, Llewellyn, C. Overview of overseas humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid programs. Mil Med. 2003; 168: 975–980.Google Scholar
10.Drifmeyer, J, Llewellyn, C. Toward more effective humanitarian assistance. Mil Med. 2004; 169: 161–168.Google Scholar
11.Brennan, R, Nandy, R. Complex humanitarian emergencies: a major global health challenge. Emerg Med. 2001; 13: 147–156.Google Scholar
12.Salama, P, Spiegel, P, Talley, L, et alLessons learned from complex emergencies over past decade. Lancet. 2004; 364: 1801–1813.Google Scholar
13.Burkle, FM. Lessons learned and future expectations of complex emergencies. BMJ. 1999; 172: 33–38.Google Scholar
14.Burkle, FM. Complex humanitarian emergencies: a review of epidemiological and response models. J Postgrad Med. 2006; 2: 110–115.Google Scholar
15.Connolly, M, Gayer, M, Ryan, M, et alCommunicable diseases in complex emergencies: impact and challenges. Lancet. 2004; 364: 1974–1983.Google Scholar
16.Young, H, Borrell, A, Holland, D, et alPublic nutrition in complex emergencies. Lancet. 2004; 365: 1899–1909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Checchi F, Roberts L. Interpreting and Using Mortality Data in Humanitarian Emergencies: A Primer for Non-epidemiologists. Humanitarian Policy Group Network Paper. No. 5. 2005. http://www.odihpn.org/documents/networkpaper052.pdf. Accessed March 11, 2007.Google Scholar
18.Woodruff, B. Interpreting mortality data in humanitarian emergencies. Lancet. 2006; 367: 9–10.Google Scholar
19.Spiegel, P, Burkle, FM, Dey, C, et alDeveloping public health indicators in complex emergency response. Prehosp Disaster Med. 2001; 16: 281–285.Google Scholar
20.Salama, P, Buzard, N, Spiegel, P. Improving standards in international humanitarian response: the SPHERE Project and beyond. JAMA. 2001; 286: 531–532.Google Scholar
21.Wilson, D. Humanitarian Charter and Minimum Standards in Disaster Response. Cowley, UK: Sphere Project/Oxfam GB 2004 .Google Scholar
22. Measuring Mortality, Nutritional Status, and Food Security in Crisis Situations: SMART Methodology. http://www.smartindicators.org/SMART_Protocol_01-27-05.pdf. Accessed February 2, 2007.Google Scholar
23. United Nations Millennium Declaration: Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). United Nations—Official Records of the Secretary Council. http://www.un.org/millennium/declaration/ares552e.pdf. Accessed January 28, 2007.Google Scholar
24.Beitler, AL, Junnila, JL, Meyer, JHJ. Humanitarian assistance in Afghanistan: a prospective evaluation of clinical effectiveness. Mil Med. 2006; 171: 889–893.Google Scholar
25. Air Force Center for Knowledge Sharing Lessons Learned. https://afkm.wpafb.af.mil. Accessed March 11, 2007.Google Scholar
26. Army Medical Lessons Learned. https://secure-ll.amedd.army.mil. Accessed March 15, 2007.Google Scholar
27. Marine Corps Center for Lessons Learned (MCCLL). https://www.mccll.usmc.mil. Accessed March 15, 2007.Google Scholar
28. Naval Operational Medical Lesson Learned Center (NOMLLC). https://www.mccll.usmc.mil/nomi. Accessed March 17, 2007.Google Scholar
29. Joint Center for Operational Analysis-Lessons Learned (JCOA-LL). http://www.jfcom.mil/search.htm. Accessed March 18, 2007.Google Scholar
30. Center for Army Lessons Learned. http://call.army.mil/links/lessons.asp. Accessed March 11, 2007.Google Scholar
31. Regional Core Health Data Initiative; Indicators Glossary. Pan American Health Organization, Health Analysis and Statistics Unit (HA). http://www.paho.org/English/SHA/glossary.htm. Accessed May 5, 2007.Google Scholar
32. Hofmann CA, Roberts L, Shoham J, et al. Measuring the Impact of Humanitarian Aid: A Review of Current Practice. Humanitarian Policy Group Research Briefing Web site. http://www.odi.org.uk/hpg/papers/hpgbrief15.pdf. Accessed November 21, 2006.Google Scholar
33. Glossary of Key Terms in Evaluation and Results-Based Management. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development/Development Assistance Committee. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/29/21/2754804.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2006.Google Scholar
34. Evaluating Humanitarian Action Using the OECD-DAC Criteria. ALNAP Overseas Development Institute Web site. http://www.odi.org.uk/alnap/publications/eha_dac/pdfs/eha_2006.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2006.Google Scholar
35. Guidance on Evaluation and Review for DFID Staff. Department For International Development Web site. http://www.dfid.gov.uk/aboutdfid/performance/files/guidance-evaluation.pdf. Accessed November 23, 2006.Google Scholar
36. Kusek JZ, Rist RC. Ten Steps to a Results-Based Monitoring and Evaluation System. The World Bank Web site. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/23/27/35281194.pdf. Accessed December 10, 2006.Google Scholar
37. Kellogg WK. Logic Model Development Guide. W.K. Kellogg Foundation Web site. http://www.wkkf.org/Pubs/Tools/Evaluation/Pub3669.pdf. Accessed December 11, 2006.Google Scholar
38. Smallwood G. International Humanitarian and Health Strategy. Senior Health Policy Advisor. Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (AOSD). Unpublished, 2007.Google Scholar
39.Konoske, P, Negus, T. Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief Operations T-AH. San Diego, CA: Naval Health Research Center 2007 .Google Scholar
40. Unprecedented Terror Free Tomorrow Polls: World’s Largest Muslim Countries Welcome US Navy, New Results from Indonesia and Bangladesh. Terror Free Tomorrow Web site. http://www.terrorfreetomorrow.org/upimagestft/Final%20Mercy%20Poll%20Report.pdf. Accessed December 22, 2006.Google Scholar