Improving the evaluation of protection

There are at least three ways in which the evaluation of humanitarian protection programming can be improved. The first is by settling on a focus. Protection cuts across different sectors of humanitarian work, so there is a need to decide whether we want to measure it as a stand-alone element or as a component of different areas of action. Once this has been determined, we will be in a better position to set objectives and required activities, and measure impact and results that would help determine success of protection programming. It will in addition help us determine the most appropriate tools and methodologies.

The second point for improvement is reaffirming project management as a dedicated profession. There is a plethora of tools available within the realm of project management which could aid in a more thorough evaluation of protection programming, throughout the entire duration of a project. It is evident, however, that there must be a special emphasis on post-project results.

This brings us to the third aspect for improvement, the simplification of language. In order for reports and guidelines to be properly understood and utilized, jargon must be avoided and toolkits must be simplified. These three factors are not an exhaustive list for improving protection results, but they can offer initial guidance.

I would also like to add a few general remarks to the aforementioned factors. Evaluation of protection programming primarily takes place at two different times: during and after a project. In the first case, measuring results is useful for ad hoc adjustments in the current operation, while in the second instance it can serve as a lesson for future projects. It is always necessary to stress that there is a stronger likelihood of success if the project scope, duration, objectives, and expected outputs have been clearly defined during planning. Protection programming is not different from other humanitarian undertakings. Although traditional results-based management techniques can be useful, we must strive to be creative in the development of specific tools, methods, and techniques for evaluation.

Finally, there is a strong link between advocacy and protection. At a strategic level, monitoring and evaluating the impact of advocacy could be helpful in making its use more effective for improved protection. The latter cannot be entirely dependent on advocacy, however. The main factor is whether programmes are professionally managed and implemented, following the aforementioned suggestions.  Thus, the focus must be on monitoring and evaluating protection programmes in their own right.