Third Party Monitoring & Evaluation
Measuring malnutrition, Idlib Syria.
Credit: Mohammad Bash
Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability & Learning
Third Party Monitoring
HII provides third party monitoring (TPM) in a large number of countries in all sectors from multi-purpose cash assistance (MPCA) to livelihoods, health and nutrition.
HII has its own proprietary and customisable technology platform ‘HII Live’ for knowledge management and visualisations of large TPMs.
HII delivers the full range of TPM services in addition to monitoring and assurance. For example, TPMs can include a research component, and evaluative component or a financial assurance component. The services are tailorable.
For large programs requiring third party monitoring, HII offers a resource efficient Risk-Based Approach, where assurance resources are more heavily allocated to the highest risk projects.
HII’s TPM services can also include the development/refinement of program-level indicators across sectors, reconstructued theories of change and the development of accountability mechanisms such as AAP frameworks or community feedback mechanisms.
Evaluation Approaches
Impact Evaluations
HII provides causal attribution evaluations using a number of Impact Evaluation techniques. We have the capability to deliver impact evaluations tailored to the needs of all projects and programs. If engaged at the program/project design stage, HII can control for variables and contamination, test counterfactuals, use comparison group sampling, and ultimately determine causality and/or contribution.

Results Based Management
The Results Based Management (RBM) approach is sometimes used by different donors as the approach for monitoring and evaluating results. It is principally sponsored by Global Affairs Canada (GAC). The RBM approach emphasises the measurement of results instead of inputs/activities/outputs.
RBM follows a tiered outcomes measurement hierarchy with immediate, intermediate and ultimate outcomes. A standard RBM methodology will have multiple indicators for each outcome level. However, RBM specifically encourages a greater role for qualitative assessments, meaning that attribution and causality can sometimes be more difficult to quantify robustly with RBM.
OECD DAC Criteria
The OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria are the most widely used MEL criteria. DAC has six evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.
Evaluative judgements are made based on these six criteria and logframes will usually have a number of evaluation questions to assess under each criteria.

DAC criteria provide a normative framework to determine the merit or worth of an intervention (humanitarian, development, policy, strategy, programme, project or activity).
Core Humanitarian Standard

The Core Humanitarian Standard on Quality and Accountability (CHS) is a principles based assessment methodology. The CHS has nine principles (or commitments) under which assessments are to be made.
Each commitment/principle contains a core commitment, quality criterion, Key Actions and Organisational Responsibilities, all of which usually require assessment.
The CHS is best used when making organisational assessments because it can be very difficult to link and incorporate project or program level outcome assessments into this framework. When using the CHS for project or program assessments, other approaches are sometimes needed to complement CHS, especially when assessing the achievement of objectives.
Project Examples

Third Party Monitoring of the EUR24m Italian Government aid program in South Sudan and Ethiopia. The TPM provides independent assurance and performance monitoring of the Italian government’s largest aid program.

End of Project Performance Evaluation using OECD DAC Criteria for the Global Affairs Canada (GAC) funded program in Afghanistan: Enhancing Protection for Afghan Children (EPAC). The aim of the program was to ensure Afghanistan had the necessary local and national level capacity to protect children and fulfil commitments to the rights of the child. The project included formal and informal education, protection, safe spaces and behavioural change elements.

Nil Turksen
Nil is the Manager of HII’s small evaluations unit within the Humanitarian Responses & Development Practice.
© Humanitarian Impact Institute, Ireland