1. CARE International: After Action Reviews
Rapid use of evidence in the humanitarian context for efficient learning and
forward accountability
by Uwe Korus
CARE International Emergency Group (CEG)
Monitoring, Evaluation and Accountability Coordinator
November, 2014

2. Humanitarian Response review processes overview
1. Internal monitoring & self-assessment :
Regular response level monitoring
Participatory accountability reviews (Rapid Accountability Review (RAR), scorecard)
After Action Reviews (AAR)
2. External Reviews :
Real Time Evaluations (RTE)
Interagency peer review (e.g. DEC, clusters)
Independent evaluations
Specific case studies – good practice reviews
November 29, 2018

3. CONTEXT
After Action reviews (AARs) introduced in the 1990s to humanitarian actors emerged as appropriate mechanisms to emhance action and wider practice in the sector.
Real Time Evaluations (RTEs) became a more common approach to action oriented learning in the humanitarian sector in the early 2000s.
Meta-evaluation in 2007 revealed the findings and recommendations from CARE‘s evaluations and other reviews of humanitarian projects remained largely unknown, unanalysed, and therefore did not adequately contribute to learning and improved practice.
November 29, 2018

4. Concepts
After Action Review (AAR): Originating in military in 70s AARs structure questions that help reflect and learn after undertaking an activity. According to Baird et al (1999) AARs work best if:
Focused on the few critical issues
Done immediately after the action
Inclusive of the whole group
In accordance with a structured process
Leading back to action quickly
Real Time Evaluation (RTE) - Oxfam 2007: RTE is an internal rapid review carried out early on in the response in order to gauge effectiveness and to adjust or correct the manner in which the response is being carried out.
An RTE is a rapid appraisal of program performance, a learning exercise and qualitative in nature using standard benchmarks that can be modified to suit the situation.
November 29, 2018

5. Typical AAR in CARE: purpose and objectives
CARE adopted and refined AAR between 2008 and 2010:
An AAR is an internal emergency response learning exercise towards the end of an action or at a significant juncture of a response allowing for a professional discussion with a focus on performance. It captures and applies learning as quickly as possible back into action and allows participants to get on with the tasks. In general an AAR should at least:
enable participants to discover what happened and why, and how to sustain strengths and improve on weaknesses,
draw both positive and negative lessons (including from Pre-AAR review and monitoring exercises),
prioritize lessons with regards to relevance for the ongoing response and importance for the wider organisation, and
formulate recommendations to CARE management for emergency practice now (ongoing action) and in the future, for adapting policy (protocols and guidance), and for (organisational environment).
Therefore in CARE an AAR is the central in translating lessons and evidence from a particular response into improved action, enhanced organisational efficiency and strengthened relevance.
November 29, 2018

6. Typical AAR in CARE – workshop outline
Typical AAR in CARE 2-4 months after start of response:
Participants: Response team + representatives of CARE entities involved (+ partners as appropriate), Duration: 2-3 days in workshop setting
DAY 1:
Timeline: what happened? What went well? What went not so well? Drivers?
Synthesis of findings, recommendations, management response from response reviews (RAR, RTE, external evaluation) as well as additional structured feedback (questionnaire);
Performance assessment against HAF and Gender Marker
Prioritization of lessons for immediate application in response as well as for wider practice
Day 2: Analyse drivers of performance: enablers, obstacles, opportunities, risks
Formulate response relevant tactical, organisational and strategic recommendations as well as related action points.
Day 3: Action planning with Response team
November 29, 2018

7. Process flow: Humanitarian Performance & Quality Management in CARE
Humanitarian Strategy
Humanitarian Policies
Response Design
Response Action
Response Results
Management Response & Accountability
Progress monitoring
HAF & related frameworks
CHS
Gender Marker
Sphere & companions
Feedback & complaints
Recommendations & Actions
Response Quality Mgmt (Action)
Typically, an After Action Review focuses on a core set of questions:
What was supposed to happen?
What actually happened?
What was successful and why?
What didn’t work and why?
What did we learn?
Humanitarian Performance Mgmt (Organisation)
Outcomes & Lessons

8. Performance Review Frameworks for CARE AARs - 1
November 29, 2018

9. NEW CORE HUMANITARIAN STANDARD - CHS
GLOBAL IMPLICATIONS
merger of HAP & PiA
integration of CHS in SPHERE standards
global roll out
establish verification mechanisms
IMPLICATIONS for CARE
review HAF
promote gender sensitivity
strengthen people focus
intensify collaborative management of accountability mechanisms
November 29, 2018

10. Performance Review Frameworks for CARE AARs - 2
HAF score card (for regular FGD + RAR):
(BASIC)
(INTERMEDIATE)
(MATURE)
(HAF COMPLIANT)
How much information you have about CARE and the project (INFORMATION SHARING)
I know nothing about
CARE or the project
I know little about
I know a lot about
CARE and I have
good knowledge
about the project
CARE and about the
project including
activities, plans and budgets
The ways in which you have been involved in the different steps of CARE’s project
(PARTICIPATION)
I’m informed but not involved,
CARE tells me what the project will do and how this affects me
I’m consulted – CARE discusses options with me but I’m not part of the final decision made by CARE
I’m involved – we sit together and
take the decision together
I’m leading the decision
which is then implemented
by CARE
The way(s) in which you can provide feedback to CARE about the project (COMPLAINTS AND FEEDBACK HANDLING)
I do not know how to provide
feedback about CARE
and do not use any complaint mechanism
I know and am able to provide feedback about CARE but am not sure how CARE uses that feedback – there has been no response to my feedback
I know and have used CARE’s feedback or complaint mechanism and I know that feedback has influenced some decisions taken by CARE
I use CARE’s feedback mechanism regularly to influence decision making and make changes to the project
November 29, 2018

11. Use of the accountability score card in the Philippines, in Jordan and in Bosnia
November 29, 2018

12. Performance Review Frameworks for CARE AARs - 3
The Gender Marker Vetting Form is a step-by-step flow chart that identifies where projects are graded (0-4) along the Gender Continuum. The current Gender Marker Guidance Form is for Country Offices. More Guidance for CMPs will be available soon.
November 29, 2018

13. Use of evidence for efficient learning & accountability in humanitarian response review processes – lessons 1
Enablers:
Leadership at all levels: polices & ways of working – transfer into local frameworks and practices
Transparent framework (HAF, gender marker) aligned with international standards
Inclusive processes (staff, partners, beneficiaries / participants) - accountability
Pool of trained staff and suitable facilitators (internal and external) – roster / standing team
Increasing emphasis and investment in analysis and follow-up across CARE
Back-up with deployable capacities to support implementation of recommendations
(sub-) regional exchange and joint analysis with involvement of partners and peers
November 29, 2018

14. Use of evidence for efficient learning & accountability in humanitarian response review processes – lessons 2
Obstacles:
Number of emergency responses vs. capacity to analyse and follow-up at different CARE levels
Response team capacity to generate information and support review processes including documentation of practice and lessons
Timing and sequencing of different review processes – maintaining logical linkages of knowledge management and learning
Balancing flexibility and adaptation learning process with need to develop and agree on core elements of performance reviews that facilitate comparability, accountability and triple loop learning (esp. influencing polices and ways of working)
Capacity to sustain MEAL process over longer period of time in complex protracted emergencies
Complex decision making systems and authority in CARE confederation for quick implementation of recommendations and action points
November 29, 2018

15. Areas for improvement in response review processes - the experience of CARE International
Streamline AAR and other review processes while keeping balance between participation of field/response staff and externals
Higher emphasis on follow up / management response / accountability – synthesizing and reconciling action plans
Balance emphasis on assessment of quality (approaches) and of effectiveness (outputs & outcomes)
Stronger involvement of peers esp. with regards to assessment of comparative advantage
Explicitly include in evaluation TOR:
Gender marker
Identification of good practices for scale up / replication / dissemination
HR Management aspects (Safety & Security, wellbeing)
November 29, 2018

16. From humanitarian action to learning and improved practice: the full learning cycle(s) of humanitarian MEAL in CARE
Information Management
Response Rationale
Response Policies
Response Design
Response Action
Response Results
Dissemination
& Sharing
Management Response & Accountability
in/output tracking
FRAMEWORKS
CHS
Gender Marker
Sphere & companions
PDM
Feedback & complaints
Recommendations & Actions
M&E
RAR
Learning & Knowledge Management
case studies
RTE
Analysis
Synthesis
Joint Eval.
After Action Review
Lessons
example Philippines: from Typhon Bopha to Typhon Haiyan
November 29, 2018

17. The final question at the end of every MEAL process
November 29, 2018