Translate with Google Translate

Evaluating humanitarian action

The ALNAP Guide on Evaluating Humanitarian Action (EHA Guide for short) supports evaluation specialists and non-specialists in every stage of an evaluation, from initial decision to dissemination.

A pilot version of this Guide was first released in June 2013, following a three-year drafting process led by ALNAP, co-authors John Cosgrave and Margie Buchanan-Smith, and supported by an inter-agency advisory group.

10,000 EHA Guide downloads later, ALNAP has gathered feedback from more than 40 organisations participating in the pilot process who tested its content on the ground. We are now working to incorporate these comments and suggestions and will publish the final EHA Guide in summer 2016.

If you have any EHA-related resources that you would like us to consider,
please get in touch.

The EHA Guide Pilot has been only part of our EHA story. Check out the timeline below which outlines other landmarks in this process.

Why a Guide for Evaluating Humanitarian Action?

Evaluation of humanitarian action has indeed evolved and now much technical and organisation-specific guidance exists. Yet this ALNAP Guide paints the whole picture of evaluation in the sector, consolidating the current knowledge about initiating, managing and completing an evaluation of humanitarian action. As such, it offers a common reference point for humanitarian evaluators.

Although evaluation of humanitarian action faces many of the same challenges of other sectors (e.g. international development) a number of these are accentuated due to the volatile contexts in which humanitarians operate and the nature of the work undertaken. For instance, insecurity may limit access to programmes and affected populations, and work may be particularly time-sensitive in nature.

Check out what some evaluators had to say about what has worked for them and what hasn’t when evaluating humanitarian action.


You can connect with other evaluators in the ALNAP Network and ask questions about any EHA issues by joining the
Humanitarian Evaluation Community of Practice.

Latest discussions from the Humanitarian Evaluation Community of Practice

7 June: You did what!? Pushing back on the ToR - Good eval reports Series (3)

Hi all, It seems to me that TOR (and not just evaluation TOR) mostly fall into two clusters, arranged at opposite ends of a continuum. At one end they are highly prescriptive, sometimes mechanistic, and leave little room for flexibility, creativity, or even ...

3 June: You did what!? Pushing back on the ToR - Good eval reports Series (3)

Hi Alexandra, A few thoughts. First, it could be said that a large measure of what goes on in inception phases is an informed and evidence based renegotiation of the ToRs. Therefore advice here may be more about effective inception phases rather ...

3 June: You did what!? Pushing back on the ToR - Good eval reports Series (3)

Hi everyone! This is the third post in a little series on what makes a good evaluation report, or, more concretely, what makes evaluation reports particularly useful and accessible to readers, especially for those 'from the outside looking in' who use eva...

You can join the conversation or ask a new question by visiting the Humanitarian Evaluation Community of Practice or

  • Share this page:
  • Email
  • Print

Before you download this file, please answer two questions to help us monitor usage

1) What do you think you'll use this document for?

  • Other:

1) What is your email address?

2) What is the name of your organisation?

Please answer both questions above Submit

Starting your download...

Pilot version: You are downloading the pilot version of this guide; we welcome any feedback you have. Please email

Close this overlay