A framework for structuring post disaster evaluations

Diana Francis Wong, Caroline Spencer, Leanne Boyd, Dudley McArdle, Frederick Burkle Jnr., Francis Leo Archer

Research output: Contribution to conferenceAbstract

Abstract

Study/Objective: To develop a framework that may provide an opportunity to better structure the science of disaster health.
Background: Frameworks for Post Disaster Evaluations are diverse, lack agreement, and require a stronger evidence-base. The aim of this paper is to outline an evolving model to underpin the diversity of disaster evaluations.
Methods: An unstructured literature review of contemporary disaster evaluation standards and guidelines was undertaken and an initial framework developed.
Results: The core of the evolving Framework is adapted from the
TFQCDM ‘Guidelines for Research and Evaluation in Health Disaster Management’ (2003). Five evaluation domains were identified:
∙ A baseline set of essential pre-event data
∙ Basic societal functions to structure a sequence of event consequence assessments for influencing response and recovery needs assessments and monitoring, including real time evaluations
∙ Event outcome evaluations, often in the form of formal Inquiries or accountability reviews
∙ A range of process evaluations for different purposesA structure
Event Report to describe the event; Standards, audit and Quality assurance - measuring Key Performance Indicators (KPI’s); debrief and lessons learnt
∙ Impact evaluations to measure the causality of specific interventions
at any stage in the natural history of the disaster
Conclusion: As a “work-in-progress”, this model has been successfully
used to guide the development of graduate education programs in disaster evaluations and to structure associated research projects to further inform the framework. The model provides a framework to facilitate common communication and structuring the science and evidence-base of disaster health
research and practice. Issues identified which require resolution include: definitions; terminology; methods to identify key literature; reconciling the multiple sets of standards and guidelines in this endeavour; and, the emergence of ‘logic maps’ and ‘theory of change’ to guide evaluations in this domain.
Original languageEnglish
Pages161
Number of pages161
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2015

Cite this