As the humanitarian sector continues to pursue more locally led responses, there is a growing need for better ways to understand and demonstrate their impact. While progress has been made in measuring localisation commitments, there are still challenges on presenting evidence-based findings on the comparative performance of international and local/national actors in different contexts. This paper explores how more meaningful, robust, and usable evidence can be generated to understand what works best across a spectrum of locally and internationally led humanitarian responses.
Recognising the limitations and sensitivities of direct comparisons, the paper proposes a practical methodology to assess the impact of different response approaches. Rather than reinforcing binaries, the approach aims to support more effective and equitable decision-making by focusing on benefits and trade-offs across a continuum of leadership models. The methodology draws on learning from impact measurement in other complex areas, and has been designed to be rigorous yet accessible to a range of stakeholders.
This paper has been developed by Humanitarian Advisory Group (HAG) and GLOW Consultants, in collaboration with the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP).
