110 likes | 288 Views
Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project 2010 – 2013 Preliminary findings for discussion. Brussels, 4 June 2013 Pierre Robert pierrehrobert@gmail.com. Introduction. Key aspects: holistic rehabilitation; cross-centre cooperation; capacity building; awareness raising. €2.7m 2010-13, 75% EU-funded.
E N D
Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project2010 – 2013Preliminary findings for discussion Brussels, 4 June 2013 Pierre Robert pierrehrobert@gmail.com
Introduction • Key aspects: holistic rehabilitation; cross-centre cooperation; capacity building; awareness raising. • €2.7m 2010-13, 75% EU-funded. • 11 centres, 10 countries (+ IRCT).
Evaluation process • Study documentation • Reports, publications, training materials, etc • Visit 3 centres: Sri Lanka, Pakistan, Uganda • Meet staff, trainers, other stakeholders… • Interview other centres representatives • In Brussels
Approach • Follow standard OECD-DAC criteria • Relevance; effectiveness; efficiency; sustainability; impact (and for EU: visibility) • Consider organisational development • Skills; capacity; staff support; governance • Constructive approach • What went well? Dissemination of good practices
Relevance • Did the project respond to the needs of torture victims and member centres? • Was the project design appropriate to meet the needs? • Were risks appropriately identified and addressed?
Effectiveness • To what extent have the project objectives been reached? • Holistic services; centre capacity; advocacy • Were activities implemented as planned? • Were activities appropriate to reaching planned objectives?
Efficiency • Were resources (human and financial) appropriate to results achieved? • Was project management responsive and accountable? • Were management and administrative procedures conducive to achievements?
Sustainability • Have processes, structures, knowledge, etc., been established in ways that support continued change/impact? • Are stakeholders willing/able to build on the project? • Are strategies in place to exit and build the project?
Impact • Has the project made a lasting difference? • Have target groups (centres) and beneficiaries (clients/stakeholders) experience (lasting) change? • Did the project lay the ground for future change?
Conclusions • Excellent project, meets criteria • Strengths: • Training; exchanges on good practices (e.g. livelihoods); engagement with stakeholders (communities, governments); gender awareness. • Weaknesses: • Organisational strengthening; advocacy (?)
Recommendations • Too early to say… • Consider gover- nance, strategy • Network vs. centres’ indepen- dence