Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project2010 – 2013

Preliminary findings for discussion

Brussels, 4 June 2013

Pierre Robertpierrehrobert@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 earlyto say…• Consider gover-nance, strategy• Network vs.centres’ indepen-dence