1 / 11

Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project 2010 – 2013 Preliminary findings for discussion

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.

cael
Download Presentation

Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project 2010 – 2013 Preliminary findings for discussion

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project2010 – 2013Preliminary findings for discussion Brussels, 4 June 2013 Pierre Robert pierrehrobert@gmail.com

  2. Introduction • Key aspects: holistic rehabilitation; cross-centre cooperation; capacity building; awareness raising. • €2.7m 2010-13, 75% EU-funded. • 11 centres, 10 countries (+ IRCT).

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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?

  6. 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?

  7. Efficiency • Were resources (human and financial) appropriate to results achieved? • Was project management responsive and accountable? • Were management and administrative procedures conducive to achievements?

  8. 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?

  9. 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?

  10. 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 (?)

  11. Recommendations • Too early to say… • Consider gover- nance, strategy • Network vs. centres’ indepen- dence

More Related