1. Evaluating a Humanitarian Action
Project

2. Why Evaluation
• To assess the quality of the project
• To see if it fits into the mandate of the
organization
• To see if the needs and aspirations of the
community is captured properly
• Value for money
• Make decisions: select, fine tune, reject

3. Key Indicators Used for Evaluation
• Relevance
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Capacity and Support
• Sustainability
• Imp (whether all the documents required are in
place)

4. The Project
• A Post Emergency Disaster Risk Reduction
Project in Northern Sri Lanka
• Submitted to European Commission
Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection
• Duration: 12 Months
• Proposed Budget: Euros 128.806,00
• Financing Mechanism: 100% from ECHO

5. Relevance
• Appropriateness of the specific objective,
pertinence of the action in regards to the real
needs of the population
• Appropriateness of the action to the physical
and political environment
• Link of the principal objective of the action
with DG ECHO strategy

6. Project Context
• The project seems to be in line with local needs
and aspirations of the community therefore it is
highly relevant
• Installation of the early warning system could
reduce the impact of disaster
• Weather conditions can lead to heavy rains,
thunderstorms and floods
• N E Sri Lanka is also vulnerable to cyclone and
tsunamis.
• The impact of civil war has further enhanced the
vulnerability of the community

7. Efficiency
• Measuring outputs in relation to the inputs
• Alternative approaches to achieving the same
output
• How economically resources were utilized:
Human Resources, finance and time

8. Cost Efficiency
• Cost broken down by sector is rationally allocated
• Cost for transportation: further information
needed on what kind of a vehicle will be used for
transportation
• Time allocated for transportation seems a bit
unrealistic: duration of the project 12 months –
time for planning
• HR Cost: Expatriate: 33% of the budget
• Program cost V/s Program support cost = 60:40

9. Time Efficiency: realistic management
schedule
• Three phases: establishment, capacity building
& implementation
• Difference between M&E

10. Human Resources Efficiency
• Should reflect staff
responsibility, support, development and well
being
• The proposal does not state anything about
the criteria and selection for team recruitment

11. Effectiveness
• Are the objectives effective compared to the
problem statement?
• Do the results correspond with the aimed
objectives?
Output, outcome and impact

12. Output
• Objectives are coherent with objectives of
ICDM and their former projects
• No clear percentages in objectives: difficult to
assess
– F.e.: “participating communities are aware of their
risk situation” and “participation of women is
ensured”  what percentage of the participating
communities and what percentage of the women?
• Objectives should be more specific

13. Outcome and Impact
• In general: the stated results (outcome) match
the stated objectives
• However, one of the results implicates a raised
awareness of Disaster Risk Reduction:
– The area is already prone to natural disasters 
are there not already existing coping mechanisms
in use?
– Not investigated by ICDM  could negatively
effect the impact of the project

14. Capacity and Support
• Whether the organization has the internal and
external means to successfully implement the
proposal
• Whether the organization has the ability to
critically assess its organizational capacity
• Whether it has the strategies and resources in
place to improve the organizational capacity

15. Internal Organizational Capacity
• ICDM is well equipped and suitable for the
project
• Coordination and capacity of HR is not clear
• It should consider adding training schemes for
its team

16. Implementing Partner Capacity
• Seva Lanka fits the mandate of the project
• No point of contact has been mentioned
• No information about the HR of the partner
organization

17. Evaluation Methods
• Method of evaluation proposed seems
appropriate
• As per ECHO guidelines the focal person for
evaluation needs to be mentioned
• No information on sharing the report with HQ.
• Sharing of the evaluative feedback with
ALNAP, UN and other international knowledge
based organizations

18. Sustainability as Reflected
• Involvement of community and other
stakeholders in the project cycle
• Co-operation and coordination between
different stakeholders
• Designing of the institutional mechanism
• Availability of the local skills and knowledge to
maintain the systems

19. Involvement of the Community
• Enhances ownership
• Management of the project after phase out
• The Transfer of ownership should be a gradual
process
• Whether built into Project Cycle

20. Organization Perception
• Presence of the organization
• Its image
• Interface between the organization and the
community
• Program Mode V/s Project Mode

21. Coordination between Stakeholders
• Linkages and leverages
• Mobilizing resources
• Sharing expertise
• Comprehensive project
• Community, Community Based Organizations,
Government, Civil Society, UN Clusters and
Donors

22. Availability of Local Skills
• Crucial when some of the components are
imported from outside
• Enhancing the skills of the community to
manage innovation

23. Proposal: Organizations Presence
• Pg 5 and Pg 13?
• Present since 2004 and long term relationship
with the community
• Till date implemented six projects
• Local partnership with Seva Lanka

24. Proposal: Involvement of the
community
• Pg 10, 19 and 35?
• Designing: through community consultation
involving the most vulnerable
• Focuses on community contribution
• Participatory M&E

25. Proposal: Coordination Between
Stakeholders
• Pg 39
• Formalization of the relationships with key
stakeholders
• Robust mechanism for involving local level
stakeholders
• Silent on coordination at national level:
Disaster Management Bureau, Un Clusters,
agencies providing relief

26. Proposal: Local skills
• Pg 31, 34, 35, 36
• Gives due emphasis on creating village level
volunteer for S&R and FA
• EWS (imported): capacity building is reflected
• Task Force: One time capacity building during
the program. After that? Mechanism for
constant capacity enhancement

27. Recommendations
• More robust log frame based on SMART
• Ratio between program and operational cost
• Efforts should be made to develop a better linkage with
national level institutions
• M&E framework
• Mechanisms are not yet in place to ensure sustainability of
the capacity of the community.
• Mechanism to ensure engagement of the community after
the closure of the project.
• Fine-tune capacity building strategies
• Knowledge sharing mechanism
• Conflict and DRR

28. Thank You
The team
Kiona Bolt
Silvi Hurkmans
Yaoliang Peng
Maike Benemma
Shakeb Nabi