This document summarizes the evaluation of a humanitarian project in Northern Sri Lanka. The evaluation assessed the project's relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and capacity. It found that the project aligned with community needs but objectives lacked specificity. Cost efficiency was unclear and timelines unrealistic. The implementing partners were suitable but internal coordination was undefined. Community involvement and local skill-building were emphasized but sustainability mechanisms were lacking. Recommendations included enhancing the project framework, rationalizing costs, strengthening partnerships, and developing sustainability plans.

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