1. Evaluation of IRCT NSA Project 2010 – 2013 Preliminary 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