Helene Juillard Danielle Kitchingman-Roy Margaux Estager Emmlyne Emmanuel HAITI + 10 IMPACT EVALUATION - SUMMARY CONSULTING INTRODUCTION On 12 and 20 January 2010, two high magnitudes to raise funds, on how funds were allocated earthquakes hit Haiti, the poorest country in and their impact on beneficiaries (summative North America. These earthquakes destroyed evaluation). With regards to learning, the more than 80% of the capital Port-au-Prince, but lessons learned are intended to inform Swiss also affected, elsewhere in the country, the cities Solidarity’s future guidelines in the event of of Gressier, Jacmel and Léogâne. Nearly a fifth further earthquakes (formative evaluation). This of the population – about 2.3 million people – evaluation covers 30 of 91 projects that Swiss were displaced, with 1.5 million seeking refuge Solidarity supported, which were implemented in makeshift camps1. The magnitude of the by 9 NGOs2. crisis coupled with significant media attention and Haiti’s proximity to North America resulted Methodology in a large number of actors intervening, which The evaluation is based on a mixed-methods posed major challenges to the coordination of approach comprised of both qualitative and the emergency response. quantitative elements. Following the desk review, the evaluation began with a learning Following the earthquakes, Swiss Solidarity, a workshop in Port-au-Prince on 8 May 2019 Swiss donor for humanitarian aid, launched an with representatives of the 9 NGO partners. In- appeal to raise money from the Swiss population. country data collection occurred from 8-23 May, This appeal received 66.2 million Swiss francs, of and included 87 Key Informant Interviews, 52 which 95% was used to finance projects to help Focus Group Discussions with beneficiaries victims in Haiti. The funds were disbursed in two and 9 life stories. In parallel, a quantitative phases: 1) emergency relief and 2) rehabilitation/ survey was conducted with 525 households. reconstruction. During the two phases from After the analysis and triangulation of this data, 2010-2018, Swiss Solidarity financed 91 projects, the main results of the evaluation are presented carried out by 21 Swiss NGOs. These projects below. targeted the most vulnerable groups amongst the earthquakes’ victims. The vast majority of projects were implemented in the Ouest (West) and Sud-Est (Southeast) Departments. The Swiss Solidarity partners’ response was multi-sectoral, focusing on livelihoods; shelter; and water, hygiene and sanitation, as well as the protection of vulnerable people and the management of risks and disasters. Protection was at the heart of most of the funded projects. 1 Simon Levine & Al, Sept. 2012, Faire fi des ér alités ! Problématiques Ten years later, Swiss Solidarity commissioned foncières, institutions locales et action humanitaire après les tremblements de terre en Haïti, ODI.. this evaluation for the purposes of 2 Croix-Rouge suisse, Fondation Terre des hommes Lausanne, accountability and learning. In terms of (Tdh-L), Caritas Suisse, Medair, l’Entraide Protestante Suisse accountability, the aim of the evaluation is to (EPER), Helvetas, Fédération Handicap International (nouveau nom d’usage Humanité et Inclusion, HI), Terre des hommes Suisse inform the Swiss population, Swiss businesses (Genève, TDH-S), Adventist Development and Relief Agency and public authorities who strongly mobilised (ADRA). 2 HAITI + 10 – IMPACT EVALUATION EVALUATION RESULTS 1. Relevance and effectiveness of the response Appropriateness for beneficiaries’ needs Appropriateness of WASH projects: → Rehabilitated or constructed water points → The projects Swiss Solidarity financed were and water tanks were considered relevant, implemented in rural zones that were the although their design may not have been most affected by the earthquakes. Swiss appropriate for the context (e.g. a water point Solidarity partners sought to move away from fuelled by a generator in an area far away from the agglomeration of Port-au-Prince, where a fuel pump). The large-scale water network a large number of humanitarian actors were reconstructed in a valley of Grand-Goâve (in already present. This approach proved to be Dano) is functional, but more limited than appropriate, as it helped reduce the duplication initially planned. of assistance and improved the coverage of needs nationally, particularly as rural areas Appropriateness of livelihood projects: were less covered than urban centres. In → The vocational training, which allowed addition, this approach is in line with Swiss participants a complete business Solidarity partners’ expertise, who have more apprenticeship, was considered to be of high experience implementing in rural areas than quality. However, few apprentices were able in urban ones. to find a stable job at the end of the training, → Household targeting was based on notably due to a gap between the initial market vulnerability criteria that were either directly analysis and actual demand. or indirectly related to the earthquakes. This → The training courses for people who were allowed for a holistic management of socio- already active in fishing, livestock farming economic vulnerability. or agriculture were considered to be very → The projects Swiss Solidarity financed relevant because they were adapted to the responded to the majority of documented context and skills of the targeted people. urgent needs (e.g. housing, water, hygiene On many occasions, local people noted that and sanitation, livelihoods). Food security the introduction of new farming techniques and education needs were covered by other (including crop diversification and soil international actors, and did not rank as conservation) were particularly appropriate priorities among Swiss Solidarity partners. and highly appreciated. Appropriateness of housing construction Appropriateness of risk and disaster projects: management projects: → All the houses the Swiss Solidarity partners → Households, local authorities and Swiss built in Ouest (West) Department are Solidarity partners deemed projects focused permanent shelters, i.e. real houses that were on longer-term needs and disaster risk constructed in compliance with anti-seismic preparedness and prevention relevant. standards. All the consulted stakeholders and Given the frequency of hurricanes, storms beneficiaries considered this approach to be and torrential rains in the country, projects very relevant. It was also part of the project’s that focus on watershed stabilisation and approach to ensure sustainability. environmental management around spring water catchments are clearly justified. 3 HAITI + 10 – IMPACT EVALUATION EVALUATION RESULTS 1. Relevance and effectiveness of the response Appropriateness of protection projects humanitarian actors. focusing on the most vulnerable persons: → Protection projects were designed based Achievement of indicators and results chain on studies that looked at the specific needs → All projects achieved the objectives described of children, young people and people with in their respective logical frameworks. In disabilities. They were considered relevant addition, training and awareness-raising to both the context and the specific needs of actions reached more beneficiaries than these different groups. expected. → All interviewed project managers were able to clearly explain the results chains of their Effectiveness of the response projects. Two trends emerge in terms of intervention logic: first, the desire to adopt Timeliness of the response integrated approaches, and second, the aim → Conformity with the calendar: The difficulties for interventions to be sustainable. in accessing beneficiaries and the time needed to recruit the teams during the first months The factors that contributed to achieving results of the response delayed the launch of several are: Swiss Solidarity’s flexibility so that projects projects. These projects did however, make up could adapt to the population’s changing the lost time and met their schedules. Climate needs, the monitoring and technical support hazards (e.g. Hurricane Matthew) also caused provided by URD Group between 2010-2014, occasional delays in the implementation and communities’ strong involvement and of post-earthquake projects that were still participation during phase two. occurring at that time. → Duration of projects: The duration of most Effectiveness of the beneficiary selection projects proved to be adequate in relation process to their stated objectives, even though they → Beyond the geographical criteria, all the were often considered too short to allow examined projects used selection criteria for an effective transfer of skills to local related to the level of economic vulnerability organisations. However, the duration of some of the person or family, and the damage they of the vocational training projects proved to be suffered. Some protection and training projects too short (two years) when compared to their also included a gender dimension and thus objectives (professional reintegration). targeted more women. → Some of the targeting criteria emanating from Most of the time, there was a discernible tension international humanitarian standards were between NGOs’ willingness to implement difficult to meet in the Haitian context. One sustainable projects with long-term goals of example is the possession of title deeds for capacity building and behavioural change, and projects related to house construction. the traditional duration of emergency and early → In some projects