relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordinationIn-depth and partnership evaluation • efficiency of • national the ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperationUnited • managing Nations for results • sustainability Global Initiative • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownershipto Fight • international Human cooperation Trafficking • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency(UN.GIFT) • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • relevance • effectiveness • coordination and partnership • efficiency • national ownership • international cooperation • managing for results • sustainability • INDEPENDENT EVALUATION UNIT UNITED NATIONS OFFICE ON DRUGS AND CRIME Vienna In-depth evaluation of the United Nations Global Initiative to Fight Human Trafficking (UN.GIFT) GLOS83 Independent Evaluation Unit M ay 2011 UNITED NATIONS New York, 2011 This evaluation report was prepared by Dalberg Global Development Advisors (www.dalberg.com), an internatio- nal development consulting firm, in collaboration with the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC). The evaluation team included the external evaluation team of Dalberg Global Development Advisors: Veronica Chau, Gaurav Gupta, Michael Tsan, and Tim Carlberg. The desk research and interviews were supported by a dedicated team of Dalberg researchers and interviewers including Nupur Kapoor, Chris Denny-Brown, Tarun Mathur, and Vaibhav Garg. In constructing this report, the many stakeholders who generously gave their time for interviews and electronic surveys are thanked, as well as the UN.GIFT programme management and staff for their excellent cooperation with the evaluation team’s data requests. Independent Evaluation Unit of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime Vienna International Centre P.O. Box 500 1400 Vienna, Austria Telephone: (+43-1) 26060-0 Email: [email protected] Website: www.unodc.org Dalberg Global Development Advisors Washington D.C. Office 818 18th Street, Suite 505 Washington, DC, 20006, USA Telephone: (+1) 202 659 6570 Telefax: (+1) 202 659 6863 Email: [email protected] (Lead Evaluator) Email: [email protected] (Project Director) Email: [email protected] (Project Manager) Website: www.dalberg.com Independent Project Evaluations are scheduled and managed by the project managers and conducted by external independent evaluators. The role of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) in relation to independent project evaluations is one of quality assurance and support throughout the evaluation process , but IEU does not directly participate in or undertake independent project evaluations. It is, however, the responsibility of IEU to respond to the commitment of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) in professionalizing the evaluation func- tion and promoting a culture of evaluation within UNODC for the purposes of accountability and continuous learning and improvement. Due to the disbandment of the Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) and the shortage of resources following its reinstitution, the IEU has been limited in its capacity to perform these functions for independent project evalu- ations to the degree anticipated. As a result, some independent evaluation reports posted may not be in full compliance with all IEU or UNEG guidelines. However, in order to support a transparent and learning environ- ment, all evaluations received during this period have been posted and as an on-going process, IEU has begun re-implementing quality assurance processes and instituting guidelines for independent project evaluations as of January 2011. © United Nations, September 2011. All rights reserved. The designations employed and the presentation of material in this publication do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Secretariat of the United Nations concerning the legal status of any country, territory, city or area, or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. This publication has not been formally edited. Publishing production: English, Publishing and Library Section, United Nations Office at Vienna. ii CONTENTS Page Executive summary ..................................................................... vii Management response ................................................................... xi Steering Committee response ............................................................ xiii I. Introduction ............................................................................ 1 A. Background ........................................................................ 1 B. Evaluation scope, methodology and limitations ..................................... 12 II. Major evaluation findings and analysis ................................................... 17 A. Relevance .......................................................................... 17 B. Effectiveness. 22 C. Efficiency .......................................................................... 47 D. Partnerships, management and governance .......................................... 49 III. Impact and sustainability ................................................................ 55 A. Impact ............................................................................. 55 B. Sustainability ....................................................................... 55 IV. Case studies ............................................................................. 57 A. Case study: South Asia Regional Conference (SARC) ............................... 57 B. Case study: Serbia Joint Programme ................................................ 63 V. Lessons learned and best practices ....................................................... 67 A. Lessons learned .................................................................... 67 B. Best practices ....................................................................... 68 VI. Recommendations ...................................................................... 71 A. Interim recommendations and actions taken since October 2010 .................... 72 B. Final recommendations ............................................................. 73 C. Detailed level recommendations .................................................... 77 iii Page Annexes I. Summary matrix of findings, supporting evidence and recommendations .......... 85 II. Terms of reference .................................................................... 95 III. List of persons interviewed ............................................................ 97 IV. Evaluation interview guide sample .................................................... 103 V. Evaluation survey sample .............................................................. 105 VI. Mission schedule (Serbia) ............................................................. 117 VII. Mission schedule (India) .............................................................. 119 VIII. UN.GIFT documents consulted ...................................................... 121 IX. External documents consulted ........................................................