Things Gone Right: The Jogya joint evaluation

This time, staff are happy. With all the criticism emergency responses get, one would think that while being questioned by the evaluator, staff would have plenty to wince at as they remembered things gone wrong. But as they reflect on what their agencies did in the days and months following the Java earthquake, there seems to be a marked level of contentment that they did much good with relative effectiveness during this response.

 

At least this is the impression I’ve gotten while accompanying lead evaluator Pauline Wilson on her agency visits to the four agencies being evaluated—Catholic Relief Service, World Vision, Save the Children UK, CARE (For those of you that are wondering, Pauline is well and thriving in her not-quite-ECB role!). We’ve been working five days now, the evaluation team thus far consisting of Pauline, and Ryan Russell, a CRS Regional Technical Advisor, along with six note takers, facilitators and interpreters hired to help with the evaluation. I am tagging along to do my own research on joint evaluations (here I’ll make a shameless plug for the upcoming What We Know About Joint Evaluations booklet) but am lending a hand to the evaluation team here and there.

 

Accompanied by Yenni Suryani from CRS and myself, Pauline interviewed staff at the CRS, WV, and Save offices in Jakarta (CARE was not to be reached) as well as UNDP (the interview with UNOCHA didn’t work out) and then we continued with interviews of agency staff here in Jogya, along with government interviews.

 

A shared story has begun to emerge from these discussions. At the end of May, agencies and local people waited expectantly in the shadow of the awakening Mount Merapi, the government already having evacuated people to at least 5 km away from the volcano. Merapi stayed quiet but the devastating earthquake hit on May 27, causing over 5,700 deaths and leaving over 350,000 homeless. If the agencies receive high marks for preparedness for the Jogya earthquake, it will be in part because of Merapi.

 

But so far, it seems the local government and UN have also given them fairly positive reviews as well for coordination, evidenced by their participation at cluster meetings and contribution of good information, and I assume their general willingness to work with others. Many staff have also credited the baptism by fire that was Aceh for teaching them lessons that they have obviously applied here in Jogya and the affected districts of Bantul and Klaten.

 

And what about those other stakeholders? The people at the receiving end of the household kits, and shelters, child friendly spaces, training, etc? Pauline et al visited a village yesterday where CARE has been working and held three focus group discussions – for men, women, and children– did some random interviews, and talked to the village leader. By the time we got to the field, I was curious to meet these resilient people that we had heard so much about. “Gotong Royong,” a term used to describe Javanese solidarity and good-neighborly helpfulness, was mentioned over and over again in interviews with staff and greatly credited for the effectiveness of the response and speed of the recovery process.

 

Indeed, everyone was polite and helpful, and Pauline and co. are worried now about how to elicit critical information in the face of such tact. It does seem, however, that there was overall appreciation for the work CARE did in this village (mainly a watsan project with an emphasis on behavior change).  

 

With Pauline and her team being very capable and steering committee member Adhong and his staff at CRS, the lead agency, as engaged as they are, I am sure they will be able to solicit the needed suggestions for improvement from the communities. And as for positive feedback, well that’s always welcome.

 

Malaika Wright