Skip to content
← Back to SearchPDF(888 KB)

Hurricane Georges recovery program : final evaluation report -- monitoring and evaluation : USAAID/Haiti contract no. 521-C-00-99-00069 [i.e. 521-C-00-99-00069-00]

2002EnglishRelated document: PN-ACP-634 Disaster recoveryCODE: 521; Haiti

Metadata

Contract/Code
521-C-00-99-00069-00 | 521-P-00-99-00078-00
Institution
1035 - South-East Consortium for International Development (SECID) 8554 USAID. Mission to Haiti
Keywords
Disaster recovery | Cyclones | Agricultural production | Economic infrastructure | Disaster preparedness | Human capacity development | Community participation | Performance measurement | Development project planning JK40 Disaster recovery (328.5) | Environmental disasters (143.25) | Agricultural development (130.0)
ID
PDABW440
File size
888 KB
Source
Open PDF

Abstract

Final evaluation of the Hurricane Georges Recovery Program (HGRP) in Haiti (1999-2001). Overall, the Pan American Development Foundation (PADF), the prime grantee, and its partners overwhelming met the majority of HGRP objectives and targets. (Due to the difficulty of evaluating the efforts of the three participating U.S. federal agencies -- the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency -- USAID/Haiti decided that the evaluation team would not include their HGRP activities in this report.) For details on project achievements, see the abstract of the final impact study (PN-ACP- 634). Lessons learned included the following: (1) The performance monitoring plan (PMP) provided HGRP implementation partners solid guidelines for establishing objectives and targets quickly. (2) USAID's cooperative agreement with PADF required the submission of quarterly progress reports. PADF incorporated this concept into its own agreements with each of the grantees and contractors, thereby reinforcing accountability by each organization. (3) Working with community-based organizations (CBOs) accelerated the extension of improved soil and water conservation measures to the communities, as the CBO core staff already had a good degree of credibility in the community and were often already trained in most of the conservation measures. (4) Strong and efficient CBOs have popular support and are better able to inform their communities of the benefits of improved seeds and soil and water conservation practices and can promote their adoption. (5) The "3-2-1 Formula" for community labor was a success in developing community spirit, teaching basic construction skills to rural men and women, adding money to CBO coffers, teaching NGO and CBO leaders the principles of management, and encouraging a community spirit and self-reliance among participants. (Author abstract, modified)