Evaluation of the NZ Red Cross International Delegates Programme 2004-2008
Report Summary | Eva0701
Print-friendly version  Report Summary | Eva0701sum | PDF 32kb |
|
Date | December 2007
Team | Alison Gray, Gray Matter Research Ltd
Background
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organisation whose exclusive humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of war and internal violence and to provide them with assistance. The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) works to facilitate and promote humanitarian activities carried out by its member National Societies. It directs and co-ordinates international assistance of the Movement to victims of natural and technological disasters, to refugees and in health emergencies. It acts as the official representative of its members societies in the international field. It promotes co-operation between National Societies, and works to strengthen their capacity to carry out effective disaster preparedness, health and social programmes. National Societies act as auxiliaries to the public authorities in their own countries in the humanitarian field and provide a range of services including disaster relief, health and social programmes. The New Zealand Red Cross (NZRC) is dedicated to improving the lives of vulnerable people by mobilising the power of humanity and enhancing community resilience.
For many years, NZRC has provided personnel for IFRC and ICRC missions through its International Delegates Programme (IDP). The Strategic Objective of the programme is: “To recruit, train, place and support appropriately skilled personnel for International Red Cross movement field operations.” Under a four year funding arrangement (July 2004 - June 2008) the
New Zealand Agency for International Development (NZAID) provides $NZ500,000 annually towards the cost of running the
NZRC IDP.
Purpose and Objectives
This evaluation, jointly commissioned by NZRC and NZAID, assessed the effectiveness of the IDP in terms of training and supplying appropriate personnel who played effective roles in the assignments given to them. The evaluation was designed as a learning exercise for NZRC as well as verification of the effectiveness of the programme. The evaluation has sought answers to questions in four areas:
- Selection: are current selection mechanisms doing a good job of drawing in people with the skills and attributes required for effective delegates?
- Training: how effective was the training provided to delegates and are there any gaps or opportunities for improvements in the training provided?
- Deployments: were delegates appropriately matched to the deployments they undertook, did they perform to the standards required of them, were they adequately supported and are there ways in which the deployment system could be improved?
- Learning: what has been the overall impact of the IDP, does it represent value for money and are there any programme design changes the NZRC should consider? Are there opportunities being missed to take fuller advantage of the programme?
Main Findings
Selection: based on the proportion of successful deployments, the selection mechanisms are very effective. International Red Cross/Red Crescent staff agreed that delegates who come through NZRC do have the skills and attributes they need to be effective. They are practical and adaptable, and have the right personal qualities. Areas for improvement were: more focus on management skills–human resources, strategic planning, communication, budgeting and reporting; and, language skills, especially French.
Selection for a Basic Training Course (BTC) does not necessarily lead to a deployment. Reasons for non-deployment for participants in recent BTCs include both supply and demand factors: no suitable placement being available, changes in family circumstances, participants leaving the country and participants needing to gain more experience before being ready for deployment. In some cases, first time delegates are proposed for positions that require previous experience.
Delegates had mixed views on NZRC selection process and support during the waiting phase. While several thought that potential delegates were well informed of their deployment options at the BTC, others would like NZRC to communicate with them after the course regarding what missions New Zealand delegates are currently engaged in and what courses are available. This would help maintain their interest and prepare better for any future mission. They also suggested that NZRC link potential delegates with their local branch and encourage them to undertake volunteer activities while waiting for a mission.
Training: International Red Cross/Red Crescent staff considered that NZRC delegates come well prepared and well briefed. As New Zealanders, they are also perceived as being politically neutral. Delegates felt well prepared for deployments through completing the BTC and attending the various briefings, although basic training alone can never fully prepare people for the reality on the ground. One delegate strongly believed that first time delegates should attend a Red Cross/Red Crescent induction course.
Participants in BTC courses 2004-2007 all rated the course as good to excellent, and judged practical sessions to be most useful, including case studies, sharing experiences with returned delegates, security briefings, and group problem-solving in managing conflict and emergency situations. Information on the structure of the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement, International Humanitarian Law information and the media component were also rated highly. Dissatisfaction occurred with the Stress Management component of the 2004 course, and has been addressed. Delegates valued the information on history, structure, mandate and operations of the International Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement. They also appreciated the field exercise and information on emergency operations. Suggestions for improving the BTC included: more focus on the role of National Societies; more clarity on how NZRC and ICRC/IFRC work together and what that means for delegates in the field; more emphasis on development work; having first/second time delegates speak; offering sessions on managing people from different cultures and management, budgeting and report writing; and developing a reading list of the challenges that delegates face in-country.
The ICRC was particularly positive about the willingness of NZRC to send delegates to training when asked by ICRC.
Deployments: both delegates and their managers were satisfied with the match between delegates and deployment. Occasionally operational requirements have led to delegates being asked to take on different roles than they had anticipated and this has inevitably presented some challenges as they settled in. IFRC/ICRC staff agreed that NZRC delegates generally performed well in the field and certainly to the standards expected. The limited number of performance appraisals on file showed that all 15 delegates received overall ratings of three (fully achieved expectations) or four (exceeded expectations) for achieving objectives. Ratings for competencies were also high, with most delegates scoring a three or four (as above) or an “A” (mastered) or “B” (confirmed) for specific skills. Those who received a two (partially achieved expectations) or a “C” (developing) for a particular skill or competency were all on their first mission. Comments explaining those ratings often referred to a delegate’s tentativeness or growing confidence rather than to a lack of skills per se.
Almost all delegates received pre-departure briefings in New Zealand and found them useful. They were most successful where NZRC organised travel, medical and insurance requirements, and when they dealt with employment issues, living conditions, helped to make field contacts and provided information on what the work would involve. More information was requested on the Geneva briefings and on completing pre-departure legal/tax requirements in New Zealand. Briefings in Geneva were inconsistent in both quantity and quality. Some delegates neither expected nor had a briefing; others anticipated a briefing that did not happen. Some delegates, both new and returning, found the trip to Geneva well worthwhile and appreciated the opportunity to feel part of the larger organisation, meeting people they would be dealing with during the mission, and knowing who to contact for various issues while on placement. Others were dissatisfied because the briefing was too short, did not cover all information areas and/or the appropriate people were not available. Given the long, costly flights to Geneva, and then onwards to the duty station, it is important that these briefings are well structured, or better value for money may be obtained by using video-links. Briefings on arrival in-country varied in coverage and quality. The need for better briefings was an underlying theme of end-of-mission reports. The best briefings were on-site, with colleagues learning about the local situation, especially if there was an adequate handover period. Debriefings on return were also considered valuable.
Comments on the IFRC and ICRC varied, with matters about organisation and approachability being raised by respondents. Those who needed emergency medical care were satisfied with the way it was handled. Delegates were positive about NZRC support before and after missions, but identified the need for increased support while on a mission.
ICRC staff considered that NZRC Delegates Programme fits well with their human resource systems. Remuneration differences exist between those on the programme and those working directly to IFRC/ICRC, which can cause resentment.
Effectiveness: delegates identified the following factors:
- Support: friendship and a supportive team, support from line managers, the national staff team quality and skills, adequate human resource support
- Professional/technical: role understanding, qualifications, equipment and back-up
- Personal/contextual: country context understanding, decent accommodation, self-awareness, common sense, asking questions, support of NZRC.
Learning: the programme has had a very positive impact internationally, is highly regarded and it provides good value for money. IFRC recommends a continuation and expansion of the programme. Its predictability and consistency allow for efficient responses to humanitarian crises. Suggestions for improvement are:
- provide more information (on roles of IFRC, ICRC etc) and management skills training in the BTC
- maintain contact with course participants waiting for deployment and improve communication with those on deployment
- work with IFRC/ICRC to provide better in-country and on-site briefings
- improve arrangements for briefings in Geneva.
IFRC staff and HoDs recommend that NZRC consider supporting delegates who bring families with them, supporting more delegates at head of department and senior management level and diversifying strategic priorities to other regions. All wanted to see more NZRC delegates in the field.
Key Issues and Learning for NZAID
Importance of management and language skills
Delegates who come through NZRC have the skills and attributes they need to be effective. They are practical and adaptable, and have the right personal qualities. Areas for improvement were more focus on management skills (human resources, strategic planning, communication, budgeting and reporting) and language skills, especially French.
To request a copy of the full report email evaluation@nzaid.govt.nz and quote the reference number - Eva0701.
return to | main Reports Page