1. Jakarta Workshop
Evaluation

2. Context Context and methodology
21 participants from 6 organisations and 14 countries

3. Context Evaluation objectives Understanding topics covered
Key learnings

4. What were the objectives?
Bringing together members of the Standing Team to establish them as a team and provide them with the skills they would need in deployment to emergencies
Clarifying the AIM elements
Understanding our own role in deployment and for different activities that we may be deployed for
Become advocates for accountability and make a commitment
Sharing experiences on AIM in our work
Best ways to capture learning, e.g. videos, and having this as an on-going activity
Gain knowledge about the tools available
Understanding the challenges and finding solutions through sharing of learning

5. What were the topics covered?
Sharing specific examples (really liked this) – what is accountability, what is our role
Shared around what some challenges were and discussed what advice they would give
Learning about AIM elements
Tools: there are various tools from different agencies that were presented in a chart and discussed, e.g. tools for evaluation. Within the group they identified tools they decided what they wanted to know more about
Note what we can no longer do – Objective 2 support, partnerships

6. What were the key learnings?
Tips on capturing the learning
e.g. you don’t need to summarise on behalf of beneficiaries: you can film them
Being advocates on accountability
Learned about decision-making in field cases from different countries
e.g. dealing with corruption – a participant presented the dilemma or scenario and 3 response options, then the group decided which one they would chose
As a team we have different skills and we can share this amongst ourselves as ST members; building informal networks
How do we distinguish between AIM in emergencies and in development. We agreed AIM is AIM!
Different levels of skills meant that different participants learned different things, but the sharing of experiences was important
Note what we can no longer do – Objective 2 support, partnerships

7. What were the gaps?
People would have liked to go more into depth on some of the tools during the workshop, rather than scratching the surface. The blog addresses that to a degree, but more practical application or delving into the tools would have been useful. The ST coordinator said she’s compile tools into a package – not sure what happened on the follow up.
Challenge was finding a balance in the tools to present – some wanted more, some wanted less but more in-depth
Data analysis was a gap
Note what we can no longer do – Objective 2 support, partnerships

8. What were the follow-ups done?
In Zimbabwe, Oxfam had a meeting with management
CD asked her to be accountability lead.
In Mercy Corps an evaluation is underway and the ST member has been able to get accountability into the evaluation.
In Indonesia there is a learning event that profiles accountability.
Note what we can no longer do – Objective 2 support, partnerships

9. Recommendations Follow up on tool package promised
Promote usage of the blog
Objective on communication, facilitation and influencing skills didn’t come out  an area to strengthen?
Note what we can no longer do – Objective 2 support, partnerships

10. Time Access to information sources was scanty
Limitations
Time
Access to information sources was scanty
Note what we can no longer do – Objective 2 support, partnerships