+
EVALUATION FOR THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN 
DISASTER ASSISTANCE (OFDA)/LATIN AMERICA
AND CARIBBEAN (LAC) REGIONAL DISASTER 
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RDAP)
September 2019
This report was produced at the request of the United States Agency for International Development. It was 
prepared independently by Integra LLC under the Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project (LEAP III).
1
PERFORMANCE EVALUATION REPORT
EVALUATION FOR THE OFFICE OF FOREIGN 
DISASTER ASSISTANCE (OFDA)/LATIN AMERICA
AND CARIBBEAN (LAC) REGIONAL DISASTER 
ASSISTANCE PROGRAM (RDAP)
Contract Title: LEAP III: Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project
Contract Number: GS-10F-083CA / 7200AA18M0004
Activity Number: LEAP III 2018-02
Submitted: September 27, 2019
Contractor: Integra Government Services International LLC
1100 Vermont Avenue NW, Suite 750
Washington, DC 20005
USAID Office: USAID Office of Economic Growth, Education and Environment (E3), 
Office of Economic Policy
USAID/OFDA LAC 
COR: Yoon Lee, ylee@usaid.gov
DISCLAIMER
The authors’ views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the United States 
Agency for International Development or the United States Government. 
2
CONTENTS
ACRONYMS 3
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4
1. INTRODUCTION 7
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND 8
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 9
4. EVALUATION METHODS AND LIMITATIONS 10
5. SWOT ANALYSIS 14
6. FINDINGS 16
7. CONCLUSIONS 33
ANNEX I. SCOPE OF WORK 40
ANNEX II. EVALUATION METHODS 48
ANNEX III. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 49
ANNEX IV. SOURCES OF INFORMATION 54
ANNEX V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORMS 57
ANNEX VI. TEAM MEMBERS’ CREDENTIALS 61
3
ACRONYMS
CDEMA Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency
CEPREDENAC Coordination Centre for Disaster Prevention in Central America
DART Disaster Assistance Response Team 
DRM Disaster Risk Management
DRMS Disaster Risk Management Specialist
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction 
DRS Disaster Response Support
EOC Emergency Operations Center
FGD Focus Group Discussion 
ICS Incident Command System
KII Key Informant Interview
LAC Latin America and the Caribbean
LEAP Learning, Evaluation, and Analysis Project
NDO National Disaster Office 
NGO Nongovernmental Organization
OFDA Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
RDAP Regional Disaster Assistance Program
RMTP Risk Management Training Program
RTI Research Triangle Institute
SOW Statement of Work
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG United States Government
4
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
This evaluation focuses on the past three years of the five-year Regional Disaster Assistance Program 
(RDAP) contract, which began in December 2015. The evaluation team employed a non-experimental, 
observation-based design and used a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data 
collection techniques. 
In mid-February 2019, before the field visits, the team conducted secondary data review and in-brief 
meetings with the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance’s (OFDA) Latin America and the Caribbean (LAC) 
staff and RTI staff in Washington, D.C., and in San José, Costa Rica. The team then conducted 97 semi￾structured key informant interviews (KIIs) and 14 focus group discussions (FGDs) with a total of 198 
stakeholders over a four-week period in Costa Rica (San José), Peru (Lima and Cusco), Guatemala 
(Guatemala City), Honduras (Tegucigalpa), Jamaica (Kingston and Portmore Municipality), and Barbados 
(Bridgetown). Stakeholders included OFDA and staff, trainees, direct beneficiaries, nongovernmental 
organization (NGO) representatives, instructors, first responders, and partners. 
Upon completion of the fieldwork, the team led a combined out-brief in San José, with OFDA staff from 
Costa Rica and Washington, D.C.
The scope of this evaluation focused on assessing program management support, disaster response 
support, and capacity building for disaster risk management (DRM) and disaster risk reduction (DRR). 
KEY FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 
I. PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
• RDAP is a model of efficiency in terms of providing technical assistance. For example, RDAP
harnesses the region’s existing capacity instead of deploying external resources (except in cases 
where this is unavoidable).
• The RDAP “option year” contract format required the ending of activities months before the 
contract year, limiting the program’s effectiveness. Compounding these difficulties related to the 
mechanism, the current contract has a “less than optimal yearly start date” around the end of 
December. If possible, the team recommends exploring the possibility of guaranteeing all years of the 
contract and revising the contract start date to a less difficult time period.
• In KIIs with RDAP staff, the team learned of a number of human resource management concerns. In 
addition to the lack of personnel development opportunities, other shortcomings include relatively 
low average compensation and benefits, variable salaries, and gender disparities in salaries for males 
and females appointed to similar roles.
• Although the interviewees generally welcomed the introduction of the intermediate-level sub￾regional managers, they also identified challenges with how these managers function. The team heard 
in four FGDs and three KIIs that in some cases, these managers had become “an extra layer of 
bureaucracy,” rather than an enabler of effective work. Specific concerns included variations in the 
managers’ skill set and experience and lack of clarity regarding the intent of their role (i.e., 
supervision versus administration).
5
• Respondents in two KIIs mentioned that the new project manager brought renewed energy to the 
role but needs additional training and professional development to be more effective. 
• The program lacked a clear strategy for succession planning and a mechanism for limiting the risk of 
a potential loss—at OFDA’s LAC office and at the DRMS level—of the substantial institutional 
memory that underpins its success. 
• The absence of funding for a robust approach to Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning limits 
the possibility for RDAP to adequately curate and share knowledge. 
II. DISASTER RESPONSE SUPPORT
• RDAP’s inclusion of country-assigned Disaster Risk Management Specialists (DRMSs) allowed for 
faster processes, particularly in the delivery of training and technical assistance. In addition, in￾country DRMSs had a better understanding of the population, facilitating further development of 
national networks. 
• In approximately 40 KIIs, excluding OFDA and RTI personnel, and 12 FGDs, respondents highlighted 
RDAP’s quick and comprehensive disaster response. They mentioned specific actions—such as the 
provision of emergency relief assistance, logistics support, and humanitarian coordination, including 
the support of Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs)—that stakeholders associate with 
RDAP. The program’s unparalleled training and technical assistance in the region has contributed to 
more efficient information management and faster responses during disasters and emergencies. 
• RDAP needs to increase its coordination with other donors and key regional coordination 
mechanisms, such as the Coordination Centre for Disaster Prevention in Central America 
(CEPREDENAC) and the Caribbean Disaster Emergency Management Agency (CDEMA), for optimal 
effectiveness in disaster response. Interviewees reported that this need was more pronounced in the 
case of CDEMA. RDAP should share information before and during disaster responses. The program 
should also permit CDEMA to include RDAP personnel, who are valued resources in the region, 
among its list of trainers for capacity strengthening support in member states.
• In-country DRMSs function as OFDA’s “eyes and ears”; their permanent presence and well￾established networks help “open many doors” given their key coordinating role with governments 
and partners during disasters and emergencies in LAC. The surge capacity team of just under 400 
people complements the DRMS role and adds to the flexibility and adaptability for a rapid response.
• Despite their contribution to RDAP’s success, the DRMSs receive inadequate funding for activities. 
This limits their ability to respond to requests from their government and NGO partners. According 
to interviewees in 16 KIIs and three FGDs, the small budget reduced the DRMSs’ impact and 
influence, especially in the Caribbean sub-region, because their government counterparts accorded 
greater priority to larger donations and donors. 
• Not all DRMSs have full-time contracts. This situation has an impact on the morale and availability of 
DRMS staff, especially during disasters. 
• While RDAP has encouraged a number of professional development activities, it does not include a 
systematic refresher training requirement, nor does it provide mandatory professional development 
objectives for its personnel. This negatively affects their effectiveness in offering technical assistance 
to national partners, who were often more adept with new technologies and other technical areas 
by virtue of their exposure to training and other skill development opportunities.
6
• The RDAP Emergency Response line item is annually under-budgeted, with the result that it is 
relatively depleted after supporting several emergencies since the start of the program year. RDAP’s 
response capability could be severely compromised, should there be a need for a response during 
the imminent 2019 Atlantic hurricane season or any other disaster events in the near future. In 
order to mitigate this risk, increase RDAP Emergency Response line item significantly and/or 
increase flexibility to move funds from within the contract to Emergency Response when needed. 
III. CAPACITY BUILDING FOR DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT AND DISASTER RISK REDUCTION
• RDAP has enhanced coordination in the region, building relationships among partners, such as 
National Disaster Coordination Agencies, the Red Cross, the police, and the army. 
• RDAP supported analyses and studies focused on identifying potential hazards in different territories, 
leading to the mapping of high-risk areas and the prioritization of DRR activities according to 12 KIIs 
and five FGDs. 
• RDAP supported the improvement of search-and-rescue efforts, saving lives during many incidences 
of forest fires in the region. These disaster risk management activities also contributed to the 
safeguarding of livelihoods and, indirectly, preserving cultural heritage in areas such as Petén, 
Guatemala, and Cusco, Peru.
• RDAP’s approach, of training and certifying instructors using OFDA LAC’s curriculum, allows in￾country partner institutions at national and sub-national levels to conduct specialized training in areas 
such as disaster response, disaster management, and DRR, with guidance from DRMS. This creates 
an effective way to institutionalize national capacity for training, because the RDAP-trained national 
partners are able to provide training with little or no added involvement from OFDA. 
• Interviewees in Peru and Honduras highlighted RDAP’s focus on imparting DRR and risk 
management knowledge to youth and young adults through its initiative geared at schools and 
higher-education institutions. These activities directly contribute to building a culture of risk 
prevention, as encouraged by the Hyogo Framework for Action.
• In 11 KIIs and nine FGDs, key informants pointed to an urgent need for RDAP to update its courses, 
provide more advanced specialized courses, and use new technologies. Although there has been 
some progress in offering online courses, its reach and scope were limited by the small size of the 
training team, and the limited technical support provided for the online platform. 
• KIIs in all six countries the team visited mentioned the importance of RDAP’s small grants in 
institutionalizing local risk prevention and emergency response capacity. Nevertheless, communities 
with little or no experience in dealing with funding from international donors, and lacking formal 
accounting procedures, had difficulties in fulfilling RDAP’s grant requirements. Increase RDAP Small 
Grant budget significantly and make the application process more user friendly, particularly by 
adjusting implementation time frames to improve the effectiveness of the grants.
• According to respondents in nine KIIs and four FGDs, indigenous populations—present in vulnerable 
communities in countries such as Guatemala, Guyana, Honduras, and Peru—were largely 
underserved by RDAP. While RDAP is designed to respond to host country requests, the 
interviewees suggested there is room for RDAP to look for ways to incrementally include indigenous 
populations in RDAP’s activities.
7
1. INTRODUCTION
The Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) commissioned this evaluation of the Regional Disaster 
Assistance Program (RDAP) to generate inputs that will shape programming for the 5-year period 
commencing in 2020. OFDA, which is part of the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian 
Assistance, requested that the evaluation team focus on the overall impressions of RDAP’s approach and 
highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the program’s work to date. Consequently, this evaluation 
report furnishes OFDA with actionable recommendations that are informed by the findings and 
observations that emanated from the stages of the Statement of Work (Annex I).
Table 1 presents the evaluation timeline.
TABLE 1: EVALUATION TIMELINE
DATES ACTIVITY
February 2019 Secondary data review and in-briefing meetings with OFDA and RTI staff in Washington, 
D.C., and in San José, Costa Rica
March 2019 Travel and interviews in Costa Rica (San José), Peru (Lima and Cusco), Guatemala 
(Guatemala City), Honduras (Tegucigalpa), Jamaica (Kingston and Portmore 
Municipality), and Barbados (Bridgetown)
Colombia was included in the initial planning but was removed due to the demands of 
the ongoing operation to support vulnerable Venezuelan migrants.
March 2019 Combined out-brief with OFDA staff in Costa Rica and Washington, D.C. in San José
May 2019 Submission of draft final report to OFDA
June 2019 Presentation of results to OFDA in Washington, D.C.
July 2019 Submission of final report to OFDA
8
2. PROJECT BACKGROUND
RDAP is recognized as the linchpin for OFDA’s capacity building programming in the Latin America and 
Caribbean (LAC) region. Its focus is to provide OFDA with program management, training, technical 
assistance, and disaster response support throughout LAC. The overall aim of the program is to 
strengthen the capacity of personnel who work with national and local governments, thereby enabling 
them to adequately prepare for and respond to disasters and emergencies and to be increasingly able to 
handle such events without the assistance of external entities, including the U.S. government. 
RDAP is the mechanism through which 27 LAC countries can access a range of training and technical 
assistance support, focused on five areas (Regional Office for Latin America and the Caribbean--
USAID/OFDA/LAC Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP) Training Portfolio. January 2014.): 
• Methods of Instruction;
• Disaster risk management (DRM);
• First response;
• Forest fire prevention and control; and
• School and University Safety Program.
Where required, RDAP provides immediate support to OFDA’s response activities in the region, 
providing emergency relief assistance, logistics support, and coordination of humanitarian assistance, 
including the support of Disaster Assistance Response Teams (DARTs). 
Research Triangle Institute (RTI) implements the current RDAP contract, which is valued in excess of 
$35 million and will expire in 2020. The initial holder of this phase of the RDAP contract was 
International Resources Group, which became a wholly owned subsidiary of RTI in January 2017. 
Before the current RDAP contract ends in December 2020, OFDA would like to better understand the 
program’s effectiveness. This independent performance evaluation provides an overall assessment of the 
main elements of the work that RDAP has undertaken to date and recommends improvements for the 
design of future programming. OFDA plans to use the results of this evaluation to inform the next 
version of the RDAP contract. This evaluation:
• Assesses the usefulness of RDAP’s structural model in ensuring OFDA’s ability to respond to 
disasters;
• Documents the program’s overall effectiveness in improving regional preparedness for disasters 
and building the capacity of partners in DRM and disaster risk reduction (DRR) throughout the 
LAC region;
• Identifies the lessons learned from the program, particularly the strengths and weaknesses of 
RDAP’s design and implementation, and how they contributed to the program’s successes or 
challenges; and
• Provides recommendations for the direction and structure of any future programming.
9
3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
The evaluation sought to answer six primary questions, with a seventh question included related to the 
emphasis on protecting different groups who might need special attention, including women, children, 
disabled persons, and indigenous populations:
1. Has RDAP adequately and effectively supported OFDA staff in responding to disasters in the LAC 
region, including both slow- and rapid-onset natural disasters, and manmade disasters? In this 
regard, what has RDAP done well and what improvements can be made for future responses? Are 
adequate budgetary and staffing resources provided for under the current award?
2. To what extent have RDAP’s DRM and DRR activities resulted in sustainable increased regional 
capacity to prepare for disasters and reduce the risks of their impacts?
3. To what extent do key stakeholders think that RDAP’s interventions are meeting their needs?
4. Are changes required in RDAP’s design, resourcing, staffing, and/or management to improve the 
program’s efficiency?
5. Can RDAP be made more cost-efficient?
6. To what extent has the “small grants under contract” component been effective in helping OFDA 
reach its DRM and DRR goals? What improvements, if any, could be made to the “grants under 
contract” program to improve its outcomes?
7. Is the program inclusive for women and vulnerable groups?
10
4. EVALUATION METHODS AND 
LIMITATIONS 
4.1 DATA COLLECTION METHODS
The evaluation team applied a non-experimental, observation-based design, and used a mixed-methods 
approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques, to answer the questions. The 
team focused on RDAP’s overall effectiveness, reviewing the program through the three overarching 
tasks describing in the Statement of Work: program management support, disaster response support, 
and capacity building for DRM and DRR. Given cost constraints and the expressed preferences of 
OFDA’s staff, RDAP’s cost-effectiveness was assessed without a financial analyst, which limited its scope. 
This evaluation covered the period from start-up, in December 2015, through the first quarter of 2019, 
accounting for more than 60 percent of the total implementation period. The evaluation was designed to 
effectively engage key sources, with specific questions used to guide the interviews and discussion 
regarding the program’s accomplishments and the relationship between the RDAP’s staff and 
stakeholders. The evaluation team’s analysis targeted RDAP’s capacity building efforts via RTI and 
explored its relationship with OFDA. Data sources included OFDA reports, program monitoring 
records, staffing data (which includes short-term consultants), key informant interviews (KIIs), focus 
group discussions (FGDs), observations, and anecdotes. 
The evaluation team used interviews as the primary source of evidence and relied on triangulation to 
confirm answers to individual questions. The evaluators employed a combination of rapid appraisal 
methods, mainly KIIs and FGDs, to access the required information and evidence (see the survey 
instruments in Annex III). The support of the OFDA and RDAP teams was crucial to gain access to the 
relevant staff, implementing agency representatives, and community stakeholders, given the relatively 
tight evaluation timeline.
To ensure quality control of the interviews, all semi-structured interviewing questionnaires underwent a 
multi-stage development and review process. Initially, the entire team developed the work plan and the 
deliverables schedule. Then, the evaluation specialist constructed the qualitative questionnaire. The 
evaluation director and team leader reviewed the questionnaire to assure the quality of the product. 
OFDA’s focal point for evaluations provided guidance and oversight throughout this process.
This report includes an overview of the general findings for each evaluation question, an analysis of the 
answers along thematic lines (e.g., OFDA versus non-OFDA staff, types of key stakeholders, gender of 
the respondents), and actionable recommendations for the current RDAP contract and for future 
programming. 
DOCUMENT REVIEW
The evaluators reviewed documents and data before embarking on the fieldwork, including:
• Program documents and revised versions of these documents; 
• Five-year country plans;
11
• Technical progress reports and status reports;
• OFDA’s quarterly performance reports;
• Work plans;
• RDAP’s 2012 Evaluation Report; and
• Research or other reports, as relevant. 
The evaluation team also referenced external secondary sources for context and useful background 
regarding other data collection efforts in the field. See Appendix IV for a complete list of the documents 
the team reviewed.
STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS 
The evaluation team conducted interviews between February 24 and March 21, 2019. To maximize the 
efficiency of interviews with program stakeholders (e.g., academic, governmental, NGOs, and 
beneficiaries), the evaluation team selected the visits and interviews using information and records 
provided by OFDA and RDAP personnel. 
The team used a purposive sampling method, chosen to address the specific scope and nature of the 
program activities. For activities involving large numbers of participants, such as trainees, the evaluation 
sought to achieve a balance between individual and group interviews. A few interviews were conducted 
using the telephone, WhatsApp, and FaceTime, as some key informants were away from their duty 
stations or in unreachable areas while the evaluation team was in country. 
The evaluation team conducted semi-structured interviews with 198 program stakeholders, as Table 2 
demonstrates. 
TABLE 2: RESPONDENTS BY CATEGORY
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS FOCUS GROUP 
DISCUSSIONS
TOTAL PEOPLE 
INTERVIEWED
102 respondents 96 respondents
(14 FGDs)
198 respondents
FIGURE 1: INTERVIEWEES BY GENDER
Male
72.70%
Female
27.30%
12
The evaluators solicited the opinions of OFDA representatives; officials from national and municipal 
disaster organizations; U.S. embassy staff; personnel from the police, fire services, the military, and the 
Red Cross; representatives of NGOs and academic institutions; and program staff. The team asked these 
stakeholders about (among other topics) the program’s relevance, accomplishments, challenges, and 
potential for sustainability, and the working relationship between program staff and their partners, where 
appropriate. 
These meetings were either one-on-one or in FGDs. Overall, the team conducted 102 KIIs (97 in-person 
and 5 by phone) and 14 FGDs with 96 people. As Figure 1 illustrates, the majority of interviewees were 
male, roughly aligned with the overall gender breakdown of the RDAP staff complement, per the 
organigram and related documentation.
4.2 DATA COLLECTION TOOLS 
The evaluation team designed data collection tools to establish links between stakeholder responses or 
observed activities and the main evaluation questions. Appendix III presents the tools used to gather and 
analyze beneficiary information:
1. Individual interview protocols – Semi-structured individual interview protocols contain questions 
and guidelines that solicit feedback in a one-on-one setting; and 
2. Group interview protocols – Semi-structured group interview protocols contain questions and 
guidelines that solicit feedback in a group setting. These were also used with vulnerable youth 
(e.g., youth not engaged in the formal labor market and who benefit from RDAP).
The evaluation team compiled internal interview notes, forming the basis for cross-site analysis and 
discussion of the findings.
4.3 LIMITATIONS
The selection of interviewees and beneficiaries constitutes a purposive sample. This sampling method—
also referred to as a judgmental or expert sample—is a type of non-probability sample that is selected 
based on the knowledge of a population and the purpose of the study. This approach allowed the 
evaluation team to apply the program’s learning curve to select a sample that could best reflect the key 
issues. This approach was also commensurate with the time, resource, and source availability constraints 
of this evaluation. 
Consequently, not all beneficiaries had an equal probability of being included in the sample. Nevertheless, 
all efforts were made to ensure the evaluation team visited a representative sample of sites and 
beneficiaries, including some who had performed well and others who had experienced challenges. In 
addition, the evaluation team made a conscious effort to also interview beneficiaries in rural areas, 
insofar as this was possible, in order to capture a full range of potential responses. While allowing for a 
comprehensive and cost-effective evaluation, the team’s approach does limit the generalizability of the 
findings. It is possible that more rural or difficult to reach stakeholders would provide a different 
perspective on RDAP.
Interviewees were selected to cover the broadest possible range in terms of gender and activity focus, as 
well as applicable demographics, geographical distribution, and special interests. However, the limited 
evaluation time frame did not lend itself to formal stratification or clustering.
13
This evaluation is not an impact assessment. The findings are based on information collected from the 
document review and from interviews with stakeholders, RDAP staff, and beneficiaries. The integrity of 
the information these sources provided to the evaluators determine the accuracy of the evaluation’s 
findings. Furthermore, the amount of available financial data—and the previously mentioned lack of 
finance specialization on the evaluation team—limited the assessment of RDAP’s cost-efficiency. As a 
result, a cost-efficiency analysis is not included in this report, even though interviewees made references 
to this subject in responses to Evaluation Question 5. 
The evaluation team also encountered some difficulty in directly establishing the connection between the 
work specifically undertaken under RDAP in relation to the countries’ disaster response and readiness. 
For example, stakeholders usually did not refer to RDAP. Instead, they spoke of USAID’s or OFDA’s 
assistance, including NGOs’ disaster assistance projects being financed by OFDA through other grants. 
Although this lack of distinction is generally positive, as it recognizes USAID and OFDA’s work in 
totality, rather than focusing on a specific program, it made it challenging for the evaluation team to 
ascertain RDAP’s specific contributions with regard to OFDA’s other work.
In addition, the evaluation team recognizes the need to quantify the qualitative findings, as much as 
possible. For FGDs, the team noted whether a topic was discussed, or an opinion stated. As some of the 
FGDs included up to 10 participants and the team did not record conversations, disaggregating the 
results below the FGD level proved difficult. Also, given the number of interviews and the condensed 
travel schedule, the team conducted many of the 116 KIIs and FGDs with only one interviewer. The 
interviewers took detailed notes, but, as with all non-transcript qualitative interviews, there is a chance 
the team did not capture the universe of responses (i.e., the numbers reported could actually be lower 
bounds). Finally, the evaluation team promised confidentiality to the interviewees. Thus, the team 
purposefully does not specify respondents in some cases as it could lead to identification. 
14
5. SWOT ANALYSIS 
To better understand RDAP, the team conducted a SWOT analysis when analyzing the data. The graphics 
below illustrate the team’s SWOT analysis, accompanied by supporting quotes from stakeholders in the 
field. The team found that the strengths of the RDAP program included the trainings/capacity building of 
staff, the flexibility of the response and DRR model, and the established credibility. In terms of weaknesses, 
the team identified shortcomings in performance management, budget, and continued and advanced 
training. The RDAP program has the opportunity to introduce cross-training and hands-on training and 
advocate for emergency response policies. Threats to the program included demonstrated lack of 
experience by some trainers, limited incorporation of new technology, and insufficient inclusion. 
FIGURE 2: SWOT ANALYSIS
STRENGTHS
WEAKNESSES
15
OPPORTUNITIES
THREATS
16
6. FINDINGS 
6.1 FINDINGS OVERVIEW
TABLE 3: FINDINGS
EVALUATION QUESTION FINDINGS
1) Has RDAP adequately and effectively supported 
OFDA staff in responding to disasters in the LAC, 
including both slow and rapid onset natural disasters, 
and manmade disasters? In this regard, what has RDAP 
done well and what improvements can be made for 
future responses? Are adequate budgetary and staffing 
resources provided for under the current award?
• Invaluable resource in emergency 
response
• Increased efficiency and shorter 
response times for 
disasters/emergencies
2) To what extent have RDAP’s DRM and DRR 
activities resulted in sustainable increased regional 
capacity to prepare for disasters and reduce the risks 
of their impacts?
• National capacity institutionalized
• Insufficient hazard mitigation funding
• Builds risk prevention culture
3) To what extent do key stakeholders think that 
RDAP’s interventions are meeting their needs?
• More direct and less bureaucratic than 
other aid agencies 
• Increased technical skills in countries 
4) Are changes required in RDAP’s design, resourcing, 
staffing, and/or management to improve the program’s 
efficiency? 
• Opportunity to improve human 
resource management
• Need for program monitoring and 
evaluation
• “Option Year” obstacles
5) Can the RDAP Program be made more cost 
efficient?
• Local surge staff are cost-efficient
• Opportunity to expand e-learning
• Contingency budget line concerns
6) To what extent has the “small grants under 
contract” component been effective in helping OFDA 
reach its DRM and DRR goals? What improvements, 
if any, could be made to the “grants under contract” 
program to improve its outcomes?
• Small grants increased the capacity of 
grantees in risk prevention 
• Bureaucratic processes limit 
inexperienced applicants
7) Is the program inclusive for women and vulnerable 
groups?
• Trainings have targeted women and 
indigenous populations
• Specialized plans for women and 
marginalized populations not uniformly 
designed/adopted
17
6.2 EVALUATION QUESTION 1
Has RDAP adequately and effectively supported OFDA staff in responding to disasters in the LAC 
region, including both slow- and rapid-onset natural disasters, and manmade disasters? In this 
regard, what has RDAP done well and what improvements can be made for future responses? Are 
adequate budgetary and staffing resources provided for under the current award?
This question focuses on RDAP’s effectiveness in supporting the response to rapid- and slow-onset 
disasters. First, the evaluation team presents general findings, such as quick and comprehensive response 
operations and preparedness for sudden-onset events. The team then presents the findings in relation to 
slow-onset events, followed by specific findings, classified based on (1) the adequacy of staff, particularly 
the importance of the Disaster Risk Management Specialists (DRMSs); (2) areas that require 
improvement, such as DRR; and (3) recommendations to achieve greater effectiveness of the emergency 
response activities, such as the budgetary allocation and coordination with key partners. 
In approximately 40 KIIs, not including those with OFDA and RTI personnel, and 12 FGDs, interviewees 
recognized OFDA’s quick and comprehensive response to disasters in the LAC region. Respondents 
highlighted the provision of emergency relief assistance, logistics support, and humanitarian 
coordination—including, if needed, the support of DARTs. These key informants added that OFDA 
regularly provided technical assistance to strengthen stakeholders’ capacity in countries with different 
degrees of preparedness and needs and facing different kinds of sudden-onset disaster events (e.g., 
hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and forest fires). 
The evaluation team did not find information that detailed RDAP’s involvement in supporting the 
response to slow-onset events. There was also no indication whether these events influenced an 
adjustment to the RDAP’s approach.
PROVIDING VITAL CONTRIBUTIONS THROUGH DRMS STRUCTURE
Country DRMSs function as OFDA’s “eyes and ears”; their permanent presence and networks are ideal 
points of contact with LAC governments and partners during disasters and emergencies. Six key 
informants and participants in five FGDs in Honduras and Peru recognized the valuable work of the 
DRMSs with responsibility for the Incident Command System (ICS) and forest fires in emergency 
response and response preparedness. In-country DRMSs have a close relationship with national disaster 
management organizations, NGOs, and other stakeholders, and facilitate OFDA’s access to key decision￾makers, as well as to timely and useful information. By extension, this privileged access strengthens 
OFDA’s coordination of assistance with local stakeholders and allows the agency to make knowledgeable 
resource allocation decisions within short periods—a prerequisite for efficient disaster response. 
SUPPORTING ON-THE-GROUND ACTIVITIES
In Peru, Guatemala, and Costa Rica, among other countries, RDAP has supported vulnerability 
assessments that identified potential hazards to which different territories were exposed and led to the 
mapping and prioritization of high-risk zones. Despite these achievements, the evaluation team found the 
level of investment in DRR activities to be too small to result in any scalable mitigation of the identified 
hazards. That being said, RDAP is only one of many tools available to countries that want to conduct 
DRR and DRM activities.
18
LEADING DISASTER AND EMERGENCY RESPONSE PREPAREDNESS IN LAC
OFDA and other donors built and equipped National 
Emergency Operations Centers in Guatemala and 
Jamaica and Regional Emergency Operations Centers in 
Honduras and Peru. First responders in these countries 
reported that these structures improved their response 
capabilities. The decentralization through the Regional 
Emergency Operations Centers and training at the sub￾national level has bolstered the quality of community￾level response to disasters and emergencies. Personnel 
in all six countries informed the evaluation team that 
RDAP’s support had contributed to improved
information management and shorter response times 
for disasters and emergencies.
The evaluation team learned that throughout the six countries, RDAP’s training and technical assistance 
initiatives resulted in the development of a strong disaster response platform, but greater coordination 
with other donors and key regional coordination mechanisms—such as the Coordination Centre for 
Disaster Prevention in Central America (CEPREDENAC) and the Caribbean Disaster Emergency 
Management Agency (CDEMA)—would increase the effectiveness and response to disasters. 
Interviewees in the Caribbean sub-region mentioned that RDAP should increase its pre- and post￾disaster coordination with CDEMA for a more effective response system. 
OFDA and RTI leadership in Washington, D.C., and San José expressed concern over the limited amount 
of funding in the Emergency Response budget line item, given the number of emergencies already being 
supported since the start of the current program year. The atypical Venezuela Crisis in particular has 
brought budget issues to light due to the prolonged nature of the crisis. The leadership added that there 
was a risk that the funds could be exhausted before the Atlantic hurricane season reaches its usual peak 
(September–October).
6.3 EVALUATION QUESTION 2
To what extent have RDAP’s DRM and DRR activities resulted in sustainable increased regional 
capacity to prepare for disasters and reduce the risks of their impacts?
This question addresses RDAP’s sustainable capacity building. Two strengths of the program’s potential 
sustainability are (1) the training of trainers, which is proving to be an effective tool to institutionalize 
national capacity; and (2) OFDA’s support for a network of disaster coordination agencies, first 
responders, and surge capacity members for managing disasters and emergencies. 
Opportunities to increase sustainability include (1) updating some training course content, especially with 
information on how climate change influences some of the topics; and (2) increasing the potential to 
strengthen local capacity over time, by creating training-of-trainers courses for indigenous populations. 
Recommended improvements
• If possible, increase the budget 
allocation to the Emergency 
Response line item, given current 
political and hydro-meteorological 
trends in LAC
• Boost coordination with other 
donors for increased impact and 
improved resource allocation 
decisions
19
DELIVERING EXTENSIVE TRAINING PORTFOLIO
RDAP supports instructor training, using OFDA’s 
training curriculum, and certifies the trained instructors 
as trainers. This allows in-country partner institutions at 
the national and sub-national levels to conduct 
additional training courses in areas such as disaster 
response, disaster management, and DRR using their 
own trainers and other resources. Training of trainers 
involving local organizations is thus an effective way to 
institutionalize national capacity for training. However, 
interviewees reported high turnover among trainers 
and requested a method (e.g., an online database) to 
track potential trainers when seeking an instructor.
Whenever required, RDAP provides technical assistance to DRM and DRR course delivery through in￾country and technical DRMSs. Most of the core courses RDAP currently offers are delivered by national 
institutions and local trainers, enhancing the sustainability of core RDAP courses. There is an 
opportunity for RDAP to coordinate more between the technical and in-country DRMSs. Technical 
DRMSs would also provide more training assistance if Forest Fire Prevention and ICS training units were 
separated. 
Finally, interviewees mentioned they would appreciate more technical training in vulnerable migrants, 
cash transfer programming, water and sanitation, urban risk, and vector control. 
STRENGTHENING LAC RESPONSE CAPACITY
Respondents in KIIs and FGDs with government disaster coordination agencies, first responders, and 
surge capacity members noted how RDAP strongly supported skills development. They specifically 
highlighted RDAP’s focus on problem-solving strategies, response timing and techniques, clear 
communication, and distribution of tasks and responsibilities among response actors. These skills are 
fundamental in increasing country capacity to respond to emergency situations and reduce disaster risk. 
From this perspective, the program has successfully promoted and encouraged self-management in 
emergency situations. 
“OFDA supported the establishment of a network with other firefighters in the region (including Central 
America and South America) and the creation of the Confederation of Central American and Panama 
firefighters, and the development of a firefighters’ manual that is used in all six countries. Another 
important contribution was a hands-on internship … in Virginia, to assist the development of Costa Rica’s 
firefighters integrated control center, and the training in Colombia of the Canine Unit, used for example, 
for search and rescue in collapsed structures.”
—Stakeholder, Costa Rica
Required improvements
• Update training modules and hand 
these over to national agencies for an 
increased “multiplier effect”
• Provide more advanced training for 
instructors for select courses
• Provide, from RDAP, support for DRR 
work, focusing on vulnerability 
reduction and strengthening resilience
20
NEEDING TO UPDATE COURSES 
Key informants in 11 KIIs and nine FGDs requested that OFDA update some of the courses (e.g., 
Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Management, Search and Rescue in Collapsed Structures, First Aid, and 
Incident Command System), because the corresponding protocols have evolved. These interview 
respondents also suggested that RDAP incorporate more tools using new technology into its training 
“toolbox,” where applicable. They added that although RDAP now offers online training, it has been 
insufficiently resourced, with only one administrator and without the required level of technical support 
to make the platform appealing to use. 
BUILDING AND STRENGTHENING NETWORK OF RESPONDERS
RDAP has contributed to creating and solidifying a network among key first response agencies, such as 
the Red Cross and firefighters in all six countries the evaluation team visited. This was evident during 
FGDs with surge capacity members, where their rapport and familiarity with technical matters (e.g., 
procedures for first response knowledge development and capacity strengthening) demonstrated their 
capacity. This capacity ultimately facilitates coordination and the delivery of assistance using proven 
methods and procedures. These networks could be further strengthened by creating regional exchanges, 
which would allow surge teams to work across national boundaries. 
STRENGTHENING CULTURE FOR DRR AMONG YOUTH
In Costa Rica, Honduras, Jamaica, and Peru, respondents highlighted RDAP’s DRR work with schools and 
higher education institutions. This transfer of DRR and risk management knowledge to youth and young 
adults enhances their awareness and builds a culture of risk prevention, in line with the objectives of the 
Hyogo Framework for Action. This activity also encourages their participation in community-focused 
organizations and NGOs, such as the Red Cross. The evaluation team heard that youths and young 
adults also use these tools in their professional development for varied disciplines, such as engineering, 
natural resource management, social communication, and business administration. 
COORDINATING AND ENHANCING DRR ACTIVITIES
Key informants in all six countries observed that although RDAP does not implement the majority of 
OFDA’s DRR programming—other implementing partners undertake these tasks—there are 
opportunities for RDAP’s activities to build on and complement these activities. In the informants’ view, 
there is a need for RDAP to increase its focus on DRR work. This would complement OFDA’s current 
focus on emergency response. Moreover, the lessons from such response operations should generate a 
greater focus on vulnerability reduction and resilience strengthening in future activities. In so doing, 
RDAP would facilitate a more coordinated approach to DRR, and enable increased scalability of DRR 
activities in the medium to long term. 
BOOSTING LOCAL CAPACITY
The evaluation team observed RDAP’s work to strengthen local capacity in Cusco, Peru. With the 
support and motivation of RDAP, the municipality designed a forest fire prevention and control activity, 
with a budget of $3,639,181, that is also financed by the municipal government. RDAP trained the 
activity’s instructors and will support additional training of trainers. 
21
After observing a training session in the San Salvador District, in Calca Province, the evaluation team 
learned that the main objective of the activity is “improvement of the capacities for prevention and 
response to forest fires and pastures in prioritized provinces of the Cusco region.” This activity covers 
49 small farming communities, benefiting approximately 40,000 persons. The training will also include ICS 
at the regional and community level and will increase local institutional capacity to prepare for disaster 
and reduce the risk of impact. Based on the local government financing and community buy-in, the 
evaluation team views this activity as a strong example of RDAP’s work to boost local capacity. 
TARGETING INDIGENOUS POPULATIONS 
Countries such as Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Peru are including members of indigenous groups in their 
training, in order to build their capacity for lasting impact. The next capacity building step is for training￾of-trainers’ courses to target members of indigenous groups, advancing the possibility for ownership and 
sustainability of the training among these communities. 
KIIs in other countries, such as Costa Rica and Honduras, reported that RDAP implemented pilot 
activities targeting indigenous groups, but interviews for this evaluation revealed that this is largely an 
underserved target group in the LAC region. More effort is required to incrementally include indigenous 
populations in the medium- to long-term, beginning with a needs and capacity assessment, followed by an 
implementation strategy, with activity targets.
6.4 EVALUATION QUESTION 3
To what extent do key stakeholders think that RDAP’s interventions are meeting their needs?
This question addresses RDAP’s role in fulfilling stakeholders’ needs. The responses noted that (1) 
RDAP has successfully supported forest fire prevention and management activities, safeguarding the local 
populations’ livelihoods and contributing indirectly to the preservation of cultural heritage in some 
locations; (2) RDAP has helped build relationships among first responders, which supports their 
coordination; and (3) RDAP has successfully provided the framework and methodology for many risk 
management courses and for first response. 
PRESERVING LIVELIHOODS AND CULTURE
RDAP’s assistance has been crucial in the prevention and control of forest fires resulting from “slash and 
burn” agricultural practices in LAC, particularly in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru. Forest 
fires resulting from these practices can affect areas of important cultural heritage (e.g., Petén, Guatemala, 
which is home to Tikal National Park, and Cusco, Peru, which houses Machu Picchu, a UNESCO World 
Heritage site). According to FGDs in Costa Rica and Peru, RDAP’s prevention activities helped preserve 
the means of livelihood for populations in these regions. RDAP support has also improved search-and￾rescue efforts in these areas, increasing first responders’ capacity to save lives. 
ENHANCING COORDINATION
Discussions during KIIs in the Caribbean sub-region revealed that RDAP’s training and technical 
assistance has contributed to building the relationship and developing disaster response procedures and 
protocols among partners such as the National Disaster Coordination Agencies, the Red Cross, the 
police and the army—all of which facilitate the response to emergencies and disasters. 
22
In Guatemala, respondents from CONRED, the agency responsible for national coordination of disaster 
reduction, indicated that RDAP training helped strengthen coordination among the Red Cross, the 
police, the Army, and communities, which contributed to better management of information and shorter 
response times around the eruption of the Fuego volcano on June 3, 2018. The eruption resulted in a 
flux tower of ash, sending burning lava, rocks, and gas cascading down its slopes; more than 300 people 
were killed. Because of first response protocols and regular drills, people trained in first response acted 
quickly and warned residents to evacuate before the eruption. More than 3,000 people from at least 
eight communities were evacuated in advance and were taken to provisional shelters in safe areas.
In Barbados, Ministry of Education informants spoke very highly of RDAP’s training of shelter managers. 
The ministry staff indicated that although the country had not been affected by major events such as 
those in Antigua, Barbuda, and Dominica in 2017, the training had created additional capacity for them to 
adequately respond if required.
IMPROVING TECHNICAL SKILLS AND POLICIES 
In every country the evaluation team visited, interviewees mentioned similar experiences of taking 
ownership of training and technical assistance (e.g., by adapting and replicating OFDA courses using their 
own resources), although the evaluation team noted some variability, due to in-country economic 
realities. At present, the countries follow methods introduced during RDAP training, and are able to 
coordinate efforts, act with efficacy, and rapidly respond to disasters. 
RDAP assisted Costa Rica to develop its DRM curriculum. One stakeholder noted that most risk 
management, prevention and control of forest fires, and first response courses were carried out using 
OFDA’s methodology and in-country resources. 
In October 2017, Hurricane Nate caused heavy rains and landslides in Guanacaste, Costa Rica. 
According to several participants in one FGD, the ICS was activated as part of the initial response. These 
respondents further stated that OFDA’s first response training had been crucial to their ability to 
successfully undertaking search and rescue activities during these events.
In Barbados, key informants identified RDAP as a “driving force” in promoting resilience through risk 
mitigation. OFDA is also considered a strategic partner in emergency management activities in Barbados, 
with its technical assistance and other forms of support having played an important role in 
complementing the resources of the National Disaster Office (NDO). Interviewees spoke of OFDA as 
having contributed to the strengthening the capacity of the Emergency Management Advisory Council—
the body that reviews and recommends emergency management policy to the cabinet of the 
Government of Barbados. Informants in two KIIs also spoke of RDAP’s support for the development of 
the Tsunami Ready Recognition Program, an initiative that the NDO spearheaded.
According to the NDO, Hurricane Sandy (in 2012) was the last major disaster event that affected 
Jamaica. The NDO stated that RDAP played an important role in relocating vulnerable persons, in 
coordinating the response, and in damage assessment activities. Key informants also said RDAP was 
more direct and less bureaucratic than other foreign disaster assistance agencies, and that its assistance 
came “right away.” In addition, when Hurricane Matthew threatened the area in 2016, RDAP deployed 
an advance team for preparedness, who assisted with the identification of potential risk areas. Although 
the threat did not materialize, the Government of Jamaica appreciated the support. The NDO 
acknowledged RDAP’s inputs into the National Disaster Management Plan and Policies Manual, its 
23
training and development of the National Shelter Program, and its training and establishment of the 
National Emergency Operations Center.
NEEDING TO PROVIDE MORE TRAINING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
Although key informants in all FGDs and KIIs 
recognized the vital roles that RDAP’s training and 
technical assistance have played to date, participants in 
five KIIs and six FGDs requested more advanced 
training courses in areas such as ICS, DRR, search and 
rescue in collapsed structures, hazardous materials, 
and medical first response. All four Latin American 
National Emergency Committees the evaluation team 
visited said they would like OFDA to design and 
implement a more advanced EOC Management course, 
as well as an updated Training for Instructors course, 
and to hand these courses over to them for 
replication. 
Key informants mentioned to the evaluation team that 
the Caribbean countries have expressed interest in 
ICS, as it has been a weakness in recent emergencies. They would like RDAP to reconsider the difficult 
pre-conditions it had set for introducing ICS in the Caribbean sub-region.
In all surge capacity FGDs and KIIs, surge capacity team members in all six countries pointed to an 
absence of updated information on course availability. They added that, to their knowledge, fundamental 
courses such as the Training for Instructors and Damage Assessment and Needs Analysis had not been 
recently revised. They recommended that OFDA provide periodic course updates and that trainers of 
trainers be provided with refresher or supplemental training to ensure they remain fully equipped to 
support training and related technical assistance. The evaluation team was unable to determine whether 
OFDA had established minimum standards for trainers or whether they regularly tested trainers’ 
knowledge. 
In Honduras, key informants highlighted the applicability of ICS methodology and mentioned the need for 
additional courses. These interviewees noted how ICS training helped them successfully manage crowds 
at events such as football games and political rallies and assisted them with providing medical attention 
for people experiencing dehydration. During floods in La Ceiba and San Pedro Sula in October 2018, the 
Honduran government recalled that the surge capacity team had been activated (two per region) and 
how they were instrumental in, for example, supporting the management of emergency operations and 
rescue efforts. Two surge capacity members in Honduras mentioned that there had been a few or no 
qualified instructors for courses such as Forest Fire Prevention, ICS, EOC Management, and Search and 
Rescue in Collapsed Structures.
Altogether, respondents across the six countries recognized that RDAP’s interventions have largely met 
their needs. However, rigorous assessments and feedback from cohorts over a fixed period would be 
required to guiding the revision of training courses and ensure adaptability based on respondents’ 
experiences. 
Needed improvements
• Increase technical capacity in areas such 
as food security and livelihoods, irregular 
migration, sexual and gender-based 
violence prevention, protection and 
social inclusion, cash transfer 
programming, and water and sanitation
• Enhance communication with surge team 
members to ensure they are aware of 
available and updated training courses
• Regularly update fundamental training 
modules and retrain instructors on these 
revised materials
24
In addition, existing and emerging needs in the LAC region have necessitated other skills and 
competencies for an effective response. Among the areas requiring increased technical mastery are food
security and livelihoods, irregular migration, sexual and gender-based violence prevention, protection 
and social inclusion, cash transfer programming, and water and sanitation. Key informants in the 
countries visited suggested that RDAP proactively explore opportunities for strategic partnerships or
invest in developing technical capacity in these and related disciplines, to better support their partners in 
the region. Key informants also suggested a closer focus on areas such as preventing vector-borne 
illnesses, urban risk management, and climate change adaptation. 
The evaluation team did not find RDAP activities to generally focus on climate change or consider major 
environmental factors (green response) during their emergency responses.
6.5 EVALUATION QUESTION 4
Are changes required in RDAP’S design, resourcing, staffing, and/or management to improve the 
program’s efficiency?
Responses to this question present suggestions for modifications to improve RDAP’s efficiency. The KIIs 
provide several suggestions. Interviewees in Washington, D.C., San José, and the six program offices the 
team visited almost unanimously identified the “option year” provision as a hindrance to RDAP’s 
effectiveness. They also suggested that a start date other than mid-December would avoid lost 
momentum in program implementation. 
In-country respondents saw NDOs as capable of effectively coordinating all of OFDA’s programming 
support in their countries. Another suggestion was to identify funding for the design and implementation 
of a comprehensive planning, monitoring, evaluation, and learning mechanism for RDAP. 
Furthermore, although DRMSs effectively increase the program’s efficiency, interview respondents 
identified factors, such as variable salary scales and employment conditions that negatively affect their 
morale and potentially have restricted their availability to respond to disasters and emergencies. While
RTI’s compensation and benefits system utilize multiple country specific data sources to apply location￾specific competitive market rates and salary scales, interviewees expressed concerns with human 
resource management. However, it is difficult to objectively assess the program’s efficiency in human 
resource management.
CONSTRAINING IMPLEMENTATION PERIODS: OPTION YEAR REQUIREMENT
RDAP’s option year component is not updated until the option year is approved, using assumptions from 
2015. The option year must be reviewed to reflect OFDA’s current needs and requirements/priorities.
During FGD and KII respondents in the six countries and in Washington, D.C., referred to RDAP’s 
option year component “counter-productive” to achieving results. (This is beside the fact that the 
current RDAP contract starts in mid-December every year, coinciding with many holiday vacation 
requests.) The option year mechanism also imposes an early cut-off point for program delivery, which 
necessitates modification and realignment of activities and ultimately limits their effectiveness. 
Although RDAP has not experienced any staff turnover due to this issue, key informants mentioned that 
there was an inherent element of risk associated with the option year mechanism, as contracts had to be 
25
terminated for some months—unless RTI assumed the costs in the interim, with the assumption that the 
program would continue—and then renewed upon approval of the next option year’s funding.
CALLING FOR COORDINATION BY NATIONAL DISASTER OFFICES 
Based on the information the evaluation team received from in-country interviews, NDOs are capable of 
serving as coordinating entities for all of RDAP’s programming support to their countries. OFDA 
concluded funding arrangements with NGOs for other activities, without including NDOs in their design 
or implementation. The interviewees proposed this change to increase the impact and efficient 
implementation of these activities and to better link them to the NDOs’ other activities.
LACKING PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT TRACKING
The evaluation team learned that in Year 2 of the current contract, work began to develop a tool and a 
methodology for developing indicators to measure RDAP’s accomplishments, with Costa Rica selected 
to pilot this process (RDAP Quarterly Performance Report for September–December 2018). Year 3 saw 
the development of a work plan, followed by data collection to track metrics such as the number of 
persons trained, overseas internships, and the outputs of the annual operational plans. The monitoring 
and evaluation officer, the DRMS for Costa Rica, and the sub-regional manager participated in data 
analysis. 
The evaluation team did not review information on RTI’s current performance management system. At 
present, the team understands that RDAP does not have enough resources to design and implement a 
comprehensive monitoring and evaluation plan, even though this would greatly enhance its effectiveness. 
This undertaking would require careful data collection, monitoring of results, a detailed and well￾documented record of the indicators, substantial participation of program staff in every country in the 
region, and dedicated technical staff to guide its implementation. Given the limited budget, this is not a 
possibility for the current RDAP contract but should be a central component of the next contract.
RECOGNIZING DISASTER RISK MANAGEMENT SPECIALISTS 
Stakeholders in Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, and Peru welcomed the presence of country assigned
DRMSs, as their needs varied by country. With the presence of a national-level DRMS, stakeholders 
reported, processes were faster, and they felt this had helped improve RDAP’s effectiveness in delivering 
training and technical assistance. Key informants also mentioned that the in-country DRMS had a better 
understanding of the population, including nuances of indigenous populations and geographical areas, and 
facilitated the further development of national networks. 
Conversely, interviewees reported that the variable rates in the DRMS pay scale was “a disincentive for 
more effort.” Although DRMS LOE has increased from Year One an average of 740 days (12%) by Year 
4, with 17 out of 23 DRMS who are consultants at near full time LOE and 3 DRMS transitioned to full￾time employees, at least 5 KIIs from multiple countries noted that not having all DRMSs work full time 
was a negative factor. They further stated that this setup could affect DRMS morale and availability, 
especially during disasters and emergencies. DRMSs mentioned that they rarely had the opportunity to 
interact with each other through training or other capacity building activities. Finally, DRMSs mentioned 
that technical DRMSs had limited access to activity budgets, which restricted their ability to provide on￾the-ground assistance and training.
26
INCREASING DRMS BUDGETARY ALLOCATIONS
Overall, the KIIs revealed that RDAP activity funds for each DRMS are quite limited. With this budget 
($30,000–$40,000 per Latin American country), DRMSs have been unable to adequately respond to the 
requests of their government and NGO partners. The small budget made it difficult for them to meet 
OFDA’s requirements to fulfill the region’s requests and to determine what could be financed and what 
capacity exists for implementation. Respondents reported that this has reduced the DRMSs’ impact and 
influence, as their government counterparts accorded greater priority to larger donors. Without an 
increase in the funding, DRMS effectiveness is restricted, including cross-training opportunities among 
LAC countries. 
Another challenge, according to some DRMS, relates to the relationship with their national counterparts. 
This stemmed from the fact that their counterparts were more adept with new technologies, because 
RDAP does not include a systematic refresher training requirement or provide mandatory professional 
development objectives for its personnel.
The situation was even more challenging for the Caribbean sub-region, where the DRMSs each support 
two or three countries. Of the two DRMSs the evaluation team interviewed, one supported two 
countries that were not geographically close to each other, and the other supported three countries in 
the southern Caribbean. This means the DRMSs had to divide the $30,000–$40,000 allocation for 
activities among or between countries and provide an allocation for a regional activity. The possibility to 
access additional funding from the Other Direct Costs budget line was not always guaranteed, given the 
competitive allocation of funds and the other activities funded from this budget line. Although the 
Caribbean sub-region’s population is significantly smaller than Latin America’s, the operating costs are 
higher; this fact has a negative impact on the Caribbean-based DRMSs’ ability to implement activities.
CONFRONTING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT CHALLENGES
Key informants identified the human resource 
management component of the current RDAP contract 
as among its biggest weaknesses. In addition to the lack 
of professional development opportunities, 
respondents highlighted the following shortcomings:
In KIIs with RDAP staff, the interviewees listed a
number of human resource management concerns. The 
most common issues included:
• lack of personnel development opportunities;
• low average compensation and benefits;
• variable salaries; 
• Overtime only applying to DRMSs working during 
emergencies, so some staff do not receive overtime 
despite expending the same level of effort as others who do; and
• Lack of a performance management framework, with clear objectives, assessment criteria, and 
feedback opportunities from colleagues. 
Recommended improvements
• Design and implement tools and 
guidelines for a formal procedure for 
annual performance management of all 
RDAP personnel, including a focus on 
360-degree evaluations
• Implement the recommendations of the 
already conducted gender assessment
• Update training materials to make them 
more inclusive.
• Spread the executive decisions among 
more team members.
27
At least two KIIs stated that they believed there were gender disparities in salaries for males and females 
appointed to similar roles. This evaluation does not include salary and benefits market analyses across 
the 27 RDAP countries. Interviewees also noted that even though a gender assessment had been 
completed for RDAP, the findings were not implemented. One interviewee mentioned that suggestions 
to modify the language in training materials to achieve gender neutrality were “seen as too much work.” 
Finally, interviews revealed that RDAP has a highly centralized management system, with ultimate 
authority embodied in the senior regional advisor, whose travel schedule has limited his physical 
presence in San José. This has, at times, led to delays in critical decision-making for program 
implementation. This led to another identified weakness related to succession planning; with no clear 
strategy or mechanism to facilitate succession for DRMSs, the program risks losing institutional memory.
CLARIFYING AND IMPROVING SUB-REGIONAL MANAGERS AND PROGRAM MANAGER ROLES
In five KIIs, informants agreed that the program 
manager was overwhelmed by the requirement to 
manage all the DRMSs, in addition to the many other 
tasks this person had to perform. The program 
manager therefore welcomed the introduction of the 
intermediate-level sub-regional managers, following the 
2012 RDAP evaluation. Key informants said this 
change facilitated the supervision of DRMSs’ activities 
and expedited the reporting process. 
The sub-regional managers also provide country￾specific strategy and planning support to the DRMS.
Their presence enables a more effective flow of 
information between the DRMSs and San José during 
the response to disasters in multiple sub-regions.
However, the informants cited challenges with how 
these personnel function, sharing that the sub-regional 
managers have become “an extra layer of 
bureaucracy,” rather than an enabler of effective work. 
One interviewee pointed to difficulties in accessing information from the DRMSs, even when he solicited 
the support of the sub-regional managers; they were, he said, more cumbersome and “did not add value” 
in terms of the overall outputs.
Informants also mentioned that some of the sub-regional managers lacked the requisite technical skills, 
limiting their effectiveness. They added that there was a lack of clarity regarding their role and Terms of 
Reference. One interviewee asked, “Are they meant to be technical and supervisory leads for the 
DRMSs, or are their roles more administrative?” Another inquired, “How much supervision and quality 
control do they receive from RDAP leadership team in San José?” These key informants stated that 
although there had been improvements with the appointment of the new program manager, this person 
required more training and confidence to be fully effective in the role. 
Recommended improvements
• Review the sub-regional managers’ 
Terms of Reference to clarify their roles
• Review sub-regional managers’ 
qualifications and experiences to ensure 
their profiles fit the tasks specified in the 
revised Terms of Reference, and take 
the necessary steps in line with the 
outcomes of the reviews 
• Provide closer supervision of the sub￾regional managers
• Provide training opportunities for the 
sub-regional managers, should the 
process for acquiring requisite skills not 
be disruptive to their workload
28
6.6 EVALUATION QUESTION 5
Can RDAP be made more cost-efficient?
Information from key informants across the six countries indicate that RDAP is cost-efficient, based on 
the ratio of its inputs to its outputs. Contributing factors include the strategy of prioritizing the use of 
regional human resources in emergency response, rather than mobilizing international personnel—
lowering the relative operating costs in such instances. However, key informants highlighted the need to 
provide members of the surge team with standardized training and the need to apply uniform criteria for 
qualifying surge team eligibility and for surge team member selection. Surge team members also need 
opportunities to keep their skills updated (e.g., through e-learning courses and deployment in response 
to events). The evaluation team identified a need to better measure the real program implementation 
costs and to determine RDAP’s true level of cost-efficiency.
Based on the feedback from interviewees in seven KIIs and eight FGDs, RDAP is operating in a cost￾efficient manner. Its practice of deploying regional surge capacity—comprising personnel from the LAC 
region who can mobilize quickly, without large international travel costs—is cost-effective. In addition, 
the local surge staff truly understand the country’s population, needs, and geography, which points to a 
certain level of operational cost-efficiency, compared to the costs of an international surge team. 
IMPROVING RETURNS ON SURGE STAFF INVESTMENTS 
However, the evaluation team was informed that not all surge team members received the same training, 
and that RDAP lacked uniform surge team selection criteria. When interviewing surge team staff, the 
evaluation team heard that some had waited for years before being activated, while others were still 
awaiting their first deployment. Surge team members deployed for sudden-onset events mentioned that 
post-deployment debriefs, and follow-ups varied, depending on the DRMS who coordinated the team. 
Variations in the selection criteria, training, and review are lost opportunities for learning and 
improvement across RDAP. These findings diminish the evidence of the surge system’s cost-efficiency. 
IMPROVING BUDGET MANAGEMENT
Interviews with RDAP personnel revealed some resource management concerns under the current 
contract. In-country DRMSs and staff based in Washington, D.C., and San José mentioned similar 
concerns regarding the need to frequently shift money between line items, and the use of the 
contingency fund, which was being drawn on to meet shortfalls in other budget lines. Although this line 
item was envisioned to support some budget alignment, interviewees highlighted numerous budget 
realignments, alluding to budget management shortcomings. At least two KIIs stated that IRG 
underestimated the real costs of program implementation during the bidding process, in order to be 
competitive. Upon receipt of the contract, and as program implementation progressed, the implementer 
remained within the original approved ceilings and requested budget adjustments to realign budget lines 
to reflect program and staff needs. On occasion those needs, like increases in staff salaries, conflicted 
with the low rates IRG originally bid for the contract.. 
29
NEEDING TO UPDATE RDAP COST EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS
As Evaluation Question 1 findings indicate, key 
informants pointed to large variations in the level of 
DRMS remuneration. The issue of non-eligibility of 
some categories of staff for overtime pay is also a point 
of contention here. These findings indicate that although 
RDAP’s costs are relatively low, the levels somewhat 
mask the true program costs. A more robust human 
resource management system would result in 
compensation and benefits commensurate with the level of effort of personnel. Thus, the evident high 
return on investment in personnel cost, when compared to the added value and benefits that accrue 
from their work, comes into question. A deeper cost–benefit analysis is required to better evaluate the 
extent to which RDAP is being implemented in a cost-efficient manner.
REQUIRING IMPACT MONITORING 
Discussions in five KIIs and three FGDs indicated that 
OFDA had encouraged in-country DRMSs and OFDA 
staff to liaise with NGOs that implement OFDA grants in 
the region. Although this was seen as a positive 
development, the key informants suggested that OFDA 
should also assess how such projects influence the 
beneficiaries’ well-being, to better gauge their outcomes. 
ENHANCING TRAINING AND E-LEARNING
RDAP has adapted training methods to accommodate the specific characteristics of individual countries 
and communities, enhancing the program’s effectiveness (e.g., in relation to forest fire prevention and 
management). To make training courses more effective, manuals should also consider local factors, such 
as the languages and traditions of indigenous populations. 
Virtual learning can make training courses and workshops more accessible to learners in new ways, as it 
does not require their physical presence and allows asynchronous participation. It can also be challenging 
for instructors and learners, who must adapt to the new approaches. Virtual learning methodology and 
deployment can vary, depending on the course and background of the people been trained. One 
possibility is independent training software. Another option would be for RDAP to build on existing e￾learning courses, for example, e-learning courses from the Resilience and Disaster Risk Management 
Learning Lab run by the Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery and the World Bank. 
Participants in five KIIs and four FGDs mentioned that the RDAP virtual learning module did not provide 
enough online support for training or allow trainees to ask technical questions. Another possibility is 
blended learning, a combination of face-to-face training (with instructors in a classroom) and online 
education (courses via the Internet or in other digital formats). This helps learners participate at a pace 
that works best for them and gives trainers much more flexibility. To keep pace with new generations, 
training also needs to account for unique needs and demands of youth and young adults. 
Recommended improvement
Undertake a deeper analysis of the true 
cost of implementing RDAP to obtain a 
more accurate measurement of its cost￾efficiency
Recommended improvement
Design and implement a comprehensive 
planning, monitoring and evaluation, and 
learning system to improve the program’s 
efficiency
30
6.7 EVALUATION QUESTION 6
To what extent has the “small grants under contract” component been effective in helping OFDA 
reach its DRM and DRR goals? What improvements, if any, could be made to the “grants under 
contract” program to improve its outcomes?
This question focuses on the effectiveness of the small grants under contract to reach DRM and DRR 
goals. Three of the six small grant recipients and another three respondents reported that small grant 
qualification requirements were “bureaucratic” and eliminated smaller entities from being able to access 
these grants. Some former applicants highlighted that application forms were available only in English. 
The evaluation team recommends increased monitoring of administrative processes to expand the 
geographical coverage and build on previously successful small grants. Future monitoring could include
annual reviews to assess administrative procedures and review grantees’ geographic and thematic 
diversity. Some grant recipients were unsuccessful in their follow-on applications but received no 
feedback on why RDAP had not renewed their grants.
TARGETING ENTITIES’ CAPACITY
The evaluation team observed that the small grants have played an important role in solidifying interest 
in risk prevention and emergency response capacity among universities and local NGOs. Increasing 
interest in these activities naturally leads to institutionalizing a country approach to risk prevention and 
emergency response. However, the likelihood of meeting the eligibility criteria relates directly to the 
applicants’ institutional capacity. Vulnerable communities, possessing little or no experience in managing 
funding from international donors and lacking formal accounting manuals and procedures, encountered 
difficulties in meeting RDAP's grant requirements. For institutions with previous international 
experience, such as universities, the small grant technical and administrative requirements did not pose 
major challenges. 
LACKING BUDGET AND LIMITING IMPLEMENTATION PERIOD
All of the small grant recipients interviewed, and 
interviewees in two other KIIs, shared their concern 
regarding the average size of the small grants and the 
activity completion timeline. The average grant 
amount of $30,000 per recipient was noted as a small 
amount of resources to implement a successful and 
sustainable risk mitigation project. All of these 
respondents also noted that the allotted eight-month 
time period was insufficient. 
Another complicating factor is the grant application 
process. Informants mentioned “complicated and 
bureaucratic” processes that involved an inordinate 
amount of paperwork (all in English, and not catering to the other working languages in the LAC region) 
and stated that the relatively small amount of money did not merit the complexity of the application 
process. One San José-based interviewee mentioned that these challenges were “defeating the originally 
intended purpose of providing small amounts of money with a certain level of flexibility,” which was 
Recommended improvements
• Monitor small grants applications to 
ensure greater coverage and build on the 
successes of previous grants, for 
increased impact and sustainability
• If possible, increase the grant size and 
project timelines to improve the 
likelihood of positive impacts from the 
small grants
31
meant to account for the limited administrative capacity of potential recipients and enable recipients to 
address urgent community-level priorities. 
The lack of feedback to unsuccessful applicants was also counterproductive, as it discouraged them from 
investing time to prepare future submissions. 
6.8 EVALUATION QUESTION 7
Is the program inclusive for women and vulnerable groups?
This question addresses the important component of inclusion and its possible contribution to increasing 
RDAP’s effectiveness, sustainability, and reach. Three interviews and two FGDs revealed that training 
had been provided to indigenous populations and to women, with a targeted focus since the early 2000s. 
The recommendations are (1) to provide these populations with more training-of-trainers courses; and 
(2) to develop strategies to prevent the higher attrition rates of female trainees. Specific suggestions are 
to target vulnerable populations for training and develop course material that will engage these 
populations; and to continue seeking opportunities for collaboration with local actors, thereby increasing 
evidence of their inclusion. This includes a need for manuals and materials in indigenous languages. 
Staffing patterns are dependent on applicants and local cultural context. In general, the RDAP staffing 
pattern leans towards men, which corresponds with global emergency response staffing patterns. The 
team noted a recent increase in the number of female employees. The team also observed a diverse set 
of DRMS staff and local surge staff. 
INCREASING CAPACITY STRENGTHENING
Respondents in Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Peru told the 
evaluation team they were involved in providing disaster 
response and risk management training to indigenous 
populations using RDAP course materials. These training 
offerings have led to the formation of indigenous community 
brigades in Costa Rica and Peru, whose members bought the 
necessary equipment. RDAP could provide training of 
trainers’ courses for indigenous populations in all the RDAP 
countries, building on these successes and increasing the 
capacity of these groups to respond at the community level. 
Women have been trained and are members of these brigades. According to stakeholders, women—at 
least since the early 2000s—have an equal opportunity to participate in RDAP’s capacity strengthening 
and training activities. Their participation has continued to increase and is being encouraged. However, 
interviewees said there were higher attrition rates among women in these brigades. 
UNDERTAKING BETTER ASSESSMENTS OF PROTECTION NEEDS
The evaluation team received information that not all countries had explicitly developed measures for 
including vulnerable populations in their OFDA-related projects. Some countries, such as Costa Rica and 
Peru, commissioned studies that addressed the protection needs of vulnerable populations (e.g., 
wheelchair users, children, and the elderly population). Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica, and 
Recommended improvement
Create policies, guidelines, and tools 
to monitor the adequate inclusion of 
special populations into the work of 
RDAP. For added reach, relevance 
and effectiveness: proactively identify 
specialist partners to support this goal.
32
Peru have been working on protocols to address the needs of these subsets of the population, which 
were previously not included in discussions related to protecting vulnerable populations. One example is 
in Barbados, where protocols were being discussed for including persons with mental illness and 
homeless persons in their shelter management planning. The information that emerges from such studies 
and discussions will be helpful in addressing their specific needs in the event of disasters or emergencies. 
COMMUNICATING IN INDIGENOUS LANGUAGES
Costa Rica, Guatemala, and Peru have incorporated indigenous languages in their training programs. In 
Peru, members of indigenous communities were trained as trainers, facilitating the training of other 
indigenous community members. They reported having modified the training materials to make them less 
wordy and easier to understand. 
Other materials have been translated into indigenous languages to facilitate understanding. For example, 
Honduran authorities have broadcast warnings and other instructions in Arawak language to the 
Garifuna communities on the Atlantic coast during the onset of a forecasted tropical storm. 
33
7. CONCLUSIONS
Stakeholders recognize RDAP as an effective provider of disaster response assistance and, to a lesser 
degree, of disaster preparedness activities. The evaluation team has outlined a number of areas to 
support continued improvement of this program. The team suggests that OFDA look to improve its 
branding, effectiveness, sustainability, efficiency, and inclusion of women and vulnerable populations. 
TABLE 4: CONCLUSIONS
EVALUATION 
QUESTION
CONCLUSION
1) Has RDAP 
adequately and 
effectively supported 
OFDA staff in 
responding to disasters 
in the LAC, including 
both slow and rapid 
onset natural disasters, 
and manmade 
disasters? In this 
regard, what has RDAP 
done well and what 
improvements can be 
made for future 
responses? Are 
adequate budgetary 
and staffing resources 
provided for under the 
current award?
RDAP’s assistance has been crucial in the prevention and control of forest 
fires, sometimes in areas of cultural heritage sites. These actions improved 
search-and-rescue efforts and saved lives. RDAP-supported training has also 
fostered relationships and led to the implementation of procedures and 
protocols among first response partners—facilitating effective response to 
disaster and emergency events. RDAP’s support for developing risk 
management curricula in the countries the evaluation team visited made an 
important contribution to improving the knowledge, attitudes, and practices 
among target populations throughout the region. Nonetheless, evaluation 
informants called for more investment in DRR, stating that this was urgently 
needed to complement RDAP’s priority focus on disaster response. 
Stakeholders in Latin America described their application of RDAP’s training 
to regular activities; for example, using ICS techniques to manage large 
crowds at sporting events. Respondents in the Caribbean sub-region 
indicated that they, too, would like to implement ICS training and technical 
assistance activities, as this has been repeatedly identified as an important 
component of their emergency response. They would like RDAP to remove 
the preconditions for introducing ICS training in the sub-region, noting that 
this is crucial for an optimal response to major events. 
2) To what extent have 
RDAP’s DRM and DRR 
activities resulted in 
sustainable increased 
regional capacity to 
prepare for disasters 
and reduce the risks of 
their impacts?
The various courses (including the training for instructors and certifying 
them accordingly) of the RDAP are a key facet for ensuring the sustainability 
of the program. This provided the catalyst for local volunteers —with the 
support of local institutions— leading training courses such as in DR, DM, 
and DRR; and subsequently became an effective way to institutionalize 
national capacity for training. Human resources, such as the members of the 
surge capacity teams and the in-country DRMS, would largely be available 
post the conclusion of the RDAP, given their long history of working in the 
region. The networks and protocols that were promulgated by RDAP over 
the years were also seen as having the potential to be sustainable.
3) To what extent do 
key stakeholders think 
that RDAP’s 
interventions are 
meeting their needs?
The evaluation team heard about RDAP’s strength in approximately 40 KIIs 
(not including OFDA and RTI personnel) and in 12 FGDs, with respondents 
highlighting OFDA’s quick and comprehensive response to disasters and 
emergencies in the LAC region. Through its interventions, permanent 
presence, and networks, OFDA has earned a reputation for assisting 
governments to develop solid disaster response platforms, and for providing 
effective responses to disasters throughout the region over many years. 
34
OFDA has a strong and unique brand identity linked with high standards 
(e.g., training) and knowledge of the field—factors that differentiate OFDA 
from other donors. Stakeholders in all six countries emphasized that their 
training courses (e.g., on risk management, shelter management, forest fire 
prevention and management) had all been certified by OFDA. 
It was difficult to routinely establish the distinct impact of RDAP’s 
interventions, in relation to enhancing countries’ disaster response and 
readiness. Very few stakeholders the evaluation team interviewed knew 
about RDAP. Most referred to “OFDA’s assistance,” and sometimes 
referred to USAID, recognizing OFDA’s work in totality, rather than RDAP 
specifically. At times, this presented a challenge for the team to fully 
ascertain RDAP’s specific contributions in relation to other OFDA funds.
4 and 5) Are changes 
required in RDAP’s 
design, resourcing, 
staffing, and/or 
management to 
improve the program’s 
efficiency? Can the 
RDAP Program be 
made more cost 
efficient?
An emerging conclusion from this evaluation was that RDAP is a model of 
efficiency in its provision of training and technical assistance in LAC. Its 
emphasis on employing the skills and harnessing the region’s existing 
capacity, instead of deploying external resources, is a contributing factor. 
Engaging RDAP personnel to liaise and coordinate with partner NGOs also 
had a net contribution to supporting the efficiency of OFDA’s work. 
Despite these achievements, the observation was that the RDAP is 
insufficiently resourced, as its configuration does not include personnel with 
the responsibility to design and implement a comprehensive planning, 
monitoring and evaluation, and learning strategy or plan. Additional 
programmatic aspects that require improvements are to determine the true 
cost of compensation and benefits for all its personnel, in order to better 
gauge its overall efficiency. Since personnel are employed with variable 
terms and conditions, it is difficult to objectively assess the program’s
efficiency in human resource management.
6) To what extent has 
the “small grants under 
contract” component 
been effective in 
helping OFDA reach its 
DRM and DRR goals? 
What improvements, if 
any, could be made to 
the “grants under 
contract” program to 
improve its outcomes?
RDAP’s small grants program is funding promising DRR and DRM activities 
across the region. Although the funded activities are showing promise, 
limitations around grant sizes, implementation periods, and paperwork 
requirements restrict grantees and limit the overall potential of these grants. 
7) Is the program 
inclusive for women 
and vulnerable groups?
Although there have been some efforts to engage in activities that target 
vulnerable populations, RDAP has no overarching strategy that guides this 
work in all the countries. Some countries, such as Costa Rica, registered 
progress in some aspects of inclusion, while others undertook initial 
activities. However, the process of harnessing the learning and the 
knowledge that were generated from these initiatives is not clearly 
developed. It is also not clear whether this technical area fits within the 
priorities of the program, even though responses from five KIIs and three 
FGDs point to the need to prioritize inclusion as an area of focus.
35
8. RECOMMENDATIONS
8.1 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT SUPPORT
The evaluation team found challenges in contract design and human resource management. To improve 
RDAP’s efficiency, certain elements of the contract, such as the option year, need to be reviewed. In 
addition, efforts to emphasize performance management and professional development would improve 
overall RDAP management.
IMPROVING CONTRACTING MECHANISM AND PROGRAM START DATE
• Replace the built-in option year component with guaranteed funding for future RDAP contracts.
• Organize the contractual arrangements to ensure a more convenient start date.
INCREASING PROGRAM EFFICIENCY ANALYSIS AND IMPACT MONITORING
• Undertake a deeper analysis of the true cost of implementing RDAP to obtain a more accurate 
measurement of its cost-efficiency. Consider conducting a cost–benefit analysis of RDAP. 
• Design and implement a comprehensive planning, monitoring and evaluation, and learning system to 
improve the program’s efficiency. 
STRENGTHENING HUMAN RESOURCE MANAGEMENT
• Develop a strategy and a mechanism for succession planning for future staff turnover, to limit the 
risk of a potential loss of the substantial institutional memory that underpins RDAP’s success.
• Share top-level decisions among more team members.
INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY OF DRMS
• Ensure all in-country DRMS hold full-time contracts and are fully dedicated to RDAP.
• Develop and institute annual professional development plans.
• Provide DRMSs with annual training opportunities (refresher training or to build new skills) and
make these obligatory.
• Review DRMSs’ compensations and benefits to ensure they are determined based on market rates 
and establish a transparent remuneration system.
• Provide annual opportunities for peer-to-peer exchange and learning among DRMSs. 
INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY OF TECHNICAL DRMS
• Provide annual budgetary allocations to facilitate their work.
• Ensure greater alignment between RDAPs technical DRMs and the work being done by in-country 
DRMS.
36
• Separate the ICS and Forest Fire Prevention portfolios.
• Include personnel with skills and experience in other technical areas, such as support to vulnerable 
migrants, cash transfer programming, water and sanitation, urban risk, and vector control. 
INCREASING ACCOUNTABILITY OF SUB-REGIONAL MANAGERS
• Review the Terms of Refence and functions of the sub-regional managers to streamline this role—
supervisory versus administrative tasks, level of authority compared to regional advisors, and skills 
and competencies. 
• Ensure incumbents have the requisite skills and competencies, and are fully trained and capable of 
fulfilling assigned tasks.
• Develop a staff management plan, including monthly one-on-one meetings between supervisors and 
staff, to provide DRMSs with adequate guidance and support. Provide closer supervision of sub￾regional managers to ensure activities align with performance objectives. 
ENHANCING PROGRAM MANAGEMENT
• Provide additional training and professional development opportunities to help the program manager 
become more confident and, by extension, more effective in this central role.
INCREASING PLANNING, MONITORING AND EVALUATION, AND LEARNING
• Assess the instruments and methodology designed and implemented in Costa Rica pilot monitoring 
activity to track and evaluate RDAP’s progress toward its targets. The results of the pilot need to be 
evaluated to determine its utility and cost-effectiveness, with the intention of replicating this in all of 
the LAC partner countries to monitor and evaluate RDAP.
8.2 DISASTER RESPONSE SUPPORT
RDAP has helped create a regionally recognized disaster response platform, with innovative training and 
technical assistance initiatives, and stakeholders are recognizing the quick and comprehensive responses 
to disasters in the LAC region. RDAP can continue to build on this progress through continued and 
updated training, systematic reviews, and coordination.
STRENGTHENING SURGE CAPACITY
• Ensure the skills and experiences of surge capacity members are kept up to date by giving them 
opportunities to deploy in emergency events in their countries or neighboring countries, and training 
them in information management, communication process planning, and modern communication 
tools (e.g., satellite phones and related response tools and technologies).
• Involve surge team members in simulation exercises and provide them with a procedures manual to 
ensure better use of this important resource.
• Facilitate yearly meeting for all active surge capacity members to discuss their experiences and 
strengthen their network. 
37
• Establish standards or requirements for courses taken, and other qualifications, to specify the 
selection process and criteria for being added to the surge capacity roster. 
• Develop and deliver workshops and training courses to enhance surge capacity building, including 
providing surge team members with access to online training courses. 
REINFORCING DISASTER RESPONSE
• If possible, increase the size of the RDAP contract, including adding funds to the disaster response 
and contingency line items. The budget should reflect the size and frequency of recent political and 
disaster-related events in the region and allow RDAP to simultaneously respond to multiple events.
• Some disaster assistance agencies, such as the Swedish International Development Agency, are 
considering the environmental impact of their disaster response activities (“green response”). To 
remain at the forefront of disaster response, RDAP should engage with key actors inside and outside 
the region to further develop this concept within the OFDA response mechanism in the short to 
medium term.
• Undertake systematic reviews and document the lessons learned for use in improving future 
response events in the region, and for sharing with other regions.
FACILITATING COORDINATION
• Increase coordination with other donors and key regional coordination mechanisms, especially 
CDEMA.
8.3 CAPACITY BUILDING FOR DRM AND DRR
The evaluation team recommends building on the following areas to bolster capacity building for DRM 
and DRR efforts: updating current training methods, integrating more innovative training methods, 
advocating for policy, and including local communities, women, and vulnerable populations.
ENHANCING DRR
• Align RDAP and DRR work, focusing on the inclusion of vulnerable groups and strengthening 
resilience by increasing the investment in DRR.
STRENGTHENING TRAINING
• Increase technical capacity in areas such as food security and livelihoods, irregular migration, 
preventing and responding to sexual and gender-based violence, protection and social inclusion, cash 
transfer programming, and water and sanitation.
• Implement the recommendations of the previous gender assessment.
• Update the training materials that are available to countries and systematically hand these over to 
NDOs for delivery in their countries.
• Organize more workshops with participants of other countries to capture opportunities for 
participants to learn from exchange of experiences.
38
• Provide more advanced training for instructors for courses such as Search and Rescue in Collapsed 
Structures, First Response, and Hazardous Materials.
• Institute a requirement for trainers to be undergo periodic updating and refresher training, to 
maintain the optimal delivery of courses.
• To guarantee consistently high-quality training outcomes, implement an objective system for the 
evaluation of trainers and training courses. Regularly evaluate trainers and set criteria for retraining 
or removing trainers who do not meet the minimum standards.
ADVANCING TRAINING INNOVATIONS
• OFDA has been successful in promoting in-country self-reliance and the training of best practices in 
emergency response. To go one step further, consider developing a web page that provides 
information on the latest versions of the training courses, to help disseminate these materials. 
• In training and manuals, include information on the impact of climate change in relation to fire 
prevention and control, drought monitoring, vector-borne illnesses, and the latest techniques in first 
aid.
• Two countries the evaluation team visited, Guatemala and Peru, have large indigenous communities; 
Bolivia and Mexico also have substantial indigenous populations. Guyana and Dominica are also home 
to indigenous communities. Consider including these communities’ languages, traditions, and other 
nuances as part of the training materials and workshop on forest fire prevention and control. 
• Support the implementation of e-learning courses and workshops with online technical staff. 
Wherever possible, maintain the format of RDAP’s traditional classroom courses when offering 
these online courses. Ensure that these offerings reflect the preferences and demands of youths and 
young adults. Create an e-learning resource center, where RDAP could provide technical support 
through chat rooms at set times, a question-and-answer portal, or regular blended learning options
for groups.
PROMOTING POLICY DIALOGUE
• Because some countries reported high turnover of trained personnel, including instructors, RDAP 
should request that the partner NDOs develop an online database of its trained personnel, with 
contact information. This platform needs to be user friendly, allowing stakeholders to easily access 
and update their information. 
• To enhance RDAP’s potential impact and cost-effectiveness, OFDA should look to increase response 
coordination. A coordinated response would increase effectiveness in disaster situations and reduce 
duplication of effort. The dialogue should promote the use of systematic after-action reviews to 
ensure lessons learned are captured, analyzed, and incorporated into future programming. 
INCREASING COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
• In training courses and workshops, incorporate community feedback loops, because they understand 
and know better the people in their area. 
• Promote and encourage the participation of local NGOs. 
39
• Given the high incidence of forest fires that have resulted from “slash and burn” agricultural 
practices, work closely with indigenous communities—especially small-scale farmers—to prevent 
these events. 
• Involve communities and municipal governments as much as possible. Community participation in 
training can strengthen community organization and cohesion. If the communities understand better
the risk they face, and how they can reduce those risks by doing things differently, it will increase 
local capacity to prepare for disasters and reduce the risk of their impacts.
INCLUDING WOMEN AND VULNERABLE POPULATIONS
• Improve the RDAP’s application and practice of gender equality and protection of vulnerable 
populations (e.g., indigenous persons and disabled persons). Approach this as a cross-cutting issue in 
RDAP’s activities. 
• Devise policies, guidelines, and tools to monitor the adequate inclusion of special populations into 
RDAP’s work for added reach, relevance, and effectiveness. Proactively identify specialist partners to 
support this goal. 
• Institute a policy to provide training to indigenous communities in their native languages.
IMPROVING EFFICIENCY OF SMALL GRANTS
• Overhaul the management of the small grants program for improved effectiveness. 
• Simplify grant guidelines, procedures, and application forms and make them available in Spanish, 
French, and Portuguese. 
• Given the positive reviews and strong potential for community-level impacts, increase the maximum 
small grant amount size. Larger small grants would provide greater flexibility and enhance 
implementation opportunities. As the other RDAP budget line items also seem to be heavily utilized, 
this increase would best come from increasing the overall size of the RDAP contract.
• Expand the time frame for project activities to enable longer activity implementation timelines.
• Small grant recipients typically pilot cost-effective and community-oriented policy innovations. RDAP 
should gather the knowledge from these grants to explore innovative policies for disaster 
preparedness and response. The grant results should be better integrated into RDAP, with regular 
meetings organized with recipients as a bottom-up approach to integrating best practices into the 
program. 
40
ANNEX I. SCOPE OF WORK 
EVALUATION STATEMENT OF WORK
FOR THE OFDA/LAC
REGIONAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
This Statement of Work (SOW) describes the terms of a performance evaluation of the United States 
Agency for International Development’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (USAID/OFDA) Latin 
American and Caribbean (LAC) Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP), which is scheduled to end 
in December, 2020. This evaluation is intended to provide OFDA with both an independent review of the 
program and an informed basis upon which to plan for future programming.
1. BACKGROUND
USAID/OFDA sits within the Bureau for Democracy, Conflict, and Humanitarian Assistance (DCHA) and 
is responsible for facilitating and coordinating United States Government (USG) humanitarian assistance 
overseas in response to all types of international disasters, including slow onset (droughts, famine), natural 
(earthquake, floods), or manmade (conflict or war) disasters. OFDA is responsible for planning, 
coordinating, developing, achieving, monitoring, and evaluating assistance for international disaster relief, 
disaster risk reduction, and disaster prevention, mitigation, and preparedness.
The primary responsibility for disaster response and management rests with the government of the 
affected country. OFDA assistance is intended to supplement and support, not replace the response, 
preparedness, and mitigation efforts of the affected country’s host government. OFDA also supports the 
U.S. Embassy and USAID Mission, if present. OFDA carries out its mandate in coordination with the host 
government, other donor governments, international organizations, United Nations agencies, private 
voluntary organizations, other USG agencies and non-governmental organizations.
OFDA’s programming in the LAC region is field-driven, responding to needs identified by the OFDA 
regional office in San Jose, Costa Rica. It is the Regional Office that maintains the lead in communication 
with implementing partners and beneficiaries, assessment and needs identification, and development of the 
regional Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) program. In support of its broader LAC strategy and program, 
OFDA provides program management, technical assistance, training, and disaster response support 
throughout the LAC region through the Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP).
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTIVITY TO BE EVALUATED
OFDA/LAC awarded the first iteration of RDAP in 1989, and since then it has become the cornerstone 
of OFDA/LAC’s capacity-building program in the LAC region. The goal of the program is to increase the 
capacity of local and national authorities, non-governmental organizations, and communities in the region 
to prepare for and respond to disasters, ultimately reducing and obviating the need for USG and other 
external disaster assistance. To meet these goals the program uses training, technical assistance (TA), grant 
41
support, and, when required, direct assistance in responding to disasters. RDAP seeks to ensure that 
training courses in LAC are replicable by staff of national disaster agencies, first responders, and others 
involved in disaster management. Training follows a sequence designed to establish national capacity 
through certification of trainers to carry out continued training with little or no OFDA/LAC involvement. 
OFDA/LAC and RDAP complement the training program with TA to community, municipal, national, and 
regional disaster entities to strengthen their longer--term capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters. 
TA ranges from standardizing procedures and protocols for emergency operations centers to reviewing 
technical documents related to disaster management. OFDA/LAC and RDAP offer technical assistance in 
response to specific requests that meet the strategic goal of self-sufficiency in all phases of the disaster 
cycle.
To advance the OFDA/LAC 2015-2019 Disaster Risk Reduction Strategy, OFDA/LAC currently funds a 
contract with the Research Triangle Institute (RTI) to implement RDAP. This contract is scheduled to 
expire in December 2020. Disaster Risk Management Specialists (DRMS) operationalize the strategy 
through stakeholder consultations with key counterparts in each country to develop country annual plans 
for approval by RDAP staff and OFDA/LAC.
According to their contract with OFDA, RTI provides a network of 4 Sub Regional Managers covering the 
entire LAC region. In addition, RDAP has 21 country consultant DRMS and five technical specialist DRMS 
that work throughout the region as coordinated by OFDA/LAC headquarters in Costa Rica. The DRMS 
are the primary providers under RDAP for both capacity-building training and TA on disaster preparedness 
and mitigation. During disasters, when activated by OFDA/LAC, DRMS deploy to disaster sites under 
supervision of a Regional Advisor, where they perform damage assessments, assist in the establishment of 
temporary shelters, and monitor/distribute other non-food items as required. They are assisted by 
“thematic consultants” specializing in particular technical areas such as incident command systems, urban 
search and rescue, school safety, emergency medical response, disaster risk reduction in higher education, 
and wildfire management. RDAP also maintains a substantial number of surge capacity experts in each 
country of the region to support response as needed. As of October 2018, RDAP has agreements with 
400 surge capacity experts (surge staff), ranging from 24 people in Haiti to 9 in St. Kitts and Nevis and 3 
in Trinidad and Tobago. Potential surge staffers are usually identified through OFDA trainings, to be called 
upon as required for disaster response efforts.
The RDAP SOW contains three “tasks” with a number of “sub-tasks” and components. The evaluator 
should evaluate each of the tasks and sub-tasks individually. The tasks and sub-tasks are:
Task 1 - Program Management Support
Sub-task 1 - Information Product Support
Sub-task 2 - Administrative Logistical Support
 
Task 2 - Disaster Response Support
 Sub-task 1 - Commodities and Field Support
Task 3 - Disaster Risk Management (DRM) and Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) Capacity Building
42
Sub-task 1 - For each of 27 countries covered by RDAP, a 5-year strategic plan, annual 
operational plans, and quarterly work plans
Sub-task 2 - Technical assistance and training for national partner governments
Sub-task 3 - Training development
Sub-task 4 - Support for regional DRR activities
Sub-task 5 - Grants under contract
Details of all tasks, sub-tasks and their components may be found in the RDAP contract (attached).
3. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
This is a performance evaluation of USAID/OFDA’s LAC RDAP, which is scheduled to end in December, 
2020. This evaluation is intended to provide OFDA with both an independent review of the program and 
an informed basis upon which to plan for future programming. In particular, the evaluation will:
o Assess the usefulness of RDAP’s structural model in ensuring OFDA’s ability to respond to 
disasters;
o Document the overall effectiveness of the program in improving regional preparedness for 
disasters and building the capacity of partners in DRM and DRR throughout the LAC region;
o Identify lessons learned from the program, specifically, the strengths and weaknesses of the 
design and implementation of RDAP, and how they contributed to the program’s successes 
and/or challenges.
o Provide recommendations for the direction and structure of any future programming.
4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Proposed evaluation questions are set forth below. The “context” statements are included as a guide for 
the evaluator to follow in framing additional, necessary sub-questions, as required to ensure 
comprehensive and useful answers.
Question 1) Has RDAP adequately and effectively supported OFDA staff in responding to disasters in the 
LAC, including both slow and rapid onset natural disasters, and manmade disasters? In this regard, what 
has RDAP done well and what improvements can be made for future responses? Are adequate budgetary 
and staffing resources provided for under the current award?
Context: These questions should be addressed regarding Task 2 and all sub-tasks separately. The evaluator 
should discuss RTI’s work related to the Venezuela Regional Crisis as well as RTI’s work related to other 
disasters in the region including, but not limited to: Hurricane Matthew, Hurricane Maria, and the Fuego 
volcano eruption in Guatemala in 2018.
Question 2) To what extent have RDAP’s DRM and DRR activities resulted in sustainable increased regional 
capacity to prepare for disasters and reduce the risks of their impacts?
Context: This question should be addressed regarding Task 3 and all sub-tasks separately. In answering 
this question, the evaluator should seek to understand and explain any observed differences among 
targeted countries regarding successful (i.e., effective and sustainable) “uptake” of either training support 
or technical assistance provided under RDAP. The evaluator should also examine the degree to which the 
outcomes of RDAP training and technical assistance outputs are monitored and measured under RDAP.
43
Question 3) To what extent do key stakeholders think that RDAP’s interventions are meeting their needs?
Context: “Key stakeholders” includes, but may not be limited to, trainees, partner-government officials 
with duties related to RDAP’s disaster-related assistance, and partner-government officials in a position to 
accurately opine on partner-government disaster responses. The evaluator should identify additional 
potential stakeholders in its proposal. This question should be addressed, as appropriate, with respect to 
all program tasks and sub-tasks individually.
Question 4) Are changes required in RDAP’s design, resourcing, staffing, and/or management to improve 
the program’s efficiency?
Context: This question should be answered with respect to issues including but not limited to:
o The Program’s multiple reporting and planning requirements including country strategies and 
operational plans.
o The Program’s use of staff, including: the use of both country-specific and “thematic” consultants; 
Disaster Risk Management Specialists; the use of part-time staff; Sub-Regional Managers; Training 
Specialists; Information Officers; and Surge Roster Consultants.
o Aspects or components of the Program that might either be better performed through a 
separate implementation mechanism, or eliminated.
Question 5) Can the RDAP Program be made more cost efficient?
Context: The evaluator should assess how any potential follow-on program might be better designed to 
achieve the program’s overall goal of “increasing the capacity of local and national authorities, non￾governmental organizations, and communities in the region to prepare for and respond to disasters, 
ultimately reducing and alleviating the need for USG and other external disaster assistance” while doing so 
in the most cost-effective manner.
Question 6) To what extent has the “small grants under contract” component been effective in helping 
OFDA reach its DRM and DRR goals? What improvements, if any, could be made to the “grants under 
contract” program to improve its outcomes?
Context: The evaluator should also consider the possibilities for increased cost-effectiveness through use 
of multi-year and multi-country grants under RDAP, examining the advantages and disadvantages of both.
5. METHODS
This performance evaluation will employ both quantitative and qualitative data collection. The evaluation 
team is expected to include staff from OFDA/LAC as participants in any key informant interviews and 
focus group discussions in order to provide explanations and project-specific information and facilitate 
understanding and context for the rest of the evaluation team. Although the evaluator should propose the 
best methods for responding to the evaluation questions and purpose, USAID considers that interviews 
with the following stakeholders would be necessary:
OFDA’s leadership, Asia, Latin America and the Caribbean, and Europe, Middle East (ALE) Division 
Leadership, LAC DC Team, OFDA’s Contracting Officers and Acquisition Management team, Venezuela 
Response Team, Costa Rica-based Staff, Venezuela DART staff, RTI staff at all levels of the contract 
including its Washington staff, Chief of Party, Program Manager, Sub-Regional Managers, Information 
44
Officers, Select Disaster Response Management Specialists, Select Surge Staff, and Administrative staff; host 
country officials, small grant recipients, select host country disaster response agency leadership, and other 
program beneficiaries.
The evaluator is requested to provide the following respecting each evaluation question: data source; data 
collection method including sampling methodologies; and data analysis method.
The evaluator should plan for field work in the following six (6) countries supported under RDAP: 
Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, Barbados, and Jamaica.
6. DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE
The final evaluation report must be submitted no later than four months after the award date.
i. Evaluation Design
The evaluator will submit a workplan with detailed methods, including logistics and team, and draft 
instruments (including, e.g., quantitative questionnaires, interview guides, etc.) within four weeks of award. 
The evaluation should include identification of key questions, methods, main features of data collection 
instruments, and data analysis plans. Final approval from OFDA/LAC is necessary before any fieldwork 
may begin.
ii. In-brief with OFDA/LAC Washington
Before commencing fieldwork, the evaluator will meet with OFDA/LAC and OFDA’s monitoring and 
evaluation specialists for an in-brief in Washington to discuss the evaluation methods, develop the team’s 
travel itinerary and meeting schedule, share contact information, etc.
iii. Washington Meetings to Begin Evaluation
Evaluation activities should begin with a review of all documents related to the award. Once this is 
complete, the evaluation team should hold its Washington-based meetings first.
iv. Team-Building Meeting in Costa Rica
When the initial meetings in Washington are complete, the evaluators should travel to San Jose, Costa 
Rica to finalize the schedule, discuss methods, logistics, etc. OFDA/Washington staff will participate in 
these meetings via VTC or by phone.
v. Collect Data from at least six (6) LAC Countries
Evaluators will then travel to at least the following six (6) LAC countries (Colombia, Peru, Guatemala, 
Honduras, Barbados, and Jamaica) to collect data in consultation with Sub-Regional Managers, DRMSs, host 
country governments, surge consultants, NGO recipients and program beneficiaries.
vi. Out-briefs with LAC Field Staff
Upon completion of fieldwork data collection, the evaluator will conduct an out-briefing in San Jose with 
LAC field staff, outlining preliminary findings and conclusions. This will allow LAC field staff to provide 
context or clarify information. OFDA/LAC Washington staff will participate via VTC.
vii. Out-briefs at OFDA/Washington
Evaluators will also hold out-briefs with OFDA staff in DC to relay preliminary findings and 
recommendations. These out-briefs will include OFDA’s leadership, ALE leadership, OFDA’s Contracting 
Staff and Acquisition and Management team, OFDA/LAC Washington Team, and OFDA’s monitoring and 
evaluation specialists, among others.
45
viii. Draft evaluation report
Within twenty-one (21) calendar days of the out-briefing, the evaluator will submit a draft evaluation report 
to OFDA/LAC (Washington and field staff) for review. The evaluation report will include both a written 
narrative as well as a visual presentation. USAID will share the draft of these documents with peers for
comment and return to the evaluator for incorporation of comments, observations, and suggestions within 
fourteen (14) calendar days of receipt. The evaluation report should include a summary of findings, 
conclusions, and recommendations.
● Findings should be specific, concise, and supported by reliable, valid quantitative and qualitative 
data.
● Conclusions should be based on identified findings and be adequately supported by the data. 
● Recommendations should be supported by a specific set of findings and conclusions, and should 
be action-oriented, practical and specific.
● The evaluation report should not exceed 40 pages, excluding annexes (site reports, list of 
contacts interviewed, bibliography, maps of areas where interviews conducted, interview 
transcripts, etc.) and must be written in English.
● OFDA/LAC will provide comments on the draft report within fourteen (14) calendar days of 
receipt.
ix. Finalizing the Evaluation Report and Presentation
Within 14 calendar days of receiving comments from USAID, the contractor will submit a revised report 
and visual presentation to OFDA/LAC Washington for review and comment. If additional revisions are 
needed, within 14 days of receiving the revised documents, OFDA/LAC Washington will provide those 
recommended changes to the Evaluation team for further updating of both documents. The Evaluation 
Team will then have 14 days to finalize both documents.
x. Presentation to OFDA LAC Washington
Once both the evaluation report and visual presentation are complete, the OFDA/LAC team will invite 
members of the evaluation team to present their evaluation findings and recommendations to OFDA 
Washington staff at-large. The OFDA/LAC team will coordinate this broader presentation. 
7. TEAM COMPOSITION
A proposed team structure is set forth below. The evaluator should propose the best composition for 
completing the evaluation. All team members should be familiar with the USAID Evaluation Policy and be 
proficient in English. Spanish proficiency is preferred. All team members will be required to provide a 
signed statement attesting either that they have no conflict of interest, or describing any existing or 
potential conflict of interest. USAID/OFDA may delegate one or more staff members with technical 
expertise in the LAC field or in monitoring and evaluation to participate in selected evaluation activities as 
part of the evaluation team. USAID/OFDA will pre-define any staff’s level of involvement by indicating the 
purpose of their inclusion, their role on the team and in which components of the evaluation they will 
participate, their expertise in the topic or sector, their expertise in evaluation design or implementation, 
and their anticipated LOE. USAID/OFDA maintains primary responsibility for management of its own staff.
Team Leader:
· The Team Leader must have at least seven (7) years of practical experience in disaster response and 
disaster risk reduction, including evaluations;
46
· Have at least five (5) years of experience working in Latin America and the Caribbean;
· Have excellent interpersonal skills, the ability to identify and manage potential conflicts before they 
arise, excellent organizational and management skills, and demonstrated ability to solicit and effectively 
utilize inputs from a wide range of sources and perspectives;
· Have no existing or contemplated fiduciary relationship with the implementing partner;
· Spanish fluency required.
Evaluation Specialist:
The Evaluation Specialist must have at least 5 years of experience evaluating development and/or 
humanitarian assistance programs that includes both qualitative and quantitative analysis, with significant 
experience managing and/or evaluating disaster assistance and risk reduction programs. Spanish fluency 
required.
Logistics Specialist:
The Logistics Specialist will be in charge of scheduling all meetings and coordinating all aspects of travel to 
and from countries, among other duties. OFDA/LAC will assist the evaluator in making contacts with local 
government and other partners to the extent feasible. This will include an informational letter to inform 
stakeholders that the evaluation is taking place and that they will be contacted by the evaluation team. 
OFDA/LAC will provide contact information for key points of contact, but requires the evaluation team 
to request and communicate with additional contacts during fieldwork.
8. FINAL REPORT FORMAT
1. Abstract
2. Executive Summary
3. Evaluation Purpose
4. Background on the Context and the Strategies/Projects/Activities being Evaluated
5. Evaluation Questions
6. Methodology
7. Limitations to the Evaluation
8. Findings, Conclusions, and (If Applicable) Recommendations
9. Annexes
(See the USAID Evaluation Toolkit for the “How-To” Note on Preparing Evaluation Reports and an 
optional Evaluation Report Template. Also see ADS 201mah – USAID Evaluation Report Requirements.)
The evaluation abstract of no more than 250 words should describe what was evaluated, evaluation 
questions, methods, and key findings or conclusions. The executive summary should be 2–5 pages and 
summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, 
findings, and conclusions (plus recommendations and lessons learned, if applicable). The evaluation 
methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in 
the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methods (e.g., in 
sampling; data availability; measurement; analysis; any potential bias such as sampling/selection, 
measurement, interviewer, response, etc.) and their implications for conclusions drawn from the 
evaluation findings.
47
Annexes to the report must include:
● Evaluation SOW (updated, not the original, if there were any modifications);
● Evaluation methods;
● All data collection and analysis tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, 
checklists, and discussion guides;
● All sources of information or data, identified and listed;
● Statements of difference regarding significant unresolved differences of opinion by funders, 
implementers, and/or members of the evaluation team, if applicable;
● Signed disclosure of conflict of interest forms for all evaluation team members, either attesting to 
a lack of or describing existing conflicts of interest; and
● Summary information about evaluation team members, including qualifications, experience, and 
role on the team.
Per ADS 201maa, Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report, draft and final evaluation reports 
will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure quality.
● Evaluation reports should represent a thoughtful, well-researched, and well-organized effort to 
objectively evaluate the strategy, project, or activity;
● Evaluation reports should be readily understood and should identify key points clearly, distinctly, 
and succinctly;
● The Executive Summary should present a concise and accurate statement of the most critical 
elements of the report;
● Evaluation reports should adequately address all evaluation questions included in the SOW, or the 
evaluation questions subsequently revised and documented in consultation and agreement with USAID;
● Evaluation methodology should be explained in detail and sources of information or data properly 
identified;
● Limitations to the evaluation should be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the 
limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable 
differences between comparator groups, etc.);
● Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence, and data and not based on 
anecdotes, hearsay, or simply the compilation of people’s opinions;
● Conclusions should be specific, concise, and include an assessment of quality and strength of 
evidence to support them supported by strong quantitative and/or qualitative evidence;
● If evaluation findings assess person-level outcomes or impact, they should also be separately 
assessed for both males and females; and
● If recommendations are included, they should be supported by a specific set of findings and should 
be action-oriented, practical, and specific.
See ADS 201mah, USAID Evaluation Report Requirements and the Evaluation Report Checklist and Review 
Template from the Evaluation Toolkit for additional guidance.
48
ANNEX II. EVALUATION METHODS
LEAP III applied a non-experimental, observation-based design, in undertaking this program evaluation. The 
evaluation team used a mixed methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection 
techniques to get answers to the questions, as was appropriate. The team focused on RDAP’s overall 
effectiveness. Given cost constraints and OFDA staff preferences, the aspect of RDAP’s cost effectiveness 
was assessed without a financial analyst, which limited its scope. 
This evaluation covered the project’s implementation from the start in December 2015 through the first 
quarter of 2019; accounting for over 60 per cent of the total implementation of the project. The evaluation 
was designed to engage key sources in an effective way. Specific questions for stakeholders were used to 
guide the interviews and discussion regarding the project’s accomplishments and the relationship between 
the project’s staff and stakeholders. The team’s analysis targeted RTI’s capacity building efforts and explore 
its relationship with USAID/OFDA. The data sources used included USAID/OFDA reports, project 
monitoring records, staffing data which includes contractors, interviews, focus group discussions, 
observations, and anecdotes. 
While the evaluation team relied on triangulation to confirm answers to individual questions, the team 
used interviews as the primary source of evidence. The evaluators employed a combination of rapid 
appraisal methods, mainly key informant interviews (KIIs) and focus group discussions (FGDs), to access 
the required information and evidence. The support of the USAID/OFDA and RDAP teams was crucial 
to gain access to the necessary staff, implementing agency representatives, and local community 
stakeholders, given the relatively tight timeline with which the evaluation was designed.
To ensure quality control of the interviews, all semi-structured interviewing questionnaires underwent a 
multi-stage development and review process. Initially, the entire team developed the work plan and the 
deliverable schedule. After completing the work plan, the evaluation specialist constructed the qualitative 
questionnaire. The program director and team leader reviewed the questionnaire and quality assurance of 
the product. USAID/OFDA’s focal point for evaluations provided guidance and oversight throughout this 
process.
This report therefore includes an overview of the general findings for each evaluation question; an analysis 
of the answers along thematic lines (i.e. USAID/OFDA versus non-USAID/OFDA staff, types of key 
stakeholders, gender of the respondents, etc.), and actionable recommendations for the current RDAP 
and for future programming. 
49
ANNEX III. DATA COLLECTION TOOLS
OFDA Survey Instruments
KII Instrument
General Information
Good morning (or afternoon), my name is ----- and I work for Integra, a small business based in Washington 
D.C. We are in [country], evaluating the Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP), a USAID/Office 
of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) initiative. The Program is designed to provide humanitarian 
assistance to the Latin America and Caribbean region, in response to international emergencies and 
disasters; as well as help vulnerable populations prepare for, mitigate the impact of, respond to, and recover 
from adverse events. This evaluation of the project is being carried out to provide inputs to support the 
development and implementation of the project.
I will ask you a series of questions on topics related to the Project. Through the interview, we are 
interested in hearing your opinion and experience of your involvement in the project to help us learn, 
evaluate and improve the project. At the end of the interview, you will have the opportunity to share 
anything you consider relevant to the topic that was not discussed in the interview or ask questions. The 
interview should take between 45 minutes to one hour. You have been selected to provide your opinion 
because you have been involved in the activities of the project, however participation is voluntary. All the 
information you provide is strictly confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside of the evaluation 
team. We are not going to report any of your answers that individually identify you. If you have any 
additional questions/concerns after the interview, please contact Ben Wood bwood@integrallc.com 
General descriptive questions for interviewees:
A) Name
B) Gender
C) Age (over/under 30?)
D) Name of the interviewer
E) Location (name)
F) Location type (urban/rural)
G) Employer type
Questions for all interviewees
1) In your words, what has been your role in relation to RDAP? What are/were your major goals in 
working with the program? (Background)
2) What aspects of working with the Program have been important in your ability to achieve your
goals? Have there been any negative factors? (EQ3)
3) How would you describe the process of implementing RDAP? Especially related to Disaster 
DRM/DRR)/DRS? (EQ1) Must
a. What factors helped this?
b. What factors hindered it?
c. Are any of those factors unique to name of the country?
4) What do you see as the major achievements or successes of RDAP? (EQ1)
50
a. What factors assisted or made those achievements possible?
b. What factors impeded those achievements?
5) What have been the major bottlenecks/challenges/problems for RDAP? (EQ5)
a. What factors contributed to those bottlenecks/challenges/problems?
b. What factors alleviated or countered those bottlenecks/challenges/problems?
6) What additional training would be useful to you in the future to help you increase the efficiency at 
your activity? (EQ5)
7) Which of these interventions and approaches mentioned above are more likely to sustain without 
additional support? Why? (EQ2)
The project has a particular emphasis on protecting different groups who might need to receive special 
attention, including women, children, disabled people, indigenous population, etc.
8) Are you aware of differences in opportunities to participate in the program for these types of 
individuals? (EQ3) 
9) How might these special populations might be better assistance in future OFDA work? (EQ4) (for all 
interviews, save this for the last question) Would you like to add anything?
Optional questions for interviewees
10) What types of local support and resources are there for DRM/DRR/DRS (E.g. response capacity, 
training) in the local area? (Background)
11) What does the program offer related to Disaster Risk Management (DRM)/Disaster Risk Reduction 
(DRR)/Disaster Response Support (DRS)? What differentiates it from the existing options of 
DRM/DRR/DRS? (Background)
12) Based on your experience, which interventions and/or approaches have been more effective when it 
comes to promoting DRM/DRR/DRS? Why? (EQ1)
13) To what extend did your relationship with/support from the program promote any improvements in 
the implementation of DRM/DRR/DRS? (EQ1)
14) If RDAP could be redesigned and/or re-implemented, what changes would you recommend the 
project undertake in the future (if any)? Knowing what you know now, what changes would you 
make for the project strategy? (EQ4)
For small grant recipients
15) Are you familiar with RDAP small grants activity? Yes or no. If yes, go to the next questions. If not 
go to question 11. (EQ6)
16) Have the grants component been effective in promoting DRM/DRR? Why? Go to question 10 (EQ6)
17) If the small grant activity could be redesigned and/or re-implemented, what changes would you 
recommend the activity undertake (if any)? (EQ6)
51
For RTI and USAID interviewing
18) What are the most important challenges and effective strategies regarding the sustainability of the 
RDAP activities? (EQ2)
19) To what extend will you continue with the model that has been established as a result of your work 
with the program? What, if any, changes do you anticipate? (EQ2) 
20) What are the most important lessons learned from formulating and implementing DRM/DRR/DRS? 
(EQ4)
21) What do you regard as the most important impacts of the program, if any? (probe for institutional 
capacity building, regional cooperation, civil society impacts) (EQ3/EQ1)
22) What are the most important challenges and effective strategies regarding the sustainability of 
RDAP’s legacy? (EQ2)
52
Focus groups instrument
General Information
Good morning (or afternoon), my name is ----- and I work for Integra, a small business based in Washington 
D.C. We are in [country], evaluating the Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP), a USAID/Office 
of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA) initiative. The Program is designed to provide humanitarian 
assistance to the Latin America and Caribbean region, in response to international emergencies and
disasters; as well as help vulnerable populations prepare for, mitigate the impact of, respond to, and recover 
from adverse events. This evaluation of the project is being carried out to provide inputs to support the 
development and implementation of the project.
I will present you a series of questions on topics related to the Project. Through the discussion we are 
interested in hearing your opinion and experience of your involvement in the project to help us learn, 
evaluate and improve the project. At the end of the discussion, you will have the opportunity to share 
anything you consider relevant to the topic that was not discussed in the interview or ask questions. The 
discussion should take between 45 minutes to one hour. You have been selected to provide your opinion 
because you have been involved in the activities of the project, however participation is voluntary. All the 
information you provide is strictly confidential and will not be shared with anyone outside of the evaluation 
team. We are not going to report any of your answers that individually identify you. 
Let me say from the beginning that there are no right or wrong answers - we are interested in all your 
opinions and we want to hear what you have to say whether it is positive or negative. We want everyone 
to participate. You do not have to raise your hands to tell us what they think. If you have something to 
say, please express it with confidence. However, we ask that you please speak one person at a time so 
that each person can be heard clearly and please respect the opinions and contributions of everyone.
Any questions before we start?
General descriptive questions
Provide them a one page to fill up the info of the following questions,: 
A) Name
B) Gender
C) Age (over/under 30?)
D) Name of the interviewer
E) Location (name)
F) Location type (urban/rural)
G) Employer type
Questions for all interviewees
1) What is the general perception of RDAP in your line of work/ community? (Background) 
2) What are/were your major goals in working with the program? (Background)
3) How effective has the relationship with the program been in allowing you to advance those goals? 
Have there been any negative factors? (Q1)
4) What does the program offer in Disaster Risk Management (DRM)/Disaster Risk Reduction 
(DRR)/Disaster Response Support (DRS)? To what extend do they meet your needs? (EQ3)
53
5) What training/ technical assistance/disaster response has been the most beneficial to you/ your 
family/your community? (Q1)
6) Tell me a story about a positive experience in working with the program. (Q3/Q6)
7) How have you/ your family/ neighbors benefited from the project? (Q3/Q6)
8) What do you regard as the most important impacts of the program, if any? (probe for institutional 
capacity building, regional cooperation, civil society impacts). (Q2/Q6) 
9) What have been the biggest challenges in working with the project? (Q4/Q6)
10) What are the most important challenges and effective strategies regarding the sustainability of 
RDAP’s legacy? (Q2) 
11) What have been the major bottlenecks/challenges/problems for RDAP? (EQ5)
a. What factors contributed to those bottlenecks/challenges/problems?
b. What factors alleviated or countered those bottlenecks/challenges/problems?
12) The project has a particular emphasis on protecting different groups who might need to receive 
special attention, including women, children, disabled people, indigenous population, etc.
13) Are you aware of differences in opportunities to participate in the program for these types of 
individuals? (EQ3)
14) 18.How might these special populations might be better assistance in future OFDA work? (EQ4) 
15) (Save this question for last) Would you like to add anything?
Optional questions for trainee stakeholders
16) How did you find out about the Regional Disaster Assistance Program (RDAP)? (Background) 
17) Describe your relationship with program staff and management? (Background)
18) What emphasis have the program placed on the issue of early warning systems, education to build 
culture of safety, disaster preparedness and institutional strengthening? (Q1) 
Optional questions for small grant recipient stakeholders 
19) Have the grants component been effective in promoting DRM/DRR? Why? (Q6)
20) If the small grant activity could be redesigned and/or re-implemented, what changes would you 
recommend the activity undertake (if any)? (Q6/Q4)
21) Are you aware of differences in opportunities to participate in the training/small grant for males vs. 
Females, indigenous population? (EQ3) 
54
ANNEX IV. SOURCES OF INFORMATION
A. DOCUMENTS REVIEWED
1. Annual Operational Plan AOP / Quarterly Work Plan Barbados 2018-2019
2. LAC-RDAP Evaluation Scope of Work (July 2012)
3. RDAP Portfolio (January 2014)
4. RDAP Mid-Term Evaluation Presentation Initial Findings (2012)
5. RDAP Mid-Term Evaluation Presentation Final (January 16,2013)
6. RDAP Mid-Term Evaluation Report (January 14,2013)
7. Proposed changes to RDAP Technical Proposal (2015)
8. RDAP Volume II: Revised Technical Proposal (August 20, 2015)
9. RDAP Work Plan and Budget December 2015-December 2016 (January 2016)
10. RDAP Work Plan and Budget December 2016-December 2017 (December 2016)
11. RDAP Work Plan and Budget December 2017-December 2018 (December 2017)
12. RDAP Work Plan and Budget December 2018-December 2019 (January 2019)
13. RDAP Pipeline Budget Analysis (as of June 30, 2018)
14. Barbados Country Plan 2015-2020 (Draft)
15. Plan Quinquenal Peru 2016-2020
16. Jamaica Five Year Plan 2015-2020 (Draft)
17. Plan Operativo Anual (POA) POPE-001 / para DRMS 2017 (Costa Rica)
18. Plan Quinquenal Honduras 2016-2020 (Borrador)
19. Plan Quinquenal Costa Rica 2016-2020 (Borrador)
20. Plan Quinquenal Colombia 2015-2020 (Borrador)
21. Plan Pais Quinquenal Peru 2015-2020
22. Plan Pais Quinquenal Guatemala 2015-2020
23. Quarterly Performance Report December 2015-Marzo 2016 (April 2016)
24. Quarterly Performance Report Marzo 2016-June 2016 (July 2016)
25. Quarterly Performance Report September 2016-December 2016 (February 2017)
26. Quarterly Performance Report December 2016-March 2017 (April 2017)
27. Quarterly Performance Report September 2017-December 2017 (January 2018)
28. Quarterly Performance Report March 2018-June 2018 (August 2018)
55
29. Quarterly Performance Report June 2018-September 2018 (November 2018)
30. Quarterly Performance Report September 2018-December 2018 (January 2019)
31. RDAP en Peru 2016-2018
32. USAID/OFDA LAC Disaster Reduction Plan 2015-2019 
33. USAID/OFDA LAC Newsletter September 2018
34. USAID/OFDA LAC Newsletter October 2018
35. USAID/OFDA LAC Newsletter November 2018
36. USAID/OFDA LAC Newsletter January 2019
37. USAID/OFDA LAC Small Grants Newsletter October 2014
38. USAID/OFDA LAC Small Grants Newsletter October 2016
39. USAID/OFDA LAC Small Grants Newsletter November 2017
40. USAID/OFDA LAC Technical Assistance Brochure Incidence Command System
41. USAID/OFDA LAC Technical Assistance Brochure Integrated Fire Management
42. USAID/OFDA LAC Technical Assistance Brochure Urban Search and Rescue
43. USAID/OFDA LAC Technical Assistance Brochure Emergency Management Systems
44. USAID/OFDA LAC Technical Assistance Brochure DRR in Higher Education
45.USAID/OFDA LAC Technical Assistance Brochure DRR in Elementary and Secondary Education
46. PAHO Report: Response to the Epidemic of Zika Virus in the Americas December 2015 - 2016
56
B. PERSONS INTERVIEWED
As confidentiality was agreed with all key informants, names will not be shared
Statistics - Interviews and Focus Group discussions 
Semi-structured interviews and Focus Group Discussions were conducted over a period of four weeks 
in six different countries: Costa Rica, Peru, Guatemala, Honduras, Jamaica and Barbados with 198 key 
informants from the following stakeholders:
Stakeholder classification Number of persons interviewed
OFDA 15
RTI 20
Government 38
NGOs 17
Small grant recipients 10
Trainees 45
Instructors 3
Universities 13*
Surge capacity members 15
First responders 10
Direct beneficiaries 10
Project partners 3
Total 198
*Universities are included in grouping for small grant recipients and universities. The total count deletes 
double counting from these interviews. 
57
ANNEX V. CONFLICT OF INTEREST 
FORMS
58
59
60
61
ANNEX VI. TEAM MEMBERS’ 
CREDENTIALS
KEY PERSONNEL
M&E SPECIALIST/ACTIVITY LEAD, BENJAMIN WOOD 
In addition to being LEAP III Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist, Dr. Wood will serve as the activity 
director on this OFDA evaluation team. Dr. Wood is an evaluation specialist with extensive experience in 
monitoring and evaluation, with a focus on improving the quality and reliability of impact evaluations. He 
has conducted and managed several rigorous evaluations of international development projects, including 
estimating the influence of Malawian food price policies on health, Rwandan agricultural commercialization 
schemes on poverty, and Ugandan road construction projects on market access. He will oversee the 
evaluation from the perspective of Integra, the prime contract holder of LEAP III.
TEAM LEAD, JOSEPHINE SHIELDS
Ms. Josephine Shields would serve as the team leader of this evaluation, with ultimate responsibility for 
drafting the evaluation report, leading the key-informant interviews, and presenting the findings to USAID. 
She is an internationally recognized expert in disaster preparedness and risk reduction. She has over 20 
years of experience working in the disaster preparedness field, including over 8 years of working on these 
issues in the Latin American context. Ms. Shields previous jobs include liaising with high level government 
officials and managing staff on the front lines of disaster management. She most recently served as the head 
of the International Federation of Red Cross & Red Crescent Societies' Country Cluster Support Team in 
the English-speaking Caribbean and Suriname. She is a native English speaker who is also fluent in Spanish 
and French.
EVALUATION SPECIALIST, FRANCISCO MOLINA
Mr. Francisco Molina would serve as the evaluation specialist on this evaluation, with responsibility for 
developing the survey instruments, leading the focus group discussions, and analyzing the survey data. He 
has more than 28 years of experience designing and conducting evaluations and was the Senior Economist 
as USAID/El Salvador for 13 years. He has extensive experience in environmental and natural threats. His 
past experiences include work with USAID designing and developing employment generation projects to 
assist vulnerable people affected by natural disasters. He also served as UNICEF emergencies focal point 
and coordinated UNICEF emergency assistance, designing and updating early warning emergencies 
platforms. He is a native Spanish speaker who is also fluent in English. 
LOGISTICS SPECIALIST, SHARON MICHEL ALVAREZ HUITRON
Ms. Sharon Alvarez Huitron would serve as the logistics expert on this evaluation, with responsibility for 
setting up the interviews in Costa Rica and the six target countries. Given her background, she would also 
assist with the focus group discussions and in analyzing the evaluation data. She has her Master’s degree in 
Public Policy with a concentration in program evaluation and organizational management. She previously 
served as a Project Analyst in the Innovation in Citizen Services Unit at the InterAmerican Development 
Bank. Ms. Alvarez Huitron is a native Spanish speaker who is also fluent in English.