Emergency Response That Actually Reaches Vulnerable Populations: What a €4.5M Program Taught Us

Most humanitarian evaluations follow a predictable pattern: outcomes are measured, recommendations are filed, documents are archived. This evaluation was different because the program itself was different—and it achieved measurable results that exceed sector averages.

What Makes Emergency Response Work

We surveyed 521 households across multiple provinces using mixed-methods approach. Rather than asking only "did you receive assistance?" we assessed what actually changed for beneficiaries. Transportation access emerged as the strongest predictor of service utilization. Programs that solved mobility—through mobile service units or accessible facility locations—outperformed static facility models by 30-40 percentage points.

The disability inclusion wasn't a checkbox. Community-based recruitment strategies specifically reached persons with disabilities through established networks. Staff training emphasized accessibility at every stage: interview locations, timing, communication approaches. Result: persons with disabilities reported equal or superior outcomes compared to non-disabled beneficiaries.

The Sustainability Challenge

High delivery rates during active programming typically decline post-project when external support ends. We documented transition risks and identified cost-effectiveness pathways. Integration with government counterparts positioned some services for sustainability, while others clearly required continuation funding. We quantified each scenario to enable evidence-based sustainability planning.

The evaluation identified specific geographic areas where government capacity was strongest—prioritizing those regions for transition planning. This approach maximizes sustainability odds while being realistic about constraints.