Monitoring and evaluating disaster management training: a qualitative study of trainers’ perspectives

After action reports identify disaster management (DM) training as fundamental to disaster response. However, its impact depends on the quality of the training monitoring and evaluation (M&E). Current M&E practices in DM are poorly standardized and often superficial, giving limited insight into operational readiness and a false sense of preparedness among trainees. This study explores current M&E practices among DM training organizers, identifies perceived needs, gaps and provides a bottom-up perspective on associated challenges, and opportunities. A prospective, qualitative study employing semi-structured online interviews was used. Deliberately sampled DM training organizers were quired to understand their current M&E methodologies and the perceived needs and gaps. The audio recorded interviews were thematically analyzed, with transcripts pseudonymized and coded accordingly. 53 training organizers were contacted, with 15 participating, covering diverse regions and operational contexts. The training development process, format and content were heterogeneous. Both M&E were valued, but evaluation was often prioritized, compared to monitoring, frequently using pre-post surveys and informal M&E tools. Standardized monitoring tools were lacking, while evaluation was considered superficial, not DM-specific, guided by funder requirement, rather than actual improvement. Interviewees recommend a flexible, user friendly M&E platform, dedicated to DM, with long-term tracking, follow-up, and networking capabilities. The heterogeneity of DM training challenges M&E, requiring adaptation to short durations, diverse topics and training methodologies. A mixed methods approach may provide a more comprehensive understanding of the learning process. The lack of monitoring might influence drastically short courses, not giving the trainers the opportunity to improve the course as it is still ongoing, leaving the participants poorly trained. As most DM trainers are operational, not educational experts, reliance on unstandardized approaches can be suboptimal, whereas dedicated M&E teams could professionalize the field. DM-adapted M&E tools could more accurately assess trainees’ readiness to work, along with an M&E platform that could fill some existing gaps, while mitigating the risks associated with it.