Post-Event Report: Virtual Atrocity Prevention (AP) October 2023

The AP course consists of a self-paced e-learning component and a three-day virtual instructor-led training (vILT). The course has three learning objectives: articulating the USG's Interagency approach to atrocity prevention, defining USAID's role in atrocity prevention, response, and recovery, and utilizing USAID's atrocity prevention approaches and strategies. The virtual delivery of the AP course was attended by 11 participants, with 7 and 9 evaluation respondents for the learning needs assessment (LNA) and end-of-course evaluation, respectively. The majority of participants were senior subject matter experts, many of whom contributed to the course design. Evaluation feedback was mixed, with a majority of respondents agreeing or strongly agreeing that the course materials contributed to their learning experience and that they were committed to applying what they learned on the job. However, less than half of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that they were satisfied with the course overall and that they would recommend the course to colleagues. A majority of respondents reported being satisfied or very satisfied with each facilitator's effectiveness in engaging participants and facilitating responses to participant comments and questions. The evaluation also showed an increase in participants' ability to perform the key skills identified in the course learning objectives between the LNA and the end-of-course evaluation. The percentage change of respondents who reported being able to perform each of the three key skills fully without guidance or being able to serve as a key resource and advise others was as follows: 11 percent increase in articulating the USG's Interagency approach to atrocity prevention, 11 percent increase in defining USAID's role in atrocity prevention, response, and recovery, and 11 percent increase in utilizing USAID's atrocity prevention approaches and strategies. Facilitators noted that the nature and substance of participant commentary often undermined the learning process. Despite this challenge, strengths included the facilitators' professionalism and efforts to redirect participants when off-task and the seamless virtual production. The team also had suggestions for how future deliveries could be improved, such as including a subject matter expert or CVP AP expert to support facilitation, building facilitator credibility by highlighting their relevant expertise, clarifying that the design was co-created and approved by CVP, and setting participant meeting norms to create a more conducive learning environment. Based on a review of participant evaluation responses, facilitator feedback, and input from CDAT teams during post-course after-action reviews, CDAT recommends the following adjustments for future deliveries of AP: including a CVP subject matter expert as a co-facilitator in future deliveries, clarifying course expectations, setting participant meeting norms to improve commitment to the learning journey, and conducting an AP Pause & Reflect after four deliveries have been completed.