Evaluation of 'From Exclusion to Inclusion: Improving the Situation of Minority Communities in Africa'
Terms of Reference: Evaluation of 'From Exclusion to Inclusion: Improving the Situation of Minority Communities in Africa'
Closing date: 5pm Monday 21st March 2011
Funded by Ireland Aid Civil Society Support Block Grant
January 2009 – December 2011 (evaluation should cover at least until end of March 2011)
1. Introduction
MRG received a three year block grant from the CSF of Ireland Aid for work to improve the capacity of minority communities and activists working on their behalf to assert their rights and improve implementation of those rights.
2. Purpose
The programme is now nearing an end and MRG wishes to commission an external independent evaluation of the work. This will provide both MRG and Ireland Aid as well as a wider audience of those interested in MRG’s work and minority rights issues with an improved minority advocacy capacity, minority based organisational sustainability as well as reducing abuses of minority rights and reducing poverty and vulnerability as a result of the funding provided through CSF. The assessment will help inform the design and development of future work in similar thematic areas also in Africa, as well as feed into the design and development of new work more widely at MRG. It will also provide Ireland Aid with information about how efficiently and effectively their funding has been used and any early indications of impacts or sustainable outcomes.
3. Scope
The work supported has been quite wide ranging in terms of both methodology and geography with implementation in 7 countries. The evaluation will focus on two key questions:
A.
To what extent have MRG and partners been able to Strengthen the capacities of minority organizations to effectively work towards an improvement of the lives of their communities. This element of the evaluation should include work in all 7 countries although we suggest that the evaluator may want to select up to two countries to examine in more depth. Within this there should be a focus on three areas of capacity:
* Organisational sustainability.
* Advocacy methods (particularly media and legal work).
* Human rights law and practice.
In answering this question, the evaluator may draw on, and should not duplicate recent independent evaluations; Batwa Women Great Lakes programme, Endorois Community Capacity Building programme or monitoring visits (Ireland Aid Uganda) but will also need to carry out some visits and make their own assessments.
B.
Considering the work funded to date in Kenya conclude whether this is currently on track given sufficient time to achieve new policies or practices in areas where minorities have experienced discrimination, provide opportunities for minorities to participate in decision making, and/or to reduce the longer term risks of conflict.
Relevance
1. To what extent were MRG and partners’ programmes relevant responses to the multi-dimensional aspects of discrimination, exclusion, risk of conflict and limited capacity?
Effectiveness
2. To what extent have the MAPs partners been effective (immediate and intermediate outcome levels) in helping to build capacity and begin processes leading to or likely to lead to policy changes that reduce discrimination and address rights abuses?
3. To what extent were cross-cutting issues effectively mainstreamed in the partners’ programming, particularly in relation to gender equality and governance issues?
4. Is there any evidence of positive or negative unforeseen outcomes that arose as the programme was implemented? If yes, how well did MRG and partners react and learn from these unforeseen occurrences?
Efficiency
5. To what extent have the partners efficiently managed their programmes?
6. To what extent have the partners worked in partnership with national and local civil society organisations thereby helping strengthen the CSO’s and contributing to greater efficiencies in the delivery of programmes?
7. What factors enabled MRG and partners to deliver efficiently on the objectives of their proposals?
Sustainability
8. Is there evidence that any benefits resulting from MAPS funding are likely to be sustained?
4. Methodology
There is no preset format for this evaluation although MRG is particularly interested to learn from it, lessons that we can apply in working with partners and in running similar capacity building and advocacy projects in the future. As a minimum we would suggest that the evaluation would include the following:
* Read all project materials, participant evaluations from training events, partners’ reports on projects implemented, publications, selected visit reports and notes of advocacy meetings, review dissemination lists, advocacy letters etc.
* Speak to MRG project staff based in London: Visit or speak at length with staff in London at least once and preferably twice to discuss the programme with staff and gain their views of the intervention logic and strategic approach. Also speak with staff to feedback on learning and better ways of approaching things and discuss the pros and cons of new methods in depth.
* Speak to MRG project staff based in Kampala and discuss the programme with them.
* Visit at least two programme countries to meet with staff in partner organisations, advocacy targets and potential beneficiaries.
* Speak to at least one key staff member (and if possible more than one) in at least 12 partner organisations. Hold more details face to face meetings involving several staff and beneficiaries with partners in Kenya and two additional countries.
* Interview/hold discussions with at least 40 potential beneficiaries of the project at least Kenya and two selected additional countries to assess the usefulness of the project to them/their communities/their organisations (include variations in impact by gender, age, and other subgroups). Also check for positive or negative unintended consequences.
* Contact at least 16 individuals in Kenya who were not planned beneficiaries but who may have been affected by the project to check any impact and for positive or negative unintended consequences.
* Speak with at least 12 advocacy targets or experts (local, national and international) from a list of 24 nominated by MRG and partners as well as at least 12 relevant decision makers identified independently by the consultant to assess their knowledge of and views of the project and any impacts it has had on them. Gain expert opinions on the degree of contribution of this programme as against others on any changes achieved or moves towards changes as a result of this programme.
* Independently review and document policy and practical changes (or processes started towards such changes) to assess any impact of the programme.
* Provide feedback to MRG on the overarching design of the interventions.
* Draft a brief report (ideally c. 15 pages) with an assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the programme and on lessons that MRG and others can learn for the future in similar initiatives. This should include an executive summary which should not exceed 2 pages. Additional materials and evidence can be included in Annexes.
5. Candidate requirements
We would expect that the evaluator selected would have considerable experience of undertaking evaluations including evaluations of complex multicountry, multi-methodology work, as well as a good knowledge of minority communities’ situations and needs in the 6 programme countries, and an excellent understanding of right based advocacy work and capacity building with small organisations. Candidates should also have a good understanding of intersectional discrimination (particularly where discrimination on the grounds of gender and ethnicity intersect). If possible the evaluator should have experience of strategic litigation or experience of evaluating legal programmes of work. The evaluator will also need a good background in minority rights standards and government policies towards minorities in the programme countries, knowledge and experience of partnership programmes, and a good working knowledge of written and spoken French.
6. Budget, time frame and other practical issues
The budget for this piece of work including the evaluators’ fee, all travel, accommodation, subsistence, interpretation, communication and other costs is between Euros 8,000 and 10,000. (The evaluator may need to hire an independent local interpreter to speak to beneficiaries as needed.) MRG will not provide administrative support for this evaluation i.e. the evaluator will need to set up all meetings, arrange travel and deliver the final report without admin help. MRG will liaise closely with the evaluator on security considerations if visits are proposed to regions that are particularly volatile or risky.
The evaluator must be able to demonstrate that they are impartial and have no close links with any of the organisations or people who have contributed to or have been affected by this programme. MRG does not normally use ex-Staff of MRG or of partner organisations as independent external evaluators.
Somewhat unusually this evaluation is a final evaluation but is being commissioned with 10 months of the programme still to run. This is at the request of Ireland Aid. The evaluator will need to be aware of and make allowances for the impact of this timing vis a vis the degree of completion of the work and the progress towards achieving results and outcomes.
The evaluation should start at the end of March or very early in April 2011 with fieldwork taking place in April and early May. A draft report should reach MRG by the 20th of May 2011, MRG will endeavour to send comments very swiftly with a view to finalising the report no later than the end of May 2011.
If you are interested in being considered for this opportunity, please send your CV and a covering letter setting out your relevant experience and your suggested methodology of tackling this evaluation and an outline budget to hr@mrgmail.org, cc claire.thomas@mrgmail.org to arrive by 5pm Monday 21st March 2011. Any queries about this opportunity should be addressed to claire.thomas@mrgmail.org.
Closing date: 5pm Monday 21st March 2011
Funded by Ireland Aid Civil Society Support Block Grant
January 2009 – December 2011 (evaluation should cover at least until end of March 2011)
1. Introduction
MRG received a three year block grant from the CSF of Ireland Aid for work to improve the capacity of minority communities and activists working on their behalf to assert their rights and improve implementation of those rights.
2. Purpose
The programme is now nearing an end and MRG wishes to commission an external independent evaluation of the work. This will provide both MRG and Ireland Aid as well as a wider audience of those interested in MRG’s work and minority rights issues with an improved minority advocacy capacity, minority based organisational sustainability as well as reducing abuses of minority rights and reducing poverty and vulnerability as a result of the funding provided through CSF. The assessment will help inform the design and development of future work in similar thematic areas also in Africa, as well as feed into the design and development of new work more widely at MRG. It will also provide Ireland Aid with information about how efficiently and effectively their funding has been used and any early indications of impacts or sustainable outcomes.
3. Scope
The work supported has been quite wide ranging in terms of both methodology and geography with implementation in 7 countries. The evaluation will focus on two key questions:
A.
To what extent have MRG and partners been able to Strengthen the capacities of minority organizations to effectively work towards an improvement of the lives of their communities. This element of the evaluation should include work in all 7 countries although we suggest that the evaluator may want to select up to two countries to examine in more depth. Within this there should be a focus on three areas of capacity:
* Organisational sustainability.
* Advocacy methods (particularly media and legal work).
* Human rights law and practice.
In answering this question, the evaluator may draw on, and should not duplicate recent independent evaluations; Batwa Women Great Lakes programme, Endorois Community Capacity Building programme or monitoring visits (Ireland Aid Uganda) but will also need to carry out some visits and make their own assessments.
B.
Considering the work funded to date in Kenya conclude whether this is currently on track given sufficient time to achieve new policies or practices in areas where minorities have experienced discrimination, provide opportunities for minorities to participate in decision making, and/or to reduce the longer term risks of conflict.
Relevance
1. To what extent were MRG and partners’ programmes relevant responses to the multi-dimensional aspects of discrimination, exclusion, risk of conflict and limited capacity?
Effectiveness
2. To what extent have the MAPs partners been effective (immediate and intermediate outcome levels) in helping to build capacity and begin processes leading to or likely to lead to policy changes that reduce discrimination and address rights abuses?
3. To what extent were cross-cutting issues effectively mainstreamed in the partners’ programming, particularly in relation to gender equality and governance issues?
4. Is there any evidence of positive or negative unforeseen outcomes that arose as the programme was implemented? If yes, how well did MRG and partners react and learn from these unforeseen occurrences?
Efficiency
5. To what extent have the partners efficiently managed their programmes?
6. To what extent have the partners worked in partnership with national and local civil society organisations thereby helping strengthen the CSO’s and contributing to greater efficiencies in the delivery of programmes?
7. What factors enabled MRG and partners to deliver efficiently on the objectives of their proposals?
Sustainability
8. Is there evidence that any benefits resulting from MAPS funding are likely to be sustained?
4. Methodology
There is no preset format for this evaluation although MRG is particularly interested to learn from it, lessons that we can apply in working with partners and in running similar capacity building and advocacy projects in the future. As a minimum we would suggest that the evaluation would include the following:
* Read all project materials, participant evaluations from training events, partners’ reports on projects implemented, publications, selected visit reports and notes of advocacy meetings, review dissemination lists, advocacy letters etc.
* Speak to MRG project staff based in London: Visit or speak at length with staff in London at least once and preferably twice to discuss the programme with staff and gain their views of the intervention logic and strategic approach. Also speak with staff to feedback on learning and better ways of approaching things and discuss the pros and cons of new methods in depth.
* Speak to MRG project staff based in Kampala and discuss the programme with them.
* Visit at least two programme countries to meet with staff in partner organisations, advocacy targets and potential beneficiaries.
* Speak to at least one key staff member (and if possible more than one) in at least 12 partner organisations. Hold more details face to face meetings involving several staff and beneficiaries with partners in Kenya and two additional countries.
* Interview/hold discussions with at least 40 potential beneficiaries of the project at least Kenya and two selected additional countries to assess the usefulness of the project to them/their communities/their organisations (include variations in impact by gender, age, and other subgroups). Also check for positive or negative unintended consequences.
* Contact at least 16 individuals in Kenya who were not planned beneficiaries but who may have been affected by the project to check any impact and for positive or negative unintended consequences.
* Speak with at least 12 advocacy targets or experts (local, national and international) from a list of 24 nominated by MRG and partners as well as at least 12 relevant decision makers identified independently by the consultant to assess their knowledge of and views of the project and any impacts it has had on them. Gain expert opinions on the degree of contribution of this programme as against others on any changes achieved or moves towards changes as a result of this programme.
* Independently review and document policy and practical changes (or processes started towards such changes) to assess any impact of the programme.
* Provide feedback to MRG on the overarching design of the interventions.
* Draft a brief report (ideally c. 15 pages) with an assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the programme and on lessons that MRG and others can learn for the future in similar initiatives. This should include an executive summary which should not exceed 2 pages. Additional materials and evidence can be included in Annexes.
5. Candidate requirements
We would expect that the evaluator selected would have considerable experience of undertaking evaluations including evaluations of complex multicountry, multi-methodology work, as well as a good knowledge of minority communities’ situations and needs in the 6 programme countries, and an excellent understanding of right based advocacy work and capacity building with small organisations. Candidates should also have a good understanding of intersectional discrimination (particularly where discrimination on the grounds of gender and ethnicity intersect). If possible the evaluator should have experience of strategic litigation or experience of evaluating legal programmes of work. The evaluator will also need a good background in minority rights standards and government policies towards minorities in the programme countries, knowledge and experience of partnership programmes, and a good working knowledge of written and spoken French.
6. Budget, time frame and other practical issues
The budget for this piece of work including the evaluators’ fee, all travel, accommodation, subsistence, interpretation, communication and other costs is between Euros 8,000 and 10,000. (The evaluator may need to hire an independent local interpreter to speak to beneficiaries as needed.) MRG will not provide administrative support for this evaluation i.e. the evaluator will need to set up all meetings, arrange travel and deliver the final report without admin help. MRG will liaise closely with the evaluator on security considerations if visits are proposed to regions that are particularly volatile or risky.
The evaluator must be able to demonstrate that they are impartial and have no close links with any of the organisations or people who have contributed to or have been affected by this programme. MRG does not normally use ex-Staff of MRG or of partner organisations as independent external evaluators.
Somewhat unusually this evaluation is a final evaluation but is being commissioned with 10 months of the programme still to run. This is at the request of Ireland Aid. The evaluator will need to be aware of and make allowances for the impact of this timing vis a vis the degree of completion of the work and the progress towards achieving results and outcomes.
The evaluation should start at the end of March or very early in April 2011 with fieldwork taking place in April and early May. A draft report should reach MRG by the 20th of May 2011, MRG will endeavour to send comments very swiftly with a view to finalising the report no later than the end of May 2011.
If you are interested in being considered for this opportunity, please send your CV and a covering letter setting out your relevant experience and your suggested methodology of tackling this evaluation and an outline budget to hr@mrgmail.org, cc claire.thomas@mrgmail.org to arrive by 5pm Monday 21st March 2011. Any queries about this opportunity should be addressed to claire.thomas@mrgmail.org.
Post a Comment