Final Evaluation – Terms of Reference and call for Expressions of Interest
1. Background on the project
This primarily EU funded programme has built the capacity of arts and human rights personnel in the MENA region to cooperate and work professionally together. The project subgranted over two rounds over €1 million to organisations or consortia to develop and perform street theatre on minority issues. The project also supported advocacy projects, a film, litigation feasibility projects and direct capacity building work. The project was implemented by three partners: Minority Rights Group International, (operating from London and Tunis), CFI (operating from Ramallah) and Andalus Centre for Tolerance (operating from Cairo). Grants have been made for projects in Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco, Palestinian Territories and Tunisia.
The results originally foreseen for the project were as follows (in each case followed by relevant indicators):
See also logframe available on request. The project documentation also includes a detailed list of foreseen outputs.
2. Evaluation Objectives
The evaluation should focus on learning, efficiency, effectiveness and where possible impact. There is no pre-set format for this evaluation although MRG and partners are particularly interested to learn from it lessons that we can apply in designing and running work with similar objectives in the future. The evaluator will need to be independent of MRG and project partners, its donors, the project targets and participants and will need to demonstrate that no perceived or actual conflict of interests would arise during the evaluation. The evaluator will need to work within the time frames outlined below. The evaluation will need to satisfy all the requirement of the European Union and evaluation guidelines issued by them.
It is hoped that the evaluation can start now with the evaluator attending a showcase event (Tunisia June 2016) as well as a final learning and sharing meeting (location and date tbc), the evaluator or a team member may also be able to be present at street theatre shows, film launches and other events in the region as the budget permits however the bulk of the work will take place after the end of the project from March 2017.
Key evaluation questions
Referring to the project documentation, did we complete all of the activities as planned to a reasonably high quality? What problems were encountered at this level? How did any problems affect the activities and to what extent were they overcome?
Where completed as planned, verify staff analysis as to whether the activities contributed to the planned results? Where this was so, refer to evidence. Where not so, what factors intervened and verify or explain how they impacted. Suggest ways that MRG and partners tried to overcome any problems and how successful this was (or not). Document any changes in the external environment that may have helped or hindered the project. If there were any unplanned results (positive or negative) explain what these were and how they came about.
If at all possible, make an assessment as to whether the results achieved are likely, over the longer term to achieve or contribute to the achievement of the specific objective of the project:SO: To build a regional cohort of experienced professionals with the capacity to link minority rights, cultural rights and
SO: To build a regional cohort of experienced professionals with the capacity to link minority rights, cultural rights and drama and communicate minority identity and community cooperation aspirations through drama production.
SO Indicator 1: Professionals/activists with at least one year experience of projects involving drama and raising minority rights are still
Professionals/activists with at least one year experience of projects involving drama and raising minority rights are still employed/active in the sector and are involved in ongoing work/plans/ projects. Target value: 42
SO. Indicator 2: Five examples of designed projects submitted to donors or funded plans for Arts and Human or Minority Rights organisations to work together in the future (in each example, at least one project partner to have been involved in this project).
If it is unlikely that all or part of the specific objective will be achieved, why is this and is this something that could have been foreseen or overcome?
The evaluation should review and comment on the mainstreaming of gender in the project and its outcomes
and impacts as well as other cross cutting and intersectional discrimination issues.
3. Evaluation Methodology/key deliverables.
As a minimum, MRG and partners will expect the evaluator or evaluation team to:
– Seek the views of project partners, beneficiaries, media targets and independent experts on the project and its outcomes and impacts. (MRG will supply a contact list of those who participated in or who were reached by the project but will expect the evaluator/evaluation team to also contact others not suggested by MRG.)
– Seek out opinions on the project, attribution and impact.
– Report in English and Arabic with an assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the programme and
on lessons that MRG, partners and others can learn for the future in similar initiatives. This should include an executive summary of around 2 pages.
– MRG will expect the evaluator to be available to be interviewed and recorded for publication on our website about the evaluation process and outcomes and the result will be uploaded to make the evaluation findings more accessible to a wider audience.
4. Experience and Expertise required
We expect that the evaluator or evaluation team selected will have extensive knowledge and experience of working on minority rights, cultural programmes, cultural rights, influencing, films, and capacity building and should be familiar with and able to comply with all EU requirements. The person or team selected would also be expected to have a track record of evaluations carried out on similar or analogous projects. The evaluator or evaluation team would need to have a good working knowledge of written and spoken Arabic and English.
5. Report submission, timetable and budget
The evaluation should be carried out between 25th May 2016 and 30th June 2017. If at all possible the evaluator or a team member should attend all or part of a showcase event in Tunis on the 3rd, 4th and 5th of June 2016 as well as a final learning and review meeting likely to take place in Dec 2016 which is likely to be held in Amsterdam. The evaluator should be available to and should include costs in the budget to join both of those meetings as well as costs to visit grantees and beneficiaries.
A draft evaluation report including a 2-page executive summary should be submitted to MRG no later than 30 May 2017. MRG, partners and grantees will submit comments in response within 15 working days and a final report that takes into account the comments should be submitted no later than 30th June 2017.
The budget for this piece of work including the evaluators’ fee, all travel, communication and other costs is in the region of €10,000 – €13,000 (partially depending on the level of international travel anticipated by the evaluator/evaluation team.)
6. How to apply
If you are interested in being considered for this opportunity, please send the following to Claire.firstname.lastname@example.org to arrive by 12.00hrs (noon – London time) on 16th May 2016.
– Cover letter – indicating relevant experience and knowledge and how you or the team meet the candidate requirements
– 1-2 page indicative methodology and budget for the evaluation including plans for country visits – an inception plan will be produced later.
– Brief CV(s) of key personnel
MRG will endeavour to shortlist potentially strong candidates and teams on or by 18th May 2016 and hopes to have made an appointment by 20th May 2016.