International Evaluation Consultant
United Nations Development Programme | Published May 6, 2015 - Deadline May 22, 2015
A. Setting the Scene
The Action for Cooperation and Trust (ACT) started on 1 October 2005 and has been divided into four funding cycles. The current phase of the programme started on 1 October 2013 and is called “Crossroads for Civic Engagement” (CCE).
The objective of the 2015 evaluation will be to conduct an assessment of the results of the current phase of the programme and ascertain the extent to which the last two years advanced the overall programme outcome: Climate for reconciliation improved.
B. Description of UNDP-ACT
Over the years the ACT programme has utilised different outcome statements to articulate the focus of a specific phase:
Phase I - 2005-2008
A strengthened culture of cooperation and trust amongst all sectors of Cypriot society.
Rationale for statement
After the settlement plan failed to pass in referendum in 2004, nascent relationships between Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot organisations were shaken and the notion that the two communities could work together on issues of common interest was questioned. In this phase the emphasis was on finding practical every-day issues which could be used as entry points to foster practical and functional relationships.
Phase II - 2008-2011
Capacities of Cypriots to actively participate in a process of reconciliation strengthened.
Rationale for statement
The focus of the programme narrowed during this period, due to two main factors: a) frustration following the failed referendum had begun to fade for partner organizations and b) peace talks had started between the two leaders. The programme selected key sectors to support the positioning of civil society in the peace and reconciliation process and any post-settlement phase that may emerge.
Phase III - 2011-2013
Climate for reconciliation improved.
Rationale for statement
The focus was on sustaining the space for the continuation of peace and reconciliation efforts through civil society. The emphasis shifted to working through networks to influence policy.
The current Crossroads for Civic Engagement seeks to develop and implement strategies for civic engagement in support of a just settlement to the Cyprus conflict. The approach draws on the social, political and economic investments made by Cypriot civic actors and civil society organizations to support the ongoing Cyprus peace process. The programme employs civic engagement methods to enhance the quality of peacemaking and ensures an inclusive approach to decision-making. The approach embraces methods which allow people and organized networks of people (CSOs) to influence and share control over priority setting, policy making, resource allocations and access to public goods and services in the context of re-uniting the island. Cognizant of Cyprus’ geopolitical position, ACT-CCE actively exchanges knowledge and programme results with partners in countries located in the wider European Neighbourhood region. In this context the programme brokers partnerships between Cypriot and non-Cypriot organizations and seeks to meet civic engagement needs at the local level in Cyprus, at the islandwide level and at the regional level. This multi-layered approach aims to deepen the peacemaking capacities of peace and development professionals in Cyprus and in countries of the region through experiential learning.
C. Objectives and scope of the outcome evaluation
C.1 Evaluation Objectives and main questions to be answered at the evaluation
Objective I: Assessing Impact
Assess the impact and performance of the current Crossroads for Civic Engagement programme, paying attention to the extent to which the current programme has built upon the results of previous phases in a manner which aspires to reach the programme outcome. Some indicative questions in this regard are:
Did the Crossroads programme contribute to making a difference in the capacity of Cypriot civil society to improve the overall climate for reconciliation between the two communities?
Has the UNDP ACT programme made any difference to the nature of the policy-level dialogue on reconciliation?
What were the main factors (positive and negative) within and beyond UNDP ACT’s interventions that affected the achievement of the outcome? How did these factors limit or facilitate progress towards that outcome?
Do results from the programme provide the conditions for Cypriot organizations to utilize their experience to support social policy in the European Neighborhood region?
To what extent has UNDP ACT’s work contributed to the sustainability of peacebuilding and reconciliation efforts in Cyprus?
Objective II: Lesson Learned
Critically analyse the Crossroads programme formulation and its relevancy as the last intervention of UNDP-ACT in Cyprus and identify how any lessons learned from UNDP-ACT can be utilized inside and outside of Cyprus.
Some indicative questions in this regard are:
To what extent were the recommendations of the 2012 evaluation incorporated into the UNDP ACT programme, and with what affect? Are those recommendations still relevant? What unintended consequences have emerged from UNDP ACT's interventions?
What experiences can be drawn from the UNDP ACT programme that are appropriate to other peace building and reconciliation programmes?
Assess the relationship between the UNDP ACT programme and the wider UN support to resolving the Cyprus Problem, and indicate how best practises can be used in the future to maximize the UN’s and international community’s overall support for peace.
C.2 Evaluation Criteria
The evaluation will use the following criteria:
Effectiveness: Assessment of the performance of the Crossroad programme in the wider context of UNDP ACT’s support to peace building and reconciliation in terms of achievement of results against targets. The evaluation will assess the extent to which UNDP ACT’s contribution has strengthened local (mainly through civil society) capacity in the relevant areas.
Efficiency: The extent to which UNDP has instituted systems and clear procedures to provide coordinated support. This will involve looking at the suitability of UNDP operational and financial management procedures in responding to programme objectives and the extent to which these procedures have helped or hindered efficiency and the achievement of results.
Relevance: Assess if the Crossroads policy goals address the needs at the country level, particularly in addressing critical gaps in peace building priorities identified by various stakeholders.
Sustainability Assess whether UNDP ACT has been able to support local capacities in peace building and reconciliation and examine how lasting the outcomes have been/will be. Explore whether UNDP ACT’s Crossroads projects can be sustained with the absence of UNDP ACT support.
Impact: The assessment of the positive and negative effects of the Crossroads programme in the area of peace building and reconciliation. This will explore what changes have actually occurred due to the efforts of UNDP ACT and what lessons learned can be exported within and outside of the Cypriot context.
C.3 Results of the evaluation
The results of the evaluation will be used to assess whether additional interventions to promote peace and reconciliation in Cyprus are needed and how the results of UNDP ACT can be carried forward by other organisations.
The evaluation will follow three distinct phases: preparation (review of Terms of Reference, preliminary desk review and theme-specific desk research); conduct of the evaluation by the evaluation team (anticipated one-week mission in Cyprus) and follow-up (dissemination of evaluation results, corporate discussions, Programme Management response and stakeholder consultation).
This process will begin by informing the PSCs about UNDP-ACT’s intention to run an evaluation process. UNDP will designate an Evaluation Manager who will assume the day-to-day responsibilities for managing the evaluation process and serve as the focal points for ensuring the evaluation runs smoothly.
One evaluator will be selected through a competitive and open selection process run by UNDP with input from USAID.
Once identified, the evaluator will be briefed by the Evaluation Manager. S/he will then conduct a comprehensive desk review of relevant documents originating from the UNDP ACT project. UNDP will establish a web-based repository which will be accessible only by the evaluator. During this period, the Evaluation Manager will begin to organize a meetings schedule for the evaluator in preparation for the on-island mission. Likewise, the Evaluation Manager, as appropriate, will also inform all relevant stakeholders of the evaluation. The meetings schedule will be based on criteria and input from the evaluator, UNDP and USAID.
This desk review will be carried out prior to the Evaluator arriving in Cyprus. Key sources of information will include programme and project documents, results frameworks, quarterly and annual reports, evaluations and documents related to relevant work of other organisations. UNDP will create an online repository for these documents so that the evaluation team can access this data before the evaluation mission.
All main Crossroads for Civic Engagement and ACT partners and others, who are able to provide perspective and insight to UNDP-ACT’s and USAID’s work will be included in the meeting schedule. Based on the desk review and professional knowledge of the issues, the evaluator may suggest additions.
Production of the Inception Report
The evaluator will produce a draft Inception Report prior to arrival in-country. This outline will be presented to the UNDP Evaluation Manager prior to arrival in Cyprus and will be discussed within the first 2 days of the Field Mission. The inception report will be finalised within the first 2 days of the mission with the approval of USAID and UNDP. The inception report should outline at a minimum the following issues:
a. A clear purpose and scope of the evaluation, which includes a clear statement of the objectives of the evaluation and an outline of the main issues to be examined;
b. An outline of the evaluation criteria and questions that the evaluation will use to assess performance;
c. The evaluation methodology, including methods used for collecting data and their sources (which include qualitative and quantitative data collection strategies), including a rationale for their selection, as well as data collection tools with an explanation of their reliability and validity and a sampling plan. The methodology will take into consideration and identify and known limitations to the evaluation design, including country-level data limitations;
d. An evaluation matrix which identifies the key evaluation questions and an indication of how the evaluator expects each question to be answered, including data sources, data collection methods and data analysis plan;
e. A revised schedule of milestones and deliverables (Evaluation Work Plan).
f. A dissemination plan;
g. Detailed resource requirements with a detail of how requirements are tied to activities and deliverables in the evaluation work plan.
E.2 Conduct of the evaluation by the evaluator
It is expected the field mission will include the following:
An introductory meeting of the evaluator with UNDP and USAID senior management;
A fine tuning of the (outline of the) Inception Report, if/as necessary;
The main source of information will be through structured, semi-structured and unstructured interviews and consultations. In some cases, focus group discussions may be held to capture the dynamic of information sharing and debate, and to enrich the findings. The consultations will involve a wide range of stakeholders, including government officials, UN agencies, UNDP project managers, donors, USAID, NGO, INGOs, and groups of beneficiaries;
Consultations will involve visits to locations outside Nicosia. Therefore, exploration of the reality/implementation of the UNDP ACT programme will be carried out mainly through in-depth study involving field visits to selected project sites and analysis of relevant secondary data, in conjunction with partners, stakeholders and staff involved in delivery of the programmes and operation activities;
Preparation of draft report;
Incorporation of comments and preparation of the Final Evaluation Report.
E.3. Follow-up and Learning
The results of the evaluation are expected to provide UNDP ACT and USAID with the lessons learned and a stock of the work that has been done since 2013, while taking into account the history of the UNDP ACT programme since 2005. They will also provide some guidance and recommendations of how UNDP and USAID in a corporate level can utilize and demonstrate their work in Cyprus at a local and international level after the closure of the office. This guidance will need to be focussed on making progress towards the intended outcome. The key findings of the report will be discussed in various forums which will convene relevant stakeholders. The full report will be shared with USAID, UNDP HQ and RBEC with further consultations as required.
F. Products Expected from the Evaluation
F.1 List of Products
The key product expected from this evaluation is a comprehensive analytical report that includes, but is not limited to, the following components:
• Executive summary. The executive summary should be 3-5 pages in length and summarize the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned (if applicable);
• Description of the evaluation methodology. The evaluation methodology shall be explained in the report in detail. Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.);
• Analysis of the situation with regard to outcome, outputs, resources, partnerships, management and working methods and/or implementation strategy;
• Assessment and analysis of the efficacy of operational procedures utilised during the Crossroads for Civic Engagement phase in conjunction with procedures since 1 October 2005;
• Key findings;
• Conclusions and recommendations for the future program implementation;
• Annexes including
• List of persons interviewed;
• Summary of field visits;
• List of documents reviewed;
• All tools used in conducting the evaluation, such as questionnaires, checklists, and discussion guides, including client online survey and/or questionnaire (if any) used and summary of results;
• The Evaluation Scope of Work;
• Any other relevant material that supports evaluation findings and recommendations;
• Sources of information, properly identified and listed;
• Disclosure of conflicts of interest form from the evaluator, either attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing existing conflict of interest;
F.2 Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report
In accordance with UNDP and USAID corporate standards the draft and final evaluation reports will be evaluated against the following criteria to ensure the quality of the evaluation report:
• The evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’ ;
• The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked, what did not and why;
• The evaluation report shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work;
• The evaluation report should include the scope of work (technical requirements, questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline) as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the UNDP Evaluation Officer and USAID Focal Point;
• Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report;
• Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females, where possible and appropriate;
• Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.);
• Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data. In cases where anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions are used to support evaluation findings, this should be clearly indicated in the report. In general findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence;
• Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex;
• Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings;
• Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.
F.3 Other Requirements Section
All records from the evaluation (e.g., interview transcripts or summaries) must be provided to the UNDP Evaluation Manager and USAID Focal Point. All quantitative data collected by the evaluation team must be provided in an electronic file in easily readable format agreed upon with the UNDP Evaluation Manager. The data should be organized and fully documented for use by those not fully familiar with the project or the evaluation.
G. Description of Responsibilities
G.1 Profile of the Evaluator
The evaluator will be selected by UNDP-ACT and should have an expertise in civil society strengthening and empowerment in post-conflict situations.
The consultant will have overall responsibility for the quality and timely submission of the evaluation report to UNDP-ACT. S/he should have an advanced university degree and at least 10 years of work experience in the field of post-conflict peace building, at least five years experience of substantive evaluation exercises, involving both Country Office Reviews (e.g. ADRs) and project reviews, a sound knowledge of results-based management with a focus on result-oriented monitoring and evaluation.
Specifically, the Evaluator will perform the following tasks:
• Conduct the desk review process;
• Design the detailed evaluation scope, methodology and approach;
• Manage the evaluation mission;
• Conduct the outcome evaluation in accordance with the proposed objective and scope of the evaluation;
• Draft and communicate the evaluation report;
• Finalize and submit the evaluation report in English and submit it to UNDP-ACT.
The evaluator will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest, or describing an existing conflict of interest.
The evaluator should be familiar with relevant evaluation policies and guidelines. http://web.undp.org/evaluation/handbook/documents/english/pme-handbook.pdf, http://web.undp.org/evaluation/evaluations/documents/handbook/addendum/Evaluation-Addendum-June-2011.pdf,
G.2 Evaluation Schedule
Activity - Desk review
Timeframe - 15-19 June 2015 (5 days)
Place - Home-based On-line (documents will be made available online from 8 June 2015)
Responsible Party – Evaluator
Activity - Evaluation design, methodology, draft inception report and detailed work plan
Timeframe - 22-24 June 2015 (3 days)
Place - Home-based, with remote consultation with UNDP
Responsible Party – Evaluator
Deliverable - Draft Inception Report and Detailed Work Plan submitted to UNDP-ACT
Payment - 8 days of daily fee
Activity - On-island Mission Field visits, interviews, consultations and presentation of initial findings on the last day of the mission.
Timeframe - 6-10 July (5 Days)
Place - Cyprus (visits in Greek Cypriot and Turkish Cypriot Communities)
Responsible Party - Evaluator, UNDP Evaluation Manager, and USAID senior management
Deliverable – Cyprus mission, Finalized Inception Report, Proof of purchase of travel for economy ticket to Cyprus.
Payment - DSA and economy ticket reimbursement: 5 x UN Daily Subsistence Allowance and economy ticket/travel net cost upon arrival in Cyprus.
Activity - Finalization of first draft of full evaluation report.
Timeframe - 24 July (5 days allocated)
Place - Home-based and if required remote consultation
Responsible Party – Evaluator
Deliverable - Final draft of the full evaluation report
Activity - Finalization of second draft, following feedback from UNDP and USAID
Timeframe - No later than 3 August (2 days allocated) - UNDP-ACT will provide comments by 28 July
Place - Home-based and if required remote consultation
Responsible Party – Evaluator
Deliverable - The Final Evaluation Report approved by UNDP-ACT
Payment - 12 days of daily fee
• Extensive experience in leading design and conduct of evaluation missions within the context of civil society empowerment in conflict or post conflict situations,
• Strong evaluation, analytical, reporting, writing and presentation abilities,
• Experience with RBM, relevant evaluation policies and guidelines,
• Ability to do evaluation of (development) interventions in complex situations,
• An advanced degree in law, political science, human rights or other relevant fields;
• At least 10 years of work experience in the field of post-conflict peace building, at least five years’ experience of substantive evaluation exercises,
• Extensive knowledge of result-based management evaluation, UNDP and USAID policies, procedures, as well as participatory monitoring and evaluation methodologies and approaches;
• Demonstrable experience of working within politically sensitive environments, exhibiting a high level of diplomatic discretion when dealing with national authorities;
• Experience in applying SMART indicators and reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios;
• Knowledge of political, economic and social developments trends in Cyprus an asset
• Extensive experience in working with the donors;
• Demonstrable analytical skills and strong drafting skills (in English);
• Excellent interviewing, public speaking at high levels;
• Capacity to work with the target group representatives;
• Fluency in spoken and written English.
G.5 Evaluation of Applicants
Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis taking into consideration the combination of the applicants’ qualifications, (phone) interview results and financial proposal.
Shortlisting - Individual consultants will be shortlisted based on the following criteria:
1- Number of years of relevant experience (relevant being civil society, peacebuilding, development);
2- Minimum experience of evaluation and analysis;
3- Familiarity with Results Based Management and other relevant evaluation policies and guidelines.
The shortlisted candidates will be interviewed and evaluated based on the following criteria.
Technical Criteria - 70% of total evaluation
1- Demonstrable experience in working in politically sensitive environments and in managing multiple stakeholders;
2- Leading the design and conduct of outcome evaluations of programmes in conflict and post conflict situations;
3- Ability to analyse and evaluate similar programmes in complex situations using relevant evaluation tools;
4- Ability to effectively communicate and present findings and recommendations in complex situations.
Financial Criteria - 30% of total evaluation
Only the candidates, who have obtained 70% of the technical scores, will be considered for the Financial Evaluation.
Award - The award of the contract will be made to the consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:
1- Responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
2- Having received the highest score out of the technical and financial evaluation stated above.
G.6 Application procedures
Qualified candidates are requested to apply online via this website. The application should contain:
• Cover letter explaining why you are the most suitable candidate for the advertised position, a brief methodology on how you will approach and conduct the work and a CV. Please upload all as one document.
• Financial Proposal* - all shortlisted candidates will be required to submit a financial proposal specifying the total amount for the tasks specified in this announcement.
The financial proposal shall include:
• The total amount and a breakdown of total cost;
• A daily fee and any other possible costs;
• Travel cost (only economy ticket/travel costs will be reimbursed by UNDP-ACT at net cost upon submission of proof of purchase and travel).
UNDP-ACT agrees to provide the following logistics to the consultant for the duration of the assignment in Cyprus:
• UN Daily Subsistence Allowance for the duration of the assignment in Cyprus, travel days will not qualify;
• A vehicle and driver to take the consultant to appointments
• Office space and Internet connectivity;
• Printer and stationery;
• The Consultant agrees to bring his/her own computer for the duration of the consultancy in Cyprus.
Incomplete applications will not be considered. Please make sure you have provided all requested materials
*Please note that the financial proposal is all-inclusive and shall take into account various expenses incurred by the consultant/contractor during the contract period (e.g. fee, health insurance, vaccination and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services). All envisaged travel costs must be included in the financial proposal.
Payments will be made only upon confirmation of UNDP on delivering on the contract obligations in a satisfactory manner.
Due to large number of applications we receive, we are able to inform only the successful candidates about the outcome or status of the selection process.