(Offre en anglais) Search for Common Ground lance un appel à candidatures pour le recrutement d’un évaluateur عودة إلى الفرص

Mid-Term Evaluation
Promoting Civilian Engagement in Security Sector Reform Processesin Tunisia

1. Context

1.1 About Search for Common Ground

Since 1982, Search for Common Ground, an international non-governmental organization, has been working to transform the way the world deals with conflict: away from adversarial confrontation, toward cooperative solutions. We work with partners on the ground to strengthen local capacity to deal with conflict. Operating within 36 countries, SFCG uses creative, multi-faceted approaches to help divided communities understand differences while working toward commonalities. SFCG has been working in Tunisia since 2011 and works to promote a culture of dialogue and social cohesion through a combination of youth leadership initiatives, dialogue facilitation, and conflict sensitivity media training. For more information, visithttps://www.sfcg.org/tunisia

2.1 About the project

Search for Common Ground (Search) and its partner Kawakibi Democracy Transition Center (KADEM) strongly believe that enabling constructive dialogue between the security sector and civil society and increased transparency about SSR processes are critical for meaningful, sustainable reform. Search and KADEM are now finishing the implementation of a twenty-eight months initiative to constructively engage the security sector, civil society, and media in collaborative efforts to increase citizen participation and accountability of reforms advanced in Tunisia, called “Promoting Civilian Engagement in Security Sector Reform Processes in Tunisia”.

Through a two-fold approach, Search and KADEM facilitated joint action and dialogue between civil society organizations and authorities to reform the security sector while leveraging media to highlight successes and ensure accountability. This project focuses on strengthening the capacity of media actors and local civil society, including marginalized groups such as women and youth, to improve communication between the public and the security sector and to advocate for SSR.

This initiative aims at facilitating the transition from a vertical reform system within government to mechanisms involving civil society and media through the collaborative development and implementation of local initiatives.

The project’s specific objectives are to:

1. Foster sustainable collaboration between the security sector and civil society actors in four Tunisian governorates: Ben Gardane in Medenine, Bizerte City in Bizerte, Kasserine City in Kasserine and Sidi Hassine in Greater Tunis.
2. Engage media effectively to improve communication about and celebrate successes of security sector reform.

These objectives are achieved through the following outcomes:

1.1 Security sector actors, local CSOs, and local authorities collaboratively engage in community-level dialogues
1.2 Security sector actors, local CSOs, and local authorities jointly identify themes of intervention to increase collaboration and enhance the security sector’s effectiveness and accountability
1.3 Security sector actors and local CSOs jointly implement community programs based on reform plans developed through dialogue
2.1 Tunisian media broadcasts dialogue and discussion about security reform in Tunisia
2.2 Tunisian media amplifies positive examples of civil society and security sector collaboration.

The target population of the project is:

• Local NGOs focusing on conflict resolution and community resilience issues;
• Local security sector actors;
• Local community members.

2. Objectives of the evaluation

SFCG as an organization is committed to conducting project evaluations in order to maximise the effectiveness of its programming and to engage in continuous improvement and learning within programs and across the organization.

The SFCG approach to evaluations is grounded in the guiding principles of its work: participatory; do no harm, culturally sensitive; affirming and positive while honest and productively critical and valuing knowledge and approaches from within the context. SFCG will apply this approach to the mid-term evaluation of this project, which will be carried out in consultation and in participation with key relevant stakeholders, appropriate community groups and key civil society individuals.

The intended assignment is a mid-term program evaluation to determine:

• (1) how the project was implemented, whether it answered the identified needs, and to what extent the project objectives were achieved during the set period of implementation, and
• (2) whether those needs have been entirely met or still remain relevant, and how can we best learn from these analysis and past experiences for the design of a phase 2 of this project.

As such, this mid-term evaluation aims to review the activities that have been implemented for the past 28months of the program to assess their strategic design, implementation, efficiency, effectiveness and impact. We also seek to understand whether the key interventions are still relevant and needed for phaseII programming, and if so, how they can best be designed and completed by additional elements to respond to the identified needs.

In addition to identifying strengths and weaknesses, successes and failures in the first phase of the project, this evaluation will help the program staff and partners to make informed decisions on how to effectively engage each target group to sustain solid communication, collaboration and cooperation mechanisms with the concerned counterparts, on enforcing transparency of security sector.

Specifically, the evaluation seeks to evaluate the levels of change, especially with regard to the engagement and collaboration of the concerned actors, and notably thorough an estimation of perception, attitude and behavioral transformation among key stakeholders (security sector, civil society, local initiatives’ beneficiaries and partners) to ensure a conducive environment for enhanced civilian participation in the security arena. The findings for this mid-term evaluation will include lessons learned and recommendations in order to plan for the next step’s activities.

The evaluation should be based on the OECD-DAC Evaluation Criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability), investigating specific lines of inquiry, and utilizing and/or addressing the performance indicators described in the project document.

EVALUATION QUESTIONS

More precisely, the mid-term evaluation will aim to answer the following evaluative questions:

Effectiveness

a- To what extent was the project successful in reaching its objectives and outcomes?

• Was the project able to enhance the communication and collaboration between security sector and civil society actors?
• How effective were the community level dialogues in identifying conflicts and promoting a collaborative approach on SSR?
• How effective was the media component in broadcasting dialogue and discussions about security reform in Tunisia, and how successful was it in amplifying positive examples to promote SSR?

b-To what extent was the project’s approach successful in increasing the transparency of the security sector reform efforts by involving civil society, media and local authorities to improve communication between the public and security sector through collaborative development of local initiatives?

• To what extent were the various partners able to successfully work together, especially across dividing lines?
• Did we manage to build partnership between the various actors in each community?

c- To what extend was project design effective and impact oriented?

• What were the strong and weak points of this process? What recommendations could be made for Phase II design and development?
• How was the project, and SFCG/KADEM intervention, perceived by host government and local communities at the beginning vs. now? Did SFCG and   KADEM manage to achieve local buy-in?

d-Which internal and external factors facilitated or hindered the achievements of expected results/specific objectives?

Efficiency

• Was the project implemented in an efficient manner (time, personnel resources)?
• To what extent was the project budget designed on impact? Were all needs planned for appropriately? What were the strong and weak points of this process?
• Were the financial resources efficiently used to achieve results?

Relevance

a-To what extent did the project design respond to the stated problems of security sector transparency, public awareness and support of SSR, and civilian engagement in security related topics?

• To what extent is this program relevant to national SSR efforts in Tunisia? Was it strategically inserted within larger SSR efforts?
• How could this strategical positioning, in relation to national SSR efforts and other pertaining field initiatives, be improved? What are the advantages and risks involved?

b-Are the stated goals and objectives relevant to respond to issues and problems central to Security Sector Reform?

• Do activities fit objectives? To what extent did the different types of activities complement each other?
• Should the direction of the project be changed to better reflect the needs of the different stakeholders, including security sector actors, local CSOs, and local authorities, and if so, how?
• To what extent did the project identify appropriate target populations and partners that best matched the project objectives?

Impact

• Were there any unintended or unexpected results (positive or negative)?
• Have SFCG and KADEM always been conflict-sensitive? Did the project development and implementation always respect the communities and do-no harm approach?
• Did the partners / beneficiaries progress as individuals / organizations? Have they developed new skills and capacities, and if yes, have they used them?

Lessons learned

a-Determine lessons learned – what could have been done differently to make the project be of higher quality, greater impact? How can we capitalize on the achievements of the project in our future programs, and specifically within the framework of this initiative’s phase II?

• If the SSR project was to be continued, what are the recommended modifications (programmatic and/or operational areas/activities) and why?
• What are the main lessons learned/findings to date (positive and negative) that should be transferred to Phase II project?

Sustainability

• Based on the available evidence, did the achieved outcomes lead to long-term improvements and are they sustainable / replicable ? What is the likelihood that the benefits of the program are sustained upon its completion?
• Have new mechanisms been designed to continue any work initiated by this project?
• In addition to the above lines of inquiry, the evaluation is expected to provide information on the key indicators listed in the project logframe.

Audience

The primary audience of this mid-term evaluation includes Search for Common Ground Tunisia and its partner, KADEM, and Search for Common Ground globally, through its Institutional Learning Team (ILT). The result will be used to shape future activities within the second phase of this project, as well as future similar projects. The secondary audience is the funder partner of the project. Among tertiary audiences, we will share key results with the local associations in the four localities that benefited from funds through the small grants, and other actors active in the field of SSR in Tunisia.

3. Methodology

The evaluation methodology will be defined by the Consultant, based on SFCG requirements and upon validation. SFCG requests that the methodology should employ mixed qualitative and quantitative data collection approaches, as well as triangulation between several methods of data gathering.

This will include, but not be limited to the following principles or approaches:

• a desk review of the project proposal, project reports and other relevant documentation related to the project;
• the collection of information through key informant interviews, focus group discussions and small scale surveys;
• site visits, stakeholders meeting, observation.

The consultant shall determine the appropriate sample size in consultation with SFCG. These figures will take into consideration the activities carried out by SFCG and KADEM, target population and the project areas. S/he will meet with the project participants, partners, SFCG and KADEM staff and relevant stakeholders. The evaluator will develop the sampling criteria, methodology and tools of the evaluation in consultation with SFCG management and DM&E coordinator.

Furthermore, as part of the data collection and analysis process, the consultant is required to respect the following Ethical Principles1:

• Comprehensive and systematic inquiry: Consultant should make the most of the existing information and full range of stakeholders available at the time of the review. Consultant should conduct systematic, data-based inquiries. He or she should communicate his or her methods and approaches accurately and in sufficient detail to allow others to understand, interpret and critique his or her work. He or she should make clear the limitations of the review and its results.
• Competence: Consultant should possess the abilities and skills and experience appropriate to undertake the tasks proposed and should practice within the limits of his or her professional training and competence.
• Honesty and integrity: Consultant should be transparent with the contractor/constituent about: any conflict of interest, any change made in the negotiated project plan and the reasons why those changes were made, any risk that certain procedures or activities produce misleading review
  information.
• Respect for people: Consultant respect the security, dignity and self-worth of respondents, program participants. Consultant has the responsibility to be sensitive to and respect differences amongst participants in culture, religion, gender, disability, age and ethnicity.

In addition, the consultant will respect SFCG’s evaluations standards, to be found in SFCG’s evaluation guidelines

4. Deliverables

The expected evaluation deliverables are as follow:

a. Inception Report, which clearly defines the evaluation methodology, such as clear outlines of FGDs and KII interviews, survey questionnaires, and an evaluation timeline with specific deadlines for each deliverable. The inception report should also clearly explain the sampling methodology and sample
size and clear and logical explanation of the number of FGDs and KIIs planned. The inception report will be reviewed and approved by the SFCG Team. The evaluator cannot start the data collection process without the SFCG team’s approval on the inception report.

b. Fieldwork report provided within 4 working days after the end of the data collection phase. The report will describe how the fieldwork went off and what challenges were faced.

c. Draft evaluation report to be submitted within two weeks of completion of the data for the review and comments from SFCG Team. The review and feedback of the report could be more than one round depending on the quality of the report submitted by the consultant and the extent to which the comments and suggestions from the first round of review have been incorporated.

d. Final evaluation report, after incorporating the comments from SFCG on the draft evaluation report.

The report should be written in English language and should be approximately 30 pages (excluding annexes) in length.

It should be submitted electronically in MS-Word version and should consists of:

• Cover Page;
• Table of contents, list of acronyms/abbreviations and list of tables and charts;
• Executive summary of key findings and recommendations;
• Introduction including brief context analysis, and evolution in context since project launch if relevant;
• Methodology;
• Evaluation findings, analysis, and conclusions with associated data presented per evaluation objective and per evaluation criteria, via a reasonable balance of narrative vs. graphs and tables. The findings can include subsections for each evaluation criteria.
• Recommendations for future activities under Phase II of the project. The recommendations should focus on program design, planning vs implementation, implementation methodology and approach, project monitoring and evaluation system.
• Appendices, which include detailed description of the methodology with research instruments, bibliography, and evaluator(s) brief biography.

5. Logistical Support

SFCG will provide preparatory and logistical assistance to the evaluator, including:

• Background materials (project proposal, periodic reports, existing evaluations, etc.);
• Identify interviewees and provide contact information;
• Arrange meetings and appointments with stakeholders and beneficiaries in the field.

6. Timeframe

The evaluation should be conducted over a total duration of 2 months (from contract signature to delivery and validation of final evaluation report).