Search for Common Ground-Tunisie recrute un consultant عودة إلى الفرص

Final Evaluation
Deradicalization in Tunisian Correctional Institutions
Through Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Detainees

1. Context

1.1 The Organization

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, visit this link

1.2 The project

Research has shown that prisons can play a negative role with respect to radicalization to violence. According to 2014 report by UNHCR, overcrowding remains a major problem in Tunisian prisons. These crowded conditions make it easier for detainees who are being held for minor charges to be mixed with those who have more serious criminal records, including terrorism, and also limits the ability of prison staff to control inter-prison violence including violent radicalization. This situation is exacerbated by the general under qualification of prison staff, which lack the capacity to identify trends of radicalization among inmates and often a basic knowledge of universally accepted principles for the treatment of prisoners.

SFCG has finalized a one-year project to build detainees and prison staff’s skills to manage conflict’s non-violently while beginning to build the relationships and trust among high-level stakeholders needed to achieve longer-term impact within prisons.

“Deradicalization in Tunisian Correctional Institutions through rehabilitation and Reintegration of Detainees” is a pilot initiative funded by the Dutch Foreign Ministry. The overall goal of this project is to de-radicalize and disengage detainees from violent ideologies and the use of violence during and after their period of detention.
Specifically, the project has the following key objectives:

• To increase detainees and prison staff’s capacity to manage conflict non-violently
• To build trust and relationships among key governmental and non-governmental stakeholders to promote effective reintegration of detainees

Under this initiative, the project focus on three direct groups: Senior members of the Directorate General for Prisons and Re-education (DGPR), prison directors, guards and prison staff. Certain activities were implemented in collaboration with Penal Reform International (PRI). These initiatives were tackled through two major activity axes: i) roundtables and workshops on the management of Violent extremist prisoner (VEP) and the socio-professional reinsertion of detainees, ii)capacity building of the personnel of the DGPR and prison staff.

2. Responsibilities:

2.1 Objectives of the Evaluation

The intended assignment is an end of program evaluation to explore how the project was implemented and to what extent the project objectives were achieved. Specifically, the evaluation seeks to evaluate the levels of change, especially with regard to the knowledge and behavior transformation of prison staff officers, and to what extent they were been initiated to the issues of deradicalization and rehabilitation. It seeks also to assess the degree of change with regard to the DGPR behavior and treatment with CSOs and experts working on the prisons issues.

The final evaluation will be based on the standard international criteria to guide all evaluations of development assistance developed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development’s (OECD). It will seek to answer the below questions:

Effectiveness

• To what extent have the project’s objectives been reached?
• Were the expected results achieved adequately? (if no why?)
• Which internal and external factors facilitated or hindered the achievements of expected results/ specific objectives?
• To what degree was the project successful in enhancing the capacity of the DGPR and prison staff in managing, rehabilitating and reintegrating violent extremist prisoners

Impact

• To assess the overall impact of the project on the target population, particularly prison staff and DGPR officials in the target prisons.
• Were there any unintended or unexpected results (positive or negative)?
• 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?

Relevance

• To what extent did the approach suit the priorities and needs of the diverse DGPR and prison staff it intended to benefit?
• Should the direction of the project be changed to better reflect those needs and priorities?

Efficiency

• Was the chosen approach and its practical implementation carried out in an economical and efficient way?

Sustainability

• Based on the available evidence, did the achieved outcomes lead to long-term improvements and are the exit strategies adequate? What is the likelihood that the benefits of the programme are sustained upon its completion?
• Have new mechanisms been designed to continue any work initiated by this project?

Audience

• The primary audience of this evaluation is Search for Common Ground Tunisia. The result will be used to shape future similar projects with the Tunisian prisons.
• The secondary audience is the funder of the project, the Dutch Foreign Ministry States in Tunisia.

2.2Methodology:

The evaluation methodology will be defined by the Consultant. However, SFCG requests that the methodology suggested by the evaluator should include a mixed methodology approach comprising of both qualitative and quantitative methods. The evaluator(s) should employ triangulation between several methods of data gathering. This will include, but not 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 survey,
• Site visits, stakeholders meeting, observation.
• The consultant shall determine the appropriate sample size in consultation with SFCG. These figures will take into considerations the activities carried out by SFCG, target population and the project areas. S/he will meet with the project participants, partners, SFCG 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.

2.3 Deliverables

The expected final 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 2 working days after the end of the data collection phase. the report will describe how the fieldwork went and what challenges were faced.
• c- Draft evaluation report to be submitted within one week 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 rounds 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- The final evaluation report after incorporating the comments from SFCG. 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 consist 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,
• 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. 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, list of interviewees, bibliography, and evaluator(s) brief biography.

3. Logistical Support

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

• Background materials (project proposal, periodic reports, existing evaluations, etc.)
• Meetings, phone/e-mail communication
• Identify interviewees and provide contact information
• Arrange meetings and appointments with stakeholders and beneficiaries in the field.

4. Requirements of consultant

SFCG seeks an experienced evaluator with the following qualifications:

• Proficiency in Arabic, French and English desired
• More than 5 years of experience in project evaluation
• Prior experience in conducting final evaluation
• Expertise with community engagement, counter terrorism, conflict resolution, rehabilitation
• Understanding of and experience with penitentiary institution and prison reform in Tunisia
• Expertise in collecting data through focus groups, key informant interview and survey
• Facilitation skills
• Excellent oral and written communication skills