1. Background on the project

This primarily EU funded programme used street theatre and community consultations to increase Dominico-Haitians’ civic participation to monitor public policies and access to local social services. This project encouraged the formation of youth cultural and/or theatrical groups to maintain/raise awareness and community participation in the processes of demand of access to basic services. The project was implemented by two partners: Minority Rights Group International, (operating from London) and Movimiento de Mujeres Dominico-Haitianas – MUDHA (operating from Santo Domingo).

Project goals/objectives/strategies

The results originally foreseen for the project were as follows (in each case followed by relevant indicators):

Result 1. Members of the Dominico-Haitian community are more aware of their rights to local services, and mechanisms that can be used to ensure access to these services and decision-making processes. 1. 40% (2,000 people) of those who have seen a performance report a better understanding of how to access local services. 2. 10,000 leaflets distributed among members of the Dominican-Haitian community.
Result 2: Leaders of the Haitian-Dominican community are able to lobby and advocate on behalf of members of this community to ensure more inclusive of local public policies. 1. 12 community leaders are trained, at least 50% of them are women. 2. 100% of the young people trained have taken their role and have begun participation processes to decision making. 3. Weekly surgeries are set in 4 bateyes, at least 360 attendees per year. 4. 300 people (of which 120 are women) are informed about citizen participation. 5. Of these people informed, 150 reported, at the end of the project, they have been using their newly acquired skills.
Result 3: Local policymakers in the Dominican Republic, and most of the general population, are more aware of the rights of Dominican-Haitian community members and the problems currently faced by them to gain access services. 1. 3,200 people from the majority community have greater awareness and more information about the living situation of Dominican-Haitian community in the country. 2. 15 representatives of the local government are aware and informed about the situation faced by members of the Dominico-Haitian community suffer, and their lack of access to public services. 3. 30 positive articles are published in the media. 4. 5 round tables will be organised.

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 impact.

There is no pre-set format for this evaluation although MRG and partners are particularly interested to learn from its 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 early-July by attending the evaluation event organised by the local organisation (MUDHA) as well as visiting the communities. The evaluator may also be able to be present at other activities implemented during July in the Dominican Republic (street theatre performances, film launches and other events). Due to availability of staff, at least part of the field work will need to take place in August 2016, and the evaluation will need to be finished by the middle of November 2016.

Key evaluation questions

Output level

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?

Outcome level

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). If there were any unplanned results (positive or negative) explain what these were and how they came about. Comment on the sustainability of the results to date.

Impact level

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 use street theatre and community consultations to increase Dominico-Haitians’ civic??? See my earlier comment participation to monitor public policies and access to local social services.

SO Indicator 1

5,200 members of the community have seen the performances.

SO Indicator 2

Of the 30 individual actions of discrimination carried out in the community dealing with issues about access to support services, at least 28 can be shown to have reached new systems or improved the monitoring of public policies and the provision to the community targeted.

SO Indicator 3

At least 15 cases have led to a positive dialogue between the community and the authorities, and in at least nine occasions, communities have new or improved services which are attributed, at least in part, to the project.

SO Indicator 4

At the end of the project two (2) young people from each community participate in the local council meetings of their communities.

Additional evaluation question

How did changes on the ground in DR after the programme design and approval and during programme implementation affect our plans and was our reaction and changes to plans appropriate and timely? To what extent could we perhaps have been expected to have predicted some or all of the changes and have contingency plans in place for them. How did any changes in the external context affect the activities and to what extent were they successfully overcome or were suitable alternative plans or activities implemented?

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 its partner will expect the evaluator 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 to also contact others not suggested by MRG. The project focused on 10 bateyes but not all activities were run in each location (Matamamon, Lecheria, Palmarejo, Basima, Juan Sanchez, Los Redimidos, San Joaquin, Bienvenido, La Victoria, Km 56). A final sample of locations to be visited to be mutually agreed between MRG and the appointed evaluator.)
  • Seek out opinions on the project, attribution and impact.
  • Submit a report (between 20 and 40 pages long) in English and Spanish 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 selected will have a detailed knowledge of the DR context including a full understanding of the Dominico-Haitian community, citizenship, statelessness and nationality laws and procedures, extensive knowledge and experience of working on minority rights, cultural programmes, influencing, street theatre, community work, films, advocacy and capacity building and should be familiar with and able to comply with all EU requirements. The person 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 Spanish and English.

5. Report submission, timetable and budget

The evaluation should be carried out between 1st July 2016 and end of November 2016. If at all possible the evaluator should attend an event organised by the local organisation (MUDHA) in July in DR as well as visiting the communities. The evaluator may also be able to be present at other activities implemented during July in the Dominican Republic (street theatre performances, film launches and other events). The evaluator should be available to attend those events/activities and visit beneficiaries, and should include corresponding costs in the budget).A draft evaluation report (between 20 and 40 pages long) in both English and Spanish[1] including a 2 page executive summary should be submitted to MRG no later than 3rd October 2016. MRG and its partner 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 15th November 2016.

The budget for this piece of work including the evaluators’ fee, all travel, communication and other costs is approximately €2,000.

How to apply

If you are interested in being considered for this opportunity, please send the following to laura.quintanasoms@mrgmail.org to arrive by 12.00hrs (noon – London time – UK) on 27th June 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.
  • Brief CV.

MRG will endeavour to shortlist potentially strong candidates between 4th and 6th July 2016 and hopes to have made a decision by 7th July 2016.

Lea está información en español

[1] A team that doesn’t include any English speaking member should budget for translation of the draft and final reports.

Share this content: