Evaluator for the project ‘Minority/disability intersectional discrimination’ (closing date: 26 February)

Job |
Evaluator for the project 'Minority/disability intersectional discrimination' (closing date: 26 February)

Elements of the project implemented in or benefitting those in project countries will be evaluated mainly remotely, but provision to evaluate in person is possible (Covid-19 and location permitting).

Project duration: 1 January 2019 – 31st December 2020

Background of the project

This project brought together minority and indigenous activists and persons with disabilities within these communities, providing support to bring issues of intersectional discrimination to the circle of human and minority rights and disability activists, and ensuring effective and meaningful participation of indigenous and/or minority persons with disabilities by applying the principle ‘nothing about us without us’. This project supported indigenous and/or minority persons with disabilities in Ukraine, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Mauritania, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Thailand, Ecuador and Iraq.

More details about activities will be shared with the appointed consultants.

Evaluation objectives

The objectives of the final evaluation are:

  1. Assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact of the project in relation to the objectives and supporting outputs set out in the proposal documentation (whilst respecting security and risk avoidance protocols);
  2. Provide MRG with an opportunity for ‘structured evaluative learning’, with the aim of learning from the design and implementation process; and
  3. Make recommendations to any other stakeholders.

Key evaluation questions

Output level

Referring to the project documentation, did we complete all the activities covered by this evaluation as planned to a reasonably high quality? What problems were encountered at this level? How did changes on the ground in project countries affect our plans and was our reaction and changes to plans appropriate and timely? How did any problems affect the activities, and to what extent were they overcome?

Outcome level

Where completed as planned, did the activities covered by this evaluation contribute to the planned results? Where this was so, refer to evidence. Where not so, what factors intervened and explain how they impacted. Suggest ways that MRG, partners and grantees 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 achievement of results. Discuss the extent to which changes were foreseeable and the extent to which the programme design took into account foreseeable risks and context changes. If there were any unplanned results (positive or negative) explain what these were and how they came about.

Impact level

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 and comment on whether this is likely to be sustained. If it is unlikely that all or part of the purpose will be achieved, or even if achieved, may well not be sustained, why is this and is this something that could have been foreseen or overcome?

Additional evaluation questions

  1. What effect has the project had (if any) on communities’ and partners’ capacities to represent the rights and interests of persons with disabilities within the target communities? Detail progress made but equally identify gaps or constraints that are still impeding progress. What input have other organisations or individuals had in supporting and developing partners’ capacities in addition to or alongside MRG’s input? Assess the MRG contribution to any capacity gains vis-a-vis the work of others. Which capacity building methods were more or less effective and why? To what extent are any gains in partners’ capacity sustainable over the longer term? To what extent have any improvements in capacity translated into benefits for the community on the ground? Are minority or Indigenous-rights partners more accessible and disability-rights-aware than when the project started? Are DPO partners more minority or Indigenous-rights aware than when the project started? Have their governance structures been strengthened?
  2. What sort of partnership relationship has developed between MRG and the partners and amongst the partners? What aspects of this have been more or less helpful?
  3. Did MRG and partners incorporate women’ issues and gender in the way envisaged? If not, why not? If yes, how was this achieved? What can MRG learn from this in the future in similar programmes?
  4. Covid-19 has been a major challenge for this programme. How has MRG handled this aspect, and what can it learn from this?

Key deliverables

  1. Evaluation work plan/inception report in English.
  2. Preliminary findings (max. 5 pages) at mid-term of the evaluation period in English.
  3. Final evaluation report (min. 16 pages, max 25 pages excluding annexes – including 2-3 page executive summary in an accessible, easy-to-read format).

Based on MRG’s prior experience, we expect that the following tasks will be needed but we are open to suggestions for alternative methodologies;

  • Read all project materials, review feedback from project partners (including notes of meetings, reports of campaigns, training evaluations, capacity assessments, email correspondence.)
  • Speak to a sample of 7 MRG project staff (face to face or on secure virtual channel).
  • Hold detailed discussions re project implementation, results and impact with staff in 3 organisations involved in the project.
  • Correspond with a sample of 20 activists trained to gather feedback (questionnaire).
  • Independently identify and get opinions from at least 3 additional expert/well-informed sources.
  • From a list of people the project sought to influence targets speak to or correspond with at least 3 people to seek out opinions on the project, attribution and impact.

Please note that because of Covid-19, we are working on the assumption that all interviews can be carried out by phone or on virtual platforms and that no travel is essential for this process to be successfully completed.

Experience and expertise required

  • Extensive knowledge and experience of working on human rights, disability rights, gender, minority and indigenous rights, NGO capacity building, including knowledge of relevant debates and international standards
  • Good knowledge of at least some of the project countries (Ukraine, Rwanda, Uganda, Kenya, Mauritania, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Thailand, Ecuador and Iraq).
  • Good knowledge of disability rights and intersectionality particularly as applied to minority or Indigenous populations.
  • Good knowledge of relevant international human rights mechanisms, including CRPD, CERD, CEDAW, CESCR, UPR.
  • Experience and demonstrated flexibility in facilitating accessible communication with people with different types of disabilities. Experience creating accessible documents would be an advantage.
  • Experience of comparable evaluations and strong track record of evaluations carried out on projects with similar elements
  • Ability to speak, read and write English fluently. Knowledge of project country languages, including sign languages, would be an advantage, in particular French and Arabic. Experience working with interpreters, including sign language interpreters, would be an advantage.
  • Experience of carrying out or evaluating training, capacity building, human rights defender support, advocacy and work with smaller NGOs in difficult contexts.

The evaluator will need to be independent of MRG, its donors, partners[1], the project targets and participants and will need to demonstrate that no perceived or actual conflict of interests would arise during the evaluation.

The evaluation team will all need to be able to demonstrate that they will be able to gain the trust of the partner organisations, individuals and the minority communities targeted in this programme.

Report submission, timeframe and budget

The evaluation field work should be carried out between March 2021 and April 2021. An inception report should be submitted within one month of contract signature, a 5-page statement of preliminary findings should be submitted no later than 9 April 2021, a draft evaluation report should be submitted no later than 19 April 2021. MRG will submit comments within 10 working days and the final full detailed report responding to all comments must be submitted by 14 May 2021.

The evaluator/members of the evaluation team may also be required to participate in a recorded interview discussion about the evaluation to create an audio record or podcast which will be available on MRG’s website to make the evaluation findings available in more accessible ways.

The total budget for the entire evaluation including fieldwork costs and any necessary travel is £4,000.

How to apply

If you are interested, please apply submitting the following by Friday 26 February 2021 to and/or

  • Brief Team members’ CV(s) – max 3 pages per person
  • Brief statement of evaluation principles and methodology, workplan and budget
  • Examples of completed evaluations with similar elements completed
  • Cover letter setting out the evaluator or team’s suitability

Should you have questions, please contact and/or

[1] International Disability Alliance; RIADIS – Red Latinoamerica de Organizaciones no Gubernamentales de Personas con Discapacidad y sus Familias; Indigenous Persons with Disabilities Global Network; SOS Esclaves, Mauritania; Institute for Peace Studies, Prince of Songkhla University, Thailand; Southern Association for Disabilities, Thailand; Ngorik Udyogg, Bangladesh; Centre for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources, India; National Indigenous Disabled Women’s Association Nepal (NIDWAN); Nepal Association for the Physical Disabled; African Initiative for Mankind Progress Organisation (AIMPO), Rwanda; First People’s Disability Organisation, Rwanda; Independent Media Organisation Kurdistan, Iraq; Chiricli, Ukraine.

Share this content