Please note that on our website we use cookies to enhance your experience, and for analytics purposes. To learn more about our cookies, please read our privacy policy. By clicking ‘Allow cookies’, you agree to our use of cookies. By clicking ‘Decline’, you don’t agree to our Privacy Policy.

No translations available
Mary Ama Kudom-Agyemang, Executive Director of Media Platform on Environment and Climate Change (MPEC) in Ghana, interviews Prof. Alfred Oteng Yeboah on biodiversity data for decision making.

Programme evaluator – ‘Engaging Media and Minorities to Act for Peacebuilding’

8 Apr 2024

We are no longer accepting applications for this opportunity.

Click here to see all open opportunities.


Programme evaluator – ‘Engaging Media and Minorities to Act for Peacebuilding’

Name of the programme

Programme background

The ‘Engaging media and minorities to act for peacebuilding‘ (EMMAP) programme was implemented by Media Platform on Environment and Climate Change (MPEC-Ghana), Networks for Social Justice (FAHAMU-Senegal) and Media Reform Coordination Group (MRCG-Sierra Leone) in Ghana, Senegal and Sierra Leone, with support from MRG.

The programme’s aim was to raise public awareness of the interconnections between conflict, migration and exclusion of minority and indigenous groups by improving media coverage of conflict dynamics to help build and consolidate sustainable peace in Ghana, Senegal and Sierra Leone.

The specific desired results of the programme were as follows:

  1. Strengthening the capacity of journalists and journalism students from the focus countries to sensitively investigate and report on minority and migration issues that concern conflict and peacebuilding.
  2. Increasing the use of counternarratives and positive campaigns by journalists and civil society actors to tackle hate speech, incitements to violence and disinformation against minority communities.
  3. Creating a peacebuilding journalism network to heighten regional engagement amongst journalists and civil society actors to exchange reporting and counternarrative good practices.
  4. Increasing reporting of conflict issues that address the minority and indigenous and/or migration angle in West African media, especially in the target countries, to support peacebuilding in the region.

The programme was funded by the EU.

Purpose of the evaluation

The evaluation has three key purposes.

  • Accountability to the donor implies that the evaluation must comply with all EU requirements concerning the final independent evaluation of programmes. The EU policy ‘Evaluation matters’ is available here. For a technical overview and introduction to the EU evaluation process and methodology, please see ‘Methodological bases for evaluation vol. 1’.
  • Accountability to the partners, participants, media outlets and staff who participated in the programme in different ways.
  • Generate learning for partners and MRG for future programming.

Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation will focus on the entire implementation period of the programme, which was originally 24 months but was extended to 30 months. The evaluation will assess key programme areas, including design (i.e. log frame, choice of outcomes, outputs and indicators), assumptions, budgeting, roles and responsibilities, implementation strategy, M&E strategy (i.e. MEL plan and data collection tools), coordination, partnership arrangements, institutional strengthening, participation of beneficiaries and key stakeholders, replication and sustainability of the programme, activities delivery, achievements, capacities built and cross-cutting issues of mainstreaming gender and human rights.

Evaluation criteria and questions

The following criteria and key questions will guide the evaluation:

  1. Relevance
    • How well has the programme responded to local needs?
    • How valuable were the programme’s results to target groups and local communities?
    • To what extent did the intervention benefit all target groups equally?
  2. Effectiveness
    • To what extent did the programme achieve its overall objective? What broad changes did the intervention contribute to generating?
    • What and how much progress has been made towards achieving outputs and outcomes in each country (Ghana, Senegal and Sierra Leone), including the contributing factors and constraints?
    • To what extent and how were the constraints foreseen and overcome?
    • To what extent did the programme succeed in building the capacity of those trained and supported to represent the rights and interests of their communities? Were capacity gains spread equally among different groups (e.g., women, younger and older people, people with disabilities, communities)?
    • What, if any, unintended positive and negative results did the intervention produce? How did this occur?
  3. Efficiency
    • To what extent were the available resources used efficiently?
    • How well was the programme budgeted for?
    • To what extent did the achievements justify the costs incurred?
    • What internal (e.g., financial management, accountability mechanisms) and external (e.g., contextual) factors contributed to and/or hindered implementation efficiency?
  4. Sustainability and participation
    • To what extent are the programme’s benefits likely to be sustained after its completion, and under what circumstances?
    • How effective were the exit strategies and approaches to phase-out assistance provided by the programme?
    • To what extent did target groups and communities participate in the design, delivery, monitoring and evaluation of the programme?
  5. Causality
    • To what extent, based on available evidence, can the achievements be attributed to the intervention rather than something else?
  6. Cross-cutting issues
    • To what extent and how has the intervention contributed to mainstream gender equality and human rights?
  7. Programme design and delivery
    • Bearing in mind any limitations imposed by the funding opportunity, what was the quality of the programme design (i.e. log frame, choice of outcomes, outputs, indicators, identified targets and assumptions)?
    • To what extent were the activities delivered as planned and of a reasonably high quality?
  8. Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
    • What was the quality of the Monitoring Evaluation and Learning system (i.e., MEL plan, data collection and storage tools)?
    • To what extent did the M&E system contribute to meeting the programme’s results?
  9. Partnerships
    • What partnership relationships have developed between MRG and the partners and amongst the partners? And how successful were they?
    • What input have other organizations or individuals had in supporting and developing partners’ and trainees’ capacities besides or alongside MRG’s input?
  10. Deliverables
    • To what extent were the media outputs produced timely and of reasonably high quality?
    • How relevant were they to issues of importance to the target communities?
    • To what extent did they reach and influence the intended audiences?
  11. Learning
    • What are the main learned lessons and best practices from the programme?
    • What are the key factors required to improve the sustainability of outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach?
    • What are the recommendations for MRG, partners and donors for similar programmes in future?

Guiding principles

The evaluation should be conducted in accordance with the EU’s Evaluation Norms and Standards of Evaluation and Ethical Standards, as well as MRG evaluation principles and guidelines.

MRG’s evaluation principles include transparency, openness, cost-effectiveness, gender awareness, cultural sensitivity, data disaggregation, absence of conflict of interests and security of the participants in the evaluation.

Consultants must declare compliance with the above-mentioned principles and standards, including detailed procedures for ethical data collection and analysis.

Key deliverables

  1. Evaluation work plan/inception report in English using the MRG template (which will be provided to the appointed candidate).
  2. Preliminary findings (3-5 pages) in English and French.
  3. A final evaluation report (20-25 pages excluding annexes) in English and French. This will include a 2–3 page Executive Summary in an accessible, easy-to-read format. The final report will be complete and detailed, including all relevant information for MRG’s internal use and submission to the EU grant management unit.
  4. A public-facing document which will be uploaded on MRG’s website in English and French. Key identifiers of individuals, organizations and locations will be removed where inclusion in a public document may result in additional security risks.

Key tasks

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

  • Read all project materials and review feedback from programme partners, including notes of meetings, publications, reports of campaigns, details of Annual Awards events in each country, media coverage, training evaluations, media pieces produced, capacity assessments and email correspondence.
  • Speak to two or three MRG programme staff members on a secure virtual channel.
  • Visit partner offices and hold detailed discussions about programme implementation, results and impact with two or three staff members in each of the three partners’ organizations involved in the programme.
  • Correspond with or meet a sample of no less than 30 journalists and activists trained by the programme to gather feedback.
  • Discuss knowledge, outcomes, impact(s) of the programme with at least 10 journalists and activists (not part of partner organizations) in each programme country. The discussion(s) with journalists and activists should be organized independently of partner organizations and partner staff should not be present at the meetings.
  • Correspond or meet with a sample of 10 stakeholders (media groups, CSOs, editors, etc.) contacted by the programme. A list of potentially relevant stakeholders will be supplied by MRG but the evaluation team will need to make contact independently to ascertain knowledge of the programme, outcomes, impact and sustainability.
  • A final partners’ meeting may take place during the final months of the programme and at least one member of the evaluation team should be available to attend.

Qualifications and expertise required

Applicants will need to provide evidence of the following:

  • Extensive knowledge and experience of working on conflict and migration among ethnic minorities in Africa, also on gender, minority and indigenous rights and use of counternarratives and positive campaigns by journalists and civil society actors to tackle hate speech, incitements to violence and disinformation.
  • Good knowledge of Ghana, Senegal and Sierra Leone including political, social, legal, and media context, particularly with regards to the situation of minority and indigenous communities.
  • Good knowledge of international and regional conflict dynamics, migration and the use of inclusive journalism for peacebuilding.
  • At least three years of experience of comparable evaluations and three strong complete evaluations carried out on similar programmes.
  • Familiarity with and ability to comply with all EU and MRG evaluation requirements.
  • Ability to speak, read and write English and French fluently.
  • Expertise in human rights monitoring and violation reporting systems.
  • Experience in conducting and/or evaluating capacity building and advocacy and previous work with small NGOs in difficult contexts will be an advantage.
  • The evaluator will need to be independent of MRG, its donors, partners, the programme’s targets and participants and will need to demonstrate that no perceived or actual conflict of interest will arise during the evaluation.
  • The evaluation team will need to demonstrate that they will be able to gain the trust of the partners’ organizations, individuals and the minority and indigenous communities targeted in this programme.


The applicant must supply a detailed estimation of the costs of the evaluation. The estimation should include the following headings:

  • Personnel (e.g., evaluator(s), research assistant, support staff) per day or lump sum – if lump sum, the number of workdays will be agreed with MRG and reflected in the work plan and budget.
  • Travel (e.g., transportation, per diem, travel mobilization expenses, class of travel).
  • Supplies, equipment and direct communication costs (e.g., phone, fax, email, internet, postage).
  • Translation.
  • Copying and printing.
  • Workshops, FGDs and any other data collection costs (i.e., design, verification, utilization).
  • Facilitation of use by intended users.

The total available budget for the evaluation is €20,000. Consideration will be given to value for money when appointing the evaluator.

Timeframe and submission

The evaluation shall be carried out between 20 May and 15 September 2024.

  • Submission of the work plan/inception report: 16 June 2024.
  • Presentation of the work plan/inception report online to MRG: 25 June 2024.
  • Submission of preliminary findings in English and French: 7 August 2024.
  • Submission of the first draft evaluation report in English: 5 September 2024.
  • MRG and its partners will submit comments by: 15 September 2024.
  • Submission of the final report with all MRG comments addressed in English: 25 September 2024.
  • Submission of the final report in French: 30 September 2024.

The evaluator and members of the evaluation team may 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 more accessible.


We are no longer accepting applications for this opportunity.

Mary Ama Kudom-Agyemang (right), Executive Director of Media Platform on Environment and Climate Change (MPEC) in Ghana, interviews Prof. Alfred Oteng Yeboah on biodiversity data for decision-making. Image courtesy of MPEC.

This content represents the views of Minority Rights Group only and is its sole responsibility. The European Union does not accept any responsibility for the use that may be made of the information it contains.