Background

UNDP is the knowledge frontier organization for sustainable development in the UN Development System and serves as the integrator for collective action to realize the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). UNDP’s policy work carried out at HQ, Regional and Country Office levels, forms a contiguous spectrum of deep local knowledge to cutting-edge global perspectives and advocacy. In this context, UNDP invests in the Global Policy Network (GPN), a network of field-based and global technical expertise across a wide range of knowledge domains and in support of the signature solutions and organizational capabilities envisioned in the Strategic Plan. Within the GPN, the Crisis Bureau guides UNDP’s corporate crisis-related strategies and vision for crisis prevention, response and recovery.

Within the GPN, the Crisis Bureau has the responsibility for support to prevention, crisis response, resilience and recovery work under the auspices of UNDP’s Strategic Plan. Part of the Crisis Bureau, the Rule of Law, Justice, Security and Human Rights (ROLJSHR) team is responsible for practice and policy development in the areas of rule of law, justice, security, and human rights as they relate to crisis prevention, response and recovery in conflict and disaster settings through the implementation of the Global Programme on Strengthening the Rule of Law and Human Rights for Sustaining Peace and Fostering Development (the Global Programme). The Global Programme is widely recognized for its ability to mobilize funds, provide technical and strategic expertise, and collaborate and coordinate across UN entities to enable more holistic, coherent and comprehensive responses to rule of law, justice, security and human rights challenges. It provides tailored, context-specific technical, financial and strategic support to contexts across the development spectrum. Phase III of the Global Programme concluded in December 2021.

Major donor partners of the Global Programme Phase III included the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Japan, and the United States among others. During its lifecycle, the Global Programme also enhanced partnerships with Sweden’s Folke Bernadotte Academy and Prison and Probation Service, the Ministry of Justice of Japan, and the UNV programme to strengthen the technical capacities within the UNDP team and to support the GFP.      

Phase III of the Global Programme commenced implementation in October 2016. Through December 2021, the programme engaged in multiple Rule of law and human rights initiatives at the country level and regularly received positive feedback from the Country Teams on the ground. It also formed the basis for multiple global and policy development initiatives and had a broad range of substantive partners. The Global Programme management team periodically reviewed and adjusted the standard operating procedures of the programme to address any inefficiencies in the programme implementation.

Phase III of the Global Programme was implemented in the following five regions: Europe, Asia Pacific, Africa, Arab States, Latin America/Americas, with the majority of priority contexts located in Africa.

The Global Programme undertook an in interim evaluation in 2021, focusing on the implementation period of January 2016 to December 2020. The interim evaluation was shared with partners, Member States, and UN colleagues and the recommendations were well received. The interim evaluation was closely used to develop Phase IV of the Global Programme with a specific focus on monitoring, evaluation and learning, including improved results reporting through a strengthened Results Framework as well as more detailed SOPs, guidance documents and templates for funding and reporting.

The Global Programme also engaged DCAF - International Security Sector Advisory Team (ISSAT) to undertake various country evaluations to support the development of enhanced M&E capabilities.  The core component of support from ISSAT to UNDP’s Global Programme was the conduct of high-quality learning evaluations of individual country level programmes. As such, each evaluation engaged with the specific context and activities of the programme, and identified what had been achieved, what aspects could usefully be considered by other programmes, and what types of evidence contribute to knowledge of programme success. In 2021 three country evaluations were undertaken including Palestine, Central African Republic, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These evaluations fed into the drafting of Phase IV of the Global Programme, which commenced in January 2022 to highlight impact, added value and lessons learned from the specific country settings and the Global Programme overall.

[1] Travel to one of the evaluation countries may be possible dependent on UNDP COVID-19 travel policy and guidelines.

Duties and Responsibilities

SCOPE OF WORK, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ANALYTICAL WORK

This final evaluation is being undertaken to inform UNDP and its partners of lessons learned, results achieved and areas for improvements. The lessons of the final evaluation will be used to strengthen Phase IV of the Global Programme (2022-2025) and make further adjustments where required.

Evaluation Objectives

The main purpose of this this evaluation is to draw out lessons learned and identify further support and/or action needed to ensure proper implementation and performance of the Global Programme for Phase IV. The same, methodology/measurement framework that was used for the interim evaluation will be applied to the final evaluation.

1. This final evaluation is being undertaken to assess the performance of the Global Programme in achieving its intended results as stated in the above programme areas, as well in meeting its objectives, specifically also at the outcome level and impact achieved. The final evaluation will review the Global Programme from January 2020 to December 2021.

2. Additionally, this evaluation will provide general insights on:

• The ability of UNDP to function as an effective provider of rule of law, security and human rights programming support; in particular, the extent to which the Global Programme is able to respond to the needs of UNDP Country Offices; UN Resident Coordinator Offices; UNCTs; and peacekeeping Missions as relevant.
• The ability of the Global Programme to leverage UNDP’s role as an international policy maker and thought leader on rule of law, security and human rights.
• The effectiveness and achievements of UNDP in forging interagency cooperation and implementation across the UN system vis a vis the Global Focal Point, the Tripartite Partnership to Support NHRIs, and other important initiatives, including with UN Women, UNODC, etc.
• Global Programme’s contributions to UNDP’s Integrated Results and Resources Framework for the 2014-2017 and the 2018-2021 UNDP Strategic Plan. 
• The ability of the current structure of the Global Programme to manage finances and operations, meet partner expectations, and respond to the needs of priority countries.

General Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will cover the period January 2020 to December 2021 and shall cover the following central evaluation focus areas:

At the country level:

• Programmatic support: Has the Global Programme’s technical, financial, operational and strategic support been relevant and responsive to the needs and priorities of UNDP Country Offices in the field to engage on rule of law, security and human rights programming?
• Added value: Has the Global Programme modality added value to UNDP’s offer on rule of law, security and human rights in the field and in what way i.e. in flexible funding, expertise, comprehensive programming, coordination with the UN system, etc.?
• Impact: To what extent has the Global Programme contributed to improving the overall rule of law, security and human rights situation in priority countries? What examples can be shared?
• Way of working: How consistent has Global Programme support been with UNDP corporate standards of practice (e.g., prioritizing Leave No One Behind, human rights-based, nationally-owned, based on analytical assessment, adapted to country context, gender sensitive and conflict-sensitive, supportive of innovation)?  How sustainable are the results?
• Lessons learned: Identify lessons learned, best practices and innovative approaches at the field level that can inform other programmatic engagements supported by the Global Programme.

At the global level:

• Coordination and partnership: To what extent has the Global Programme promoted coordination and partnership with national counterparts, donor partners, and across the UN system? How does the Global Programme support joint engagement across the UN pillars? Is the Global Programme an effective platform for financially and operationally supporting the Global Focal Point for Rule of Law (with DPO and other UN partners)?
• Strategic positioning and policy development: How has the Global Programme shaped UNDP's relevance as an international leader and/or partner in the rule of law and human rights field(s)? Is UNDP recognized as a key actor on rule of law, security and human rights programming in complex contexts and what has the impact of this been on the organization? What is the contribution of the Global Programme to the Sustaining Peace and Prevention agendas of the Secretary-General?
• Added value: To what extent has UNDP leveraged the Global Programme to strengthen or add value to its corporate offer on rule of law, security and human rights, i.e. influencing strategic plan priorities, contributing to signature solutions through comprehensive programming, strengthening corporate monitoring, reporting, quality assurance, and communications, etc.?
• Lessons learned: Identify lessons learned, best practices and innovative approaches from the field that can be scaled up to inform Global Programme-supported policy development.

At the programme management level:

• Are the management, operational, financial and administrative structures, including SOPs and business processes of the Global Programme fit for purpose? Where are the current challenges and what improvements could be made?
• Does the Global Programme have the required resources (human and financial) to achieve its intended programme objectives? If not, where is more investment needed?
• Does the Global Programme management meet partners’ expectations? If not, what can be done to facilitate this?
• Is the trajectory of the Global Programme sustainable, assuming it should stay or grow beyond its current portfolio?What else might be needed to ensure the Global Programme can continue to perform at a high-level?
• Is the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning capacity in the Global Programme sufficient and how could it be improved? How does the Global programme integrate results-based management?

Scope of Work

This evaluation will be carried out by a consultant with the support of the Global Programme management team and with the UNDP Rule of Law, Security and Human Rights team in New York and in the Regional Hubs as necessary. The evaluator will undertake the following tasks:

• Consult with the Global Programme management team in New York on the scope of work, methodology and country case studies to be selected;
• Draft the inception report outlining the evaluation methodology as well as interview and mission plan and schedule (two country case studies to be included);
• Develop the research questions and interview questionnaires based on the agreed evaluation plan as developed for the interim evaluation;
• Conduct interviews with the relevant UN colleagues (including UNDP staff, DPO/OROLSI and GFP entities), donors, Resident Representatives, and other selected stakeholders;
• Undertake virtual missions to the two selected countries to evaluate the effectiveness of the programme at the country level, including through interviews with stakeholders, partners and other relevant actors (travel to 1 selected country may be possible given COVID restrictions and guidance);
• Draft the evaluation report based on the findings for the review of the Global Programme management team;
• Consult with the Global Programme management team and adjust the report based on feedback;
• Submit final evaluation report to the Global Programme Management team.

General Methodology:

The evaluator will rely mainly on the following methods for obtaining the necessary information: 

• Desk review of relevant programme and policy documents;
• Interviews with a wide range of stakeholders and partners (including but not limited to UNDP HQ, regional and country level colleagues, GFP partners as relevant such as DPO, UN Women, EOSG, etc., and key partners in government and civil society;
• Direct observation via virtual missions[1] to two countries with initiatives supported by the Global Programme.

A detailed methodological note (based on the interim evaluation) for the evaluation will be completed within the first two weeks of the contract in consultation with the programme team.

Expected Deliverables and Payment Schedule:

A comprehensive analytical report (not exceeding 50 pages, Word format, single spaced, in English). The report shall include, but is not necessarily limited to, the following components:

• Executive summary
• Introduction
• Description of the evaluation methodology
• Analysis of the results, impact, resources, partnerships, management/working methods, and implementation strategy
• Presentation of key findings
• Conclusions and recommendations (including for M&E framework)
• Annexes

1. Questionnaires developed by consultants and used for the evaluation
2. List of persons interviewed, summary interview and mission reports
3. Any other relevant material that supports evaluation findings and recommendations
4. List of documents reviewed

[1] Travel to one of the evaluation countries may be possible dependent on UNDP COVID-19 travel policy and guidelines.

Competencies

Functional

• Excellent writing and editing skills;
• Excellent communication and interpersonal skills;
• Excellent analytical skills;
• Ability to work under minimum supervision and tight deadlines.

Professional Skills

• Demonstrates strong ability to manage, facilitate, and engage in discussions with multiple stakeholders in a formal setting, seeking to encourage participation in an open and collegial environment;
• Proactive in problem-solving and recommendation for conflict prevention and resolution;
• Strong ability in managing confidential and politically sensitive issues, in a responsible way, and in accordance with protocols.

Interpersonal and communication skills

• Strong communication skills and proven ability to collaborate between different actors and high level of internal and external relationship management;
• Uses tact and sensitivity when delivering sensitive information or resolving delicate issues;
• Demonstrates openness to change and ability to manage complexities;
• Remains calm, in control and good humoured even under pressure.

Corporate

• Demonstrates integrity and fairness by modeling the UN / UNDP's values and ethical standards;
• Promotes the vision, mission and strategic goals of the UN / UNDP; and
• Displays sensitivity and adaptability when working with a diverse array of cultures, genders, religions, races, nationalities and ages.

Required Skills and Experience

Academic qualifications:

• A minimum of a Master’s degree or equivalent in political science, development studies or other relevant social science is required.

Experience:

• Significant experience (5-7 years minimum) in the design and evaluation of programmes related to rule of law, security and/or human rights is required;
• Technical knowledge and experience in rule of law, security and/or human rights is required;
• Knowledge of result-based management evaluation, UNDP policies, procedures, as well as participatory monitoring and evaluation methodologies and approaches is required;
• Demonstrated strategic thinking and strong understanding of global developments in rule of law, security and/or human rights issues and recent policy developments and programming at country level is required;
• Sound understanding of the UN system and of UNDP’s mandate and role in crisis contexts is required;
• Excellent interviewing and facilitation skills is required;
• Demonstrable analytical skills and strong drafting skills is an asset;
• Experience of evaluating gender aspects of programmatic engagement is an asset.

Language:

• Fluency in written and spoken English is required; and
• Fluency of another UN language (especially Arabic, French and/or Spanish) would be an asset.

Application Procedure

The application package containing the following (to be uploaded as one file):

• A cover letter with a brief description of why the Offer considers her/himself the most suitable for the assignment;
• Personal CV or P11, indicating all past experience from similar projects and specifying the relevant assignment period (from/to), as well as the email and telephone contacts of at least three (3) professional references; and
• A brief statement of proposed methodology and approach to the assignment is required. Applications without a methodology will not be reviewed/evaluated.

Note: The above documents need to be scanned in one file and uploaded to the online application as one document.

Shortlisted candidates (ONLY) will be requested to submit a Financial Proposal.

• The financial proposal shall specify a total lump sum amount, and payment terms around the specific and measurable deliverables of the TOR. Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified in the TOR, and deliverables accepted and certified by the technical manager.

• The financial proposal must be all-inclusive and take into account various expenses that will be incurred during the contract, including: the daily professional fee; (excluding mission travel); living allowances at the duty station; communications, utilities and consumables; life, health and any other insurance; risks and inconveniences related to work under hardship and hazardous conditions (e.g., personal security needs, etc.), when applicable; and any other relevant expenses related to the performance of services under the contract.

• This consultancy is a home-based assignment, therefore, there is no envisaged travel cost to join duty station/repatriation travel.

• In the case of unforeseeable travel requested by UNDP, payment of travel costs including tickets, lodging and terminal expenses should be agreed upon, between UNDP and Individual Consultant, prior to travel and will be reimbursed. In general, UNDP should not accept travel costs exceeding those of an economy class ticket. Should the IC wish to travel on a higher class he/she should do so using their own resources.

If the Offeror is employed by an organization/company/institution, and he/she expects his/her employer to charge a management fee in the process of releasing him/her to UNDP under a Reimbursable Loan Agreement (RLA), the Offeror must indicate at this point, and ensure that all such costs are duly incorporated in the financial proposal submitted to UNDP.

• The Financial Proposal is to be emailed as per the instruction in the separate email that will be sent to shortlisted candidates.

Evaluation process

Applicants are reviewed based on Required Skills and Experience stated above and based on the technical evaluation criteria outlined below.  Applicants will be evaluated based on cumulative scoring.  When using this weighted scoring method, the award of the contract will be made to the individual consultant whose offer has been evaluated and determined as:

• Being responsive/compliant/acceptable; and
• Having received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria specific to the solicitation where technical criteria weighs 70% and Financial criteria/ Proposal weighs 30%.

Technical evaluation - Total 70% (70 points):

• Criteria 1. Significant experience (5-7 years minimum) in the design and evaluation of programmes related to rule of law, security and/or human rights. Weight =15%;  Maximum Points: 15;
• Criteria 2: Technical knowledge and experience in rule of law, security and/or human rights.  Weight =10%; Maximum Points: 10;
• Criteria 3: Knowledge of result-based management evaluation, UNDP policies, procedures, as well as participatory monitoring and evaluation methodologies and approaches.  Weight =10%; Maximum points 10:
• Criteria 4: Demonstrated strategic thinking and strong understanding of global developments in rule of law, security and/or human rights issues and recent policy developments and programming at country level. Weight = 10%; Maximum Points: 10.
• Criteria 5: Sound understanding of the UN system and UNDP’s mandate and role in crisis contexts. Weight = 10%; Maximum Points: 10.
• Criteria 6: Experience of evaluating gender aspects of programmatic engagement desirable. Weight = 10%; Maximum Points: 10.
• Criteria 7: Fluency of another UN language (especially Arabic, French and/or Spanish). Weight = 5%; Maximum Points: 5.

Candidates obtaining a minimum of 70% (70 points) of the maximum obtainable points for the technical criteria (100 points) shall be considered for the financial evaluation.

Financial evaluation - Total 30% (30 points)

The following formula will be used to evaluate financial proposal:

• p = y (µ/z), where
• p = points for the financial proposal being evaluated
• y = maximum number of points for the financial proposal
• µ = price of the lowest priced proposal
• z = price of the proposal being evaluated

Contract Award

Candidate obtaining the highest combined scores in the combined score of Technical and Financial evaluation will be considered technically qualified and will be offered to enter into contract with UNDP.

Institutional arrangement

The consultant will work under the guidance and direct supervision of the UNDP RBAP Governance and Peacebuilding Team Leader and will be responsible for the fulfilment of the deliverables as specified above.

The Consultant will be given access to relevant information necessary for execution of the tasks under this assignment.

Payment modality

• Payments are based upon output, i.e. upon delivery of the services specified above and deliverables accepted and upon certification of satisfactory completion by the manager.