Background

As the regional project, “Enhancing Access to Justice for Women in Asia and the Pacific: Bridging the gap between formal and community-based systems through women’s empowerment” (Women’s Access to Justice), is approaching the end of the project timeframe, an independent final evaluation will be undertaken during the last year of the project, as per the Project Document. It will be a joint evaluation between UN Women, Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR), and International Commission of Jurists (ICJ), in accordance with the guidance from UN Evaluation Group, and involve the evaluation units following their evaluation policies, where applicable. The purpose of the evaluation is to feed into learning about what worked well with respect to the joint approach to gender-responsive people-centered justice, what can be improved, serve accountability purposes, and feed into decision-making regarding further iterations of the project. The primary evaluation users, namely UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ, will use the evaluation to further strategize for gender-responsive people-centered justice, while secondary users within the respective organizations and partners will use the information to learn about what works when advancing and enhancing women’s access to justice. The donor, Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), may use the evaluation for accountability and as input for decision-making purposes.

1. Objectives of the Joint Evaluation

The overall objective of the joint evaluation is to assess progress made over the project period towards the attainment of the intended outcome, “Enhanced utilization of gender-responsive and people-centred  approaches in central and community-based justice mechanisms in Asia and the Pacific, that enabled and empowered women, in all their diversity, to equally access justice for the realization of their rights”,[1] and the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, human rights, and gender equality, including a look into how women from vulnerable groups were engaged in the project. It should also provide an assessment of how the project has integrated the recommendations and lessons learned from the Mid-term Review. It will also provide inputs and give guidance for potential further iterations of the project or in the thematic area. The performance of the project will be assessed against the indicators presented in the results and reporting framework.  The joint evaluation will:

1. Assess the relevance of the programme to stakeholders, including rights holders with respect to programme design and implementation;
2. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the approaches implemented in attaining the intended results and any potential unintended consequences;
3. Assess the potential for sustainability, and integration of human rights and gender equality in design and implementation; and
4. Produce lessons learned and issue actionable recommendations for further iterations of the project or similar programming.

• Project background

The Project “Enhancing Access to Justice for Women in Asia and the Pacific: Bridging the gap between formal and community-based systems through women’s empowerment and reduction of gender biases” is a five-year programme that began in May 2018, with financial support from the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida).

The project aims to strengthen the gender-responsive people-centred justice, and eliminate gender discriminatory laws and practices to improve women’s use, access to and participation in justice systems. This is aligned with the gender justice concept, which considers women in legislative frameworks, but also promotes women as active citizens, with the right to live a life free from violence, fully participate in decision making, enjoy their rights, and have responsive avenues for redress if their rights are violated.

In realizing the goal, the project partners - UN Women, ICJ, and OHCHR, both the regional offices of Southeast Asia and the Pacific (OHCHR) - focus on achieving three outputs:

1. Domestic laws adopted and court decisions are consistent with international human rights law and standards, including CEDAW.
2. Gender discriminatory attitudes and stereotyped behaviours towards women by formal and community justice providers are addressed.
3. Grassroots women’s organizations and community-based women’s organizations are empowered and well-positioned to document, monitor, liaise and facilitate interactions with justice providers.

The project results are based on the theory of change that if: (i) A legal enabling environment for women to access gender-responsive justice is created by advocating for laws and court decisions that are consistent with international human rights law and standards, including the CEDAW; and, (ii) Community-based justice systems are gender-responsive and have an increased understanding and awareness of women’s rights; and, (iii) Grassroots women’s organizations, community-based women’s organizations, and communities are empowered and well positioned to document, monitor, liase and facilitate interactions with justice providers; then, women’s access to justice will be enhanced in the Asia Pacific region. The broader outputs have been contextualised at the country level.

The project is implemented in the sub-regional level: Southeast Asia (SEA), South Asia (SA) and the Pacific Islands, with a specific focus on Indonesia, the Philippines, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands. The project is designed to work towards that all women will be beneficiaries, without leaving anyone behind, in line with the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development.                    

• Key Evaluation Questions

The evaluation team will revise the evaluation questions based on consultations during the inception phase and consider the feasibility of the objectives and scope outlined in this Terms of Reference. The evaluation team should raise and address any other relevant issues that may emerge during the evaluation. They should be guided but not limited by the evaluation questions listed below. The evaluation team will develop an evaluation matrix during the inception phase in consultation with the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) and the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) which will outline the questions and means of answering them.

1.  Scope of the Joint Evaluation

The evaluation will cover all components of the programme, including those implemented by each partner.

Time Frame: the evaluation will cover the entire project life (from June 2018 up to and including quarter 1 of 2023 as the last year of the project).

Geographical coverage: the evaluation will cover all countries where the project is implemented, Solomon Islands and Nepal have been selected for a more in-depth review of outcome-level achievements.

Stakeholder coverage: the evaluation will reach out to stakeholders, i.e. beneficiaries, participating governments, civil society partners, implementing partners at the national and regional levels, and partner agencies, as well as the project steering committee members and project partners.

Limitations: although unlikely, should there be limitations on the travel to selected countries, close collaboration with national evaluators and the conduct of virtual interviews/meetings would be required. Triangulation of information received from different sources and synthesis of key findings across the different countries and components will feed into the overall findings, but generalizations should not be made.

1. Design of the Joint Evaluation

The evaluation will be, in its nature, summative of the entire project period (up to Q1 2023) and include recommendations for the next iteration of the project. The approach should also promote inclusion and participation by employing gender equality and human rights responsive approaches with a focus on utilisation[4], empowerment[5] or feminist approaches[6]. The evaluation will be gender-responsive which applies mixed-methods (quantitative and qualitative data collection methods and analytical approaches) to account for complexity of gender relations and to ensure participatory and inclusive processes that are culturally appropriate.  The design of the joint evaluation should be theory-based and the Theory of Change of the project may contribute to the evaluation.

• Methodological approach

The suggested methods of data collection include desk review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and survey. A case study approach will be taken to allow for in-depth look at key issues or implementation modalities at country level, which will include stakeholder consultation, observation, and review and documentation analysis (e. g. progress and completion reports, workshop and mission reports, knowledge and advocacy products, and other appropriate documentation produced and related by UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ). Nepal and Solomon Islands have been identified as case study countries based on criteria related to relevance, risk associated with the intervention, significant investment, demands for accountability from stakeholders and richest learning opportunities. The national consultant for Nepal be engaged to lead the data collection. The evaluation must integrate gender and human rights approaches and perspectives throughout data collection and analysis. It is particularly important to understand and assess how the project addresses complex, intersectional discrimination and how this affects women’s rights.

Evaluators will conduct consultation with stakeholder groups, to the extent possible, using participatory tools and suggest a plan for the inclusion of women and individuals and groups who are vulnerable and/or discriminated against in the consultation process and a plan for translation, as necessary. Based on consultations, the national consultants will visit selected project sites to validate the findings of the desk review and documentation analysis and identify good practices and lessons learned. The evaluation may employ participatory storytelling or most significant change approach through the country case study visits.

The entire evaluation will be undertaken as per UNEG guidelines and consider a human-rights-based and gender empowerment approach[7]. The evaluation experts and all their direct collaborators will follow UN Women’s Evaluation Handbook[8] and UNEG Ethical guidelines.

• Stakeholder participation

There will be several stakeholder meetings, including debrief meetings with key in-country stakeholders (at minimum, UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ) at the end of each field visit to validate emerging findings from the mission and identify/fill data gaps. Then, once the evaluators have analysed the data, they will present preliminary findings to the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) to validate these and consider preliminary feedback in the development of the draft report.

Key stakeholders (e.g., internal stakeholders, programme/project partners, donors, the Project Steering Committee, etc.) will be consulted through this the joint evaluation. It is important to pay particular attention to the participation of rights holders—women and vulnerable and marginalized groups—to ensure the application of a gender-responsive approach – this will be done through a civil society representative on the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) and through the case studies.

• Stakeholder participation in data collection: there will be the inclusion of a diverse range of stakeholders – including vulnerable groups – in data collection.

• Evaluation Phases

The joint evaluation will be conducted according to the following tentative timeline:

STAGE 0: PREPARATION

• Joint review (UN Women, OHCHR, ICJ) of the Terms of the Reference
• Formation of the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) and the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG)
• Recruiting an evaluation team including one international and 2 to 3 national consultants

STAGE 1: INCEPTION

• Briefing and consultation with EMG
• Desk review of key documents
• Theory of change workshop
• Inception report including the evaluability assessment, stakeholder mapping, theory of change (reconstructed as necessary), methodology, workplan, evaluation matrix, and data collection tools
• Presentation of the inception report to ERG

STAGE 2: CONDUCT (-mid June 2023)

• Data collection, including virtual and on-site interviews and meetings and debriefing of UN Women upon finalization
• Data systematization, analysis and interpretation of findings

STAGE 3: REPORTING (July 2023)

• Present the preliminary findings to EMG and ERG to validate findings and allow the evaluators to incorporate preliminary feedback in the draft report
• Draft report
• Comments and feedback from Evaluation Management and Reference Groups tracked for transparency
• Final evaluation report
• Presentation of the final evaluation report to the Joint Project Management Committee, comprising heads of UN Women, OHCHR, ICJ, and Sida (June 2023).

STAGE 4: DISSEMINATION (August 2023 responsibility of UN Women)

• Communications based on the final evaluation to be disseminated widely to stakeholders and public
• Management response within 3 weeks of completion.

[1] The Outcome statement was updated by the project partners (UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ), in accordance with the recommendation of the mid-term review.

[2] Please refer to the Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation for examples of questions (see Table 11 on pp.81-85): link

[3] Sexual Orientation, Gender Identity, Gender Expression and Sex Characteristics.

[4] Promotes intended use by intended users. Strong focus on participation of users throughout the evaluation process.

[5] Project participants are involved in the conduct of the evaluation. An outside evaluator serves as a coach or facilitator in the evaluation process.

[6] Addresses and examines opportunities to reverse gender inequities that lead to social injustice. Prioritizes women’s experience and voices, including women from discriminated and marginalized groups.

[7] UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation (2016): https://www.betterevaluation.org/en/resources/example/UNEG-evaluation-standards-2016; UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluations (2020): http://www.unevaluation.org/document/detail/2866; Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation (2014): http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/1616

[8] UN Women’s Evaluation Handbook https://genderevaluation.unwomen.org/en/evaluation-handbook

Duties and Responsibilities

The National Evaluation Consultant is an integral member of the evaluation team and is expected to support the entire Joint Evaluation process under the direct supervision of the Regional Evaluation Specialist and the Access to Justice Project Specialist of UN Women ROAP, and in consultation with the Evaluation Management Group. The consultant will need to connect with the team via online communication platforms. The national consultant is expected to work with the international consultant (team leader of the evaluation) and other EMG, ERG members who may be located in different time zones. Some meetings would be held off-normal working hours (earlier or later than 9am-6pm local or Asia Pacific time zones). UN Women will cover the travel related expenses within Nepal as per the UN Women standard guidelines, if the in-country travel is required.

1. Expected deliverables

NOTE:

• All deliverables should be in line with the United Nations Editorial Manual and the UN Women Editorial Style Guide.

• All deliverables should be written and generated in English. Data collected is property of UN Women.
• All data collected by the evaluation consultant must be submitted to the supervisor in Word, PowerPoint, or Excel format.  Proper storage of data is essential for ensuring confidentiality and should be in line with UN Women Policy on data management and security.
• All deliverables submitted by the consultant are subject to quality review in line with the UN Women Evaluation Report Quality Assurance.

1. Management of the joint evaluation

The joint evaluation will be jointly managed by UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ. UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ would support the evaluators in the evaluation process, including preparation, conduct, reporting, however, should not interfere with the impartiality of the evaluation. UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ will support the logistical support needed, such as materials and office space during field visits. UN Women, OHCHR and ICJ would jointly engage in the planning and reporting stages. The joint evaluation will have an Evaluation Management Group (EMG) and an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) to facilitate the management of the evaluation.

The joint evaluation will have the following groups:

• Co-managers: UN Women Regional Evaluation Specialist, Independent Evaluation Service, will take the lead in co-managing the evaluation in close coordination and consultation with the OHCHR Independent Evaluation Office, and ICJ. The evaluation co-managers will ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation process given that they are not engaged in the management or implementation of the programme. They will provide guidance on methodology and oversee the quality assurance; and serve as the main contact with the evaluation team, but will work closely with the Evaluation Management Group to manage the logistics.
• Evaluation Management Group (EMG): the EMG includes the evaluation managers and programme personnel from project partners. It oversees the day-to-day management of the evaluation, also provides logistics and other types of support. The EMG is responsible for providing overall quality assurance on the evaluation process and deliverables.
• Evaluation Reference Group (ERG): In addition, the joint evaluation requires an Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) to ensure that the voices of stakeholders are heard and responded to through the evaluation process. The ERG will review evaluation products for factual correctness, possible misinterpretations, or major gaps. It is important to ensure their ownership of the evaluation process, as they are also representing the organizations that will carry forward the recommendations. The ERG should be limited to 6-8 people max and represent the diverse range of stakeholders from CSOs, UN agencies, governments, and the donor. 
• Evaluation team: A 4-5 member evaluation team is proposed. One International team leader with expertise in evaluation and with experience evaluating people-centered justice initiatives from a gender perspective; the team leader is responsible for the overall evaluation and ensuring quality of the evaluation products; one evaluation research analyst and two to three national consultants (one each in two of the programme countries) will be engaged to lead the case studies in country and support the team leader with data collection and analysis; they should have experience in evaluation; the co-managers along with the UN Women Project Manager will recruit and manage the consultants, yet the evaluation team leader will liaise directly with the evaluation analyst and the national consultants and will be responsible for the final evaluation products.

1. Ethical code of conduct

UN Women has developed a UN Women Evaluation Consultants Agreement Form for evaluators that must be signed as part of the contracting process, which is based on the UNEG Ethical Guidelines and Code of Conduct. These documents will be annexed to the contracts. All data collected by the evaluation team members must be submitted to the evaluation manager in Word, PowerPoint or Excel formats and is the property of UN Women.  Proper storage of data is essential for ensuring confidentiality and a data protection plan will be developed during the inception phase. The evaluation’s value added is its impartial and systematic assessment of the programme. As with the other stages of the evaluation, involvement of stakeholders should not interfere with the impartiality of the evaluation. The evaluator(s) have the final judgment on the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation report, and the evaluator(s) must be protected from pressures to change information in the report. Proper procedures for data collection with rights holders who may have been affected by violence must be adhered to as outlined in the WHO Ethical and Safety Recommendations for research on violence against women. Additionally, if the evaluator(s) identify issues of wrongdoing, fraud or other unethical conduct, UN Women procedures must be followed and confidentiality be maintained. The UN Women Legal Framework for Addressing Non-Compliance with UN Standards of Conduct, and accompanying policies protecting against retaliation and prohibiting harassment and abuse of authority, provide a cohesive framework aimed at creating and maintaining a harmonious working environment, ensuring that staff members do not engage in any wrongdoing and that all allegations of wrongdoing are reported promptly, investigated and appropriate action taken to achieve accountability.

Competencies

Corporate competencies:

• Awareness and sensitivity regarding gender issues;
• Creative problem-solving;
• Effective communication;
• Inclusive collaboration;
• Stakeholder engagement;
• Demonstrates integrity by modeling the United Nations' values and ethical standards;
• Promotes the vision, mission, and strategic goals of the UN and UN Women;
• Displays cultural, gender, religion, race, nationality, and age sensitivity and adaptability;
• Ability and willingness to work as part of a team to meet tight deadlines and produce high-quality work.

Core values:

• Integrity: Demonstrate consistency in upholding and promoting the values of UN Women in actions and decisions, in line with the UN Code of Conduct.
• Professionalism: Demonstrate professional competence and expert knowledge of the pertinent substantive areas of work.
• Cultural sensitivity and valuing diversity: Demonstrate an appreciation of the multicultural nature of the organization and the diversity of its staff. Demonstrate an international outlook, appreciating differences in values and learning from cultural diversity.

Required Skills and Experience

• Master’s degree in relevant discipline or Bachelor’s degree + 2 additional years of relevant work experience (e.g., law, human rights,  international development, gender studies, etc.);
• A minimum of 5 years of experience undertaking evaluations, including evaluations of multi-stakeholder projects for multilateral organizations is required;

•    Strong experience conducting interviews and focus group discussions, including with vulnerable populations.

• Strong experience in gender justice, gender equality and human rights work within development cooperation preferred. 

•    Experience in contributing to gender-responsive evaluation or experience in gender analysis and human-rights based approaches is an asset;

• Knowledge in results-based programming in support of gender justice and human rights is highly desirable;

•    Working experience in Nepal is required;

• Experience working with the UN system is a strong asset;

•    Proficiency in English

1.  Payment

• Payment will be made upon submission of deliverables with the approval of the Regional Evaluation Specialist and Access to Justice Project Specialist, UN Women ROAP.
• All deliverables should be in line with the UN Women Editorial Style Guide and the project’s visual identity.
• All deliverables should be written and generated in English. Data collected is property of UN Women if so requested.
• All deliverables should be in accordance with GERAAS standards.

1. Evaluation Criteria

Applications will be evaluated based on the cumulative analysis.

• Technical Qualification (100 points) weight; [70%]
• Financial Proposal (100 points) weight; [30%]

A two-stage procedure is utilized in evaluating the applications, with an evaluation of the technical application being completed prior to any price proposal being compared. Only the price proposal of the candidates who passed the minimum technical score of 70% of the obtainable score of 100 points in the technical qualification evaluation will be evaluated.

Technical qualification evaluation criteria

The total number of points allocated for the technical qualification component is 100. The technical qualification of the individual is evaluated based on the following technical qualification evaluation criteria:

Only the candidates who have attained a minimum of 70% of total points will be considered as technically qualified candidates who may be contacted for validation interview.

Financial/Price Proposal evaluation:

The financial proposal of candidates who meet the technical assessment threshold will be evaluated. The financial assessment will count as 30% of the total points.  In this methodology, the maximum number of points assigned to the financial proposal is allocated to the lowest price proposal. All other price proposals receive points in inverse proportion.

A formula is as follows:

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

1. Submission of application

Interested applicants should apply to this announcement through UNDP jobs site: jobs.undp.org

Interested individual consultants must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications in one single PDF document:

The submission package includes:

• Cover letter
• Sample of at least two evaluation reports, preferably in the areas of gender and justice, or human rights where the applicant was a team leader, including questionnaire/tools developed in Nepali.
• Personal History Form, using  http://www.unwomen.org/about-us/employment
• Financial proposal: the financial proposal shall specify a lump sum amount breaking down the professional fee for each deliverable.

Kindly note that the system will only allow one attachment, please combine all your documents into one single PDF document. Applications without incomplete documents will not be considered for further assessment.

IMPORTANT: UN Women will cover the travel related expenses as per the UN Women standard guidelines, if the travel is required. The professional fee should NOT include travel costs.

* Due to the COVID pandemic, the option of travelling or doing virtual consultations will be discussed during the inception phase and consider the latest development on the pandemic.

1. Diversity and Inclusion

At UN Women, we are committed to creating a diverse and inclusive environment of mutual respect. UN Women recruits, employs, trains, compensates, and promotes regardless of race, religion, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, ability, national origin, or any other basis covered by appropriate law. All employment is decided on the basis of qualifications, competence, integrity and organizational need.  

If you need any reasonable accommodation to support your participation in the recruitment and selection process, please include this information in your application.  

UN Women has a zero-tolerance policy on conduct that is incompatible with the aims and objectives of the United Nations and UN Women, including sexual exploitation and abuse, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and discrimination.  All selected candidates will be expected to adhere to UN Women’s policies and procedures and the standards of conduct expected of UN Women personnel and will therefore undergo rigorous reference and background checks. (Background checks will include the verification of academic credential(s) and employment history. Selected candidates may be required to provide additional information to conduct a background check.)  

1. Annexes

After the selection of the evaluation consultant/firm, the following documents will be appended to the ToR:

• Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluation (2014): link 
• UN Women GERAAS evaluation report quality checklist
• UN Women Evaluation Consultants Agreement Form
• UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation in the UN System
• UN Women Evaluation Handbook