Terms of References for the external mid-term evaluation of RSF project “RSF’s Crisis Global Response Unit: a comprehensive and agile approach to ensure greater safety for journalists and media workers worldwide”
1/ General information
1.1/ Introduction and context
In a context of multiplying crises, the work of the journalistic community is greatly affected and threatened. Events such as the outbreak of wars, political crises, natural disasters, health crises and social movements make the work of journalists and media outlets more essential than ever, but also more difficult to carry out. In addition to the threat they pose to the safety of journalists and media, these crises also occur in the field of information. Different actors (states, armed groups, platforms, etc.) aim to influence civil society opinion by controlling and manipulating information. That is why Reporters sans frontières (RSF) strives to ensure that all human beings have access to reliable information so that they can know, understand and form an opinion on the issues affecting the world and their environment.
From the start of the war in Ukraine, RSF expanded its crisis response activities. Since then, crisis response has been strengthened and is an integral part of fulfilling its mandate. Through the project evaluated, RSF is formalising a crisis response unit to ensure the safety of journalists and media workers worldwide through the dual dimensions of prevention and protection. The Crisis Global Response Unit (CGRU) is a comprehensive and agile approach to promoting the freedom, pluralism and independence of journalism and defending those who embody these ideals around the world. The aim is to better anticipate crises, react quickly to protect journalists and media in danger, foster a safer environment for press freedom activists and reverse the spiral of impunity.
1.2/ Reporters sans frontières
Founded in 1985, Reporters sans frontières (RSF) defends the right to reliable information. Its mandate is based on article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”.
RSF strives to ensure that all human beings benefit from information that enables them to know, understand and form an opinion on the issues facing the world and their environment. To achieve this, the organisation is developing a holistic strategy, with 360° activities, to bring about global change. RSF acts on four levels: press freedom, relations between the public and journalists, the information market and the information space.
RSF also demonstrates creativity by developing systemic initiatives that address the causes of problems: the Journalism Trust Initiative (JTI) and the Partnership on Information and Democracy (I&D).
RSF has an international secretariat in Paris, thirteen sections and offices around the world, more than 150 correspondents, 4 representatives and local partners in a wide range of countries. RSF is a registered association in France and has consultative status with the United Nations and UNESCO.
2/ The project
The project to evaluate is entitled “RSF’s Crisis Global Response Unit: a comprehensive and agile approach to ensure greater safety for journalists and media workers worldwide”, and is funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands.
The project began on 1st January 2023 and will end on 31 December 2027 (5 years implementation period).
The total budget for the project is 11,860,558€.
The project involves all departments at the headquarters, as well as RSF’s international network composed of regional offices, local representatives, local correspondents, and partner organisations all around the world.
2.1/ Objective of the project
The project aims to ensure greater safety for journalists, media workers and their defenders worldwide through a comprehensive and agile approach, in order to promote access to free, pluralistic and reliable information for every citizen
2.2/ Target countries and target groups
The scope of the project is global, but focuses on countries or regions facing crises that threaten press freedom and the right to information.
The project is designed to address the needs of journalists, media professionals and media outlets working in countries affected by crises. The project also targets organizations that defend press freedom in countries facing crises.
The final beneficiaries are the general public that will have access to reliable information so that they can know, understand and form an opinion on the issues affecting the world and their environment.
2.3/ Objectives and planned activities
Specific Objective 1: Ensure the identification of emerging crises and greater responsiveness when journalists and media workers are threatened through the development of a Crisis Global Response Unit
- Result 1.1.: A Crisis Global Response Unit is established and trained to anticipate and respond to crises arising all around the world
- Activity 1.1.1: The CGRU, including a crisis watch group, monitors developments in the situation of journalists around the world, defines priority areas and implements emergency procedures when a crisis emerges
- Activity 1.1.2: Provide trainings and support to the teams dedicated to the CGRU (security training, crisis management, stress test, psychological support)
- Result 1.2: The Crisis Global Response Unit’s coverage and effectiveness are reinforced through RSF’s regional and digital hubs
- Activity 1.2.1: Strengthening regional hubs within RSF’s networks to cover the situation of the safety of journalists worldwide
- Activity 1.2.2: RSF’s digital hub addresses digital challenges related to the safety of journalists and media workers (helpdesk, safety lab, collateral freedom, digital trainings, digital support, and security assessment)
Specific Objective 2: Ensure the protection and the resilience of journalists and media workers and enable them to continue their work in a safer environment
- Result 2.1: Journalists and media workers are supported and provided with resources to be more resilient to face critical situations
- Activity 2.1.1: Capacity building to ensure journalists, media workers, media outlets and local partner organisations (especially those addressing the needs of women and young journalists or any other minority) are strengthened to face critical situations.
- Activity 2.1.2: Direct support to journalists and media outlets, coordinated by RSF’s assistance desk (psychosocial, physical, legal)
- Activity 2.1.3: Mid-term, long term support to journalists and media outlets in exile
- Result 2.2: Awareness campaigns and advocacy actions denounce abuses against press freedom actors and promote concrete solutions to foster a safer environment for journalists and media workers
- Activity 2.2.1: Launch public advocacy campaigns and initiatives to raise the general public and authorities’s awareness about attacks against the safety of journalists and media workers
- Activity 2.2.2: Develop concrete recommendations to ensure a safer working environment for press freedom actors
- Activity 2.2.3: Direct engagement with decision-makers and key stakeholders to create and negotiate concrete solutions for the safety of journalists and media workers
Specific objective 3: Uncover the truth and fight back impunity for attacks against journalists and media workers to prevent their repetition
- Result 3.1: Investigations uncover crimes against journalists and media workers and gather evidence against the predators of press freedom
- Activity 3.1.1: Select and carry out investigations on specific cases of attacks perpetrated against press freedom actors
- Activity 3.1.2: Publication and communication on investigations’ outcomes through diverse formats
- Result 3.2: Strategic litigation tackles impunity for attacks committed against journalists and media workers to create a safer work environment
- Activity 3.2.1: Reinforcement of RSF’s Justice for Journalists Task Force
- Activity 3.2.2: Develop original litigation strategies for priority cases and initiate legal proceedings against press freedom predators, support and push the seized instance
3/ The assignment
3.1/ Intended use of the evaluation and stakeholders
The aim of the evaluation is to enable RSF to identify and exploit the strengths and opportunities for improvement for the second phase of its project. Within RSF, the uses of the evaluation’s results will differ:
- The Head of projects and the MEAL officer will use all the findings of the evaluation to improve the monitoring and evaluation of the project, as well as to guide the operational activities and allocation of expenditure.
- The CGRU, including the staff in Paris and in the regional offices, will use the results of the evaluation to improve the organisation, coordination and orientation of operational activities in the event of a crisis. The CGRU sets up processes, organises and coordinates the crisis response. It also implements certain activities, but the core of RSF’s crisis response is carried out by the rest of the teams.
- The conclusions and recommendations concerning the operational aspects will be useful and incorporated by the teams involved in crisis response: teams working on the Press Freedom Centres/Project, RSF regional offices, Digital hub, International Coordination, Projects Direction, Assistance team, Advocacy and strategic litigation team, Investigation team, Editorial team, Communication team.
Examples of stakeholders who might be relevant to interview as part of the evaluation:
- The Head of projects (in charge of the contract monitoring and evaluation)
- The CGRU: Crisis coordinator and Crisis responses officers in the regional offices
- The stakeholders involved in the Beirut Press Freedom Centre: Project officer, coordinator, local organisations, beneficiaries
- RSF teams involved in crisis responses: RSF regional offices, Digital hub, International Coordination, Project Direction, Assistance team, Advocacy and strategic litigation team, Investigation team, Editorial team, Communication team.
For the donor, the evaluation will provide more information on the project and an assessment in line with the OECD/DAC criteria.
The evaluation is to be designed, conducted and reported to meet the needs of these stakeholders. During the inception phase, the evaluator and RSF will agree on who will be responsible for keeping the various stakeholders informed about the evaluation process and results.
3.2/ Evaluation scope
The evaluation scope is limited to the activities implemented during the first half of the project, between 1 January 2023 and 30 June 2025.
The evaluation should focus on analysing RSF’s global crisis response and the mechanisms implemented. The evaluation should also concentrate on an example of crisis response, the Beirut Press Freedom Centre (with a regional scope). Other focuses could be developed, in particular on the investigation or anticipation of election-related crises. These potential focuses will be discussed during the scoping phase of the evaluation.
3.3/ Evaluation objectives and questions
RSF reserves the right to make small changes to the content of these ToR after their publication. These changes may concern the objectives of the evaluation and the evaluation questions. If changes have to be made, they will be discussed during the inception phase of the evaluation.
The objectives of this evaluation are to:
- Provide RSF with a critical analysis of the first phase of the project in line which the OECD/DAC criteria which will serve as a basis for RSF internal learning process ;
- Provide RSF with an analysis of the operation of the Beirut Press Freedom Centre, as well as the the relevance of the activities implemented within this framework ;
- Provide RSF with recommendation and suggest areas of improvement for the implementation of the second phase of the project ;
- Provide the donor with an assessment of the effectiveness of the project implementation ;
The evaluation questions are:
Relevance and coherence
- Are the programme’s objectives, results and activities described in the Theory of Change (assistance, advocacy, strategic litigation, investigation, training, provision of equipment, etc.) relevant and consistent with the needs of the target groups?
- Were the contextual analysis and risk identification carried out at the time of application adequate?
- Are the different means of action deployed as part of the Beirut Press Freedom Centre adapted to the political, security and cultural contexts and their evolution?
- Are the crisis response mechanisms developed or in the process of development by the Crisis Global Response Unit relevant?
Effectiveness and efficiency
- To what extent is the intervention expected to achieve its objectives and results as mentioned in the Theory of Change and Logical Framework? A specific focus on the Beirut Press Freedom Centre is to be made.
- Have the resources mobilised (human, material, financial) for the program activities been adequate?
- Have the changes in context and the risks identified in the application been effectively monitored? Has the project adapted to changes in context and/or overcome obstacles encountered?
- How efficient was the synergy between RSF teams (Headquarter, CGRU, Beirut Press Freedom Centre and the regional offices) as part of the crisis response? How can it be improved?
Impact and sustainability
- To what extent is the project expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, effects both for RSF in terms of internal structuring and for the target groups?
- To what extent are the benefits of the project likely to continue, both for RSF in terms of internal structuring and for the target groups?
Questions are expected to be commented on, developed and completed in the tender by the tenderer and further refined during the inception phase of the evaluation.
3.4/ Evaluation approach and methods
The evaluator is expected to describe and justify an appropriate evaluation approach and data collection methods in the proposition. The evaluator is to suggest a methodology that can provide credible answers to the evaluation questions. The evaluation design, methodology, methods for data collection and analysis are expected to be fully developed and presented in the inception report.
The evaluation of the project should be carried out in a participatory manner and be representative of all the stakeholders involved. It is expected that the evaluator will think through and facilitate the whole evaluation process, taking careful consideration of how the evaluation will be used. Applicants are therefore expected to present in their tender how the stakeholders are to participate in and contribute to the evaluation process. They must also present a methodology and data collection methods that create a space for reflection, discussion and learning among RSF teams.
Recommendations will be formulated to enable RSF to consolidate the strengths of its project implementation, and to take into account the various observations and recommendations that may have been identified by the evaluation for the second phase of the project.
Gender-responsive approach, methods, tools and data analysis techniques should be used.
As sensitive or confidential issues are to be addressed in the evaluation, evaluators should ensure an evaluation design that does not put informants and stakeholders at risk during the data collection phase or the dissemination phase.
All the documents required for the evaluation will be made available to the evaluator after the signature of the contract.
3.5/ Organisation and evaluation management
The evaluation will be supervised by the MEAL officer with the support of the Head of projects. Relevant documentation and contact details will be provided by them.
3.6/ Evaluation quality
The evaluation shall conform to OECD/DAC’s Quality Standards for Development Evaluation. In this regard, the applicants shall specify in the tender how they intend to ensure quality during the evaluation process.
3.7/ Time schedule and deliverables
It is expected that a timeline and work plan is included in the tender and further detailed in the inception report. The timeline and work plan must allow flexibility in implementation. The evaluation shall be carried out between end of April 2025 and end of September 2025. The timing of field visits (if any), surveys and interviews need to be set by the evaluator in coordination with RSF during the inception phase.
The list below details the timetable of the evaluation process:
- Kick-off meeting: Week of 28 April to 4 May 2025
- Draft inception report: Week of 12 to 18 May 2025
- Inception meeting (presentation of the draft report and discussion of RSF feedbacks): Week of 26 May to 1st June 2025
- Data collection: Between 2nd June and 3rd August 2025
- Debriefing meeting: Between 28 July and 3rd August 2025
- Draft evaluation report: 25 August 2025 at the latest
- Meeting to discuss RSF feedback: 15 or 16 September 2025
- Possible additional feedback on new version(s) of the draft report: Between 16 and 30 September 2025
- Final evaluation report approved by RSF: 30 September 2025 at the latest
- Restitution with a PowerPoint presentation: Beginning of October 2025
The inception report will form the basis for the evaluation process and shall be approved by RSF before starting to implement the evaluation. The inception report should be written in English. The report will include:
- An updated work plan and timeline based on the documentation review and the kick-off meeting.
- Updated methodology, evaluation questions, data collection tools (questionnaires, interview guides, etc.), etc.
- A list of stakeholders who will be contacted and the estimated dates of meeting.
The final report shall not exceed 30 pages and be written in English. The executive summary shall not exceed 5 pages and be written in English. The report, taking into account feedback from RSF, will include:
- An executive summary including the main conclusions and recommendations resulting from the evaluation (listed by order of priority) .
- A main report describing the context, objectives and methodology of the evaluation, the limitations, the detailed findings and results of the evaluation in relation to the objectives and evaluation questions, and the evaluator’s conclusions and recommendations (listed by order of priority).
- Appendix (list of documents, list of people interviewed, etc.)
The restitution in English should be based on a PowerPoint presentation to present the key findings and recommendations to RSF. The restitution should last approximately one hour, with a 30-minute presentation to allow time for questions and answers.
3.8/ Evaluation team qualification
Preference will be given to consultants with relevant expertise and experience who propose a participatory evaluation methodology.
The following skills will be sought:
- Specific expertise and experience related to the project:
- Experience in evaluating projects implemented by NGOs and/or international organisations in crisis context
- Expertise in journalism and/or media ecosystem
- Skills and significant experience in project evaluation (methodology, interviewing, analysis, report writing, etc.)
- Fluent spoken and written English
- Experience in evaluating projects funded by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands or similar donors is an asset
- Knowledge of French and/or Arabic is an asset.
It is important that the skills of the individual evaluation team members are complementary. It is highly recommended that local evaluation consultants are included in the team, as they often have contextual knowledge that is of great value to the evaluation.
The evaluators must be independent from Reporters sans frontières, the evaluated project and activities, and have no stake in the outcome of the evaluation.
3.9/ Financial and human resources
The maximum budget available for this evaluation is €35,000 all taxes included. This amount must include all the costs required to carry out the evaluation.
The assessment can be carried out remotely or the evaluator can decide to carry out field mission(s), with the prior agreement of RSF. In the event of mission(s), the costs must be part of the total budget and the evaluator will be required to arrange the logistics including any necessary security arrangements.
How to apply
4/ Submission of the offer and selection
Consultants interested in the evaluation assignment should include the following documents in their application:
- A technical proposal detailing the understanding of the evaluation stakes, the proposed evaluation methodology, as well as the implementation schedule considered.
- A CV describing education and experience.
- A list describing previous evaluations or consultancies. Please give details of similar evaluation/consultancy contracts: donor and organisation that implemented the project, budget and duration of the project concerned, budget and duration of the evaluation/consultancy, main results, etc.
- A detailed financial proposal (estimate) with the total budget all taxes included.
Proposals must be submitted in English. Incomplete applications will not be considered.
Full applications should be sent by email to the following addresses by 2 April 2025 at the latest:
- Charlie Troncy, MEAL officer: [email protected]
- Laura Lequio, Head of projects: [email protected]
Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
- Technical and financial proposal
- Understanding of the terms of reference
- Evaluation questions
- Proposed methodology
- Consultants’ expertise and experience
- Lead Consultant
- Associate consultant(s)
- Complementarity of the team as a whole
- Budget and timetable
- Proposed budget
- Proposed duration, timeline and work plan
- Added value: specific tools, expertise, language etc.
The interviews with pre-selected applicants could be organised from 7 April 2025.