END-OF-PROJECT EVALUATION

Background and context

Saferworld is an independent international organisation working to prevent violent conflict and build safer lives. We work with people affected by conflict to improve their safety and sense of security. We do this by supporting effective policies and practices through advocacy, research and policy development, and through supporting the actions of others.

Saferworld committed in our 2021-2031 Strategic Plan to supporting our partners to challenge and transform the gender inequality that drive violent conflict and gender-based violence, and support the leadership of women and girls in peacebuilding. Saferworld has been working in South Sudan since 2008 and has made tackling the endemic levels of gender inequality in the country a strategic priority. Our work is grounded in community-based and people-centred gender sensitive conflict analysis, which we conduct in partnership with national Civil Society Organisations (CSO) and Women Rights Organisations (WROs).

1. Project Overview

In February 2023, Saferworld began a 24-month project funded by United Nations Secretary General’s Peacebuilding Fund (PBF) entitled “Resourcing change: Inclusive peacebuilding from the ground up” with a total budget of $2,000,000. The overall objective of the intervention is to contribute towards sustainable and inclusive peace in South Sudan through the meaningful and independent leadership on peacebuilding and gender equality initiatives and programmes led by South Sudanese women’s civil society organisations and networks. Using a conflict cluster approach [Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria and Jonglei’ conflict cluster, and the Sobat Corridor conflict cluster], this intervention responds directly to the constraints that prevent women’s civil society organisations (WCSOs) meaningful participation in gender-inclusive peacebuilding, security and justice dialogue and decision-making, in a context of rising conflict and gendered violence in target clusters.

The project particularly supported WCSOs and networks to have i) access to flexible funding: to address the root causes of crisis, fragility and inequalities and supports them to implement activities in line with their vision and allows them to build their organisational capacity, financial sustainability, and institutional development on their own terms; and core funding to invest in resourcing self-identified needs in the areas they prioritise (e.g. conflict resolution, advocacy, communications) which would help improve the impact and quality of their work; ii) support and resourcing to meet self-identified needs: While WCSOs have gained access to capacity building activities, and have as a result improved their financial management and project management to meet donor requirements, they lack access to core funding and demand-led capacity strengthening support to allow them to gain skills in other topics they prioritise (e.g. conflict resolution, advocacy, communications); iii) access to networks: due to resource and capacity constraints, WCSOs have restricted opportunities to build solidarity at sub-national, national and international levels. Crises including aid cuts related to global emergency trends such as Ukraine crises and humanitarian responses have increased the imperative to amplify the voices of those most affected by conflict. In response, we propose to deliver a programme designed and led by WCSOs that prioritises facilitating women-led networks’ access and linkages to relevant decision-makers and peacebuilding processes. Saferworld and Hope Restoration South Sudan (HHSS) have been implementing this project within target conflict clusters together with eight WCSOs, including Centre for Inclusive Governance, Peace and Justice (CIGPJ), Child Care Organisation (CHICO), Gender Engagement Call (GEC), Girl Child Africa Foundation (GCAF), ITWAK Women Empowerment (ITWAK), Women Agency for Progress Organisation (WAPO), Women Empowerment, Reconciliation and Development (WERD) and Women for Justice and Equality (WOJE).

1. Project approach and outcomes

The project aimed to strengthen women’s civil society organisations (WCSOs) and their networks in South Sudan, increasing their individual and collective capabilities to: independently lead programming and advocacy on conflict prevention and gender transformative peacebuilding; as well as create opportunities and spaces to connect WCSOs and women-led networks to policymakers and wider networks.

The project aspired to achieve the following three outcomes:

1. WCSOs have improved organisational capacity on self-identified institutional development priorities, in a strategic and demand led way, including on protection strategies, through WCSO led peer learning and accompaniment models based on solidarity, meaningful engagement and equal partnership principles;
2. WCSOs are able to design and implement their own initiatives on peace building and conflict prevention, including priority women, peace and security issues, which meet the priorities of their constituencies, particularly of girls, young women and men, and those living with disabilities, by applying gender equality, conflict sensitivity and intersectionality approaches; and
3. WCSOs and women-led networks/coalitions (formal and informal) develop appropriate spaces to share evidence-based outcomes and learning, and to coordinate, network and jointly advocate for inclusive and gender responsive peace, security and justice systems and structures, including engaging sub-national authorities to develop and/or strengthen practices and policies that require cross-country/ cross-administrative solutions to peace and security issues, and WPS.

The project’s Theory of Change (TOC) is as follows:

IF we provide WCSOs within target conflict clusters with (a) Flexible and core funding to strengthen their work on gender transformative peacebuilding, gender equality, and advocacy on women, peace and security (b) Tailored capacity strengthening and accompaniment in organisational development based on solidarity, meaningful engagement and equal partnership principles; and (c) Opportunities to convene, network and coordinate action at cluster and national level;

Then, WSCOs within target conflict clusters will (a) Increase and improve their contribution to peacebuilding, gender equality and women, peace and security in their conflict cluster; (b) Improve their programmes and have more effective organisational systems to support these; and (c) Have spaces to network and develop a strong position to advocate with sub-national and national authorities, including on conflict issues which cut across administrative boundaries within and across their conflict clusters, as well as amongst donors and INGOs on their priorities;

Because (a) They will have access to flexible and core funding to design, implement and adapt activities according to self-defined, local needs; (b) They will have stronger capacities for programming and organisational management; and (c) They will strengthen their networks at cluster- and national-levels through sustained dialogues and cooperation, and advocate to donors and international WPS actors based on their experiences and learning, who will in turn tailor their support to WCSOs in South Sudan.

1. Evaluation overview

The overall purpose of the evaluation is to document evidence of the outcomes and wider impact of the project (recognising the relatively short nature of the project given its intended outcomes) and to capture lessons on how the project flexible and core funding approaches and methodologies are effective in promoting gender equality and women, peace and security and/or need to improve, with a view to guide future programming and the wider organisational learning. The evaluation methods will use an inclusive approach that involves all project stakeholders, including (but not limited to); direct project beneficiaries, Saferworld staff, field-based partners, community representatives and leaders, representatives of relevant Line Ministries and staff from the PBF Secretariat based in Juba, in order to generate diverse views on the project’s performance and take into consideration the local context. The evaluation approach must be responsive to human rights, gender equality, age sensitivity, disability inclusion and Leave No One Behind principles, and based on UN Evaluation Group’s (UNEG) obligation of evaluators and UNEG Ethical Guidelines. Conflict sensitivity and Do No Harm considerations must be apparent within the conduct of the evaluation. The consultant(s) will participate in the final project Outcome Harvesting[1] workshop with project team and participants, conduct a desk review, and undertake site visits, during which they will conduct key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGD), and reflection meetings. The process will include the opportunity for Saferworld and project partners to reflect together on the relevance and impact of the project, the lessons learned and how the project approach and initiatives can be further sustained.

1. Evaluation purpose and objectives

This project evaluation presents an opportunity to assess the achievements of the project “Resourcing change: inclusive peacebuilding from the ground up” in an inclusive way and to determine its overall added value to peacebuilding in South Sudan, in the areas of gender equality and women, peace and security in their conflict cluster.

In assessing the degree to which the project met its intended peacebuilding objectives and results, the evaluation will provide key lessons about the successful peacebuilding approaches and operational practices, as well as highlight areas where the project performed less effectively than anticipated and/or had unintended outcomes. The evaluation will generate and document good practices, especially with regards to Saferworld’s partnership approach and programmatic innovations in addressing gender inequality and working across administrative boundaries and conflict cluster approach. The evaluation will provide Saferworld and our partners with a rich source of information for future programming as well as providing accountability to beneficiaries, participating communities, Saferworld’s partners and the donor. The evaluation will assess the relevance of the project and added value of the intervention and will be conducted in line with Saferworld and PBF’s best practice guidelines.

The specific objectives of the final evaluation are to:

1. Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the project in terms of:

• The extent to which the project design, outcomes and outputs were relevant to the needs and priorities of the target groups/beneficiaries, whether they were timely and how far they were consulted during design and implementation;
• Alignment with South Sudan’s national peacebuilding priorities, including its Women, Peace and Security (WPS) agenda;
• The factors and constraints that influenced project implementation, including technical, managerial, organisational, institutional, and policy issues, as well as other external/context factors;
• The extent to which the project was able to adjust/adapt and manage risk throughout implementation to respond to the changes associated with the context;
• Alignment with the PBF Strategic Results Framework and Eligibility Framework for South Sudan; whether the project capitalised on the UN’s added value in South Sudan (and vice versa), exploring potential opportunities for furthering the partnership;
• The relevance and validity of the Theory of Change (ToC) and its assumptions (and the evidence on which these were based), to what extent these were challenged and how successful was the project at adapting these to respond to monitoring feedback.

2. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project, including:

• The project’s effectiveness in line with its intended peacebuilding outcomes.This includes reviewing the processes and change pathways underpinning project activities/outputs, as well as the outcomes of the project;
• Assess the overall value of the project to enhancing peacebuilding and gender equality in Central Equatoria, Eastern Equatoria and Jonglei’ conflict cluster, and the Sobat Corridor conflict cluster;
• Assess the extent to which the project strategies and approaches (including flexible and core funding mechanisms, conflict cluster approach and networking were effective in enabling WCSOs participation in peacebuilding processes and were able to advance WPS agenda in South Sudan, specifically looking at the four pillars of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1325 of prevention, participation, protection and relief and recovery;
• Assess the extent to which the project was effective in its strategies and approaches to including men and boys in actions to address harmful gender norms and GBV;
• Assess the extent to which the project substantively mainstreamed gender and supported gender- and youth-responsive peacebuilding;
• Assess the extent to which extent the project’s approach to ensuring conflict sensitivity at every stage (including during monitoring) was successful at identifying and mitigating conflict risks and unintended consequences;
• Analyse the effectiveness of the project’s engagement with authorities and decision-makers on cross-cutting issues such as conflict and gender equality in South Sudan, and the effectiveness of the conflict cluster approach used through this project at addressing regional conflict drivers;
• Assess the efficiency of the project’s staffing, planning and coordination mechanisms (within the context of adopting a localised/partnership approach), including the distribution of funds down the project chain and the timeliness of project activities;
• Assess the effectiveness of the project approach to collecting and using data to monitor results and manage the project.
• Assessing the effectiveness of the project’s approach to localization. What can we learn and replicate for other PBF projects? What if anything should not be replicated?

3. Analyse the sustainability and catalytic effect of the project, including its implementation and sustainability strategy, institutional arrangements as well as its management and operational systems and value for money, given the South Sudan context and its limited duration. To:

• Identify to what extent the individuals, organisations and formal/informal institutions who benefitted from the capacity strengthening and/or convening aspects of project are still connected to one another and/or Saferworld on joint advocacy and networks initiatives;
• Asses to what extent did the project complement work among different entities, especially with other UN actors, and what factors hindered and/or facilitated this complementarity;
• Assess to what extent partners and other key stakeholders were involved in the design and implementation of the project, and evaluate the project’s overall partnership approach in line with Saferworld’s partnership commitments and PBF’s commitment to localisation;
• To what extent the project strengthened capacities of national and local stakeholders (national and local governments and CSOs) and how useful did national and local stakeholders perceive this support;
• The extent to which the project was financially and/or programmatically catalytic, whether funding has been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work and/or has it helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding;
• Assess the working partnership between Saferworld, its partners and UN PBF, and how these institutional arrangements enabled project delivery.
• The extent to which the project represented value for money, including the added value of the project cost extension.

4. Assess the impact of the project and extent to which it made difference on the life of targeted women, girls and community at large:

• To what extent the project contributed to the empowerment of women and girls – including capacity of women and girls to participate in peacebuilding processes and contribute to ensuring their priorities are addressed.
• Assess any positive masculinity approaches incorporated into the project and how that impacted peacebuilding outcomes for women and girls in the project locations.
• The degree to which the project addressed cross-cutting issues such as conflict, gender equality and youth inclusion in South Sudan, including across administrative boundaries in line with the conflict cluster approach piloted through this project.

5. Document good practices, innovations and lessons emerging from the project, and make recommendations for future peacebuilding programming, including:

• Identify good practices and lessons learnt related to the project operational contexts, actors engaged, strategies applied in the implementation and changes observed. This includes documenting good practices and lessons learned in relation to the project approach (flexible and core funding modalities, conflict cluster approach used under this project and networks established).
• Provide actionable recommendations for donors, Saferworld and partners’ future work on using flexible and core funding modalities in relation to its broader work on gender, peace and security and broader peacebuilding portfolio in South Sudan, as well as wider national advocacy messaging around this issue.
• Provide actionable recommendations for Saferworld, its partners and UN PBF on replicating and/or sustaining the action.

1. Evaluation methodology and process

The evaluation will use an inclusive approach that involves all programme stakeholders, in order to generate diverse views on the programme’s performance and take into consideration the local context and cultural sensitivities. The evaluator will integrate Saferworld’s approach to outcome harvesting to understanding what changes in behaviour, relationships and practices have taken place as a result of our work and what the significance of those changes are both in the short- and long-term.[2] It is expected that the evaluator will engage with the project team, partners, and project participants to identify and document significant outcomes realized during the project implementation.

The evaluation approach must be responsive to human rights, gender equality, age sensitivity, disability inclusion and Leave No One Behind principles, and based on UN Evaluation Group’s (UNEG) obligation of evaluators and UNEG Ethical Guidelines. Conflict sensitivity and Do No Harm considerations must be apparent within the conduct of the evaluation.

The evaluator will use (but is not limited to) the following as the main sources of data:

Desk Review: The evaluator(s) will review and analyse evidence already collected to assess the programme progress towards expected results, and test this against our Theory of Change (ToC). The evaluator will be required to draw on a range of internal programme documentation as well as the resources provided by the PBF that are/may be relevant for the purpose of the evaluation and ensure alignment. These include proposal documents, organisational capacity assessment (OCA), partner proposals and reports, donor bi-annual and annual reports, project-specific result framework, outcomes harvested, case studies etc.

Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Focus group discussions will be conducted with community members including women and girls and other relevant groups in a conflict and gender sensitive manner to receive feedback on how our beneficiaries and stakeholders perceived the project and to further discuss, test and validate the harvested outcomes and to identify additional (intended and unintended) outcomes. The assignment will require travel to some selected project locations to carry out focus group discussions.

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs): Interviews will be conducted with Saferworld staff, field-based partners, community representatives, leaders and local authorities, representatives of the PBF Secretariat and other relevant stakeholders with whom we were working and to further discuss, test and validate harvested outcomes and to identify additional outcomes (intended and unintended). The assignment will require travel to some selected project locations to carry out interviews.

Outcome Harvesting: Throughout project implementation Saferworld and partners gather evidence of relevant outcomes through a participatory process known as outcome harvesting (OH). As part of this assignment, the consultant will systematically review evidence collected through OH, and collect complementary primary data through KIIs and FGDs that will enable them to verify and/or reject, and further substantiate, the harvested outcomes. The consultant will also participate in the project’s final Outcome Harvesting workshop where project staff and partners will participate. This will be an important step in the data collection and will take place in Juba at the end of February or beginning of March, depending on the successful candidate’s availability.

The outcome harvesting and data collection methods should be described in more detail in the expression of interest, clearly outlining how they will be used in practice during the evaluation process.

1. Evaluation outputs

The expected outputs are:

1. Inception report – final methodology/work plan produced and shared after the briefing meeting with Saferworld and PBF Secretariat. The Inception Report should include the following key elements:
   1. Updated conflict/context analysis, including a stakeholder map to outline key stakeholders engaged in the project and linkages between them.
   2. Light evaluability assessment to identify existing data gaps for the purpose of the evaluation.
   3. Evaluation matrix that would refine questions and sub-questions per evaluative criterion, respective methods for data collection/data sources (e.g., KIIs, FGDs, project monitoring reports, surveys, etc.), and evaluation-specific indicators and benchmarks to assess a given question/sub question.
   4. Detailed methodology, including data collection methods and tools, sampling strategy, methods of analysis and triangulation.
   5. Proposed list of interviewees and FGD participants, disaggregated by location, stakeholder group and gender.
   6. Workplan outlining anticipated timelines and expected Level of Effort for each phase of work.
2. Draft and Final Report: The Draft Report will be shared with an Evaluation Reference Group, composed of representatives of Saferworld, implementing partners and the PBF (at a minimum), for their comments, alongside the production of a Comments Matrix. The Final evaluation report, incorporating PBF, Saferworld’s and CSO partners’ feedback, should be written in clear and concise English language, be of high quality to share both internally and externally. The Final Report should be no longer than 30 pages (excluding annexes) and include an Executive Summary of no more than 5 pages. When preparing Draft Report, evaluator(s) should consult the PBF Project Evaluation Checklist (available on request).
3. Presentation/validation of preliminary findings with Saferworld, CSO partners, PBF and other relevant in-country stakeholders, including a PowerPoint presentation of the Evaluation Findings including notes for each slide.
4. One-pager on project achievements and lessons learned: Evaluator(s) must also develop a stand-alone document (no more than one page long) to outline the main project results at the outcome level as well as key programmatic lessons learned.
5. At least two stories of change for the Saferworld and PBF websites: In close cooperation with the Saferworld and PBF communications teams, evaluator(s) should also develop at least two stories of change for the Saferworld and PBF websites (1200 to 1500 words each). The stories should highlight lessons learned and achievements of the evaluated project and quotes from stakeholders.
6. Duration, location and management arrangements

The evaluator(s) will be expected to expend 30 days Level of Effort over a period of approximately 2 months, including 3-days (excluding travel to the country if not based there) in Juba, South Sudan for participation in the project’s final Outcome Harvesting Workshop and at least 10 days at various project sites for primary data collection. The remaining allocation of days can be done remotely/from home.

The consultancy must start by the end of February or at least the beginning of March 2025, and the final evaluation report must be submitted no later than the 24th April 2025.

The evaluator(s) will be working under the overall supervision of Saferworld’s MEL Advisor. As managers for this assignment, Saferworld will:

• Provide the evaluator(s) with appropriate logistical support to ensure that the objective of the assignment is achieved with reasonable efficiency and effectiveness.
• Provide the evaluator(s) with relevant documents upon commencement of the assignment.
• Coordinate and communicate with the PBF Secretariat, government counterparts, civil society partners, and other related stakeholders as needed.
• Support in identification of key stakeholders to be interviewed, assessed, or consulted as part of FGDs.
• Provide and consolidate feedback on deliverables and facilitate communication with the PBF.

Any matter related to final evaluation process should be presented to the Programme Manager and MEL Advisor in writing. The evaluators will also be accompanied to the field by Saferworld partners to give any support if need be and if they are available.

1. Resources

Saferworld will meet the following direct costs relating to the evaluation:

• Travel to/from the regions for data collection and validation (by road/UNHAS);
• Accommodation costs during the Outcome Harvesting workshop and data collection (“the mission”);
• Per diems issued to the consultant during the mission (set at Saferworld’s international staff rate);
• Costs related to organising meeting with community or any groups (including their transport allowance, refreshment and other related costs during the field visits).

The consultant will be responsible for the following costs:

• International travel to/from Juba (where necessary);
• All data and airtime/communication costs;
• Costs related to the provision of translators and additional (national) enumerators;
• Any other additional costs incurred before/during mission (visa costs, insurance, medical care etc).

1. Payment Schedule

Payment will be made in three tranches on satisfactory submission of the following deliverables:

Deliverables

Level of Effort (#days) Due date and Payment (%)

Deliverable 1

Submission of final inception report including final methodology and tools for data collection.

4 days, 3 March 2025 20%

Deliverable 2-

Submission of first draft final evaluation report including at least two stories of change.

22 days

7 April 2025 50%

Milestone 3 – Completion of the final evaluation report that address the feedback from SW and partners including final exec. summary report, PPT presentation, two stories of change, a one pager and relevant annexes.

4 days

24 April 2025

30%

1. Profile of consultant(s)

Saferworld is looking for an individual or a team of evaluators to support this review, with the following essential skills and experience:

• A deep understanding of the South Sudan context.
• Excellent written and spoken English and the ability to communicate well with others whose first language is not English. Ability to communicate with beneficiaries in one of their own languages an advantage, and where not, demonstrable experience of conducting KIIs through interpreters.
• At least 10 years’ experience in conducting and leading reviews and evaluations using participatory methods (outcome mapping, harvesting, contribution analysis, systems thinking).
• Strong experience and communication skills to facilitate interviews (including remotely), with a range of actors.
• Strong qualitative data research skills.
• Demonstrable experience of producing high-quality, credible reports in English.
• Demonstrable experience conducting evaluations for conflict prevention, peacebuilding, gender or youth projects.
• Sensitivity to the programme’s principles (partnership, participation, gender equality).
• Advanced university degree (Master’s degree or equivalent) in sociology, development studies, political science, peace and conflict studies, international relations, public administration, or other related field.
• Experience working with civil society in South Sudan.
• Experience of evaluating PBF projects.

Desirable:

[1] See https://www.saferworld-global.org/resources/publications/1223-outcome-harvesting-saferworlds-approach for information about our Outcome Harvesting approach.

[2] See our publication Doing things differently for an overview of our approach to Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning.

How to apply

Application process

Saferworld invites expressions of interest from evaluators/companies with the required skills and experience. The expression of interest should comprise:

• A cover letter outlining relevant experience and suitability for the consultancy (maximum 1 page)
• An outline of the methodology proposed for the assignment (maximum 2 pages)
• CV/company profile, including contact details for two referees/references
• A sample of previous work relevant to the assignment (in English)
• Indicative budget (maximum 1 page) covering daily rate(s) and any related expenses. Rates should be in USD and inclusive of VAT. Acceptable daily rates generally in the range of 400-600 USD. The budget should be inclusive of visa fee and translation costs (if the evaluator does not speak local languages), including all travel-related costs (international and local flights and in-country accommodation).

Please submit expressions of interest with all supporting information to recruitment@saferworld.org.uk. Your e-mail must have the subject heading indicating South Sudan PBF Project Evaluation.

Deadline for applications is 1700 GMT on Thursday 27 February 2025.

We regret only shortlisted candidates/companies will be contacted. It is anticipated that interviews will take place the week following the application deadline.