Evaluator vacancy: assessment of collaboration

In 2020, the Cultural Emergency Response (CER) and the International Alliance for the Protection of Heritage in Conflict Areas (ALIPH), joined forces to support civil society organisations in Asia and Africa who were working to rescue and protect the cultural heritage of vulnerable communities endangered by conflict.

Through this call, we are looking to for an evaluator to assess the collaboration between CER and ALIPH.

Background

Rescuing cultural heritage provides hope and consolation to affected communities and contributes to restoring human dignity, cultural continuity, and a sense of identity. ALIPH's mission is to protect and rehabilitate cultural heritage in conflict and post-conflict areas, acting swiftly and flexibly to provide preventive protection, emergency measures, and post-conflict actions that enable local populations to reconnect with their cultural heritage. In working together, CER and ALIPH looked to expand the reach and resources available to protect irreplaceable heritage affected by situations of conflict.

During this pilot CER looked to identify, coordinate, and monitor approximately 10 projects of ca. $16.150 to provide first aid to cultural heritage under threat or already damaged due to a conflict situation in Asia and Africa, under the support of ALIPH. Furthermore, CER sought to identify, coordinate, and monitor approximately three projects for a more structural solution for the rehabilitation of affected cultural heritage, also under the support of ALIPH. The geographical scope of all projects was Africa and Asia. The projects to be identified for this pilot were to be locally developed and led. This was in recognition of the fact that local communities know the value of their heritage and given appropriate resources, they are the fastest and most effective line of defence. Possible uses of the funds included evacuation of threatened collections, emergency documentation, training on heritage safeguarding, or stabilising damaged buildings. Over the course of the collaboration, 9 projects were supported including 2 larger rehabilitation projects. The geographical scope of these projects included India, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Burkina Faso, and Cameroon.

To identify potential projects, CER aimed to activate its vast network of partners and experts in the regions and relied on its experience in closely monitoring conflict situations to locate heritage under threat.

As an outcome of the pilot, CER sought to connect local needs and partners to ALIPH. The supported projects were to contribute to building ALIPHs’ reputation and network in these regions. This was based on the premise that connecting our network to other funders is CER’s added value in this field at that moment.

Since then, CER and ALIPH have also coordinated both formally and informally in a co-funding structure for ad hoc projects in Ukraine and other emergencies.

Through this evaluation, we seek to assess the value of each type of collaboration and find recommendations for next steps.

Scope of the Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the effectiveness, relevance, and sustainability of CER-ALIPH different modes of collaboration. Key objectives include:

Effectiveness of Collaborative Mechanisms: Assess the processes and tools used for coordination between CER and ALIPH, including communication channels, decision-making frameworks, and project monitoring systems. Were these mechanisms effective in achieving shared goals? What worked well, and what challenges were encountered?
Impact of Resource Allocation and Support Models: Evaluate the effectiveness of funding structures, including the allocation of resources for first-aid and rehabilitation projects. Did the financial and technical support models enable timely and impactful interventions? How well did they align with the needs of local partners and communities?
Network Integration and Partnership Building: Examine how the collaboration leveraged CER’s networks and ALIPH’s reputation to identify, support, and monitor projects. To what extent did the partnership strengthen local capacities, expand ALIPH’s presence, and foster sustainable relationships with local stakeholders?

Geographical Focus

Africa and Asia, with specific attention to the countries where projects were implemented.

Key Evaluation Questions

Network Activation and Collaboration:

How effectively did CER activate its network of partners and experts in the regions to identify and coordinate projects?
Did the pilot successfully connect local partners and needs to ALIPH?
Did the various collaborative efforts enhance ALIPH’s reputation and expand its network in the regions of focus?
Did CER’s efforts contribute to building ALIPH’s capacity and presence as a funder in these regions?

Monitoring and Coordination:

How effective was CER in monitoring the conflict situations and the progress of funded projects?
Were the project outcomes in line with the anticipated goals, and was the funding utilized efficiently?

Future Collaboration:

What have been the most significant achievements and challenges?
What are the key lessons that can inform future collaborations between CER and ALIPH, and other partners?
What are the benefits of granting projects in a collaborative manner?

Evaluation Methodology:

Document Review: Analyze project documents, reports, and relevant literature on heritage protection in conflict zones.
Interviews: Conduct online semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders, including CER and ALIPH staff, local partners.

Deliverables

Specify the outputs expected from the evaluator(s):

Inception Report: A plan detailing the evaluation approach and timeline.
Draft Evaluation Report: Initial findings for review and feedback.
Final Evaluation Report: A comprehensive document including an executive summary, key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations for future collaborations.
Presentation of Findings: A presentation summarizing the main evaluation results for CER and ALIPH.
Quotes

Timeline

4 months maximum

Recruitment & planning phase: December 2024 and January 2025
Contract Starts: February 2025
Data collection and analysis: February – Mid-April 2025
Draft report submission: Mid April 2025
Final report submission: Mid May 2025
Presentation of findings: End May 2025

Required Expertise

List the qualifications and experience required for the evaluator(s):

Proven expertise in evaluating cultural heritage programs, particularly in conflict or high-risk areas.
Experience working in Africa and/or Asia, with a strong understanding of the local contexts.
Knowledge of heritage protection frameworks and key actors (e.g., UNESCO, local heritage organizations).
Strong analytical, report-writing, and presentation skills.

Budget

4.572 Euros (including BTW)

Submission of Proposals

Detail the process for submitting evaluation proposals, including:

The following elements should be part of the proposal by the evaluator:

A brief description of the evaluation scope, methodology, and a list of questions that would be addressed in the evaluation, given the available budget and timeline. Briefing discussions with CER to clarify the ToR are possible upon request;
A budget;
A writing sample in English (1-2 pages);
The evaluator’s CV

Data & Resources Available

The following data will be made available to the evaluator:

Project progress reports and final reports from the selected project(s) and additional materials from the continuous monitoring of the project (including digital and physical project outputs);
Photos and other graphic documentation;
Records of formal communications between CER and the selected project(s) regarding the project;
All invoices, receipts, staff payslips, and other data for the financial monitoring of the project;
Further data as agreed following the submission of the structure and outline draft, and based on the methodology proposed by the evaluator.
During the data collection and writing phases, the evaluator will have access to:
All data gathered by CER as part of the project monitoring;
CER staff members for interviews;
Selected project’s team/staff members for interviews;
Participants in project’s activities and key external partners/stakeholders for interviews, where available and upon request;
Access to heritage local community members, where available and upon request;
Previous internal CER evaluation reports relating to the project in question and previous projects led by the host organisation, to serve as a baseline for comparison.

Guiding Principles & Values

CER’s monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system is guided by the following principles:

Trust: M&E practices should limit the reporting burden of partners, protect their safety, and handle all data collection and storage in line with relevant legal necessities and best practices.
Context-sensitivity: Indicators should be viewed within their context and be aligned with partners’ own objectives. M&E should be flexible so that it can be adapted to changes in the project’s context.
Gender-sensitivity: Where possible, indicators will be gender-disaggregated (male, female and non-binary gender). CER also allows for non-disclosure of gender.
Participation: Where possible and appropriate, partners will be directly involved in monitoring, evaluation and lesson learning.
Learning: The core purpose of CER’s M&E practices is to facilitate shared learning for CER and its partners. Transparency and sharing with partners in sharing lessons and feedback is of paramount importance, as is sharing with wider audiences. CER also evaluates its own quality as a partner and as an organisation as part of its continuous mission to improve its ways of working and maintain its relevance.

Based on these principles, the evaluation process should be guided by good practices that include, but are not limited to:

Transparency both towards the donor (CER), the project partner(s), and all stakeholders involved;
Respect for confidentiality clauses in agreements with CER and for ad hoc confidentiality requests issued by CER and CER partners to safeguard the security of their staff;
Direct consultation with the project partner in arranging the collection of data for the evaluation, with the aim of limiting their reporting burden;
Collaboration with the project partner, and if feasible with local external stakeholders, to ensure that the evaluation of the project is as context specific as possible.

The evaluation should equally represent and be of benefit of all stakeholders involved, with a strong voice for the perspective of CER partners and involved communities.

Evaluator Vacancy: Assessment of Collaboration