Att._1_GEF-Dignity_Evaluation_SoW_-_Amendment_01.docx

Statement of Work

(1) Strategic Framework Development and Outcome-based Evaluation of the Global Equality Fund

(2) Outcome-based Evaluation of Dignity for All: LGBTI Assistance Program

U.S. Department of State (DoS), Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Request for Proposals

1. SCOPE AND PURPOSE

The U.S. Department of State anticipates awarding one contract to work with DRL’s lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) programming team to conduct a two-part evaluation, including:

(1) an evaluation of past and ongoing programs and the development of a strategic framework to guide future programming of the Global Equality Fund (hereafter “the Fund”), a public-private partnership to promote and protect the human rights of LGBT persons; and,

(2) an outcome and process-based evaluation of “Dignity for All: LGBTI Assistance Program” (hereafter “Dignity”), the rapid response mechanism of the Global Equality Fund.

DRL recommends the evaluations be conducted concurrently, as each assignment will benefit from and be informed by the other. There is the possibility of proposing two separate teams—each working on one part of the evaluation, but with close collaboration among teams. There is flexibility to propose an alternative work plan with proper justification, if the offering firm feels it is more appropriate to conduct the evaluations separately. While this will be awarded as one contract, it should be seen as two assignments since separate final deliverables (e.g. evaluation reports) will need to be prepared.

The following information provides a brief overview of the mechanisms to be evaluated.

Scope Global Equality Fund The Fund, which includes all LGBTI programs managed by DRL, provides resources to civil society organizations (CSOs) through three programming mechanisms:

· Emergency Assistance: Through Dignity for All, a rapid response mechanism, the Fund provides emergency and preventative assistance to CSOs, human rights defenders (HRDs), and LGBTI persons under physical threat, and to those who experience extreme harassment.

· Capacity Building and Technical Assistance: The Fund builds the organizational and advocacy capacity of local and national CSOs dedicated to advancing LGBTI rights by providing long-term technical assistance, in partnership with leading global, regional, and national CSOs.

· Small Grants: Leveraging the global reach of U.S. embassies and consulates, the Fund provides direct, small grants to local CSOs to support short-term, targeted projects aimed at advancing the human rights of LGBTI persons.

Dignity for All Program Dignity is the rapid response mechanism of the Global Equality Fund. The Program broadly seeks to uphold the dignity and fundamental freedoms for the most at-risk and vulnerable lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people worldwide. To achieve this goal the Program provides:

· Emergency Assistance: Short-term emergency assistance to LGBTI human rights defenders (HRDs) and civil society organizations (CSOs) who are under threat or attack because of their work to advance human rights;

· Security and Protection Training: Preventative security and protection training to assist HRDs and CSOs working on LGBTI human rights to develop effective, sustainable security plans to mitigate risks and reduce future threats;

· Emergency Advocacy, Opportunity, and Security Grants: Directed and short-term advocacy initiatives and security interventions in response to urgent threats or pressing opportunities to advance the human rights of LGBTI people and communities.

Purpose This two-part evaluation seeks to understand the overall performance of the Dignity for All Program, as well as the performance of individual programs supported through the Global Equality Fund. The findings of this two-part evaluation will be used to inform DRL and Fund partners’ future program and resource decisions related to LGBTI human rights, including the provision of emergency and rapid response programs. The evaluations, including development of a strategic framework for the Global Equality Fund, should last no more than 12 months.

Global Equality Fund Evaluation objectives are:

1) To measure the effectiveness of DRL’s LGBTI programming to date, including identification of strengths and successes, programming gaps, lessons learned, and recommendations for increasing overall program impact, and;

2) To develop a strategic framework and accompanying performance indicators for the work of the Fund, including an assessment of how the Fund’s three programming mechanisms should be employed within the strategic framework.

This evaluation will assess the overall performance of programs supported through the Fund, as well as the overall impact of the Fund itself. Evaluation findings should be used to develop an overarching strategic framework for the Fund.

Dignity for All Program This evaluation will assess the overall performance of the Dignity for All Program, as well as the effectiveness and efficiency of the program-related processes, overall administration and structure and financial management, against the program’s stated objectives of (1) rapidly providing assistance in times of crisis and (2) in response to advocacy opportunities. The evaluation will identify the program’s key strengths and successes, lessons learned, and ongoing challenges. The evaluation will also benefit from and be informed by Freedom House’s ongoing work to map impact of those HRDs and CSOs who have received assistance from the Dignity program. Recommendations will also help determine how the Dignity for All Program can be enhanced and strengthened as well as shape the next phase of emergency-related LGBTI funding supported by the Global Equality Fund.

2. BACKGROUND

The Global Equality Fund (the Fund) is a public-private partnership launched by the U.S. Department of State in December 2011 as a key component of the U.S. response to the critical, global need to support civil society in protecting the human rights of LGBTI persons. Funded by governments, foundations, and corporations, and managed by DRL, the Fund supports CSOs working to advance the human rights of LGBTI persons around the world.

Global Equality Fund The Fund has provided support for a wide variety of programs that support CSOs working to promote and protect the human rights of LGBTI persons around the world. Since 2011, the Fund has allocated roughly $20 million to support approximately 80 programs (approximately 30 long-term technical assistance grants, and approximately 50 small grants) in over 50 countries in all regions of the world, through its three programming mechanisms: emergency response; small grants in amounts of $25,000 or less; and long-term technical assistance and capacity building programs that range in size from $150-$500K, and last between 18 months and three years.

Fund-supported programs enhance the capacity of civil society to promote and protect the human rights of LGBTI persons, employing a broad range of strategies and activities, including (among others): organizational development; financial and programmatic technical training; strategic communication and social media campaigns; human rights documentation; strategic litigation; leadership development; engaging allies and diverse support networks; education of key stakeholders regarding international human rights standards; and other context-sensitive approaches.

These resources have been instrumental in many cases in advancing the human rights of LGBTI persons abroad. While program decisions are based off of broad strategic objectives and Department-wide priority geographic and thematic areas, they are not yet part of a systematic strategic framework for how the Fund will build its LGBTI rights portfolio that incorporates the successes of its past programs, and utilizes lessons learned. DRL seeks to determine which approaches have been most effective, how the funds three programming mechanisms have been mutually reinforcing, and what conditions are necessary to maximize results. Building off the Fund’s existing successes, this evaluation will collect information necessary for DRL and its partners to make systematic and informed decisions about the direction of future programming in this area.

The Fund is a public-private partnership and its approach is collaborative, incorporating feedback from a broad range of fund partners, including governments, foundations, corporations, and CSO partners on the ground. The evaluative approach should be equally collaborative, engaging with Fund and CSO partners for feedback and input into draft documents and deliverables on an ongoing basis.

Additional information regarding the objectives to be evaluated under this part of the assignment can be found in Annex I. Background.

Dignity for All Program Prior to the launch of the Fund, DRL managed a small program known as the LGBT Human Rights Defenders Emergency Response Initiative (LGBT HRDF) with the goal of providing short term emergency assistance to LGBT human rights defenders under threat. This program ended in August 2012. While this program did meet its targets in terms of providing short-term emergency financial assistance to at-risk and threatened defenders, an independent evaluation found that more emphasis in the future should be placed on building the “self-protection capacity among human rights defenders.” This comment reflects the fact that the LGBT HRDF’s primary activity was the provision of short-term financial assistance and did not include a strong focus on capacity building or sustainability. The evaluation also recommended that future similar programs account more for local context and culture as part of their broader security planning and capacity building activities.

Following this evaluation, DRL consulted with other human rights emergency programs, civil society organizations and donors with the goal of developing a more robust global program that would include emergency assistance, security planning and include regional partners to support grassroots networks in different regions. As a result, in early 2012 DRL publicly released a call for proposals for a new global program entitled “Dignity for All.” In releasing this call for proposals, DRL recognized the need to shift emergency response from a sole focus on individuals to communities and include space for differing approaches depending on the region, context and need.

In response to the call for proposals, DRL awarded a cooperative agreement to Freedom House in September 2012 to implement the Dignity for All Program. This program replaced DRL’s earlier LGBT HRDF initiative and broadened its scope by diversifying the type of assistance available, and broadened its global reach by including regional partner organizations. The program began with an initial $500,000.00 from DRL and included 5 NGO partners as Dignity consortium members. The program currently includes seven NGO Consortium members in addition to Freedom House. The seven NGO partners are: Akahatá (Latin America), Arab Foundation for Freedoms and Equality (Middle East), CREA (Creating Resources for Empowerment in Action, Asia), Heartland Alliance (Global), ILGA Europe (Europe), International Gay and Lesbian Human Rights Commission (Global) and UHAI (East Africa).

In FY 2014, DRL together with Partner governments of the Global Equality Fund – including Norway, the Netherlands, Sweden and Finland, expect to provide Freedom House with roughly $2.5 million for the Dignity Program to continue the program through early 2016. In previous years, additional Partners of the Global Equality Fund, including USAID, the John D. Evans Foundation, Denmark and the Arcus Foundation have all supported Dignity. Given the large increase in funding, the evaluation will include questions regarding financial management and oversight and cost effectiveness.

Additional information regarding the objectives to be evaluated under this part of the assignment can be found in Annex I. Background.

The U.S. Department of State’s DRL will oversee administration of this two-part evaluation and will be the primary programmatic point of contact for this contract. The U.S. Department of State will have sole ownership of all materials/data gathered by the contractor. DRL plans to share all of the materials/data/draft plans and reports and final products with Partners of the Global Equality Fund, Freedom House, and the Dignity NGO Consortium Members.

3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS AND TASKS

I. Evaluation Questions

The findings from the data collection and analysis will address the following key areas: program results; gaps and needs; lessons learned; and best practices. Some of the questions which the findings should focus on are mentioned below. The list is illustrative and can be modified in consultation with DRL.

Evaluation questions have been separated by the assignment, below.

Global Equality Fund

· What progress and results has the Fund achieved relative to the Fund’s stated goal of advancing and protecting the human rights of LGBTI persons? In particular, where have program activities helped to advance the human rights of LGBTI persons in the context of human rights backsliding?

· In which areas, such as type of activities, objective areas, or different geographic regions, have DRL LGBTI programs had the greatest achievements, e.g., what types of interventions have had the greatest impact? Why, and what where the supporting factors? Consider also political/economic environments that may have played a role.

· In which areas, such as type of activities, objective areas, or different geographic regions, have DRL LGBTI programs have the fewest achievements? What were the constraining factors, and why? How can these be overcome?

· How and to what extent do the Fund’s different assistance mechanisms (i.e. emergency assistance, small grants, long-term technical assistance) work cohesively together? Are there any missed opportunities, or ways to increase multiplier effects? To what extent does the small grant program, in particular, increase the ability of U.S. embassies and consulates to engage in work to promote and protect the human rights of LGBTI persons?

· To what extent has the Fund ensured that its assistance is available and accessible across the LGBTI community, including more marginalized and underserved populations such as lesbian, transgender, and intersex persons?

· What other lessons can be learned from the experience of Fund-supported projects? What are best practices that should be supported in the future regarding programs in this sector?

Dignity for All Program Performance:

· What progress and results has Dignity achieved relative to its stated program objectives? As a stated goal of Dignity is to provide activists with resources to respond to urgent threats or pressing opportunities, have program activities helped to advance the human rights of LGBTI persons in the context of human rights backsliding through the various interventions awarded to date?

· Recognizing that Dignity’s work has impacts across the entire LGBTI (i.e. L, G, B, T and I) community, to what extent has Dignity ensured that its assistance is available and accessible to diverse groups within the LGBTI community, including more marginalized and underserved populations such as lesbian, transgender, and intersex persons?

· In which areas, such as type of activities, objective areas, or different geographical regions, did Dignity make the greatest achievements? Why, and what were the supporting factors?

· In what areas, such as type of activities, objective areas, or different geographical regions, did Dignity have the fewest achievements? What were the constraining factors, and why? How can these be overcome?

· Has Dignity increased the skills of HRDs, CSOs, and communities who received support from Dignity to respond to acute and emerging threats without external support?

Process and Structure:

· Is Dignity, as a rapid response program, sufficiently capable of responding to emerging threats or opportunities to advance LGBTI human rights in a timely and responsive manner? To what extent does Dignity Consortium facilitate timely funding allocation? Are there processes and criteria in place to promote and enable identification and funding of the most appropriate projects at the most appropriate times?

· What safeguards are in place to ensure cost effectiveness of Dignity-supported activities and how can these be further strengthened?

· Do the different types of Dignity-related assistance, including assistance to HRDs, CSOs, security training, and in some cases assistance to LGBTI community members, complement one another in a way that increases the overall impact of the program? What, if any, alternative processes, structures, strategies or methods can be more effective in achieving program objectives (for example, a more refined regional focus, or different type of intervention)?

· Are there ways in which the Dignity Consortium could be further utilized, in particular for advocacy initiatives? Does Dignity have a role in coordinating, conducting or amplifying global advocacy efforts?

· Do Dignity NGO Consortium Members have sufficient capacity to prepare work plans, collect monitoring data and compile financial reports? If not, what are the obstacles or limitations that need to be addressed to build this capacity? How does being part of Dignity contribute to organizational learning of Dignity NGO consortium members?

· How and to what extent does Dignity ensure that its different assistance mechanisms (i.e. emergency assistance, urgent advocacy grants and security training) are being utilized by other networks and organizations outside of the formal Dignity NGO Consortium?

II. Evaluation Tasks The evaluation tasks for each part of the assignment have been separated by the mechanism to be evaluated. For detailed information on the tasks related to each assignment, please refer to Annex II. Evaluation Tasks.

4. DELIVERABLES

Work on this evaluation will begin no later than 14 days after the contract is signed.

Within the first 10 days of each month, the Contractor will submit a written progress report to DRL. The Contractor will also hold at least biweekly phone calls with DRL as needed.

Within 28 days from the kickoff meeting, the contractor will present to DRL a draft work plan for the two-part evaluation. NGO Consortium Members, Freedom House and GEF Partners will be provided an opportunity to review the draft plan and propose additional evaluation activities.

Within 90 days of the approval of the work plan, the desk review will be completed.

Within 120 days after the completion of the desk review, the fieldwork will be completed.

Within approximately 4 weeks from the completion of the fieldwork in Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa for the Fund evaluation, the data analysis from these two regions will be completed.

Within approximately 8 weeks after the completion of the aforementioned data analysis, the Contractor will submit a draft strategic framework for the Fund evaluation.

Within approximately 6 weeks after the strategic framework is finalized, the Contractor will submit a draft set of performance indicators to accompany the strategic framework for the Fund evaluation.

Within approximately 3 weeks after the strategic framework and indicators are finalized, the Contractor will submit a draft evaluation report, including the strategic framework and performance indicators for the Fund, to DRL. Separate evaluation reports, both a public and internal-only version for each, will be submitted for the GEF and Dignity. Upon return of the draft evaluation reports with comments and edits, the Contractor will provide an oral briefing to review the draft evaluation reports with DRL LGBT and evaluation teams and GEF Partners.

The contractor will submit the final reports within 21 days of the oral briefing.

The Contractor shall form an expert team consisting of one senior monitoring and evaluation expert and one mid-level expert on LGBTI human rights issues, as well as one project manager and one junior support staff, and local consultants in the three regions (Central America, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Eastern Europe). However, there is flexibility to propose an alternative staffing structure with proper justification if you feel it is more appropriate. Below are the preferred background and experience DRL seeks from the Contractor.

1. Multidisciplinary evaluation team with knowledge of and expertise in foreign assistance evaluation and democracy and human rights issues. The team must demonstrate strong and prior experience implementing and/or evaluating U.S. government or other donor programs addressing LGBTI human rights issues. Prior experience evaluating advocacy initiatives is also preferred. As DRL would prefer at least two evaluation experts with experience and knowledge of LGBTI human rights issues and advocacy evaluation, we would encourage offering firms to select skilled evaluators in these fields. Highly-skilled evaluators with relevant experience may be found within the American Evaluation Association’s topical interest groups (TIG) on LGBT Issues and Advocacy and Policy Change, or similar professional associations. Evaluation teams that do not demonstrate experience and knowledge of both LGBTI human rights issues and advocacy evaluation will not be considered.

2. Experience with a variety of quantitative and qualitative evaluation methodologies such as how best to establish criteria for judging “success” of foreign assistance programs, and the ability to analyze, synthesize and draw larger conclusions and lessons learned from various sources of data and findings.

3. The senior evaluator will be responsible for conducting and coordinating the overall evaluation effort, including preparing the methodologies and data collection instruments, and conducting the desk review and key informant interviews (KIIs), writing the draft and final reports, and preparing the briefings to be provided to DRL and Fund Partners. The senior evaluator must be comfortable working in close coordination with DRL, Fund Partners, and LGBTI implementers in developing the strategic framework and performance indicators. The senior level expert(s) should have a minimum of 15 years of M&E experience, including ten years of experience leading an M&E team, and show proven ability to design, implement, and evaluate foreign assistance programs addressing democracy and human rights issues, including experience working in restrictive settings and with marginalized populations. Strong preference is given to individuals who also have experience within LGBTI issues and populations. Must possess exceptional organizational and communication skills. The level of effort for the senior level experts should be no more than 150 person days.

4. The mid-level expert(s) on LGBTI human rights issues will be responsible, with the senior monitoring and evaluation expert, for conducting and coordinating the overall evaluation effort, including preparing the methodologies and data collection instruments, and conducting the desk review and key informant interviews (KIIs), writing the draft and final reports, and preparing the briefings to be provided to DRL and Fund Partners. The LGBTI expert should be comfortable working in close coordination with DRL, Fund Partners, and LGBTI implementers in developing the strategic framework and performance indicators. The LGBTI expert should also have a minimum of 10 years’ experience working in-depth on human rights issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity, and be competent to provide extensive guidance on these issues to the design and implementation of the overall evaluation. The LGBTI expert should also have a minimum of 5 years’ experience in M&E, and show proven ability to design, implement, and evaluate foreign assistance programs addressing democracy and human rights issues, including experience working in restrictive settings and within LGBTI issues and populations. Must possess exceptional organizational and communication skills. The level of effort for the LGBTI expert should be no more than 130 person days.

5. The local consultants shall have the following knowledge, skills, and abilities: local language(s) and English, foreign assistance to support human rights issues, and social science research methodology. The consultants must be able to safely and securely travel within their country/region to conduct the necessary field work and data collection. The individuals should be involved with the data collection of the survey and key information interviews, and may participate in the evaluation design including the development of instruments and methods. They will arrange meetings and site visits, translate all communication not in English, assist with data collection and initial analysis, and conduct any follow-up work required after the senior or mid-level consultants have returned to the United States. These individuals must have deep knowledge of the country/region and culture, the civil society community, and foreign assistance, and ideally will have familiarity with issues related to sexual orientation and gender identity. The level of effort for each local evaluation consultant should be no more than 45 person days.

7. PLACE OF PERFORMANCE

With the exception of data collection and briefings to DRL, project activity is anticipated to take place at the Contractor’s place of work.

8. RESPONSIBILITY OF ALL COSTS

The Contractor shall assume responsibility for all costs associated with the project as detailed in the proposal. These costs include, but are not limited to: staff salaries; indirect costs; fee of any airfare and per diem for all contractor and sub-contractor staff domestic and international travel; security costs; securing and/or verifying contact information; data collection and data verification; lodging and per diem for interview or focus group participants (if necessary); simultaneous interpretation and document translation services; lunch/dinner and incentive costs for interview and focus group participants; meeting room rentals for interviews and focus groups and other representational costs; telephone calls; mail and postage costs; and document reproduction.

NOTE: Contractors are asked to base travel budget on economy class tickets. Contractors should not under-estimate the work time in foreign countries and the financial costs associated with overseas travel (i.e., per diem, security costs and airfare). All travel shall be in accordance with federal travel regulations, including “Preference for U.S.-Flag Air Carriers” (January 1997), and the Department of State will only fund the equivalent of economy class tickets.

9. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The period of performance for the evaluation shall not exceed 12 months. The contract expires when the final payment has been made by the Department of State. The project will commence within two weeks after contract award.

10. EVALUATION CRITERIA

DRL seeks proposals to assist DRL’s LGBTI team and GEF Partners in evaluating (1) the overall impact, performance and process of the Dignity Program, and (2) the overall impact and performance of the Fund, and in developing a strategic framework with performance indicators to guide funding decisions over the next 3-5 years. Proposals shall include a realistic and detailed Management Plan, including the length of time and effort for each project task, and a Schedule of Deliverables, including anticipated delivery dates.

Given the sensitive nature of the programs in question, DRL will work closely with the Contractor to build the trust of implementing organizations to participate in the evaluation process. All program content, including the list of implementing partners, will be held in strict confidence and will not be shared with anyone outside of DRL or relevant Fund Partners, including other implementing partners.

The implementer is advised to submit its most competitive offer. The Government will review and evaluate all cost/pricing information contained within the submitted Cost/Price Quote offered. DoS and the Government will evaluate all assumptions or exceptions and determine the risk associated with each implementer’s quote. Award will be made to a technically qualified implementer with the lowest price (best value). The criteria below are in descending order of importance.

A. Technical Merit The proposal will be evaluated for quality and comprehensiveness. The proposal should be responsive to the objectives and requirements in the SOW and demonstrate an understanding of the task being competed. The proposal should determine a clear understanding of DRL’s mission and show how the implementer can conduct an effective evaluation of the program. Proposals should address how the program will engage relevant stakeholders. Proposals should describe data collection mechanisms and strategies for each target population of the study (i.e., program participants and key stakeholders) based on the Contractor’s experience and expertise and explain how security and confidentiality issues regarding program participants will be addressed. Proposals should include contingency plans for overcoming potential difficulties in executing the original work plan. Proposals should include detailed explanations of the evaluation approach and methods to be used. Creative or alternative evaluation methodologies—including non-experimental approaches of determining causality and comparing counterfactuals—are encouraged. Those adding little value or detail to the methods proposed within the statement of work will be deemed technically unacceptable, as these should only be seen as illustrative. While this SOW refers to a strategic framework for the Fund, this deliverable should not be seen as a business process engineering exercise. The strategic framework relates to an overarching evaluation framework, including the development of indicators that will aid DRL and Fund Partners in tracking the results of projects funded in the future.

B. Technical Capability The implementer should demonstrate an institutional record of successful evaluations of democracy and human rights foreign assistance programs, including responsible fiscal management and full compliance with all reporting requirements for past awards. Proposed personnel and institutional resources should be adequate and appropriate to achieve the project’s objectives. The proposal should demonstrate a satisfactory level of the implementer’s technical capabilities. The implementer should have staff with a demonstrable technical expertise in monitoring and evaluation and in the subject areas, including in-depth knowledge of international LGBT human rights, being requested for evaluation in this SOW. Curriculum vitae (CV) or resumes of up to 3 pages for the senior and mid-level experts should be provided. Curriculum vitae (CV) or resumes for local consultants can be provided after countries have been selected for fieldwork.

C. Program Management Capability The proposal should have a relevant work plan that demonstrates substantive undertakings and logistical capacity of the implementer, indicating its ability to carry out large-scale international monitoring and evaluation projects similar to that detailed in this SOW. The implementer should provide a monthly timeline of project activities. Roles and responsibilities of primary staff should be provided.

11. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL INSTRUCTIONS

Proposals should not exceed 20 pages. Three page resumes for all proposed staff are also required and do not count towards the page limit. Links to writing samples do not count either. The proposal must be organized in accordance with the evaluation criteria. Proposals must contain a proposed evaluation design, detailed proposed methods, timeline, a level of effort chart by task, an organization chart, and a schedule of deliverables, including anticipated delivery dates.

Annex I. Background

Global Equality Fund Approach The Fund is a public-private partnership and its approach is collaborative, incorporating feedback from a broad range of fund partners, including governments, foundations, corporations, and CSO partners on the ground. The evaluative approach should be equally collaborative, engaging with Fund and CSO partners for feedback and input into draft documents and deliverables on an ongoing basis.

Strategic Framework The purpose of this evaluation is to develop a strategic framework with performance indicators that provides a realistic, but targeted strategy for DRL’s LGBTI programming portfolio. The framework will inform funding decisions over the next 3-5 years of program implementation, and will serve as the structure behind Fund programming direction, in coordination with DRL and Fund partner policy priorities.

Outcome Evaluation To help formulate the strategic framework, the contractor should conduct a desk review and targeted outcome-based evaluation of past and current Fund-supported programs, focusing on geographies where all three programming mechanisms of the Fund have been employed. The outcome-based evaluation component will focus on Fund programs in two to three countries in each of the following geographic regions:

· Central America,

· Eastern Europe, and

· Sub-Saharan Africa.

Due to the sensitive nature of the portfolio, specific countries are not named in this Scope of Work, but will be identified collaboratively between DRL and the Contractor, and will be selected to focus on areas where multiple of the Fund’s three mechanisms (emergency assistance, capacity building and technical assistance, and small grants) have been employed over a number of years. Two to three grants to key Fund partners will be evaluated in each region, including a combination of both small and long-term technical support grants. The outcome-based evaluation will identify the major results of Fund-supported activities, in particular, how the projects have specifically advanced and protected the rights of LGBTI persons. In conducting this work, the evaluation will seek to strengthen the strategic focus of the Fund, and to identify areas of key successes that should be expanded, and where there are gaps that need further investment. Findings from the outcome evaluation will then be used to shape the development of a strategic framework with performance indicators, and to assess how the Fund’s current programs fit within that strategic framework. The findings will also incorporate feedback from Fund partners, and be used to inform decisions around future growth and structure of the Fund overall. The information gathered will also serve as baseline data that will be used as a point of comparison in future Fund evaluation efforts.

Dignity for All Program The Dignity Program currently includes two overarching objectives and a number of supporting activities:

Objective 1: LGBTI CSOs and HRDs are able to withstand threats and attacks from governmental and non-governmental actors.

Activity 1.1 EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE: Provide short-term emergency assistance to LGBTI HRDs and CSOs who are under threat or attack because of their work to advance the human rights of LGBTI people.

Identify and assess emergency needs of LGBTI HRDs and CSOs across all regions, vet cases according to established criteria, and provide timely emergency assistance.

Cases will be verified with relevant Consortium partners and other trusted advisors and thoroughly vetted according to established means, including reference checks, media checks and security checks before aid is provided through secure means of disbursal.

The immediate benefit of such assistance is to protect threatened activists, and support their longer term ability to continue their work for LGBTI human rights.

Emergency assistance will fund:

· Relocation assistance, humanitarian assistance and/or dependent support;

· Security related measures;

· Legal representation and trial monitoring for the defense of local HRDs and CSOs;

· Expenses for prison visits with detained HRDs;

· Medical bills arising from physical violence or psychosocial trauma; and

· Replacement of equipment damaged or confiscated during an attack.

Activity 1.2 SECURITY AND PROTECTION TRAINING: Consortium partners provide preventive security and protection training to help HRDs and CSOs working on LGBTI human rights develop effective, sustainable security plans.

Trainings will be conducted based on needs assessment and will include both physical and digital security of HRDs and CSOs working on LGBTI human rights. These trainings will build knowledge and skills for mitigating risks, reducing future threats, and developing and implementing security plans.

Objective 2: HRDs and CSOs carry out effective human rights work (advocacy, security and emergency assistance) to support LGBTI people and communities.

Activity 2.1 EMERGENCY ADVOCACY, OPPORTUNITY, AND SECURITY GRANTS: Support directed and short-term initiatives and security interventions in response to urgent threats or pressing opportunities to advance the human rights of LGBTI people and communities.

The Consortium will support and implement advocacy, opportunity, and security initiatives. These initiatives will be primarily carried out by providing grants to LGBTI CSOs to push back against urgent threats to the security and human rights of LGBTI people. Emergency advocacy, opportunity and security grants may also include funds for direct emergency and security assistance by implementing CSOs to members of LGBTI communities impacted by the advocacy initiative, such as safe houses or other urgent community support.

Opportunity grants will also be provided to LGBTI CSOs to enable them to seize positive and unforeseen opportunities as they arise to advance the human rights of LGBTI people.

Direct security grants will also be provided to LGBTI CSOs to improve the security and protection capacity of LGBTI communities through targeted trainings and security initiatives.

When the program was initially launched, Dignity’s scope of work was slightly broader to include objectives focused on conducting global advocacy campaigns or coordinated advocacy initiatives. Specifically, the two objectives stated:

Objective 3: Provide a focal point for improving LGBTI regional and international network coordination

Objective 4: Build a global Consortium with an eye toward joint coordinated advocacy initiatives to enhance security for LGBTI HRDs and CSOs

DRL removed these objectives from scope of work at the request of Freedom House and following discussion within the Dignity NGO Consortium. As the Dignity Program is still somewhat new, and given many other existing LGBTI-related NGO advocacy platforms, the Dignity NGO Consortium members as a collective did not feel ready or well-positioned to take on or advance a global advocacy agenda. However conducting coordinated advocacy remains an ongoing discussion point within the Consortium and DRL is ready to support activities in this area as the Consortium develops ideas and assesses how it can most effectively produce impact.

This evaluation is not intended to measure the extent to which these objectives were implemented, but we do want the contract to assess if these types of activities should be included and/or do have a place in a program like Dignity for All.

The U.S. Department of State’s DRL will oversee administration of this evaluation and will be the primary programmatic point of contact for this contract. The U.S. Department of State will have sole ownership of all materials/data gathered by the contractor. DRL plans to share all of the materials/data/draft plans and reports and final products with Freedom House, the Dignity NGO Consortium Members and the Partners of the Global Equality Fund.

Annex II. Evaluation Tasks

Global Equality Fund A. Within two weeks after signing the award, the Contractor will meet with DRL to further refine the evaluation questions and begin work on the work plan of the evaluation. A draft work plan should be submitted to DRL within two weeks after the initial meeting with DRL. The work plan should contain the following: identification of the evaluation design, i.e. methodology; information that needs to be analyzed and the respective information sources; work plan and timetable for collection of information; work plan and time table for organization and analysis of information; and conditions and capacities necessary for data collection, analysis and communication of findings. While a proposed evaluation design is described below, we are interested in reviewing alternate and more innovative methodologies, if possible, proposed by the Contractor.

B. The Contractor shall provide all evaluation instruments (e.g., survey questions, interview protocol, focus group protocol, list of stakeholders to be interviewed, etc.) and documentation (e.g., correspondence, contact letters, data collections instruments, fieldwork reports, etc.) to DRL for review and clearance prior to disseminating to participants and key stakeholders.

C. It is the Contractor’s responsibility to identify and describe data collection mechanisms based on the Contractor’s experience and expertise, keeping in mind security and confidentiality issues regarding program information. Use of quantitative as well as qualitative methods will include document reviews, surveys, structured and unstructured interviews and focus groups, observations, and any other appropriate methodologies. Interviews, at minimum, should include relevant DRL staff, Fund partners, and key grantee partners. The Contractor should also review information collected by Fund grantees through independent evaluation of individual supported programs.

D. Other LGBTI funders and stakeholders not formally associated with the Fund should also be included as a means of providing context and determining how the Fund fits into the larger LGBTI movement and human rights community. Additional contacts may be identified over the course of the consultation phase. The Contractor shall inform DRL when data collection has been completed.

Data Collection Most of the LGBTI programs being evaluated are highly sensitive in nature. Given this high degree of sensitivity, it is vital for the Contractor to work very closely with DRL to determine how to gather accurate and reliable data from participants and key stakeholders in a manner that does not damage trust or jeopardize the safety and security of program partners, data, or the programs themselves. Additional time should be incorporated into the timeline to address this concern.

E. Desk review: The Contractor shall conduct a desk review of the full portfolio (26 long-term technical assistance grants, and 53 small grants), which will, at minimum, consist of a review of requests for proposals, grant proposals, grant agreements, quarterly progress reports, final program reports and independent program evaluation reports, if available, Presidential Memoranda and DoS policy and strategy documents related to the formation of the Fund, Memoranda of Understanding between DRL and Fund Partners, DRL quarterly reports to Fund Partners, and DRL trip reports related to the Fund. The desk review should also include other materials that provide information on global trends related to the human rights of LGBT persons.

F. Washington, D.C. Interviews: Time should be allotted for meetings with relevant offices, agencies and organizations in Washington, D.C., including DRL, Partners of the Fund, and others to gain a greater understanding of DRL and other USG human rights programs.

G. Remote interviews with key stakeholders and program beneficiaries, including key grantees and stakeholders, Fund Partners, funders and other LGBTI experts not affiliated with the Fund. Interviews with these individuals can be conducted either over the phone or web.

H. Fieldwork: The Contractor will collect data from between two and three funded programs (a total of between 6 and 9 grants, overall) in each of three targeted locations, to be jointly identified with DRL, in the following regions: Central America, Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. (Note: Fieldwork in Eastern Europe will occur after the draft strategic framework and indicators are developed so that the Contractor can both collect data for the outcome evaluation and also pilot test the strategic framework and indicators.) No more than three countries per region will be included. At minimum, the field data collection will include information gathered from project beneficiaries, local staff, local partners, and key stakeholders through Key Informant Interviews, Focus Group Discussions, and other methodologies, and direct observation of project activities if feasible. When in the field a 6-day work week with no premium pay is authorized. The senior evaluator, with the local consultants, will conduct the fieldwork in both Sub-Saharan Africa and Eastern Europe, while the mid-level evaluator, with the local consultant, will conduct the fieldwork in Central America. DRL can make introductions to the relevant staff at the Embassy, but the contractor is responsible for handling data collection logistics and travel logistics. This includes making your own arrangements for translation and security detail, where necessary. There are not likely to be significant security concerns related to travel for this evaluation. Contractors may need to include linguistic interpretation for Spanish-English, among others.

I. Data Analysis: Once all the data has been collected and field work completed in Central America and Sub-Saharan Africa, data analysis should take no more than four weeks. Discussion of preliminary findings should take place in Washington, D.C., together with the DRL LGBTI and evaluation teams, and then with Fund Partners, within two weeks of completing the analysis.

Strategic Framework Development Based on the findings, and in partnership with DRL and the Fund partners, the Contractor will develop a strategic framework and performance indicators that can be used to support Fund LGBTI objectives, and to inform the best types of interventions, as well as where those interventions should best be applied. This strategic framework will inform strategic funding decisions of the Fund for the next 3-5 years. The Contractor will provide all major documentation to DRL for review and clearance prior to finalization.

J. Initial Strategic Framework Presentation: Discussion of draft strategic framework will take place in Washington, D.C., together with DRL LGBTI and evaluation teams, and then with Fund Partners. The draft strategic framework should also incorporate feedback from grantee partners. Once the draft strategic framework has incorporated all feedback and has broad buy-in, the Contractor will begin work to develop initial draft performance indicators.

K. Initial Performance Indicator Presentation: Discussion of draft strategic framework that includes draft performance indicators will take place in Washington, D.C., together with DRL LBGT and evaluation teams, and then with Fund Partners. The draft performance indicators should also incorporate feedback from grantee partners.

L. Pilot Testing Strategic Framework and Performance Indicators: The Contractor will pilot test the draft strategic framework and performance indicators in Eastern Europe when the person is concurrently collecting data for the outcome evaluation.

M. The Contractor shall draft an internal evaluation report (no more than 40 pages without appendices) and a public evaluation report (no more than 10 pages) that presents findings and includes an independent assessment of the Fund’s performance and progress, draws conclusions (i.e.