Call for Expression of Interest (EOI): External Project Evaluation

Issued by: People’s Action for Rural Awakening (PARA), India

Project title: “Social, Economic, Gender & Humanitarian Justice to Dalits and Adivasis”

Project number: N-IND-2023-0259

Project period: March 2025 – March 2027 

1. Background and context

People’s Action for Rural Awakening (PARA) is a registered society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860. PARA works to organise marginalised, unorganised and excluded communities—particularly Dalit communities—towards dignity, rights awareness, and collective action for social justice. 

PARA is implementing the development cooperation project “Social, Economic, Gender & Humanitarian Justice to Dalits and Adivasis” from March 2025 through March 2027. 

The project addresses structural discrimination faced by Scheduled Castes (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) through integrated interventions on: (i) access to justice; (ii) gender justice and Dalit women’s leadership; (iii) economic justice (livelihoods, entrepreneurship, education entitlements); and (iv) disaster risk reduction (DRR) and climate change adaptation. 

In line with the donor’s quality standards on learning, accountability, and results orientation, PARA invites applications from qualified evaluators / evaluation teams to conduct an independent external project evaluation. 

2. Purpose, objectives and intended use of the evaluation

The purpose of this external evaluation is to assess progress and results against the project’s intended outcomes and indicators, generate actionable learning for the remaining implementation period, and strengthen accountability to stakeholders. The evaluation should apply the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability) and integrate donor’s cross-cutting emphases on gender equality and (where feasible) inclusion and environmental/climate considerations.

2.1 Intended users and use

Primary users of the evaluation include PARA project staff and management, donor’s relevant community structures and partners, and other key stakeholders engaged in rights-based programming. Findings will be used to: (i) validate progress and identify course corrections;

(ii) strengthen strategies, implementation arrangements and monitoring; and (iii) capture lessons and good practices for replication and/or a potential follow-up phase. 

3. Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation will cover the part of the project period starting from 1-March 2025 to date and all thematic components (access to justice; gender justice; economic justice; DRR and climate resilience), including cross-cutting dimensions such as gender equality, inclusion of persons with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, safeguarding/do-no-harm, and participation of youth and children where relevant. The project operates in Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh,

Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu and Uttar Pradesh; the evaluator should propose an appropriate sampling strategy that reflects thematic and geographic diversity and feasibility. 

4. Project outcomes and indicators (summary)

4.1 Outcome 1: End discrimination against Scheduled Castes

Outcome statement: Dalit advocates, defenders, activists, and organised community members demonstrate increased capacity and autonomy to take action against caste-based discrimination. 

4.2 Outcome 2: Improved access to legal and social protection entitlements

Outcome statement: Dalit individuals and households—particularly women—experience improved access to legal, livelihood, criminal justice, and disaster relief/prevention entitlements.

 5. Evaluation criteria and key questions

The evaluation should be guided by the OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability) and the donor’s cross-cutting requirements on gender equality, inclusion (where feasible) and environmental/climate considerations. The questions below are indicative; the evaluator may refine them in the inception report.

Relevance 

• How well do the project objectives (Objective 1 & 2) respond to the priority needs of SC/ST communities facing violence, discrimination, livelihood insecurity, and disaster/climate vulnerability in the selected states?
• How appropriate are the chosen strategies (fact-finding, legal clinics, LRC, ATM system, camps, budget advocacy, task forces) to address the stated problem analysis? 

Coherence 

• How coherent is the project with relevant government systems and schemes (PoA/Rules, SDRF norms, PMS, livelihood schemes, DRR/GPDP processes) without duplicating efforts?
• How well does the project coordinate with other CSOs, networks, commissions, and humanitarian actors to avoid fragmentation and strengthen collective outcomes?

Effectiveness 

• What were the key enabling factors and bottlenecks affecting results (e.g., police responsiveness, documentation barriers, backlash, scheme hurdles, administrative delays)?
• How effective were capacity-building efforts in producing real-world application
• (e.g., DHRDs “proficient” in fact-finding; CSO/CLOs facilitating entitlements; task forces engaging duty bearers)? 

Efficiency 

• Were resources (funds, staff time, travel, partnerships) used efficiently to achieve outputs and outcomes across 11 states? What delivery model was most cost-effective?
• Were activity designs right-sized (number of trainings/camps/fact-findings vs. results achieved), and what activities had low output-to-effort ratios? 

Impact (including unintended effects) 

• What systemic changes can be observed (improved PoA implementation practices, improved relief inclusion, improved budget responsiveness, policy/administrative changes)?
• What unintended positive/negative effects occurred (e.g., reduced child marriage, increased backlash/violence), and how did the project mitigate harm?

Sustainability 

• Which outcomes are likely to continue after project end (defender networks, survivors’ collectives, task forces, LRC, budget monitoring practices), and what conditions are needed?
• What evidence shows strengthened local ownership (PRI uptake, community-led monitoring, CSO/CLO continuation, institutionalization of practices)?
• What are the sustainability risks (political hostility, funding gaps, safety threats, weak government responsiveness), and what exit/transition strategy is realistic? 

Cross-cutting: Gender 

• To what extent did the project address intersectional barriers faced by Dalit women and girls (access to justice, stigma, safety, mental health needs, leadership)?
• Are outcomes and services demonstrably gender-responsive (30%+ women targets met; quality of engagement; changes in decision-making power)? 

Cross-cutting: Inclusion (Disability and other vulnerabilities) 

• Were there barriers that systematically excluded some groups (documentation, mobility, stigma), and what adaptations were made? 

Cross-cutting: Environmental / Climate considerations (where applicable) 

• In DRR/climate components, what evidence shows improved risk-informed planning and resilience outcomes for SC/ST communities? 

Process / Ethics / Participation (Donor emphasis) 

• Were stakeholders (especially target communities) meaningfully involved in evaluation design, data collection, validation of findings, and recommendations?
• Were ethical standards followed (do-no-harm, informed consent, confidentiality, safety of survivors/defenders, secure handling of sensitive case data)?
• Are findings triangulated with credible evidence (case files, official records, MIS, ATM data, beneficiary verification) and presented transparently with limitations? 

6. Evaluation design and methodology

Scope of the evaluation: The evaluation will cover all thematic components of the project (access to justice; gender justice; economic justice; disaster and climate resilience); cross cutting dimensions such as gender equality, inclusion of persons with disabilities, safeguarding, and participation of youth and children; and the full project period (March 2025 – March 2027). The evaluation is expected to be analytical and learning oriented, aligned with Donor’s oriented evaluation standards. 

Methodology: The evaluator is expected to propose a mixed methods methodology, which may include:

• Desk review of project documentation and monitoring data
• Key informant interviews
• Group discussions and field interactions, where feasible
• Gender sensitive and ethical engagement with vulnerable groups
• Ethical standards, informed consent, confidentiality, and safeguarding principles must be strictly adhered to, in line with Donor expectations

7. Ethics, safeguarding and data protection

The evaluation must comply with ethical standards and a do-no-harm approach, including informed consent, confidentiality, and safe and respectful engagement with survivors of violence, human rights defenders, adolescents and other vulnerable groups. The evaluator shall apply appropriate safeguarding measures, avoid exposing participants to retaliation or risk, and ensure secure handling, storage and transfer of sensitive information (including case files and personally identifiable data). Any photography/recordings, if proposed, must be optional and based on explicit consent. 

8. Evaluation process and indicative timeframe

Timeline: The exact schedule will be finalised in consultation with PARA. Applicants should indicate a realistic timeline covering inception, data collection, analysis, reporting, and presentation. 

Geographic coverage: The project is implemented in Bihar, Haryana, Himachal Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Odisha, Rajasthan, Tamil Nadu, and Uttar Pradesh. The evaluator is expected to apply appropriate sampling, reflecting thematic and geographic diversity. 

9. Management, coordination and quality assurance

PARA will designate a focal person to coordinate the assignment, facilitate access to documents and stakeholders, and support logistics for fieldwork as agreed. Donor will be involved as a key stakeholder in agreeing the inception report, reviewing deliverables, and participating in validation of findings. The evaluator is expected to include debriefings at key milestones (inception, end of fieldwork, draft findings) and to present/validate preliminary findings with PARA and selected stakeholders before finalising the report. 

10.  Expected deliverables and reporting requirements

The final evaluation report should be concise, evidence-based and clearly structured. At minimum, it should include an executive summary, evaluation purpose and scope, methodology and limitations, findings organised by evaluation criteria (including cross-cutting issues), conclusions, practical recommendations (prioritised and feasible), and key lessons learned/good practices. Annexes may include the ToR, tools, stakeholder list, and bibliography. 

• Inception Report (evaluation design, methodology, work plan)
• Draft Evaluation Report
• Final Evaluation Report, incorporating feedback
• Presentation of findings and recommendations
• All deliverables shall be submitted in English 

11. Qualifications of the evaluator(s)

Applicants (individuals or teams) should demonstrate:

• Proven experience in external evaluations of development or human rights based programmes
• Experience working on gender, social justice, or marginalisation related themes
• Strong analytical and report writing capacity
• Familiarity with donor funded development cooperation projects
• Ability to apply ethical, participatory, and gender sensitive evaluation approaches