Terms of Reference for the final evaluation of the project ” Protecting the protectors: youth and women leading the Human Rights Defense in Palestine “

1. Introduction

These Terms of Reference reflect the decisions made during the design of the final evaluation proposal for the project “Protecting the protectors: youth and women leading the Human Rights Defense in Palestine.” They serve as the main reference document for the evaluation team that will be conducting the assessment. 

The evaluation is promoted and managed by the Institute Novact of Nonviolence: (NOVACT), an organization working to consolidate peace in conflict zones by supporting nonviolent movements and implementing protective interventions for vulnerable communities. 

NOVACT envisions a society rooted in human security and nonviolence, free from armed conflict and systemic violence. It promotes nonviolence as a strategy for social transformation toward a peaceful, just, and dignified world. 

The project is implemented by NOVACT in partnership with Palestinian Circus School (PCS), Women’s Center for Legal Aid and Counseling (WCLAC), and Popular Struggle Coordination Committee (PSCC), and is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID). 

Project Objective 

The initiative aims to contribute to a just and lasting peace in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT) by strengthening the role of youth and women in defending and reclaiming human rights in vulnerable communities, including Area C and refugee camps in the West Bank including East Jerusalem. 

The project addresses the chronic protection crisis resulting from the ongoing conflict and military occupation, the systematic violations of International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights Law, and the lack of accountability mechanisms. A gender and human rights-based approach is applied throughout, alongside tools for nonviolent conflict transformation. 

Rationale for the evaluation 

This external final evaluation is justified by several key factors: 

• Internal accountability and learning: as part of NOVACT’s commitment to transparency, this evaluation allows for independent reflection, learning, and improved future programming. It is particularly important given that this project brings together longstanding NOVACT partners (PCS and PSCC) and introduces collaboration with WCLAC for the first time. 

• Transparency with local partners and beneficiaries: the evaluation aims to create inclusive and participatory spaces where stakeholders can independently assess the intervention. 

• External perspective: it brings an objective and critical lens to analyze project outcomes, methodologies, and processes. 

• Adaptation to a deteriorating context: given the worsening humanitarian and security situation in Palestine and the increasing restrictions on mobility, it is urgent to assess current interventions to ensure they meet the real needs of the population and remain contextually appropriate. 

General objectives of the evaluation 

1. A) Assess the project’s contribution to strengthening the participation of Palestinian youth and women in human rights advocacy in vulnerable communities. In particular:

• Did the project empower women and youth in defending the right to peaceful assembly and women’s right to live free from violence? 

• Did it contribute to the broader goal of a just peace in the OPT? 

This includes: 

• Identifying good practices to replicate 

• Highlighting lessons learned and areas for improvement 

1. B) Document and systematize insights from local partners, beneficiaries, and institutional stakeholders to add value and legitimacy to empowerment-focused interventions in occupied settings.
2. C) Highlight the project’s strengths, especially in three core areas:

• Its integrated gender approach and human rights based approach (HRBA) 

• Use of innovative methodologies such as social arts and digital tools 

• Community-based protection mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations 

The final evaluation report may also: 

• Serve as a baseline for future programming 

• Preserve institutional memory 

• Act as a reference for good practices in a context of increasing criminalization of civil society and shrinking civic space in Palestine. 

2. Object of the evaluation and background

The project “Protecting the protectors: youth and women leading the Human Rights Defense in Palestine” funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation (AECID), formally began on February 1, 2024, and is set to run for 20 months, until September 30, 2025. 

The project’s overall objective is to contribute to the nonviolent transformation of conflicts in the Occupied Palestinian Territory (OPT), by strengthening the role of youth and women in the protection and restitution of human rights. 

Its specific objective is to reinforce the leadership of Palestinian youth and women in improving the guarantee of Human Rights, particularly in vulnerable communities in Area C and refugee camps in the West Bank and East Jerusalem. The project aims to defend: 

• The right to peaceful assembly, and 

• The right of women to live free from violence. 

Expected results: 

1. R1. Strengthened capacities of youth and women Human Rights Defenders so that they can actively contribute to improving the knowledge and exercise on Human Rights of Palestinian population in vulnerable communities, especially regarding the right to peaceful assembly and the right of women to a life free of violence. 

1. R2. Established mechanisms of monitoring, protection and reporting against HR violations and GBV: Strengthened contribution of youth and women HRDs in the protection of Palestinian population in vulnerable communities of the OPT against violations of the right to peaceful assembly and the right of women to a life free of violence, with the establishment of monitoring, documentation, reporting and legal and social support mechanisms 

1. R3. Raised awareness within Palestinian population in vulnerable communities on GBV and the right to peaceful assembly: Strengthened the leadership of women and youth HRDs in the implementation of community-based initiatives for the promotion of the right to peaceful assembly and the right of women’s to a life free of violence 

1. R4. Strengthened the political advocacy with key actors in Palestine and internationally: Strengthened political advocacy on the situation of the right to peaceful assembly and the right of Palestinian women to a life free of violence with key duty bearers in Palestine, the EU and United Nations. 

Local Partners: 

The project is implemented in collaboration with: 

• Palestinian Circus School (PCS): a social circus organization active since 2006. 

• Women’s Centre for Legal Aid and Counselling (WCLAC): a Palestinian NGO aiming at promoting gender equality and justice. 

• Popular Struggle Coordination Committee (PSCC): a network of grassroots activists from across Palestine. 

NOVACT supports these organizations through nonviolent actions, digital innovation, social theatre, and advocacy facilitation, aiming for sustainable transformation in conflict contexts. 

Target groups: 

• Rights-holders: primarily young women HRDs, including activists, artists, lawyers, researchers, and survivors of gender-based violence from Area C and East Jerusalem. 

• Duty-bearers: public service providers, civil society organizations, and international institutions (e.g., EU delegations, UN agencies). 

• Responsibility-holders: young professionals (journalists, lawyers, activists) involved in advocacy platforms. 

Key activities: 

The project includes training, legal support, awareness campaigns, artistic activities (e.g., social circus), audiovisual production, and advocacy events, all under a human rights, gender, and nonviolence framework. 

3. Stakeholders involved

The stakeholders participating in the evaluation process will be selected with the aim of providing a holistic view of both the design and implementation of the intervention. To this end, the following actors are considered key participants: 

• Implementing partners: NOVACT, PCS, WCLAC, and PSCC (including technical implementation staff, financial staff, and strategic staff from each organization) 

• Project beneficiaries  

• Technical service providers: trainers and facilitators 

• Donor: AECID as the main funder 

Evaluation management unit: NOVACT. As the grant’s implementing entity, NOVACT will represent both itself and the local partner organizations. It acts as the commissioning unit for the evaluation, responsible for validating and overseeing the quality of the process, managing the selection and contracting of the evaluation team, and ensuring the publication and dissemination of the results. 

Evaluation steering committee: coordination committee of “Protecting the protectors”  Composed of representatives from the four implementing partners: NOVACT, PCS, WCLAC, and PSCC. This committee will: 

• Coordinate and facilitate the evaluation process. 

• Review the first draft of the final evaluation report. 

Coordination with the evaluation team will take place through meetings either with all committee members or in smaller, thematic or geographic groups, as appropriate. All decisions will be made by consensus. 

4. Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation will cover the geographical areas where the project was implemented, most of the West Bank governorates. It will also include the digital space, as some activities were originally designed for online delivery, while others were moved online due to safety concerns, such as roadblocks, settler attacks, and restrictions on movement. 

The digital environment will be analyzed not only as an alternative to physical space, but also as a distinct space capable of creating communities of practice with specific codes and communication norms. 

The evaluation will focus on the full implementation period, from February 1, 2024, to September 30, 2025. 

Key Thematic Areas of Analysis: 

The evaluation will concentrate on three core pillars of the project: 

• The gender approach and the human rights-based approach, integrated transversally. 

• The use of innovative methodologies, such as social arts and digital innovation. 

• The implementation of community protection mechanisms for monitoring human rights violations in the OPT. 

A holistic, context-sensitive approach will be essential to assess the political impact on individuals, communities, and broader societal structures. 

Additionally, the evaluation should assess the impact of strategic partnerships with external stakeholders on the effectiveness of protection mechanisms, and provide insights and recommendations on community engagement strategies, particularly those aimed at promoting youth and women’s leadership in project activities. 

 

5. Evaluation questions and criteria

The evaluation will be guided by a set of key questions organized around thematic areas and aligned with the principles and methodology of NOVACT, its local partners, and AECID. The gender and human rights-based approaches (HRBA) will be cross-cutting throughout all evaluation criteria. 

Main evaluation questions 

1. Relevance, effectiveness and strategic coherence

• How well have project strategies aligned with objectives and adapted to context? 

• Has the project contributed to nonviolent conflict transformation and the empowerment of youth and women in defending human rights? 

• To what extent has the gender approach been effectively integrated? What could be improved? 

• Has a human rights-based approach been adopted effectively? 

• Are the innovative methodologies (e.g. digital tools, social theatre) appropriate for the Palestinian context? 

• Have beneficiary needs been adequately considered? 

• Have strategic alliances strengthened community protection? 

2. Evaluation of Impact on Young People and Women Human Rights Defenders (HRDs)

• To what extent has the project contributed to strengthening the skills and capacities of young people and women HRDs to act autonomously, effectively, sustainably, and safely, with a gender-sensitive approach? 

• How effectively has the project empowered young leaders, researchers, and women professionals (e.g., lawyers) to become agents of change in promoting and protecting human rights within their communities? 

3.  Impact, protection and human security

• How has the project improved human security, especially for youth and women? 

• What protection mechanisms were effective, and which need improvement? 

• What actors (local/international) contributed to the project’s success? 

4. Coordination and project management

• How effective was coordination among partner organizations? 

• What best practices have emerged in partnership building? 

• How was communication managed internally and externally? 

5. Context, adaptability and sustainability

• How has the project adapted to the volatile Palestinian context? 

• What measures were taken to ensure long-term sustainability? 

• What lessons have been learned to inform future interventions?

6. Community participation and inclusion

• How was community participation facilitated? 

• Were strategies implemented to ensure inclusion of marginalized groups? 

7. Advocacy and policy impact

• What advocacy strategies were effective at the international level? 

• What has been the impact and potential of these strategies?

8. Accountability and financial management

• What were the main challenges in meeting donor accountability requirements? 

• How efficient was the use of project resources? 

9. Training, capacity building and innovation

• What training programs were implemented and were they effective? 

• What innovative elements added value? 

• Was the digital space leveraged as a transformative environment? 

 

Evaluation Criteria 

• Participation: involvement of all relevant actors across project stages. 

• Ownership: level of community and partner engagement and ownership of outcomes. 

• Relevance: alignment with local needs, national policies, and international commitments. 

• Impact: expected and unexpected results, with focus on transformative effects for women and youth. 

• Sustainability: likelihood that results will endure beyond the project, with local capacity in place. 

• Coherence: internal consistency and alignment with other initiatives. 

• Effectiveness: achievement of planned results considering context and resources. 

• Efficiency: cost-effectiveness and resource optimization. 

Additional criteria:

• Coverage: reach among the most vulnerable groups in high-risk areas.
• Risk management and adaptability: capacity to manage risks and respond to context changes.
• Ethics and transparency: adherence to ethical standards, accountability, and conflict of interest prevention. 

 

6. Evaluation methodology and work plan

 

The evaluation team will propose an initial methodological approach and the most appropriate techniques in their technical proposal, clearly justifying their choices and using the information in this document as a reference point. After an initial coordination meeting, the selected team will provide NOVACT with a final, detailed methodology, including a comprehensive plan for the evaluation mission. 

However, the following methodological aspects are mandatory: 

• The methodology must integrate a gender perspective and a human rights-based approach (HRBA). 

• The methodology must be participatory. 

• The methodology must include all target groups, especially those that are hard to reach. 

The evaluation results and recommendations will be based at minimum on analytical work drawn from the following methods: 

• Document review of all relevant project materials (e.g. publications, activity reports, interim and final reports). 

• Interviews and/or focus group discussions with key stakeholders. 

• Technical consultations with the project implementation staff. 

• Field visits to assess implementation on the ground. 

• Presentation and discussion workshop of the first draft report with participation of at least the four implementing partners and the OCE (Spanish Cooperation Office). 

 Deliverables 

1. Final revised methodology
   B. Data collection and processing tools
   C. First draft of the evaluation report
   D. Workshop for presentation and discussion of the first draft report
   E. Final revised version of the evaluation report 

7. Structure and presentation of the evaluation report

 The final report should have a maximum length of 30 pages, excluding the cover page, executive summary, and annexes. 

 A summary sheet of the evaluation must be submitted, following the donor’s official format for their evaluation inventory. 

The following is a recommended outline that the final evaluation report should follow: 

1. Executive summary
2. Introduction

• Background and purpose of the evaluation 

• Key evaluation questions and assessment criteria 

2. Summary description of the intervention

• Focus on expectations and progress at the time of evaluation 

• Background, organization and management, involved actors, and implementation context 

3. Methodology used

• Evaluation methodology and techniques applied 

• Constraints and limitations of the study 

4. Analysis of collected information

• Evidence in relation to the evaluation questions 

• Interpretation of findings based on the evidence gathered 

5. Evaluation conclusions

• Based on the evaluation criteria established 

6. Lessons learned

• General conclusions that point to good practices 

• Key lessons that can be replicated or applied to future interventions 

7. Recommendations

• Organized according to the evaluator’s chosen criteria (e.g., short/long term, by evaluation criteria, by component or geographic area) 

• Each recommendation should, where possible, identify the responsible actor(s) 

8. Annexes
   Including:

• Terms of Reference (ToR) 

• Work plan, team composition, and mission description 

• Methodology and data collection tools used, including: 

• Document review: list of secondary sources 

• Interviews: list of interviewees, interview guides, transcripts or notes 

• Surveys: templates, raw data, and statistical analysis 

• Participatory workshops: minutes and outputs 

• Etc. 

• Comments and feedback from stakeholders on the draft report, particularly in cases of disagreement not reflected in the main body 

• Summary evaluation sheet according to the donor’s template 

 

8. Evaluation premises, authorship, and publication

 Ethical and professional standards: 

• Anonymity and confidentiality: the evaluation must respect participants’ right to anonymity and confidentiality when providing information. 

• Responsibility: any disagreement within the evaluation team or with project stakeholders must be reflected in the report, along with supporting evidence or noted dissent. 

• Integrity: evaluators are responsible for highlighting relevant issues not explicitly mentioned in the ToR if needed for a comprehensive analysis. 

• Independence: evaluators must be independent from the project’s management or components. 

• Data validation: the evaluation team is responsible for the accuracy and reliability of the information presented in the report. 

• Rigor: the evaluation process and deliverables must meet high professional standards. 

• Non-discrimination: evaluators must ensure no discrimination in engaging with individuals involved in the project or the evaluation. 

Incident reporting:
Any challenges during fieldwork or other phases must be reported immediately to the grant executor (NOVACT), who will inform AECID if necessary. Failure to do so will not justify delays or incomplete deliverables. 

Copyright and dissemination:
All copyright belongs to the contracting entity, NOVACT. Dissemination of data and the final report is the responsibility of the grant executor. AECID retains the right to reproduce and distribute the report for administrative purposes, with prior notice when required for other reasons. 

Sanctions:
Delays in delivery or poor-quality outputs may result in penalties or arbitration, as per the contract terms between the evaluator and the contracting entity. 

 

9. Submission of technical proposal and evaluation criteria

 

The evaluation team must include at least one expert with the following profiles and qualifications: 

• Proven and diverse experience in peacebuilding and/or the prevention of violence, violent conflict, or violent extremism. 

• Proven and diverse experience in the field of women’s rights and in applying a Human Rights-Based Approach (HRBA). 

• Minimum of 3 years’ experience in evaluating projects funded by international donors. 

• At least 3 years’ experience working in the region and knowledge of the Palestinian context. 

• Theoretical and practical knowledge of gender mainstreaming and human rights-based approach 

• Excellent command of spoken Arabic and written/spoken English; knowledge of Spanish (written and spoken) is an asset. 

• Excellent understanding of project cycle management principles and working methodologies. 

• High standards of rigor and professionalism. 

At least one of the proposed experts must have strong expertise and practical experience in integrating a gender perspective and human rights based approach into the evaluation of development cooperation projects. 

The composition of the team must be balanced, ensuring adequate coverage of all aspects outlined in the Terms of Reference, including cross-cutting issues (gender equity, youth, and human rights). 

The application must include, in Spanish or English, at least the following documents: 

• CVs of the evaluation team, clearly demonstrating the required profiles; 

• A technical proposal, including a methodological note outlining how the evaluation will be conducted in accordance with this document; 

• A detailed financial offer, including all mission-related costs and taxes (final price). 

The quality of submitted proposals will be evaluated based on the following scoring and criteria: 

• Evaluator profiles (40%): based on the qualifications and experience outlined above. 

• Methodological proposal (40%): based on its alignment with this document, rigor, professionalism, and feasibility. 

• Financial offer (20%): based on the suitability of the proposal within the available budget. 

 

10. Budget and payment schedule

The estimated budget for conducting this evaluation is €6,500 (six thousand five hundred euros), all taxes included. This amount includes all costs associated with carrying out the evaluation: materials, per diems, travel expenses, and professional fees. Payments will be made as follows: 

• 20% upon signing the contract with the external evaluation entity and submission and approval of the inception report (work plan). 

• 30% upon validation of the first draft of the evaluation report. 

• 50% upon submission of the executive summary and final evaluation report in the required format. 

 

11. Evaluation timeline

The revised timeframe for the completion of this evaluation is 14 weeks, starting from October 2025, following the conclusion of the project’s planned implementation period. This timeline may be subject to change in case an extension of the project period is required. Any such changes will be communicated promptly to the contracted evaluation team. 

 

12. Proposal submission:

The evaluation proposal must be submitted along with the annexes listed in section 9 in PDF format to the following email address: viola@novact.org  

The deadline for submission of applications is 28.5.2025 Applicants must send the application file by e-mail to viola@novact.org stating “PdP_Evaluation proposal_NAME OF THE CANDIDATE” as the subject. 

 The application file must include a copy, in PDF format, of the following documents: 

• CVs of the evaluation team, clearly demonstrating the required profiles; 

• A technical proposal, including a methodological note outlining how the evaluation will be conducted in accordance with this document; 

• A detailed financial offer, including all mission-related costs and taxes (final price). 

 If you have any questions about this call for services, please contact viola@novact.org. 

E-mail will be the only channel of communication with applicants.  

The decision will be communicated to the unsuccessful applicants.