Final evaluation of project “EU4 Rule of Law: Citizen Engagement for Public Integrity (CEPI) in the Western Balkans and Turkey”

Transparency International (TI) is the global civil society organisation leading the fight against corruption. In collaboration with nearly 100 chapters worldwide and an international secretariat in Berlin, Germany, TI raises awareness of the damaging effects of corruption and works with partners in government, business and civil society to develop and implement effective measures to tackle it.

Transparency International Secretariat (TI-S) in Berlin is looking for an independent final evaluation of the project Citizen Engagement for Public Integrity[1] (CEPI) in the Western Balkans and Turkey, by collating and analysing evidence about the achieved levels of impact the action either generated or contributed to.

CEPI is a European Union (DG NEAR) funded project that started in January 2022 and ending in March 2025. The project aimed to strengthen the rule of law by addressing public integrity deficiencies in Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosovo*, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey. It sought to achieve this through increased evidence-based anti-corruption policymaking and implementation, as well as enhanced civic engagement and advocacy to promote public integrity, transparency and accountability. A cornerstone of the project was the generation of evidence through National Integrity System (NIS) assessments.[2] These assessments provided decision-makers with actionable insights to guide reforms and empower civil society organisations to drive impactful advocacy efforts. The project also updated a regional database of corruption cases with social impact, enabling greater public scrutiny and fostering accountability. Furthermore, it built the capacities of CSOs and local groups to engage in concrete advocacy work and involved a broader base of citizens in the fight for public integrity. After over three years of working with five TI National Chapters and three partner organisations in the Western Balkans and Türkiye, the project produced relevant knowledge for decision-makers and civil society alike to allow them to take further action in the fight against corruption.

OBJECTIVES OF THE FINAL EVALUATION

The main purpose of the evaluation exercise is to provide an external and independent assessment, prioritising the project’s impact, sustainability and overall performance, including its achievements and contribution to any positive or negativechanges. The assessment will stimulate learning and may inform TI’s project design and development as well.

The overall objectives of the evaluation are the following:

• Provide an independent, systematic and objective assessment of the impact and sustainability, evaluating outcomes of the project against the initial goals specified in the project’s MEL framework and the extent to which the net benefits of the project are sustainable over time.
• Document lessons learned and good practices to generate clear forward-looking and actionable recommendations to guide TI-S, National Chapters, partner organisations and other stakeholders in developing strategies for future related work at national and regional levels.

A key audience for this evaluation is TI-S, project partners and other TI National Chapters which will use the results to sustain the project results/outcomes and inform the design of future related projects. The European Commission (DG NEAR) may use the evaluation for accountability andverification purposes.

KEY ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED

The following OECD DAC criteria and evaluation questions should be addressed during the project evaluation but are subject to discussion and agreement between TI-S and the evaluator(s) during the designing of the evaluation approach in the inception phase. Given the prior Mid-Term Review[1] and the Results Oriented Monitoring (ROM) review of the project, the final evaluation should streamline the proposed evaluation questions to avoid duplicating efforts and should include a stronger focus on Impact and Sustainability. Some questions may be deprioritised or omitted to reduce the workload, especially if they were likely addressed in earlier reviews or are less critical for the final evaluation of the project. The evaluator is free to further prioritise these questions in the proposal and suggest others asdeemed necessary.

RELEVANCE/ COHERENCE

• How well did the project outcomes align with the priorities and policies of the beneficiaries, TI global strategy[2], strategies of the key project implementing countries, regional strategies and EU stakeholders?
• To what extent did the project contribute to advancing EU objectives in the Western Balkans and Türkiye, particularly in promoting public integrity, transparency and accountability, and contribution to the EU Enlargement agenda?
• Were the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the intended project goals and objectives (i.e. was the planned chain of causality coherent)? Or did this coherence remain consistent throughout implementation? To what extent were the project’s interventions complementary to other anti-corruption initiatives in the region?

EFFECTIVENESS

• To what extent were the project objectives achieved by the end of the project in comparison to initial plans, and how strongly can they be attributed to TI-S and the project partners’ work?

• What were the main internal and external factors that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of project results?

• Which specific approaches, strategies or interventions proved most effective or ineffective and what lessons can be drawn for future projects?

• To what extent did the involvement of the EU, through DG NEAR funding and EU Delegations support, enhance the project’s outcomes and credibility compared to other potential funding sources, and what additional support or engagement could have further amplified its impact?

• Did the EU’s support strengthen the project’s credibility, visibility and ability to engage with key stakeholders, including government actors and CSOs?

  EFFICIENCY:

• To what extent were results-based management and administration systems effective, inclusive and fit for purpose?

• Were resources (financial, human, technical support) allocated strategically and sufficiently to achieve the project outputs and outcomes? What additional capacities, resources and support, if any, were required for the successful completion of the project?

• How efficiently were project activities implemented in relation to the planned schedule? Were delays, disruptions and implementation risks adequately identified, managed and mitigated throughout the project lifecycle?

• Did the project demonstrate value for money in achieving its results relative to the resources utilised?

  IMPACT

• What key outcomes and impact were achieved, and how do these compare to initial expectations?

• Were there any unintended positive or negative impacts resulting from the project? How were these leveraged or addressed, respectively?

• To what extent did/would the project contribute to long-term systemic change in public integrity, transparency and accountability in the target countries? Which specific successful approaches and strategies proved most effective in contributing to changes at the impact level?

• What evidence exists of the project’s contributions to improved policymaking and increased civic engagement in anti-corruption efforts?

• How has the project enhanced the capacities of CSOs, local groups and other stakeholders to sustain and expand its impact beyond the project’s duration?

• To what extent have project outcomes fostered public scrutiny and accountability through tools such as the corruption case database and NIS assessments?

• Are there indications that the project’s results have been or could be replicated or scaled by other stakeholders in the region?

  SUSTAINABILITY

• What mechanisms or strategies have been established to ensure the ongoing use of tools such as the NIS assessments, NIS recommendations tracking and the corruption case database?

• What risks could threaten the sustainability of the outcomes, and to what extent have mitigation strategies been implemented?

• How has the project contributed to creating an enabling environment for continued anti-corruption reforms and civic engagement?

• What lessons can be drawn about the added value of EU-funded initiatives in achieving systemic change in good governance and anti-corruption efforts and how can future funding for similar regional projects be designed to maximise impact in the sustained fight against corruption?

METHODOLOGY

The evaluation, including its approach and methods, will be planned, agreed and conducted in close consultation with the TI-S monitoring evaluation and learning (MEL) coordinator and project team.

The evaluation consultant is ultimately responsible for the overall methodological approach and design of the final project evaluation and is expected to propose methods that they consider most appropriate and that could further strengthen the quality of the data and/or close any gaps identified to achieve the aims, which should be adapted to the requirements of this ToR.

The final project evaluation should use a participatory and inclusive approach engaging relevant staff at TI-S and national chapter/partner levels through structured methods. Both quantitative and qualitative data should be utilised in assessing the project. The exact methodology should be defined, discussed, and agreed upon with TI-s during the inception phase. The final project evaluation can include but not necessarily be limited to the following methods:

• Desk review of relevant documents.
• Individual and/or group online (or possibly in person during the final project meeting) interviews with project implementing stakeholders optimally from all countries where the project was implemented.
• Possible attendance at the final project meeting on 5-7 March 2025 in Berlin covered by the project budget.
• Survey questionnaires to project implementing TI internal and external stakeholders.

The consultant shouldpresent a detailed statement of the proposed review methods in the technical proposal. The consultant is expected to refine the scope and methodology of this assignment during the inception phase in cooperation with TI-S and provide a detailed plan.

EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

This evaluation is expected to be mostly desk-based, conducted remotely.

The consultant or team of consultants is expected to deliver:

• An inception report outlining the proposed methodology, stakeholders for interviews and FGDs, data collection tools and timeframe of planned actions.
• A draft evaluation report for review and comments by TI-S, including annexes. While considering the comments provided on the draft, the consultant(s) shall use their independent and impartial judgment in preparing the final report.
• An online validation meeting with key stakeholders to discuss findings and feedback on draft report, with design, facilitation and documentation of a participatory workshop, incl. PowerPoint presentation, to discuss and validate the draft report.
• A final evaluation report documenting the evaluation process and results following a clear structure. The evaluation report will contain the findings, conclusions, and recommendations as well as lessons learned with action-oriented recommendations
• An [online] learning/validation workshop to engage TI-S and the project partners on the evaluation findings and strengthen the recommendations.

Guidance and quality assurance:

• The findings should be referenced.
• The consultant’s approach should be guided by the Transparency International Impact Matrix methodology (www.transparency.org/whoweare/accountability/impact_monitoring/4).
• The research should abide by ethical protocols including participant confidentiality and privacy, and by data protection regulations.

The final report should not be longer than 20 pages, excluding the annexes and the executive summary, and should be accompanied by a summary PowerPoint presentation. All evaluation deliverables are to be submitted in English, in electronic form, in accordance with the agreed deadlines. The consultant is responsible for the quality of the final product, including editing and quality control of language.

Annexes to the Final Report should be kept to an absolute minimum, only those annexes that serve to demonstrate or clarify an issue related to a significant finding should be included. Existing documents should be referenced but not necessarily annexed.

SELECTION CRITERIA

TI-S is inviting expressions of interest from individual consultants or a team of consultants to carry out the mid-term evaluation of the project. The consultant(s) should have:

Core competencies

People’s skills: be able to mediate the different expectations of the different internal stakeholders to produce a strong independent assessment that will genuinely serve the learning purposes set out in this ToR.

Work style is well planned and organised even within a fluid working environment and has a capacity for initiative with competent analytical and problem-solving skills. Maintains a strong level and flow of communication with reporting stakeholders.

Language: excellent command of English. Languages spoken in the Western Balkans and Turkey are an asset.

Technical competencies

Applicants should have the following skills and experience:

• Substantial experience in conducting evaluations, including in the anti-corruption field.
• At least 7 years of proven relevant professional experience in an international development environment, of which at least 5 years should be in Monitoring & Evaluation of multiple country projects & programmes.
• University degree in social sciences or a related area. A post-graduate degree in project management, and/or related fields would be an advantage.
• Excellent drafting and report-writing capacities.
• Knowledge and experience of working for advocacy-oriented organisations.
• Proven experience in the conceptualisation and facilitation of participatory workshops.
• Highly motivated and committed to the values of transparency and integrity.
• Regional experience and a good understanding of political and socio-economic issues in the Western Balkans and Turkey, as well as the EU enlargement policy priorities in the region, would be an advantage.
• Experience with the evaluation of EU-funded projects is desirable.

The evaluators will communicate with the TI-S evaluation reference group (consisting of the project manager, regional advisor and MEL manager) in regular MS Teams calls and keep them in the CC of all communications.

REMUNERATION AND COSTS

The consultant(s) should provide their estimated total fee as a lump sum or as standard daily rates before any VAT or other charges. The budget available for this evaluation is around EUR 16,000.

For Consultants based in the EU, EEA and Switzerland

Transparency International e.V. (Secretariat), (TI-S) is registered as a Business Entity in Germany with VAT identification number DE273612486. To determine the Value Added Tax (VAT) implications of this tender, we kindly request that the Consultants fill out the VAT Form for Tenders/Vendor Form (instructions inside the form) and submit the completed and duly signed form along with their email application.

Consultants who are based in Germany and do not charge German VAT must confirm their small entrepreneur status.

LOGISTICS AND SPECIFICATION

The consultant or team are expected to work between March and June 2025. A detailed timeline needs to be agreed upon at the beginning of the assignment.

[1] More about the project: https://www.transparency.org/en/projects/western-balkans-turkey

* This designation is without prejudice to positions on status, and is in line with UNSCR 1244/1999 and the ICJ Opinion on the Kosovo declaration of independence.

[2] Regional and country NIS reports are available here: https://www.transparency.org/en/publications/anti-corruption-reform-decline-examining-key-actors-strengths-weaknesses-western-balkans-t%C3%BCrkiyes-national-integrity-systems

[3] Mid-Term Review of CEPI project: https://files.transparencycdn.org/images/Mid-Term-Review-report-of-CEPI-project.pdf

[4] TI Strategy https://images.transparencycdn.org/images/Strategy2030_Brochure-final_15022021.pdf