DRG Evaluation Toolkit Module (no format)


DRG Evaluation Module for VOPE Toolkit -


Tutors Introduction

Module Map

Section 1:

Let’s get started!

Section 2:

What’s the scope of the evaluation of DRG? DRG Conceptual


Section 3:

How does Democracy, Human Rights and Governance relate to the

work of VOPEs?

Section 4:

Advocacy considerations for more and better evaluation

Section 5:

Capacity Development considerations to evaluate initiatives of

Democracy, Human Rights and Governance

Section 6 :

To go further


1 Tutors Introduction

This course was design by:

● Antonella Guidoccio is an expert in strategic planning, participatory research and

evaluation and product management. She is passionate about helping teams to bring

innovation and digital transformations to pressing needs of our society. She has

extensive experience building results-based management system, planning and

evaluation capacities and innovative human-centered interventions for NGOs,

international organizations, and local and federal governments in Argentina, Australia,

Latin America, and the US. Received a Masters in Public Policy and Manager at

Carnegie Mellon University in 2013, awarded Australian Development Awards and

Leadership Awards from AUSAid and graduated with highest distinction. Since 2016, is

Co-Chair of EvalYouth Global Mentoring Program to empower young and emerging

evaluation. She is also the founder of EvalYouth Latinamerica and EvalYouth

Argentina. In 2017, she was awarded EvalPartners Awards for her contributions to the

Latin American region.

● Claudia Olavarria is a sociologist, evaluator and gender expert. She has 10 years of

professional experience as a planning and evaluation consultant for diverse

organizations in Chile and abroad. During this period Claudia has worked assisting

organizations that work with vulnerable groups such as women, children, youth and

rural populations, among others. She actively promotes the use of gender and

culturally responsive evaluations and the implementation of participatory approaches.

During her career, Claudia has taught evaluation of social projects to under and

postgraduate students in diverse universities in Chile and has wide experience as an

evaluation lecturer for diverse audiences.

Claudia is a passionate member of national and regional VOPEs and a founder

member and actual co chair of the Latinamerican chapter or Eval Youth. In this space

she actively promotes the development of the career of young and/or emerging

evaluators in Latinamerica and abroad.

2 DRG Eval Toolkit Module Content

Section 1.

Let’s get started

1.1 What are the objectives of this module?

1.2 What is the target audience of this module?

1.3 Guidelines to navigate this toolkit

DRG Eval Toolkit Module MAP

Section 2 .

What’s the scope of DRG evaluation?

Conceptual Framework

2.1 Definition of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance

2.2 Critical Factors to understand DRG challenges

2.3 Most influential elements to strengthen Democracy

2.4 Most Influential actors to advance Democracy, Human rights and Governance

DRG Eval Self Assessment checklist

DRG Eval Examples and cases

DRG Eval Examples of projects developed by VOPEs with the support of EvalPartners

Section 3.

How does Democracy,

Human Rights and Governance relate to the work of VOPEs?

3.1 Promoting Democracy, Human Rights and Governancethrough evaluation

3.2 Promoting Democracy, Human Rights and Governanceevaluation

Questions and answers to rethink the role of your VOPE aboutDRG Eval

Quick Guide to incorporate DRG in the Strategic Planning of


Section 4.


considerations for more and better evaluation

4.1 Identify the critical stakeholders you want to influence

4.2 Traditional and modern strategies for advocacy

4.3 Customize your strategies based on your target audience

4.4 Indicators to track progress of your advocacy efforts

Questions and answers to rethink the role of your VOPE on DRG

Quick Guide to incorporate DRG in the Strategic Planning of VOPEs

Section 5. 5.1 Capacity Development Consideration for VOPEs to evaluate

initiatives of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance


What evaluation management considerations are important for DRG interventions?

5.2 Individual Capacity Development tips to evaluate DRG initiatives

5.3 Institutional Capacity Development tips to evaluate DRG initiatives

DRG Eval E learning module

Tips and steps to host Workshops on DRG Eval

Section 6.

To go further

6.1 Resources and Guides about DRG Eval

6.2 Practical Tools about DRG Eval

6.3 Communities of Practice that are discussing DRG Eval

6.4 EvalPartner Initiatives

6.5 International Framework relevant for DRG Eval


Section 1: Let’s get started!

1.1 What are the objectives of this Module?

The objective of this Module is to provide useful tools and share valuable resources to

facilitate the engagement and commitment of Voluntary Organizations of Professional

Evaluators ( VOPE s) with strengthening Democracy, Human Rights and Governance ( DRG ),

through evaluation.

In that direction, the DRG Evaluation Toolkit Module aims to:

● Facilitate resources to guide Institutional Capacity Development for VOPEs in

DRG and create awareness on the contribution that evaluation can make to this


● Facilitate resources for VOPEs to actively promote the development of Individual

Capacities for the evaluation of DRG initiatives.

● Facilitate resources for VOPEs to contribute to Enabling the Environment for the

implementation of more and better evaluations on DRG in their national context.

1.2 What is the target audience of this module?

This module is designed for VOPEs that want to:

● Increase their understanding about DRG and the role they can play in the field,

● Rethink how their work is affected by the DRG context of the country in which they


● Contribute to strengthening DRG in the context they are working.

The DRG Evaluation toolkit module could be useful for all types of VOPEs regardless their:

● Level of maturity and experience

○ new VOPEs

○ emerging VOPEs

○ consolidated ones.

● Scope of work

○ local context

○ national context

○ regional context

● Target audience

○ traditional stakeholders familiarized with the evaluation practice

○ non-traditional users of evaluation

1.3 Guidelines to navigate this Toolkit

Below are a few considerations that will allow VOPEs to make the most out of this Module:

● This Module has 6 sections that can be used independently one from the other or in

a complementary way.

● Sections 1 and 6 of this Module will provide guidance to navigate the tool and to keep

researching and learning on your own.

● Each section is divided into subsections that develop short contents and includes

main resources/tools.


● If your VOPE has specific needs related to the work in the DRG Evaluation field there

are 2 resources that can help you find more focused information:

○ Module Map on Evaluation of DRG for VOPEs, Link.

○ Self Assessment Checklist on DRG, Link.

Also, VOPE’ members can benefit a lot from reviewing the conceptual framework,

methodological considerations and examples of the E-learning Module on DRG interventions

available in EvalPartners E-learning Platform, Link.


Resource 1.1: DRG Eval Toolkit Module Map

How can we use the Map?

● First step : Identify Improvement areas from the results of the DRG Self

Assessment Checklist.

● Second step: Prioritize VOPE areas for improvement.

○ Tip: we recommend VOPEs to identify and address their needs and

actions, using the following categories:

■ Individual Capacities,

■ Institutional Capacities and

■ Enabling Environment.

● Third step: Once your needs are identified, find resources and tools in this


● Fourth step: Navigate the toolkit and take Action!


Section 2:

What’s the scope of DRG Evaluation?

Conceptual Framework

Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) are the foundation to achieve the

Sustainable Development Goals (Link). In this section we will explain the main concepts and

factors associated with them. Considering the body of work and experience of the USAID in

the field, this section will leverage the definitions and frameworks that this Department has

been promoting in collaboration with the knowledge produced by other organizations such as

the Freedom House, DME for Peace, Mercy Corps, Minorities at Risk Project of University of

Maryland, Polity, Collaborative Learning Projects (CDA) and Transparency International among

others. In Resource 2.3 we are including the sources and resources from where these

definitions are taken to allow for further exploration for those interested.

2.1 Definitions of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance

In this toolkit, we will consider democracy, human rights and governance as follows:

● Democracy refers to “a universal value based on the freely expressed will of people to

determine their political, economic, social and cultural systems and their full

participation in all aspects of their lives (...) while democracies share common features,

there is no single model of democracy and democracy does not belong to any country

or region” (United Nations, General Assembly 2010). Other important concepts related

to democracy that have been highly validated worldwide by the General Assembly are

the need to respect the sovereignty and the right to self-determination, and to see the

links between democracy, development and respect for all human rights as they are

interdependent and mutually reinforcing (United Nations, General Assembly 2010).

● Human rights refers to the moral principles and norms that recognize that human

rights are universal, inalienable and inherent to all human beings, regardless of their

nation, location, language, religion, ethnic origin, or any other status, meaning that we

are all equally entitled to our human rights without discrimination.

The core international normative body starts in the Universal Declaration of Human

Rights formulated by the United Nations General Assembly on December 1948

together with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the

International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights from the International

Bill of Human Rights.

Other conventions adopted by the United Nations to address the situation of specific

populations are:

○ The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial


○ The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against


○ The Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading

Treatment or Punishment;


○ The Convention on the Rights of the Child;

○ The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant

Workers and Members of their Families;

○ The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; and

○ The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced

Disappearance. (OHCHR, 2012 p.14)

This international normative body provides a framework for the design, implementation

and evaluation of DRG initiatives worldwide. However at the national level there are

differences in how countries apply this international norms depending on: how many

treaties they have ratified, their national normatives to guarantee human rights and

policies and how proactively their programs and interventions are to guarantee the

protection of human rights.

● Governance refers to the process of decision making and the implementation (or not)

of those decisions. It can take place in different settings/levels. An analysis of

governance requires then to review the diverse actors and structures involved in

decision making and processes. And Good governance should be participatory,

consensus oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient,

equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law (UN ESCAP nd).

Kaufman and Kray from the World Bank Institute defines Governance as the traditions

and institutions by which authority is exercised. This is composed by:

○ The process by which those in authority are selected and replaced: of

which indicators are voice and accountability and political stability and


○ The capacity of governments to formulate and implement policies:

which indicators are government effectiveness and regulatory burden.

○ The respect of citizens and state of those that govern interactions

among them: rule of law and corruption.

2.2 Critical factors and stakeholders to understand DRG


Based on the definitions and methodology developed by the Freedom House to measure

“democratization” in the world below the key categories to assess progress and setbacks of

democratic change (Freedom House, Link )

● National Democratic Governance. Considers the democratic character and stability of

the governmental system; the independence, effectiveness, and accountability of

legislative and executive branches; and the democratic oversight of military and

security services.

● Electoral Process. Examines national executive and legislative elections, electoral

processes, the development of multiparty systems, and popular participation in the

political process.

● Civil Society. Assesses the growth of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), their

organizational capacity and financial sustainability, and the legal and political


environment in which they function; the development of free trade unions; interest

group participation in the policy process; and the threat posed by antidemocratic

extremist groups in society.

● Independent Media. Addresses the current state of press freedom, including libel laws,

harassment of journalists, and editorial independence; the emergence of a financially

viable private press; and internet access for private citizens.

● Local Democratic Governance. Considers the decentralization of power; the

responsibilities, election, and capacity of local governmental bodies; and the

transparency and accountability of local authorities.

● Judicial Framework and Independence. Highlights constitutional reform, human rights

protections, criminal code reform, judicial independence, the status of ethnic minority

rights, guarantees of equality before the law, treatment of suspects and prisoners, and

compliance with judicial decisions.

● Corruption. Looks at public perceptions of corruption, the business interests of top

policymakers, laws on financial disclosure and conflict of interest, and the efficacy of

anticorruption initiatives.

Given the profound influence of the country type and political trend in the DRG challenges it is

worth considering here another segmentation based on 1) the political system and 2) the

trajectory offered by USAID (2014, p.8-9):

1) The political system differentiates a country based on their regime:

● Consolidated democracies are those which have the best policies and practices of

liberal democracies such as having the authority of government being based on

universal and equal suffrage from free, and fair elections, power rotates among a range

of different political parties, Civil society and Media are independent and vibrant,

Freedom of expression is protected, National and local governmental systems are

stable, democratic, and accountable to the public, The judiciary is independent and

impartial, as well as Government, the economy, and society are free of excessive

corruption, among others (Freedom House, Link ).

● Developing democracies include nascent democracies coming out of a political

transition, slightly more established democracies at risk of backsliding or stagnation,

and better-performing democracies striving to consolidate their progress. They have

the potential to devolve into democratic failure and political crisis, but often have the

most potential for assistance impact to consolidate democratic gains.

● Hybrid regimes are an expansive category, ranging from repressive semi-authoritarian

regimes to political systems with more civil and political freedoms but with no genuine

foundation for democratic governance and institutions.

● Authoritarian regimes include closed societies where autocrats and allied elites

maintain firm control over a political process that limits meaningful participation of

citizens and where there is little potential opportunity for a democratic opening in the

near term.


2) The trajectory segments countries based on their overarching characteristics towards

political competition and freedom:

● Conflict and fragility can be seen in all country types but most often emerge in hybrid

and developing democracies. Conflict dramatically disrupts development and weakens

social and political institutions.

Conflict and fragility will in many cases strongly constrain and condition paths to


● Transitions are characterized by fundamental transformations of the political order.

Profound transformations of political (and often social) institutions may render these

countries unable to be clearly situated within one of the country contexts. These fluid

environments require rapid action and a balanced attention to immediate as well as

longer term institutional needs.

● Backsliding countries are those hybrid or developing democracies that have

progressed along the democratic continuum only to later retrench due to political elites

seeking to consolidate power and restrict freedoms. The existence of backsliding in a

country requires a shift in the nature of USAID’s policy strategic and programmatic



Main Resources Section 2:

Resource 2.1 Self Assessment Checklist on DRG

How do we use the Self Assessment Checklist?

First step : Review each question,

Second step: answer with ✓ if the answer is yes or ╳ if the answer is no

Third step: Add your ✓ and assess your scores

Fourth step: Use the Toolkit to take Action!

Dimention Questions & Answers



DRG in the Strategic Definitions of VOPEs

1. Are the concepts of Democracy, Human Rights and/or

Governance explicitly mentioned in the VOPE´s purpose,

mission and/or vision?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

2. Are any of the objectives of the VOPE work directly related to

strengthening national Democratic Governance and /or

improving the exercise of Human Rights of the population?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

3. Is it agreed that the work of the VOPE should be oriented to

promote national Democratic Governance?

Answer: ✓ or ╳


2 or 3 ✓


1 ✓


0 ✓

DRG in the Individual Capacity Development work of VOPEs

4. In the last 3 years, has the VOPE implemented any Individual

Capacity Development initiatives such as workshops, training or

related activities focused on M&E of any aspects of Democracy,

Human Rights and /or Governance Initiatives?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

5. Have any of the VOPE leaders or members participated in

capacity development instances on M&E of Democracy, Human

Rights and /or Governance?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

6. Has the VOPE implemented any projects or developed tools

to facilitate the M&E of Democracy, Human Rights and /or

Governance interventions?

Answer: ✓ or ╳


2 or 3 ✓


1 ✓


0 ✓

DRG in the Institutional CapacityDevelopment work 

7. Has the VOPE explored any partnerships to increase its

capacity to contribute to democratic governance through the

promotion of evaluation?

Answer: ✓ or ╳


2 ✓


12 VOPEs

8.Has the VOPE implemented any projects that aim to

increase its capacity to contribute to democratic governance

through the promotion of evaluation-?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

1 ✓


0 ✓

DRG in the Enabling Environment work of the VOPE

9.In the last 3 years, has the VOPE implemented any initiatives

like conferences, seminars, workshops and/or others to

advocate for the use of more and better Monitoring and


Answer: ✓ or ╳

10. Is the advocacy work that the VOPE does oriented to

strengthening democratic governance?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

11. Does the dissemination/advocacy work of the VOPE explicitly

address issues related to the exercise of human rights as social

justice, equity, inclusion, among others?

Answer: ✓ or ╳


2 or 3 ✓


1 ✓


0 ✓

DRG in the expectations and plans

12. Does the VOPE agree on the need to actively promote

Democracy, human rights and governance evaluation ?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

13. Does the VOPE agree with the need to advance in

advocating for more and better evaluation for more democratic

governance, social justice and equity?

Answer: ✓ or ╳

14. Does the VOPE plan to implement any DRG M&E initiatives

in the next 2 years?

Answer: ✓ or ╳


2 or 3 ✓


1 ✓


0 ✓

Resource 2.2 Examples and cases of DRG Evaluations

How does DRG Evaluation work?

● Example 1:

Name of the Intervention Constructing Coalitions to Reduce Human Rights Abuse by Security Forces

in Northern Nigeria. Context and description of the intervention

- Escalating violence in Northern Nigeria has necessitated the deployment

of a heightened security presence across the region. While security forces

have a mandate to maintain peace, some of their officers have been

implicated in human rights abuse against civilians which have eroded public

confidence in the security sector.


- In 2013, Search For Common Ground (SFCG) Nigeria received an 18 month

grant from the US Department of State – Bureau of Democracy, Human

Rights and Labor (DRL) to carry out this project in Plateau and Bauchi state.

In partnership with the Center for Advocacy, Justice and Rights (CAJR) and

the Bauchi Human Rights Network (BAHRN), SFCG is working to strengthen

engagement and advocacy processes to reduce human rights abuse by

security forces in North East and North Central Nigeria.

- One of the first activities conducted was a baseline evaluation, aimed at:

(1) identifying key actors in Bauchi state and map out key regional parties;

(2) determining the present levels of interaction, engagement, and capacity

existing among regional NHRC staff, relevant CSOs, and judicial actors; and

(3) informing project design.

- More information available in this link .

Evaluation Focus

Human Rights and democracy.

Evaluation approach

- Mixed Methods (quantitative and qualitative)

- Participatory

- Outcomes Harvesting

- Most Significant Change

Data Collection


-29 Key informants interviews, from key staff of higher-level partner

organizations (the Judiciary, National Human Rights Commission and

security services)

- 9 focus groups of approximately 10-15 persons each collected data from

participants in the project’s activities, such as the capacity-strengthening

and coalition building/ strengthening/ supporting workshops and trainings

- Survey collected data primarily to assess the project’s influence on the

broader public, 460 responses in communities benefiting directly from the

interventions and 400 observations in communities not benefiting directly

- Project documentation

- More information about the questionnaires in this document (Trujillo,2018).

Types of Indicators

- Quantitative

- Qualitative

Examples of data collectionquestions and/or indicators

- “How aware do you feel you are about services or agencies or other

resources that protect you or are available for protecting you against

human rights abuses?”

- “Which specific situations do you fear put you in danger of being a victim

of human rights abuses?”

Results - The intervention has contributed successfully to a reduction in human

rights abuses:

- Improving awareness of human rights and actions to promote and

protect human rights,

- Improving collaboration among civil society organizations (CSOs),

state human rights agencies and security forces for the purpose of

improving awareness of human rights and actions to promote and


protect human rights,

- Improving the capacity of civil society organizations to raise

awareness of human rights and actions to promote and protect

human rights – but not identifiably increasing the capacity of

government agencies responsible for the same.

Lessons Learned interms of data collection andanalysis

- Ethical considerations to protect the victims from re-traumatization

- the evaluation team repeatedly requested consent from the

respondents to ensure they were informed of the content and able

to withdraw their consent as they become more familiar with the


- Furthermore, given that the inclusion of questions that ask

respondents to reflect on their awareness of victimization of

themselves or of others can pose risks for re-traumatization the

evaluation team decided to include these questions as the first

questions in the survey in order to raise the issue quickly and

provide the respondent with an opportunity to discontinue the

survey if it prompts any sense of hesitancy of proceeding with

responding to the survey.

- It is worth noticing that Fifty-one (51) respondents refused consent

after answering the initial questions of whether they were aware of

persons experiencing human rights abusesor were afraid of being

victims of human rights abuses.

- Triangulation of findings

- to better approximate findings and avoiding errors the evaluation

team used multiple methods of analysis and data collection as they

found it particularly useful to evaluate interventions addressing

complex social phenomena, such us influencing the behavior of

military actors and their interaction with society as well as for the

identification of the effects of interventions, in the measurement of

these effects and in the validity of claims of attribution of these


● Example 2:

Name of the Intervention

Combating Societal Discrimination and Strengthening LBT Organizations

project. Context and

description of the intervention

- A funding organization supports civil society organizations across

continents where were lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex

people (LGBTI) face institutional discrimination, sexual and gender-based

violence, and barriers in accessing public services. Despite different

contexts of the four project countries, LGBTI individuals experience some

common challenges. Pervasive stigma and discrimination, coupled with

limited legal recognition or access to legal recourse physical and social

violence and attacks, further limit social and economic opportunities.


- Groups that seek to engage them and provide support are

under-resourced, and face additional organizational development barriers.

Within the LGBTI community there are also divisions and competitions,

with underrepresentation of LBT voices. This takes place within country

contexts of precarious democratic processes, where operating space may

be unpredictable.

- The project funded activities related to its three objectives:

- To improve lesbian, bisexual, and trans (LBT1 ) access to justice;

- To increase organizational capacity of LBT and allied organizations

and networks, including improving awareness and adoption of

security and risk-management practices; and

- To integrate LBT rights organizations into the broader advocacy

agendas of LGBT, human rights and feminist movements.

- This was done through an external evaluation of work conducted with a

grant from the United States Department of State Bureau of Democracy,

Human Rights, and Labor (DRL).

Evaluation Focus Human Rights, democracy, specifically access to justice.

Evaluation approach

- Objectives-based approach

Data Collection Instruments

- Interviews with individuals and organization representatives positioned

to comment on issues prioritized in the evaluation

- Focus groups with representatives of communities and constituencies.

- Interim evaluation

- Project documentation

Types of Indicators

- Quantitative

- Qualitative

Examples data collection questions and indicators

- Qualitative

- “Has access to justice for LBT individuals or communities

changed as a result of this grant?”

- “What changes have there been in grantees’ capacity to facilitate

access to justice for LBT individuals or communities, particularly in

terms of engaging underserved communities and broader human

rights movements in [the specific country]?”

- Quantitative

- Number of individuals/groups from low income or marginalized

communities who received legal aid or victim’s assistance with

USG support

- Number of LBT human rights defenders trained and supported

- Number of individuals from LGBT communities who received

psychosocial, medical or other non-legal support services with

Funding Organization support

Results - Grantees demonstrate or express enhanced capabilities to engage their

constituents and strengthen their space among civil society organizations

and decision makers.

- Access to Justice was enhanced through two channels: by directly


providing some LGBTI community members with services and resources

and by contributing to improvements in systems and processes, and

engagement with individual actors that affect access to justice more


Lessons Learned in terms of datacollection andanalysis

- Ethical considerations to protect the security of the participants

The evaluation team took extra care to protect the anonymity and security

of the local organizations and individuals involved in implementing the

DRL project and related work.

- Outcome-related planning and evaluation

The evaluators recommended that funder enhance participatory planning,

learning and evaluation methods as well as outcome-related planning,

based on challenges the evaluation encountered in identifying outcomes

in the project documents.

- Agile monitoring and evaluation

The evaluators also recommended that the funding organization includes

feedback loops with grantees and their communities to further enhance

the funding organization’ understanding of grantee dynamics, support a

sense by grantees of having a voice in organizations that funder supports,

and serve as a source of information that is useful to funder’s

programming. Feedback mechanisms can include anonymous surveys,

third party interviews, community or grantee meetings and focus groups,

or any format that facilitates open, honest, and frank critique about the

role of funders. These activities would also model good program practice

for some grantees, who may benefit from more systematic and/or

inclusive approaches to engage their own constituencies.

Resource 2.3 Examples of DRG Evaluation Projects Developed by

VOPEs supported by EvalPartners

What Evaluation resources on DRG have VOPEs developed?

● Participatory Policy Evaluation Toolkit to improve democracy, human rights and

governance outcomes, developed by the EvalEurasia team, with the support of the

EvalPartners Innovation Challenge Award, Link .

● FCV Guide

● AGDEN Project


Section 3: How does Democracy, Human Rights and Governance

relate to the work of VOPEs?

To address the relation between Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) and

VOPEs, we recommend to use a lens that will understand evaluation field as a system .

For this we suggest to you to pay attention to:

● relationships

● multiple perspectives

● boundaries

For example, the Eval Agenda 2020 -developed by EvalPartners (available here ), structures its

strategies to strengthen evaluation in the following dimensions:

We recommend you to use these dimensiones to approach the work of the VOPE.

There are two main paths we recommend VOPEs to consider on how their work relates to

DRG: 1) Promoting DRG through Evaluation and 2) Promoting DRG Evaluation.

1) Promoting Democracy, Human Rights and Governance through Evaluation

The goal of this type of work relates to VOPEs that are contributing to strengthening

democratic governance and the exercise of human rights by increasing and improving

evaluation practice.

The main strategy to achieve this goal is to do advocacy for the institutionalization of

evaluation in the context in which the VOPEs work. This strategy is based on the following

premise: “More Evaluation for more Democratic Governance” .

The main contribution that VOPES can make in this direction are:

● Bringing awareness of the contribution that increasing the practice of evaluation can

make to the strengthening of democratic governance.

● Advocating for the strengthening of evaluation practice and its contribution to social

justice, equity, inclusion and in general the exercise of human rights.

It is important to highlight that the contribution that evaluation can make to the exercise of

human rights is not something that happens as a “natural” consequence of an evaluation

process. On the contrary, it is a political and technical definition that requires the commitment


of the evaluation team, of evaluation commissioners, and of other actors involved in the


The advocacy for evaluation strategy is closely related to the main purpose of the work of

VOPEs worldwide. This strategy will mainly be situated in an Institutional Capacity

Development , Enabling Environment dimension.

2) Promoting Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Evaluation

The goal of this type of work is to strengthen the practice of evaluating initiatives related to

Democracy, Human rights and/or Governance issues.

There are four main contributions that VOPEs can make in this direction:

● Facilitate training of evaluators, evaluation commissioners and other interested

technicians in DRG Evaluation tools.

● Provide a space to share experiences on DRG evaluation . This will facilitate exposure

to this type of evaluation, stimulate the debate about its relevance, share lessons

learned and motivate its development.

● Build partnerships to promote the demand of DRG evaluation in diverse sectors and


● Motivate evaluators to work closely with democracy and rights practitioners and

advocates for mutual exchange: to enable evaluators learning about effective advocacy

from practitioners, and advocates learning more about evidence, evaluation and

impactful interventions from VOPEs.

The contributions listed above are situated in an Individual Capacity Development , Enabling

Environment and interaction dimension.


Main Resources Section 3:

Resource 3.1 Questions and answers to rethink the role of your

VOPE about the Evaluation of DRG

● Why would our VOPE want to get involved?

○ To contribute to strengthening democratic governance.

○ To contribute to strengthening social justice and equity, and increase

the exercise of human rights.

○ To contribute to an enabling environment for more and better


● Where and how should we start?

○ A good start would be to review your own practice and the strategic

direction of your VOPE.

○ Another starting point is to analyze opportunities to address DRG

issues in the VOPE work. For instance, you can consider the possibility

of building partnerships and implement joint initiatives with other

organizations that are more familiar with DRG interventions.

● Who should we involve from our VOPE?

○ Identify talent that can draw relationships with diverse actors to

strengthen the evaluation system. Seek people passionate and

committed to embrace new ways of doing things!

○ Create a DRG team or Task Force in your VOPE.

○ Invite young and emerging evaluators to join the DRG team.

○ Seek individuals and teams that can make a contribution to

strengthening the DRG VOPE work. Valuable past experience could be:

previous work with marginalized communities, previous work with

NGOs and activists, and previous work with public institutions, among


● Who should we involve from outside the VOPE?

○ There are many organizations that are working to improve Democracy,

Human Rights and/or Governance.

○ Many international, national and local NGOs are working to improve

the human rights of the population. Many of these organizations have

been working with marginalized and/or vulnerable groups for a long

time and could benefit from a more targeted focus on measuring


○ National and subnational governments are key stakeholders to address

democracy and governance.

○ Policy makers should be involved in order to make change happen.

○ Academy, activist, communities, and many others!


● How can our VOPE become a change agent in the field?

○ Set a vision for change and commit to action.

○ Be passionate , be innovative , be transformative !


Resource 3.2 Quick Guide to incorporate DRG in the Strategic

Planning of VOPEs

It is important for VOPEs to start early in thinking about how they can contribute to

the work of DRG. Here we propose an active exercise for VOPEs to rethink the way

they do their strategic planning and how they can commit to embed the DRG logic

into this.

Below four basic steps that VOPEs can use to conduct their strategic planning

while thinking at the same time “How can Democracy, Human Rights and

Governance be embedded into this process” in each of the following steps::

Step 1

Set a Mission Statement.

Answer to: What is our Purpose ?

Step 2

Set a Vision Statement.

Answer to: What future inspires us?

Step 3

Define Values and /or principles.

Answer to: What principles will guide us?

Step 4:

Plan set goals, objectives and action plans.

Answer to: How will we achieve this?


How can Democracy, human rights and/or governance be

embedded in this plan?

Let's look at an example!

The Macondo Evaluators Network (MCN)

Mission Contribute to deepen democracy in the Macondo region, by

promoting a rigorous evaluation practice, that promotes gender equity

and social justice.

Vision MCN is a technical reference for the development of transformative

evaluations in Macondo

Values Innovation, passion, gender equity, social justice, inclusion of diverse

evaluators to the field.

Goal example

a) Implement at least 1 workshop of 16 hours on Evaluations of Human

Rights focusing on young and emerging evaluators.

b) Implement an in-person workshop with critical stakeholders from

the public and private sectors to promote the benefits that evaluation

practice can bring to improving governance in Macondo.

The Winterfell Association of Evaluators (WAE)

Mission Strengthen democracy in Winterfell by empowering young and

emerging evaluators to contribute to the evaluation field.

Vision Young and emerging evaluators become evaluators leaders in

different fields.

Values Innovation, equity, social justice and transparency.



a) Organize social media campaigns that target non-traditional users

of evaluation with engaging messages on how young and emerging

evaluators are using a more inclusive style of leadership and invite

them to support a Mentoring Program for minorities

b) Create a Twitter account to increase the traffic to the website

How could the DRG lens be embedded in your VOPE strategic


Let's see!

Work with your VOPE team and analyze: In what components of your VOPE

strategic Planning can the DRG lense be incorporated ?







(Objectives , activities,  goals, etc)


Section 4: Advocacy considerations for more and better evaluation

4.1 Identify the critical stakeholders you want to influence

When planning advocacy strategies for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG)

Evaluation work, start by mapping the direct and indirect stakeholders you are trying to


● Direct stakeholders: are stakeholders directly related to the evaluation processes.

They can be the subjects of the evaluation, the beneficiaries, the team that demanded

the evaluation, and/or the team or actors that expect to use the results of the

evaluation, evaluation service providers and those related to its use.

● Indirect stakeholders: The general key actors men tioned in 2 that are the most

influential in terms of supporting or blocking the advancement of democracy, human

rights and governance.

We recommend considering doing advocacy with strategies that involve both direct and

indirect stakeholders. The indirect stakeholders can help with your advocacy process by

reinforcing messages, setting agenda, creating momentum, forming a coalition for change to

influence your direct stakeholders.

Another important segmentation to consider is your stakeholders’ capacities with regard to

evaluation whether they are:

● Users familiarized with evaluation: it can include program managers, leaders of your

organizations, researchers, strategic planning and evaluation experts, evaluation

commissioners, among others.

● Non-traditional users of evaluation : grass-roots organizations, political authorities,

parliamentarians, beneficiaries of programs, among others.

4.2 Traditional and modern strategies for advocacy

To be effective at influencing different types of stakeholders, it is important to consider a wide

set of advocacy strategies. Below a list of traditional and more modern advocacy methods that

can help you engage your audience in a powerful way:

● Traditional Strategies for advocacy

○ Discussion meetings with critical stakeholders

○ Conferences

○ Workshops

○ Forming coalitions

● Modern Advocacy Strategies

The use of technology and digital tools in your advocacy strategies can help you reach a wider

audience or specific segments faster and more easily.

○ Blogging about your work (in sources like Medium or Linkedin, among others).


○ Using social media to meet your target audience where they are ( Facebook,

Twitter , Instagram , among others) with

■ short messages,

■ catchy titles,

■ images, and

■ Call To Actions.

○ Text Messages Campaigns, to reach different segments of your audience via

Text messages

○ Ideation Workshop to discuss insights from the evaluation and co-create the

potential use of the findings from the evaluation.

○ Instant polling , to ask different segments of your audience about their

feedback or opinions

○ Intercepts , that allow you to approach people in real time (either online or

in-person) to get their feedback.

● Online Tactical Mapping Tool (TMT) to equip Human Rights Activists to Take

Strategic Action

The TMT is an interactive tool developed as part of the Rawabet Initiative to support activists in

working collaboratively on a secure platform to

○ assemble a database of key actors;

○ assess where those actors sit on a spectrum from ally to opponent;

○ analyze targets for effective intervention; and track and plan direct action.

Since users and teams can also input background information on individuals and relationships

intersecting with their issue, and save reports to log a “tactical history”. This can support to

build the learning organization capacities and eliminate the risk of loss of knowledge when a

member of a team departs. More details available in this Link .

4.3 Customize your strategies based on your target audience

It is important to customize your strategies depending on your audience.

● The traditional strategies for advocacy tend to work best with stakeholders that are

familiarized with evaluations .

● The modern advocacy strategies tend to work best for stakeholders that are not

familiarized with evaluation but are also very powerful for any type of audience.

4.4 Indicators to track progress of your advocacy efforts

The table below contains indicators that can help your VOPE set advocacy metrics and track

progress. For the full article visit this link .



Section 5: Capacity Development Consideration for VOPEs to

evaluate initiatives of Democracy, Human Rights and Governance

5.1 Individual Capacity Development tips to evaluate DRG initiatives

The development of evaluation capacities for Democracy, Human Rights and Governance

(DRG) initiatives for diverse actors is an important contribution that VOPEs can make in their

particular context.

There are a wide range of options to promote the development of individual capacities

depending on the:

● Target audience: evaluators, evaluation commissioners, decision makers and any other

users familiarized with evaluation.

● Format: whether they are implemented in a face to face, virtual or mixed format.

● Area of focus: can vary from an integral perspective or any other approach that aims to

contribute to monitoring and evaluation of DRG initiatives as human rights approach,

gender approach, culturally responsive evaluation, participatory evaluation, among


● Functional focus: whether theoretical/conceptual, methodological/practical,

communication or others.

VOPEs could play an important role in conducting different training initiatives that allow for

building capacities of a wide pool of evaluators that will in turn be able to implement rigorous

evaluations of Democracy, Rights and Governance initiatives in their context.

All options of training are valuable in themselves but VOPEs should make that decision based


● maintaining a coherent approach between the VOPE mission and its strategy to

address the evaluation of DRG initiatives,

● its available resources, and

● potential partnerships and stakeholders that will sustain the initiative.

5.2 Institutional Capacity Development tips to evaluate DRG initiatives

To allow for a real contribution of the VOPE work to DRG, institutional capacities should be

developed. Institutional capacity development mainly relates to the following strategies:

● Increasing the capacity of evaluators to evaluate DRG initiatives by facilitating a

learning environment.

● Fostering experience in the implementation of advocacy strategies targeted to key

audiences to contribute to DRG.

● Increasing capacities to stimulate partnerships and the development of joint initiatives

to advance DRG.


5.3 Enabling the environment for the evaluation of DRG initiatives: Dissemination strategies

and tips.

To increase awareness of the importance of DRG evaluation among diverse stakeholders, it is

key to disseminate experiences and lessons learned.

Disseminating lessons learned can also help to:

● strengthen conceptual, methodological and practical capacities for DRG

● motivate the demand for more evaluation of DRG Initiatives

● identify stakeholders to partner with. Partnering with organizations from diverse sectors

that are working to advance Democracy, human rights and/or governance can allow

you to identify and plan synergies and joint dissemination actions.


Main Resources Section 5:

Resource 5.1 DRG Evaluation E Learning Module

In 2019, the International Organization for Cooperation in Evaluation (IOCE), with the

support of the United States Department of State’s Bureau of Democracy, Human

Rights, and Labor (DRL) developed an e-learning module about Democracy, Human

Rights and Governance Evaluation.

This module complements a set of 10 other basic and advanced modules that

constitute the Eval Partners e-learning program.

This module is a useful tool to promote individual capacity development in a virtual

manner and can contribute to the planning of other related training initiatives .

To access the e-learning module follow this link.



Resource 5.2 Tips and steps to host Workshops on DRG Evaluation

This tool gives a set of basic steps and useful tips to implement a workshop on DRG

Step 1

Identify the need and define the target audience

Step 2 :

Explore potential partnerships

Find who would be interested in joining your idea!

Be aware of the importance of having common principles

and/or values to ensure synergies

Step 3:

Identify valuable experiences and invite talented presenters

An agile presentation using language familiar to the audience, pertinent examples

and interactive dynamics can make your initiative more attractive !

Step 4

Design an attractive format and interactive dynamics.

Be innovative!

Ensure a good planning and stimulate interaction with the audience!


Step 5

Design and implement a vast multipronged dissemination strategy, Be aware that,

in order to successfully disseminate, you should use custom messages and channels.

Step 6

Implement your workshop!

Step 7: Keep in touch with the audience!

Register, contact and share new opportunities!


Section 6: To go further

In this section we provide further directions and resources that VOPEs can use to learn more

about the Democracy, Human Rights and Governance (DRG) field and the evaluation of DRG

interventions. This is just a suggested list and not an exhaustive one. There are many other

good resources available, so please use the “Resource Recommendation Tool” Link to

suggest relevant ones.

Resources and Guides on DRG

● Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) Guide to

Program Monitoring and Evaluation, Link .

● Human Rights Support Mechanism, Link

● Design, Monitoring and Evaluation for Peace Library, Link .

● DME for Peace Thursday Talks (webinars), Link .

● Equitas and OHCHR Handbook: Evaluating Human Rights Training Activities: A

Handbook for Human Rights Educators, Link .

● Danish Institute for Human Rights Copenhagen projects. Human Rights Indicators at

Programme and Project Level Guidelines for Defining Indicators, Monitoring and

Evaluation, Link .

● Freedom House Reports, Link .

● Guide on How to manage Gender Responsive Evaluation, Link .

● Guide on How to design and manage equity focused evaluations, Link .

● Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to Measurement and Implementation, Link .

● Monitoring and Evaluation: Showing How Democracy and Governance Programs Make

a Difference: Handbook of the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation at the International

Republican Institute (IRI), Link .

● USAID Technical Publication on Democracy Human Rights and Governance, Link .

● Your addition

Practical Tools on DRG

● DRG EvalPartners Projects, Link .

● DRG EvalPartners Innovation Challenges, Link .

● Guide for Evaluation in Contexts of Fragility, Conflict and Violence. Link.

● DRG EvalPartners Innovation Challenges, Link .

● DRG VOPE Toolkit, Link.

● Human Rights Indicators in Development Focuses on the intersection between human

rights and international development indicators, Link .

● Universal Human Rights Instruments, Link .

● Human Rights Treaties Ratification Interactive Map OHCHR, Link .

● OHCHR, Human Rights Indicators A Guide to measurement and implementation, Link .

● World Bank Collected Indicators, Link .

● Your Addition

Communities of Practice that discuss DRG related issues

● DME for Peace Community of Practice, Link

● Gender and Evaluation Community of Practice, Link .


● Voluntary Organizations of Professional Evaluators Worldwide Map, Link .

● American Evaluation Association Topical Interest Group on Democracy and

Governance, Link .

EvalPartners Initiatives social Media

● EvalYouth

● EvalGender+


● EvalIndigenous

● Global Parliamentarians Forum for Evaluation

International Frameworks relevant to DRG interventions

● Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Link .

● Agenda 2030, Link .

● Sustainable Development Goals, Link .


● Bibliography

American Association for the Advancement of Science: “Innovations in Human Rights Program

Evaluation”, Link .

Aye, G (2017): “Design Education’s Big Gap: Understanding the Role of Power” (June 2nd,

2017), Medium Link .


Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) 2016 Guide to

Program Monitoring and Evaluation, Link .

Evergreen, E: Data visualization, Intentional Reporting and Data Visualization, Link .

Evergreen, E: Audience Engagement, Link .

Hassnain, Hur et al (2019): “Evaluation in Contexts of Fragility, Conflict and Violence”, Link

Interaction Design Foundation: User Centered Design, Link .

IRI (2013): Monitoring and Evaluation: Showing How Democracy and Governance Programs

Make a Difference: Handbook of the Office of Monitoring and Evaluation at the International

Republican Institute (IRI).

Nadu, E: “From Memory to Action: A Toolkit for Memorialization in Post-Conflict Societies”,

International Coalition of Sites of Conscience. Link .

Office of the High Commissioner of Human Rights (2012): Human Rights Indicators: A Guide to

Measurement and Implementation, Link .

Patton, M (2013): Utilization-Focused Evaluation, Link .

Sida Evaluation Series (2019): Evaluation of Sida’s Support to Peacebuilding in Conflict and

Post-Conflict Contexts. Two Decades of Support to Peacebuilding. What have we learnt?” Link .

Sida (2019): “Democracy in the Digital Age”, Thematic Brief, October, 2019, Link .

Shulha, L. M., Whitmore, E., Cousins, J. B., Gilbert, N., & Al Hudib, H. (2015): Evidence based

principles to guide collaborative approaches to evaluation: Technical report. Ottawa: Centre for

Research on Educational and Community Services, University of Ottawa. Link .

Tactical Mapping Tool (TMT), Link .

Trujillo, H. (2018): “Expanding initiatives to reduce human rights abuses in Northern Nigeria”,

Search for Common Ground (SFCG), Final Evaluation, May 2008.

USAID (2016): Gender Integration in Democracy, Human Rights and Programming,

Programming Toolkit, Link .

USAID (2014): Democracy, Human Rights and Governance Strategic Assessment Framework.


United Nations, General Assembly (2010): “Resolution adopted by the General Assembly on 18

December 2009: Strengthening the role of the United Nations in enhancing periodic and

genuine elections and the promotion of democratization”, A/RES/64/155, Link


Web pages

- Evaluation




- Democracy, human rights and governance






- Human-centered Design




Tweets by VOPE