End-of-Project Review of Policy Impact, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning, and Practical Impact Tools for the Asia-Pacific Observatory

Background

The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) is an independent civil society organization headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with a globally dispersed Secretariat working across 42 countries. Founded in 2013, GI-TOC brings together a global network of more than 750 independent experts and a team of over 130 staff dedicated to understanding and responding to organized crime. Through research, analysis, policy engagement and support to civil society actors, GI-TOC works to deepen understanding of organized crime and strengthen effective, rights-based responses. In 2024, GI-TOC produced 167 publications and reached more than 713,000 website users worldwide.

The GI-TOC works to:

• Identify, analyse and map criminal trends and patterns of regional instability, and their impact on illicit flows, governance, development, security, conflict and the rule of law.
• Connect and support civil society actors working on organized crime and corruption, and on their links to instability and conflict.
• Strengthen local monitoring and analysis of national, regional and international organized crime and insecurity trends.

Job Summary

The Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime (GI-TOC) is seeking proposals from qualified consultants, organizations or consortia to support an end-of-project review of a project implemented under its Asia-Pacific Observatory. The assignment will focus specifically on how the project has contributed to policy influence, stakeholder engagement, learning and broader impact within the Asia-Pacific Observatory’s area of work.

The assignment is intended to generate a practical understanding of what the project achieved, how its activities and outputs contributed to policy relevance and influence, and what lessons can be applied to future Asia-Pacific Observatory programming. It is not intended as an organization-wide review of GI-TOC, but as targeted support to the Asia-Pacific Observatory and the specific project under review.

The assignment is intended to generate a practical understanding of what the project achieved, how its activities and outputs contributed to policy relevance and influence, and what lessons can be applied to future Asia-Pacific Observatory programming. It is not intended as an organization-wide review of GI-TOC, but as targeted support to the Asia-Pacific Observatory and the specific project under review.

The assignment will support the Observatory in three interrelated areas:

1. reviewing the project’s achievements, results and contribution to intended outcomes, including for monitoring, evaluation and learning purposes;
2. assessing how the project generated policy relevance, stakeholder engagement, uptake and influence in the Asia-Pacific context;
3. co-producing practical tools and recommendations that can help the Asia-Pacific Observatory strengthen impact-oriented project design, implementation, monitoring and learning in future work.

The selected consultant or organization will be expected to review the project as a whole, while also examining selected activities, outputs or workstreams as case studies. These may include research products, convening activities, stakeholder engagement processes, communications outputs, or other project components identified in consultation with the Asia-Pacific Observatory team. The review should assess both project-level results and wider learning for the Observatory, including the extent to which existing MEL systems captured meaningful signs of policy influence, stakeholder uptake, contribution to debate, changes in practice, strengthened relationships or other relevant forms of impact.

The assignment should be practical and collaborative in nature. It should not only produce an external assessment of the project’s success, but also support the Asia-Pacific Observatory team to reflect on what worked, what was less effective, what evidence exists of impact, and how future projects in the region can be designed and monitored more effectively.

Phase 1 : End of project review and evidence assessment

This phase will provide a structured review of the project’s implementation, achievements and available evidence of results. It should assess what the project set out to achieve, what was delivered, what outcomes can reasonably be identified, and how well these were captured through existing MEL and reporting systems.

Activities may include:

• review of the project’s objectives, theory of change, logic model, workplan, performance measurement framework, MEL plan, donor reports and other relevant documentation;
• assessment of project delivery against planned outputs, activities and intended outcomes;
• review of available quantitative and qualitative evidence, including output data, engagement records, feedback, event participation, dissemination data, stakeholder responses, reporting materials and internal learning documents;
• targeted interviews or consultations with relevant Asia-Pacific Observatory staff to understand implementation experience, achievements, challenges and lessons learned;
• review of how the project defined and documented success, including whether existing MEL tools were able to capture meaningful signs of policy relevance, uptake, influence, relationship-building and learning;
• identification of evidence gaps, including areas where the project may have contributed to change but where this was not systematically documented;
• assessment of the extent to which the project’s activities and outputs were aligned with intended audiences, policy processes, stakeholder needs and the strategic priorities of the Asia-Pacific Observatory

Deliverable

An end-of-project review report setting out the project’s main achievements, evidence of results, MEL-related findings, evidence gaps and initial lessons learned for the Asia-Pacific Observatory.

Phase 2 : Policy impact, learning and strategic recommendations

Building on the end-of-project review and MEL assessment, this phase will examine how and why the project contributed, or could have contributed more effectively, to policy relevance, stakeholder engagement, uptake and wider learning in the Asia-Pacific context. This phase should interpret the evidence gathered in Phase 1 to identify the pathways through which the project generated influence, the factors that enabled or limited impact, and the lessons that should inform future Asia-Pacific Observatory programming.

Activities may include:

• analysis of the project’s main pathways of influence, including how research, convening, stakeholder engagement, communications and partnerships contributed to policy relevance or uptake;
• assessment of which activities, outputs, relationships or engagement approaches appear to have been most effective in generating attention, trust, dialogue, follow-on engagement or policy influence;
• identification of factors that enabled or limited the project’s impact, including timing, format, audience targeting, relationships, political context, dissemination channels, internal capacities and donor requirements;
• analysis of what forms of influence were visible, indirect, informal or difficult to capture, and what this implies for future MEL approaches within the Asia-Pacific Observatory;
• identification of transferable lessons for future Observatory projects or workstreams, including what should be retained, or adapted;
• development of practical recommendations on how the Asia-Pacific Observatory can strengthen policy impact, stakeholder engagement, MEL integration and learning in future project design and implementation;
• validation workshop with relevant GI-TOC staff to test findings, prioritize recommendations and distinguish between project-level lessons and wider Observatory-level learning.

Deliverable

A policy impact and learning report setting out the main pathways of influence, success factors, constraints, transferable lessons and prioritized recommendations for future Asia-Pacific Observatory programming.

Phase 3 : Practical toolkit and learning support

This phase will focus on the co-production of practical tools that the Asia-Pacific Observatory can use to strengthen policy impact, stakeholder engagement and MEL across future projects. The toolkit should draw directly on the findings of the end-of-project review and diagnostic phase, and should be adapted to the Observatory’s operating context.

Activities may include:

• co-production of core tools through working sessions with relevant Observatory staff;
• development of practical guidance on integrating policy impact thinking into project design, including theories of change, project logic, activity design, output planning and MEL frameworks;
• development of tools for stakeholder and target mapping, including identification of ministries, departments, agencies, civil society actors, private sector stakeholders, regional bodies, multilateral processes, intermediaries and relevant decision-making moments in the Asia-Pacific context;
• development of lightweight stakeholder listening and feedback processes that can help the Asia-Pacific Observatory track relevance, uptake and learning;
• development of guidance on documenting policy influence and contribution, including proxy indicators for cases where direct measurement is difficult or inappropriate;
• development of MEL and design integration guidance, including how to align impact-oriented approaches with varying donor requirements, reporting formats and project timelines relevant to the Observatory’s portfolio;
• development of a differentiated impact framework that distinguishes between project-level MEL results, programme-level outcomes and Observatory-level influence;
• facilitated learning session with relevant GI-TOC staff to test the tools against current or future workstreams and agree how they can be used in practice;
• revision and adaptation of the tools based on staff feedback to ensure they are practical, proportionate and relevant to the Observatory’s work.
• The toolkit should not be a generic framework. It should be tailored to the Asia-Pacific Observatory’s research, convening, policy engagement and programme implementation model, including the challenges of working on sensitive organized crime issues across different political and institutional contexts in the region.

Deliverable

A practical impact, MEL and learning toolkit, including tools and guidance for future use by the Asia-Pacific Observatory.

Indicative deliverables

The assignment is expected to produce the following deliverables:

1. End-of-project review report on achievements, evidence of results, MEL findings, evidence gaps and lessons learned for the Asia-Pacific Observatory;
2. Policy impact and learning report with findings and prioritized recommendations on project success, policy influence and MEL integration;
3. Practical impact, MEL and learning toolkit, including tools and guidance for future use by the Asia-Pacific Observatory
   

Submission Requirements

Those interested are invited to submit a short expression of interest of no more than 600 words. The expression of interest should briefly outline relevant experience in conducting end-of-project reviews, MEL assessments, policy impact analysis or similar learning-oriented assignments; the proposed approach or methodology for undertaking the work; and any relevant experience working on policy influence, stakeholder engagement, research uptake or programming in sensitive governance, security or development contexts.

GI-TOC operates a flexible working environment and encourages staff to achieve a suitable work-life balance and supports professional development and learning.

Only short-listed candidates will be contacted.

The Global Initiatives makes use of BambooHR's ATS system to receive and review your application. All correspondence related to your application will be sent via our domain globalinitiative.bamboohr.com.