External Evaluation: In-country Programme

In August 2022, UPR Info commissioned an external evaluation of its In-country Programme to assess the programme’s performance between 2020 to 2022 in the following countries: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Guinea, Côte d’Ivoire, Madagascar, South Africa, Togo, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and Nepal. Specifically, the objectives of the evaluation were to review what worked well, to identify areas of improvement to help influence future ICP operations and serve as a reference for donors to demonstrate the progress made thus far.

To generate data, the evaluator reached out to stakeholders who had participated in UPR Info training and collected information from respondents through surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and drop-in virtual sessions.

Overall, the evaluation found that ICP operations have had a positive impact on stakeholders’ awareness of the UPR process, stakeholder collaboration, the capacity of stakeholders, and the contributions of stakeholders in the reporting, monitoring, and follow-up process. Further, the ICP has also increased advocacy of civil society organisations (CSOs)/national human rights institutions (NHRIs), created long-term trust and commitment with national stakeholders, achieved more frequent and more effective dialogue between stakeholders, and provided drivers for success.

The evaluation found that this success was due to two key factors: the “excellent training complemented by long-term ongoing support” and the “engagement of key stakeholders, creating spaces where sensitive issues can be raised, and marginalised voices amplified” facilitated by the ICP.

Indicative of the efficacy of the ICP, 90% of survey respondents indicated that they felt UPR Info’s support is relevant to their specific country/context and 83% agreed that working with UPR Info had improved the capacity and effectiveness of their organisation. Multiple respondents also emphasised that they appreciated that UPR Info’s approach to supporting functioned more as a partnership and that the training was adapted to their own specific context.

The evaluation also provided UPR Info with a variety of recommendations to strengthen the ICP programme moving forward including hiring additional staff in each targeted region, raising awareness of UPR Info’s work amongst other INGOs, collecting demographic data on training participants, and supporting organisations speaking about the most sensitive issues. The evaluation raised concerns about the sustainability of staff members’ workload as UPR Info consists of a small team with a large workload.

UPR Info management welcomes the evaluation and the recommendations. Moving forward, UPR Info has identified some key actions for the organisation to take in line with the recommendations.