Evaluation of the CCIM’s Strategic Management Plan 2014-2016 “Catering for Change: Expanding Boundaries of Media Independency in Cambodia”
From 2014 to 2016, CCIM’s operation and implementation of activities was guided by its Strategic Management Plan (SMP) 2014-2016 with a theme: “Catering for Change: Expanding Boundaries of Media Independency in Cambodia.”
In October to November 2014, CCIM commissioned VBNK to conduct an external evaluation and submitted a report entitled “Organizational and Programme Evaluation 2014.” According to the report, the evaluation is “comprehensive, covering both programme and operational and organizational aspects of CCIM” and was “carried out using sources within and outside CCIM.”
This evaluation will focus on the implementation of CCIM’s SMP 2014-2016 to determine the extent of its achievement and to gain best practices and lessons from the implementation. And most importantly, it will provide inputs in the development of a new strategic plan for the period 2017 – 2019.
Since the external evaluation of 2014 was conducted one year of the SMP 2014 – 2016, this evaluation is expected to follow through and build on what has been examined in 2014 evaluation.
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the level of implementation of CCIM’s Strategic Management Plan 2014-2016 to draw out lessons and recommendations to help improve the operation of CCIM and its preparation of strategic plan for 2017-2019.
Intended users of the evaluation
The intended users of the evaluation are:
This can be answered both at a design stage (was the project designed to be rights-‐based) and at animplementation stage (did the project implement a rights-‐based approach). Use, for example, the followingapproach know as PANEL:
Participation: Have rights-‐holders participated in project design, implementation and this evaluation?
Accountability: Has the project made its commitments clear to the rights-‐holders, e.g. by disseminating budgets?
Non-‐discrimination: Has the project taken specific steps to include vulnerable groups? Empowerment: Has the project made the rights-‐holders more capable of claiming their rights? Linking: Are the specific local and global human rights mechanisms relevant to the project identified?
1.1. Where do CCIM’s project and media activities as well as organizational policies and implementation stand in terms of gender equality and women’s empowerment? What improvements are needed? What challenges might impede implementation of improvements, and how would they best be addressed?
1.2. How does CCIM ensure the integration of the perspectives of historically and currently marginalized communities among members of the staff and board, as well as incorporate diverse views and approaches to the work?
3.1. Has the project contributed to the program goal? If at all possible, choose between:
3.2. Significantly contributed
3.4. Contributed only somewhat
3.5. What are some specific changes that have happened contributing to this?
The OECD DAC’s criteria includes:
Assess CCIM’s sustainability and internal governance. For more information on CCIM’s goals in this area, andto assess progress made toward them, see “Catering for Change: Expanding Boundaries of MediaIndependence in Cambodia,” CCIM’s Strategic Management Plan for 2014-‐2017. In particular, refer to thesub-‐points of Strategic Objective 4: Strengthen CCIM’s sustainability and internal governance to improveaccountability to CCIM partners and beneficiaries.
5.1. What are the greatest strengths and weaknesses of CCIM’s Board of Directors?
5.2. How effective has CCIM been in raising the profile of freedom of expression, media independence and press freedom in the media? What is CCIM’s role in the broader field of freedom of expression? What unique perspectives or capacities does CCIM contribute in this field both nationally and internationally?
5.3. How do CCIM’s policies, policy implementation and organizational structure contribute to or detract from the organization’s effectiveness? What changes are needed?
5.4. Assess CCIM’s ability to work as a team. In particular, assess the level of cooperation between the media and project departments and the general state of internal communication within CCIM. What improvements are needed? What duplication exists and how can it be eliminated?
5.5. How efficient and democratic is the current decision-‐making process at the management level? Can it be improved and if yes, how? What is the level of implementation on decisions made by the Management Committee? What is the level of transparency on management decisions within the organization?
5.6. Is the distinction between the three brands of VOD, Sarika and CCIM clear or confusing to staff members, partners and the public? Does the distinction contribute to or detract from the work of the organization?
Independenceis one of CCIM’s core values. Not only does the organization strive to provide neutral andunbiased information to its audience, but CCIM also acts as an independent organization itself, free fromoutside influence. This independence gives CCIM the authority to effectively make real change happen. Formore information on CCIM’s goals in this area, and to assess progress made toward them, see “Catering forChange: Expanding Boundaries of Media Independence in Cambodia,” CCIM’s Strategic Management Plan for2014-‐2016. In particular, refer to the sub-‐points of Strategic Objective 1: Strengthen and expand CCIM’sunique position as a national independent multimedia organization that produces and disseminates unbiasedinformation.
5.1. What is VOD’s reputation in Cambodia among the general public? Where does it stand in comparison to the country’s mainstream media in terms of independence, bias and professionalism?
5.2. How do VOD audience and media professionals rank CCIM in terms of independence, bias and professionalism? What improvements can VOD make in this area?
For more information on CCIM’s goals for developing VOD programming, refer to the sub-‐points of StrategicObjective 1 in “Catering for Change: Expanding Boundaries of Media Independence in Cambodia,”CCIM’sStrategic Management Plan for 2014-‐2016. Also refer to data collected from caller questionnaires andInternet surveys.
6.1. How effectively do CCIM’s Board and Management Committee use the Strategic Management Plan reporting protocols to gauge organizational performance and plan for the future?
6.2. What capacities will need to be improved among media staff and reporters in order to fulfill these goals?
6.3. How reliable is the Monitoring and Evaluation data collected on media activities through caller questionnaires and Internet audience surveys? Based on these results, what actions should be taken to improve VOD programming? To what extent is VOD programming fulfilling the demand of its audience? Is current M&E data an acceptable substitute for a full listenership survey?
6.4. Assess the diversity of VOD’s audience. What can be done to further diversify the audience? Specifically, what steps can be taken to decrease the (previously identified) gender gap among the VOD audience?
6.5. Investigate the causes behind the increase in VOD callers during 2013. Is this a sustainable trend?
Assess the risks posed to CCIM and VOD, whether economic, political or security-‐oriented. For moreinformation, refer to CCIM’s 2013 risk assessment, fact sheets on security incidents in 2013 and 2014, and aproposed borrowing plan for purchase of a radio license.
7.1. Investigate problems experienced by CCIM related to loss of radio signal prior to the 2013 elections.
7.2. Analyze possible political and non-‐political reasons behind the loss of signal. How did installation of a new transmitter and antenna address these signal issues? Is there a risk of these problems recurring?
7.3. Evaluate the risks involved with CCIM’s proposal to purchase its own broadcasting license for one or both Sarika FM stations. Evaluate the risks involved with failure to purchase one or both licenses.
7.4. What are the greatest threats CCIM faces financially, and particularly pertaining to its marketing and sales abilities? What can be done to mitigate these risks?
7.5. Identify specific risks the project team could face while implementing activities and establish mitigation strategies.
CCIM has two projects involving citizen journalism — “Human Rights Defenders in the Cyber-‐Age: Information Communications Technology for Emerging Civic Movements,” and “Giving a Voice to Cambodian Garment Workers: Improving Health, Safety and Security Conditions.” Assess the progress of these projects in relation to CCIM’s overall objectives, in particular to Strategic Objectives 2 and 3 from “Catering for Change: Expanding Boundaries of Media Independence in Cambodia,” CCIM’s Strategic Management Plan for 2014-‐2016.
8.1. What and how can citizen journalism contribute to the vision-mission of CCIM which can be learned from the experience of CCIM on these projects?
8.2. What new efforts should CCIM undertake in this area in the future?
The period that will be covered by the evaluation is the coverage of CCIM’s SMP 2014-2016. The final evaluation report shall be completed by November 3, 2016.
Geographical Area: Phnom Penh.
Timeframe: October 2016
The evaluation approach shall be utilization focused. As such, the evaluator should arrange a workshop or individual meetings with individual intended users before, during and after the evaluation.
The following should be observed:
Representatives of the CCIM fundraising team will serve as the primary liaison with the evaluation team in ensuring access to all CCIM officers and staffs, partner’s officers and documentation needed for the evaluation. The representatives will also provide necessary logistics in carrying out the evaluation such as working space and a meeting room at CCIM’s office, as necessary. CCIM will provide a budget to book a venue for the debriefing workshop (see Budget and Payment section for more details) as well as other needed materials.
The evaluator must not compromise the values of DCA and should adhere to the Guiding Principles for Evaluators of the American Evaluation Association.
The final evaluation report should follow the standard format 1:3:25 as described in Annex 1. Failure to comply with this format is considered breach of these Terms of Reference.
As the evaluation is utilization-focused, the following meetings are expected at both baseline and endline at minimum:
Throughout the evaluation process, intended users should be updated on progress every month. A progress report can be an email of half a page, supplemented by field notes as relevant.
The consultant will complete the tasks not more than 20 working days.
Payment will be made in three installments: 35% upon contract signing, 35% upon submission of the first draft of the report, and 30% upon submission of the final report.
The proposal should include:
Resources particularly relevant to the evaluation include:
Calls to protect work of citizen journalists
28 Oct 2014
VN opens Phnom Penh bureau for state media
17 Oct 2014
Journalist sues for damages
29 May 2014
Workers to file stories from factory floor
31 Mar 2014
Journo probe alleges CPP bused in voters
27 Nov 2013
Cambodian NGOs Reveal Poll Fraud Report
27 Nov 2013
Law on ‘Right to Information’ Remains Stalled
05 Jun 2013
Opposition slow to bite back in crisis
29 May 2013
Dip in Press Freedom Rankings
03 May 2013