Organization: Trócaire
Country: Kenya
Closing date: 31 Mar 2016
1.0 BACKGROUND
Trócaire is an Irish development agency that was established in 1973 by the Catholic Bishops of Ireland. Trócaire works in over 20 countries in partnership with local civil society organizations implementing both long-term development and emergency response programmes. Trócaire has been working in Kenya for 30 years and established its Nairobi office in 1994. Working with over twenty five local partner organisations, Trócaire focuses on Secure Livelihoods and Environmental Justice (SLEJ); Governance and human rights (GHR), Integrated Gender and HIV (IGH). Trócaire contributes towards ‘a just Kenya where communities have agency and are realising their fundamental rights through critical engagement within a context of accountable and equitable governance.’ (Country Strategic Plan-CSP: 2015-20). Our country programme is built on an ecological model that integrates a change process based on micro, meso and macro level engagements with strong partnerships, a commitment to capacity building, clear advocacy priorities, high levels of financial oversight and holistic programme design to bring about social change.
Trócaire works at 3 levels across all programmes: Micro: Communities (especially women and youth within those communities) are empowered to be more ‘resilient’ to hazards, shocks and conflict i.e. are able to identify problems, come up with solutions, plan to address their problems and carry out those plans so that the rights of all are protected; Meso: Civil society is vibrant and promotes citizens’ concerns and rights while county level government is more accountable and managing an equitable devolved governance system – responsive to citizen’s needs; and Macro: Government is influenced to be more accountable, equitable and responsive to citizen’s needs
1.1 Introduction to DFID ARP- Loima Project
Kenya’s ASALs make up more than 80% of the country’s surface and are home to over 10 million people and approximately 70% of the national livestock herd. ASAL poverty rates are far higher than elsewhere in the country with over 60% living on less than a dollar a day.[2] Trócaire Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs) Resilience Programme (ARP) is working in partnership with the Catholic Diocese of Lodwar (DoL)/ Caritas Lodwar in five locations of the Loima District, namely: Kalemunyang, Lokiriama, Lorengippi, Namoruputh and Turkwel in strengthening the resilience of pastoralist and agro-pastoralist communities in Kenya to cope with, and respond to, climate change and to recover from crisis while protecting their livelihoods and assets.
This project is part of the larger Trócaire SLEJ- ARP Programme that has a 5 year development plan aimed at improving livelihood security and resilience to droughts in ASALs of Kenya. This project is a three year partnership with DFID in Turkana County starting from April 2013 to April 2016. It aims at improving resilience to drought through increasing households’ access to food, income and alternative livelihood strategies; improving livestock health; building communities’ capacities to manage droughts; promoting sustainable management of natural resources and advocating for effective legislation and policies. The programme builds and consolidates on the work done in the previous Sustainable Livelihoods and DRR programme (KEN08-01) and the humanitarian response programme (KEN1101). It therefore has three complementing cycles that explain the resilience and DRRD cycle: i) responding to disaster, ii) supporting recovery and rehabilitation and iii) supporting development.
This specific assignment focuses on ARP- Loima, which is a DFID funded project managed by Trócaire Kenya and implemented through the Catholic Diocese of Lodwar in Loima district, Turkana County.
The project has four main objectives:
Objective 1: Increase income and improve food security for 2,109 vulnerable households in Turkwel riverine agro-pastoral zone and also Border pastoral livelihood zone
Objective 2: Increase livelihoods diversification among 5 kraals (75 households) and 500 vulnerable agro-pastoral households in Turkwel riverine agro-pastoral zone & Border pastoral livelihood zone
Objective 3: Greater capacity in Turkwel, Kalemunyang, Namoruputh, Lorengippi and Lokiriama communities in disaster mitigation, preparedness and response.
Objective 4: Improve collective use of contested land areas and greater government accountability in the use of public funds and linkage with the county government in Turkwel, Kalemunyang, Namoruputh, Lorengippi and Lokiriama communities.
Our Project Approach to Resilience and Preparedness:
Micro– improving and diversifying crops through training in improved agricultural practices, improved seeds, alternative crops and promoting alternative livelihood strategies; breed improvement, improved animal health and livestock marketing; improved irrigation techniques; support to the Community Managed Disaster Risk Reduction (CMDRR) groups and natural resource management; strengthening the role and capacities of women and youth; building capacity for engagement in policy at local levels. Conflict mitigation and resolution in contested areas.
Meso– natural resource management including pasture and rangeland management; county level policy engagement; development of Early Warning Systems (EWS) and CMDRR and knowledge and skills in disaster prevention and mitigation. Conflict transformation, especially in cross-border situations.
Macro– Lobbying and engaging with government on climate change policy, pro-poor DRR and governance of the ASALs, including responses to potential rights abuses related to the extraction of natural resources.
2.0 PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The main purpose of the End of Programme (EOP) evaluation is to establish the changes experienced by project beneficiaries and target population with regard to the indicators included in the Trócaire Results Framework. The project was informed by a baseline study conducted prior to the implementation of this three-year programme (2012). We anticipate being able to do a comparison of the results. This will form a key element of our commitment to accountability both to the donor and our beneficiaries.
The secondary aim of the evaluation is to gain insight into key elements of the implementation process which either explain why reported changes occurred or shed light on how such changes were achieved. We expect that an assessment of impact and understanding of key processes will support the generation of programme recommendations that could be considered for the design of future programmes. In addition we expect our partners to play a key role in designing and carrying out the evaluation such as confirming the suitability of tools, introducing the consultant to the communities and assisting the consultant in data collection, as well as validating the evaluation findings.
3.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION & KEY QUESTIONS
Trócaire’s partner organisation (DoL) was the primary recipients of programme resources which they used for the day to day implementation of programme activities that were intended to benefit the local communities. Besides using the evaluation to measure the progress on indicators, we would like to find out which strategies or approaches worked well and to gather any insights into how impact (either negative or positive or expected or unplanned) came about. The evaluation will be consultative and participatory, entailing two main methodologies:
3.1. Quantitative Data: This is the key component of the evaluation and will involve use of quantitative methods to gather data in line with the objectives set in project Logframe, to compare baseline and end line results, and significant qualitative methods for validation of project results. Key indicators to be reported against include:
· Reduction in Global Acute Malnutrition (GAM) rate in Turkana Central/ Loima
· Real value of productive assets owned by target HHs
· Household income diversity and quantity
· Household dietary diversity
· Coping strategies used by target households
· Livestock disease prevalence
3.2. Qualitative Data: Will be gathered to give the bigger picture of what change happened, and how it came about. This will be based on OECD[3] basic principles of evaluation. Some of the key questions we seek answers for include:
3.2.1. Relevance, appropriateness and coverage of the intervention: The extent to which the activities designed and implementation were suited to priorities and realities. Key questions include:
· Was the design of the project, and theory of change (TOC) adequate to properly address the issues envisaged in formulation of the programme? (Specifically within both resilience and emergency preparedness contexts).
· At the programme design stage, were different programme approaches compared? Were lessons learnt from previous and other programmes? Were risks assessed? Were decisions well documented?
· Was the programme design, as reflected in its logical framework and indicators, appropriate to a resilience agenda?
· Were the interventions chosen in line with local priorities and were they the most appropriate, taking into account the operational environment in the different project areas?
· Was the project design consistent with national strategies, policies and guidelines?
· Were the geographic areas targeted appropriate? On what basis were they selected?
3.2.2. Effectiveness and Quality of interventions and achievements: how far a programme achieves its intended outcomes, using qualitative and quantitative assessments of change. Key questions include:
· To what extent has the project delivered against its outputs? How many and which of the intended outputs have or have not been delivered so far as planned? What key challenges have hampered the delivery of intended outputs?
· Has sufficient progress been made in the delivery of the outcomes given the resources deployed and time spent? What concrete successes have been achieved (i.e. which milestones have been reached)? To what extent can change in outcome indicators be attributed to achievement of outputs?
· Did the project achieve what it set out to achieve as end of programme indicator targets?
· Did the project have clear and relevant strategies and plans to deliver on objectives and outcomes?
· How effective was the project in delivering interventions in relation to those anticipated in the project proposal, and in line with the objectives and outcomes?
· Were the project outcomes sufficiently challenging? E.g. did the project strive for continuous improvement and strive to reach the very poorest groups? Did the project benchmark itself against similar organisations? Did the project take risks to innovate and to deliver better results?
· To what extent did the response project reduce future vulnerabilities to climatic shocks?
· Did the Diocese of Lodwar have the required capacity to deliver this programme?
· The monitoring and evaluation system and the appropriateness of the indicators used for this purpose – to what extent did the Project’s M&E mechanism contribute in meeting project results? How could it have been improved?
· Which aspects of the project have been most successful? Which ones are least effective? How can these be duplicated, or mitigated in future?
3.2.3. Efficiency: measurement of the outputs in relation to the inputs: Taking into account the operating context, project assumptions and risks, maximising an output for a given input – or minimising inputs for an output. The evaluation will also closely look at the efficiency of project implementation considering timing, targeting, technical solutions and community involvement.
· Have the project funds been utilised as planned? Were the interventions done in a timely manner? If not, what could have been done differently?
· Were the results delivered in reasonable proportion to the operational and other costs?
· Could a different type of intervention/ approach lead to similar results at lower cost? How?
· Did project activities overlap and duplicate other similar interventions (funded nationally and/or by other donors)? Are there more efficient ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?
· Did the project management processes and procedures affect project implementation? How?
· Was the project aware of, and did it strive for economy in the purchase of programme inputs, i.e. was its approach to procurement driven by cost control, and did it have targets for procurement savings? How were savings utilized (if any were made)?
· Was the partner challenged and supported to think about value for money, i.e. to think about economy, efficiency, effectiveness and equity in key policy and programme choices?
· What were the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project’s implementation process?
3.2.4 Impact: Overall results in the lives of beneficiaries and target communities:
· What were the intended and unintended, positive and negative, lasting and transitory outcomes of the interventions?
· What are the likely longer-term effects of these results? For whom have the results made the most difference?
· Were the most vulnerable and poorest targeted for project interventions? Was the beneficiary selection criteria understood by all of the affected community? To what extent were beneficiaries involved in the decision making? To what extent did the actual interventions meet the expectations of the people concerned?
3.2.5. Sustainability and exit strategies: Lasting effects of project interventions: Assessment of the ability of supported activities and functions to continue after the programme end, and the extent to which local capacity was supported and developed. Specifically:
· Are the outcomes that have been achieved by the programme to date likely to be sustained after the end of the project period? What institutional links did the project create to ensure that the gains made by the project interventions continue being enjoyed beyond the project period?
· What systems have been put in place within the target communities to safeguard the achievements made by the programme?
· Have the project interventions created capacities for sustained results in the lives of the beneficiaries and within the community structures, e.g. adoption and practice of farming skills achieved; or sustaining the community-led disease surveillance units?
· Did the project delivery strategies factor issues of sustainability? E.g. what systems are in place to manage the hardware structures (water facilities, goat breeding units, agro vets, shoat troughs etc.)?
· What are the promoting factors or potential constraints of the proposed project exit strategies? What key factors will require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach?
3.2.6. Learning: What lessons can be picked to inform future programming? Key questions include:
· At the programme design stage, were different programme approaches compared? Were lessons learnt from previous and other programmes? Were risks assessed? Were decisions well documented?
· What are the key lessons learned from implementation of this project? Have these been documented and shared with other stakeholders? How will this learn inform future programmes?
3.2.7. Accountability:
· Was appropriate information made available to the beneficiaries?
· Were appropriate mechanisms developed at the local level to enable affected communities to actively participate in the design, planning, implementation and monitoring of the project?
· Was there a process in place for beneficiaries to articulate their grievances and concerns? Was the beneficiary feedback captured, synthesized and appropriate action taken?
3.2.8. Mainstreaming considerations: How were gender inequality and other crosscutting issues addressed within the project?
· Did the intervention identify specific vulnerable groups like women, elderly, people with disability (PwDs) and others?
· What special efforts were taken to address the needs of vulnerable groups and to ensure they were targeted?
· Was gender and HIV considered or addressed at all in any stages in the response?
3.2.9. Partnerships and collaborations: the extent to which the programme brings together relevant stakeholders to achieve project objectives.
· To what extent did the project collaborate with the County Government and National Government? What was the added value of this collaboration? What were the enabling and limiting factors?
· To what extent did the project collaborate with other development partners working in the target county, and under the larger ASP programme? What was the added value of this collaboration? What were the enabling and limiting factors?
· Did these collaborations/relationships function as intended? How can these be improved in future?
· Was the selected partner the most appropriate for the project? What was the added value resultant from Trócaire’s partnership with their local implementing partner (DoL)?
· What capacity building and technical support was provided for implementing partner? Is there evidence that their capacity has improved?
· How effective were the partnership and management arrangements made during the project implementation?
4.0. Evaluation Methodology and Process
The evaluation exercise will be consultative and participatory, entailing a combination of desk review, interviews, household surveys, FGDs and data analysis. While interviews are a key instrument, a range of data sources will be triangulated to ensure that the evaluation is sound and objective. A random sample of the required sample size will be extracted from a beneficiary database of 4,800 households so far reached. On the basis of the foregoing, the consultants will further elaborate on the method and approach in a manner commensurate with the assignment at hand and reflect this in the inception report, which will subsequently be approved by the programme team in consultation with key stakeholders.
The key inputs to the evaluation should be as follows:
· Interviews with key staff such Directors, Project Managers, Project Coordinators, Project Officers, M&E Officers, Field Facilitators/ Monitors and others deemed necessary by the review team.
· Interviews with stakeholders including respective county government departments, other NGOs working in Loima and community leaders
· Field visits to project sites in Loima sub-county, Turkana County
· Household surveys and community FGDs in Loima sub-county
· Substantive documentation: ARP Loima project proposal and reports (KEN1102-06); programme & partner’s logic models and the results framework; all substantive field and project reports; internal review reports (including Gender & HIV mainstreaming and water inspection) and others as deemed necessary by the evaluation team.
5.0. Evaluation Deliverables
5.1. Inception Report: The inception report will be a scoping exercise for the evaluation and will include the proposed methodologies, data collection and reporting plans with draft data collection tools such as interview guides, the allocation of roles and responsibilities within the team, a timeframe with firm dates for deliverables, and the travel and logistical arrangements for the team. The inception report shall be submitted after 5 days of commencing the consultancy.
5.2. Debriefings/feedback to management at all levels: The team will report its preliminary findings to Trócaire 2 days after carrying out fieldwork, in Nairobi. The team leader will incorporate any comments relating to factual inaccuracies etc., and present the full draft report to the evaluation management team within one week of the debriefing meeting.
5.3. Draft report: A draft report, identifying key findings, conclusions, recommendations and lessons for the current and future projects, and taking into consideration the outputs of the debriefing session.
5.4. Final report: A final evaluation report of a maximum of 50 pages excluding appendices, clearly setting out recommendations arising from the evaluation will be submitted 10 days after receiving comments from the evaluation management team. The content and structure of the final analytical report with findings, recommendations and lessons learnt covering the scope of the evaluation should meet the requirements of the Trócaire Field Programme Monitoring and Evaluation Policy and should include the following:
· Executive summary (3 pages) which covers the following:
Background to the programme
Brief overview of the aims of the evaluation
Brief summary of the evaluation methodologies used
Key Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Summary of management response
· Introduction (1 page)
· Description of the evaluation methodology (5 pages)
· Situational analysis with regard to the outcome, outputs, and partnership strategy (6-7 pages)
· Key findings, including best practices and lessons learned (4 – 6 pages)
· Analysis of opportunities to provide guidance for future programming (3-4 pages)
· Conclusions and recommendations (4 – 5 pages)
· Appendices: Charts, terms of reference, field visits, people interviewed, documents reviewed
6.0. Intellectual Property Rights
All products arising from this evaluation will be owned by Trócaire. The evaluators will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his or her own or to make use of the evaluation results for private publication purposes.
7.0. Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards
The evaluators should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. The evaluation team will also commit to adhering to Trócaire’s Safeguarding Programme Participant Policy and Code of Conduct.
8.0. Consultant’s Profile
Trócaire Kenya ARP Programme seeks to engage the services of qualified and experienced consultants/consultancy firms to undertake the exercise.
Selection of the external evaluation consultant will be based on the following qualifications:
· At least a Master’s degree in the field of development studies, public policy, public administration, economics, sociology, anthropology or any related field of social sciences is mandatory;
· A minimum of 7 – 10 years relevant work experience, with at least half working with developing countries and demonstrate an understanding of the challenges and opportunities faced by vulnerable communities living in Arid and Semi-Arid Lands;
· Strong analytical and research skills with sufficient understanding of survey design, quantitative/ qualitative methods, data analysis and the results framework;
· Extensive experience in conducting evaluations, with a strong working knowledge on livelihoods, natural resources management, disaster risk reduction, climate change and resilience building is highly preferred;
· Experience in using the Household Economic Analysis approach, gender and HIV mainstreaming would be an added advantage;
· Knowledge and experience working with INGOs both directly implementing and working through partnership preferred;
· Excellent English writing and presentation skills in English, with relevant writing samples of similar evaluation reports;
· Outstanding interpersonal skills, teamwork, and competency to operate in a multi-cultural and diverse environments; and availability for the period indicated.
· Evidence of having done similar work will be a key consideration
9.0 BUDGET & LOGISTICS
Trócaire will be responsible for logistical support of any shared logistical arrangements where the consultant is travelling with a Trócaire and diocese of Lodwar staff.
How to apply:
10.0 SUBMISSION OF PROPOSALS
Based on the above, Trócaire is inviting interested parties to submit expressions of interest. Individuals or firms applying shall detail the following:
· Consultants’ profile and Capability Statement describing the technical capacity and experience of the firm or group of individuals
· Names and resume of individuals or team members proposed and their roles in the achievement of the assignment
· 3 professional referees (preferably previous clients) and sample reports of similar assignments taken in the recent past
· Interpretation of the Terms of Reference (TORs)
· Detailed evaluation design with implementation plan and time frames. The assignment will commence by **5th April 2016* and must end by 30th of April 2016*
· Interested candidates should submit their application to the following email address: hrkenya@trocaire.org with “ARP Loima Resilience Project 2013 – 2016 External Evaluation Consultancy” as the subject of the e-mail.
· Kindly don’t forget to submit samples of your previous work.
Comments
Post a Comment