Skip to main content

End of Project Evaluation

By

Country: Kenya

Organization: DanChurchAid

Closing date: 7 Dec 2022

Support to Refugees and Host Communities (SR&HC) in Kakuma Refugee Camp, Kalobeyei Settlement, and surrounding areas, 2022 (MCN 1010375-51)


1.0: Introduction


About DCA


DanChurchAid supports the poorest in the world in their struggle for a dignified life and helps people in need. In Kenya, DanChurchAid (DCA) is working with refugees and local communities in Turkana, West Pokot, Baringo, Elgeyo Marakwet, Nyandarua, Nakuru, Busia and Siaya counties to enhance peace, livelihoods, and resilience. DCA implements projects directly as well as through local partner organizations. For more information on DCA, please visit www.danchurchaid.org


DanChurchAid (DCA) has implemented directly and indirectly implemented humanitarian and resilience building projects for refugee and host communities in Turkana County since 1995, three years after the establishment of Kakuma refugee camp in 1992. Specifically, interventions have focused on Education, WASH, Livelihoods and Financial inclusion.


Background of the Project


DCA implements projects under Strategic Partnership Agreement (SPA) with DANIDA. The project 1010375-51 is funded under this framework agreement and aims at ensuring that the resilience of vulnerable refugees and host communities is strengthened through support for sustainable livelihoods and appropriate humanitarian response. The project is being implemented in the context of the triple nexus approach within a protracted crisis. The project builds on the gains recorded implementing projects over the past four years, under different annual project cycles. In 2022, the project objectives are outlined below;


Overall project objective:


Resilience of vulnerable refugees and host community is strengthened through support to sustainable livelihoods and appropriate humanitarian response.


The project had four specific objectives, namely:


  1. Vulnerable refugees and local communities are empowered and have enhanced sustainable livelihoods.

  2. Refugee and local community youth are economically empowered to live dignified lives.

  3. Improved financial inclusion for refugee and host communities

  4. Enhanced and systematic programming that enhances attainment of Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) commitments

Project interventions in 2022 have been focused on supporting vulnerable households in the host community and refugee communities in:


  • Vegetable production using climate smart technologies such as multistorey gardens (MSGs), cone gardens and shade houses

  • Poultry rearing and insect (cricket) farming for improved household income and food and nutrition security

  • Fish trading/marketing, through linkages to fisherfolk on Lake Turkana in the form of capacity building, market infrastructure development and provision of business grants, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic.

  • Establishment of and support to Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs) to advance affordable credit for borrowers and a return on their savings as well as grants for members in distress.

  • Digitization of VSLA using VSLA App through a simulation game App, the ledgers/records, and financial service linkages to digitize the cash box through financial account/wallets.

  • Multipurpose cash transfers to cover basic survival needs for targeted vulnerable households

  • Training youth on business and entrepreneurship skills using a blended learning approach and providing employability and work readiness program for youth job seekers as well as exploring online business targeting youth.

  • Establishment of a Youth Enterprise fund – a revolving fund targeting youth entrepreneurs. The funds will be made available for youth in the form of loans. DCA has partnered with SMEP, a micro-Finance agency in the disbursement of these funds to the youth applicants.

2.0: Evaluation Purpose, Criteria


Purpose


The purpose for this evaluation is two-fold. On the one hand, itwill establish the substantial evidence of the contribution made towards the achievement of the principal objectives of the project by assessing the performance of the project (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact, and sustainability) and ensure accountability towards the donor and the project beneficiaries and on the other hand the evaluation will assess the lessons learnt in the implementation of the project.


The evaluation will have three objectives:


  1. Objective 1: Evaluate to what extent the project has delivered, especially in contributing to the set objectives and achievement of outcomes as outlined in the project log frame. The evaluation will focus on effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact, and sustainability of the interventions.

  2. Objective 2: Assess the key lessons learned for the project on the basis of the interventions that have been implemented and establish viability of some of the innovative interventions that DCA is currently introducing, for future project sustainability and opportunities for redesign.
    1. Assess the lessons learnt, performance, feasibility and recommended way forward for Insect farming (crickets and Black Soldier fly) that has been implemented for the last 3 years.


  3. Objective 3: Analyze and document cross project synergies between projects 1010375-51, 1010375-52 & 1010375-56 and make relevant recommendations to enhance it.

Criteria


The evaluation will follow the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) /Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria. The evaluation will assess the following evaluation criteria and include all of the following questions:


Objective 1: Evaluate to what extent the project has delivered effective, efficient, relevant and timely interventions to beneficiaries as set in the project log frame (especially in contributing to the set outcomes and goals);


Effectiveness:


The evaluation should assess the following:


  • To what extent have the intended objectives (outcomes) indicated in the project log frame been achieved, including whether the intended population was reached?

  • To what extent have the project results contributed to the overall goal? Was the response effective in responding to the needs?

  • What were the major factors influencing the achievement of the objectives of the project?

  • To what extent have the project beneficiaries been reached and what mechanisms were in place to improve coverage?

  • Is the intervention relevant in relation to the needs and priorities of the intended beneficiaries?

  • What opportunities for collaboration have been utilized and how have these contributed to increased effectiveness? Or otherwise?

  • Have proper accountability and risk management framework(s) been in place to minimize risks on program failure?

Efficiency:


  • How efficient was the use of project resources(inputs) to realize the set results? Could the same results have been achieved with fewer resources?

  • Were the investment and recurrent costs justified?

  • Was the project implementation modality considered to have been timely and cost-efficient? What choices were made for leveraging other opportunities for collaboration and non-collaboration during program design? Why were these choices made?

  • What were the outcomes of these choices in ensuring effective and efficient program implementation?

Relevance


  • The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to beneficiaries, global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change?

  • How relevant were the interventions implemented in addressing community needs?

  • Have the interventions contributed to addressing the community needs identified by project?

  • How do beneficiaries perceive the relevance of the project and how have the interventions implemented improved their lives? Are there any stories of change?

  • Are the development interventions relevant to DCA and partners’ development policies, goals and strategies?

  • How has the collaboration between DCA and other stakeholders contributed to appropriate response of specific needs and priorities of the beneficiaries?

  • To what extent was project able to adapt and provide appropriate response to context changes and emerging local needs/priorities of beneficiaries?

Impact


  • What positive and negative, primary and secondary higher level, long-termeffects have been produced by the development intervention,directly or indirectly, intended or unintended?

Sustainability


  • What is the probability of long - term benefits as a result of the project interventions?

  • Will the intended benefits continue when development co – operation is terminated?

  • Is local ownership established?

Objective 2: Assess the key lessons learned for the project on the basis of the interventions that have been implemented and establish viability of some of the innovative interventions that DCA is currently introducing for future project sustainability and opportunities for redesign.


Learning


The evaluation should at least include one lesson learned and recommendation per evaluation category, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability.


  • What are the key lessons learned?

  • What improvements have been proposed to improve project impact?

Sustainability


  • Is there evidence that the initiative is likely to grow – scaling up and out – beyond the project life?

  • What are recommendations for the future and what will be the added value of implementing them? Consider at least the below questions:

Objective 3: The evaluation is also expected to analyze and document cross project synergies between projects 1010375 – 51, 1010375 –52 and 1010375 – 56 and make relevant recommendations to enhance it.


This evaluation is expected to analyze and document the synergies that exist between this project and other projects including TV collection 1010375-52; and Taka Ni Mali (1010375 – 56) – that aims to provide capital to youth owned enterprises through revolving fund, and on the other hand receive individual donations to refinance the kitty, both implemented in Kakuma and Kalobeyei and the opportunities available to leverage the impact of these projects for the benefit of communities.


3.0: Intended users of the evaluation


The intended users of the evaluation are:


Organization


Focal Person


Contact Details


Remarks/Possible Interest


DCA


Head of Program – Kenya (Patrick Kibuku). patrick.kenya@dca.dk


Lessons learnt, best practices & how they can be used to improve future programming.


Stakeholders. Livelihoods Technical Working Group – Kakuma ingutia@unhcr.org


Share lessons learnt with a view to improve Livelihoods programming in Kakuma/ Kalobeyei


4.0: Methodological approach


The evaluation approach shall be utilization focused. As such, the evaluator should arrange individual meetings with intended users before and after the evaluation (de-briefing).


The following should be observed:


  • Attention should be given to collect information: from all types of stakeholders, with special focus on women/youth (both girls and boys) from the refugees and host communities and project implementing staff.

  • Initial findings and recommendations made as a result of the evaluation shall be shared with DCA, partners and right holders in a participatory way, so that they have an opportunity to discuss the recommendations before they are finalised.

  • As much as possible, the evaluation shall recommend systems to check that recommendations are incorporated in future planning and proposals are documented and followed up.

Methodology


The following methods of data collection shall be applied;


  1. Literature review of all relevant project documents including Strategy, Evaluation reports, progress reports, financial reports, documents, and materials produced during the project including relevant documents (e.g., evaluation)

  2. Conducting Household surveys based on an appropriate sampling design.

  3. Individual key informant’s interviews and focus group interviews with stakeholders and target community representatives (both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries), relevant Partners, senior management, and relevant staff, relevant GoK departments, private sector partners and UN agencies.

  4. Market survey specifically related to input vouchers.

5.0: Scope of the Evaluation


Geographical area: This evaluation will be done in Kakuma and Kalobeyei areas of Turkana West Sub County, Turkana County where DCA implements this project. The sample size will be drawn from both host community and refugee communities in Kakuma and Kalobeyei settlement.


Time Frame: The evaluation will take place between December to February with initial preparatory activities and development of data collection tools being completed in December 2021 and actual data collection starting in early to mid-January 2023. This period will cover designing of the survey tools, data collection, data analysis, report writing and dissemination.


Technical scope: Whereas the evaluation scope will primarily be informed by assessing the project contribution in realising the objectives (outcome and goal level) as outlined by the relevant aspects in the log frame, it is expected that the following will be highlighted:


  • Application of innovative approaches and technologies in DCA work. This is expected to enable DCA and its partners account to its constituents, back donors and the government of Kenya for its commitments towards this project.

  • The application of Core Humanitarian standards in DCA work

Evaluation management and values: The evaluator must not compromise the values of DCA and should adhere to the Guiding Principles for Evaluators of the American Evaluation Association. This evaluation should adhere to and be guided by the DCA evaluation policy


Core Humanitarian Standard (CHS): DCA is a CHS certified organization. The evaluation will also assess the extent to which DCA applied the nine CHS commitments in working with communities in this project to ensure accountability to beneficiaries. This will also guide & compliment the above DAC criteria during the evaluation.


6.0: Evaluation deliverables and timeline


Reports: The final evaluation report should follow the format 1-3-25 as described evaluationpolicy-web.pdf (noedhjaelp.dk). Failure to comply with this format results is considered breach of these Terms of Reference.


Workflow: An initial meeting will be convened by DCA and attended by the consultant and DCA staff. This meeting will outline the scope of the evaluation and agree on the evaluation parameters including, tools, evaluation design, methodology, respondents that will be interviewed, locations to be covered and timelines to be used during the evaluation. The consultant will also outline the resources and documents that he/she will need to deliver the task and use the opportunity to clarify expectations of DCA. Alongside the review of the relevant existing literature and project documents, the consultant will embark on developing the tools that will be used for data collection. A meeting will be organized between the consultant and DCA to share and review these tools and to give feedback before the tools are validated for use in data collection.


Suggested timeline: Full term of consultancy: document review, field work and report writing should not exceed 27 days. The envisaged evaluation period should not exceed 27 consultancy days distributed as time for preparation, field work, travel, and report writing, to be outlined in the technical proposal. The timeline proposed by the consultant(s) should also take this into account, and ideally should propose preparation/desk research and any adherence to Covid19 protocols as laid down by the Ministry of Health.


7.0: Evaluation roles and responsibilities


General Terms


The general terms and conditions of this consultancy are:


  • Logistics: The consultant(s) will cover his/her own cost of travel to the field and back, meals, and accommodation during data collection.

  • Professional fee: The consultant(s) will be paid professional fees in accordance with this TOR and within DCA’s approved rates.

  • A contract will be signed by the consultant(s) prior to commencement of this consultancy which will detail additional terms and conditions of service, aspects on inputs and deliverables.

Payment Details


  • The consultant(s) will receive remuneration under the following terms of payment, which will be based on the output of the work and not on the duration that it might take:

  • The Lead Consultant(s) shall be paid based on a daily rate.

  • 30 % of the total shall be paid upon signing of the contractual agreement.

  • Tax - 5% withholding income tax payable to the Government of Kenya (GoK) shall be deducted from the consultants’ fees during payment when relevant.

  • The remaining 70% shall be paid after a final satisfactory report and other outputs are submitted and satisfactorily signed off by DCA.

Specifics on who makes decisions on what and what resources does DCA mobilize to support the evaluation, e.g., logistical support will be contained in the consultancy contract.


Roles and responsibilities in the course of the Evaluation.


  • Logistics: The consultant(s) will cover his/her own cost of travel to the field and back, meals, and accommodation during data collection.

  • The consultant will conduct a two-day workshop with selected enumerators to train them on the tools, methods, and approaches to data collection.

  • DCA shall avail additional References or Resources**,**relevant to the project as outlined below:
    • Project documents - 2022 Project proposal and Log frame documents for projects 1010375-51, 52 &56

    • Project progress reports and monitoring reports.

    • End of Project Evaluation report/s of 2021.

    • DCA Evaluation guidelines & Humanitarian Assistance policy.

    • DCA Strategy document.


8.0 Response to the Call (EoI)


Professional Qualifications of the Team


Required qualifications


  • A multi-disciplinary consultant (s) with a master’s degree in a relevant discipline in social science (or equivalent).

  • Experienced in nexus programming especially in Sustainable Livelihoods, value chains and financial inclusion/inclusive markets (in humanitarian settings)

  • Proven expertise on mainstreaming Rights Based Approach and Gender approaches in sustainable livelihoods programming.

  • Proven experience in conducting evaluations and studies for NGO implementing humanitarian and development assistance in the Horn of Africa and Kenya in particular.

  • Proven experience in conducting evaluations and research and using multiple methodologies including household surveys, participatory evaluation methodology, appreciative enquiry methods, focus group interviews, etc.

Structure of the Proposal and Submission Guidelines


All expressions of interest should include:


  • Technical Proposal highlighting brief explanation about the consultants (s) with evidence of previous experience in this kind of work; profile of the consultancy firm to be involved in undertaking the consultancy; understanding of the TOR, the task to be accomplished as well as draft consultancy framework and plan and at least three referees.

  • Financial Proposal: The financial proposal should provide cost estimates for services rendered including daily consultancy fees related to the consultant’s excluding accommodation and living costs; transport cost, stationeries, and supplies needed for data collection; costs related to persons that will participate from partners and government officers.

  • Curriculum Vitae: A detailed Curriculum vitae of the consultants(s) detailing the academic, professional, and technical experience relevant to this job.

How to apply

All applications should be sent to this email address not later than 7th December 2022 to : procurementkenya@dca.dk The email subject should read: ‘Evaluation Consultancy – SR & HC, MCN 1010375-51).


Interested Parties, applicantsshould refer any questions or emerging issues to Patrick Kibuku, Head of Programs, DCA Kenya Office, through the email patrick.kenya@dca.dk.



https://jobcenterkenya.com/end-of-project-evaluation-2/

Comments

Post a Comment