Monitoring & Evaluation

Work Arrangement:

Job Description

1.0. Organization’s Background

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds to the world’s worst humanitarian crises and helps people whose lives and livelihoods are shattered by conflict and disaster to survive, recover, and gain control of their future. The IRC was founded in 1933 to respond to the needs of people vulnerable to conflict around the world. Since then, it has expanded and evolved to become one of the world’s leading humanitarian organizations. In 2016, more than 26 million people benefited from IRC programs and those of its partner organizations. Today, the IRC continues to serve communities with emergency relief and reconstruction assistance and operates in both refugee and host communities affected by conflict and disaster. The IRC in South Sudan has been implementing Economic Recovery and Development (ERD) programs since 2005. Between 2015 and 2018, the IRC, ZOA, and Cordaid implemented three separate projects under the EU Pro-Resilience Action (ProAct) in Unity, Jonglei, and Upper Nile States, respectively. Overall, the ProAct projects aimed at increasing the capacity of vulnerable groups to sustainably produce and access food.

1.1. Project Background

In 2019, with funding from Europe Aid the IRC (Lead partner), ZOA and Cordaid formed a consortium and designed a program to build on the achievements, lessons, and foundations laid by the ProAct project. The Strengthening Smallholders’ Resilience in Greater Upper Nile project is designed to scale up reach to more vulnerable households, build long-term community resilience towards climate shocks, and facilitate recovery, and stabilization from the effects of war and displacement. The four-year project runs from January 2020 to December 2024. The project is aligned with the objectives of the EUTF’s South Sudan Rural Development: Strengthening Smallholders’ Resilience (SORUDEV SSR) program whose themes and priorities focus on strengthening individual and community resilience by improving production and nutrition through access to basic veterinary and agricultural extension services; agricultural inputs, nutrition (food diversification) and food hygiene awareness. Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), conflict arbitration, and peace-building skills as additional integrated components.

2.0. Objectives of the Project

The overall objective of the SSR project is to contribute to strengthening the resilience of communities, improving governance of natural resources, and conflict prevention, and reducing forced displacements due to loss of livelihoods.

2.1. Specific objectives

The two specific objectives of the project are,

(i) to improve the food security of rural smallholders in the Greater Upper Nile and

(ii) to empower communities to cope with environmental volatility and insecurity.

2.2. Objectives and Scope of End-of-Project Impact Evaluation

The IRC on behalf of the consortium is seeking a consultant or a team of consultants to conduct the End of Project Impact Evaluation for the SSR project. The objective of the final evaluation will be to assess the effectiveness, relevance, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the SSRGUN project. milestones of the established project M&E system.

The End of Project Impact Evaluation will focus on the indicator results framework approved by the EU in the project design document. The main assignment of the consultant will be to assess the project performance at the indicator(s) level in the results framework. Further, the Consultant is expected to provide clear and actionable recommendations for EU and IRC’s/Consortia’s future programming.

3.0. Key Outcomes of the End of project evaluation

Specifically, working with Consortium MEAL and Project staff, the consultant will perform the following duties:

- Study and understand the project design document of the SORUDEV SSR project including the Log-frame and other relevant project documents including mid-term evaluation report, and annual reports among others, - To assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, outcome, and sustainability of the project. Look for evidence regarding the impact of the project’s activities and investigate the potential sustainability of these results. - Prepare tools for the End of Project Impact Evaluation in consultation with relevant experts, - Train and guide data collectors on the use of the Kobo app using available electronic tablets provided by the client. - Guide data collectors on suitable approaches while engaging respondents during data collection, - Prepare an inception report for End of Project Impact Evaluation in consultation with relevant M&E staff,

- · Lead the primary and secondary data collection within quantitative and qualitative frameworks, - · Consultations with relevant stakeholders at sector, national, and state levels.

- Using the information and data gathered during the End of Project Impact Evaluation data collection the consultant will.

- Analyze data and prepare location-specific indicator trends feeding into the overall End of Project Impact Evaluation report. - Draft a high-quality comprehensive End of Project Impact Evaluation report for the consortium indicating and comparing indicators across the 3 study sites. - Develop a presentation of main results highlighting important analysis and trends. - Present the draft report to Consortium members for validation. - Incorporating feedback/comments and finalization of the report. - Report should show changes (intended and unintended), key project challenges, learning, and recommendations for improvement in future programming. - Submit an End of Project Impact Evaluation report including an updated Results Framework. - Present the final report to Consortium members.

4.0. Evaluation Criteria

The consultant is expected to consider the following DAC Criteria[1], as laid out in the DAC principles for evaluation of development assistance. This includes - Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, and Sustainability as outlined below.

Relevance

· Did the objectives and activities implemented by the SSRGUN project address the humanitarian needs of smallholder farmers in the target locations?

· To what extent did the project respond to country and donor needs, policies, and priorities?

· How did beneficiaries perceive the project and how have the activities implemented improved their lives? Are there any successful stories of change?

· To what extent was the project able to adapt and provide appropriate responses to context changes and emerging local needs, and priorities of targeted smallholder farmers?

· To what extent did the SSRGUN project address the identified needs of the community?

· How well did the SSRGUN project goal and objective align with the national Government and IP’S (IRC, ZOA & Cordaid) priorities?

· To what extent did the project respond to the strategic and practical needs and priorities of the beneficiaries?

Effectiveness

· Did the SSRGUN project deliver on outputs and outcomes as planned?

· To what extent did the SSRGUN project activities contribute to the overall project goal? And what were the major factors influencing the achievement of the objectives of the SSRGUN project?

· Were the project activities and their delivery methods effective? Were there aspects that could have been done differently?

· To what extent did the project achieve intended goals, purposes and outcomes?

· What opportunities for collaboration were utilized and how did these contribute to the project’s effectiveness?

· How did the consortium approach of implementation partners include the relevant structures support in the project delivery?

· How did the initiative influence the appropriate stakeholder community, and what capacities did it build?

· Were the target population appropriately involved at all stages and empowered throughout the process of SSRGUN project implementation?

· How far was greater equity achieved between women and men; boys and girls; and between other groups?

Efficiency

- Was the SSRGUN project delivered on the planned budget? - Did the outcomes of the SSRGUN project represent value for money (vfm)? - How was the delivery of the SSRGUN project not only in terms of expenditure but also in terms of implementation of activities and delivery of outputs? - Was the SSRGUN project activity implementation (modality) cost-efficient, while not compromising quality? - What factors in the implementation and context were associated with greater or lesser efficiency in producing outputs of high quality? - What would have been opportunities within the SSRGUN project implementation to reach more beneficiaries with the available budget or reduce costs while reaching at least the same number of beneficiaries without compromising quality? - Was the SSRGUN project design timely in responding to the needs on the ground? - Were the activities timely implemented when compared to the project work plan? - Were funds available in time during the implementation of the SSRGUN project activities?

Impact

- To what extent did the SSRGUN project achieve the target indicators at outcome levels in the log frame? - To what extent did the planned objectives in the project log frame reach, per indicator, disaggregated by gender and age and, when appropriate, by location (Unity, Upper Nile, and Jonglei)? - What changes (expected and unexpected, positive and negative) did targeted beneficiaries, community members, and other stakeholders associate with the SSRGUN Project interventions? - Did the SSRGUN project impact positively key groups and on issues that were identified as key important in project design – particularly, food security and nutrition, income activities, resilience, gender, youths, and environment?

Sustainability

- Was there evidence that the smallholder farmers supported through the SSRGUN project are likely to grow – scaling up after the phase-out of the SSRGUN project in Unity, Upper Nile, and Jonglei States? - What significant changes occurred in people’s lives (Especially the smallholder farmers, VSLA groups, vegetable groups, fisherfolks, and pastoralists) and to what extent are these likely to be sustained? - What strategies were in place for the sustainability of these project activities (VSLA groups, Farmer Field School, MtMSG/vegetable groups, fisherfolks, CMDRRC? Are the strategies being put into action by the implementing partners? - What mechanisms did IPs put in place to sustain the key programme Outputs and Outcomes (services, goods, or structures) after the project ends? - How did the project work with local partners to increase their capacity sustainably?

Cross-cutting issues

· What cross-cutting issues such as visibility, communication, gender etc that can be identified during project implementation that contributed to the achievement (or lack of it) of the objectives?

5.0. The Evaluation Methodology

The desired methodology for this End of Project Impact Evaluation is participatory and all the consortium members (IRC, Cordaid & ZOA) will be part of the evaluation survey process. The consultant will however provide leadership and bear responsibility for the process, the findings, the recommendations, and the content of the final report.

The End of Project Impact Evaluation methods will be based on quantitative and qualitative data collection methods through a literature review of relevant project reports from reliable and trusted sources, household interviews, key informant interviews (KII), and focus group discussion (FGD), and should include detailed data on target beneficiaries as well as secondary data. Disadvantaged households, age, and gender per location (Unity, Upper Nile, and Jonglei) must be disaggregated for all data collected through the assessment.

6.0. The Scope of the End of Project Evaluation

Geographical coverage and target population

The End of Project Impact Evaluation will be conducted in Panyijiar (Unity State), Bor, and Pibor (Jonglei State), and Manyo, Makal, and Fashoda (Upper Nile State). The focus will be on the project locations, and target population in the design document.

The evaluator is expected to undertake the following tasks:

- Develop an Inception report and present it for review and approval. - Based on the project Log frame, develop a detailed methodology of the evaluation, data collection tools, sampling, and data analysis instruments for all relevant indicators, and present for review and approval. - Research methods include a beneficiary Survey similar to the baseline and mid-line that were conducted, Focus Group Discussions, Key Informant Interviews, and relevant desk research. - Facilitate an expert/stakeholder review of the tools and methodology proposed for the survey, FGD, and KIIs in the project locations. - Revise the tools and methodology proposed based on feedback from the expert/stakeholder review. - Train data collectors (Enumerators)/supervisors on the use of data collection tools. - Data collection should happen in all the locations stated above. Therefore, either the consultant or their designated supervisors will supervise the data collection. - Lead the data collection exercise with the participation of a designated implementing partner at each of the locations. - Perform data collation, cleaning, analysis, and report writing. - Present the preliminary findings to the project consortia or stakeholders. - Generate and present a draft evaluation report for review by the stakeholders. - To check the factual basis of the evaluation, and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions, and recommendations. - Incorporate stakeholder/expert comments and submit the final report. - Present the final evaluation report to IRC/consortia members. The final report should be submitted to IRC in both hard and soft copies.

7.0. Evaluation activities time frame

This assignment will take a maximum of 45 working days effective October to November 2023.

8.0. Key deliverables

Based on this TOR the consultant shall deliver the following:

1. An inception report detailing the tools, approaches/methods of assignment, the proposed timeline of activities, and submission of deliverables, within 5 days of the signing of the contract.

2. Submit a draft End of Project Impact Evaluation report 10 days after the field visit for comments and reviews by the consortium technical teams.

3. Submit the final draft End of Project Impact Evaluation report after addressing comments from the consortium within 5 days for review by EU technical teams.

4. Submit the End of Project Impact Evaluation report, including the updated Log-frame with End of Project Impact Evaluation data within 5 days from the date shared with comments from the EU technical team.

5. All data sets used for analysis as well as any other form of transcripts used, are IRC’s property, hence shall all be submitted with the final report.

6. Should have a maximum of 30 pages, excluding annexes.

7. The final report should include at least the following proposed components.

a. Executive summary.

b. Background; Brief project description and context

c. Evaluation purpose.

d. Study methodology including sampling procedure and size.

e. Key findings per results areas of the project

f. Strategies used to achieve the results.

g. Unintended results

h. Lessons learned per project outcome results.

i. Recommendations per project outcomes

j. Conclusion.

k. Appendices

9.0. Duration

The End of Project Impact Evaluation study is estimated to take 45 days in September and November 2023 including field work and report compilation period. The IRC advises consultants to consider deploying at least two teams concurrently during data collection to manage the time.

10.0. Reporting

The consultant is expected to report to the Consortium Manager and with oversight technical support from the IRC MEAL Coordinator.

11.0. Payment details:

Payment upon receipt of invoice and completion of deliverables (first tranche 40% on submission of the inception report, second tranche 60% on acceptance of the submitted End of Project Impact Evaluation report).

The consortium will directly facilitate local field transport to and within the project sites as well as the cost of accommodation during the field exercises. Consultancy fees are expected to include the consultant’s subsistence needs including transport to/from South Sudan, visa and registration fees and accommodation for international Consultants in Juba, and costs of data collection and report preparation.

- - - - - -

[1]Evaluation Criteria - OECD

Qualifications

12.0. Qualifications

- Advanced University degree (Master’s or Ph.D. Level) in a relevant field: Sociology, Social Sciences, Evaluation, Socio-Economic Studies, Development Economics, or other related fields. - Extensive experience in project monitoring and evaluation. Specific experience with Agricultural livelihoods programming is strongly desired. - Prior humanitarian experience working in conflict and post-conflict settings and an in-depth understanding of the context of such settings in terms of monitoring and evaluation. - Minimum of 5 years of relevant practical evaluation experience within three or more of the following areas: participatory methods; qualitative methods; social network analyses; social accountability; conflict prevention and peacebuilding; community participation and/or empowerment. - Demonstrated publication record of evaluations on related topics. - Demonstrated excellent analytical, writing, and reporting skills, with a focus on accessible, actionable, practitioner-focused reporting. - Experience with data management and statistical analysis packages, including SPSS and /or STATA. - Prior work experience in South Sudan is an added advantage. - Fluency in written and spoken English required. - Ability and willingness to travel to implementation sites in South Sudan (pending approval from IRC security, based on security situation) - Strong past performance references.

13.0. Application Requirements

Technical proposal:

· The technical proposal should include.

- CVs of proposed consultant(s) - Brief explanation about the lead consultants with particular emphasis on previous experience in this field - Understanding of TOR and the task to be accomplished - Proposed methodology - Draft work/implementation plan - Capacity statement - Sample reports for previous similar assignments - 3 references

- Copies of the most recent reports of previous work conducted.

- · Financial proposal: Summary budget, including 1) the estimated total number of days required; 2) daily rates for the consultant(s); and 3) travel and accommodation costs in Juba and field locations.

How to apply

- · Interested applicants are invited to submit not later than 30th September 2023 detailed their Technical and Financial proposals of not more than 5 pages via IRC career website. - · Submit 2 copies of reports for similar assignments conducted in the recent past. The names of the clients and any information deemed sensitive may be redacted. - · Applicants must clearly illustrate their competencies and clearly articulate the strategies and methods for conducting this assignment.

14.0. Evaluation and award of the evaluation consultancy shall be based on the following criterion.

All applications shall be evaluated against the set criteria below.

- · Demonstration of clear understanding of the assignment – 10 marks - · A comprehensive outline of how to carry out the assignment – 20 marks - · Relevant experience and expertise in similar assignments – 20 marks - · Capacity of the proposed consultants (Lead Consultant and Supporting team) – 20 marks - · Detailed work plan – 10 marks - · Financial Proposal - 20 marks

Apply now

Added 10 months ago - Updated 9 months ago - Source: rescue.org