End of Project Evaluation - Covid-19: Enhanced Preparedness & Action: Social Safety Nets for Vulnerable Households Living in Informal Settlements in K

NGO Jobs / UN Jobs Vacancy



Country: Kenya
Organization: Oxfam GB
Closing date: 8 Jan 2021

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR THE END OF PROJECT EVALUATION

Project title - Covid-19: Enhanced Preparedness and Action: Social Safety Nets for Vulnerable Households Living in Informal Settlements in Kenya.

Partner organisation/s if applicable

1. Oxfam

2. Concern Worldwide

3. ACTED

4. Kenya Red Cross Society

5. IMPACT Initiatives

6. Wangu Kanja Foundation

7. CREAW

Geographical coverage:

Informal Settlements of Nairobi

Program/project lifespan (from mm/yy to mm/yy)

1st May 2020 – 31st December 2020

Program/project budget

4,990,461.10 EUR

About Oxfam

Oxfam is an international development and humanitarian Non-Governmental Organization that works with others to overcome poverty and suffering. Oxfam has been operating in Kenya since 1963. The geographical focus of our projects has been the urban areas mainly Nairobi City and arid and semi-arid lands, where we have been working with the poor and vulnerable groups to realize a transformed Kenyan society that challenges poverty and inequality to claim their rights.

Overview of the project

Oxfam (Lead) and the Urban Cash Consortium partners designed this action in response to key contextual information, such as WHO Situational reports, Kenya COVID-19 outbreak daily situation reports and the Kenya emergency appeal that have highlighted the need to address humanitarian needs arising from the economic impacts of COVID-19 and heightened Gender Based Violence and protection risks. As of 20th April 2020, when this action was being designed, the WHO had documented 2.31 million confirmed cases and 157,847 deaths across 213 countries; in Kenya, there were 281 confirmed cases and 14 reported deaths. As of the 14th December, the total number of positive COVID-19 cases in Kenya stands at 92.055, with 1593 confirmed deaths[1]. Seventeen percent of the cases reported are in Nairobi (17%), including informal settlements such as Kibera and Kawangware.

Early evidence indicated that the health and socio-economic impacts of the pandemic are being borne by poor and low-income households, due to living in overcrowded areas where social distancing is not practical, poor water and sanitation facilities, and loss of income due to economic downturn. Irrespective of the country in which COVID-19 has struck, GBV has risen in households, notably intimate partner violence due to the restrictive measures put in place to curb the spread of the disease. Cases of sexual violence have soared since Kenya recorded the first case of coronavirus on March 12.

Most people living in informal settlements are forced to physically look for work which results in mass movement within the settlements, bringing people into contact with each other and thereby helping to spread the virus.

Women in particular are vulnerable as a result of their roles as caregivers in the home and community; their over-representation in the poorly-paid informal economy; their low access to health information and services; and their susceptibility to sexual and gender-based violence as a result of quarantine measures enforced by the government.

The action’s main objective was to contribute to the protection of vulnerable households in informal settlements against the secondary economic and social impact of COVID-19.

The specific objectives of the project were as follows: -

  1. To mitigate economic impacts of COVID-19 for 19,010 vulnerable households in Nairobi Informal Settlements through social safety nets.

  2. To prevent and respond to Gender Based Violence related impacts of COVID-19 in Nairobi informal settlements.

Objectives of the evaluation

The primary objective of the evaluation is to provide an assessment of the overall effectiveness of the project approach and of its individual components. The evaluation is expected to focus in particular on the approaches that have been used across the various components of the project, with the aim of informing the project and respective approaches going forward. The evaluation process is expected to enrich our learning process, and to support strengthening of future programming by Oxfam and partners. The evaluation shall specifically seek to achieve the following:

1. To assess the extent to which the project has delivered against its objective and expected results;

2. Highlight project successes and shortcomings (both at project-level theory of change and implementation levels) and identify significant factors that facilitated or impeded the achievement of the project objective;

3. To draw key lessons from the project and incorporate them in recommendations that will help inform the design and implementation of future interventions by Oxfam and partners.

The scope for examination is determined in line with Oxfam’s Evaluation policy, and relevant evaluation criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability) are associated with a number of key questions that are to be addressed and explored.

Key Questions of the evaluation

The evaluation questions to be addressed by this evaluation are expected to be further modified or refined in consultation with the consultant during the inception phase of the evaluation process. It is anticipated that the evaluation will address the specific questions set out below providing an evidence base for conclusions drawn and proposing recommendations for future action.

The following questions should be addressed considering the relevant project components:

Relevance, appropriateness and quality of design

· Were the objectives, indicators and targets formulated relevant and realistic?

· Does the action build on the comparative advantages of the Urban Cash Consortium? Does it compete with or substitute for activities that other development agencies could do more appropriately or efficiently?

· To what extent did the project respond to priority issues of the intended recipients, donors, and partners/Institutions?

· Is the action’s organizational structure and choice of partnership appropriate to achieve its aims?

Timeliness and appropriateness of the response delivery

· Was the intervention delivered in a timely manner?

· What were reasons for timely or delayed response?

· Were financial and human resources available in the quantity and time planned?

Efficiency and adaptation to changing needs

· Was the methodology/approach of implementation the right one under the circumstances?

· Is the level of collaboration and coordination with partners including capacity building appropriate and efficient?

· How did the project adapt to changing needs?

· To what extent did the consortium factor the recommendations from donor visits and feedback on progress reports provided by the donor?

Coherence

· To what extent is this intervention coherent with other interventions which have similar objectives?

· To what extent is the intervention coherent internally?

· To what extent is the intervention coherent with the donor policy?

· To what extent is the intervention coherent with national and international obligations?

Effectiveness

· To what extent did the intervention achieve its objectives?

· To what extent were the planned outputs achieved?

· Were there any unintended impact or outcomes?

· What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of outputs and outcomes?

Sustainability and impact

· To what extent have the benefits of the action continued or are expected to continue?

· Is there an appropriate exit/handover strategy? If so, has the strategy been actioned? To what extent?

· To what extent has the action strengthened disaster preparedness capabilities of community members?

· What are the good practices, successful activities/strategies if any that can be replicated, scaled up and used to influence practice and policy development?

Monitoring and reporting

· What project monitoring activities were done in the project?

· How was information shared amongst consortium members (particularly lessons learnt)?

· Are there reports that were produced and how did the consortium work in producing reports?

Cross-cutting **

· How effectively has the project integrated gender analysis (particularly with a view to GBV preventions) & mainstreaming actions and to what effect? This includes Community Protection Structures, local authorities, and different groups within the wider population

· To what extent and how has the project integrated risk analysis and mitigation measures into planning and implementation?

  • How was safe programming implemented?

  • How were power dynamics reflected and taken into account?

Consortium coordination

· Is the consortiums’ structure and governance appropriate to its strategy?

· Has it been governed and managed effectively and efficiently so far?

· Is the consortiums’ strategy relevant, appropriate and realistic given the Kenyan context, donor priorities and the profiles of consortium partners?

Methodology

The evaluation should use a mixed method approach which will involve reviewing the relevant project documents and relevant literature including but not limited to the project’s results framework, the scoping study; activity reports, session presentations, Focus Group Discussions, meetings and Key Informant interviews with a broad range of stakeholders that were involved in the project including project partners, key stakeholders in the private sector, government representatives, and the donor community. Based on the literature review, the consultant will decide on the methods and methodology of data collection as informed by projects purpose, objectives, indicators, results areas and the theory of change.

Sample Size:

The consultant(s) will determine the appropriate sample sizes in consultation with Oxfam and partners taking into consideration the activities carried out and stakeholders. The consultant(s) will visit all the sites and interview the stakeholders. The sampling should therefore include both purposive and random sampling within the purposively sampled areas. An effort should be made to have equitable proportion of type of respondents.

Timelines and Deliverables

The evaluation will consist of 5 phases:

1. Recruitment of evaluation team; preparatory meeting with partners to discuss TOR, design and agree on methodology and to draw up a detailed work and evaluation plan; Initial briefing with partners to ensure that the evaluation team is clear on the principle proposition for this evaluation exercise.

2. Preparatory desk review: drafting evaluation matrix with evaluation questions, indicators, data requirements and sources; secondary data and literature review

3. Main evaluation phase: design of data collection tools, possible pretesting of tools, training of data clerks, planning of field visits and discussions/interviews with implementing partners’ staff and other stakeholders including Government offices, other local and international humanitarian actors in the areas of operation to get their feedback to reach conclusions. Conduct field visits to collect data through a combination of data collection methods including PRA methodologies. It is expected that the team will apply a gendered lens and participatory approaches to seek the views of beneficiaries and, where appropriate, non-beneficiaries.

4. Reporting: Analysis of data (data should be collected, analysed and disaggregated by gender and data sets), production of a draft report and discussion of this report with partners to give opportunities for the team/s to agree on action points, learning and recommendations; submission of final report which addresses the objectives of the evaluation, and responds to each of the nine specific objectives outlined in these terms of reference. In addition, the report should include 2-3 realistic scenarios for the future (prototyped with potential partners or owners).

5. Follow up: Partners follow up on evaluation findings and dissemination of final report to donors and partners.

The expected deliverables from the evaluation exercise are the following:

1. Complete bibliography of documents/materials/data used during desk review of secondary sources.

2. Power point presentation of evaluation plan, timelines and activities.

3. Final data collection tools, data bases and analysis plan.

4. First draft of evaluation report.

5. Final evaluation report.

6. Power point presentation of main findings and conclusions for debriefing purposes; and

7. All data collection questionnaires, hard copies of filled in questionnaires, clean data set and analysis files.

Confidentiality of issues discussed MUST be stressed during interviews and safeguarded by the partners and the evaluation consultant(s). The data should be disaggregated by gender and age as it is extremely important when identifying key issues of the response and assessing community vulnerability.

Evaluation report **

The production of the evaluation report will be the liability of the evaluation team covering all the aspects as outlined in the ToRs. Partners’ staff and partners’ management will be responsible for coordinating the evaluation exercise. The evaluation report should be:

· Produced in English language and should be simple in expression and easy to understand.

· Maximum of 25 pages with some short annexes.

· The report format and text should be an A4 paper size and a legible font (e.g. Times New Roman 11 or 12, Arial 10 or 11.

· The evaluation team will be liable to submit at least 02 hard copies and 01 electronic copy of the evaluation report by the agreed deadline.

Outline of The Evaluation Report **

An evaluation report should contain the different elements mentioned below. All parts should be clearly distinguished from each other and of sufficient quality.

· Cover page (evaluation title, Program/project title /affiliate identification code, Geographical coverage, date that the evaluation report was finalized, evaluator(s) name(s) and logo, Oxfam logo, appropriate recognition of institutional donor support).

· Glossary

· List of abbreviations.

· Executive summary that can be used as a stand-alone document

· Introduction, stating objectives of the evaluation and evaluation questions

· The intervention and context

· Methodology, including an indication of any perceived limitations of the evaluation

· Presentation of the findings and their analysis

· Conclusions

· Learning and Recommendations including scenarios.

  • Appendices: (Terms of reference; Evaluation program; a list of interviewees (name, function and working environment) and places visited; List of documents and bibliography used; Details on composition of evaluation team (names, expertise, working environment); Link to Methodological appendices; The evaluation proposal; Evaluation instruments such as questionnaires and interview guides; Data collected).

Confidentiality of information: all documents and data collected will be treated as confidential and used solely to facilitate analysis. Interviewees will not be quoted in the reports without their permission.**

Evaluation responsibilities and management arrangements

The consultant shall work under the supervision of the Urban Cash Consortium Coordinator with strong liaison with Oxfam’s MEAL Advisor and key staff from the consortium partners.

Evaluation team: qualifications and skills needed, plan for organizing the evaluation team

The desired specification and qualities of the consultant(s) are as hereunder:

· Advanced university degree or equivalent in Humanitarian/Development Studies, Social Sciences, and other related fields.

· At least five years of experience in conducting project/project evaluations

· Strong experience in cash transfer projects/projects implemented in urban informal settlements.

· Experience in conducting evaluations of community-based projects

· Strong analytical and research skills Desirable

· Experience of working and/or conducting evaluations within Kenya

· Knowledge of and practical experience in the application of conceptual frameworks of analysis related to the project or project/ management unit

· Demonstrated understanding of constitutional and policy environment, national and county strategies and policies.

· High quality skills and demonstrated experience in similar pieces of work.

· Strong analytical, communication and report writing skills.

· Good spoken and written communication skills in Kiswahili and English.

· Proven experience of using participatory methods for data collection and analysis in project evaluation.

Process of the selection of the evaluator or evaluation team and expectations for evaluation proposal

Consultant(s) who meet the above requirements should submit bids, which at minimum include the following:

· Suitability statement, including commitment to availability for the entire assignment in the months January and February 2021

· Brief statement of the proposed evaluation methodology including a detailed work plan.

· Detailed financial proposal, including daily costs.

· Information on the team composition and level of effort of each team member – include updated curriculum vitae that clearly spell out qualifications and experience.

· Contacts of three organizations that have recently contracted the consultant to carry out relevant evaluation.

N/B: The entire bid should be a MAXIMUM OF 13 (13) PAGES inclusive of CVs and Budgets. Bids not meeting this requirement will not be considered.

How to apply:

Application process

Interested and qualified consultants should send their applications to Kenya.Logs@oxfam.org.uk before or by 8th January 2021 at 5.00 pm.



Apply to Job

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Head Anticipation Hub (m/f/d)

Escuintla Associate, Guatemala

Consultant - Market System Development & Value Chain Development