Somalia Somaliland Puntland Joint Response
Terms of Reference | Final Programme Evaluation
I. Background
The Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA) is a consortium alliance of fourteen (14) Dutch International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), active since December 2014 and established to enhance the quality of Dutch humanitarian relief through coordination and collaboration among Dutch NGOs. Internal DRA mechanisms were developed simultaneous to their implementation in complex, multi-sector programmes across the globe. Improvements and learnings to the mechanism and regulations are gradually incorporated, even as the overall DRA financial and legal frameworks were being established and partnerships among organizations and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs were being established and solidified. Global disasters have been particularly prolific in recent years, straining the ability of individual INGOs to respond at pace, while simultaneously testing and strengthening the DRA mechanism and proving the strength of the Alliance as previously competing organizations learned to work together building on mutual trust from experience across the global theater.
The Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland Joint Response was a 6-month acute crisis response to a slow-onset climate-related food and nutrition emergency in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland, launched on 1 July 2016. The SSP JR is implemented by five (5) Dutch INGOs, with several decades of experience in the country and advanced specific sectorial expertise in WASH and Food Security/Livelihoods as well as global expertise in Protection, Health, Nutrition, and Gender mainstreaming specific to emergency response. The 5 consortium members are CARE, Dorcas, Save the Children, Tear, and ZOA. The Consortium Lead is CARE, with Dorcas and Tear as additional Response Task Force members.
II. Programme Description
The key objective of the SSP JR was to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable people affected by the drought in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland with a view to supporting early recovery and resilience among pastoralist communities, and contributing to the 2016 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for Somalia as well as the March 2016 Call for Aid, specific to the drought and El Niño in Puntland and Somaliland. SSP JR leverages the comparative advantage of each partner in WASH, Health, and Nutrition. The selection criteria developed by the RTF for programme design prioritised interventions in Food Security/Livelihoods, Nutrition and Health in Somaliland and Puntland as areas identified with highest needs coupled with medium to low access constraints.
Considering the lingering conflict and volatile environment, partners committed themselves to employ conflict-sensitive approaches, addressing the needs of both host communities and displaced persons/families, as well as focus on the needs of the most vulnerable persons among these target populations and a sensitivity to gender- and age-related specifics. Partners also applied the CARE gender marker as a pilot to
mark the mid- and end-point of the programme, with varying results for diverging reasons, depending on need, sector and geography.
Sector-specific objectives and locations are described below:
Food Security/Livelihoods
Activities under this sector were implemented in Zeylac, Erigavo, Wogooyi Galbeed in Somaliland, as well as in Banderbeyla, and Dangoroyo in Puntland.
o People facing severe food insecurity have improved immediate access to food and safety nets
o Populations in "emergency", "crisis" and "stressed" are enabled to produce and exchange food to sustain their livelihoods through provision of livelihood-specific and seasonally-appropriate inputs and improved herd survival rates
o Enhance household and community assets and capacity to address acute food insecurity by restoring and building community and household productive assets
WASH:
Activities under this sector were implemented in Erigavo, Badan, and Wogooyi Galbeed in Somaliland and Kismayo in Somalia.
o Improved access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene for people in emergency need
o Provide reliable and sustained access to sufficient, safe water through rehabilitation of strategic water points and establishment of sustainable management structures
Nutrition:
Activities under this sector were implemented in Kismayo and Balcad in Somalia.
o Provide basic life-saving nutrition and community resilience-building
Purpose
The overall purpose of the end of project evaluation is to determine the impact of JR interventions and modalities in their area of intervention, and extract learnings which can be applied to future/ongoing interventions throughout Somalia:
a) Assess the overall performance of the SSP JR with respect to the objectives laid out in the logical framework and programme Concept Note;
b) Identify best practices particular to the DRA mechanism or consortium which enhances opportunities for collaborative impact and which may be replicated/scaled up in future DRA-led joint responses; and
c) Compare the various cash modalities and WASH inputs under SSP JR to identify the most appropriate distribution methods in various locations within the Somali context;
d) Identify opportunities for increased coordination or collaboration within the structure of the DRA Joint Response within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland.
Scope
In line with the SPHERE standards for humanitarian response, SSP JR partners adhere to minimum standards for humanitarian response in WASH, FSL and Nutrition. This evaluation will seek to determine to what extent minimum standards have been met and extract any lessons from those experiences.
Further, OECD DAC criteria for evaluations in humanitarian settings, performance is understood to mean the extent to which partners were able to reach stated objectives; adapt to a challenging and highly dynamic context; and provide quality, relevant, effective, efficient, conflict- and gender- sensitive interventions to populations in need. This includes the ability of partners to effectively target the most vulnerable populations; adapt programming to specific gender- and age-related needs; train and utilize local partners to reach isolated communities; collaborate with local authorities and the humanitarian country team; seek opportunities for joint programming, procurement and logistics where possible; effectively advocate for increased humanitarian access; and the ability to adapt interventions to ensure programming remained relevant and was consistently in line with the primary and vital needs of populations affected by the drought in Somalia.
As such, the evaluation will document the following points:
How accurate and reliable were the assumptions which informed the original programme design, and to what extent should these be improved in future programmes
To what extent the risk assessment matched with the actual risks in the field, particularly as regards misuse/misappropriation of funds and/or any conflict of interest arising from allocation of resources; and how these were risks were tackled in practice if indeed they arose.
The relevance and effectiveness of the approach to saving lives and improving resilience among the targeted population
The relevance and the effectiveness of the approach with respect to each of the sectors of intervention, with a view to potentially varying needs in different geographic contexts in the country as well as a comparison of various modalities and inputs applied within the same sector under SSP JR
The relevance of the approach in terms of meeting the needs of the most vulnerable populations, specifically looking at immediate needs vs. medium- to long-term impact on resilience and the effects of displacement of beneficiaries targeted under SSP JR
Lessons learned and proposed feasible recommendations to inform future programme design both in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland, as well as generally within the parameters of the DRA acute crisis consortium/mechanism
The evaluator is expected to develop and implement a methodology that will answer the following questions besides the OECD DAC criteria (to be finalized and agreed between CARE NL and the evaluator after contract award):
To what extent did the SSP JR achieve its stated goal of providing life-saving assistance to people affected by the conflict in the targeted regions?
Did the project target and reach the most vulnerable populations through its interventions?
Is the comprehensive approach used in this project to target people affected by the conflict in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland successful? What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches of the SSP JR partners?
Were interventions gender-sensitive and/or responsive to specific gender considerations, and and in what ways? Is there evidence that the approaches used in the project contributed to saving lives? Is there evidence that the approaches used in the project contributed to increased resilience in physical well-being? Any effects on the underlying causes of displacement as relate to El Niño and the drought in the region?
Has the project contributed to improving the capacity of SSP JR partners to deliver quality programmes across the project cycle and meaningfully impact the lives of populations affected by drought in Somalia?
To what extent was the programme successful in addressing gender- and age- specific needs of target populations? To what extent did the use of the gender marker enhance the quality of the programme, and how can the SSP Joint Response partners ensure optimal use and implementation of the gender marker in the future?
Were there priority needs that were not addressed by the SSP JR?
To what extent did the Joint Response contribute value that could not have been achieved by individual agencies?
To what extent did the JR Lead provide coordination to the Joint Response?
To what extent did the JR achieve its ambitions in cross cutting themes: Gender, Accountability to Beneficiaries and Coordination with Local Actors/Local Capacity Development
Clarify the reasons behind the use of different types of WASH inputs (household water filters) under the same objective and what can be learned from these different inputs (i.e. pros/cons and lessons learned?) What was the impact of the water filters provided in Somalia (Sawyer Point 1) and Somaliland (SMART Solar purifier)? Was there any benefit to distributing different filters to different populations?
Similarly, each partner implemented cash programming differently throughout the three regions of Somalia. The evaluation will compare the various modalities and amounts applied under SSP JR for the purpose of learning the pros and cons of a diversified approach within the same consortium and whether any best practices can be identified for future
programming as linked to the drought/food crisis in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland.
The evidence generated through this evaluation is expected to:
Better inform ongoing programme design/programming in Somalia with respect to the ongoing crisis
Better define the general and specific needs of affected populations in Somalia, as well as the challenges related to and the usefulness of the approach applied in this project
Identify areas for continued/enhanced collaboration/coordination (if any) among SSP JR partners and with other humanitarian actors in the field if possible/feasible, including modalities of what worked well and what did not, and why
Identify training or other technical support needs of local partners, including modalities, to ensure enhanced capacity of local organizations to affect life-saving interventions, and gather reliable information, identify training or other technical support needs of local partners, including modalities, to ensure enhanced capacity of local organizations to affect life-saving interventions, and gather reliable information, in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland
Identify potential areas for improvement with respect to gender-, age- and conflict-sensitive programming, per sector and/or geographic area
Recommendations on how/where to harmonise the approach, including proper modalities and inputs related to distributions of relief items, cash, etc.
Identify any missed opportunities and/or best practices to build resilience/mitigate risks in light of reduced funds and increasing humanitarian needs
Contribute to learnings related to effective advocacy strategies and/or modalities vis-à-vis MoFA, the Dutch public, the international community, the Yemen Government and other stakeholders within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland
Contribute to recommendations related to complementarity of programming within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland
Contribute to recommendations related to increased visibility of the Dutch Government’s role in humanitarian response programmes within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland (where feasible) and within The Netherlands.
IV Process and Methodology
Report: This evaluation will take a course of three weeks ideally starting no later than 13 February 2017, and will take place in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland, assuming the security situation will allow for data collection. In the event of impossibility of visiting programme sites, the data collection will take place remotely, eventually with interviews conducted with programme staff based in Nairobi, and via Skype/phone with partners in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland. The evaluator is expected to develop an Inception Report and the tools in the beginning of the consultancy. The final reports on the Project Evaluation and Report will be due on 20 March 2017.
The evaluator(s) will collect primary data from direct beneficiaries of the project where the security situation permits and also use secondary data. The evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as document review and, when available and appropriate, analysis of programme monitoring data. The evaluation requires a participatory methodology whereby the work engages all key stakeholders including beneficiaries, community members and SSP JR partner staff.
The evaluation team will:
Develop inception report, tools, methodology and a schedule of field activities, if any. It will be approved by the SSP JR Response Task Force (RTF) and act as an agreement between parties for how the evaluation is to be conducted. The Inception Report should include:
a) Overview of the Programme/Project
b) Methodology for the project evaluation
c) Evaluation Matrix with key questions, sub questions and indicators.
d) Information Collection, Analysis and Reporting
e) Work plan
f) Proposed budget
Use participatory/consultative methods (including but not limited to – picture/video diaries, case studies) and should provide details of the approach/methods to be used. The assessment should follow international standards for ethical data collection and reporting at all times.
V Deliverables
Expected Outputs:
Terms of Reference | Final Programme Evaluation
I. Background
The Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA) is a consortium alliance of fourteen (14) Dutch International Non-Governmental Organizations (INGOs), active since December 2014 and established to enhance the quality of Dutch humanitarian relief through coordination and collaboration among Dutch NGOs. Internal DRA mechanisms were developed simultaneous to their implementation in complex, multi-sector programmes across the globe. Improvements and learnings to the mechanism and regulations are gradually incorporated, even as the overall DRA financial and legal frameworks were being established and partnerships among organizations and the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs were being established and solidified. Global disasters have been particularly prolific in recent years, straining the ability of individual INGOs to respond at pace, while simultaneously testing and strengthening the DRA mechanism and proving the strength of the Alliance as previously competing organizations learned to work together building on mutual trust from experience across the global theater.
The Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland Joint Response was a 6-month acute crisis response to a slow-onset climate-related food and nutrition emergency in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland, launched on 1 July 2016. The SSP JR is implemented by five (5) Dutch INGOs, with several decades of experience in the country and advanced specific sectorial expertise in WASH and Food Security/Livelihoods as well as global expertise in Protection, Health, Nutrition, and Gender mainstreaming specific to emergency response. The 5 consortium members are CARE, Dorcas, Save the Children, Tear, and ZOA. The Consortium Lead is CARE, with Dorcas and Tear as additional Response Task Force members.
II. Programme Description
The key objective of the SSP JR was to provide life-saving humanitarian assistance to the most vulnerable people affected by the drought in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland with a view to supporting early recovery and resilience among pastoralist communities, and contributing to the 2016 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for Somalia as well as the March 2016 Call for Aid, specific to the drought and El Niño in Puntland and Somaliland. SSP JR leverages the comparative advantage of each partner in WASH, Health, and Nutrition. The selection criteria developed by the RTF for programme design prioritised interventions in Food Security/Livelihoods, Nutrition and Health in Somaliland and Puntland as areas identified with highest needs coupled with medium to low access constraints.
Considering the lingering conflict and volatile environment, partners committed themselves to employ conflict-sensitive approaches, addressing the needs of both host communities and displaced persons/families, as well as focus on the needs of the most vulnerable persons among these target populations and a sensitivity to gender- and age-related specifics. Partners also applied the CARE gender marker as a pilot to
mark the mid- and end-point of the programme, with varying results for diverging reasons, depending on need, sector and geography.
Sector-specific objectives and locations are described below:
Food Security/Livelihoods
Activities under this sector were implemented in Zeylac, Erigavo, Wogooyi Galbeed in Somaliland, as well as in Banderbeyla, and Dangoroyo in Puntland.
o People facing severe food insecurity have improved immediate access to food and safety nets
o Populations in "emergency", "crisis" and "stressed" are enabled to produce and exchange food to sustain their livelihoods through provision of livelihood-specific and seasonally-appropriate inputs and improved herd survival rates
o Enhance household and community assets and capacity to address acute food insecurity by restoring and building community and household productive assets
WASH:
Activities under this sector were implemented in Erigavo, Badan, and Wogooyi Galbeed in Somaliland and Kismayo in Somalia.
o Improved access to safe water, sanitation and hygiene for people in emergency need
o Provide reliable and sustained access to sufficient, safe water through rehabilitation of strategic water points and establishment of sustainable management structures
Nutrition:
Activities under this sector were implemented in Kismayo and Balcad in Somalia.
o Provide basic life-saving nutrition and community resilience-building
Purpose
The overall purpose of the end of project evaluation is to determine the impact of JR interventions and modalities in their area of intervention, and extract learnings which can be applied to future/ongoing interventions throughout Somalia:
a) Assess the overall performance of the SSP JR with respect to the objectives laid out in the logical framework and programme Concept Note;
b) Identify best practices particular to the DRA mechanism or consortium which enhances opportunities for collaborative impact and which may be replicated/scaled up in future DRA-led joint responses; and
c) Compare the various cash modalities and WASH inputs under SSP JR to identify the most appropriate distribution methods in various locations within the Somali context;
d) Identify opportunities for increased coordination or collaboration within the structure of the DRA Joint Response within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland.
Scope
In line with the SPHERE standards for humanitarian response, SSP JR partners adhere to minimum standards for humanitarian response in WASH, FSL and Nutrition. This evaluation will seek to determine to what extent minimum standards have been met and extract any lessons from those experiences.
Further, OECD DAC criteria for evaluations in humanitarian settings, performance is understood to mean the extent to which partners were able to reach stated objectives; adapt to a challenging and highly dynamic context; and provide quality, relevant, effective, efficient, conflict- and gender- sensitive interventions to populations in need. This includes the ability of partners to effectively target the most vulnerable populations; adapt programming to specific gender- and age-related needs; train and utilize local partners to reach isolated communities; collaborate with local authorities and the humanitarian country team; seek opportunities for joint programming, procurement and logistics where possible; effectively advocate for increased humanitarian access; and the ability to adapt interventions to ensure programming remained relevant and was consistently in line with the primary and vital needs of populations affected by the drought in Somalia.
As such, the evaluation will document the following points:
How accurate and reliable were the assumptions which informed the original programme design, and to what extent should these be improved in future programmes
To what extent the risk assessment matched with the actual risks in the field, particularly as regards misuse/misappropriation of funds and/or any conflict of interest arising from allocation of resources; and how these were risks were tackled in practice if indeed they arose.
The relevance and effectiveness of the approach to saving lives and improving resilience among the targeted population
The relevance and the effectiveness of the approach with respect to each of the sectors of intervention, with a view to potentially varying needs in different geographic contexts in the country as well as a comparison of various modalities and inputs applied within the same sector under SSP JR
The relevance of the approach in terms of meeting the needs of the most vulnerable populations, specifically looking at immediate needs vs. medium- to long-term impact on resilience and the effects of displacement of beneficiaries targeted under SSP JR
Lessons learned and proposed feasible recommendations to inform future programme design both in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland, as well as generally within the parameters of the DRA acute crisis consortium/mechanism
The evaluator is expected to develop and implement a methodology that will answer the following questions besides the OECD DAC criteria (to be finalized and agreed between CARE NL and the evaluator after contract award):
To what extent did the SSP JR achieve its stated goal of providing life-saving assistance to people affected by the conflict in the targeted regions?
Did the project target and reach the most vulnerable populations through its interventions?
Is the comprehensive approach used in this project to target people affected by the conflict in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland successful? What were the strengths and weaknesses of the approaches of the SSP JR partners?
Were interventions gender-sensitive and/or responsive to specific gender considerations, and and in what ways? Is there evidence that the approaches used in the project contributed to saving lives? Is there evidence that the approaches used in the project contributed to increased resilience in physical well-being? Any effects on the underlying causes of displacement as relate to El Niño and the drought in the region?
Has the project contributed to improving the capacity of SSP JR partners to deliver quality programmes across the project cycle and meaningfully impact the lives of populations affected by drought in Somalia?
To what extent was the programme successful in addressing gender- and age- specific needs of target populations? To what extent did the use of the gender marker enhance the quality of the programme, and how can the SSP Joint Response partners ensure optimal use and implementation of the gender marker in the future?
Were there priority needs that were not addressed by the SSP JR?
To what extent did the Joint Response contribute value that could not have been achieved by individual agencies?
To what extent did the JR Lead provide coordination to the Joint Response?
To what extent did the JR achieve its ambitions in cross cutting themes: Gender, Accountability to Beneficiaries and Coordination with Local Actors/Local Capacity Development
Clarify the reasons behind the use of different types of WASH inputs (household water filters) under the same objective and what can be learned from these different inputs (i.e. pros/cons and lessons learned?) What was the impact of the water filters provided in Somalia (Sawyer Point 1) and Somaliland (SMART Solar purifier)? Was there any benefit to distributing different filters to different populations?
Similarly, each partner implemented cash programming differently throughout the three regions of Somalia. The evaluation will compare the various modalities and amounts applied under SSP JR for the purpose of learning the pros and cons of a diversified approach within the same consortium and whether any best practices can be identified for future
programming as linked to the drought/food crisis in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland.
The evidence generated through this evaluation is expected to:
Better inform ongoing programme design/programming in Somalia with respect to the ongoing crisis
Better define the general and specific needs of affected populations in Somalia, as well as the challenges related to and the usefulness of the approach applied in this project
Identify areas for continued/enhanced collaboration/coordination (if any) among SSP JR partners and with other humanitarian actors in the field if possible/feasible, including modalities of what worked well and what did not, and why
Identify training or other technical support needs of local partners, including modalities, to ensure enhanced capacity of local organizations to affect life-saving interventions, and gather reliable information, identify training or other technical support needs of local partners, including modalities, to ensure enhanced capacity of local organizations to affect life-saving interventions, and gather reliable information, in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland
Identify potential areas for improvement with respect to gender-, age- and conflict-sensitive programming, per sector and/or geographic area
Recommendations on how/where to harmonise the approach, including proper modalities and inputs related to distributions of relief items, cash, etc.
Identify any missed opportunities and/or best practices to build resilience/mitigate risks in light of reduced funds and increasing humanitarian needs
Contribute to learnings related to effective advocacy strategies and/or modalities vis-à-vis MoFA, the Dutch public, the international community, the Yemen Government and other stakeholders within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland
Contribute to recommendations related to complementarity of programming within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland
Contribute to recommendations related to increased visibility of the Dutch Government’s role in humanitarian response programmes within Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland (where feasible) and within The Netherlands.
IV Process and Methodology
Report: This evaluation will take a course of three weeks ideally starting no later than 13 February 2017, and will take place in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland, assuming the security situation will allow for data collection. In the event of impossibility of visiting programme sites, the data collection will take place remotely, eventually with interviews conducted with programme staff based in Nairobi, and via Skype/phone with partners in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland. The evaluator is expected to develop an Inception Report and the tools in the beginning of the consultancy. The final reports on the Project Evaluation and Report will be due on 20 March 2017.
The evaluator(s) will collect primary data from direct beneficiaries of the project where the security situation permits and also use secondary data. The evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as document review and, when available and appropriate, analysis of programme monitoring data. The evaluation requires a participatory methodology whereby the work engages all key stakeholders including beneficiaries, community members and SSP JR partner staff.
The evaluation team will:
Develop inception report, tools, methodology and a schedule of field activities, if any. It will be approved by the SSP JR Response Task Force (RTF) and act as an agreement between parties for how the evaluation is to be conducted. The Inception Report should include:
a) Overview of the Programme/Project
b) Methodology for the project evaluation
c) Evaluation Matrix with key questions, sub questions and indicators.
d) Information Collection, Analysis and Reporting
e) Work plan
f) Proposed budget
Use participatory/consultative methods (including but not limited to – picture/video diaries, case studies) and should provide details of the approach/methods to be used. The assessment should follow international standards for ethical data collection and reporting at all times.
V Deliverables
Expected Outputs:
- Inception Report including a detailed work plan and methodology for the final programme evaluation process.
- Draft Evaluation report in English for review with qualitative and quantitative data analysis interface
- Final Evaluation Report in English, no more than 30 pages and free of jargon, excluding annexes. The report must include:
Title Page
Table of Contents / Figures and Tables
Abbreviations / acronyms page
Executive summary (1 to 2 pages maximum)
Background and a short introduction to the project
The evaluation methodology (including evaluation/research questions and tools)
Findings, ensuring all lines of inquiry/research questions are well addressed
Innovation and lessons learned
2 Case studies/stories used to highlight/illustrate the findings related to cash modalities and WASH inputs
Final Programme Recommendations
Conclusion - Lessons sharing/dissemination document capturing key impact and learning and presented in a reader friendly and marketable format.
- Cleaned data (transcriptions of interviews/questionnaires).
NB: As part of the final evaluation process, the Lead will also coordinate the filming of a short film (5-7 min), which will serve to illustrate the stories of beneficiaries to the programme as well as raise the awareness of humanitarian partners/stakeholders and the Dutch public of the humanitarian situation in Somalia, Somaliland and Puntland as relates to the current drought. This video will be presented to MoFA simultaneous with the final evaluation report, however will be produced by a team that is distinct from the evaluation team collecting data for the final evaluation report. Both teams may work collaborate/coordinate with each other to reduce the burden on respondents as well as ensure there is no duplication of efforts or data between both final products (film and report). The video will seek to address the below points: - Describe the current situation for vulnerable pastoralist communities in Somalia/Horn of Africa
- Show how the interventions of the SSP JR partners have contributed to saving lives and strengthening livelihoods during the period of intervention
- Establish short- to medium-term humanitarian objectives to ensure the gains made under SSP JR in 2015 are not lost.
On consultation with the evaluation team, the video may also take the place of one of the two case studies required as part of the deliverables to the evaluation, and specifically comparing/contrasting either cash modalities or WASH inputs under SSP JR. Additional specifics can be found in a separate TOR for the video.
VI Timeframe
The Evaluation is expected to be initiated ideally by 3 February 2017. The evaluation will continue until 20 March, 2016 when the final report is due from the evaluator. The evaluator(s) will be however required to update CARE NL throughout the consultancy. The final timeline can be confirmed with the evaluator at the proposal/Inception Report stage depending on the methodology proposed. Below is an indicative timeline for initial discussion (number of days are indicative and non-consecutive, also allowing for travel): - Document Review (1.5 days)
- Inception Report and Tools Development (3 days)
- Pilot Testing of Tools and training of enumerators (if any) (1 day)
- Field visit for data collection (12 days)
- Develop preliminary report; present preliminary report/findings to CARE/RTF (2.5 days)
- Incorporate feedback; Develop Final Evaluation Report and Lessons Dissemination Document (2 days)
Total: 22 days
VII Conditions of the Consultancy
The evaluator(s) will use her/his/their own office/resources/materials and technology in the execution of this assignment. CARE and SSP JR partners will provide local travel/transport to the field sites and office space in Somalia, Somaliland, and Puntland. CARE will also cover accommodation and food, as well as a modest per diem, during data-collection in the field.
Supervision and Reporting: The evaluator will be responsible to keep CARE NL abreast of progress over the course of the study.
Qualifications of evaluator(s), research agency or academic institution(s):
Master Degree (or equivalent) in Development Studies, Social Work, Psychology, Sociology or related discipline coupled with advanced skills and knowledge in Research Methodologies
At least 5 years’ experience in evaluation of development/humanitarian work, including in highly complex, conflict settings
Knowledge of and experience with the context in Somalia including a fair understanding of the advocacy and policy environment in that country
Data collection should include at least two (one male, one female) Somali nationals, able to provide insight and guidance on appropriate questions and data collection methods, etc.
Excellent research and monitoring and evaluation skills including participatory methodologies
Highly driven, dependable and results oriented
Excellent verbal and written skills in English are essential
HOW TO APPLY:
Application process:
Initial applications should consist of an expression of interest, CV(s) of the evaluator(s) and daily rate and work base
Short listed candidates will be asked to submit 1) a technical/ methodological proposal including methodology, work plan, and budget); 2)an example of past evaluation report prepared; 3) contact details of 2 references.
Applications should be sent to Shelly Sayagh (sayagh@carenederland.org) and Fatma Wakil (wakil@carenederland.org) no later than 7 February 2017.
Initial applications should consist of an expression of interest, CV(s) of the evaluator(s) and daily rate and work base
Short listed candidates will be asked to submit 1) a technical/ methodological proposal including methodology, work plan, and budget); 2)an example of past evaluation report prepared; 3) contact details of 2 references.
Applications should be sent to Shelly Sayagh (sayagh@carenederland.org) and Fatma Wakil (wakil@carenederland.org) no later than 7 February 2017.
