Call for Consultant for DANIDA Humanitarian Frame 2020 Project Evaluation

Terms of Reference (TOR) for DCA Danida Humanitarian Frame 2020 Project Evaluation.

Background and Introduction:
DanChurchAid (DCA) - is a decentralized Danish NGO, which primarily works with both national and international NGO partners and a member of international networks / alliances including churches. This term of reference for the consultancy describes DanChurchAid (DCA) South Sudan objectives to undertake an independent evaluation for one of its project Danida Humanitarian Frame 2020 implemented across three states of South Sudan (Eastern Equatoria, Upper Nile and Jonglei state). The TOR briefly describes project back grounds, specific project outcomes/outputs, proposed scope of work and methodologies and deliverables from a consultant(s) identified through a competitive process. The following are the details of the, project to be evaluated.

1.0 Project summary Danida Humanitarian Frame 2020 Project
Project Title: Supporting Food Security in Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria

1. 1. Introduction of the project
   
   

South Sudan is facing numerous socio-economic and political challenges which have affected all sectors of society, the economy, infrastructure, education, health, and livelihood of the people in general. As a result, the country is in fragile state unable to support its people and requiring a lot of assistance across the country from humanitarian actors. Since the start of the conflict in 2013, over 7 million people are said to be at risk of severe malnutrition, hampering children’s development and ability to attend school as they, along with their parents, struggle to look for food for survival. Over 2.5 million people have been forced out of the country to refugee settlements in neighbouring countries, 2 million are IDPs and over 2 million children are out of school (UNESCO) of whom 75% are girls.

The project provides life-saving and integrated multi-sector assistance through multi-purpose cash assistance and livelihoods support, aiming to increase access to food through cash and increased food production. It reinforces protection through community-led approaches and promotes access to basic services through market support and referral pathways. At the same time, at-risk communities are supported to sustain and improve their ability to cope with threats through community managed DRR support and peacebuilding and conflict mitigation initiatives.
This integrated action is fully in line with DCAs focus on the nexus approach, linking humanitarian assistance with development support and peacebuilding to sustain gains and ensure relevant and significant impact. Rights-holder and community-centred methodologies as well as extensive consultation with a broad range of stakeholders have informed the design to be meaningful in the targeted locations, aiming to increase localisation and local ownership of the project activities, increasing the likelihood of it being sustained after the project period ends.
Localisation is a priority for DCA South Sudan, resulting in consistent support and capacity strengthening of local implementing partners has led to strong partnerships. As a next step, DCA will promote one of its partners, through training and mentorship, to a fully qualified Mine Risk Education (MRE) actor, further strengthening sustainability of the overall humanitarian and mine action programme in South Sudan.

DCA is implementing this project in Upper Nile State (Ulang and Longechuk Counties), Jonglei State (Fangak County) and Eastern Equatoria State (Magwi County), through three local partners (NH, SPEDP and UNKEA) with in-depth local knowledge and expertise in responding to both immediate needs and providing long-term solutions. The selected locations are classified as food insecure (IPC 3 and 4, In some locations IPC 5 during the lean season).

Program Impact
Crisis-affected HHs in targeted counties of Upper Nile, Jonglei and Eastern Equatoria States of South Sudan have iimproved access to food and other lifesaving assistance through market-based programming, provision of productive assets for vulnerable households and increased capacities of community to reduce risks and respond to disaster in Upper Nile, Jonglei and Eastern Equatoria States.

Impact Indicators:
80% of crisis affected households (HHs) in targeted counties of Upper Nile, Jonglei and Eastern Equatoria States have increased access to means to meet their immediate dietary needs and have improved their ability to be self-reliant.

Overall Project Objective
Access to food and other lifesaving assistance through cash, market-based programming, provision of productive assets for vulnerable households and increasing capacities of community to respond to disaster in Greater Upper Nile and Eastern Equatoria.

The project will assess change through the 4 outcomes
Outcome 1: Target HHs have improved access to food and other basic needs among most vulnerable conflict affected households.
Outcome 2: Target HHs have increased livelihoods opportunities and diversify agricultural production among IDPs, returnees and host communities.
Outcome 3: Local markets have increased capacity and functionality to support needs of local communities.
Outcome 4: Improved community capacity to reduce risks and increase preparedness in targeted communities.

Project Activities:

• 1,486 HHs (8,916 individuals) supported with unconditional multi-purpose cash transfers
• 350 HHs (2,100 individuals) supported with conditional cash transfers (Cash for Work) and 4 community assets rehabilitated
• 1,160 HHs (6,960 individuals) assisted with crop and vegetable seeds and tools
• 660 HHs (3,960 individuals) assisted with fishing kits
• 22 farming groups trained on improved farming practices and linked to local markets
• 26 fishing groups trained on diverse and improved techniques and linked to local markets
• 4 apiary groups formed, trained and supported with bee keeping kits
• 5 animal traction farming groups formed, trained on methodology and animal welfare and supported with bulls
• 100 HHs (600 individuals) supported with female goats
• 100 women receive income generation support through training in bread making
• 19 village savings and Loans association (VSLA) groups formed and trained
• 4 markets targeted with infrastructure strengthening interventions
• 140 market actors trained as part of market capacity strengthening initiatives
• 4 community DRR committees established and trained to undertake 4 preparedness initiatives
• 140 community members trained in7 communities to map protection gaps at community level and develop Action Plans, engaging 500 HHs in Cash for Work initiatives
• 1 National NGO trained in Explosive Ordnance/Mine Risk Education, accredited and registered
• 100 community members and leaders trained in conflict management, peacebuilding and social cohesion and
• 3 Armed Violence Awareness campaigns conducted

Project Expected Results

The evaluation results must address the following indicators:

• 80% of targeted HHs have improved food security as a result of cash transfers
• 70% of target HHs report reduced use of negative coping mechanisms post cash distribution
• 70% of targeted women reporting shared decision making on cash transfer use
• 70% of individuals engaged in producer groups reporting improvement of income
• 80% of targeted HHs reporting an increase access to capital due to VSLA groups
• 70% of target HHs report reduced use of negative coping mechanisms post livelihood input distribution.
• 60% of market actors reporting improved market functionality at closure of project
• 80% of trainees reporting improved capacities in business management and bookkeeping
• 70% of targeted HHs reporting improved preparedness for natural disaster
• 80% of target HHs report improved social cohesion
• 70% of targeted HHs reporting increased explosive ordnance risk awareness

2. Purpose of the Evaluation:
This call for an evaluation is to demonstrate how the project achieved its intended objectives and determine what changes it brought to the target communities.
The specific objectives of this evaluation are to:

1. Assess the extent to which the project achieved its objectives with special emphasis on the outcomes and impact including most significant changes attributable to the project.
2. Assess the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the project strategy with special emphasis on:

• Community needs at the time of project identification
• Results as articulated in the project log frame
• Cross cutting issues of Gender, Rights Based Approach,
• LGAs, community structures capacity building and its relevance to project implementation.
• The external environment (context) within which the project was operational and its influence on project successes and/or failures.

1. Assess the processes of beneficiary engagement against best practices in the project
2. Assess project efficiency in utilisation of mobilised and committed resources during the implementation and procurement of project inputs.
3. Determine the synergies of this project with other Partner implemented projects in the same geographic area and coordination with other actors and make recommendation aimed at achieving greater synergies in future programming.
4. Establish the level of project results sustainability with various stakeholders (beneficiary, community, LGAs and other actors) with focus on innovation and best practice.
5. Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project monitoring and evaluation, focusing on DCA and partner monitoring tools and how these could be strengthened in future projects.
6. Establish the level of networking and/or coordination achieved by the project with its stakeholders.
7. Assess the cost effectiveness of delivering humanitarian assistance through cash and market-based programming compared to in kind assistance.
8. Assess the contribution of the project to Local Market functionality.
9. Assess number of indirect beneficiaries reached by the project and impact on the indirect beneficiaries
10. Assess the functionality of the complaints handling mechanisms that were put in place and how effective the mechanisms were during the project.

3.0 Evaluation Scope of the and Methodology This evaluation is expected to cover the entire Danida Humanitarian frame 2020, from 1st January 2019 to 31st December 2020, as implemented in selected states (Upper Nile, Jonglei and Eastern Equatoria), including Ulang, Longechuk, Fangak and Magwi Counties. The evaluation will be conducted from 18th of January to 28th of February 2021
DCA recommends a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Proposed approaches could include or extend beyond cross-sectional household surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, documents reviews and analysis, case studies, observation, or any other appropriate techniques.
The consultant is expected to indicate how the necessary measures are taken to mitigate for risks, limitations and potential delays caused by Covid-19 measures in South Sudan and the consultant’s home country to ensure field work can take place. This may include requirements for testing, quarantine, and travel restrictions.
The evaluator is required to use a mix of techniques which best collects data from direct and indirect project beneficiaries and where applicable, the evaluator will adopt a participatory approach to data collection when engaging with different respondents. Furthermore, where appropriate, use joint sessions that can use stakeholder engagement and analysis tools to evaluate project relevancy, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.
It is important to reiterate that the proposed evaluation techniques should explicitly demonstrate how cross cutting themes such as protection, gender and disability shall be integrated across the modalities including the do no harm principles

3.1 This evaluation is expected to provide answers to the following evaluation questions:
Relevance & Quality of Design:

• Does the project conform to the goals of DCA country strategy?
• Is the project design appropriate for the geographic area?
• Is the intervention logic coherent and accurate?
• Have recommendations from previous evaluations been incorporated in the design?
• Were any lessons learned from previous projects in the area used?
• Are the indicators of progress and impact in the design of good quality?

Efficiency of Implementation:

• Did the project start in time?
• Were all key staff in post maintained through project life?
• Were all inputs delivered in time?
• Were inputs of acceptable quality?
• Appropriateness of methodology used
• How was the cooperation between local government authorities and implementing partners?
• What was the local government’s assessment of this intervention?
• What was the chiefs’ assessment of this intervention?
• Did partners get good cooperation from relevant local leaders?
• Was access to project areas acceptable by stakeholders?
• Have most of the project outcomes been achieved to an acceptable standard?
• Have the community contributed in cash and/or in kind to the project?
• Was the budget been spent according to the proposed budget lines?
• Was the rate of spending acceptable?
• How effective was complain handling mechanism? And is it functioning?

Effectiveness of the Project:

• To what extent were project activities listed in the proposal contributing to achievement of the project specific objectives - attainment of outputs and the project outcomes?
• Have there been any un-planned effects and are these good or bad?
• Has coordination with other development actors been effective?
• Have the effects of the project been felt equally across the whole project area or are some areas neglected?
• Have the effects of the project been felt equally across the project stakeholders or other stakeholders neglected?
• What project component/s were more effective and why?
• Was the technical design effective and appropriate for that environment?

Impact of the Project:

• To what extent have beneficiaries, including duty bearers benefited from project outputs and outcomes?
• Has the project changed beneficiaries’ lives in any meaningful way?
• To what extent have the duty bearers/ local government institutions benefited from the outputs and outcomes?
• To what extent have local leaders benefited from the outputs and outcomes?
• In what ways have local markets benefited from the project?
• To what extent is the impact sustainable over a longer term?
• Has the project increased or decreased dependency on outside intervention?
• Has the use of animal traction increased area cultivated and planted with crops?

Potential of Project Sustainability:

• To what extent can the outputs be expected to be sustainable over longer time?
• What characteristics make the outputs sustainable or unsustainable?
• Do the local government authorities fully support the initiatives taken by the project?
• Do the local community leaders/ chiefs fully support the initiatives taken by the project?
• To what extent are the target communities contributing to the sustainability of the initiatives?
• Has special effort been made to educate and train women to assume decision-making roles?
• Are the Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLA) working as intended?
• Did the project design include practical exit strategy?

4.0 Evaluation Approach:
In principles, the consultant is expected to develop the evaluation methodology, but the expectation is that the incumbent will adopt an inclusive and participatory approach in which key project staffs have a chance to meaningfully participate in the evaluation process. Considering the foregoing, it is recommended that:

• The entire exercise is structured to adopt joint planning sessions with project staff, program briefings by management staff in line with the log frame, project document, and the country strategy. Others include focus group discussions, key informant interviews with stakeholders and Government representatives in each county.
• Electronic data collection at household level: the consultant is expected to design and program data collection tools through kobo Collect.
• The communities to be visited will be chosen from the beneficiaries, based on the different types of activities that have been implemented in that community. This is to ensure a convincing assessment of project sites accessibility, cost effectiveness, ability to mobilize the respondents within the consultancy period.
• Using different methods, the consultant is expected to collect relevant data and to triangulate information thus ensuring greater validity of information. Groups that will provide the required data include the LNGOs, INGOs, DCA and Partner program staffs, the community groups, Government representatives and special interest groups within the community (such as Flood Task Forces, VSLA groups etc. Secondary data from previous reviews, progress reports, proposals, and other related documents will be considered.
• A debrief session will be held with the program staff at the end of the field visit – both in the field and in Juba. The debrief sessions will provide a summary of the outcome of the evaluation.

5.0 Expected Outputs of the Evaluation/Deliverables
The following are the expected outputs;

• Inception report: The Evaluator will develop detailed inception that sets out conceptual framework to be used in the evaluation, stating the key evaluation questions and methodology, including information on data sources and collection, sampling and key indicators. The inception report will also include a timeline for the evaluation project and drafts of data collection instruments.
• Presentation of first draft: The Evaluator will be required to organise one day presentation of the first draft report, debriefing meeting with DCA and partners to discuss and feedback on the draft evaluation report.
• The Evaluation report will benchmark with the project baseline report clearing having a comparative analysis of key indicators and well as disaggregated results.
• The final evaluation report complying with the format and answering the evaluation questions.
• Documentation of most significant change stories, one per location.

6.1 Proposed Evaluation Activities Scheduling:
Below is the proposed itinerary during the evaluation:Activity/ MilestoneDuration
Consultant preparation2
Consultant travels 1
Meeting with project management team in Juba – administrative matters, reviews of background documents, tools finalization etc.1
Field work – selected states and counties 19
Debrief1
Preparation of draft report and distribution to DCA and partners 2
Total days26
7.0 Terms and Conditions:

• Logistics:

DCA will guide the consultant to budget for the field related costs. including food, and accommodation
DCA will guide the consultant to budget for daily payment of data collectors/enumerators in the field
DCA will carter for in country flight bookings and payment to field locations

• Professional fee: Interested consultants are expected to provide a budget for the exercise. DCA will consider proposals that are within the approved rates as per its policy on professional fees.
• Tax and insurance: 10% income tax payable to GoSS shall be deducted from the consultant’s fee during payment. This should be clearly indicated in the financial proposal.
• A contract will be signed by the consultant upon commencement of the evaluation which will detail additional terms and conditions of service, aspects on inputs and deliverables including DCA’s Code of Conduct.
• Data collection and data processing costs are included in the account of the consultant. The consultant is expected use his/her own computer.
• Consultant will budget for actual payment for enumerators at rate of 10$ per enumerator per day this is based on actual cost in the field

8.0 Consultant Experience:
The consultant should meet the following criteria:

• Higher university degree in relevant field with over 12 years’ experience in food security and livelihoods programming in fragile countries.
• Knowledge on community vulnerability; Disaster Risk Reduction, humanitarian aid CHS; NEXUS; Rights Based approach and participatory approaches.
• Strong understanding of South Sudan context (specifically the context Greater Equatoria, Greater Upper Nile and Jonglei States), policy and advocacy work.
• Excellent written English;
• Knowledge of local languages is an added asset.
• Previous experience of evaluating cash and market-based programmes in the context of South Sudan will be an added advantage.
• A Covid 19 mitigation plan is expected to be included in the proposal. The evaluation is expected to include substantial field work. Qualified South Sudanese staff or a partnership with a South Sudanese evaluator is an added advantage.

NB: Consultants and Service providers to DCA are subjected to the Code of Conduct and child protection, and PSEA compliance. 8.1 Application
The consultant is expected to submit the following:

• Brief explanation about the consultant(s) with emphasis on previous experience in similar work
• Profile of the consultant(s) to be involved in undertaking the consultancy
• Proposal for undertaking this assignment as detailed in the TOR
• Financial proposal including cost estimates for services rendered including daily consultancy fees.