AMiRA Programme: Overall Programmatic Aspect
- Purpose: The purpose is twofold: to consolidate individual MTR country reports and to carry out a mid-term review (MTR) of the overarching programmatic aspects of the AMiRA programme
- Commissioner: British Red Cross (BRC)
- Timeframe: 30 days in total from October –December 2019
- Locations: Desk-based with a final two-day review meeting in Dakar
The AMiRA (Action for Migrants: Routes-based Assistance) Programme is a 24-month started in April 2018 programme funded by DFID’s Safety, Support and Solution Phase II initiative (SSSII) in Niger, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali as well as Sudan and Egypt. The programme is delivered by a consortium consisting of: nine Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies, the Federation (IFRC) and INTRAC as the learning partner. The AMIRA programme aims to facilitate access to basic services and the protection of migrants’ rights along the migratory routes, through the provision of humanitarian assistance, basic health support, livelihood, psychosocial support, protection, information and awareness-raising. In addition, it supports national partner societies to inform their respective national governments, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), the International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and other relevant partners of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement policy and key messages related to Migration.
The programme’s context and complexity present a range of challenges to orthodox evaluative activities. Migrants in transit form much of the target population, with heightened sensitivity among most of that population regarding confidentiality due to various risks. As a result, classic baseline, mid-line and end-line activities lose some of their evaluative power. An adapted or different approach must be taken to articulate the performance, progress and indications towards impact of the programme to date. Equally, the programme provides various opportunities to learn about some critical approaches:
> Programme approach – the ability to learn across contexts, National Societies and partners
> Routes-based approach – providing the potential for longitudinal analysis along the route
> Adaptive approach – the opportunity to trial and refine adaptive programming methods
2. Approach and Methodology
The mid-term reviews will be led by the partners in the different countries; each country has the budget and responsibility for their MTR review; key messages and recommendations from these reports will need to be consolidated into one programme MTR. There is a Theory of Change (ToC) for the programme with outcomes at programme, country and SSSII level. The ToC will form the basis for the MTR but will be used to assess progress towards achievement of outcomes rather than whether they have been achieved. At Programme level, there are two Outcome statements:
• Enhanced awareness and coordination of the programme and related organisations and institutions (both governmental and non-governmental)
• Enhanced capacity and learning within the programme and with related organisations and institutions (both governmental and non-governmental)
There is also a Logframe with relevant indicators at output and outcome level.
The objectives of the country MTRs are to:
- Assess the progress of the AMIRA programme against stated overall objective and outcome indicators
- Identify any current or potential issues affecting progress towards the overall objective and specific objectives and recommend course corrections
- Advise on changes that may be necessary for the successful implementation of the programme including providing a realistic assessment of how much additional time will be needed
- Provide information relevant for follow-up studies (end-line and final evaluation)
- Provide analysis on whether the route-based approach is understood, applied, and whether programme implementation is in line with the IFRC Migration Strategy
- In what way does the AMiRA programme strengthen the position of the RCRC Movement in the field of Migration?
The methodology for the overall programmatic review (this consultancy) has three components:
1) Literature review of relevant programme documents (learning event reports, donor reports etc) with a synthesis of information needed to answer the overarching review questions (Item 3)
2) Synthesis of the two country reports looking at trends but not direct comparisons as each context will be different. The information in the country reports will contribute to answering the overarching questions but will also answer their own MTR questions
3) Interviews with key informants to answer the overarching review questions at programmatic level and to address any gaps in the country reports. The overarching review will compliment but not duplicate the questions being asked in the country reviews.
The review is desk-based with interviews conducted on Skype/Zoom. However, the consultant will attend the final learning event in Dakar.
3. Overarching Review Questions
- Is there evidence that outcomes are being achieved? Are there any gaps or areas which could have been addressed by the programme and could potentially prevent the achievement of outcomes? What has been the overall reach?
- The feedback mechanism was an added component (in some countries) – what was the uptake and has sustainability been considered? Has it been considered in other countries? How has community engagement and accountability (CEA) been integrated?
- What are the perceptions of the national societies around aspects such as organisational development (as a result of the programme), their level of involvement at all stages and their thoughts about sustainability of activities when the funding finishes?
- How has the coordination been between partners in the RCRC consortium? What were the enablers and blockers and what could be improved?
- Does coordination really improve efficiency, effectiveness? How so? Is the current structure value for money?
- How successful is the programme at adaptation (to changing environment etc)? At what level has change taken place? What supports or inhibits adaptation?
- How have the different coordination structures (Migration Programme Coordination Committee, Contract Management Steering Group and MEAL Working Group) functioned? What were the enablers or blockers?
- How was the collaboration and coordination with SSSII partners? What were the enablers and blockers and what could be improved?
- Has the learning component led to documented changes either at implementation or management/coordination level?
- In what way does the AMiRA programme strengthen the position of the RCRC Movement in the field of Migration? Is there evidence of this at this point in time?
4. Review Outputs
The key outputs of the research will be:
• Full Mid-term Review report, including key recommendations at both national and programme levels – during the inception phase, the themes that will form the headings in the report will be determined
• ‘**Key findings’** (shortened) Mid-term Review report, including key recommendations at both national and programme levels, challenges and risks to programme performance, progress and future impact
• Key findings and recommendations presentation: this will be presented at the Programme Learning Event in November / December 2019
All outputs and associated materials are to be delivered in English and French (translation will be BRC’s responsibility). The recommendations will be agreed and refined into action plans with the support of the AMiRA programme’s learning partner, INTRAC during the Learning Event.
5. Users and Uses of the MTR
The key audiences will be:
• AMiRA Programme teams in each National Society, principally programme management and technical adviser teams, and including INTRAC
• Donors: e.g. DfID and DANIDA – plus any potential future donors for the programmes’ activities
• Communities: relevant key insights and learnings should be communicated to community leaders and representatives from migrant, returnee and host community groups (responsibility of implementing NS in each country)
• SSSII Partners: key findings and learning may be shared with other SSSII partners, e.g. IOM, UNICEF
6. Roles and Responsibilities
The consultancy will be managed by the BRC appointed PMEAL Adviser. Additional support can be sought from the MEAL Working Group when relevant.
The consultancy will start just before the expected completion of the country reports in order that time can be spent on the literature review. The consultant will consolidate the two reports, carry out interviews with key informants and produce a programmatic overall section of the report.
Dates to be decided with country teams
8. Evaluation Quality and Standards
The review and research must be:
a. Feasible. Evaluations and research must be planned and managed in a practical, realistic and cost-effective manner. Evaluations must be planned at service or project design, considering the objectives and type of evaluation required, and integrated into service or project delivery. Their scope and design must be commensurate with the expected benefits of conducting the work as well as the available resources.
b. Useful and used. Evaluations and research must be useful and used. This requires that they: A) Are conducted at the appropriate time, ensuring that reports are delivered in a timely manner so that evaluation and research findings can inform decision-making B) Serve the specific information needs of intended users; these must be identified during the planning stage and addressed throughout the project. Methods must be fit for purpose in generating the required information.**C)** Are followed up appropriately. Findings should feed into decision-making, thus requiring, in some cases, that a management response and/or an action plan are prepared and required to implement recommendations.
c. Ethical and legal. Evaluators and researchers must respect and take account of differences in culture, local behaviour and norms, religious beliefs and practices, sexual orientation, gender roles, disability, age, ethnicity and any other social difference. Evaluations and research projects must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for minimising the risks, harms and burdens and maximising the welfare of those involved in and affected by the work. All evaluation and research must use full informed consent which conforms to our Data Protection Policy.
d. Impartial and independent. Impartiality implies freedom from political influence, cultural bias, and organisational pressure. All evaluations and research should be impartial regardless of whether they are conducted by people internal or external to the organisation. All evaluations and research should provide a comprehensive and unbiased balanced assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders. Independence is a principle which refers to the absence of any conflicts of interest or external influence capable of altering the findings of the work. This principle may be extended to include the use of external evaluators and researchers. Where possible conflicts of interest are identified, these must be addressed openly and honestly in a manner consistent with our Conflicts of Interest Policy and related procedure.
e. Transparent. Evaluations and research should be designed, conducted, and disseminated in an open and transparent manner. The evaluator or researcher should be clearly identifiable on any report, and where external should be assigned following a transparent recruitment process aligned to our Procurement and Purchasing Policy. Any methodological limitations should be acknowledged and their effect on the evaluation described. All methodological tools used in evaluations and research should be included in report appendices.
f. Accurate. Evaluations and research must be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its legitimacy and credibility can be determined. As such any sampling framework used must be clearly described and limitations in the reliability of data acknowledged.
g. Participatory. Stakeholders should not only be consulted, but meaningfully involved in the evaluation and research processes when feasible and appropriate. Their participation increases the legitimacy and utility of the findings, as well as overall cooperation, support and ownership of the evaluation or research.
h. Collaborative. We must collaborate with our partners to ensure the legitimacy and usefulness of evaluation or research. We are committed to offering full cooperation to all partners with whom evaluations and research are undertaken.
9. Consultant Profile
• Understanding of humanitarian and migration programmes preferably in West or North Africa
• Demonstrated experience of conducting evaluations including desk reviews
• Demonstrated experience of writing syntheses of different evaluation reports with an ability to analyse findings and take different context into account
• Proven track record of using qualitative data analysis
• Excellent written and spoken English and French skills required
• Strong interpersonal and communication skills
• Knowledge and experience working with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement preferred
In the British Red Cross we will not tolerate any form of misconduct, including sexual harassment, exploitation and abuse. We have a code of conduct in place and are committed to creating a culture of integrity in the organisation where misconduct is not tolerated, situations of abuse are quickly investigated and perpetrators are dealt with effectively.