Evaluation Terms of Reference: Integrated Humanitarian Assistance for IDPs & Other Vulnerable Populations in South Central Somalia: Final Evaluation

  • Added Date: Wednesday, 15 May 2019
  • Deadline Date: Wednesday, 22 May 2019

Similar jobs

Manager of Finance and Administration, Humanitarian Assistance, North East Syria
Organization: Global Communities
Added: Wednesday, 07 August 2019
Deadline: Monday, 30 September 2019
Faculty Position in Humanitarian Assistance
Organization: Tufts University
Added: Friday, 09 August 2019
Deadline: Monday, 02 March 2020
RE-ADVERT: Terms of References for the Second Round Midline Evaluation of Somali Girls Education Project (SOMGEP-T)
Organization: CARE
Added: Tuesday, 10 September 2019
Deadline: Tuesday, 24 September 2019

I. INTRODUCTION

I.A. Evaluation Overview

Catholic Relief Services Somalia is seeking to engage an external consult to conduct a final evaluation for the Integrated Humanitarian Assistance for IDPs & Other Vulnerable Populations in South Central Somalia program. The aim of the evaluation is to determine the overall merit and value of the response through using meta-questions to assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency as well as to provide evidence-based recommendations that will inform future programming.

Non-experimental evaluation design will be used to measure the changes brought about by the project intervention to the target beneficiaries in Mogadishu, Afgooye and Baidoa. Probability sampling will be used for the household quantitative survey to ensure the subjects of the population get an equal opportunity to be selected as respondents. Two stage stratified sampling approach will be used to select study participants. For the qualitative data, purposive sampling method will be used to select study respondents, based on the role they played in the emergency response.

Quantitative data collection will target beneficiary households in select project target locations in Mogadishu, Afgooye and Baidoa, that have benefited from the project interventions and will be designed to collect data from household heads and/or their spouses on demographic, socio-economic characteristics of the households and the performance of the selected indicators. The data will be collected using semi-structured household questionnaire through a mobile data collection application (such as CommCare).

Qualitative data collection will target the key stakeholders involved the project design and implementation. This information will be used to supplement and complement the quantitative data collected from the household interviews to provide an in-depth knowledge on how the intervention has been able to support conflict and drought-affected IDPs in the project target locations. The targeted respondents will include the health centers staff, village committee members, representatives of the community and the other project staff involved in the implementation of the response. The qualitative data collection will be done through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and through site observations of health centers, protection centers and water points.

I.B. Background: CRS and Implementing Partners

Catholic Relief Services (CRS) - An international non-governmental organization supporting relief and development work in over 99 countries around the world. CRS programs assist persons based on need, regardless of creed, ethnicity or nationality and works through local church and non-church partners to implement programs. CRS carries out the commitment of the Bishops of the United States to assist the poor and vulnerable overseas. CRS currently addresses food, water, hygiene, health, nutrition, and protection needs of vulnerable Somalis. CRS has been working closely with and channeling resources and support to local organizations inside Somalia since the 1990s. CRS has been implementing activities in Mogadishu since August 2011, in Baidoa since April 2012, and in Gedo region since 2014 with OFDA, FFP, and other private and external donor funding.

SOS Children’s Villages International - An independent, non-governmental international development organization which has been working to meet the needs and protect the interests and rights of children since 1949. SOS in Somalia began in 1983; and a property provided by the government was chosen as the site for the first SOS Children's Village and its adjoining kindergarten. The SOS School was later converted into an emergency clinic during the war, and the mother and child clinic became part of emergency relief programming. Today it remains the only functioning maternity ward and gynecological care facility in the country. More recently, the SOS Vocational Training Center was established, which offers training courses for nurses and midwives. SOS has worked with CRS since 2011 on emergency programs to provide livelihood recovery, basic health, and nutrition services to vulnerable IDPs and host communities.

Save Somali Women and Children (SSWC) - SSWC was founded in 1992 by a group of Somali female intellectuals from a cross section of the community and has a longstanding history of promoting women’s rights and advocacy. SSWC has worked in the areas of protection, WASH, and livelihoods, and prioritizes supporting grassroots economic projects for women, enhancing their capacity for advocacy on the issue of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM), providing training to Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) and Community Based Organizations (CBOs) on women’s rights, and raising awareness on the conditions of women and girls in Somalia in Baidoa, Mogadishu, Afgooye, Caadado, Dsamareeb and Kismayu.

Trocaire – Trocaire is an international non-governmental organization that works with local partners to support communities in over 20 developing countries with a focus on food and resource rights, women's empowerment and humanitarian response. Trocaire has been operational in Somalia since 1992 and is one of the few organizations that continued to provide life-saving interventions without pause throughout the chaotic decades of civil war. Trocaire employs a unique, community led approach through all its work that has ensured access and safety for its staff and operations.

I.C. Background: Project Goal and Objectives

Catholic Relief Services received a grant valued at $5,999,995 from OFDA/USAID to carry out humanitarian assistance for IDPs and host populations in South-Central Somalia. The project start date was July 23rd, 2018 and the project will end on July 2nd, 2019. The project provides an integrated package of life-saving services to highly vulnerable IDPs, host-communities and hard-to-reach populations in Mogadishu, Afgooye Corridor, Baidoa, Cadaado, Luuq, Dollow, and Garbahaarrey. CRS works with three implementing partners: Save Somalia Women and Children (SSWC), SOS Children’s Villages Somalia (SOS), and Trocaire Somalia. The project intended to reach a total of

150,000 beneficiaries, including 127,500 (85%) IDPs. The project has five objectives:

1. Target populations access comprehensive primary care and have reduced morbidity.

2. Malnutrition in young children (>5) and pregnant/lactating women (PLWs) is decreased and prevented.

3. Vulnerable groups are less at risk and survivors of GBV access comprehensive services.

4. Vulnerable populations are adequately protected through coordinated settlement.

5. Vulnerable populations access clean water and have improved hygiene.

The project goal, sectors, objectives by sector, and activities are presented in the table below:

Goal: Displaced and other vulnerable populations have reduced malnutrition, morbidity and protection risks.

Sector and Health Nutrition Protection Settlements WASH
Amount $843,791 $971,071 $2,970,636 $393,640 $840,857

Target Malnutrition in Vulnerable groups Vulnerable Vulnerable
populations young children (0- are less at risk populations are populations
access 5) and and survivors of adequately access clean
Objective comprehensive pregnant/lactating GBV access protected water and have
primary care women is comprehensive through improved

and have decreased and services. coordinated hygiene.
reduced prevented. settlement.
morbidity.
CRS and its CRS and its CRS and its CRS works CRS and its
partners partners use the partners work closely with the partners
support static Basic Nutrition within prevention Somalia CCCM undertake
and mobile Service Package and response to cluster to extensive
health clinics, for Somalia gender-based enhance hygiene
who use protocol (as violence and child humanitarian promotion
mobile recommended by protection and coordination, campaigns,
outreach the Somalia psychosocial strengthen the integrated with
teams to Nutrition Cluster). support services capacity of nutrition
extend service CRS uses a to achieve this community and messaging at
provision to combination of objective. GBV camp facilities and HH
hard to reach strategies to survivors access management level through
IDP decrease comprehensive committees and leveraging
populations malnutrition, services including improve partner
who cannot including medical, legal and acceptance networks of
easily access household level psycho-social. among host CHWs and
Approach existing screening, Furthermore, the communities CNWs to
facilities. treatment at project works to and local delivery
health facilities, raise GBV authorities. integrated
IYCF and mother- awareness and hygiene
to-mother mitigation messaging.
support groups strategies among Furthermore,
and targeted target the project
nutrition communities. supports the
messaging. Partners also construction of
participate in latrines,
child protection handwashing
through the stations and
provision of child shallow wells to
friendly spaces benefit both
(CFS). IDP and host
community
populations.
3

Table 1: Target beneficiaries in each location.

District

Host Community

IDP Beneficiaries

Beneficiaries Reached

Reached to Date

to Date community

Afgooye

49, 305

69,768

Luuq

8,474

11,991

Baidoa

19,260

27,253

Total

77,039

109,012

II. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

II.A. Purpose of the Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess whether the response achieved the desired outcomes and produced evidence-based recommendations to inform future programming. The evaluation will seek to:

• Determine achievement against performance of select indicators;

• Identify program strategies, structures, systems and interventions that contributed to or impeded the achievement of intended impact of program interventions;

• Draw lessons from the project and results achieved to inform future similar programming.

II.B. Key Audiences and Uses

STAKEHOLDERS

STAKEHOLDER EVALUATION DATA

STAKEHOLDERS’ ROLE IN THE

JUSTIFICATION

NEEDS AND USE

EVALUATION

FOR

STAKEHOLDER

ROLE

• To establish the impact of the

• Provision of funds to undertake the

This is the donor

OFDA project on the target

evaluation.

for the project.

USAID/OFDA

beneficiaries.

• Review and approval of the evaluation

Suggestions/recommendations

TOR and report.

with the potential to shape

future programming.

• To establish the impact of

• Development of the evaluation TOR.

This is the

OFDA on the target

• Recruitment of the consultant.

project prime.

beneficiaries.

• Reviewing and approval of the

Suggestions/recommendations

evaluation design and tools upon

with the potential to shape

agreement with the consultant.

future programming.

• Provision of relevant project

• To assess and evaluate the

background materials.

CRS

relevance, efficiency, and

• Supervision of the consultant.

effectiveness of the response

• Review and approval of the final the

interventions in terms of its

evaluation report.

implementation approach and

• Processing payments for the

strategies.

consultant(s) upon receiving of the

final Report.

• Make travel, accommodation and per

diem arrangements for consultant and

team.

4

• Ensure smooth flow of consultancy

engagement processes including

contractual obligations.

• Share the final evaluation report with

all key stakeholders, including key

project staff, partners, donor

representative and government.

• To measure the outcome and

• Assist the consultant in the

These are the

impact of the intervention.

implementation of the evaluation

project sub-

Local

• Suggestions/recommendations

methodology as appropriate i.e.

grantees.

Implementing

with the potential to shape

recruitment of research assistants,

Partners: SOS,

future programming.

participation in sampling, mobilizing

SSWC and

sampled communities, scheduling

Trocaire

meetings, interviews, etc.

• Timely procurement of logistics as

agreed with the consultant.

III. EVALUATION QUESTIONS / OBJECTIVES

The evaluation will use meta-questions around relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of project interventions, in assessing whether the project met. These evaluation meta-questions are provided in the table below.

COMPONENTS OF

QUESTIONS WE HAVE

EXISTING DATA

FURTHER DATA

WHO SHOULD BE

THE PROGRAM

THAT WE WOULD LIKE

TO HELP

NEEDED

INVOLVED?

WE WOULD LIKE

ANSWERED

ANALYZE THIS

TO LEARN MORE

QUESTION

ABOUT

  1. To what degree did the

Project

Beneficiary and

CRS, SOS, SSWC,

project meet the needs of

proposal

other stakeholder

Trocaire, beneficiaries

target beneficiary

Project

perspectives on

and other relevant

populations?

monthly and

the relevance of

stakeholders

Relevance

quarterly

the project in

reports

meeting their

Feedback

needs.

mechanism

data

  1. To what extent were the

Project

Population level

CRS, SOS, SSWC,

sector specific objectives of

proposal

data on required

Trocaire, beneficiaries

the project achieved?

Project

performance

and other relevant

monthly and

indicators

stakeholders

  1. To what extent were

quarterly

(detailed in

beneficiaries actively

reports,

tabled 2 below)

consulted and engaged in

including FGD

Feedback from

Effectiveness

the project especially in

reports

beneficiaries

their ability to provide

Feedback

regarding

feedback through partner’s

mechanism

awareness,

accountability

data, including

accessibility and

mechanisms?

design

use of

documentation

accountability

of mechanisms

mechanisms

5

Previous donor

Beneficiary

submitted

feedback

reports

regarding project

Partner

outputs,

indicator

outcomes and

tracking tables

community

CRS partner

consultation

accountability

around the

assessment

project

documents

implementation

Analysis of

project

performance

against indicator

targets and

changes from the

baseline

  1. To what extent did the

Project

Feedback from

CRS, SOS, SSWC,

implementation process,

proposal

both CRS and

Trocaire, beneficiaries

including delivery options

Project

partner staff

and other relevant

and models, ensure

monthly and

Feedback from

stakeholders

efficient use of value for

quarterly

key stakeholders

money; including:

reports,

Analysis of

Efficiency

management structures,

including FGDs

qualitative and

partner roles and

Monitoring

quantitative data

coordination, humanitarian

visit and

regarding

coordination between

meeting

implementation

other actors?

documentation

process against

project

effectiveness

Table 2: Performance indicators.

Below is the list of required indicators, baseline benchmarks and end of targets to be measured by the evaluation:

OBJECTIVE

INDICATORS

BASELINE

TARGET

STATEMENT

VALUE

Target populations

1. Number and percentage of community members who can recall

1.

0

1.

75%

access comprehensive

target health education message

2.

46.8%

2.

35%

primary care and have

  1. % of HH that report they had at least one sick person in last two

3.

60.4%

3.

75%

reduced morbidity.

weeks

  1. % of pregnant women who reported to have accessed/used

formal healthcare services in last 3 months

Malnutrition in young

  1. Proportion of infants 0-5 months of age who are fed exclusively

4.

27.61%

4.

25%

children (0-5) and

with breast milk

5.

10.38%

5.

25%

pregnant/lactating

5. Proportion of children 6-23 months of age who receive foods

6.

N/A

6.

N/A

women is decreased

from 4 or more food groups

and prevented.

  1. % children (6 to 59 months) with MUAC score below 125mm

6

Vulnerable groups are

7. Percentage of targeted children reporting an improvement in

  1. 0

  2. 75%

less at risk and

their sense of safety and well-being at the close of the program

  1. 0

  2. 72%

survivors of GBV access

8. Percentage of people reporting improvements in their feelings

  1. 39.5%

  2. 50%

comprehensive

of well-being and ability to cope at the end of the program (CRS

services.

custom)

  1. % of HH that are aware of where to access GBV/protection

services

Vulnerable populations

10.

Percentage of settlement (neighborhood) beneficiaries who

10.

N/A

10.

70%

are adequately

believe settlement (neighborhood) activities met or exceeded

11.

N/A

11.

80%

protected through

expectations

coordinated

11.

Beneficiaries as a percentage of the total number of

settlement.

settlements (neighbourhood) residents

Vulnerable populations

12.

Percent of people targeted by the hygiene promotion program

12.

71.10%

12.

70%

access clean water and

who know at least three (3) of the five (5) critical times to wash

13.

17.10%

13.

70%

have improved

hands

14.

0

14.

5,000

hygiene.

13.

Percent of households targeted by the hygiene promotion

15.

N/A

15.

36

program who store their drinking water safely in clean

16.

0

16.

3,600

containers

17.

0

17.

7.5

14.

Number of people directly utilizing improved sanitation

18.

0

18.

95%

services provided with OFDA funding

19.

47%

19.

80%

15.

Average number of users per functioning toilet

20.

0

20.

70%

16.

Number of people directly utilizing improved water services

21.

0

21.

70%

provided with OFDA funding

22.

0

22.

70%

17.

Estimated safe water supplied per beneficiary in

litres/person/day

18.

Percent of handwashing stations built or rehabilitated in health

facilities that are functional

19.

Percent of households targeted by WASH program that are

collecting all water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene from

improved water sources

20.

Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the contents

of the WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits)

or voucher

21.

Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quantity

of WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits),

vouchers, or cash

22.

Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quality of

WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits),

vouchers, or cash

IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

IV.A. Evaluation Design and Approach

The final evaluation will employ a non-experimental design for simple pre-post comparison of results using a mixed-methods approach involving both quantitative and qualitative data. Data collection will involve a quantitative beneficiary household survey; document reviews, including routine monitoring data and project reports; beneficiary and stakeholder interviews, field observations, and post-evaluation workshop and discussions. The consultant will use a comparative analysis approach to report on project achievements for selected indicator values.

7

Quantitative HH survey will be conducted through structured questionnaire, with relevant and appropriate questions, that will generate quantitative information that will be captured numerically and can produce summary statistics such as frequency distributions, means, medians, ranges and other measures of variation which describe the beneficiary in an aggregate way. The quantitative HH survey will be complemented by qualitative methods that will be conducted alongside the HH survey in the form of key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGD) and site observations. Secondary data from routine project MEAL system and the previous phase final evaluation and need assessments KAP surveys conducted in the project should also be used to inform the findings, conclusions, and recommendations in this evaluation. The survey will generate end-line data for the outcome indicators of the OFDA project, which could be used as baseline data for follow-on program where appropriate. In this design, the researcher will not control, manipulate or alter the predictor variables or project beneficiaries, but will instead rely on interpretation, observation and interactions to concluded, through correlations.

IV.B. Sources of Data and Data Collection Methods

In order to answer the key evaluation questions associated with this assignment, both qualitative and quantitative data will be elicited by the consultant, through primary and secondary sources. First, the evaluation will assess and draw from on secondary data, which will be obtained through review of key project documents: quarterly assessments, monthly reports, monitoring data and project proposals. The evaluation will also generate primary data. The consultant will design and conduct a household survey, administered to randomly selected beneficiaries in the target locations, to generate primary quantitative data.

Finally, in order to generate primary qualitative data, the consultant will conduct beneficiary focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and any other methods considered appropriate, such as case studies and most significant change stories. Participants of focus group discussions and key informant interviews will be purposively selected from project beneficiary and project stakeholder populations. The consultant will conduct key informant interview with SOS, SSWC, Trocaire, and CRS Somalia staff, as well as other key project stakeholders. Focus group discussion sessions, composed of 8-12 (men, women and child) project beneficiaries will be undertaken in the IDPs and the host communities; the groups will be gender-mixed or gender-segregated, as deemed appropriate by the evaluators. Distinct FGD guides will be developed for IDPs and host communities, to elicit data on ‘why’ and ’how’ the differences and/or similarities in the project performance indicators in the two strata have occurred and to establish suggestions to improve future project design. All qualitative data will be recorded during the FGDs and during the informant interview process, translated from Somali to English, as needed, and recorded in MS-word. The consultant should include all raw qualitative focus group discussion and key informant interview data, as appendices to the Final Report, and categorize, summarize, interpret, and highlight key findings and conclusions from all this data in the Final Report itself.

All of the qualitative data collected through the above methods will be used to triangulate, explain, and create context for the trends and data collected through the quantitative methods. In the Final Evaluation Report, the analysis of all data (primary, secondary, quantitative, qualitative) and findings should be organized around and presented in order to answer the four key Evaluation Questions (below).

EVALUATION

KEY DATA TO BE

SOURCE OF DATA

DATA COLLECTION

SAMPLING

QUESTIONS

COLLECTED TO ANSWER

(FROM WHOM /

METHODS AND

METHODS /

THE EVALUATION

WHAT WILL THE

FREQUENCY

SAMPLE

QUESTION

DATA BE

(HOW WILL YOU

SIZE

(WHAT DATA WILL YOU

COLLECTED?)

COLLECT THE DATA

COLLECT?)

AND HOW OFTEN?)

  1. To what degree did

Percentage of beneficiaries

Individual households

Household

Stratified

the project meet the

who report that the project

within the target areas

questionnaire

sampling for

needs of beneficiary

was successful in meeting their

(including IDPs and host

household

needs. (Disaggregated by

communities)

FGDs and KIIS with

questionnaire

populations?

service received)

beneficiaries

8

Beneficiaries utilizing

(Disaggregated by

Purposive

Percentage of beneficiaries

services (i.e. health

service received)

sampling for

who express satisfaction of

beneficiaries at clinics,

key informant

services provided by the

protection beneficiaries

interviews

project. (Disaggregated by

at GBV centers and CFS,

and focus

service received)

etc.)

group

discussions

Additional feedback from

Community leaders,

beneficiaries regarding the

village and camp

relevance of project activities,

committees

how well those

activities/outputs met their

needs, etc.

  1. To what extent were

*All performance indicators

Individual households

Household

Stratified

the sector specific

from table 2 (above)

within the target areas

questionnaire

sampling for

objectives of the project

(including IDPs and host

household

communities)

FGDs and KIIS with

questionnaire

achieved?

beneficiaries

Beneficiaries utilizing

services (i.e. health

Purposive

beneficiaries at clinics,

sampling for

protection beneficiaries

key informant

at GBV centers and CFS,

interviews

etc.)

and focus

group

Community leaders,

discussions

village and camp

committees

Project indicator

database/indicator

performance tracking

tables including the

baseline evaluation

  1. To what extent were

Percentage of beneficiaries

Individual households

Household

Stratified

beneficiaries actively

who were aware of how

within the target areas

questionnaire.

sampling for

consulted and engaged

existing accountability

(including IDPs and host

household

communities)

FGDs and KIIS with

questionnaire

in the project especially

mechanisms (Disaggregated

beneficiaries

in their ability to provide

by partner)

Beneficiaries utilizing

feedback through

Percentage of beneficiaries

services (i.e. health

Purposive

project partner’s

beneficiaries at clinics,

sampling for

who reported they were able

accountability

protection beneficiaries

key informant

to access these mechanisms

mechanisms?

at GBV centers and CFS,

interviews

(Disaggregated by partner)

etc.)

and focus

Percentage of beneficiaries

group

Community leaders,

discussions

who used an accountability

village and camp

mechanism, to provide

committees

feedback or complaints, who

were satisfied with the ease of

using the mechanism

(Disaggregated by partner)

Percentage of beneficiaries

who used an accountability

mechanism, to provide

feedback or complaints, who

9

were satisfied with the

response they received

(Disaggregated by partner)

Additional feedback from

beneficiaries regarding

preferences for reporting

feedback and complaints, and

how they were sensitized (if at

all) to the existence and use of

accountability mechanisms.

4.To what extent did the

Perspectives of

CRS staff

KIIS with CRS and local

Purposive

implementation process,

stakeholders and analysis of

implementing partner

sampling for

including delivery

existing project

SSWC, SOS and

staff

key informant

interviews

options and models,

documentation

Trocaire staff

and focus

ensure efficient use of

group

value for money;

Feedback from project

discussions,

including: management

stakeholders around what

especially

structures, partner roles

worked well and what

amongst CRS

and coordination,

didn’t

and partner

humanitarian

implementing

coordination between

staff and host

other actors?

country

stakeholders

IV.C. Sampling Strategy

The beneficiary-based survey will employ stratified two stage cluster sampling design for household quantitative survey respondents. Each district will serve as the primary stratum for the evaluation. The first stage of sampling will involve a cluster sampling design with Probability Proportional to Size (PPS) sampling to sample villages/IDPs (clusters) within each district, that will serve as the primary units for the survey. In each village/IDPs a sample will be drawn independently using the existing survey parameters for the project indicators. A systematic random sampling methodology will be used to select households in each IDP camp/village. In each location, a landmark such as will be selected as a starting point and spin the pen technique used to determine the direction in which to move. Every nth household in the selected direction will be picked until all targeted households are interviewed. The consultant will further advise on the sampling criteria.

Sampling Size Calculation

n = D [(Z + Z )2 * (P**1**(1-P**1**) +P**2**(1-P**2**))/(P**2**-P**1**) 2]

The Cochran’s sample determination formula for comparative studies will be used on the following performance indicators:

• Number and percentage of community members who can recall target health education message

• Proportion of infants 0-5 months of age who are fed exclusively with breast milk

• Proportion of children 6-23 months of age who receive foods from 4 or more food groups

• Percentage of targeted children reporting an improvement in their sense of safety and well-being at the close of the program

10

• Percentage of people reporting improvements in their feelings of well-being and ability to cope at the end of the program

• Percentage of settlement (neighborhood) beneficiaries who believe settlement (neighborhood) activities met or exceeded expectations

• Beneficiaries as a percentage of the total number of settlements (neighborhood) residents

• Percent of people targeted by the hygiene promotion program who know at least three (3) of the five (5) critical times to wash hands

• Percent of households targeted by the hygiene promotion program who store their drinking water safely in clean containers

• Percent of handwashing stations built or rehabilitated in health facilities that are functional

• Percent of households targeted by WASH program that are collecting all water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene from improved water sources

• Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the contents of the WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits) or voucher

• Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quantity of WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits), vouchers, or cash

• Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quality of WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits), vouchers, or cash

• % of pregnant women who reported to have accessed/used formal healthcare services in last 3 months

• % of HH that report they had at least one sick person in last two weeks

• % children (6 to 59 months) with MUAC score below 125mm

• % of HH that are aware of where to access GBV/protection services

IV.D. Data Analysis Procedures

The study proposes to collect data using household questionnaire coded in mobile application. Upon data cleaning and organizing data will be exported into Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) for analysis. Descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages, means, standard deviation and medians) will be used to describe the evaluation findings on the project indicators.

Qualitative data, obtained using FGDs and KII will be captured using FGD and KII guides, translated into English and later typed in Microsoft word templates. Analysis for this data will be mainly through content analysis and establishment of themes. The findings from qualitative data will be used to triangulate the primary quantitative data and secondary data (from project documents and performance reports) for the final conclusions of the evaluation findings.

V. EVALUATION TEAM

Evaluation (Lead) Consultant: Will plan and coordinate data collection, review data, analyse it and prepare a high-quality report.

Reports to Somalia MEAL Manager

Key working relations: Somalia MEAL Manager, Somalia Emergency Coordinator, Somalia Program Managers, Somalia Country Manager

Key Responsibilities

Develop an inception report, detailing the agreed upon study design, methodology, indicators, data- gathering tools, work plan schedule and budget to carry out the assignment, in consultation with CRS.

Desired Qualifications and abilities

A minimum educational qualification of a master’s degree in Emergency response, Agriculture, Social Sciences, Economics or relevant field from recognized university

11

Conduct desk‐review of relevant project documents

Must have a proven research experience in the Somalia

and secondary data on child protection

context.

Develop quantitative and qualitative data gathering

Has undertaken similar evaluations in the past 2 years

tools in consultation with CRS

in Somalia. This includes demonstrated ability to

Plan and coordinate quantitative and qualitative data

manage field procedures in the evaluation area.

collection

Previous evaluation experience for a USAID project is

Conduct training for the data collection teams including

an added advantage.

pre‐testing of data collection tools

Solid experience in qualitative and quantitative studies.

Work with the project management team in evaluation

Experienced in use of ICT4D solutions in data gathering.

planning and logistics

Computer proficiency with good knowledge of MS

Organize and facilitate team interaction

office (Word, Excel, PowerPoint) and SPSS.

Provide support to evaluation team members to fulfil

Excellent analytical and report writing skills ▪ Excellent

their obligations

written and spoken English and Somali will be an added

Conduct Key Informant Interviews

advantage

Review, clean and analyse data collected

Excellent communication and interpersonal skills

Write report on the findings and recommendations

Excellent time management skills

Present preliminary findings to project stakeholders for

Ability to work promptly and accurately, and pay

validation

attention to detail

Incorporate input from project stakeholders and

Ability to work well both independently and in a team

submit final report

Available to be engaged during the entire survey period

Carry out or assist in additional duties assigned by the

project staff

Field Supervisors: Will take part in enumerator training, guide and supervise data collection

Report to Lead Consultant

Key responsibilities

Desired Qualifications and abilities

Obtain sampling lists for each area in which his/her

Familiarity with the Somalia context (Baidoa,

team will be working

Mogadishu and Afgooye districts)

Assign work to enumerators.

Fluency in written and spoken Somali and English

Maintain fieldwork control sheets and make sure

Experienced in team management.

assignments are carried out

Familiarity with data collection on mobile technologies

Communicate any problems to the Lead Consultant

Understands surveys ethics and protocols.

and/or project staff

Understanding of data confidentiality issues.

Try to develop a positive team spirit

Excellent verbal and written communication skills in

Conduct regular spot-checks and re-interviews

English and Somali

Conduct regular review sessions with each enumerator

Ability to work with minimum supervision

Receive data from enumerators (questionnaires, focus

Excellent communication and interpersonal skills

group guides etc.) at the end of each day

Ability to multitask

Produce a summary observation report detailing daily

Social Perceptiveness- Aware of other reactions and

achievements, general observations, challenges and

understands them

summary findings/ emerging themes.

Ability to work quickly and accurately, and pay

Oversee entry of data into established data entry

attention to detail

templates as necessary by team members at the end of

Ability to work well both independently and in a team ▪

each data collection day

Available to be engaged during the entire survey

Ensure that all evaluation procedures and protocols are

period.

followed

Carrying out or assist in additional duties assigned by

the Lead Consultant

Enumerators: Will administer questionnaires to respondent

Report to the Field Supervisors.

Locate households and identify respondents

Desired Qualifications and Abilities

12

Explain

survey and/or

focus

group

objectives

and

Minimum secondary education

procedures to interviewees

Prior experience conducting data collection for

Ask questions in accordance with instructions to obtain

government programs and/or international NGOs in

various specified information

Somalia

Interpret

questions

to

help

interviewees'

Excellent verbal and written communication skills in

comprehension

English and Somali

Identify and resolve inconsistencies in interviewees'

Familiarity with mobile data collection technologies is

responses by means of appropriate questioning and/or

preferred

explanation

Understands survey protocols and ethics.

Review data obtained from interview for completeness

Fluent in English and Somali language

and accuracy.

Familiarity with Afgooye, Baidoa and Mogadishu

Identify and report problems in obtaining valid data

districts geography

Produce

a

daily

observation

report

detailing

daily

Must be in possession of a smartphone

achievements, general observations, challenges and

Excellent communication and interpersonal skills

summary findings/emerging themes.

Social perceptiveness- Aware of other reactions and

Make and honor appointments made with respondents

understands them

in cases where the respondent was not available for

Excellent time management skills

interview

Ability to work quickly and accurately, and pay

Meet

with

supervisor

daily

to

submit completed

attention to detail

assignments and discuss progress

Ability to work well both independently and in a team

Carry out or assist in the additional procedures for data

Respectful and friendly in all interactions

collection, as requested by the field supervisor

Available to be engaged during the entire survey period

Role of CRS

Role of Implementing Partners

Recruit external consultant for the evaluation

Provide sample frames from which respondents for the

Provide consultant with background documents,

quantitative data will be drawn

reports and available secondary data for review

Assist in the identification, contacting and locating of

Make

travel,

accommodation

and

per-diem

project beneficiaries and stakeholders

arrangements for consultant and team

Support recruitment of enumerators

Oversee

the

recruitment

of

enumerators

by

the

Conduct community sensitization and mobilization of

implementing partner

respondents

Provide oversight for the data collection

Participate in the validation workshop

Review

and

provide

input

on

the

consultant’s

deliverables

Organize validation workshop for the presentation of

preliminary findings to the project stakeholders

Ensure

smooth

flow

of

consultancy

engagement

processes including contractual obligations

Share

the

final

evaluation

report

with

all

key

stakeholders, including key project staff, partners,

donor representative and government

VI.REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION PLAN

VI.A. Evaluation Report

The consultant must submit two bound copies and a soft copy of the final evaluation report which is expected to be within 40 pages (without annexes) and with the following components:

Preliminary Pages (Title page, Table of Contents including a list of annexes, Acknowledgement, Executive Summary, List of Acronyms and Abbreviations, Definition of Terms and Concepts)

13

Introduction describing the project’s background and context, a description of the program, including the results framework and theory of change

Purpose and Objectives of Evaluation

Key evaluation questions (or objectives) and a statement of the scope of the evaluation

An overview of the evaluation approach, methodology and data sources, as well as limitations and delimitations of the evaluation itself

Evaluation findings, organized around the four key Evaluation Questions

Conclusions based on evaluation findings, organized around the four key Evaluation Questions

Lessons learned based on the evaluation findings

Recommendations based on evaluation findings, organized by audience: 1.) Donor/OFDA and 2.) CRS and its LIPs, as well as future Implementing Partners, etc.

Appendices (including all data collection tools, respondent lists, raw data collected, data analysis files, etc)

VI.B. Dissemination Plan

STAKEHOLDER/

KEY FINDINGS

CHANNEL(S) OF

PRODUCT(S) TO SHARE

AUDIENCE

COMMUNICATION

USAID/OFDA

To establish the impact of the

Email

Evaluation report

project components on the target

communication

beneficiaries.

Suggestions/recommendations with

the potential to shape future

programming.

CRS and local

To establish the impact of the

Email

Evaluation Report

implementing

project component on the target

communication

partners (LIPs)

beneficiaries.

Dissemination and

Suggestions/recommendations with

reflection meeting

the potential to shape future

programming

To assess and evaluate effectiveness

of the response interventions in

terms of its implementation

approach and strategies

VII. SCHEDULE AND LOGISTICS

The consultant should prepare a detailed workplan document, in which he/she describes the evaluation’s overall schedule (i.e., duration, phasing, timing) as well as work hours, required preparation work, conditions that might affect data collection, meeting-arranging procedures, and needed and available office space, cars, equipment, and local services (e.g., interviewers).

VIII. DELIVERABLES AND TIMELINE

The following items will be expected to be delivered during implementation, analysis, and reporting on the evaluation:

• A detailed workplan, with target dates and deliverables identified and highlighted

• All data collection tools

• Sampling guidance and sample, as well as list of participants for FGDs and KIIs

• Cleaned quantitative dataset (for quantitative data collection methods)

• Related codebooks, and data analysis files (SPSS syntax files)

14

• FGD score sheets/reports/recordings and key informant interview forms/ reports (MS word)

• All photos and field notes with quotation from beneficiary verbatim

• The final report shall be submitted in 3 hard and 1 soft copies.

DELIVERABLES

ESTIMATED NUMBER

TARGET DATES TO

OF DAYS NEEDED TO

COMPLETE

COMPLETE

Initial meeting between CRS and the consultant to agree on

1

June 3rd 2019

the evaluation methodology and data collection tools

Consultant creates a detailed workplan as a deliverable which

1

June 4thth, 2019

CRS will review and approve

Review of project documents and submission of an inception

2

June 6thth, 2019

report with all data collection tools and guidance)

Inception meeting

1

June 7thth, 2019

Revision of the inception report and data collection tools by

2

June 11th, 2019

the consultant based on feedback provided by CRS

Translation of data collection tools

1

June 12th 2019

Coding of tools into the mobile data gathering platform.

1

June 13st, 2019

Travel from Nairobi- Mogadishu-Baidoa by the evaluation

2

June 15th, 2019

team.

Training for enumerators (including pretest)

3

June 19th, 2019

Data collection (Qualitative and quantitative concurrently)

5

June 26, 2019

Translation of qualitative data done at the end of the focus

group session and typed into MS-word).

Travel from Baidoa -Mogadishu – Nairobi.

2

June 28th, 2019

Data cleaning and analysis with submission of data tables and

8

June 8h, 2019

syntax files and preliminary report.

Draft report submitted.

1

July 9th, 2019

Results dissemination meeting.

1

July 10th, 2019

Final report submitted to CRS with Datasets (or recordings and

1

July 11h, 2019

transcripts/notes), codebooks, syntax or do files submitted),

with all CRS feedback (on Draft Report) addressed

Total consultant engagement days (Estimated)

32 days

IX. BUDGET

CRS will provide for the following costs for the consultant team: international and-in country travel, visa costs, payment for translators, data collectors, data processors (as needed), and secretarial services; equipment, etc. CRS will procure the consultant services based on a competitive daily rate.

X. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The below ethical considerations will be adhered to during the evaluation process:

i.) The evaluation will be conducted by an independent and impartial external evaluator.

ii.) Quantitative data will be obtained from a randomly selected representative sample.

iii.) Participation in the survey will be voluntary.

iv.) Anonymity, confidentiality and safeguarding of survey data will be guaranteed.

v.) There will be no risks and benefits for individual participants

15

vi.) The culture, norms and traditions of study populations will be respected.

vii.) Consent will be sought prior to commencing data gathering

viii.) Views and Opinions of the different survey subjects will be respected.

ix.) Comply with USAID evaluation procedures by ensuring external consultant has been listed under Section 1.4.b.2.B

of your award entitled "Sub-Award, Transfer, or Contracting Out of Any Work"

XX. Key evaluation compliance requirements

See the USAID evaluation policy (https://www.usaid.gov/evaluation/policy) and CRS – MEAL policies and procedures (available on request).

XXX. QUOTATION REQUIREMENTS

Interested applicants to send a technical and financial proposal for the work in line with the following guidance:

Capability statement: How the consultant or firm is structured for the assignment, the role each staff will play including the CVs of the key personnel who will take part in the consultancy

Technical Proposal: The consultant’s understanding and interpretation of the Terms of Reference (TOR), a detailed methodology and plan on how the data collection and analysis will be done and detailed implementation schedule for the evaluation.

Financial proposal: Itemized budget proposal that should include the consultancy fees and operational costs.

References: Names, addresses, telephone numbers of three organizations that you have conducted evaluations for within the last three years, that will act as professional referees

Evaluation reports: Final reports for the evaluations conducted for the three reference organizations provided

This vacancy is archived.

Recommended for you