Wordpress job board software

TERMS OF REFERENCE – ENDTERM EVALUATION – SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE (SEJ) PROGRAMME – Puntland, Somalia

  • Anywhere
  • Contract/Consultancy

Job Description

TERMS OF REFERENCE – ENDTERM EVALUATION – SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC JUSTICE (SEJ) PROGRAMME

1.0 BACKGROUND

Diakonia[1] is a Swedish international development organization that works in about 26 countries in Africa, Latin America, Middle East and Asia by supporting local partners. Diakonia’s vision is a Just, Equal and Sustainable world,while themission and goal is to change unfair political, economic, social and cultural structures that cause poverty, oppression, inequality and violence. Diakonia focuses on 6 thematic/intervention areas namely Human Rights, Democracy, Gender Equality, Social & Economic Justice, Conflict and Justice and Emergency Response and Disaster Resilience. 

The Somalia Country Office has 3 programmes: Social and Economic Justice; Democracy and Human Rights; and Emergency Response and Disaster Resilience. Under these programmes, Diakonia is working with 13 partners in Somalia. The portfolio of Diakonia partners includes those that Diakonia has worked with over a longperiod of time while others are new partners. In addition, the portfolio includes government institutions.

2.0 INTRODUCTION

The Social Economic Justice programme (which is the subject of this ToR)  is a 5-year intervention aimed at enabling rights holders in 7 districts of Puntland named (Armo, Badhan, Bargal, Bocame, Dangoroyo, Harfo and Waiye) to earn a living in a sustainable and fair environment. Specifically, the programme is working to improve conditions for decent work and fair income for Somalis, empower women economically, and strengthen the resilience of the Puntland people through interventions in disaster risk reduction.The programme also carried out capacity building ofpartners focusing on strengthening their internal democracies, thematic and methodological capacities and external communication.

2.1 Intervention areas:

  • Intervention area 1: Strengthening Partners capacity

Result 1. Partners internal democracy has improved:

Result 2. Partners thematic and methodological capacity has been strengthened:

Result 3. Partners external communication capacity has improved:

  • Intervention area 2: Social & Economic Justice (SEJ)

Result 1. Conditions for decent work and fair income have improved:

Result 2. Economic empowerment of women has been strengthened:

Result 3. Disaster Resilience:

The programme is working with 3 local partners namely KAALO Aid Development (KAD), Forum for African Women Educationists – Somalia Chapter (FAWESOM), and Galkayo Education Center for Peace and Development (GECPD) and one government related institution, the Puntland Office of Human Rights Defender (POHRD). The programme is in its last year of implementation and thus seeks an external consultant to carry out the program’s end-term evaluation.

3.0 PURPOSE OF THE END-TERM EVALUATION

The end-term evaluation is intended principally for learning and accountability purposes. It is expected to generate relevant findings, identify lessons and give recommendations that will guide and inform future programmes.

4.0 OBJECTIVES OF THE END-TERM EVALUATION

The overall objective of the end-term evaluation is to provide SIDA, Diakonia, local partners, rights holders and other stakeholders with the necessary data and information regarding the Social Economic Justice programme’s efficiency,effectiveness, impact and sustainability.This will then inform decisions of the programme design, development and implementation strategies for the future.

5.0 SCOPE OF THE END-TERM EVALUATION

The end-term evaluation will cover the programme period January 2016to December 2020of the programme. The standard criteria on evaluationsnamely: relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and impact will be used to structure the end-term evaluation.

Key issues to be looked into should include, but not limited to;

5.1 Relevance

The analysis of relevance will focus on answering the following:

  • Is the programme relevant to context inthe areas where it is implemented?
  • Are the programme objectives valid?
  • Has local ownership been promoted? Did the identification of key stakeholders and target groups promote local ownership?
  • For the Future: The end-term evaluation will identifylessons andmake recommendations for strengtheningrelevancein the design of future programmes.

5.2 Efficiency

The efficiency criterion will inform on how well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended results, in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. This will focus on issues such as;

  • Has there been consistency in the achievement of results and the use of the available resources?
  • the quality of day-to-day management, for example in (i) management of the budget (including the adequacy of the budget); (ii) management of personnel, information, property, etc, (iii) whether management of risk is adequate, i.e. whether flexibility isdemonstrated in response to changes in circumstances; (iv) relations/coordination with local authorities, institutions, rights holders, other donors; (v) respect for deadlines.
  • costs and value-for-money: how far the costs of the programme have been justified by the benefits – whether or not expressed in monetary terms in comparison with similar programmes or known alternative approaches, taking account of contextual differences.
  • For the Future: the end-term evaluation will identify lessons and make recommendationson the most efficient way of transforming similar resources into tangible results.

5.3 Effectiveness

The effectiveness criterion will inform on how far the programme outputs have been used, and how far the programme purpose has been realized. This will focus on issues such as;

  • whether the planned results have been delivered and received by the targeted right holders and other stakeholders. Are there any unintended results- positive and negative, and how they may have affected the benefits received?
  • Are the activities and the outputs of the program consistent with the objectives of the program and intended outcomes and impacts?
  • Is the strategy clear and did Diakonia and partners follow the strategy? If not, why, and on what basis were strategic decisions considered and made?
  • Are the projects implemented according to programme proposals and implementation plans?
  • Is the programme properly monitored to assess its effects on targeted communities?
  • For the future: the end-term evaluation will identify lessons and make recommendations on the most effective way of achieving results.

5.4 Impact

This criterion will refer to the relationship between the programme specific objective (purpose) and the overall objective (goal); with a focus on the extent to which the benefits were received by the targeted beneficiaries. The following aspects will be analysed.

  • to what extent the planned results havebeen achieved, and how far that was directly due to the programme,
  • in institutional change; The extent to which improved capacities of the implementing partners contributed to the results on intervention area 2 (Social and Economic Justice)
  • if there were unplanned impacts, how they affected the overall impact,
  • How many people have benefitted from programme activities? If possible, disaggregated by men/women.
  • For the future: the end-term evaluation will identify lessons and make recommendations on the design and development of a realistic specific objective for a similar programme, taking into consideration how much of the impact can be attributed to programme’s direct intervention

5.5 Sustainability

With the programme being in its end-point the criterion will focus on the positive outcomes of the programme at purpose level. The analysis will include;

  • Ownership of objectives and achievements, e.g. how, so far, stakeholders have been consultedand involved in the programme.
  • Policy support and the responsibility, e.g. how far state and national policy hascorresponded or affected the programme.
  • institutional capacity, e.g. the degree of commitment of all partners (e.g. through internal policy and systems; relationshipswith donors.
  • Socio-cultural factors, e.g. whether the programme has been in tune with local perceptions of needs and of ways of producing and sharing benefits.
  • Whether cross-cutting issues such as gender equity, environmental impact and conflict sensitivity; have been appropriately accounted for and managed inthe programme;
  • Sustainability of the community structures used in the programme

6.0 METHODOLOGY

The methodology of the end-term evaluation should use a mix of qualitative and quantitative approaches, and should consider the following; 

Documents Review – These will be a myriad of documents deemed relevant to the evaluation of the programme and will include; proposal documents, technical reports, partner reports financial reports, audits, sector plans from government, contracts, secondary document from other stakeholders relevant to the programme.

Focus Group Discussions – Focus Group Discussions will be held at partner leveland rights holders’level.

Semi-Structured Interviews (SSI) – SSI will be carried out with selected partners,rights holders and government institutions.

Observations – Careful and systematic observation in places where the evaluation team will engage rights holders and partners organizations.

Key Informant Interviews – This method is important to capture the views and professional opinions of people who know about the circumstances on the ground. This will include programmeofficers, heads of partner organizations, government officials etc.

Most significant change stories – It is suggested that the consultants should collect stories of change from identified rights holders. The stories will focus on what the rights holders consider to be the most significant change brought by the programme in their lives, capacities or way of operating.

Primary Data analysis – Data gathered using various methods and tools have to be collated, analysed and interpreted systematically. The evaluators will be expected to come up with detailed data/information analysis methods. It would be possible to utilize social science data analysis software such as the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences

7.0 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The consultant(s) will be responsible for leading the end-term evaluation process and producing the report.

Diakonia Country Office staff will support the consultant(s)with the logistics of the data collection process, and organize the verification workshops/meetings.

The consultant(s) will report to the Diakonia Country Representative for Somalia, while the Programme Coordinator in Garowe, Puntland, will provide management and day-to-day supervision and support to the evaluation team in Puntland.

Diakonia PMERL Coordinator in Nairobi, will provide overall quality assurance of the evaluation.

Final review and feedback on the findings and recommendations from the evaluation will be done by the Programme Coordinator and Country Representative – Somalia.

8.0 OUTPUTS/DELIVERABLES

The consultant(s) willdeliver the following outputs and services;

  • A technical proposal with a proposed evaluation framework/design and a description of the evaluation team;
  • Upon signing a contract submit a detailed evaluation plan, design, methodology and data collection tools to be discussed and agreed upon with Diakonia;
  • Plan and carry out the evaluation process;
  • Provide periodic updates and debriefs with Diakonia, as will be agreed in the work plan;
  • Produce a draft report of the end-term evaluation for review;
  • Submit a final end-term evaluation report incorporating comments from Diakonia and other stakeholders;
  • The consultant(s) should submit the final report in soft and 3 hard copies.

9.0 QUALIFICATION & EXPERIENCE

The following are the qualifications and experience required for the assignment;

  • Experience and knowledge of working with Social & Economic Justice;
  • Experience and knowledge of working with women’s economic empowerment and disaster risk reduction.
  • Knowledge of human rights-based approach;
  • Monitoring & evaluation experience including qualitative and quantitativeapproaches/skills;
  • Experience in working with similar programmes including engagement with civil society actors, right holders and duty bearers;
  • Knowledge and/or experience of Somalia/Puntland and the operating context;
  • Experience of cross cutting issues/mainstreaming areas such as gender, environment and conflict sensitivity;
  • Fluency in written and oral English. Fluency in written and oral Somali is an added advantage.

10.0 ENVISAGED TIMEFRAMES

The following are the envisaged timeframes, which might or might not run concurrently;

S/N Activity Implementation days
a.      Consultative and briefing meeting with staff 1
b.      Identification and review of programme documents 2
c.      Development of evaluation design, plan and tools 3
d.      Meeting and discussion on evaluation design, plan and tools, including incorporating the comments from Diakonia 2
e.      Field work in Puntland (training of enumerators, pre-testing tools, data collection and analysis, and drafting the report) 12
f.       Presentation of the draft report and validation of findings with the country office team. 1
g.      Revision, finalization of the report, submission and approval 2
  Total 23

11.0 TERMS AND CONDITIONS

Logistics: The consultant(s) travel from base to the field and back after the end of the contract (including airport tax), food, and accommodation will be covered by Diakonia.

Tax and insurance: The consultant(s) shall be responsible for their income tax and/or travel and other insurance during the assignment.

Code of conduct: The consultant shall be required to sign and abide by Diakonia’s Code of Conduct, which can be found at http:///www.diakonia.se

Additional terms and conditions of service shall be spelt out in the contract.

12.0 MODE OF APPLICATION

Applications will be made in soft copy including CVs, testimonials and a sample of previous similar work. The applications should be submitted on or before 20thJuly 2020 and via email tomuna.yusuf@diakonia.se andabdurahman.suleiman@diakonia.se

All applications should include the following.

  • Cover letter (maximum 1 page)
  • Technical proposal (max 8 pages): The technical proposal should include (i) brief explanation about the Consultant with particular emphasis on previous experience in this kind of work; (ii) profile of the Consultant to be involved in undertaking the end-term evaluation, (iii) Understanding of the TOR and the task to be accomplished, (iv) draft end-term evaluation frame work and plan and (v) a budget detailing fees and costs.
  • Samples: One or two samples of previous similar assignments, preferably in Somalia or in a similar context.

[1]More information in www.diakonia.se

Apply for this Job

  • No Tags

917 total views, 44 today

error: Alert: Content is protected !!
Top