Consultancy for End-line Evaluation of East Africa Regional Hunger Crisis Response

  • Contract
  • Remote
  • TBD USD / Year
  • Salary: TBD

Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR) FOR PROJECT EVALUATION

Project Title:

East Africa Regional Hunger Crisis Response

Project Number: K-AFM-2022-4063

Project holder: Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe

Duration: 09 months

Funded by: Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe

  1. ORGANIZATIONAL BACKGROUND

Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (hereafter DKH) is a humanitarian assistance agency in Germany with headquarters in Berlin. It has regional offices in Asia, Africa, and Latin America, as well as country offices in our priority countries, which are responsible for the coordination of aid programs. DKH’s operating model is structured around implementing projects exclusively through a network of local partner organizations. As such, DKH’s core business is partner support and partner strengthening. On average, DKH supports around 150 projects annually across the globe. Besides humanitarian assistance, DKH also focuses on Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR), preparedness measures as well as rehabilitation and reconstruction. In recent years, DKH has accelerated its commitment and investment in strengthening its cash and voucher assistance (CVA) approach to ensure context-appropriate and dignified responses for affected families.

DKH’s projects are funded through donations, a percentage of the annual income of sister agency ‘Bread for the World’, collaborations with other aid agencies such as Caritas International, as well as institutional donor funds such as the German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO) and the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ). DKH is also a recognized cooperation partner of the ECHO, the Office for Humanitarian Aid of the European Commission, as well as of EuroAid, a network of European non-governmental organizations specialized in food aid and food security.

  1. Project background

As a result, the Communities in the Horn of Africa are facing the threat of starvation following four consecutive failed rainy seasons in parts of Ethiopia, Kenya, South Sudan, and Somalia. The increasingly less affordable agricultural inputs, persisting rainfall deficits, and increased transport costs are pushing local food prices up across the entire region and making production prospects uncertain. Cereals, vegetable oil, and fuel (all largely imported in the Eastern Africa region) are becoming more and more expensive, impacting the costs of living and reducing the affordability of basic commodities. As markets remain the main source of food in many areas of the region, the erosion in purchasing power is seen to affect access to food, with severe implications for urban food insecurity.

Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe’s regional office implemented the East Africa Regional Hunger Crisis Response project to support these people through local partners in the above-mentioned countries, such as Somalia through SYPD and NAPAD, Ethiopia for FSA and RACIDA, South Sudan for DCA and VSF, and finally Kenya for RACIDA.

  1. Project objective and indicators.

The project end line Evaluation will focus on the following results and indicators of the project.

Overall Objective: Contribute to saving lives through improved access to basic needs for conflict and disaster-affected, vulnerable communities in South Sudan, Somalia, Kenya, and Ethiopia.

Project Objective: To improve food security for vulnerable populations affected by hunger and malnutrition as per cultural norms.

indicators

  1. O. I1. 65% of targeted households reporting an improved rCSI (reduced coping strategy index) score in the last PDM conducted
  2. O. I2. 80% of targeted households report at least a 30% decrease in household food expenditure share in the last PDM conducted
  3. O. I3. At the end of the project, 75% of beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex, age and disability) reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable and participatory manner throughout all phases of the project

Result 1: Improved purchasing power and access to markets for target beneficiaries to meet their immediate needs according to priorities.

indicators

  1. R1. I1. 80% of HHS report being able to meet the basic needs of their households, as they define and prioritize them in the last PDM conducted
  2. R1. I2. 8,612 HHs received MPCT in line with the MEB by the end of the 7th month of the project
  3. R1. I3. 700 HHs received cash through cash for work activities in line with the cash working group guidelines by the 5th month of the project
  4. R1. I4. 60% of HHs reporting improved market functionality at the end of the project
  5. R1. I5. At least 4 of critical community assets rehabilitated and functional at the end of the project

Result 2: Improved access to food and reduced moderate malnutrition for hhs in IPC 4 and higher

indicators

  1. R2. I1. 70% of targeted HHs reporting acceptable (above 35) food consumption score (FCS) in the last PDM conducted
  2. R2. I2. Moderate Acute Malnutrition (MAM) among targeted children under 5 reduced from MUAC of 13.5cm among target HHs (target 2,217 children aged 0-5) in the last measurement conducted
  3. R2. I3. At least 70% of targeted beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex, age, and disability) who receive behavior change training on nutrition/health/hygiene report to have increased knowledge of key infant and young child feeding practices

Result 3: Improved livelihood security of vulnerable people and communities.

indicators

  1. R3. I1. 90% of targeted HHs confirming that provision of livestock contributed to increased livelihood security at the end of the project
  2. R3. I2. 100% of targeted HHs report improved access to animal and veterinary services at the end of the project
  3. R3. I3. 100% of supported smallholders IDP businesswomen/youth reporting (disaggregated by sex, age, and disability) 40% increase in income by the 7th month of the project.

Result 4: Improved access to safe water for households in IPC ≥4 during water critical shortages

indicators

  1. R4. I1. By the 3rd month of the project, at least 90% of targeted households with access to water trucking report that the amount of water received was sufficient to cover 70% of their family’s basic daily needs
  2. R4. I2. By the 3rd month of the project, at least 85% of targeted households illustrate correct use of aqua tabs (target 906 families)
  3. R4. I3. 20% increase in number of people (disaggregated by sex, age, and disability) knowledgeable of at least 3 of the 5 critical moments for handwashing at the end of the project
  4. The purpose of the project evaluation

The purpose of the end-line evaluation is to determine how effectively and efficiently project Results and Objectives are achieved and have contributed to the overall and specific objectives of the project. as well as to assess whether the project interventions are likely to be sustainable beyond the project’s lifetime and to identify the good practices and lessons learned for future programming; and finally, the evaluation should compare with baseline conditions and assess change. The evaluation should also include recommendations and key learnings identified for future projects.

  1. Specific project evaluation objective
  • To evaluate the project against the project objective and indicators using the DAC criteria of relevance, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability
  • To document lessons learned throughout the lifespan of the project to inform future program design in similar crises and context
  • To compare, the project baseline against end-line evaluation findings and to provide the recommendation for future programming
  • To provide information on current Humanitarian situations in all project intervention areas/locations
  1. Scope of the evaluation

This evaluation will be focused on the intervention of the project location such as Somalia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, and Kenya. the evaluation will cover between August 2022 to May 2023. the evaluator will consider the goals and objectives of the project in comparison to the project interventions at the field level. The project evaluation will be based on the Development Assistance Committee DAC criteria.

  1. Evaluation questions and criteria

The evaluation will take into account all activities carried out under this project and will examine the project’s performance in accordance with its logical framework. More specifically, the evaluation should address the following issues:

Relevance:

  • Whether the project design and selection of activities and deliverables adequately reflected and addressed the needs of the beneficiaries and are aligned with the project log frame objectives.
  • Whether the planned and actual activities and Results of the project were consistent with the intended outcomes and impacts.
  • To What extent did the project contribute the DKH global strategy objective goal 2021plus
  • To what extent is the need of the beneficiary met by the project intervention

Effectiveness:

  • Whether the activities met the objectives outlined in the project’s log frame and produced beneficial outcomes.
  • What were the main factors influencing the outcomes of this project, either negatively or positively, and what are the lessons to be learned for a replication of the project approach in other locations?
  • How effective was the complaint-handling mechanism during the project intervention and was it functional?
  • To What extent did the implementing partner coordinate with other stakeholders?

Efficiency:

  • Have resources and funds been used efficiently, leveraging in-house expertise, previous interventions, and other resources to optimize the project outcomes?
  • Have the project activities been delivered in a timely manner?
  • Did the project achieve its objective efficiently and Cost efficiently?
  • Was the resource efficiency utilized?
  • Were the project inputs of acceptable quality?
  • Were all inputs delivered on time?
  • To what extent is the MEAL system utilized by the partners to ensure efficiency and effective project management?

Impact:

  • To what extent did the beneficiary benefit from the project output and outcomes
  • Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
  • Has the project changed the life of the beneficiaries?

Sustainability:

  • Whether the activities have been designed and implemented in such a way to ensure maximum sustainability of their impact, for instance, whether beneficiary country stakeholders were actively involved in the initiation, design, and implementation of the project.
  • How does the project affect the traditional self-help system?
  • To what extent is the project well-designed and a plan exit strategy?
  1. Project Period and endline evaluation report timeframe

As previously stated, the project is being implemented by various countries, so the following table will assist the consultant in understanding the duration of the project in each of the implementing countries. The project began on August 15, 2022, but the project end data differ as shown in the table below.

Country and Implemented Partner

Start and End date

Duration

Tentative end-line evaluation date

FSA – Ethiopia

1 September 2022 to 28 February 2023

6 months

1 – 6 May 2023

RACIDA- Ethiopia

15 August 2022 to 14 May 2023

9 months

5 – 10 Jun 2023

RACIDA -Kenya

15 August 2022 to 14 May 2023

9 months

5 – 10 Jun 2023

SYPD-Somalia

1 September 2022 to 28 February 2023

6 months

9-15 April 2023

NAPAD Somalia

1 September 2022 to 28 February 2023

6 months

16-22 April 2023

DCA- South Sudan

1 September 2022 to 28 February 2023

6 months

12 – 17 Jun 2023

VSF- South Sudan

1 September 2022 to 31 May 2023

9 months

12 – 17 Jun 2023

Therefore, the consultant will be required to adjust the tentative data mentioned above and to consider every country’s requirements including visa and other logistics. Additionally, to that, the consultant will be required to share the evaluation report properly in mid or 20th of July 2023 and prepare their presentation of key project indicators finding and their accommodation.

  1. Evaluation, design, and methodology

The evaluation methodology will be proposed by the evaluator after a thorough study of TOR’s requirements. The evaluator is expected to use a mixed-methods approach and/or the Most Significant Change Technique (MSCT), collecting both qualitative and quantitative information from targeted households and communities. In addition, interviews with other key stakeholders, such as project beneficiaries, a women’s group, key project staff, and so on, were conducted to triangulate the information.

  1. Sampling Framework

A sample of respondents will be randomly selected in each target area for the quantitative survey. The sample will be statistically representative of the populations living in each target area based on acceptable statistical sampling techniques. This should be in line with various contextual factors and the proposed project site.

  1. Sampling Approach

DKH expects the consultant to employ a sampling framework that utilizes a two-stage cluster sampling with a probability proportionate to size (PPS) design.

XII. Data Analysis and quality assurance

All the quantitative data should be analyzed using software such as SPSS, R, or excel; the consultant is expected to use the descriptive and inferential representation of the data. Qualitative will be analyzed using narrative and thematic methods. This helped to identify information relevant to the research questions and objectives. The consultant should clearly explain how data quality shall be ensured throughout the assignment.

XIII. Ethical considerations

All interviews should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report will not assign specific comments to individuals. The final methodological approach including meeting with key stakeholders, field visits and data to be used in the evaluation will be clearly outlined in the inception report and be fully discussed and agreed between the consultant and DKH teams.

XIV. Gender and human rights.

The evaluator should incorporate human rights, gender, and equity perspectives in the evaluation process and findings, particularly by involving women and other disadvantaged groups subject to discrimination. All key data gathered must be disaggregated by gender and age grouping and included in the draft and evaluation reports.

XVI. Roles & Responsibilities

The consultant/s will be responsible for:

  • Drafting inception report
  • Leading the Desk Review
  • Methodology and tools development/ finalization
  • Field evaluation process
  • Writing and validation of the report

XVII. Deliverables

The consultant is, expected to lead, accomplish and submit the following deliverables within the agreed timeframe and budget.

  • Finalization of the inception plan, including the evaluation matrix, methodology, and data collection tools, was done in consultation with the evaluation team and the Reginal office.
  • Conduct a field mission (data collection meeting, consultation, and interview with the stakeholders) and prepare a draft report.
  • Appropriate, validated draft data collection tools (e.g., methodological guidelines, group interview questions)
  • Data analysis and presentation of preliminary findings
  • Powerpoint presentation of the main findings
  • Submission of the final evaluation report incorporating all the observations and comments from the key stakeholders
  • raw data in any of the following statistical packages (Stata, SPSS) and also transcribed qualitative scripts.
  • a maximum 35-page draft and final evaluation report (in MS Office and PDF for final), excluding annexes, and in English.

XVIII. Qualifications and experience

  • Advanced degree in food security and livelihood or equivalent. Knowledge of nutrition is an added asset.
  • Over 5 years’ proven experience undertaking food security, WASH, and nutrition surveys, analysis, and reporting. Have proven knowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research.
  • Excellent organizing, facilitating, presentation, and communication skills.
  • Excellent report-writing skills.
  • Experience working in an emergency context.

How to apply

How to Apply

The selection method will be based on Quality and Cost as per Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe procurement guidelines for the award of contracts. Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe reserves the right to contact the Consultant(s) after reviewing the proposal, in order to propose a negotiation of the terms of the assignment.

Please forward your application in a PDF document in English via E-Mail to [email protected]

Quoting the Subject as ‘Consultancy for End-line Evaluation of East Africa Regional Hunger Crisis Response


Deadline: 29 Mar 2023