Back Call for Consultancy Service for the Evaluation of a Cash Transfer focused project

  • Added Date: Tuesday, 09 January 2018
  • Deadline Date: Friday, 12 January 2018

THE LUTHERAN WORLD FEDERATION - WORLD SERVICE, SOUTH SUDAN PROGRAM

Terms of Reference (ToR) for Evaluation of the Project titled ‘Emergency Response to improve the Food and Shelter Situation of conflict affected IDPs, returnees, and host communities and reduction of the risk of flooding in Twic East, Duk, Uror, Ayod (Kuac Deng) and Bor South (Jalle) counties in Jonglei State, South Sudan’.

Project No.: K-SSD-2016-9003

Please note that this ‘TOR’ is not final yet and maybe revised.

1. BACKGROUND

The Lutheran World Federation, World Service (LWF-WS) South Sudan Program has been operational in the country since 2004. Currently, LWF-WS works in three of the former ten states, namely Jonglei, Upper Nile, and Unity. In Jonglei, LWF-WS’ emergency response to the protracted crisis since 2013 has covered interventions in support in the areas of shelter, non-food items, food security (mainly through cash transfers and support for agricultural production), WASH, and education for internally displaced persons, returnees and host communities.

In partnership with Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH), LWF has been implementing a German Government (Federal Foreign Office) funded emergency response project since April 2016 to address the acute humanitarian needs in Twic East, Duk, Uror, Ayod (south Ayod), and Bor South ( Jalle) counties of Jonglei state. The initial phase of the project covered the period from April 2016 to June 2017, followed by an extension phase from July 2017 to February 9, 2018. Ayod and Bor South counties were added on in the extension period.

The project was designed in response to the dire food insecurity and other basic needs situation (including shelter) triggered by the continued conflict, floods, macroeconomic pressure, and market shocks that have continued to contribute to the reduced access to food and other basic needs. The primary target groups of the project were the most vulnerable and marginalized IDPs, returnees, and host communities.

Project title: Emergency Response to improve the Food and Shelter Situation of conflict affected IDPs, returnees, and host communities and reduction of the risk of flooding in Twic East, Duk, Uror, Ayod (Kuac Deng) and Bor South (Jalle) counties in Jonglei State, South Sudan.

The project’s expected outcome and results/outputs are:

Project Objective/Outcome/: Vulnerable households can meet their nutritional and other basic needs during critical periods and have protected their homesteads

Result 1: Vulnerable beneficiary households of unconditional cash transfers can meet their nutritional and other basic needs (e.g. health, essential household items) during critical periods and have protected their homesteads.

Result 2: Vulnerable beneficiary households without durable shelter or at imminent risk of being affected by flooding and destruction of their shelters manage to protect their housing by relocating or reinforcing their construction.

Result 3: The protection and response capacity of communities against floods is strengthened and supported households can meet their immediate existential needs.

2. OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

2.1 Objective

The overall objective of the evaluation is to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact/outcome and ‘sustainability’ of the emergency response project and to document good practices and lessons learnt during the implementation of the project. Areas related to accountability to communities affected by crisis are also included. The evaluation is, therefore, expected to consider both the accountability and learning aspects.

2.2 Scope and Key Evaluation Questions

Relevance

· Was the choice of using mainly cash rather than in-kind assistance justified in terms of needs, availability and functionality of markets, and beneficiary households’ preferences?

· To what extent did beneficiary selection criteria complement the targeting of other humanitarian assistance provided in the area? Were there any significant gaps for particular community groups?

· Was the size and frequency of the transfer under each category (unconditional cash, cash for shelter, and cash for work) adequate?

Effectiveness

· How timely was the response in relation to the needs of different community groups, seasonality, security challenges, accessibility of the target areas, and comparatively with other humanitarian response actions in the areas? How could timeliness have been improved?

· How well did the targeting mechanism function, what were the (potential) inclusion and exclusion errors (by design and through implementation), and what tensions were caused, if any?

· How effective were the delivery processes for the cash payments especially from the beneficiaries’ perspective?

· How effective were the processes used by the project team in monitoring the progress of the project implementation to establish achievements are made against all the output and outcome indicators?

  • To what extent were the three aforementioned results of the project achieved and what were the factors within the design of the project and its management that contributed to these achievements?

Efficiency

· How efficient were delivery processes, considering the time and resources required during implementation?

· How cost-effective were the modalities used by the project compared to other modalities?

Outcome and ‘sustainability’

· What were the changes seen in the lives of the beneficiary households attributable to the project?

· Which negative coping mechanisms have been avoided or reduced due to the support provided through the project?

· To what extent were vulnerable unconditional cash transfer beneficiary households able to meet their nutritional and other basic needs during critical periods?

· To what extent have vulnerable beneficiary households without durable shelter or at imminent risk of being affected by flooding and destruction of their shelters (cash for shelter beneficiaries) managed to protect their housing?

  • Is the engagement of the community flood task forces (DRR) structure likely to continue if or when external funding ceases?

Accountability

· What mechanisms and processes were used to disseminate relevant project information to beneficiaries and other concerned stakeholders? How effective were the mechanisms in terms of coverage and ensuring beneficiary knowledge of the project?

· To what extent did the beneficiary households know their rights and entitlements in relation to the project?

· Were beneficiary households aware of their right to complain in case of any irregularities and that their complaints would be welcomed and addressed? What system was in place at the community level to ensure that? What was the role of the community level cash committees in relation to this?

· To what extent was information obtained from post distribution monitoring (PDM) activities during the course of implementation used to make adjustments, if any?

· What collaboration and coordination mechanisms were adopted during the implementation of the project and to what extent have such mechanisms added value?

Key Lessons learnt

· What are the key good practices and lessons learnt from the interventions, as well as the practices in the project areas and among beneficiaries in relation to targeting criteria, transfer modality, seasonality, security, gender relations, the influence (positive and negative) of existing community structures, coping mechanisms and the impact of the project on local markets? These need to be highlighted with concrete recommendations for future interventions.

3. Evaluation Methods and Tools

The evaluation will be conducted by an external consultant who will develop evaluation methods and data collection tools for discussion with and approval by the LWF program team prior to the actual evaluation work. The consultant shall also provide LWF with an inception report, containing an overview of their understanding of the assignment, time schedule (considering the timeline given below), and planned activities, proposed methods and tools as well as how final results will be presented.

The evaluation approach should be participatory to ensure active involvement of target beneficiaries, local authorities, cash committees, Flood Risk Reduction Task Forces, other key stakeholders and the relevant LWF and LWF DKH staff.

4. Deliverables

§ A technical proposal that covers, among others, the evaluation methodologies and tools (subject to review and approval by LWF prior to the actual evaluation work).

§ Short inception report on the proposed evaluation.

§ Evaluation work plan and budget based on the estimated period detailed under section 6 below.

§ A PowerPoint debriefing on evaluation findings and recommendations in Jonglei and Juba – involving LWF and DKH teams in Juba.

§ Draft report. LWF will provide inputs to the draft report.

§ Final report (to be approved by LWF) after provision of comments/inputs on the draft report.

5. Consultant Profile

The consultant should meet the following criteria:

§ Higher university degree in a relevant field with over 10 years’ experience in food security, disaster risk reduction, emergency response and livelihoods programming, including cash based interventions (CBI), in fragile contexts.

§ Proven experience in conducting end of project evaluations.

§ Sound knowledge/understanding of community vulnerability, disaster risk reduction, cash-based intervention modalities in emergency response, rights based approaches (RBA) and participatory methodologies.

§ Strong understanding of the South Sudan context (specifically the context in Jonglei State).

§ Excellent written English.

§ Knowledge of local languages is an added asset.

Note: LWF employees (including consultants), suppliers and service providers are required to comply with the relevant sections of the LWF Staff Code of Conduct and the LWF Child Protection Policy.

6. Tentative Timeline

The actual evaluation work is expected to begin in the third week of January 2018 and to take up to 18 days.

· Advertising the call for the consultancy service and receiving expression of interest from 5th January to 12th January 2018.

· Identification/selection of consultant from 13th to 15th January, 2018.

· Signing consultancy service contract with the selected individual/firm, Tuesday, 16th January, 2018.

· Submission of evaluation tools by the selected consultant, Wednesday, 17th January, 2018.

· Review of background material/documents by the consultant, Thursday, 18th January, 2018.

· Consultant meeting with the Juba based LWF program team and the CR, Friday, 19th January, 2018.

· Travel to Jonglei for evaluation field work, Tuesday 23rd January 2018.

· Evaluation work in the field: involving, among others, visit to beneficiary communities, community structures, government officials and other stakeholders, Wednesday, 24th – Monday 29th January 2018.

· Debriefing for the LWF Jonglei field team, Tuesday, 30th January 2018.

· Presentation of findings / feedback forum, Wednesday, 31st January 2018.

· Draft report, Monday 5th February2018.

· Editing and incorporating final comments, Tuesday, 6th – Wednesday, 7th February 2018.

· Final report, Thursday, 8th February 2018.

Experienced consultants who fully meet the requirements stated in this document are asked to send their expression of interest (along with technical and financial proposals) by email latest by 12th January 2018 with the subject line referenced as: K-SSD-2016-9003-Project Evaluation Consultancy.

For inquiry please drop email to rep.ssd@lwfdws.org

This vacancy is archived.

Recommended for you