..

Qualifications

1. Purpose of the consultancy

To assess the implementation of Humanitarian-Development Nexus: Strengthening preparedness and response of the health system addressing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sudan.\" T05-EUTF-HOA-SD-91-01 Delegation Agreement funded through the European Union and implemented by WHO.

2. Background

Sudan faces a triple burden of disease, communicable disease 52.8%, non-communicable disease 33.9%, and injuries as consequence of accidents and violence 13.4%. The demographic transition is not advanced as 43.2% of the total population are under the age of fifteen. Persisting high under 5 mortality is the outcome of high infectious disease morbidity and malnutrition. Sudan did not achieve the MDGs targets for child and maternal health and is not on track towards 2030 SDG targets. Health indicators and service provision vary between states. Poverty and poor wash conditions triggered repeated outbreaks of cholera over the last 2 years. Malaria, dengue, meningitis, and other tropical and infectious diseases are endemic in large parts of the country. In addition, the country suffered a series of outbreaks in 2019. Although sound health policies are in place, geared towards universal health coverage and health systems strengthening, the social sectors have been dramatically underfunded and the health system is extremely weak in all its 6 building blocks (service delivery, medicines, financing, human resources, information system and governance), despite the increase of public spending on health in 2020 budget. Health security, pandemic preparedness and response have been inappropriate as shown by the multiplicity of outbreaks in 2019. The overall objective (expected impact) of the Action is that the health system is sustainably strengthened for epidemic preparedness and response, addressing the needs of the current COVID-19 pandemic in Sudan. The specific objectives (expected outcomes) are:

1. Governance and coordination to control and minimize the spread of COVID-19 are strengthened. 

2. Surveillance, rapid response, and laboratory capacities are strengthened.

3. Capacity to isolate and manage cases is strengthened.

4. Risk communication and WASH measures at the health facility level are strengthened.

5. Essential Primary Health Care (PHC) and Emergency care services are maintained.

After two years of the project implementation by WHO, there is a high need for project evaluation to inform the remaining period of the project implementation.

Proposed evaluation criteria.

Below are the proposed criteria for the evaluation. These will be determined by the purpose of the evaluation and inform the definition of evaluation questions, methodology, and reporting of findings and recommendations. The extent to which the objectives of intervention are consistent with the requirements of Relevance beneficiaries, country needs, global priorities and the policies of partner organizations and donors, and merely answer the below question:

• Does the intervention constitute an adequate response to the current needs and rights of the target groups/end beneficiaries?

• Is the intervention adapted to the present institutional, human and financial capacities of the partner government and/or another key stakeholder (s) with a role in implementation?

• Is the choice of method of implementation proving to be appropriate?

• Do all key stakeholders demonstrate effective commitment to the objectives of the intervention (i.e., ownership)?

• complementarity and EU added value.

• Is the intervention likely to benefit or benefiting from any complementarity/synergies with other interventions funded by the EU and other?

• Is the intervention (still) reflecting and benefiting from adequate EU added value? entities (donors, public and private)?

Effectiveness The extent to which the programme /initiative’s objectives were achieved or are expected to be achieved, considering their relative importance.

• Are the outputs being achieved with the expected quality? • Are the expected outcomes likely to be achieved?

• To what extent are results inclusive i.e., ensuring the fair distribution of effects across different groups of the population?

• Does the intervention effectively influence the partner’s relevant policy and interventions?

• Is the intervention having any unintended positive or negative effects? Were the negative effects considered for possible (risk) mitigation?

• What is the current quality of the intervention logic? Are planned outputs and outcomes coherent and feasible, and have key assumptions and risks been clearly identified?

• Is the horizontal logic of the Logical Framework Matrix (LFM) adequate? I.e., choice of indicators, data availability, baseline data, target values and relevant disaggregation.

Efficiency How economically resources/ inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to outputs/results.

 • To what extent does the intervention, as currently designed and implemented, take into account past experiences in the sector, good practices and lessons learned from previous interventions?

• Does the intervention have an adequate internal monitoring system?

• Are the implementation mechanisms proving to be appropriate to achieve planned outputs and contribute to outcomes?

• Are the inputs / resources provided by the various stakeholders (still) adequate for achieving the planned results

• Has the intervention encountered any delays and was the planning revised accordingly?

• Is spending in line with the budget?

Sustainability The extent to which the results and outputs of the intervention are durable.

The continuation of benefits from an intervention after major assistance has been completed, the probability of continued long-term benefits, the resilience to risk of the net benefit flows over time.

• Are key stakeholders attaining the necessary capacities (incl. institutional, human and financial) to ensure the continued flow of benefits/services?

• Is access to the benefits generated by the intervention affordable for target groups over the long term?

• Has the private sector been sufficiently involved with a view to contributing to the sustainability of the intervention?

• Does the proposed intervention increase resilience to shocks and pressure (by addressing specific dimensions of fragility and their root causes)?

• Are the intervention inadvertently worsening conflict risks, conflict dynamics, violence, lack of human security and other dimensions of fragility? Coherence Brings about a rationale in the implementation arrangements either in chronological order or in the order of importance.

Acceptability has become a key consideration in the design, evaluation, and implementation of healthcare interventions.

• Any reasons for discontinuation of the project activities if happened during the implementation.

• Beneficiaries’ perception and satisfaction on project’s interventions

• Beneficiaries’ willingness to participate in interventions and project activities.

• Impact Grouping of the positive and negative, primary, and secondary long-term effects produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended, or unintended.

• Are there any lessons learned and good practices that would be useful to share beyond the intervention context?

Visibility Is the application of the EU requirement and published guidelines on communication and visibility benefitting the EU image in the country/region? 

Rationale Point 4.5 of Annex I “Description of the Action” of the project agreement stipulates that there be one external evaluation of the project implementation. In addition to being considered best practice in development cooperation, project evaluations are fundamentals to assess whether the intended results have been achieved, analyse the sustainability of outcomes, and draw lessons for future comparable actions. Moreover, the work done to support the COVID-19 response in Sudan sits at the heart of the COVID-19 response plan of the government. It is therefore imperative to evaluate the experience and progress of the project outputs in line with the priorities of the COVID-19 response plans, WHO COVID-19 response pillars and Sudan Health Sector Strategy 2022 – 2024.

Objectives:

Broadly, the project evaluation will aim to:

1. Assess the progress made towards achieving the project outputs and outcomes up to date.

2. Appraise the effectiveness of the project-introduced approaches and activities in delivering the intended results and responding to the needs of the beneficiaries, sustainably.

3. Evaluate the efficiency of the project management structures and processes, including coordination, monitoring and evaluation and information, communication, and visibility activities.

4. Document success stories as well as challenges and lessons learned to inform future projects.

3. Planned Timelines:

• Start date: 15.02.2023

• End Date: 14.05.2023

4. Work to Be Performed Output:

Assessment of the implementation of Humanitarian-Development Nexus: Strengthening preparedness and response of the health system addressing the COVID-19 Pandemic in Sudan. Deliverables:

Deliverable 1.1 Produce an Inception report validating the evaluation scope, criteria, methodological approach, and data collection tools, and workplan. Deliverable 1.2 Desk review of all projects reports, stakeholder interviews and compilation of all needed data and information needed to draft the evaluation report, based on a critical evaluation of the effectiveness of the project-introduced approaches and activities in achieving the desired results and meeting the needs of the beneficiaries.

Deliverable 1.3 Draft evaluation report containing an analytical assessment of the results achieved, lessons learnt, conclusions, and recommendations. 

Deliverable 1.4 Create a Strategy for dissemination, utilization, and follow-up of the evaluation recommendations, including proposed key actions, responsible agents, and timeframes.

Deliverable 1.5 Deliver The final evaluation report considering feedback on the draft report and to be presented in a way that makes the information accessible and comprehensible, with evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons learnt, and actionable recommendations. The report should use a consistent, conventional system for footnotes and references in the text and be structured in the following manner:

Acronyms

Executive summary

Background Methodology Findings Relevance Effectiveness Efficiency Sustainability Coherence Acceptability Impact and cross-cutting issues Conclusions and limitations Lessons learnt Recommendations

Annexes

Term of reference Lists of persons interviewed List of documents reviewed Recommendation’s dissemination and follow-up of strategy

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5. Specific Requirements

 Qualifications Required: - Advanced university degree (Master’s level or above) in medicine, public health, or equivalent in related field.

Experience required: - From 7 to 10 years of relevant experience in public health research, project evaluation or practice.

 Skills / Technical skills and knowledge:

1. Proven experience in project evaluation.

2. Demonstrated knowledge of health systems and policy research methods, specifically qualitative and/or mixed methods approaches.

3.Follow the principles of impartiality, independence, utility, quality, and transparency.

4. Demonstrated ability to produce technical reports and academic publications.

Language requirements: Expert Level of English Language

6. Place of Assignment

Khartoum, Sudan

7. Medical clearance

The selected Consultant will be expected to provide a medical certificate of fitness for work.

8.Travel

The Consultant is not expected to travel All travel arrangements will be made by WHO – WHO will not be responsible for tickets purchased by the Consultant without the express, prior authorization of WHO. While on a mission under the terms of this consultancy, the Consultant will receive a subsistence allowance. Visas requirements: it is the consultant’s responsibility to fulfil visa requirements and ask for visa support letter(s) if needed.

Additional Information:

This vacancy notice may be used to identify candidates for other similar consultancies at the same level. Only candidates under serious consideration will be contacted. A written test may be used as a form of screening. If your candidature is retained for interview, you will be required to provide, in advance, a scanned copy of the degree(s)/diploma(s)/certificate(s) required for this position. WHO only considers higher educational qualifications obtained from an institution accredited/recognized in the World Higher Education Database (WHED), a list updated by the International Association of Universities (IAU)/United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). The list can be accessed through the link: http://www.whed.net/. Some professional certificates may not appear in the WHED and will require individual review. For information on WHO's operations please visit: http://www.who.int. WHO is committed to workforce diversity. WHO has a smoke-free environment and does not recruit smokers or users of any form of tobacco. Applications from women and from nationals of non and underrepresented Member States are particularly encouraged. WHO's workforce adheres to the WHO Values Charter and is committed to put the WHO Values into practice - https://www.who.int/about/who-we-are/our-values Consultants shall perform the work as independent contractors in a personal capacity, and not as a representative of any entity or authority. The execution of the work under a consultant contract does not create an employer/employee relationship between WHO and the Consultant. WHO shall have no responsibility whatsoever for any taxes, duties, social security contributions or other contributions payable by the Consultant. The Consultant shall be solely responsible for withholding and paying any taxes, duties, social security contributions and any other contributions which are applicable to the Consultant in in each location/jurisdiction in which the work hereunder is performed, and the Consultant shall not be entitled to any reimbursement thereof by WHO. WHO prides itself on a workforce that adheres to the highest ethical and professional standards and that is committed to put the WHO Values Charter into practice. WHO has zero tolerance towards sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), sexual harassment and other types of abusive conduct (i.e., discrimination, abuse of authority and harassment). All members of the WHO workforce have a role to play in promoting a safe and respectful workplace and should report to WHO any actual or suspected cases of SEA, sexual harassment and other types of abusive conduct. To ensure that individuals with a substantiated history of SEA, sexual harassment or other types of abusive conduct are not hired by the Organization, WHO will conduct a background verification of final candidates.

This vacancy is archived.

Recommended for you