Closing date: 08 Aug 2016
BACKGROUND
The 2014 Ebola Outbreak in West Africa has been the largest of its kind. The outbreak was finally declared over by WHO in January 2016 after all three of the most affected countries, Guinea, Sierra Leone and Liberia, were declared Ebola free after a period of 42 days of no new recorded transmissions. The outbreak had severe social, cultural and economic impacts and affected almost all sectors; including health, education and livelihoods. The full impact of the outbreak is yet to be seen as survivors and affected communities begin to face new complications and all three countries begin the reconstruction and rehabilitation efforts of affected services.
Plan International began responding to the crisis in all three countries in early 2014. The response primarily focused on social mobilisation to prevent the further spread of the disease, however it progressed to other sectors including WASH, Food and NFI distributions, livelihoods, Education and Child Protection as the crisis developed. While Plan did not directly work in Ebola Treatment Centres or treating Ebola patients, it implemented projects directly aiming to reduce the spread of the disease and working with EVD affected individuals.
As part of the Plan-wide response, Plan International UK began implementing an emergency response programme in November 2014 through a variety of projects totalling over £14 million GBP addressing several sectors primarily in Sierra Leone. Projects were implemented both directly by Plan and through partnerships with 9 different organisations in 5 Districts- Moyamba, Bombali, Port Loko, Kambia and Western Area Urban and Rural. The emergency response ended in April 2016 after reaching over 265,000 individuals; all interventions transitioned to early recovery and rehabilitation. An overview of the implemented projects is in annex 1 while the additional documents in the pack provide the logframes and project outlines of these interventions.
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of the evaluation is to identify the impact, effectiveness, best practice and lessons learned from the design, management and implementation of the response to provide evidence-based practical recommendations and highlight key considerations for future programming and responses.
It will be shared with key stakeholders in the UK as part of sharing lessons within the sector and finding innovative practices.
The evaluation will also be shared with project implementing partners at a local level, to be shared with community representatives, and to enable replication of key successes or enablers. Other stakeholders may receive a copy of the evaluation upon request if relevant actors were not initially included.
EVALUATION OBJECTIVES
The evaluation will focus on the project design, implementation of activities, adaptation of strategies, and wider impacts of the project. It should include findings across all implementing areas and sectors; which include health, education, protection, WASH and food and NFI support. Additionally, the evaluation will also look at the efficiency and effectiveness of the coordination and management of the response at UK level and how the support from the UK office helped improve the scale and delivery of implementation.
The evaluation will assess the response under the criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability, impact and accountability. Furthermore, it will seek to assess the potential contribution towards bringing the outbreak under control and generating lasting impact to prevent future large scale outbreaks. There should be a particular focus on some of the approaches of the response in addition to the designed activities such as the inclusion of youth, the feedback and accountability mechanisms in place, and the collaboration with other response actors. The following are guiding questions the evaluation is looking to answer and will be discussed at the inception stage.
Effectiveness
- Were activities done in a timely manner and conducted in an appropriate timeline in relation to the emergency?
- Quality of assessments and response plans: what was missing; what could be done differently; how well was it coordinated; was there an adequate gender and age analysis
- How appropriate and useful were the interventions and/ activities implemented?
- How well were the beneficiaries able to provide feedback during the operation?
- How was the feedback from beneficiaries incorporated into the project design?
- How did the response manage to adapt to the changing context?
- Has Plan International UK projects benefited men, boy, girls and women equally and appropriately depending on their different needs?
- How did the setting up of the Ebola Task Force at UK level influence the effectiveness of response plans and evolving programme design?
- Did the Ebola task force’s media and advocacy work support the overall response effectively?
Efficiency
- Has the scale of benefits been consistent with the cost?
- To what extent were cost benefits of different approaches or strategies considered during programme design and implementation?
- To what extent has the funding been utilised to directly assist beneficiaries - has project support and operational costs been reasonable (%) compared to entire budget?
- How well were the inputs (funds, people, materials and time) used to produce results
- How did the ongoing deployments of Plan UK staff support the operational delivery? Could this have been achieved differently?
- Were costs of resources spent at UK level in line with the benefits they provided?
- How efficient were the systems and actions in place to ensure timely and quality procurement of goods, minimise waste and prevent losses?
- How robust efficient were the financial control mechanisms in place? What could have been done better?
Relevance
- Were the activities and objectives of the response adequately chosen to address the impacts of the outbreak and contribute towards controlling its spread?
- Was the response consistent with the needs and priorities of the intended beneficiaries (most vulnerable in the communities)? Did the needs and priorities identify acknowledge the differences in demographic groups (gender, age, disability etc.)?
- Did the activities adequately address differentiated needs of different demographic groups?
- Was the programme compatible with the overall response and well-coordinated with the National Ebola Response Centre and District Ebola Response Centres?
- Did response activities continue addressing the key issues and needs as the outbreak and response progress?
- Did the activities contribute towards addressing barriers to the prevention of future or other health crises?
Accountability
- To what extent the Code of Conduct and Sphere Standards been respected?
- How were lessons from evaluations and reviews throughout the response used to inform ways forward?
- Have appropriate and accessible were the feedback mechanisms established for all stakeholders (boys, girls, youth, elderly, men, women, response workers, chiefs etc.)?
- To what extent did Plan respond to and incorporate the feedback received from communities? How was it used to inform ways forward for the response?
- How well were the feedback mechanisms designed, implemented and communicated back to communities?
- To what extent have affected communities been able to participate in the decision making, design, targeting, implementation and evaluation of projects and activities?
- How appropriately has Plan maintained clear and relevant communication with affected communities?
- Has the project been implemented in good coordination with government actors and other stakeholders?
- How have lessons throughout the project been captured, used and shared?
- How effective was the use of the youth reporters and Information Focal Points and what were the key impacts of having these in place?
Sustainability
- Has the project managed to put in place systems to enable sustainability of the activities and use of inputs?
- How has the response contributed towards more sustainable delivery of services?
- What positive or negative environmental impacts did the project activities have? How could these have been enhanced/avoided?
Impact
- What were the main impacts of the project achieved?
- What were the main impacts of establishing the Ebola Task Force at Plan UK level?
- To what extent was Plan able to achieve the impacts it planned to achieve? How could Plan have better addressed barriers?
- Has the project had any unforeseen positive and/or negative institutional impacts which have influenced Plan, prompted changes in partners’ ways of working etc.?
- Has the project been able to strengthen partners’ and communities’ capacities?
- How effectively did the programme ensure inclusion of all stakeholders to ensure addressing the needs of the most vulnerable? How could this be improved?
- Have the projects benefited men, boy, girls and women equally and promoted gender equality
Coordination / Communication
- How effective was the coordination/collaboration between Plan and partners and the wider response actors?
GEOGRAPHICAL SCOPE
The evaluation will cover a sample of communities in all 5 target districts of the response (communities selected to be determined in collaboration with Plan International UK and Sierra Leone) as well as involved departments in the Plan UK office.
KEY ACTIVITIES
Conduct background reading of Plan and overall response materials, briefing discussions with Plan teams and preparation of resource materials;
Develop an evaluation study design (work-plan) in the inception report identifying information needs and including the draft data-gathering and analysis instruments;
Finalise data gathering and analysis instruments in collaboration with Plan UK and Plan Sierra Leone
Undertake data-collection at the Plan UK and Plan Sierra Leone offices and field level including through participatory evaluation methods and meeting with project staff, community members, and other stakeholders;
Debrief with Plan Sierra Leone presenting initial findings for input and discussion;
Data processing and analysis and draft report presented to Plan UK and Sierra Leone offices;
Finalise the evaluation report following comments received from project Plan staff on the draft report.
METHODOLOGIES
The final evaluation schedule will be determined following discussions between the consultant and Plan staff prior to the commencement of the evaluation study. The evaluation study design and tools will be approved by Plan prior to implementation based on the inception report.
The consultant is expected to be proficient in using a range of participatory tools for data gathering and analysis, including quantitative and qualitative survey techniques, conducting key informant interviews and leading focus group discussions. It is essential for the consultant to be able to adapt these adequately to working with children and youth. The evaluation will ensure unbiased data collection from a representative sample that can be used to compare with data. The consultancy will also involve substantive documentation review, report writing, and workshop presentation.
The Team leader will take responsibility to submit the inception report and final report and presentation.
DURATION AND TIMELINE
The contract is expected to be for 30 working days between August and September 2016 (including field visits and all deliverables).
Provisional indication of timeline as follows:
Preparation
1)Review of project documents & reports, secondary data... (August W3)
2) Working plan & working schedule with stakeholders arranged (August W3)
3) Draft Inception report provided to Plan UK for discussion (August W4)
Field work
4) Data collection at UK level (August W4)
5) Finalisation of tools and inception report in country with Plan teams 6) Data collection in the programme areas (August W4)
7) Debrief in country with Plan teams (August W4, September W1,2 & 3)
Report writing
8) Collation and standardization of report (September W3)
9) Presentation of preliminary results to Plan UK and Sierra Leone to receive feedback (September W3)
10) Final report consolidation to be submitted (September W4)
11) Presentation of findings at Plan UK (September W4)
DELIVERABLES
The evaluation will result in three outputs/deliverables:
- A short inception report outlining the evaluation framework, work plan, tools and methodologies used for the evaluation exercise and updated evaluation questions from the TOR
- A Debrief Meeting in country for presenting and discussing initial findings
- A draft report for input and feedback from Plan UK and Plan Sierra Leone
- A Final Report containing an executive summary and comprehensive but concise outline of the key findings across all fields of focus mentioned above (*Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability and Impact and Accountability)*. The report will include details on the methodology, document review, findings, and limitations. Key lessons learnt, recommendations for improvement should be identified.
- Presentation of the key findings, lessons learnt and recommendations
How to apply:
Interested consultants should submit expressions of interest to Tala Budziszewski tala.budziszewski@plan-uk.org by the 8th of August with “Evaluation: Ebola response in Sierra Leone” in the subject line.
TORs in pdf are available here.
Expressions of interest must include:
CV/s of the team leader/team members
A brief statement of no more than 3 pages outlining your understanding of the requirements and proposed approach to the evaluation
Detailed financial proposal in GBP inclusive of daily rate, transportation, costs in country and relevant taxes
Work plan and proposed timeline
2 examples of relevant work
PLAN’S CHILD PROTECTION POLICY
Plan creates safe environments for children in all aspects of its work whether fundraising or program implementation, where children are respected, protected and empowered as their capacities evolve to contribute actively to the development of Child protection measures within Plan. Everyone who works with and engages with Plan has a responsibility to ensure that children are protected. Any consultant entering into agreement with Plan must adhere to its Child Protection Policy. All consultants visiting Plan communities must submit to a full background check.
Plan’s Child Protection Policy and Code of Conduct ensures that staff, associates, and visitors are clear about expectations placed on them to prevent and respond to child abuse and the consequences of failing to do so. As such, Plan is requiring possible consultants to include ethical and child protection statements in their proposals detailing how such measures will be implemented during the data collection and assessment processes.