Country: Nepal
Closing date: 28 Aug 2017
1. BACKGROUND
On 25th of April 2015 a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck the central and western regions of Nepal, followed by another earthquake on the 12th of May with its epicentre in Dolakha district. The government reported a total of 8,702 fatalities (4,802 female; 3,900 male) and thousands of people injured while 505,745 houses destroyed and 279,330 damaged by both earthquakes. The Dolakha district, epicentre of the second earthquake, was one of the most affected, with 50,284 houses out of 57,956 fully destroyed (87%). Plan International began responding to immediate humanitarian needs of affected communities in Dolakha and Sindhupalchowk districts. Through the DEC appeal, Plan International UK received £2,596,450 to respond in 3 phases: phase 1 from May-October 2015; phase 2a from November 2015- April 2017; and phase 2b from May 2017- April 2018. Particular emphasis was given to meeting the specific needs of women and girls throughout the response.
Phase 1 focused on providing immediate relief through cash for work and food distributions while also focusing on providing emergency health support through temporary health facilities with a focus on providing maternal and neo natal care. The first part of the second phase focused on beginning the rehabilitation through a shelter, livelihoods and health project. This included providing transitional shelter, capacity building for constructing more resilient shelter and the construction of a health centre ensuring adequate equipment for maternal health. Livelihoods activities included support to young women to begin small businesses and have greater control over their incomes. Phase 2b is focusing on the phase out and responding to remaining gaps with a WASH, livelihoods and resilience building project. WASH activities are focusing on ensuring adequate WASH facilities and hygiene practices in schools, continued support to livelihood recovery of young women, and capacity building for better coping with future disasters. Activities will be completed by the end of April 2018.
2. RATIONALE FOR THE EVALUATION
2.1. This final evaluation is planned to allow Plan International to record the learning around the implementation of its DEC funded emergency programming in response to the 2015 Nepal Earthquake and analyse successes, areas for improvement, accountability strategies and recommendations for future emergencies. The objectives and key questions have also included references to the Core Humanitarian Standards to ensure the evaluation considers the extent to which the response is aligning to the 9 commitments. This evaluation is also part of the DEC’s Accountability system and a requirement for member agencies to complete. The evaluation will therefore also be shared with the DEC, published on Plan UK’s website, ALNAP and used to demonstrate the impact of Plan and the DEC’s work for this appeal.
2.2 The findings from the evaluation will primarily be used by:
· The Plan Nepal project team, partners and stakeholders
i. to inform improvements in delivery of the project and support sustainability and succession strategies;
ii. to learn and document lessons from the project for replicating good practices and/or taking up approaches and activities with evidence of success
iii. to share findings with the affected communities we worked with for the Nepal Earthquake emergency response.
· The Plan UK project team
i. to assess and demonstrate accountability for the funding received to communities we work with and the Disasters Emergency Committee;
ii. to learn and document lessons for replicating good practices and use findings to inform future responses
iii. to leverage additional resources to scale up and sustain the activities /benefits delivered by the project;
· by Plan Nepal and UK
i. to continuously evaluate alignment to the Core Humanitarian Standards and progress towards Improvement Commitments;
· the DEC team
i. to share findings, information and impacts of the Nepal earthquake appeal to external stakeholders and demonstrate accountability to its supporters
3. OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION
3.1. Assess the quality of achieved outputs, outcomes and results of the project throughout the period of implementation and its continuous improvement against the key evaluation criteria (relevance, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, accountability, impact etc. considering how the response is aligning to the Core Humanitarian Standards) including analysing the reasons behind their successful or unsuccessful achievement.
3.2. To assess the effect of the project, including intended and unintended impacts and adaptation to the changing context, on the target communities and their environment; particularly considering the effects on young girls, marginalised groups and the sustainability of strategies in social, economic and environmental terms (CHS commitments 2 and 3)
3.3 Evaluating the extent to which the programme encouraged meaningful participation of the different groups and communities it worked with- making particular reference to the opinions of young girls, young boys and other marginalised groups- throughout the programme cycle and identifying areas for improvement including in: effectively communicating with communities, encouraging and using feedback, supporting community decision making (CHS commitment 4), and responding to the priorities, needs and culture of the communities and groups the response is working with (CHS commitment 1).
3.4. To identify key good practices and key lessons learnt, including how these have been used throughout the programme to improve its delivery (CHS commitment 6), and make recommendations for future improvement of similar programs based on evaluation findings.
4. METHODOLOGIES
4.1. The evaluation will involve a review of secondary data from the project to ascertain that all the contractual areas are evaluated as well as other relevant literature.
4.2. The evaluator(s) will be also responsible for assessing the programme, financial and management issues.
4.3. Evaluators are requested to propose their own methodology and or approach for how they will cover all the key questions found in Annex 1 “Key Questions of Evaluation”. It is expected that this will include quantitative and qualitative data collection and participatory methods taking child and youth friendly approaches with a consideration of gender, age and cultural sensitivities. Annex 1 is provided as initial guidance but may be refined at inception stage depending on discussions and feedback between the selected evaluators and the Plan Evaluation Management Team.
5. SCOPE OF WORK
5.1. The evaluation will look to specifically assess the DEC Funded response and it is not expected for the evaluation to cover the Plan International Nepal Earthquake response as a whole. The evaluators will not be expected to draw conclusions on the Plan International response strategy or approaches. The evaluation team however will be given access to information on the overall response for context and understanding the project as part of a wider response. It is expected that assessing the key questions will involve how the project worked within the response such as coordinating with other actors and projects, using response-wide beneficiary feedback mechanisms and general Plan systems. Due to the time elapsed, it is expected that the evaluation will primarily look at Phases 2a and 2b of the DEC funded response. The logframes for Phases 1, 2a and 2b are found in Annex 2.
6. SAMPLE SIZE
6.1. The consultant(s) shall determine the appropriate sample size in consultation with Plan International during the inception phase. These figures will take into considerations the activities carried out and the project areas.
6.2. The consultant(s) will visit project sites and gather data on the relevant project objectives as per the agreed methodology. The sampling criteria and sampling methodology will be clearly described in the final report of the consultant.
6.3. It is important in gathering data to ensure safe and meaningful participation of different groups, including women and girls through gender, age and inclusion friendly approaches.
7. EVALUATION REPORT
7.1. The production of the evaluation report will be the liability of the evaluator(s) covering all the evaluation questions, objectives and areas outlined in this ToR. Plan International Nepal will support with coordinating the evaluation exercise in collaboration with the consultant/s. During the evaluation process, the evaluator will keep the evaluation management team up to date and agree on changes to the methodology where appropriate.
7.2. The evaluation report shall be produced in English language and should be simple in expression (jargon free). The text should be an A4 paper size in Calibri font size 11 and no longer than 35 pages (excluding appendices).
7.3. The Executive summary should be no longer than 4 pages and include a brief description of the project, a brief section on methodology but with most text for conclusions and summary of recommendations and lessons learned. Recommendations and lessons learned should include a generalised principle on how they can be applied to other situations and clearly outline the evidence or rationale for them.
7.4. The evaluator(s) will be liable to submit an electronic version of the evaluation report in PDF Version by the agreed deadline.
7.5. The final product should be fully referenced, with findings clearly linked to evidence and the context of the intervention.
7.6 The consultant should submit all survey data, transcripts of the FGDs and KIIs, photographs etc
8. KEY ACTIVITIES
· Developing a detailed evaluation work plan and designing an evaluation methodology in consultation with the Plan team for gathering all necessary information and data.
9. ANTICIPATED DELIVERABLES
8.1 The evaluation will result in the following outputs/deliverables:
· Inception meeting to discuss and clarify expectations of the evaluation
· Inception report which will include: detailed proposed work plan and evaluation methodology based on consultations with the Plan team and inception meeting
· Evaluation tools finalised in consultation with the Plan team
· Training of any staff or enumerators if required by the methodology
· Field visits to collect data through the agreed methodology and timeline
· Validation workshop in country presenting initial findings, key recommendations and lessons to allow discussion and input from the team
· Draft report with the executive summary addressing all objectives, evaluation questions, clear recommendations and lessons learned, submitted for input and feedback from Plan
· Final evaluation report including all of the above incorporating feedback from Plan along with all relevant appendices
· Presentation of the key findings, lessons learnt and recommendations through a dissemination workshop online or in person as feasible
9. TIME FRAME
9.1. The whole program evaluation process is expected to take around 30 working days including: preparation, field work with partners and stakeholders, and report writing. The expected date for commencing work is around the 15th of October and will follow the agreed work plan based on that submitted and discussed between the selected evaluators and the Plan Evaluation Management Team. It may be possible for the evaluation to take place across more than one calendar month depending on agreed dates for travel and allowing input from the Plan International teams. It should be noted that meetings in country and field visits with the Nepal team will have to take place until after the 24th of October due to national holidays.
10. Ethical and Child Protection Statements
Child protection is a term used to describe the responsibilities and activities undertaken to prevent or to stop children being abused or ill-treated. It is Plan’s duty and responsibility to reduce the risks of abuse to the children who we have contact with and keep them safe from harm. Plan’s Child Protection Policy, “Say Yes to keeping children safe”, is Plan’s overriding framework to protect children who come into contact with Plan employees, volunteers, partner organisations and individuals, including consultants, who are working on behalf of Plan.
The consultant should include statements in the proposal on how he or she will ensure ethics and child protection in during the commencement of the assignment and during the field works. Consultant/s should also specify other ethical protocols to be followed during the due course of the evaluation. Consultants are expected to take consent of the respondents or children’s guardian before taking photographs and ask if their photographs, verbatim or case stories could be used in report and for public dissemination. Such consent must be documented and submitted to Plan International Nepal along with the final report.
Confidentiality of all issues discussed either with communities or Plan staff shall be safeguarded by the evaluation consultant/s
10. REPORTING LINE AND LOGISTICS
10.1. The consultant shall work under the joint supervision of Plan International Nepal’s MER Manager and the designated Plan UK Programme Specialist
10.2. The evaluation management team composed of Plan UK and Plan Nepal staff will play an advisory role in the planning and implementation of the evaluation.
10.3. The consultant/s and the evaluation management team will meet as per the agreed timings, particularly at stages in the evaluation process when deliverables are produced.
11. SKILLS AND EXPERIENCES
11.1. The desired specifications and qualities of the consultant(s) are:
· University degree in political science, sociology, international relations, anthropology, public administration, development studies, gender studies or other relevant fields.
· A minimum of 4 years’ experience in carrying out impact evaluations, demonstrable relevant academic and practical experience in qualitative and quantitative research methodology, evaluation design and implementation; experience undertaking similar evaluations in Nepal would be an advantage.
· Good understanding of participatory methodologies with proven background in evaluating sudden-onset emergency response and recovery projects with in-depth knowledge of WASH, protection, health and/or livelihoods programming; knowledge of humanitarian response programming in Nepal is a plus
· Strong analytical, facilitation and communication skills, especially with regard to working with children and youth.
· Knowledge of child protection procedures when working with children and youths, as well as experience with implementing child and/or youth friendly evaluation methodologies.
· Experience of effective interaction with local and national organizations, government departments, and marginalized communities in rural and urban areas.
· Conversant with gender transformation and analysis, child rights and advocacy.
· Excellent spoken and written communication skills in English; Nepali would be a great asset
· Proven experience of using participatory tools, appropriate for different vulnerable groups including boys and girls, as a means of data collection for project evaluation.
· Nepali consultants are welcome and encouraged to apply
12. PAYMENT
Forty percent of the agreed contractual amount will be paid after signing of the agreement, thirty percent will be paid after submission of preliminary findings in the format outlined in the inception report and remaining thirty percent amount will be paid after submission of final report.
13. CONFIDENTIALITY OF INFORMATION
13.1. All documents and data collected will be treated as confidential and used solely to facilitate analysis.
13.2. Where necessary, the respondents will not be quoted in the reports without their permission.
13.3 All those contracted by Plan must agree to sign and abide by the Child Protection Policy.
ANNEX 1: KEY QUESTIONS OF THE EVALUATION
The below are guiding questions which will be refined during the inception phase of the evaluation.
Effectiveness
· Have the activities been undertaken in a timely manner? Were objectives achieved on time?
· Quality of assessments: what was missing; what can we do differently next time?
· How appropriate and useful were the interventions and/ activities implemented?
· Were the beneficiaries able to provide feedback during the operation?
· Was the feedback from beneficiaries able to be incorporated into the project design?
· Have the alterations made during the project implementation had positive / negative effects to the achievement of the outputs & outcomes?
· What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Efficiency
· Cost-benefit analysis / Has the scale of benefits been consistent with the cost?
· To what extent has the funding been utilized 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?
· Were procurements done in an efficient manner considering the constraints of the emergency?
Relevance
· Have the project objectives proven to be valid and appropriate in meeting the most pressing needs of those affected by the earthquake? If not what should have been done instead?
· Has the project been consistent with the initial and changing needs and priorities of the intended beneficiaries (most vulnerable in the communities)?
· Has the project complemented and been compatible with government approach?
· Has the project approach or design changed to ensure continued relevance in a changing context?
Sustainability
· Has the project managed to put in place systems to enable sustainability; for example in relation to the livelihood, shelter and WASH components?
· What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?
Impact
· Results achieved vs planned results, if discrepancy- why?
· 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?
· What are difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?
Coordination / Communication
· How effective was the coordination/collaboration between Plan and its partners, coordination bodies, local stakeholders, government and other organisations?
Coverageandtargeting
· Was the targeting of the beneficiaries appropriate? Was the selection criteria implemented? Was the community involved in determining the selection criteria and well informed about the decisions?
· Did the project address the needs of all intended beneficiaries in a consistent manner as per project design?
· How has gender and age been considered in the project design and implementation?
Replicability& scale
· What would be the main considerations when replicating and scaling up/down this project design for future emergencies to ensure a better quality of response (e.g. main lessons learnt)
ANNEX 2: LOGFRAME FOR PHASE 1, PHASE 2a AND PHASE 2b PROJECTS
Please email lucy.goodyear@plan-uk.org to receive a copy via email attachment.
How to apply:
14. BID REQUIREMENTS
14.1. Interested evaluators or firms are requested to submit:
· An Expression of Interest detailing their interpretation of the TOR, proposed methodology including an initial sampling framework and work schedule.
· A clear budget detailing all proposed costs needed for undertaking the evaluation (travel, accommodation, transportation etc.) including all taxes liable to be paid
· A capability statement demonstrating how they meet the required qualifications and competencies;
· Copies of all relevant Curriculum Vitae (CVs). Only CVs for the specific individuals that will form the proposed evaluation team should be included.
· A sample of an evaluation report for a similar project completed within the last 24 months (this will be treated as confidential and only used for the purposes of quality assurance) along with contact details for the responsible person from the organisation for whom the evaluation was done.
· Two references (including one from your last client/employer).
· N/B: The entire bid should be a MAXIMUM OF seven (7) pages including the budget. Bids not meeting this requirement will not be considered.
15. APPLICATION PROCEDURE
15.1. If you believe you qualify for this post and you are the candidate that we are looking for, please submit your applications as per the bid requirements in English by emailing all requested documents and information above to Lucy Goodyear at Lucy.Goodyear@plan-uk.org
15.2. The closing date for applications is 28 August 2017 at noon BST.
15.3. The shortlisted 3-4 candidates may be invited to submit modifications or make a short presentation for the final selection.
15.4. We are committed to ensuring diversity and gender equality within our organization.
15.5. Qualified women are highly encouraged to apply