Terms of Reference for Mid-Term Evaluation
Country: Kenya
Location: North Horr (Marsabit)
Project to be evaluated:Strengthening the coping Strategies of Pastoralist and Agro-Pastoralist Communities in northern Kenya against Climatic and Economic Hazards
Starting date: 1st May 2011
Country: Kenya
Location: North Horr (Marsabit)
Project to be evaluated:Strengthening the coping Strategies of Pastoralist and Agro-Pastoralist Communities in northern Kenya against Climatic and Economic Hazards
Starting date: 1st May 2011
Under responsibility of: Deputy Country Director for Kenya
Funding Sources for the evaluation: DFID
Presentation of Solidarités
Solidarités International is an international humanitarian organization which provides assistance to populations affected by natural disaster or man-made crisis. For over 30 years, Solidarités International has concentrated its actions on meeting three vital needs: Water, Food and Shelter.
In the Horn of Africa, Solidarités International is currently implementing Food Security, Water and Sanitation projects in Somalia and Kenya. Solidarités International has 2 areas of intervention in Kenya (North Horr and Nairobi informal settlements) and 3 areas of intervention in Somalia (Gedo, Lover Juba and Adaado).
Presentation of the project/ program to be evaluated
Background
SI implemented a first WASH and Food Security intervention in North Horr in 2009. This intervention and was initially designed as a continuation of a DFID funded emergency project in Northern Marsabit which ended in October 2009.
However the funding decision was only taken in October 2010, resulting in a presence gap. SI agreed that the original project objectives, results and most activities were still relevant, DFID and SI agreed to proceed with the project on the provision that a detailed re-assessment of the activities would be done to check the relevance and propose adjustments as needed.
This mid-term evaluation focuses exclusively on this funded phase which started in December 2010.
Project Title: Strengthening the coping Strategies of Pastoralist and Agro-Pastoralist Communities in northern Kenya against Climatic and Economic Hazards
Result 1: Improved quantity and quality of water for both human and animal consumption are available for over 27,000 direct beneficiaries and their livestock In Chalbi District
Activities under result 1:
A1.1 Mobilization, Training and monitoring of water user committees (WUC)
A1.2 Rehabilitation of existing hand pump water points and installation of new hand pumps on existing capped/protected wells.
A1.3 Rehabilitation of 20 traditional open wells
A1.4 Construction of roof rainwater collection systems at 2 schools
A1.5 Construction of one additional sand dam in El Hadi (Cancelled and reallocated Water Supply activities)
A1.6 Construction of 2 rock catchments (Cancelled and reallocated Water Supply activities)
A1.7 Construction of underground tanks fed by hill catchments.
A1.8 Chlorination of new/rehabilitated water points, followed by systematic bacteriological testing.
A1.9 Emergency response capacity in case of critical water supply crisis in the project zone during period of intervention.
Result 2: Sanitary conditions and hygiene practices are improved for more than 2,580 direct beneficiaries in Chalbi Districts
A2.1 Construction of 100 household VIP latrines
A2.2 Construction of 8 latrines blocks (3 latrines per block) at 1 school in Forolle and 1 school in Turbi
A2.3 Hygiene promotion for users of all new/rehabilitated water points and other specifically targeted communities (i.e. those communities with particular hygiene/sanitation problems, as identified by ongoing needs analysis throughout the project period
Result 3: Livelihood strategies to ensure food security is improved for more than 9,000 direct beneficiaries in Marsabit North, North Horr and Loiyengalani Districts
A3.1 Provision of Veterinary Services
A3.2 Destocking response mechanism for shoats (changed to Emergency fodder supply)
A3.3 Pilot activity: Introduction of Gallas goats (cancelled)
A3.4 Distribution of Drought tolerant seeds and farming tools distribution to 560 farmers in Hurri Hills and Mt. Kulal
A3.5 Construction of 1 water pan for rain-water harvesting for irrigation in Hurri Hills Farms
A3.6 Provision of 120 oxen and ploughs for Hurri Hills and Mt. Kulal to increase farming acreage
A3.7 Training on farming practices and soil conservation
A3.8 Irrigated fodder production in Kalacha
A3.9 Milk conservation in North Horr: refresher trainings and capacity building of the managing CBO (changed to Promotion of improved Household milk conservation and distribution of metal milk containers to 700 households)
A3.10 Poultry unit : refresher training and capacity building
A3.11 Impact assessment of the milk conservation and poultry rearing
A3.12 Food Security Promotion Activities
Result 4: Management of natural resources is improved for more than 5,000 direct beneficiaries in Marsabit North, North Horr and Loiyengalani Districts
A4.1 Promotion of Fuel Efficient Stoves
Complementary Activities not linked to a Result: Reorientation of the Solidarites International Marsabit Program to a DRR approach
Purposes of the evaluation
To meet donor requirements Solidarites International will commission an external mid-term evaluation to assess progress in the implementation on the intervention, draw lessons from the experience that the programme team has gained so far and recommend adjustments to ensure that the intervention objectives are reached by the end of the intervention.
This evaluation shall address each and every activity as per the proposal.
Recommendations from this midterm evaluation may also help to defining current needs allowing Solidarites to prepare and design subsequent phase of its interventions in the area as required.
Scope and focus
The evaluation will focus on the operation’s approach, the implementation process and the performance of the programme. The evaluation shall assess relevance of the intervention and each of the activities, coverage effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, impact and coherence.
Without being limitative, the following questions need to be answer:
- Did expected results fulfill the needs before the intervention? (relevance)
- Do expected results meet the major current needs? (relevance)
- Does the program cover the initially targeted population? (coverage)
- Has the project appropriately targeted the right beneficiaries and the deriving villages? (relevance and coverage)
- Are the project activities timely implemented as planned? ( effectiveness of work plan implementation)
- Is project in course to meet expected results? (effectiveness)
- How are the resources being utilized in the course of project implementation so far? (efficiency)
- Are results of activities sustainable and to what extend?
- What negative or positive midterm influence of the project is already foreseen? (impact)
- Is the program coherent with local authorities’ policies? If no, is this a bad or a good thing? (coherence)
The evaluation shall assess the appreciation of the program by the beneficiaries as well as their participation at various levels of the project management cycle.
Finally, the evaluation should assess how the implementation of the program is respectful of the ethic of humanitarian practice vis-à-vis the SPHERE standards and the Code of conduct for the Red Cross Movement and for NGO during emergency intervention.
Evaluation process and methods
The consultant will have to develop his/her methodology and tools for data collection. The detailed methodology and tools will have to be validated by Solidarites technical team before proceeding with the data collection.
The evaluation methods should be clearly outlined in the report and their appropriateness, relative to the evaluation's primary purpose, focus and users, should be explained pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the methods. A description of the overall flow of the evaluation process (i.e. sequence of the key stages) should be given in the evaluation report.
The evaluation approach and the methods used to collect and analyze data should also be described. The nature (e.g., external or mixed) and make up of the team (e.g. sector expertise, local knowledge, gender balance) and its appropriateness for the evaluation should be outlined.
The evaluation report should outline the sources of biases that might affect the evaluation and how these have been addressed.
The evaluation report should also present the key constraints to carrying out the evaluation (e.g., lack of baseline data, lack of access to key information sources, use of translators), and the effect of these constraints.
Whenever secondary sources will be referred to, the evaluator should indicate the level of reliability of the given information.
After the field work, the evaluation team will present and discuss with the project team the preliminary findings and the proposed recommendations.
A first draft of the evaluation report should be provided to Solidarites’ the coordination team for review and comments. A final version, integrating responses to these comments, shall then be submitted for final acceptation by Solidarites International.
Procedures and logistics
Finally, the evaluation should assess how the implementation of the program is respectful of the ethic of humanitarian practice vis-à-vis the SPHERE standards and the Code of conduct for the Red Cross Movement and for NGO during emergency intervention.
Evaluation process and methods
The consultant will have to develop his/her methodology and tools for data collection. The detailed methodology and tools will have to be validated by Solidarites technical team before proceeding with the data collection.
The evaluation methods should be clearly outlined in the report and their appropriateness, relative to the evaluation's primary purpose, focus and users, should be explained pointing out the strengths and weaknesses of the methods. A description of the overall flow of the evaluation process (i.e. sequence of the key stages) should be given in the evaluation report.
The evaluation approach and the methods used to collect and analyze data should also be described. The nature (e.g., external or mixed) and make up of the team (e.g. sector expertise, local knowledge, gender balance) and its appropriateness for the evaluation should be outlined.
The evaluation report should outline the sources of biases that might affect the evaluation and how these have been addressed.
The evaluation report should also present the key constraints to carrying out the evaluation (e.g., lack of baseline data, lack of access to key information sources, use of translators), and the effect of these constraints.
Whenever secondary sources will be referred to, the evaluator should indicate the level of reliability of the given information.
After the field work, the evaluation team will present and discuss with the project team the preliminary findings and the proposed recommendations.
A first draft of the evaluation report should be provided to Solidarites’ the coordination team for review and comments. A final version, integrating responses to these comments, shall then be submitted for final acceptation by Solidarites International.
Procedures and logistics
- The evaluation team must comply, at all time, with Solidarités International rules and procedures related to security and relations with the media.
- The evaluation team must respect the ethic and the deontology related to evaluation practice.
- While working in Nairobi, the evaluation team may require office space in the offices of Solidarités.
- Logistics, movement and security while in the field will be provided and organised by Solidarités International team.
Deliverables
The evaluation report should include at least:
The evaluation report should include at least:
- One narrative report (max 40 pages)
- An executive summary (2 pages maximum).
- A separate table summarizing the main findings and the lessons learned.
- A separate table showing the different recommendations and tips for their implementation (who will be in charge of implementing this recommendations, when? dead line? necessary means? who will be in charge of checking that the recommendations are being implemented and when? etc.).
- Relevant maps and photographs of the assessed zone and programme.
Note that the quality of the data collection methodology, analysis, documentation of issues and written quality of the report is paramount and no substandard report will be accepted.
Documents of reference (on request only)
Documents of reference (on request only)
- Proposal of the project.
- Last Interim report.
- Current organizational chart.
- Last Activity Progress Update of the programme.
- Relevant maps.
Qualification of the Lead consultant
- Expertise on WASH, Livelihoods, Food Security, development in ASAL areas, work with pastoralists, Disaster Riskk reduction
- Proven record of similar mid-term and final NGOs intervention evaluations
- Proven experience in similar evaluation context (ASAL).
- Strong methodological and writing capacities.
How to apply
Please send your proposal, highlighting the following:
Please send your proposal, highlighting the following:
- A brief introduction of bidding firm or person attaching relevant CVs
- Your understanding of the Terms of Reference
- Proposed methodology and approach
- Proposed work plan and budget
- Your availability
All relevant information (CV, cover letter, copies of testimonials, certificate of works and 3 contact references) should be sent to info@solidarites-kenya-som.org before COB 01st April 2011.
Please indicate the consultancy you are applying for in the title of your email.
Only short-listed applications will be contacted.
Please indicate the consultancy you are applying for in the title of your email.
Only short-listed applications will be contacted.
You can also visit www.kenyanvacancies.com for more jobs
