ACF recruits 01 Consultant for evaluation of Multisectorial action

ACF recruits 01 Consultant for evaluation of Multisectorial action

Rationale for the Project

ACF has been operating in North Eastern Nigeria since 2010 supporting a number of development and humanitarian interventions with a focus on addressing issues of malnutrition, WASH and food livelihood security. Building on existing capacities and national guidelines, the project “Multi-sectoral nutrition, WASH and livelihood support to the vulnerable population in Yobe State” focuses on treating severe acute malnourished children aged 6-59 months in different ways. It includes support to health facilities, promoting optimal IYCF, health and hygienic practices among pregnant and lactating mothers, support treatment and prevention of severe acute malnourished (SAM) U5 children through Community Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM) and Care Group approach to improve the adoption of optimal Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) practices. The nutrition and health component of the project aims at creating commitment from local authorities to maintain CMAM services beyond the project period through capacity building, system strengthening, integration into existing primary health care system and advocacy.

The project aims to strengthen the technical capacity of Government institutions and community structures for improved access to nutrition treatment and preventive services, safe water and sanitation (including hygiene promotion) and access to social protection support for most vulnerable households.

Project Goal

The action’s key aim is to save lives by providing key lifesaving interventions through existing government institutions and facilities. In reference to the identified life threatening problems and risks, the interventions package comprised of:

1. Life saving treatment of severe acute malnutrition;
2. Promoting optimal IYCF, critical hygiene and health practices having life saving impacts;
3. Improving access to water and sanitation in targeted health facilities;
4. Providing social safety nets support to most vulnerable families led by elderly and/or women and/or children <18 years – where presence of infants & young children in the family will be given priority to reduce hunger.

Action Against hunger proposed to ECHO a cash based social protection intervention that seeks to build up the capacity of vulnerable HHs to resist recurrent lean season and other conflict related shocks that have adverse effect on food security & nutrition status of the HH members more especially children under 5. The proposed social protection activity is a pilot study aimed at ascertaining and properly documenting replicable best practices in social protection programing in the largely post conflict situation in Yobe.

This social protection component is aimed at improving the status of vulnerable families to provide them means sustainable support through the lean seasons to go through the seasonal stress. It works with social and behavioral part to encourage the community members for increasing the needs diet diversity and utilization of cash support for savings during the post harvest lean season. The key part of this intervention is to provide support to households based on the lean season through three different Tier systems. The total cash disbursement to the household is the same but the timing of the support will vary to explore the benefits of cash in target communities. It targets 720 extremely vulnerable households in 6 wards of Fune LGA with 120 extremely vulnerable households being selected per ward as per the laid down beneficiary selection criteria.

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

Rational for the Evaluation

 This evaluation will be conducted as an exercise of accountability towards the donor ECHO and the beneficiaries at its final implementation stage. It aims to provide useful insights for programme learning and accountability especially in light of the transitioning process from full-scale emergency operations to rehabilitation/reconstruction and resettlement

Objectives of the evaluation

The overarching purpose of the evaluation is to assess the overall performance of the project and to determine if it has achieved its intended outputs and outcomes. Likewise, the evaluation should clearly explain why (or why not) these outputs and outcomes were achieved through an integrated analysis of the entire result chain (inputs, activities, outputs outcomes and Likelihood of Impact) and other contextual factors. The evaluation will use DAC criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability and impact) in addition the consultant will look at design, coverage and coherence.

 Users of the Evaluation

Direct users: Action Against Hunger Field Teams, Technical and Senior Management Teams, Action Against Hunger Technical Advisors/ Director in the HQ (France), Ministry of Agriculture, State Nutrition Department, NEMA/SEMA, FSSWG, and the Donor, ECHO.

Indirect users: Action Against Hunger International Network, in particular the ELA Unit within Action Against Hunger UK, regional and local governments, ministries, UN agencies and Global Clusters, NGOs and NGO Consortiums as well as humanitarian learning platforms (such as ALNAP).

Use of the Evaluation

The evaluation will be used for learning, improvement and accountability. Lessons learnt (from the project), identified best practices and recommendations are expected to be taken into consideration in designing other interventions of similar nature. The evaluation findings and results will inform knowledge management base of Action Against Hunger and will ensure best practices are adopted and applied within all the sectors. Feedback from the evaluation will be used to improve quality of our programs, modification and revision of design based on the lessons learnt.

EVALUATION SCOPE

Elements covered by the evaluation

The evaluation will focus on the entire project funded by ECHO. It will cover selected sites in Damaturu, Fune, Potiskum and Yunusari LGAs, looking at different levels of the intervention (community level, district level, and national level) and at the links between those levels. It will also cover all selected target groups of beneficiaries and will examine the implementation of all activities and the degree of achievement of all outputs and objectives.

Finally, the evaluation should provide key recommendations towards sustainability, if relevant and the recommendations should focus on both the outcomes of the project as well as on the overall process. Moreover, the evaluation will identify and recommend potential exit strategies. The recommendations should be solid and concrete to inform the project team on the best practices to adapt and to enhance interventions of similar nature in the future.

EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

As per Action Against Hunger’s Evaluation Policy and Guidelines[1], Action Against Hunger adheres to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria for evaluating its projects.

Specifically, Action Against Hunger uses the following criteria: Relevance/Appropriateness, Coherence, Coverage, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability and Likelihood of Impact[2]. To the latter list Action Against Hunger adds an additional criterion, Design. Action Against Hunger also promotes a systematic analysis of the monitoring system in place within the aforementioned criteria.

Evaluation questions have been developed to help the evaluator assess the project against these criteria (Refer to Annex II). The evaluator may adapt the evaluation criteria and questions, but any fundamental changes should be agreed between Action Against Hunger’s Head of M&E Department on Nigeria mission and the evaluator and reflected in the inception report.

All independent external evaluations are expected to use DAC criteria in data analysis and reporting. In particular, the evaluator must complete the DAC criteria rating table (Refer to Annex III) and include it as part of the final evaluation report.

EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

This is a one-group design evaluation, examining a single intervention, without including any comparison with units (people, communities, etc.) that did not participate in the intervention. However, the evaluation is expected to consider the project coverage as well as the outcome of the project on the locations and individuals where the project is been implemented such as households who did not benefit from the intervention. This evaluation is also expected to look at units participating in the program “before and after” the intervention has been in operation.

Outlined below is the suggested methodological approach for the evaluator to collect quantitative and qualitative data and the chronological steps of the evaluation process. The evaluator will, to the extent possible, develop data gathering instruments and methods that allow collecting sex-disaggregated data. The instruments need to make provision for the triangulation of data where possible.

Field Mission

Primary data collection techniques

As part of the evaluation, the evaluator will interview key project stakeholders (expatriate/national project staff, local/national representatives, local authorities, humanitarian agencies, or donor representatives) as per the list in Annex V. The evaluator will use the most suitable format for these interviews as detailed in the inception report. The evaluator is also expected to collect information directly from beneficiaries using both qualitative and quantitative methods. Towards enriching triangulation, if budget and timeframe allows, the evaluator could also conduct Focus Group Discussions with other relevant stakeholders.

Field visits

The evaluator will visit the project sites according to select methods described in the inception report. The field visits will be informed by participation of community members in the program, accessibility during the evaluation and methodological approach used to select the sites.

Evaluation Report

The evaluation report shall follow the following format and be written in English:

• Cover Page
• Summary Table to follow template provided
• Table of Contents
• List of acronyms
• Executive Summary must be a standalone summary, describing the intervention, main findings of the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 2 pages in length
• Background Information
• Methodology describe the methodology used, provide evidence of triangulation of data and presents limitations to the methodology
• Findings includes overall assessment of the project against the evaluation criteria, responds to the evaluation questions, all findings are backed up by evidence, cross-cutting issues are mainstreamed and; unintended and unexpected outcomes are also discussed
• Conclusions are formulated by synthesizing the main findings into statements of merit and worth, judgements are fair, impartial, and consistent with the findings
• Lessons Learnt and Good Practices present lessons that can be applied elsewhere to improve project performance, outcome, or impact and; identify good practices: successful practices from those lessons which are worthy of replication; further develop on one specific good practice to be showcased in the template provided in Annex VI
• Recommendations should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is, they should take careful account of the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of the action, and of the resources available to implement it both locally. They should follow logically from conclusions, lessons learned and good practices. The report must specify who needs to take what action and when. Recommendations need to be presented by order of priority
• Annexes should be listed and numbered and must include the following: Good practice template (annex VI), Evaluation Criteria Rating Table (annex III), list of documents for the desk review (annex IV), list of persons interviewed (annex V), data collection instrument, evaluation TORs

The whole report shall not be longer than 30 pages, 50 pages including annexes. The draft report should be submitted no later than 10 calendar days after departure from the field. The final report will be submitted no later than the end date of the consultancy contract. Annexes to the report will be accepted in the working language of the country and project subject to the evaluation.

All outputs must be submitted in English and under Word Document format. The final report will be submitted as a PDF document.

Profile of the Consultant / Evaluator

The evaluation will be carried out by an international evaluation consultant with the following profile:

• Knowledge in Food Security and Livelihood sector with particular experience on cash-based-interventions, agriculture, nutrition security and nutrition;
• Background in social sciences/psycho-social area, and experience in care practices and complementary feeding;
• Significant field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian / development projects;
• Relevant degree / equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken;
• Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programs;
• Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation;
• Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous work);
• Fluent in English;
• Understanding of donor requirements (ECHO);
• Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines;
• Independence from the parties involved;
• Familiarity with the context of the humanitarian situation in Northeast Nigeria will be an added advantage.

Application requirements

Qualified and interested parties are asked to submit the following;

• Letter of interest in submission of the Proposal and a CV of the consultant(s)
• A detailed technical proposal clearly demonstrating a thorough understanding of this ToR and including but not limited to the following;
  • Consultant/Company Profile and legal documentation
  • Description of the Methodology and Sample Size Determination
  • Demonstrated previous experience in similar assignments and qualifications outlined in this
  • Proposed data management plan (collection, processing and analysis).
  • Proposed timeframe detailing activities and a work
  • Team composition and level of effort of each proposed team member (include CVs of each team member).
• A financial proposal with a detailed breakdown of costs for the study quoted in euros.
• Date of availability
• Chronogram if different from the one proposed in this ToR
• Terms of payment if different from the one proposed in this ToR
• Currency of payment

Application procedure

See Terms of Reference attached for full details.

All applications should be sent electronically to: supply.ng@acf-international.org with attachments in pdf and a subject line: “ECHO A1N – Final external evaluation application”, before 16^th June 2019.