Final Evaluation Consultant DC-UGA21.02 45 views0 applications

Tender Notice

Organisation Hoffnungszeichen | Sign of Hope e.V.

www.hoffnungszeichen.de, www.sign-of-hope.org

Position Final Evaluation Consultant

Type of Contract Short-term consultancy

Location Home-based with field mission travel to TESO SUB-REGION, UGANDA

Relevant Languages English

Application Deadline 11th October 2024

Starting Date 21st October 2024

Project Title Building resilience of communities in Eastern Uganda through provision of access to sustainable WASH services and developing capacity of relevant local actors to deliver them (WASH Project)

Total Project Budget 1,630,000 EURO

Hoffnungszeichen | Sign of Hope e.V. (SoH) is announcing an open tender procedure for consultancy services for a final evaluation in Uganda.

Background and Rationale

Hoffnungszeichen | Sign of Hope e.V. (SoH) is a Christian motivated organisation for Human Rights, Humanitarian Assistance and Development Cooperation. From its base in Constance, Germany, SoH is committed to helping those in distress and exploited people worldwide.

This final evaluation is commissioned under the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) budget for development projects run by private organisations.

SoH is the private German executing agency and the contracting party, with SOCADIDObeing the local implementing partner.

The goal of the project is to improve the resilience of neglected rural communities in the Teso region. The project is further guided by one outcome, that is, “through sustainable access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene, the resilience of target households in the Teso region is improved”. This outcome will be achieved through three interlinked result areas (outputs) that include;

• access to safe water sources for people in Amuria, Kapelebyong and Kumi is improved;
• access to and use of hygiene and sanitation facilities and services has improved for people in Amuria, Kapelebyong and Kumi; and
• WASH governance and coordination among stakeholders in target districts is improved.

Some of the project activities that are being implemented by this project include; WASH sensitization of target communities; mobilize target communities to meet the minimum requirements; Verification of compliance with minimum requirements; Signing of Memoranda of Understanding by the target communities; Construct and rehabilitate water sources in the target area; Training of pump mechanics; Water source maintenance; Training of water user committees; Raise community awareness of the need to preserve clean drinking water; Handover of rehabilitated water sources; Feedback meetings with target group; Training of latrine builders; Train staff and health care assistants on CLTS and PHAST methods; Training on implementation of WASH activities from household level; Improvement of the water infrastructure; CHAST Training for Sanitary Clubs; Raising awareness at the household level using the CLTS approach and radio program; Sanitation campaign at the household level; Formation and training of sanitation and hygiene committees at the community level; Provide materials for sanitation and hygiene committees; Support the districts of Kapelebyong, Amuria and Kumi in developing and operationalizing District Water Investment Plans; Conduct stakeholder dialogue meetings between government and communities; Coordination meetings with WASH stakeholders at district level; Participation in national and international WASH events; participate in World Water Day (March 22); and World Sanitation Week. A total of 64,902 (32,830 females and 32,072 males) direct beneficiaries, representing an estimated 10,817 households in the three target districts are targeted. Indirect beneficiaries are estimated at 107,994 (55,767 females and 52,257 males), equivalent to about 17,994 households. Direct beneficiaries also include nine educational institutions (particularly elementary school) with an estimated target population of 6,300 students (3,213 females and 3,087 males), 36 teachers (18 males and 18 females), 18 pump mechanics (12 males and four females), 225 masons (135 males and 90 females), 132 district and county officials (108 males and 24 females), and 75 people from WASH backgrounds (60 males and 15 females).

Purpose, Objectives and Use

The purpose of the evaluation is to provide SoH and SOCADIDO with a comprehensive assessment of the project, conducted systematically and impartially, as well as analyse the implementation and results of the project, propose actions to ensure sustainability of the results, identify lessons learned and information for potential future projects. The study will provide concrete, credible and practical recommendations that will assist with the timely incorporation of the findings into the decision-making process and contribute to the organizational learning of both implementing organizations.

The study will support the project quality assurance measures implemented by SoH and meet the donor requirements towards the development projects implemented by German private organizations.

The evaluation will address evaluation questions based on the standard OECD/DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact (please see http://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm). The objectives of the evaluations are to:

1. Assess the extent to which the project has sustainably achieved its objectives and results (see annexe 1), including the extent to which the lives of the project beneficiaries have been improved,
2. Identify the strengths and weaknesses in terms of planning, management, implementation and monitoring of the project,
3. Evaluate sustainability measures,
4. Identify cross-cutting issues addressed through the project, including gender equality, human rights, marginalized groups, inclusion, and other issues,
5. Determine the effects of Covid-19 and other disasters on the project, its activities and implementing organisation,
6. Document lessons learned that could contribute to the improvement of the design of future projects.

Duties and Responsibilities

The Evaluation Consultant will work in close cooperation with the responsible SoH Officer and the local implementing partner.

The duties and responsibilities of the Evaluation Consultant will include:

• Develop a work plan outlining the proposed research methodology, geographical coverage and schedule to conduct the study,
• Conduct a desk review of relevant documents,
• Carry out a project site visit to a project location to conduct research, collect data and establish contact with the local implementing partner, project beneficiaries and relevant project stakeholders,
• Review and evaluate available data and existing sources of information, including the project proposal, annual reports, conducted studies and other documents,
• Examine institutional, technical, staffing and financial capacities of the implementing partner as well as its relationship with the target group and other relevant stakeholders.

Expected Deliverables

The study will produce the following deliverables:

• an inception report, including the proposed research methodology and data collection tools, a table of content and timeline of research activities prior to the site visit to the project location,
• a comprehensive report of a maximum of 30 pages with practical recommendations and relevant annexes (including raw data and documented records, as well as an updated impact matrix).

A template will be provided to serve as a guide and may be used to structure the final report.

Study Quality and Ethical Standards

The study team will take all reasonable steps to ensure that the study is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved. Furthermore, the study should be aligned to the following standards and applicable practices:

• Utility: the study must be useful and used.
• Feasibility: the study must be realistic, diplomatic and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
• Ethics and Legality: the study must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the Study.
• Impartiality and Independence: the study should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
• Transparency: the study activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
• Accuracy: the study should be technically accurate and credible, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
• Participation: the Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the study process when feasible and appropriate.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the study process improves the legitimacy and utility of the study.

The study must be in line with the SoH guiding principles and Code of Conduct.

Process/Timeframe

The total duration of the assignment is up to 25 working days within the period from 4th November 2024 to 6th December 2024.

Planning meeting with SOCADIDO, handover of relevant documents 1 day

Initial document review and inception report preparation 4 days

Sharing inception report with SoH and SOCADIDO 1 day

Finalisation of inception report 1 day

Data collection site visit to a project location 5-10 days

Data analysis, draft report with annexes 5-10 days

Incorporating received feedback and report finalization 3-5 days

Qualifications and Experience

Essential:

• Minimum of 5 years of project evaluation and/or implementation experience in the result-based management framework
• Proven experience of conducting feasibility studies, evaluations and other research projects
• Technical and methodological knowledge to conduct research projects and formulate conclusions based on a solid methodology, assessing projects for relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of projects
• Experience working with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and partnered projects
• Fluency in written and spoken English

Desirable:

• Experience in the relevant field/sector
• Professional familiarity with the project country/region
• Practical experience of working for and/or evaluating BMZ-funded projects
• Fluency in spoken Teso language

Academic Background

An advanced level university degree (Masters’ degree or equivalent) in social sciences, public administration, and international development studies, WASH Engineering or relevant field. A first-level university degree in combination with additional years of qualifying experience may be accepted.

The Evaluation Consultant is to be independent and impartial with no liabilities to any other organisation or government entity regarding this evaluation.

Annexe 1: Impact Matrix

Overall Objective (Impact):

Improving the resilience of neglected rural communities in the Teso region.

Outcome

Indicators (possibly plus quantity structure)

Baseline value (quantitative & qualitative)

Target value (quantitative & qualitative)

Through sustainable access to safe water, sanitation, and hygiene, the resilience of target households in the Teso region is improved

Only 22% of households have access to clean and safe water within 30 minutes and are able to use it for cooking, drinking and hygiene.

Open defecation is still practiced in the target villages.

Currently, only 36% of households meet basic sanitation and hygiene standards.

15% of WASH-related issues formally raised by target district communities are addressed by local governments and local civil society representatives.

75% of households have access to clean and safe water within 30 minutes and are able to use it for cooking, drinking and hygiene.

40% of the villages declared themselves Open Defecation Free

75% of households meet basic sanitation and hygiene standards.

80% of WASH-related issues formally raised by target district communities are addressed by local governments and local civil society representatives.

Outputs

Indicators (possibly plus quantity structure)

Baseline value (quantitative & qualitative)

Target value (quantitative & qualitative)

Output 1: Access to safe water sources for people in Amuria, Kapelebyong and Kumi is improved

378 water points serve as safe drink water supply for the people

490 water points serve as a safe drinking water supply for the people.

112 additional safe water sources were built or rehabilitated.

100% (18/18) of pump mechanics are trained and have performed preventive maintenance.

37% of Water Source committees are functional (formed, trained, and equipped).

X% of households have flood-resistant latrines.

90% of Water user Committees are functional (formed, trained and equipped).

60% of households have adopted improved and flood-resistant latrine technologies.

Output 2: Access to and use of hygiene and sanitation facilities and services has improved for people in Amuria, Kapelebyong and Kumi.

There are few latrine builders who have knowledge of improved and flood resistant latrine technologies.

56 Latrine builders have knowledge to use improved and flood-resistant latrine technologies.

The target population has a low level of awareness of the connection between hygiene behavior and diseases, also and especially with regard to the use of sanitary facilities (vector transmission).

Training and radio spots were used to reach 75% of target households with information on health benefits of hygiene practices, including latrine use.

35% Schools have child-friendly sanitation facilities.

Lack of education in schools in the target area means that students have little knowledge of hygiene practices.

100% (9/9) schools have established child-friendly sanitation facilities.

At the end of the project, health clubs are active in 9 schools, which know and apply measures and methods to regularly train school children on hygiene measures.

Output 3: WASH governance and coordination among stakeholders in target districts is improved.

33% districts have a WASH investment plan in place.

100% targeted districts have a WASH investment plan in place.

There is no multi-level partnership.

20 multi-level WASH partnerships established by SOCADIDO with WASH institutions and private sectors (3 districts, 9 sub-counties, 18 private sector stakeholders) exist.

There are hardly any exchange meetings between representatives of civil society and the government.

Civil society representatives have the opportunity to influence government WASH policy at regular WASH coordination meetings and dialogue sessions.

Annexe 2: Structure Evaluations

1. Executive Summary

1. Brief Summary (Project context & objectives of evaluation)
2. Key findings
3. Key recommendations

2. Table of Contents

1. Acknowledgments
2. Acronyms
3. Table of contents
4. List of Tables & Figures

3. Introduction

1. Project Background
2. Objectives of the study
3. Scope & Limitations of the study

4. Methodology

1. Summary Methodology
2. Operational Context
   1. Context of Study (time, geographical, incl. Map of study region with places of interest indicated)
   2. Field logistics
   3. Quality control
   4. Ethical considerations
3. Sample Design
   1. Sample Design
      1. Sample Size
      2. Selection Criteria
      3. Control group
4. Approaches (incl. list of approaches)
   1. Desk Review (list of literature, sources reviewed)
      1. Secondary Data collection (statistics, data collected by others)
      2. Household Survey
      3. Focus Group Discussions (FGD)
      4. Key Informant Interviews (KII)
      5. Physical Observations (qualitative & quantitative)
      6. UAV, flight & orbital Imagery
      7. Further…
5. Data processing & Analysis
   1. Summary
      1. Validation of data
      2. Analytical Techniques (per indicator)
         1. Outcome Indicator 1
         2. Outcome Indicator 2
         3. Output Indicator 1
         4. Etc.

5. Key findings

1. General Findings (to understand project context)
   1. Household Demographic Characteristics
      1. Sociodemographic findings (if relevant)
      2. Socioeconomic findings (if relevant)
      3. Sociopolitical findings (if relevant)
      4. Further general findings (ecological, cultural, climatic, agricultural, etc.) if relevant (if relevant)
2. Findings Target Values (Logframe)
   1. Logframe with assessed values
      1. Findings per indicator
         1. Outcome Indicator 1
         2. Outcome Indicator 2
         3. Output Indicator 1
         4. Etc.
      2. Elaboration on project achievement
      3. Explanation of deviations from target values
3. Additional Findings of value
   1. Presence and activities of other actors
      1. Risks to the success of the project
      2. Side effects of the project in the project region/target group
      3. Etc.

6. Additional analyses (findings & recommendation)

1. Risk analysis
   1. Project implementation/partner analysis
   2. Stakeholder Analysis
   3. Capacity and Opportunity analysis
   4. Market analysis
   5. Gender analysis
   6. Sustainability Assessment
   7. Further cross cutting issues, etc.

7. Conclusion and recommendations

1. Summary
2. Statement on the project results based on OECD/DAC evaluation criteria
   1. Relevance
      1. Coherence
      2. Effectiveness
      3. Efficiency
      4. sustainability
      5. impact
3. Recommendations

8. Annexes

• Terms of Reference
• bibliography
• Composition and independence of the evaluation team
• Evaluation timeframe and process
• Evaluation Matrix
• List of persons interviewed/ study participants
• List of documents reviewed/references
• Questionnaire and other data/information collection tools
• Collected data
• Minutes of the meetings
• Maps, tables, etc.
• Other, as required