FOR THE PROJECT TITILED: TRANSFORMING LIVES IN THE EAST AND HORN OF AFRICA REGION THROUGH EVIDENCE-BASED ADVOCACY AND CAMPAIGNING FOR PEACEFUL CHANGE.
Background
American Friends Service Committee is a Quaker organization that includes people of various faiths who are committed to social justice, peace, and humanitarian service. Guided by the Quaker belief in the divine light of each person, AFSC works with communities and partners worldwide to challenge unjust systems and promote lasting peace. AFSC has more than 100 years of experience building peace in communities worldwide and works in the following ways: bridging and convening, community organizing and civil society strengthening, advocacy, research, and analysis. It seeks to change situations and systems that lead to violence. Much of AFSC’s work includes support to opportunities for dialogue and capacity building led by the affected communities.
About the Program
The Salama Hub Project is a three-year Joint Project between three International NGOs, the American Friends Service Committee (Consortium lead), All Africa Conference of Churches, and another consortium partner that started in February 2021 and runs till December 2023. The Salama Hub Project is aimed at strengthening the Horn of Africa civil societies, CSOs, (50 CSOs), and faith-based Organizations, FBOs, (25 FBOs), to interact efficiently with other institutional stakeholders in Africa, Europe, and the United States of America in protection of human rights, peacebuilding and stability in the East and Horn of Africa. The Research actions on this project have centered around Hate Speech, the role of women and youth in mediation and negotiations, conflict landscape, and human rights issues, among others.
Africa, specifically the Horn of Africa (HOA) is a region heavily impacted by wars and conflicts. It has witnessed destructive cross-border communal conflicts often triggered by environmental factors, facilitated by porous borders, which are not always respected or recognized by pastoral communities, especially those who belong to ethnic groups split across national boundaries. Conflicts that unfold are closely interconnected and feed into each other by assuming community, national, sub-regional and regional dimensions. Hence, violent conflicts between different communities, disaffected groups, and the state on one hand, and armed movements and the state on the other hand, continue with impunity. Women and girls are bearing the brunt of these concurrent crises, due to prevailing gender inequalities, cultural factors which hinder their participation in peacebuilding efforts and decision-making mechanisms, undermining the integration and inclusivity of women in conflict resolution actions.
The HOA has had its own share of challenges in as far as governance and challenges of peace and security are concerned. States such as Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia continue to face myriad challenges particularly those to do with the difficult terrain of state formation. It is against this background that different theatres of intra-state conflict (civil war, rebellions, and insurgencies; thereby producing hundreds of thousands of refugees and internally displaced persons) persist in these countries. While Sudan has been plunged into conflict between the Sudanese army and Paramilitary
Rapid Support Forces (RSF) amid delicate political transition from an authoritarian past, towards a more liberal democratic present, Ethiopia has also witnessed different waves of internal conflicts with the peace efforts brought in to solve the issues from the international community and the government. Other governance issues have revolved around issues of corruption, human rights abuses, and failure to observe the rule of law in countries such as Sudan, South Sudan, Eritrea, Somalia, Ethiopia and even in Kenya and Uganda (Transparency International, 2022).
Project Goal
• African civil societies interact efficiently with other institutional stakeholders in Africa, Europe, and the United States of America in protection of human rights, peace and stability in the East and Horn of Africa.
Project Objectives
• The newly established support structure serves CSOs as a hub for coordinated advocacy initiatives towards the African Union (AU) and the African Union Commission (AUC), to amplify peacebuilding, divest from conflict systems and militarism, and promote non-violent approaches to instability.
• Constituents’ and civil society’s capacity to advocate towards the power centers/decision makers (such as AU, IGAD, EU, USA, and UN) to influence policy making processes on the Horn of Africa and beyond in an efficient and coherent manner is enhanced.
• Policy makers, organizations and the public are influenced by evidence-based advocacy and research on peace and conflict issues, human rights violations and factors related to instability.
Project indicators
• Indicator 1.1: By the end of the project period, at least 50 CSOs / CSO groups have used the structure for their advocacy work towards the AU/AUC and expressed their satisfaction.
• Indicator 1.2: By the end of the project period 04 peacebuilding-related advocacy initiatives have been undertaken by concerted and coordinated actions of newly established alliances.
• Indicator 2.1: Two priority issues raised by constituents and civil societies influence policy reform at the AU, IGAD, EU and USA.
• Indicator 2.2: At least 80% of trained participants confirm that their newly acquired skills and knowledge resulted in advocacy initiatives, which are characterized by higher levels of expertise, cooperation, and access to policy makers.
• Indicator 3.1: Documents and oral statements used in the coordinated advocacy work in Africa, Europe and the USA reproduce the evidence collected in 05 research activities.
Project beneficiaries: 50 CSOs (1500 persons) and 25 Faith-Based Organizations engaging with the Governments, and regional bodies (AU, IGAD, EU, USA, and UN) to influence policy making processes on the Horn of Africa.
3. Objective and Purpose of the Evaluation
• The objective of the task is to evaluate the project in terms of its OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and trend for sustainability).
• The purpose of the evaluation is to measure the success of the project against its targeted objective and indicators.
• The evaluation aims to pull out the key lessons learnt and to formulate evidence-based recommendations which can be applied within the remaining project period and future programming. Also, the quality of governance and management of the project and organization shall be assessed.
• The planned evaluation is, therefore, meant to track the changes brought about in the Evidence-based Advocacy and Campaigning for Peaceful Change project interventions. Moreover, it is expected to review the project’s role in addressing Evidence-based Advocacy and Campaigning for Peaceful Change in the HOA. Furthermore, the project evaluation shall suggest strategies on the way forward.
• Its results will be used by the implementing agencies, to address the recommendations and use for improvement of project gaps, as well as by the financing partner (Bftw) to evaluate the results of the project.
• Therefore, the evaluation result will be used in determining what to be done in the future in the area and to draw lessons for the development endeavor of implementing partner and HOA, Governments, and policy makers.
3.1 The evaluation is expected to address, but not limited to, the following key evaluation criteria from the DAC Network on Development Evaluation (EvalNet) of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD) and related questions:
Relevance:
Assess the extent to which the project activity is relevant or suited to the priorities of beneficiaries (countries) and the existing government policies and strategies.
➢ To what extent did the project achieve its objectives, and are they still valid?
➢ Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the development goal and the attainment of its objective?
➢ Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the intended impacts and effects?
➢ Was the project relevant to the identified needs?
➢ Were the inputs and strategies identified realistic, appropriate, and adequate to achieve the results?
Efficiency:
Evaluate the project’s results in terms of project efficiency.
➢ Were project activities cost-efficient?
➢ Were project objectives achieved on time?
➢ Was the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternative approaches to achieve the same outputs?
Effectiveness:
Measure the extent to which the project activity is effective in attaining its objectives.
➢ To what extent were the project objective and indicators achieved?
➢ What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
➢ Was the project effective in delivering desired/planned results?
➢ To what extent did the Project’s M&E mechanism contribute to meeting the project results?
➢ How effective were the strategies and tools used in the implementation of the project?
➢ How effective has the project been in responding to the needs of the beneficiaries, and what results were achieved?
➢ – What are the future intervention strategies and issues?
Impact:
Assess the impacts of the project towards the achievement of the project’s objective and the wider scope of development goal.
➢ What has happened because of the project in terms of achieving the results (Impact, Outcomes, Outputs)?
➢ What real difference has the project activity made to the beneficiaries?
➢ How many people have been affected?
Sustainability:
Assess the trend for sustainability of the project’s outcomes.
➢ To what extent did the benefits of a project continue after donor funding ceased?
➢ What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of
Sustainability of the project?
➢ How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational levels to guarantee sustainability?
➢ What are the recommendations for similar support in future to guarantee sustainability?
Organizational effectiveness and efficiency:
➢ To what extent are human resources, quality of work and internal environment including governance adequate in relation to program and external relations?
➢ How effective have management strategies been adopted and implemented?
➢ What has been the role of staff in the planning, monitoring and implementation of the organization?
➢ How effective is the organizational structure and the internal communication /coordination system, the division of roles and functions, the decision-making procedures as well as the representation and participation of staff and beneficiaries in decision making and policy development?
➢ Examine to what extent external factors, such as socio-economic, political, infrastructure, availability of inputs, etc. have adversely affected the implementation of the project.
➢ Examine how far cross cutting issues such as gender, human rights, and inclusion, etc. were addressed by the project.
4. Evaluation Methodology/Design
The evaluator shall use both primary and secondary information, which includes but not limited to:
▪ The geographic scope of this evaluation covers all project countries as described in the project’s mutually binding document.
▪ The evaluator will need to review the approval documents, baseline study reports of AFSC related to the project, progress reports, audit reports, monitoring and annual review meeting reports, summary project budget and other records during the evaluation.
▪ The evaluator will need to review the relevant organizational information or documents, interview with the relevant stakeholders (CSOs across Salama hub).
▪ Key informants’ interviews as needed.
▪ Analyze the lessons learnt; and
▪ Analyze the data quantitatively and qualitatively, present findings and formulate recommendations.
5. Data to be collected & data collection method
Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected from primary & secondary sources. Secondary data will be collected from various published and unpublished documents (like executed research) that are available and implementing partners publishes, studied, researched etc. Primary data will be collected through interviewing beneficiaries, CBOs, FBOs and GOs in the HOA. From these sources, information will be extracted to answer questions listed under section 3.1 above.
6. Composition of the team
❖ The consultant or team should have relevant educational background and experience and have at least an MA/MSc in Human Rights, Peacebuilding, law, Conflict Management, or related profession.
7. Profile of the team
▪ At least 5 years’ experience in conducting project evaluations mainly in peacebuilding and stability and a proven record in delivering professional results.
▪ Fluency in English is required. Knowledge of additional relevant languages, such as Somali, Swahili, or Arabic highly desirable.
▪ Experience in working with INGOs, policy makers, regional agencies like IGAD, AU and executed similar activities in the HOA.
▪ Knowledge of peace building advocacy strategies.
8. Study Duration
The evaluation is expected to be completed in 30 days including field assessment and final report writing.
9. Deliverables
The consultant will summarize and analyze the evaluation & field assessment findings and debrief implementing partners (consortium lead agency-AFSC) immediately after the fieldwork. After the discussion, he/she prepares the report and will submit:
- The draft report of one hard & soft copy to AFSC.
- Upon review and comment on the draft report and debriefing workshop to the Consortium Members (this could be virtual), the consultant will incorporate the comments and prepare & submit hard and soft copies of the endline evaluation report.
The evaluation report shall be written in English (maximum of 25 pages exclusive of annexes) and has to include the following contents:
1) Information Page: Basic organizational data, duration of the project to be evaluated, title of the evaluation, principal of the evaluation (who commissioned the evaluation), contractor of the evaluation and date of the report.
2) Executive summary: tightly drafted, to-the-point, free-standing document (maximum 1.5 pages), including the key issues of the evaluation, main analytical points, conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations.
3) Introduction: purpose of the evaluation, scope of the evaluation and key questions. Short description of the project to be evaluated and relevant frame conditions.
4) Evaluation design/methodology
5) Key results/findings: about the questions pointed out in the TOR and also the projects’ specific intervention components.
6) Conclusions: summary based on evidence and analysis.
7) Recommendations: on the findings leading to suggestions to be used for the way forward
8) Lessons learnt: all relevant information to enable the implementing partners and donor in future programming.
9) Annexes (TOR, instruments used, list of persons/organizations consulted, literature and documentation consulted, copy of any relevant documentation used for the assessment and CVs of the evaluator or evaluation team).
10. Expression of interest
Interested consultants should tender a bidding proposal which clearly highlights the qualifications of the bidder(s), a tentative work plan, the technical approach, and a detailed financial budget breakdown of the consultancy fee.
The bidding proposal shall be delivered to AFSC, Zenebech Shamebo (Ms.), [email protected] and Yomif Worku (Mr.), [email protected] by September 22, 2023.
Successful proposals must contain:
• CVs of the evaluator or evaluation team.
• Proofs of experience (testimonial) renewed legal licence, VAT registration and TIN/PIN number or as per applicant’s country Tax Regulations.
• Explanation and justification of the evaluation methodology.
• Description of the how cross-cutting issues of gender, age, poverty, and social inclusion will be considered.
• Tentative work plan.
• Financial proposal with a breakdown into costs such as consultancy fee and ancillary costs such as transport, accommodation, other fees.
