Mid-term evaluation Consultant | ReliefWeb

TERMS OF REFERENCE

· Country: Kenya

· Location : Kenya, Dadaab refugee complex and Nairobi

· Starting date: 15.01.2018

· Duration of the field mission: 21 days

· Time dedicated to the desk review and to the writing of the report:?

· Under responsibility of: Marie Joron, Country Representative

· HQ follow-up: Rolland Gueneau and Alessandra Tomirotti

· Funding Sources for the evaluation: BPRM

PRESENTATION OF TERRE DES HOMMES (Tdh)

· In general

Tdh is the leading Swiss NGO focusing on child rights. It is active in more than 30 countries with development and emergency projects. Tdh focuses its action on the two following areas of intervention: health and protection of particularly vulnerable children. Modern management and communication tools ensure the quality of Tdh’s projects. The Foundation constantly aims to improve its services.

· Brief presentation of Tdh in Kenya

Tdh started operations in Kenya in September 2011, as part of the response to the Horn of Africa famine. Since 2012, Tdh has provided direct aid to refugees in Dadaab’s Kambioos (closed in March 2017) and Hagadera refugee camps, though psychosocial support, recreational activities, case management, community mobilization and awareness

In addition, Tdh implements Maternal and Child Health Nutrition and Child Protection projects in partnership with the government in Garissa district, and Child Protection projects in Nairobi’s Korogocho slum.

Tdh is currently the only Child Protection services provided in Hagadera camp, funded by BPRM and UNICEF (and UNHCR from 1st January 2018). Tdh works in coordination with Save the Children which is the Child Protection agency in the 3 other camps of Dagahaley, Ifo and Ifo 2 impending closure of Ifo 2 camp, slated for March 2018.

Tdh"s national coordination office is located in Nairobi. Two field offices are located respectively in Dadaab (e.g Dadaab Main Office - DMO) and in Hagadera camp to ensure the implementation and the coordination of the activities. The Tdh office in Garissa will also support Dadaab field activities in terms of security management, liaison with the local authorities, administrative and logistics support.

Several underlying risk factors related to the Dadaab refugee camps create uncertainty. The Kenyan government (GoK) announced the closure of Dadaab camps in May 2016, suppressing the prima facie for Somali nationals, ending registration of refugees / asylum seekers. The GoK continues to put pressure on camp closure, and steps are already underway to close Ifo 2 camp (the smallest) by March 2018 (as announced by UNHCR during several inter-agency meetings / workshops). The plan is to close one camp at a time, consolidating the population after each closure. Other than Ifo 2, there is no clear timeline, stoking fears of eventual refoulment.

Continued instability in Somalia may bring additional New Arrivals and Returnees, which would also put pressure on resources, and limit the humanitarian community’s ability to effectively respond to current and emerging needs. The recent reduction of food rations by 30% stretches the already meagre resources in families, especially if they share with undocumented asylum-seekers. The uncertainty around camp closure and its implications, along with food reductions, create an environment of anxiety and tensions (more or less violent) between local host communities and humanitarian agencies (especially UNHCR). Indeed, the consolidation exercise with the plan to stretch the existing infrastructure, resources, and services have created tensions among the local host communities who see the camp as an economic development opportunity, especially in terms of job creation. Tensions are especially felt between local (Somali) and non-local (inpatriate staff). In order to decrease tension, UNHCR talks more and more about possible local socio-economic integration of the refugee, using the model of Kakuma / Kalobeyei approach and the next funding of the World Bank to GoK who will be channelled to the Counties administration.

The presence of undocumented asylum-seekers, including new arrivals and returnees (those who returned after repatriation) is a source of multiple protection concerns. The number of Undocumented residents is speculative; the official UNHCR figure is 5,300, while other estimates are two to three times higher. Since 2013, the GoK has prohibited the registration of New Arrivals, while Returnees are not issued refugee ID cards, rendering both populations without access to food rations, shelter, and other services requiring a card.

PRESENTATION OF THE PROJECT TO BE EVALUATED

• Title: Transferring enhanced child protective capacities to children and caregivers of Hagadera camp in preparation for eventual voluntary repatriation


• Start: 23^rd May 2017


• Duration: 12 months


• Total budget: 1,200,000 USD


• Stakeholders,

· Donors : BPRM, UNICEF and UNHCR

· INGOs partners : Save the Children (SCI), IRC, DRC

· Local authorities: host communities leaders, refugee representatives, RAS (Refugee Affairs Secretary)

· Project beneficiaries : Hagadera camp population, local host villagers

• General and specific objectives: The children of Hagadera camp are free from harm within the camp through enhanced participation and agency of children and caregivers.

Specific Objective 1: Protection Preparation for Return: To increase the child protective capacities of 30,000 parents/caregivers at section level in Hagadera camp in view of ongoing VolRep and intended camp closure, by May 2018.

Specific Objective 2: Response for Enhanced Resilience: To provide immediate and urgent comprehensive support to current and emerging child protection needs for 5,000 children in Hagadera camp through BIDs, referrals, counseling, case management, and structured recreation, by May 2018.

Specific Objective 3: Participation and Advocacy: To strengthen the engagement and participation of 20,000 children, with a focus on 8,920 adolescent boys and girls in Hagadera camp in their own protection through targeted trainings and community participation, by May 2018.

• Target population of the project: 60,000 refugees as direct beneficiaries – 65,000 indirect beneficiaries

· Objectives, expected results and activities of the project: see BPRM proposal in annex 1 and Q2 interim Report in annex 2 for the update on activities and results achieved during the first 6 months of the project

• System of monitoring evaluation forecasted in the project documents: 8 weeks final evaluation (changed to be separated as mid-term and final evaluation), quarterly reports and monthly update of the internal monitoring tool (see annex 6).

GENERAL OBJECTIVE OF THE EVALUATION

Half way through its implementation, assess the project and provide recommendation to propose next project activities with a more accurate and sustainable response.

The will of making an evaluation in January / February 2018 is to have a clear external view of the achievement of the present activities and recommendations on how Tdh could improve their relevance, efficiency, impact, effectiveness and sustainability for the next project.

In another hand the context of implementation is very specific (camp consolidation, reduction of funds, Voluntary Repatriation vs local socio-economic integration, host communities’ anger and frustration) and a specific strategy has to be developed.

SPECIFIC OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

· Objective 1: mid-term evaluation of the project

ü Result 1: The project activities are evaluated trough the following criteria relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and midterm impact (definitions in annex 3) .

• Result 2: Recommendations for improving each of the criteria are shared




• Result 3: A suggested action plan corresponding to each recommendation is included in the evaluation report.

· Objective 2: evaluation of the delegation propositions for the strategic orientation of the next project to be submitted to BPRM in March 2018.

· Questions to be answered by the evaluation (with explanations and recommendations for possible adjustments):

· Relevance

-Was a clear rationale provided for the selected intervention activities?

- Were the design of the intervention (logical framework) and its objectives relevant to the context and to the needs of the target beneficiaries?

-To what extent are the services provided within the framework of the intervention able to address the real needs of the beneficiaries?

· Effectiveness

- Is the intervention being implemented according to plan? If not, why and what is done about it

- To what extent are the objectives likely to be achieved?

· Efficiency

- Does the implementation of the intervention make effective use of time and resources (financial, human) to achieve results?

- Is the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?

· Impact:

- Have any negative impacts (mid or long term) been observed or foreseen?

- What real difference have the activities made to the beneficiaries?

· Sustainability:

- Considering the specific context and the limited factors, to which extend sustainability can be integrated in the project actions?

METHODOLOGY

The evaluation process will be divided in 2 parts linked to the two objectives. The major part of the evaluation will be dedicated to the Objective1 (15 days) and 5 days for the Objective 2.

Overall evaluation approach and data collection methods proposed:

• Preparation phase: Secondary data review, briefing with Tdh personnel at headquarter and at Nairobi, meeting key stakeholders in the capital, writing an inception report for evaluation stating the sources of information, tools for collection. The methodological proposition of evaluation must allow a mutual understanding between the Tdh teams and the consultant, regarding the objectives, scope, time and expected results of the evaluation.




• Field phase (Dadaab and Hagadera camp): Meeting key stakeholders, especially local authorities, refugee representatives, beneficiaries and other relevant people (from IRC, SCI, DRC, UNHCR, RAS etc) using individual questionnaire and Focus Group Discussions (FGD).




• Analysis and debriefing phase: The results and preliminary conclusions will be presented to the Tdh teams and partners (UNHCR, BPRM representatives for instance) at field level. A debriefing in the capital and headquarter will be organized (if necessary via Skype) to discuss the results and the recommendations.

DELIVERABLES

Writing of a report in English including:

• One executive summary (3-4 pages max)




• One narrative report (max 30 pages)




• One table with the main conclusions and recommendations (separate short, medium and long term) and the lessons learned.




• A section of the report on recommendations for the next project including a draft logical framework




• Technical appendices containing the technical details of the evaluations as well as the terms of reference, the questionnaire models, check list and canvas interviews, potential tables or graphs, references and other sources, people and institutions contacted, a Power Point presentation of the results.

The following documents will be delivered before the departure from the delegation: recommendation table, main recommendations for the next project and draft logical framework.

A first draft will be provided 5 days after the end of the field visit and final version 5 days after Tdh feedbacks.

DURATION AND DATES

3 weeks, from 5^th to 25^th February 2018

BUDGET

Indicative fees: 200 USD/day, with accommodation, professional travel and other logistic costs covered by Tdh. Tdh does not provide or arrange life and health insurance coverage for consultants.

PROFILE OF THE CONSULTANT

• Minimum 5 years proven experience in relief/development project evaluation


• Preferably he/she should have a broad working experience in refugee camp context, in Kenya and in Dadaab is a plus


• Experience in collaborating with government officials, representatives of bilateral aid agencies, UN agencies, and other international institutions.


• Fluent English and good writing skills (the report should be in English)

· Swahili and Somali an asset

· Previous experience working with a child protection organisation is compulsory, preferably with Tdh

He/she will conduct his or her duties in respect of the Charter of Terre des hommes and the Tdh Child Safeguarding Policy.

Tdh expects that its contractors’ professional conduct reflects proper behaviour in accordance with local culture and traditions. The incumbent assures the moral protection of the name of Tdh and defends in all circumstances the interests of the movement.

Tdh intervenes without any affiliation for politics, religion or financial profit. He/she will direct his or her activities and engagements without preoccupation of political, racial or religious affiliation.

PROCEDURES AND LOGISTICS

The consultant shall commit to respect Tdh’s Risk Management Policies including: Child Safeguarding Policy, Safety and Security Policy and Anti-Fraud/Corruption Policy, Whistle Blowing Policy. The consultant immediately agrees to respect all specific security instructions of Tdh and based on Tdh security analysis and knowledge of the zone and those involved there. The consultant shall commit to inform supervisors and to deal with any cases, allegations, or possibility of transgression, even potential, of the Tdh Risk Management Policies.

No data can be used by the consultant concerning this study without the written permission of Tdh for a duration of 5 years. The consultant acting as service provider will make sure to present himself as such for all discussions held within the framework of the consultancy.

· Working hours, holidays: from 8am to 5pm, 5 days a week with a break of 1 hour for lunch

· Conditions that may influence data collection: if any demonstration or security incident happened, evaluation might be impacted as the consultant won’t be able to access Hagadera camp

· Availability and provision of services (local translators): Tdh staff would support translation when needed (English/Swahili/Somali)

· Availability and provision of office space, cars, laptops, tape recorders, and procedures for arranging; meetings, requirements for debriefings: No computer or laptop provided to the evaluator, a desk will be available. Transport from Nairobi to Dadaab and in Hagadera camp will be managed by Tdh. Based on the evaluator preliminary note, Tdh team will propose a meeting schedule that might evolve regarding constraints and availability of the people to be met.

ANNEXES

· Annex 1 - BPRM 4 Proposal

· Annex 2 – BPRM 4 Quarter 1 and Quarter 2 reports

· Annex 3 - OECD DAC criteria definitions http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentas...

· Annex 4 - Tdh Kenya Security Plan

· Annex 5 - ECHO Grant Application Form

· Annex 6 - Tdh Kenya Monitoring tool

· Annex 7 - UNHCR Dadaab CP project proposal