TOR Final Evaluation CBHFA and National Society Development, Côte d Ivoire Summary

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "TOR Final Evaluation CBHFA and National Society Development, Côte d Ivoire Summary"


1 Final Evaluation of "Community based Health and First Aid (CBHFA) project in Bondoukou, Côte d Ivoire in and Croix-Rouge Côte d Ivoire National Society Development Summary 1.1 Purpose: Evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the FRC supported CBHFA project and support given to National Society Development, to determine the level of impact reached in relation to the objectives and expected results. 1.2 Audience: Croix-Rouge de Côte d Ivoire (CRCI), Finnish Red Cross (FRC) and Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (MFA), other Red Cross partners working in Côte d Ivoire, CRCI s stakeholders including Ministry of Health. 1.3 Commissioner: This external evaluation is commissioned by the Finnish Red Cross in compliance with the FRC learning and evaluation framework and in cooperation with CRCI. 1.4 Duration of evaluation: 3-4 weeks, including meetings, travel time between Abidjan / Bondoukou, preparatory desk review, field visits, other working days (briefs, report writing). Estimated time needed for field visit, including local and international travel days, is 14 days. Rest of the schedule is to be refined by the consultant in the tender. 1.5 Time frame: Mid-February Mid-March 2019 (TBC) 1.6 Location: Helsinki, Finland and Abidjan & Bondoukou Côte d Ivoire 2. Background Finnish Red Cross (FRC) started its bilateral cooperation with the Côte d Ivoire Red Cross (Croix-Rouge de Côte d Ivoire, CRCI) in Before that the support was channeled through the IFRC. The first bilateral project was implemented from 2013 to 2015 and it was evaluated in After the first bilateral CBHFA project, FRC continued to support CRCI with a new CBHFA phase in eight villages in Gontougo region from 2016 until the end of The mid-term evaluation of the project, which was conducted in 2017 concluded that the communities were largely satisfied with the project, the project was judged to be mostly on track in terms of attaining its objectives, the level of efficiency of the project was average and that there would still be some work to do in terms of sustainability of results and in obtaining the expected results in branch capacity building. While most of the project activities are finalized by the end of 2018, the endline assessment and final evaluation will be carried out at the beginning of Simultaneously with the CBHFA projects, FRC has supported the National Society Development (NSD) of the CRCI since During the support focused on improving the governance and management, assisting with the national society s decentralization (including notably piloting of community section establishment) and branch development process as well as youth and volunteering incl. gender and diversity development. FRC will continue supporting the CRCI National Society during , and the recommendations and lessons learned from this evaluation will feed into the NSDsupport during /8

2 Partnership discussions have been held in 2017 and 2018 to assess the collaboration between FRC and CRCI and to strengthen the relationship between the two National Societies. In 2018 the discussion focused mainly on appreciating current relationship and planning the National Society Development support for Project Summary CBHFA The Community-Based Health and First Aid project (CBHFA) is one of the core programmes of CRCI. The Community-Based Health and First Aid (CBHFA) approach was adopted to ensure the project would contribute to reduce the vulnerabilities and to build resilient communities that are empowered to address their own vulnerabilities, and to enhance resilience to the impact of disease outbreaks. The epidemics have over the years been detrimental to the livelihoods of people who are already underprivileged and succumbing to recurrent natural disasters. The CBHFA approach has thus been adopted to ensure participation of communities and individuals in activities such as health and hygiene awareness and sensitization on specific health and safety tips. The project has also an additional water and sanitation (WATSAN) component that aims to build latrines to the supported communities and eight school pit latrines with female and male pit latrines with hand washing facilities. In addition the project has constructed and rehabilitated water points in selected villages. The goal, specific objectives and expected outcomes of the CBHFA for the time period of are summarized as follows: Goal: Contribute to improving community resilience to public health and disasters Specific objective 1: Strengthen capacities of 1675 household members in the 8 target villages by improving the knowledge, attitudes and practices on public health issues by the end of 2018 Specific objective 2: Build capacity of communities on disaster risk reduction and disaster management Specific objective 3: Strengthen National Society s capacity to assist vulnerable communities N Villages POP NBRE MENAGES 1 GANKRO GBANE WAKIALA POUGOUVAGNE SOGOBO LEDI GNANGOMAMI WANGALE TOTAL National Society Development During the support to National Society Development has focused on the priorities identified by the CRCI. Goal: To qualitatively, quantitatively and in a sustainable manner improve CRCI s actions in supporting vulnerable populations in the country. Specific objective 1: Improve the governance and management of the National Society Specific objective 2: Increase National Society s own resources in order to ensure its ability to cover its basic costs (this objective has been supported by the Netherlands Red Cross) Specific objective 3: Establish decentralized, viable and functional structures for human resources and volunteer management Specific objective 4: Attract and retain volunteers and especially youth Specific objective 5: Take into account the gender and diversity issue in all the activities 3.Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation The purpose of this final evaluation is to carry out an assessment to measure the relevance, effectiveness, sustainability, coherence and impact of the Projects. The recommendations of the evaluation will contribute to the organizational learning of the Partners. The evaluation is to focus particularly on: 2/8

3 - Assessing the positive or negative, intended or unintended, direct or indirect impact of the project, on the targeted populations compared to the baseline and mid-term evaluation reports of the CBHFA project and provide reason for achievement or non-achievement of project outcomes; - Evaluating the level of sustainability of both projects and the effectiveness of the exit strategies in target areas; - Assessing the effectiveness of the organizational set-up of the program and the collaboration between Red Cross units (CRCI HQ, FRC HQ, Branch staff, coaches, volunteers, FRC delegates). FRC will continue to support CRCI s National Society Development until the end of 2020, and therefore the learning and recommendations are expected to contribute to the National Society support. The scope of the evaluation is defined as: Time period and geographic coverage: The evaluation period will cover and all project locations in Bondoukou (eight villages, four of which will be visited). Target groups: Direct beneficiaries of the project; Organisational scope: Organisational levels of the CRCI; volunteers and community groups, branch staff and headquarters staff. Role and cooperation of external stakeholders; including MoH; local authorities, etc. The support role of FRC 4. Evaluation Objectives and Criteria Specific objectives Key evaluation questions are draft questions and will be finalized with FRC and CRCI before field assignment takes place. Please note that these are guiding questions and the evaluation team is not limited to these questions. The evaluation team can elaborate main evaluation questions and present them in the inception report. The specific objectives to be addressed in this evaluation are: - To carry out an assessment to measure the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, coherence and impact of the Projects; - To assess achievements of the project outcomes and reveal reasons for their achievement/nonachievements verified in the endline; - To highlight good practices and provide recommendations for further improvement in the project cycle management to increase effectiveness, efficiency, relevance or impact; - To highlight good practices and provide recommendations for effective NSD support; - To provide recommendations on continued relationship after the current project-funded cooperation; - to provide recommendations on the effective partnership approach in order to effectively achieve the project outcomes The objectives are to be studied against the following evaluation criteria guided by the key questions: 1. Relevance of the CBHFA project and National Society Development support Assess if the objectives of the CRCI project are meeting the needs, strategies/priorities and policies of (a) CRCI, (b) FRC and (c) target communities How the programme selected target beneficiaries? Were the criteria for targeting appropriate to the needs and context and to what extent was targeting community led? To what extent did target communities participate in the planning, design and implementation of the programme? To what extent the financial and technical support was adequate for the context and development stage of the partner? What worked well, what could have worked better? Considering the project planning in the future, is there a need to change implementation and/or direction modalities? 3/8

4 Regarding the NSD, was the support provided relevant for CRCI s capacity development needs? 2. Effectiveness of the CBHFA project and National Society Development support Assess to what extent the programme objectives have been reached? Have activities been sufficient to realise agreed objectives? Assess the technical quality of key programme activities. Have the capacity building support and trainings contributed to the effectiveness of the project activities? Have the trainings provided to the coaches and volunteers resulted in increased effectiveness and sustainability of the project? Were the recommendations of the Mid-Term Evaluation and the Final Evaluation of the previous phase of the CBHFA taken into account when planning and implementing the project? Is it likely that the recommendations contributed to improved effectiveness of the project? 3. Efficiency of the CBHFA project and National Society Development support How well have the resources been used to produce achievements and results? Were activities cost-efficient? Was the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives? Were objectives achieved on time? What has been the value added of the delegates for the project? 4. Potential impact of the CBHFA project and National Society Development support What has happened/changed as a result of the project? What impact did the project have on the support provided to the vulnerable in the targeted areas? What were the factors that enabled or hindered the wanted impact? How did the branch capacity building efforts contribute to the potential impact of the CBHFA project? Define how the project contributed to community development beyond the Red Cross activities and empowerment of communities. What is the contribution of the NSD project if there is noticeable improvement of CRCI s service delivery? What has been the impact of the pilot to establish community sections? 5. Sustainability of the projects outcomes Assess the extent to which viable exit and sustainability strategies have been sufficiently elaborated in the initial planning of the programme. This includes an analysis of prerequisites and measures to achieve sustainability of the programme. How sustainable are the projects outcomes? In particular, to what extent are the projects outcomes functioning thanks to the projects? Identify the factors that may influence sustainability in the short, medium and long-term. What activities are likely to be continued following withdrawal of the programme from target areas? 6. Inclusion of the cross-cutting issues Assess the extent of application of cross-cutting issues: Protection, Gender and Inclusion (PGI) Gender Equality and Social Inclusion (GESI) and Climate Sustainability. 4/8

5 Is the project addressing the different needs of the beneficiaries/communities in a consistent manner? I.e. is the project considering the different needs of women, men, girls and boys, different social and ethnic groups as well as disability issues? How have the participation and engagement of the different groups been ensured during the project cycle according to the CEA principles? What measures have the projects been taking to contribute towards reduction of inequalities? 7. Partnership and capacity building How has the project contributed to the partnership between the two partners? Have there been impact and implications of the project cooperation on the relationships of the two National Societies? How has the project strengthened capacities of the partners? Have the capacity building efforts within the project strengthened the National Society? Has the project cooperation contributed to development of local partnerships and improvement of networking with other local actors and thus contributed to sustainability of activities? 8. Coherence How does the FRC support fit with support provided by Movement and local partners and internal National Society resources (national level programmes)? Value added of the FRC support among other partners providing support to the National Society? How does the FRC support fit with support provided by Movement and local partners and internal National Society resources (national level programmes)? Value added of the FRC support among other partners providing support to the National Society? 5. Evaluation Methodology The evaluation will use e.g. the following data sources: Project plans, logical framework, budget; Project reports (quarterly, annual), monitoring reports, mid-term evaluation, workshop reports, stakeholder meeting reports, Indicator tracking sheet; Baseline and end line survey results; Specific project related documentation: programmes of organised trainings etc.; Relevant CRCI guidelines and policies; Government policies and strategies (Health, Water and Sanitation, community development) FRC mission and monitoring reports; Reference documents: IFRC CBHFA framework, Gender and Social Inclusion Minimum requirements, IFRC National Society Development Framework, IFRC Development Cooperation Policy. Methodology: The evaluator must adopt a consultative and participative approach. Inclusion of all participants, either directly or through their true representatives, is considered essential hence the evaluation methods will be varied accordingly to facilitate this participation. Evaluation should cover all organisational levels of the CRCI: female and male community volunteers (Red Cross volunteers) female and male Red Cross Youth (RCYs), district-based project staff, branch and sub-branch and representatives and headquarters staff from relevant departments. Methods of data collection and analysis are to be discussed and defined by the evaluation team but suggestions should be included in the application of the evaluator. Methods of data collection and analysis can include for example - Briefing at the FRC to discuss the ToR and the time schedule - Briefing at CRCI Headquarters 5/8

6 - Desk study of relevant project documents and reports - Interview and focus group discussions with CRCI HQ, Branch staff members, volunteers and Youths; - Visits to the project sites, observations, transit walk, beneficiary interviews, - Focal/ Focus Groups interviews with beneficiaries - Interviews with relevant stakeholders such as Heads of project-related departments, and management board and other relevant authorities and stakeholders (all aggregated by sex) All findings should be evidence based. The methodology used and the possible limitations should be explained in the final evaluation report. 6. Deliverables The evaluation Team Leader will provide: 1. An inception report by the Team Leader following the desk work and prior to the mission to demonstrate a clear understanding and realistic plan of work for the evaluation. The inception report outlines how s/he will lead the evaluation, work plan and detailing the planned methodology. Acceptance from the FRC Quality Group. 2. A kick-off meeting with the partner National Society 3. A debriefing [meeting] in country to the CRCI management and key project stakeholders at the end of the mission to discuss the initial findings, conclusions and recommendations. The team will produce a memo on debriefing with the partner National Society prior to departure. Feedbacks from the debriefing will be integrated in the evaluation report. 4. A draft final evaluation report within two weeks after return from the field visit. The draft will be shared with the CRCI and other relevant stakeholders for comments. The comments from the FRC and the relevant stakeholders to be forwarded to the Team Leader within two weeks after receiving the draft. 5. A final (corrected) evaluation report to be submitted to the FRC within 2 weeks of receiving the comments. The report will have a maximum length of 20 pages, including an Executive Summary. The report will include recommendations to the CRCI, FRC and possibly to other stakeholders. Approval for the report from the FRC and CRCI. 6. A presentation of the evaluation report at the FRC International Operations and Programmes by the Team Leader/Evaluation Manager (modality of the presentation TBC) 7. Proposed Timeline The evaluation team will be engaged for approximately three to four weeks during mid-february mid-march (TBC). The following work breakdown shows required activities and deliverables. It is up to the consultant to define the number of days used for each activity (except for the field visit, including the travel days). Activities Briefing with FRC Team (in Skype or meeting) Desk review Development of inception report - and data collection/analysis plan and schedule, draft methodology, and data collection tools. In-country evaluation: Briefing on the context and background at the NS HQ, kick-off meeting. Evaluation team building and evaluation programme. Preparation of data collection tools. In-country evaluation: interviews, field trips. Duration, (pls.provide breakdown of the activities and number of days used for each activity in tender with the daily fee) 14 days total, including local and international travel days 6/8 Deliverables Briefing with the relevant FRC staff. Background information Data collection and analysis Inception report Completed questionnaires and other data collection tools. Key informant interviews

7 Debriefing meeting on initial findings, conclusions, and recommendations at the NS HQ. Data analysis and drafting evaluation report. [Agreement on the timeline to finalise the report within the evaluation team]. Submission of the draft final report to the FRC. [Debriefing at the FRC HQ to present the main findings, conclusions, and recommendations. A presentation of the evaluation report at the FRC IOP.] Modality of the debriefing TBC. Revision and submission of the final evaluation report by the Team Leader. Debriefing presentation. Comments from the NS. Draft version of evaluation report. Final draft of evaluation report. First comments from the FRC. Final Report 9. Evaluation Team and Qualifications. The evaluation team will consist of: External consultant who will act as a Team Leader. The team leader will be responsible for the coherence of the evaluation report. Team Leader position is the only position to be filled through the tendering process. Additional members will be nominated by each partner (CRCI, FRC) as their representatives to act as resource persons facilitating the conduct of the evaluation. The evaluation team will report to the Evaluation Manager at the FRC. The contract for the consultancy will be awarded based on the received offers. The most economically advantageous tender will be selected. The most economically advantageous tender is evaluated according to weighing (%). Price 40% Working experience 25% Solid technical knowledge and experience of community-based development programmes Evaluation experience and methodology 25% Proven experience in evaluating development cooperation projects Evaluation methodology (presented in the application letter, maximum 2 pages) Knowledge of Red Cross/Crescent Movement 10% TOTAL 100% All the candidates must have excellent oral and written skills in French and English; conducted at least two previous evaluations and must provide copies of the evaluation reports; University Degree in relevant field of study (e.g. health, water and sanitation, disaster management), several years of experience in the development, conduct, coordination, monitoring and evaluation of programs. 10. Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards The evaluator should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards of the IFRC. The IFRC Evaluation Standards are: Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation. Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency. 7/8

8 Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation. It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality. Further information can be obtained about these principles at: Application Procedures The applicants are requested to submit their maximum 2-page applications with updated CV and two reference examples of evaluation reports they have done by to If you have any questions, please contact Jaana Villberg by on 11 th or 14 th January. The application should include examples of strategies and methodologies the team leader would propose for the evaluation. The application shall also indicate two reference persons that can be consulted. The applicants are requested to indicate in their tender the daily consultancy fee for the total length of mission, including in-country working days, providing breakdown for each expected activity and deliverable. The FRC will cover the flights and costs during the field trip as per FRC travel regulations. The consultant is expected to assume full responsibility for adequate travel insurance coverage and for paying any social charges due to a consultancy fee. The selection of the consultant is based on the qualifying criteria listed above (item 9). 8/8