Terms of Reference Final External Evaluation SURGE Project

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference Final External Evaluation SURGE Project Background: Scaling Up Resilience in Governance (SURGE) is a consortium consisting of Christian Aid, Handicap International, Oxfam and Plan International and funded by the European Union humanitarian aid. The SURGE project is an action of EU s DIPECHO programmes in the Philippines and builds on the earlier achievements of the "Scale Up, Build Up" (SUBU) project, and the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response (AADMER) work at the South East Asian regional level. These projects have been aimed at influencing Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) policy and practices, and improving the capacity of Disaster Risk Management (DRM) institutions for increasing the resilience of high risk communities - particularly women, children, persons with disabilities and isolated communities with regard to the increasing disaster risks/climate change impacts in the region. SURGE advocates for the embedment and practice of Inclusive Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction (ICBDRR) models. The aim is to influence the way DRM institutions view DRR implementation in light of post-haiyan realities, as a means of consolidating the achievements of the DIPECHO programme in the Philippines. This has included: National level advocacy and lobbying work to review policy gaps and enhance implementation of relevant laws in the post-haiyan context To push for endorsements or official adoption of ICBDRR. Policy researches and discussions using an ICBDRR lens to inform and support policy advocacy. Subnational replication of ICBDRR models through peer-to-peer (P2P) engagements done in 8 provinces and 4 regions. Foster ICBDRR exemplars & champions as key actors in promoting the ICBDRR models to DRM institutions at the national / sub national levels To contribute to increased public and institutional awareness of inclusive DRR, which includes local government units (LGUs), CSOs, alliances and networks, academic and private sectors knowledgeable in ICBDRR. The specific key result areas the project aimed for are: Inclusive CBDRR learning and Haiyan lessons are embedded in national DRRM policy frameworks and adopted by national DRRM structures Successful DIPECHO experiences, and inclusive CBDRR learning are institutionalized into local DRM frameworks and development sector through peer-to-peer methodologies Inclusive CBDRR models and learning are consolidated, documented, and widely-disseminated to support evidence-based policy advocacy and peer-to-peer replication methodologies The project started in 1 st April 2014 and will close on 31 st December This external evaluation is planned to take place in from December Mid February 2016.

2 Rationale The external evaluation is a requirement for the project as part of the Monitoring, Evaluation Accountability and Learning (MEAL) requirements of the implementing consortium. It is under taken in agreement with the project donor, ECHO, to assess the impact and relevance of the project. Objectives of the evaluation Overall aim The overall objective of this evaluation is to assess the overall achievements and impact of the Project and evaluate the effectiveness of the consortium approach. Specific objectives: Determine the impact by evaluating the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the Project and its value added to the national DRR and development agenda To compile good practices and lesson learnt based on the challenges of the project experience, in terms of programmatic impact, To identify comparative advantage or added value of the consortium programme arrangement as opposed to single organization programme arrangement; To provide recommendation for future programme (including recommendations for the consortia, individual agencies, and the donor). Scope of evaluation The evaluation will cover all aspects of SURGE project and also will cover all the regions and provinces of implementation: Region VI (Western Visayas) Provinces of Iloilo and Antique Region VIII (Eastern Visayas) Provinces of East Samar & West Samar Region XI (Davao) Provinces of Davao Oriental and Compostela Region XIII (Caraga) Provinces of Surigao del Norte, Surigao del Sur and Agusan del Sur Bicol APSEMO training institute National Capital Region Deliverables The expected deliverables of the evaluation are as below: Before data collection: Produce an Inception Report including methods of data collection, and detailed timeframe During data collection: Maintain a summary of meetings and findings from the regional levels and from feedback sessions with other project stakeholders After data collection: Draft and present a final evaluation report not exceeding 50 pages inclusive of annexes, list of documents reviewed, and institutions/people consulted.

3 Scope of Evaluation and Criteria The evaluation team is expected to conduct a participatory evaluation that includes consortium members, implementing Partners, beneficiaries, and other interested parties as applicable. The evaluation will maintain focus on the two themes outlined above impact of the Project and evaluating the consortium approach. The evaluation will be guided by the framework key questions on its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. The evaluation will consider, but not be confined to: Relevance To what extent did the project respond or aligned to the contextual needs (the National DRR policies, priorities and activities undertaken by the government and other development partners or DRR Actors)? Was the project design (activities, financial allocations, project management and execution, supervision and implementation support, and M&E arrangements) appropriate for achieving the project s core objectives? Was the project design participatory, giving consideration to the inputs and needs of key stakeholders, including the government, DRR actors (CSO, private and public) and the expected beneficiaries and their respective organizations? Did the project s objectives remain relevant over the implementation period? Are the intervention strategy and approaches used and overall vision the most adequate for promoting the intended changes that the project set out to achieve Was the project advocacy work at national level, relevant at the time of project implementation? Were there missed opportunities? In the event of significant changes in the project context or in DIPECHO policies, has design been recalibrated? What were the main factors that contributed to the assessment of relevance? (If at all and in particular, what changes in the overall context (e.g. policy framework, institutional set-up, etc.) have affected the project implementation and overall results?) Did the project benefit from available knowledge (for example, the experience of other similar projects in the area or in the country) during its design and subsequent implementation? Efficiency What factors supported project efficiency? Were, work plans being implemented according to plan, monitored, and adapted as necessary? Were the funds availability been used in the most adequate way to achieve the changes proposed? Were the funds adequate and clearly and sufficiently distributed in the design of the project and to the consortiums? Was actual spending in line with the budget? Were synergies with government interventions and other actors taken advantage of sufficiently where it could ensure better project performance? Was the project s extended closing date justified, and were additional administrative costs incurred during the extension period? Were human resources (i.e. individual agencies and consortium level) appropriate, adequate, and efficiently organized (e.g. include considerations of capacity needs and gaps, communications, division and clarity of roles and responsibilities)?

4 Effectiveness Have the intended impact of the project as described in the proposal been achieved? To what extent did the stated objectives and intermediate results been achieved, what has or has not been achieved (both intended and unintended)? Was the project strategy flexible and responsive to address to address short comings during implementation or to make use of opportunities? Which strategies proved to be effective or not? What anticipated and unanticipated factors have promoted or impeded the project s progress? Did the consortium approach provide added value in attaining the project s achievements? To what extent has coordination/communication been effective within and between the consortium members, stakeholders, partners and participants, as well as donor? Were there internal and external communications strategies implemented to good effect (e.g. providing reach and/or spread)? What factors have hindered good communication and coordination? Was sufficient learning component included in the project MEAL system Sustainability: Is there evidence that key factors were identified to the extent necessary to ensure the desired long-term positive impacts of the project? Necessary policy support measures. (Is there a clear indication of institutional commitment after the project close, for example, in terms of provision of funds for selected activities, human resources availability, continuation of participatory and inclusive development approaches, and institutional support? Do sufficient institutional capacities exist to maintain the changes produced? Is there a clear distribution and definition of responsibilities among organisations or individuals (Champions) necessary to ensure continuity of project activities and impact. What measures are being used to guarantee that the positive effects of the interventions are sustainable over time? What external factors are risks to the future sustainability of project s impacts? (e.g. political stability, economic crises and shocks, overall level of development, natural disasters, climate change). Did the project foresee and take measures to ensure resilience to these?

5 Evaluation Time Frame: This evaluation will be undertaken within December 2015 February 2016 The table below presents a tentative timeline for the completion of the different phases of the evaluation. The applicants are expected to provide a detailed timeline along with their methodology. Phase Tentative dates Call for proposal or expression of interest 26 Oct -9 November 2015 Agreement of consultancy proposal, ToRs, budget, timelines and 20 November 2015 contract signing with the selected consultant Preparatory phase: 23 November Briefing with the consultant and teams involved - Desk Review and Consultation of available information Inception report by the external evaluation consultant which includes 11 December 2015 the detailed methodology of all tools for data gathering, detailed work plan and organization of the team. Final Inception report Field phase: Data collection in all the regional locations of the project 14 December -22 January Interviews with stakeholders Presentation of preliminary analysis. This will involve a meeting with 28 January 2016 Stakeholders of the project in which the findings, analysis, conclusions and recommendations are presented for discussion. Draft Evaluation report and recommendations send to Oxfam 1 February 2016 SURGE consortium partners and other key partners comments on the 5 February 2016 draft report Presentation of the evaluation report to the project steering committee 9 February 2016 Final Evaluation report and recommendations after incorporation of 12 February 2016 comments Evaluation responsibilities and management arrangements Responsibilities of Oxfam: Ensure that the SURGE project documentation from all consortium partners is provided to the evaluation team Introduce the consultants to the stakeholders and providing contacts Participate in the discussion about methodology and tools for the data collection and approval Coordinate with SURGE consortium partners for their participation and comments into the draft report Responsibilities of the consultants Reviewing all the documents Production of the tools Presentation of an adjusted work schedule Determining their travel arrangement for all locations Data collection at all levels Presentation of progress reports as agreed with the Project Manager Presenting findings to project stakeholders Producing the final report within 7 days of stakeholder presentation

6 Qualifications of the evaluator/evaluation team This consultancy is for a national consultant and team that have expert in the field of DRR and proven knowledge and understanding of the DRR framework in Philippines At least over 5 years of proven experience in the field of social research and specifically evaluation research and expertise and ease in analytical frameworks and development of data collection tools Proven professional analytical and writing skills Excellent written and verbal communication skills Previous experience in evaluating EU supported projects highly desirable Experience with, and understanding of, the rights-based approach to development Fluency in English Application Requirements The applicant with the right skills and experiences, who are interested in this assignment, should submit the following documents: A letter of interest Curriculum Vitae (CV) Proposed evaluation design/methodology Budget proposal for the evaluation including a table of fees (daily fee for each consultant and total number of working days required to complete the assignment), travel costs to the 5 different regions of the project inclusive the capital region, and all other costs related to execution of the assignment that will be directly provided and managed by the evaluation team. Structure of the evaluation team, including names, roles and detailed CVs showing relevant experience Samples of previous work demonstrating experience and capacity for this advertised assignment The deadline for submission if on 9 November EOIs should be delivered to Oxfam in the Philippines Country 4 th Floor, 150 Corporate Center, 150 Panay Avenue, 1104 Quezon City, Philippines or submitted electronically to pvillarante@oxfam.org.uk