Terms of Reference Final Evaluation of COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN KRATIE and COMMUNITY-BASED DISASTER RISK REDUCTION PROJECT IN KAMPONG THOM 1. Summary 1.1 Purpose: Evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency of the two projects and to determine the level of impact reached in relation to the objectives and expected results. 1.2 Audience: Cambodian Red Cross (CRC), Finnish Red Cross (FRC), Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland (MFA) and key stakeholders. 1.3 Commissioners: This external evaluation is commissioned by the FRC in cooperation with the CRC. 1.4 Duration of evaluation: 26 days 1.5 Time frame: June-July 2016 1.6 Location: Cambodia 2. Background The Cambodian Red Cross (CRC) and Finnish Red Cross (FRC) have been partnering since the early 1990 s. Over the years, FRC has contributed multilaterally through the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) to CRC s organizational development, health and disaster management programmes. In 2010 National Societies signed a bilateral agreement of the implementation of Communitybased Health and First Aid project in Kratie province. Also in mid-2010, FRC expanded its partnership with CRC to support the Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction project in Kampong Thom province through the IFRC. The partnership modality changed into bilateral mode in 2013, which was the first year of the FRC s 3-year (2013-2015) development cooperation programme scheme with the MFA. Within this framework, the FRC continued to support two CRC projects: Community-based Health Development project in Kratie (2013-2015) and Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) project in Kampong Thom (2013-2015). In June 2014 Kampong Chhnang province was included to CBDRR programme with a specific focus on Red Cross Youth engagement in CBDRR. Both 3-year projects with integrated elements of health and DM can be described as integrated projects that contribute to building the resilience of people and their communities by improving the health status of the population (focus area specifically in Community-based Health Development project) and reducing the impact of the disasters (focus area specifically in CBDRR project). Outcomes and outputs/results of each project is presented in the table as follows: Community-based Health Development (CBHFA) OUTCOMES 1. To improve wellbeing of vulnerable communities exposed to disaster and health related issues. Community-based Disaster Risk Reduction (CBDRR) 1. The CBDRR targeted areas are responsive to, and have capacity in disaster risks reduction and climate change adaptation in linkage to local development. 1
2. The Kratie Red Cross Branch has increased its capacity to deliver the high quality services to higher number of vulnerable people. OUTPUTS/RESULTS 1.1 Health knowledge, behaviour practises at household level improved through related RC volunteer activities. 1.2 CBHFA approach used and adapted for more effective volunteer trainings and sustainable behavioural change in communities. 1.3 Community members are aware of the process of preparedness and response for the disaster. 2.1 Kratie branch/ selected sub-branches have strengthen its human power and structural capacity. 2.2 Well functioning PMER system established based on CBHFA standard tools. 2.3 Red Cross youth clubs established to promote health, non-communicable diseases and disaster preparedness and risk reduction messages and other activities. 1.1 CBDRR is perceived, adopted and applied by targeted communities. 1.2 The ability of Communities to effectively prepare for and respond to disasters is improved. 1.3 The institutional link of CRC branch(s) with stakeholders related to DM/ DRR is strengthened. 1.4 The capacity development of CRC branch, subbranch & local network is enhanced through CBDRR. CBHFA project in Kratie province has been implemented in ten communes (48 villages) in the area of three districts namely Prek Prasob, Chhlong and Chitrakborei. Since 2013 the project has started to phase out from altogether 16 villages. Women and children under five as well as other vulnerable groups (elderly people and people with disabilities) are specifically targeted by the project interventions. Some of the key stakeholders of the project include local authorities, such as Provincial Health Department (PHD) and Provincial Rural Development Department (PDRD) officials. CBDRR project has been implemented in Kampong Thom province targeting six villages in two communes of Kampong Svay district, and seven villages in one commune in Rolear Phaer district in Kampong Chhnang Province, the latter since June 2014 1. All people living in target villages are expected to benefit from the project directly. Key stakeholders of the project as described in the project plan include Commune Committee for Disaster Management (CCDM) and Commune Council (CC), Provincial Hydrology and River Work Department (PHRWD), Provincial/District Committee for Disaster Management secretariat (P/DCDM), Provincial/District Department of Education, Youth and Sport (PDEYS), Provincial and District Health Department, Provincial/ District Department of Agriculture, Forestry and Fishery, Department of Rural Development (PDRD), Department of Planning (PDP), Caritas, HOM and Oxfam. 3. Purpose and Scope of the Evaluation The purpose of the evaluation is to analyze and comment on the achievements and impact of CBHFA and CBDRR projects. The evaluation will identify significant factors that are facilitating or impeding the implementation of the projects and the delivery of their outcomes. Special attention should be paid to the cross-cutting issues, specifically gender and social inclusion and climate change adaptation. Over the recent years CRC has been moving towards integrated programming and FRC has been supporting CRC s efforts to actively integrate practices in risk reduction and health promotion within the framework of two supported projects. Integration process started by linking the health and DRR projects together during 1 Kampong Chhnan component will not be part of the end of project evaluation. 2
the 2013-2015 implementation period. Resilience thinking and aims of further integration of different project components and approaches have guided also the planning of the 2016-2018 projects. Therefore, this evaluation is also expected to lead to recommendations and lessons learned for the future especially in terms of how to continue the further integration of the activities and program approaches and how to support the branch capacity building as an integral part of the project implementation. Evaluation upholds FRC commitment to accountability and organizational learning and will be used while programming new initiatives that contribute to building the resilience of people and their communities. The evaluation will cover a period of 2013 2015 and will be conducted in all project areas taking into consideration relevant time and logistics limitations. 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 CRC: female and male community volunteers (Red Cross volunteers) female and male Red Cross Youth (RCYs), district based project staff, branch and sub-branch and where applicable, representatives and headquarters staff from relevant departments. Evaluation outcomes will be shared with FRC and CRC who in turn will take the responsibility of disseminating the outcomes to relevant interested parties, including target communities. FRC will be responsible of sharing the outcome with the Ministry for Foreign Affairs of Finland. The outcomes are expected to provide lessons learned and concrete recommendations to guide FRC and CRC future programmes and to influence the ways of working in resilience mode. 4. Evaluation Objectives and Criteria 4.1. Objectives The main objectives of the evaluation are: - Review the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the projects by reviewing the outputs achieved in relation to inputs provided, and the outcomes achieved as a result of project outputs delivered to date. - To highlight good practices and provide recommendations for further improvement in the design, delivery, quality and resourcing of the projects to increase effectiveness, efficiency, relevance or impact. 4.2. Evaluation criteria and specific evaluation questions 1. Relevance - How relevant are the projects regarding the beneficiary requirements, local context and needs of women and men in target communities? - How relevant are the projects regarding relevant national policies and strategies and CRC own policies and strategies (health, DM)? - What level of integration has there been with CRC health, DM, WASH and OD department approaches? - How do the projects compliment intervention of other actors, most importantly relevant Government departments? - How relevant and effective was the support provided by FRC to CRC? 2. Effectiveness - Were objectives achieved? - Did the projects address the needs of all intended beneficiaries, more specifically women, men and children and when relevant other vulnerable groups (elderly people and people with disabilities) living in target communities in a consistent manner as per project design? - How satisfied with the projects are project beneficiaries i.e. women, men and children living in target communities? What is the stakeholders viewpoint related to the performance of the 3
projects? What are the main issues raised regarding satisfaction with the projects? Were the project beneficiaries able to influence the projects design and implementation if they wanted to? - To what extent and in what ways were learnings from reviews conducted during the implementation period used to adjust and improve the project design and activities? - How satisfied are CRC volunteers and staff at different levels with the project? 3. Efficiency - How well were the inputs (funds, people, materials and time) used to to produce results? - Has the scale of benefits been consistent with the cost? Cost-efficiency: a) to what extend has the funding been utilised to directly assist beneficiaries, b) Has the project support and operational costs been reasonable (%) compared to entire budget and services delivered to beneficiary? - What is the quality of the management of the projects, including for instance work planning, monitoring and reporting, resource and personnel management, cooperation and communication? 4. Impact of intervention - Did the projects achieve their intended impact as per project plan? - Has and in that case how has the project enhanced the capacities of the target branches and subbranches to deliver services to vulnerable people? - Has the projects supported the CRC decentralisation process as planned? - Has there been any unforeseen or indirect positive or negative impact to the communities i.e. men, women and children as well as vulnerable groups, such as elderly people and people living with disabilities, volunteers and CRC branches? 5. Sustainability - How well has the phase out been planned and managed with respect to the sustainability of results in the target communities? - How well has the branch and sub-branch development outcome succeeded in ensuring continuity of their activities and service delivery? What are the main factors affecting, either positively or negatively, the sustainability of project outcomes? - Based on the lessons from implementation of these projects, what are the practical recommendations for adjusting the design of future activities to ensure sustainability? 6. Additionality - How does the FRC support fit with support provided by other partners and internal CRC resources? - How have the projects contributed to the partnership between the two partners? Impact and implications of the projects on the relationships of the two National Societies? Value added of the FRC support among other partners providing support to the CRC? 5. Evaluation Methodology The evaluation will use the following data sources: Project plans log frames, budgets Project reports (quarterly, annual), monitoring reports Baseline and end line survey results where applicable Mid-term Review reports Specific project related documentation: programmes of organised trainings etc. Reference documents: IFRC Strategy 2020 CRC s Strategy 2011-2010 CRC s Disaster Management 4-year development plan CRC s Health and care in the community strategic plan 4
IFRC CBHFA framework Methodology The evaluator must adopt a consultative and participative approach. Methods of data collection and analysis to be discussed and defined by the evaluation team, however they should include at least: Briefing at the FRC to discuss the TOR and the time schedule Briefing at the CRC NHQ to discuss the projects and conduct of the evaluation Document analysis/review; a critical review of agreed documents Baseline and end line study comparison Field visits and interviews with women, men and children living in target communities Interviews with CRC HQ and project staff (both male and female staff), female and male Red Cross volunteers and Red Cross Youth, and other relevant authorities and stakeholders All findings should be evidence based and methodology used and possible limitations explained in the final evaluation report. 6. Deliverables The evaluation team will provide: 1. An inception report by the Evaluator to demonstrate a clear understanding and realistic plan of work for the evaluation before the field evaluation. 2. A debriefing on findings - in country to the CRC management and project staff at the end of the mission to discuss the initial findings, conclusions and recommendations. Findings and conclusions should be as per each project whereas recommendation can be joint. 3. A draft final evaluation report after returning from the field visit. The draft will be shared with the FRC, CRC and other relevant stakeholders for comments. 4. A final (corrected) evaluation report - The report will have a maximum length of 30 pages, including an Executive Summary. Approval for the report from the FRC and CRC. 5. Presentation of the evaluation findings at the FRC IOP. 7. Proposed Timeline Briefing with FRC and CRC: 2 days (1 day each) Desk review: 2 days In country evaluation: 16 days (June-July 2016, dates to be confirmed) Report writing and delivery of deliverables: report writing on-going + 6 work days Proposed evaluation plan in the country: To be confirmed Debriefing and drafting of the evaluation report: Debriefing at the FRC in Helsinki / at the CRC in Phnom Penh on to present the main findings, conclusions and recommendations The draft final evaluation report for comments from FRC and CRC Comments for the draft report from FRC and CRC Submission of the final evaluation report: Date to be confirmed 8. 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 5
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: 1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used. 2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner. 3. 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. 4. Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders. 5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency. 6. 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. 7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate. 8. 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: www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/index.asp 9. Evaluation Team and Qualifications. The evaluation team will consist of a maximum of participants/consultants. This will include: External consultant who will act as a Team Leader. The team leader will be responsible for the coherence of the evaluation report. One participant from a sister NS from Asia Pacific region. One participant nominated by each partner (CRC, FRC) as their representative to act as resource person facilitating the conduct of the evaluation. Consultant as a team leader and the evaluation team will report to the Evaluation Manager Krista Brandt at the FRC. The Consultant shall have: University degree/s at the post-graduate level in relevant field of study (e.g. health, social sciences, disaster management); Experience with technical knowledge of relevant programme delivery using community based and participatory methods in developing counties; Solid knowledge and experience of project monitoring and evaluation methods and on disaster risk reduction and disaster preparedness; Proven experience in evaluating development co-operation programmes or projects, incl. analyzing development impacts (preferably at least 2-3 reference evaluations); Solid knowledge on gender and diversity aspects in development programming; Knowledge of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and it works preferred; Good knowledge of written and spoken English; Knowledge and experience of humanitarian and development context in Southeast Asia and/or in Cambodia is considered as an asset; The total amount of the tender will also be used as a qualifying criteria. 6
10. Application Procedures For internal evaluation management and recruitment purposes: Open call for consultants organised by 31 May 2016 Applications invited with updated CV by 10 June 2016 Responsible HR Officer: Tiina Rantaniemi (-> Maarit Hepola) Selection of consultant by 14 June 2016 The applicants are requested to submit their maximum 2-page applications with updated CV by 10 June 2016 to recruitment@redcross.fi. The applicants are requested to indicate in their tender the daily consultancy fee for the total length of mission of 26 days (including the field trip of 17 days). The FRC will cover the costs during the field trip. 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). The ToR prepared by: 27 May 2016 Krista Brandt Evaluation Manager 7