Consultant - Evaluation of the ECHO Funded Humanitarian Aid Project at Christian Aid

Location: Konduga LGA, Borno
Dates of Assignment: 3rd February to 23th February 2018 (3 weeks)
Reporting to: Project Manager, ECHO
Contract Length: 3 weeks

Project Summary

• Christian Aid (CA) is embarking on a Project: ECHO Funded Humanitarian Support to People Affected by Armed Conflict in Borno State Location: Konduga LGA, Borno State
• Through the ECHO funded humanitarian project, Christian Aid targets the most vulnerable people among the internally displaced population, host communities and returnees, for various supports in two sectors- Food Security and Livelihood and WASH (Water Sanitation and Hygiene).
• Protection has been mainstreamed in the overall programme.
• Principle Objective of the project: To contribute to reduced morbidity and suffering resulting from violent armed conflict; strengthened resilience, safety and dignity among IDPs, returnees and host communities in Borno State.

Specific Objective

• To provide inclusive and safe access to immediate lifesaving food and WASH assistance for the most vulnerable IDPs, returnees and host communities in Borno State, Nigeria.
• Two result areas of the project are:
  • Result 1: Affected House Holds (HHs) have improved, safe and inclusive access to food security through unconditional e-cash transfer programme for accessing essential food supplies
  • Result 2: Affected HHs have increased safe and inclusive access to safe drinking water, sanitation facilities and increased awareness on safe hygiene practices. Over all target of the programme is to reach 40,500 people in 13 IDP communities in Konduga LGA. Ongoing conflict had reduced the livelihood opportunities and coping capacities of the affected population as well as the host communities.
• To address the food needs, project has reached 2660 most vulnerable households in 5 IDP locations in Konduga through Unconditional unrestricted cash distribution. Four rounds of cash outs were organised through Airtel mobile money, using Segovia platform. Per house hold cash entitlement was calculated according to the house hold size, in line with the Food Security Cluster harmonization guidelines.
• WASH intervention focussed on installation new handpumps, rehabilitation of damaged hand pumps, construction of latrines and showers, hand washing stations, and comprehensive hygiene promotion activities.
• A total of 17 new hand pumps were installed in 6 IDP camps and 7 hand pumps were repaired in 3 locations. 110 gender segregated latrine units consisting of one compartment of shower and one compartment of latrine were constructed.
• Hygiene promotion programmes were implemented in 13 communities through 130 community hygiene volunteers through various awareness programmes and campaigns, aimed at improved personal and environmental hygiene practices.
• Protection and inclusion were mainstreamed in the programme where specific protection needs of vulnerable groups were addressed at various phases of the programme. Gender and disability were integrated in programme design and implementation.

Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation

• This end of the project evaluation aims at understanding whether the project – Humanitarian Assistance to Population Affected by Conflict in Borno State- has achieved the intended purpose and deliverables.
• Evaluation is expected to document the process and outcome of the project with an objective analysis of the success and failures of the project which would help to improve the quality of future emergency response programming.
• Project is expected to document the achievement of the project based on the specific objective and two result areas of the project, through a field research and desk review of the project documents. Overall objectives of the project evaluation are
• Evaluate the project with emphasis on impact, timeliness, efficiency, effectiveness, quality and appropriateness of the project interventions
• Document the lessons learned and best practices, which can help in future programming
• Provide clear recommendations for improving the quality of the future humanitarian interventions 3.1 Key evaluation criteria While the evaluation will consider the following key criteria, the evaluator is expected to include additional evaluation questions to capture other quality criteria of the project Relevance:
• Whether the action was successful in addressing the priority needs of most vulnerable population targeted through the action?
• Whether the activities and outputs were consistent with overall objective of the project and the Humanitarian Implementation Plan?
• Whether the activities and outputs were consistent with the intended impact and effect of the Humanitarian Implementation Plan?
• To what extent beneficiary communities were involved in design, implementation and monitoring of the intervention?

Effectiveness:

• Whether the project achieved intended outcome of the project with in the project time frame?
• Whether the project output meet with international standards and quality (Sphere standards, HAP etc.)
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
• Whether the monitoring mechanisms put in place were sufficient to ensure effectiveness of the programme?
• How effective was protection and inclusion mainstreaming in the project implementation? Efficiency
• Whether the project was cost-efficient?
• Whether the objectives of the project were achieved on time?
• How efficient was the project implementation compared to possible alternate modes of implementation?
• Whether the human and financial resources were utilised efficiently to ensure value-for-money? Impact
• What impact the project has made on the lives of targeted beneficiaries?
• What impact the project has made on the market?
• Whether the project has achieved the progress targeted per indicator?
• What are the un-intentional impact of the project?
• What are the negative impacts of Cash Based Transfer project intervention? Sustainability
• To what extend the impact of the programme sustain after the project period?
• What were the major factors which influenced achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project outcome? Accountability
• How effective was the participation of beneficiary community in the programme design, implementation and monitoring?
• How participatory was the monitoring mechanism that are used in the project?
• Whether the accountability mechanism put in place were effective in ensuring the registration and resolving of beneficiary complaints? What could have been done better?
• How effective was various downward accountability mechanisms put in place during project implementation? Lessons learned
• Identify the lesson learned to inform the future emergency programming
• Identify examples of best practices in ‘what has worked well’ and ‘what has not worked well’ particularly in: Finance & Administration including fund flow, Reliability, Logistics and administration, Assessments and Coordination with other humanitarian actors

Evaluation Methodology

• The evaluation design will be developed by the consultancy and finalised based on the feedback from MEAL Manager of Christian Aid. The design should be a mix of both qualitative and quantitative methods. It will include at least the following elements
• Desk review/Context analysis
• Detailed discussions with Project team, ECHO, relevant government agencies, other NGO’s and key informants from communities.
• Field visits to target areas and collection of primary information including detailed discussions with a sample of target beneficiaries - process should be participatory to the extent possible
• Presentation of draft findings.
• The writing of a final detailed report and submission to Christian Aid for feedback
• Incorporation of CAID feedback in the draft report and submission of the final report Outputs Essentially, the evaluation will produce 3 sets of outputs, as follows:
• An inception report detailing the methodology, tools and work plan for approval before starting the data collection.
• A meeting/presentation to disseminate key (draft) findings to CAID Management.
• A final report detailing the findings, conclusions, targeted recommendations, experiences, and lessons learned (this should also consider the feedback provided on the draft report and feedback during the presentation of findings meeting).
• The final report should be no longer than 35 pages including a 2-5-page executive summary.

Duration

• A total of 21 days in January/ February 2018
• Activity Number of Days Preparation - 3; In country meetings and data collection/field work - 10; Report writing - 8. Total 21days

Evaluator (S) Expertise

• Solid experience and knowledge on humanitarian response mechanism and sound understanding of humanitarian response in North East Nigeria
• Post-graduate Degree in Humanitarian Studies, Disaster Management, Social Sciences and/or related field.
• At least 10 years’ experience of conducting evaluations of emergency/ humanitarian programmes.
• Previous experience of conducting evaluations of humanitarian response projects in conflict context. Specific experience of evaluating ECHO funded projects is an advantage
• Familiarity with WASH, emergency food security and livelihoods issues and Protection
• Familiarity with International quality and accountability standards applied in emergencies
• Experience in the use of participatory methodologies and developing gender sensitive evaluation methodologies
• Competency in Equality & Gender issues
• Excellent written and spoken communications skills in English.
• Experience in assessing organizational capacity and gaps and ability to recommend the corrective measures.

Evaluation Report Format

• Following structure is suggested for the evaluation report
• Cover Page
• Table of Contents
• List of Acronyms
• Executive summary
• Detailed Report
• Background
• Methodology
• Analysis and findings
• Lessons learned/ Best Practices
• Recommendation
• Conclusion
• Annexes