Consultancy for final project evaluation - Mala-IV

Terms of Reference (TOR)

For the final evaluation of “Mala-IV: Integrated Child Protection Programme”

1. Background :Terre des hommes foundation (Tdh): 

Terre des hommes foundation (Tdh) is a leading Swiss non-government organization which is active in the protection of vulnerable children. Tdhwas founded in 1960 and helps to build a better future for disadvantaged children and their communities, with innovative approaches as well as practical and sustainable solutions. The Foundation is currently working in over 30 countries. Tdh started its work since 1985 in Nepal, develops and implements projects to allow a better daily life for children and their close relatives particularly in the domain of health and protection. 

In addition to the regular development projects, Tdh responds to the needs of thousands of families, victims of natural disasters, humanitarian crisis and armed conflicts.  After the massive earthquake of 15 April 2015 in Nepal, Tdhprovided an emergency response and recovery interventions to support vulnerable children, their family and communities.  

All of Tdh’s work and commitments with governments, communities and children is provided without any religious, political or racial bias. 

2. Introduction of project:

Mala-IV: Integrated Child Protection Programme is Tdh Nepal Delegation’s first ever programme designed and implemented by applying a holistic multi-sectorial approach in order to address multiple risks facing children in Salyan and Humla. It encapsulates three major thematic components; namely WASH, Mother and Child Health and Protection. The three years programme initiated in August 2013, is currently being implemented by Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS), Salyan chapter and Dalit Development Society (DDS) in six VDCs of Salyan and by The Himalayan Innovative Society and Karnali Integrated Rural Development and Research Centre (KIRDARC) in three VDCs of Humla. The core idea of the programme is to ensure a meaningful integration-precisely an integration that leads to a holistic change in the lives of the people we want to reach, mainly children.

A project of this kind is considered contemporary in the international child protection community. Increasingly demands are being made for a 'systems' approach to be applied to vulnerable children. It is often the case that vulnerable children are surrounded by a complexity of problems and risks which require multi-sectoral responses and coordination. This is the case in Nepal. Given the often harsh inaccessible remoteness of the communities and the struggle for basic human rights; a systems approach is needed to mitigate or eliminate multiple child protection risks concurrently. Specifically this programme employs a dual-pronged response which is centred on building the existing child protection system in partnership with duty bearers, including the Government of Nepal while at the same time working directly with the most vulnerable. Primarily, Tdh strengthens the protective environment by enabling community ownership and through direct support in child protection, health and WASH sectors, while assisting individual children through tailor made case worker intervention.Final aim of the project is “A systemic and integrated health, WASH and child protection response is embedded into community and district level duty bearer practice to identify and assist the most vulnerable children.”

3. Purpose of Evaluation:

MAIN OBJECTIVES

The main objectives of the final evaluation are the following: 

• To evaluate the impact and progress towards achieving the objectives of the project; 
• To evaluate and assess the project performance against desired outputs, outcomes and impact committed in the project proposal;
• To identify lessons learned and provide recommendations for replication and scale-up for future similar projects. 

3.1 EVALUATION Questions: 

3.1.1 Project objective and final results: 

OBJECTIVE:

By June 2016, 38,100 duty bearers have either been directly involved in a multi-sectoral child focused response or had their capacities built to sustain it while directly assisting 11,575 children.

Final results:

Final Result 1:In Salyan and Humla project sites, formal and informal child protection stakeholders  are networked and coordinated to better identify and respond to 1500 vulnerable children using a systemic approach

Final Result 2: In Salyan and Humla project sites 3650 children under 5 years, 1650 mothers and 1125 adolescents have improved health and nutrition status

Final Result 3: In Salyan, 5000 children and 9500 individuals have improved health benefits through sustainable water and sanitation facilities and better hygiene practices

Final Result 4: In Salyan and Humla, policies and their application to benefit and protect children’s welfare will be improved at central, district and village levels

3.1.2 Key questions

The consultant should assess the following key questions in this evaluation for project learning documentation;

Relevance: 

• Were the objectives and planned interventions relevant and realistic? 
• Were the activities and result of the programme consistent with the intended impact and effects?
• Did the integration of Child protection, MCH and WASH bring an added value compared to single topic implementation?
• Were the activities planned based on community needs? 
• Was the EVC criteria feasible for the case management? 

Effectiveness:

• Was the project efficiently and effectively implemented?
• Was the collaboration, networking and advocacy support by Tdh and Partner adequate and effective?
• How adequate did this project worked with formal and informal child protection system? (Government and non-government)
• Was the partner management and capacity building of frontline workers by Tdh adequate?  
• Was the project able to support child protection system strengthening in the districts?
• Was the case management process and related tools appropriate and well implemented to detect and mitigate children’s risks?
• Did the capacity building of mother’s group and FCHVs contribute to mitigate the risk of pregnant and lactating mothers?  

Efficiency: 

• How well has the internal monitoring system and capacity building ensured quality implementation?
• Was the emphasis given on different topics (WASH, Health, and CP) appropriate?
• How efficiently and sustainably did the project integrate into GoN service provision (CP, Health, WASH)?
• Which qualitative and quantitative results were achieved?
• Were the Extremely Vulnerable Children (EVC) criteria to protect children from risk correctly chosen?
• How efficient is the referral system working to reduce the risk of children? 

Impact:

• How did the project address the capacity building efforts for beneficiaries and stakeholders?
• Is the local child protection system now functional and able to mitigate the risk of EVCs?Has the water fetching time decreased after the construction of community water supply systems?
• What changes can be seen after WASH intervention through this project (behaviour of communities)?
• Was  the project able to improve the nutritional and health status of mothers and children? 

Sustainability:  

• How the project is addressed the sustainability concern?
• Are there evidences/good practices regarding sustainability of service provision and constructed infrastructures?
• Is the child protection system likely to sustain after the end of the project and in absence of further support?
• Will the built infrastructures function for next 10 years?
• How strong are operation and maintenance system for infrastructure established?
• Are public toilet and showers economically sustainably managed while allowing access to low income groups?
• Are the emergency safe motherhood revolving funds functional? Are the mothers groups likely to continue the fund?

Apart from above area the evaluator should consider following questions: 

• How effective is the integrated model of project and able to respond the need of children? 
• Were there any specific challenges faced by Tdh and partners because of integrated model?
• What are the pros and cons of integrated project model? 
• What elements were missing to cover children’s needs more holistically?

4. Methodology and process:

The evaluation should consist of desk review of available secondary data e.g. proposal, internal reports and reports to the donor, annual review and workshop reports, and other relevant institutional documents and primary data e.g. individual interview (II) key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGD), participatory workshop and consultation meetings. Regarding methodology the consultant is not necessarily limited to above-mentioned tools only; any other relevant methodology and tools for conducting the evaluationcan be proposed. 

The sample size, location and tools shall be finalized upon discussion with Tdh. Sample selection and size in each above-mentionedtool should be determined in such a way to have a good representation of all the interventions of the project. 

For the desk review the consultant needs to review the following documents as a source of information: 

• Annual Reports for the past two years
• Project Proposal and Log-frame 
• Monthly Situation reports  
• SWC evaluation reports 
• Baseline and End-line reports 
• OCAT analysis report 
• Project database sheets 
• Other reports as necessary 

5. Deliverables:

The evaluation report should be structured into different sections including (a) executive summary (b) the context (c) description of the project/programme (d) objectives (e) methods and limitations (f) assessment analysis (g) findings and conclusions structured based on qualitative and quantitative indicators (h) lessons learnt and recommendation. The draft report is expected from the consultant before the final report. The report will be written in English language and must be comprehensive. Reference will be cited after each important fact and figures. Hard copy along with electronic copy will be submitted to Tdh.

6. Time line and estimated person days:

• It is expected that the evaluation will commence in the last week of October2016. Total person days: 34
• Evaluation / field plan and desk review, questionnaire/ checklist preparation – 7 person days 
• Field visit / interview (including travel) – 15 person days 
• Data analysis and draft report preparation – 8 person days 
• Presentation to Tdh and partners – 1 person day 
• Final presentation, report finalization and dissemination workshop – 4 person days 
• The consultant has to visit project area of both districts. 

7. ETHICAL and Child safe guarding statements:

“Child safe guarding is the responsibility that organisations have to make sure their staff, operations, and programmes do no harm to children,’’ that is that they do not expose children to the risk of harm and abuse, and that any concerns about children’s safety they might have in their area of work, are communicated and reported to the appropriate authorities. 

The consultant should abide by Tdh foundation’s child safeguarding policy and ensure protection of children at all times while engaged with the given assignment. 

8. Qualification of Consultant: 

• It is expected that the applicant agency/individual has: 
• At least 5 years’ experience in evaluating programmes in Nepal
• Excellent track record and reputation in developing and conducting various types of evaluation including qualitative and quantitative data collection
• Knowledge and experience of quantitative and qualitative social research methods 
• Substantial knowledge of Child Protection and a rights based approach 
• Excellent reporting, writing and facilitation skills 
• High level of English proficiency (verbal and written) and excellent communication skills 
• Knowledge of and experience in child protection, MCH and WASH 

9. Budget and application process: 

Applications must include detailed curriculum vitae with two references along with a maximum three page proposal outlining how and when they intend to accomplish this assignment. The applicant can provide their professional fee expectation per day while other terms to be discussed in person. The budget should not exceed the amount of NPR 600,000(Six hundred thousands)in total. The fee includes the consultancy, transportation, food and accommodation, printing, meeting and dissemination of the report. 30% of budget will be released after the submission of inception report and the rest will be released only after approval of the final report. 

We invite interested individuals and companies to submit the following application documents: 

• Expression of interest outlining how the consultant or institution meets the selection criteria and their understanding of the TORs and methodology 
• A proposed activities schedule/work plan with a time frame 
• CV of the consultant(s) who will undertake the evaluation and roles of consultants, if more than one
• At least one recent example of a similar evaluation report written by the applicant 
• Financial proposal detailing consultant(s) itemized fees, data collection, data analysis, report writing, and administrative costs to a total of no more than NPR 600,000 (Six hundred thousands)in total.
• Copy of firm registration certificate 
• Copy of VAT registration certificate 

The evaluation process will be supervised by Deputy Country Representative in coordination with Programme Coordinators and Country Representative. 

Interested and eligible applicants should send their application by 30th September 2016 to: 

Country Representative 

Terre des hommes foundation (Tdh)

Bluebird Complex, Tripureshwor, Kathmandu 

Email: tdhinnepal@gmail.com

Only shortlisted applicants will be contacted for further discussion and inquiry.