Consultancy for final project evaluation - Sanrakshan

Terms of Reference (TOR)

For the final evaluation of “Sanrakshan” (Protection of children in dangerous and exploitative child labour) project

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. Tdh was 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, Tdh provided 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:

Sanrakshan (Protection of Children in Dangerous and Exploitative Child Labour) project is a three year project which started in November 2013 and will end in October 2016 (with a no-cost extension until June 2017), with financialsupport from Comic Relief(a UK charity) and Tdh Netherlands. The project is being implemented in Kathmandu Valley: Kathmandu and Lalitpur (6 brick kiln and host communities of Lalitpur). Five NGOs have been working as implementing partners, namely Biswas Nepal, Change Nepal, Saathi, Sath Sath and Urban Environment Management Society (UEMS). In addition,anadvocacy campaign is conducted by Central Child Welfare Board (CCWB) and external monitoring of the project has been done by the Griffith University, Australia.  

The project responds to the risks faced by children engaged in the worst forms of child labour such as commercial sexual exploitation (CSEC) and brick making in the Kathmandu Valley.

Tdh's project intervenes in the protection and health concerns of both adolescent boys and girls at risk in the adult entertainment sector in Kathmandu city. Through outreach and community of practice referral, the project empowers children and youth to have agency in decisions affecting their safety and protection, primarily through choice awareness and tailor-made exit strategies facilitated by individual case worker relationships. 

In the brick kilns, Tdh works with brick kiln owners, the seasonal migrant working population  and host community of the factory area in a holistic way to address the multiple risks present for children and their primary caregivers. Through a combination of outreach social work, that links the most vulnerable to strengthen government health and education services, mixed with Tdh ensuring access to clean drinking water and hygienic toilets, children have a better chance of survival and a healthier childhood and adolescence. 

Along with beingdirectly involved with children in the exploitative environments Tdh also works on system strengthening. A sustainable and structured advocacy campaign has been launched to raise increase sensitivity towards CSEC and dangerous child labour and to highlight the need for effective implementation of the existing policies/laws and the need for stronger application within both the entertainment and brick production sectors. 

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 evaluate the project model and its effectiveness (i.e. the joint model of exploitative child labour in brick kilns and CSEC), including the approaches and methodologies used, in relation to the project Theory of Change (if this exists).
• Assess and verify the quality of the information generated by the project including M&E systems. 
• To identify lessons learned and provide recommendations for replication and scale-up for future similar projects. 
• Review other key organisational systems e.g. financial systems and child protection/safeguarding policies & procedures. 

The evaluation will be divided in three parts: 

1 Dangerous and Exploitative Labour in Brick Kilns

A. General Evaluation

2 Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children

A. General Evaluation

B. Sub Evaluation on Income Generating Activities/Vocational training  for Children in CSEC 

3.1 EVALUATION Questions I: Dangerous and Exploitative Labour in Brick Kilns

Project outcomes:

• Outcome 1: 250 children involved in dangerous and/or exploitative labour in Brick Kilns are directly assisted to either mitigate or eliminate the risks they face. 
• Outcome 2: 625 under 5 children and 125 migrant working pregnant and lactating mothers increase their use of Government primary health care services and experience safe motherhood practices.
• Outcome 3: 4500 migrant workers, host communities and their children have improved access to sustainable water and sanitation facilities and better hygiene.
• Outcome 4: Duty bearers take active steps to apply existing policies and laws to address male and female children’s involvement and emancipation from dangerous and exploitative child labour.

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 outputs 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?

Effectiveness:

• Was the project being implemented efficiently and effectively? Particularly in relation to the Child Protection framework. 
• Was the collaboration, networking and advocacy support by Tdh and Partner adequate and effective?
• Was the partner management and capacity building of frontline worker by Tdh adequate?  

Efficiency: 

• How well has the internal monitoring system contributed to the evaluation and to ongoing project implementation?
• Was the emphasis given on different topics (WASH, Health, and CP) appropriate?
• How efficiently and sustainably did the project integrate Brick Kiln Communities into GoN service provision (CP, Health, WASH, and Education)?
• Do the brick kiln owners after the project actively ensure child rights, and hygiene as well as supporting people in accessing health services, and are willing to contribute in terms of resources? 
• What qualitative and quantitative outcomes were achieved?
• How cost-effective has this model been? 

Impact:

• Was the case management process and related tools appropriate and well implemented to detect and mitigate children’s risks?
• How did the project change the relationship between the brick kiln communities and the host communities?

Sustainability:  

• How the project is addressing the sustainability concern? Particularly in relation to brick kiln owners and their responsibility to the brick kiln workers and child protection.
• How the project addressed the capacity building efforts for commercially sexually exploited children economical needs?
• What are the key constraints to sustainability?
• Are there some good practices already to be identified that support sustainability?
• Are the Water and Sanitation Technologies (filters, biogas, and permanent/temporary toilets) used appropriate for the context and will they last beyond the project?

3.2 EVALUATION II: Dangerous and Exploitative Labour in CSEC 

Project outcomes:

• Outcome 1: 1650 children engaged in exploitative labour are directly assisted to either mitigate or eliminate the risks they face
• Outcome 4: Duty bearers take active steps to apply existing policies and laws to address male and female children’s involvement and emancipation from dangerous and exploitative child labour

KEY QUESTIONS:

Relevance: 

• Were the objectives and planned interventions relevant and realistic? 
• Were the activities and outputs 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?

Effectiveness:

• Was the project being implemented efficiently and effectively?
• Was the collaboration, networking and advocacy support by Tdh and Partner adequate and effective?
• Was the partner management and capacity building of frontline worker by Tdh adequate?  
• Identify strengths and weaknesses related to project design, implementation, monitoring etc.

Efficiency: 

• How well has the internal monitoring system contributed to the decision making andevaluation and to on-going project implementation?
• Were the intended project outcomes and outputs achieved and were there any unintended results?   
• What qualitative and quantitative outcomes were achieved?
• Is the existing same case management process appropriate for both girls and boys in CSEC? 
• How effective is the DIC model in the withdrawal process of girls and boys from CSEC? Is the same model appropriate for girls and boys?

Impact:

• What are the strengths and weaknesses of outreach, counselling and withdrawal process of girls and boys in CSEC? What needs to be changed?  

Sustainability:  

• How is the project addressing the sustainability concern?
• What are the key constraints to sustainability?
• Are there some good practices already to be identified that support sustainability?
• Is the existing service provision system (DIC, IGA support, linkage) sustainable? 
• Identify indication thatthe project’s achievements are sustainable beyond the end of the project?
• How was the accountabilityby the stakeholders ensured?

Apart from above mentioned area the evaluation is expected to respond following learning questions:

1. What are the strengths and weaknesses of a multi-NGO partnership model to withdrawing boys and girls from CSEC?
2. What are the similarities and differences of applying case management practice in the Brick Kiln and CSEC sites?

Sub evaluation: Income generating activities and vocational training

a. Income Generating Activities (Vocational training and Support for starting small enterprise)

Key Questions: 

• Is the business selection process appropriate (capacity assessment, interest of the beneficiary, personal/family situation, market assessment)?
• Are past IGAs economically sustainable? Are they relevant to the target group and allowing beneficiaries to have a sufficient alternative to not fall back into CSEC. If not, why?
• Are beneficiaries sufficiently capacitated through the project to run the activity?
• Are beneficiaries sufficiently supervised after receiving the IGA?
• Is the capacity of Tdh and partners, adequate to provide efficient service to the beneficiaries (need assessment, counselling, and linkage) for IGAs? If not which specific skills (with job profile) is required?
• Is the linkage with service providers for IGAs effective? 
• Does the partner correctly measure the success of IGA provision?

b. Vocational training

Key Questions: 

• Is the selection process for vocational trainings appropriate (capacity assessment, interest of the beneficiary, personal/family situation, labour market assessment)?
• Have the trainings been relevant and effective? Are the beneficiaries able to make their living during the training without going back to CSEC? If yes, how?
• Can the beneficiaries after the training come into sufficient employment or income to sustain their livelihood?  
• Is the capacity of Tdh and partners adequate to select and link children to good institutions? 
• Are the children sufficiently guided and supervised prior, during and after vocational training?
• Does the partner correctly measure the success of vocational training?

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. The quality of this data should also be verified along with a review of the project M&E systems. Regarding methodology the consultant is not necessarily limited to above-mentioned tools only; any other relevant methodology and tools for conducting the evaluation could 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 including the donor feedback to the reports. 
• Project Proposal, Grant start-up form and Conditions of Grant (Comic Relief) 
• Monthly Situation reports  
• Final project monitoring report submitted by the Griffith University 
• 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 facts and figures. Hard copy along with electronic copy will be submitted to Tdh. 

The report should be clear and simple written, free of jargon. The main body of the report should be no more than 30 pages including the executive summary and recommendations. Technical details should be confined to appendices, which should also include a list of informants and the evaluation team’s work schedule. Background information should only be included when it is directly relevant to the report’s analysis and conclusions. 

6. Time line and estimated person days:

• It is expected that the evaluation will commence in the last week of October2016. Total person days: 37
• Evaluation / field plan and desk review, questionnaire/ checklist preparation – 7 person days 
• Field visit / interview – 14 person days 
• Data analysis and draft report preparation – 10 person days 
• Presentation to Tdh and partners – 1 person day 
• Final presentation, report finalization and dissemination workshop – 5 person days 

7. ETHICAL andChild 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 and enterprise development, especially knowledge in Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children will be an added value 
• Excellent and demonstrated understanding of Child Protection and ethical issues in research.

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 GBP 6000 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 and budget
• 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).
• Firm registration certificate 
• 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.