Final Evaluation of Oxfam's 'My Rights My Voice' Project

Terms of Reference for

Final Evaluation of Oxfam’s ‘My Rights My Voice’ Project

1.        Introduction

These are the Terms of Reference for the final evaluation of My Rights My Voice (MRMV) programme implemented in Nepal by Oxfam Great Britain.

About Oxfam

Oxfam is an international confederation of 17 organizations networked together in more than 90 countries, as part of a global movement for change, to build a future free from the injustice of poverty. Oxfam recognizes the universality and indivisibility of human rights and this forms the most basic framework for its work. It believes that all people are rights-holders and that human rights apply to all people equally; and that all duty-bearers, especially states, have an obligation to respect, protect, and fulfil these human rights. For more info: www.oxfam.org 

2.        Background

My Rights My Voice is a four year programme ending in December 2015. It is funded by the Swedish International Development and Cooperation Agency (Sida) to the total amount of GBP 887,705. The overall goal of the project is to achieve  sustainable  changes  in  policies,  practices,  and  beliefs  to  meet  the  specific  health  and education needs and aspirations of children and youth, with a particular focus on the rights of girls and young women, to contribute to achieving the Millennium Development. 

In the final year, the primary focus of the Nepal programme is to empower young mothers, youth and school students as agents of change for promoting their own right to health and negative consequences of child marriage and SRHR.

Outcome1: Young people have adequate understanding of their right to health, SRHR in particular and negative consequences of child marriage;

Outcome 2: Young people organised in CDC/YHC, CHC and health rights networks advocate for implementation of health and youth policies and programmes;

Outcome 3: Young people gain the ability and agency to realise their SRHR along with free quality basic health care and oppose gender based inequalities, child marriage in particular;

Outcome 4: Strong popular opinion built in favour of young people’s right to health and gender based inequalities, particularly child marriage and SRHR.

The programme has reached out to students, parents, families and the wider community in its activities to ensure that access to health care and knowledge of the right to free health care is improved overall. Therefore, it has also involved the children and youths’ parents, families and wider community. The project aims to contribute to effective implementation of government health policies and programme particularly in rural and remote areas. The project is being implemented in partnership with Social Development and Research Centre (SDRC) in Nawalparasi, Women Association for Marginalized Women (WAM) in Surkhet, Social Awareness Concerned Forum (SAC) in Banke as district level partners and Association of Youth Organisations Nepal (AYON) in Kathmandu as national level partner. The programme has contributed to bring about a lot of changes in personal, social and political sphere at the community.

3.        Rationale and objective of the evaluation

The final evaluation is a requirement for the project as part of the Monitoring, Evaluation Accountability and Learning requirements. The main aim of the evaluation will be to systematically analyse the actual outcomes of the programme and its underlying working mechanisms against the proposed outcomes and Theory of Change.

Specific objectives:

-   Review the achievements reached under each outcome by validating the Theory of Change and underlying assumptions. This includes describing the process of how the changes in policies, practices and beliefs have been achieved.

-   Build institutional knowledge to inform the development of current and future programmes and projects identifying best practices, lessons learned and developing concrete recommendations.

-   Assess the project’s accountability to different stakeholders and indicate to what extent the project as well as the programme has been able to change its ways of working in response to the recommendations of the Mid-Term. 

4.         Methodology

The following basic principles are expected to guide the further development of the methodology:

-       Participation: Allow for the meaningful participation of Oxfam staff, partners and youth in the evaluation process

-       Gender Equality:The proposed approach shouldsufficiently consider the different ways in which young women and men have been involved in and responded to the programme in two ways:

1)      The evaluation should consider to what extent young women as well as young men were meaningfully included in programme activities and processes. This should include, among others: numbers young women and men involved in activities; number of young women in leadership positions; improvement in skills and confidence among young women to participate in MRMV activities, influence stakeholders, and raise awareness among their peers and other actors; analysis of blocking and enabling factors to young women’s involvement; inclusion of girls’ and women’s rights issues in awareness-raising and advocacy initiatives.

2)      The evaluation methodology should ensure the meaningful participation and inclusion of young women as well as young men in the evaluation process (e.g. sex-segregated focus group discussions, creation of safe spaces, careful monitoring of gender dynamics in mixed spaces, gender specific evaluation tools)

-       Data triangulation: The evaluators will gather information through different complimentary sources (outcome harvesting, but also direct observations of MRMV activities, key informant interviews, small survey data...)

Desk Review

·      Document review of Oxfam documents, project proposal, baseline survey, quarterly and annual reports and other project-related publications.

Field Work

·      One-to-one Interviews and focus group discussions with direct beneficiaries and local community members in general in all three project districts.

·      Consultation with partner project staff and Board members, key stakeholders including members of decision making structures, key staff of public service providers such as health post, police station, VDC/DDC, line agencies, Ward Citizen Forums etc. at both district and national level.

·      Observation and analysis of local structures linked to the project such as sub/health post, schools, selected decision making structures at the community 

5.         Scope of Evaluation

The evaluation will encompass the wholeMRMV programme in Nepal, from 15 December 2011 up to December 2015. The evaluation will include a validation of the results of the Nepal programme as presented in the quarterly and annual reports of 2012, 2013 and 2014. The evaluation will also address the implementation of follow-up actions after the Midterm Review and the Strategic gender Review. An evaluation of both the Mid-Term and Strategic Gender Review should include the following questions: i. To what extent were the Review recommendations implemented and addressed? Why, why not? ii. What was the impact of the Review on the programme approach and thinking?

Key Questions of the Evaluation
The evaluation will be guided by the framework key questions (unexhautive) on its relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability.

Relevance

-       To what extent did the project respond or aligned to the contextual needs and national priorities?

-       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 objectives and outcomes?

-       Did the approach suit the priorities and needs of the diverse groups of young people and their communities? Was it inclusive enough for harder-to-reach youth?

-       Was the project advocacy work at national and local level, relevant at the time of project implementation?

Efficiency

-       What internal and external factors supported/affected the project implementation according to plan?

-       Were financial and human resources appropriate, adequate, and efficiently organized?

-       Were synergies with government interventions and other actors taken advantage of sufficiently where it could ensure better project performance?

Effectiveness

-       What are the principal outcomes/contributions of the project? To what extent do these achievements correspond to the objectives stated in the global Theory of Change?

-       Which strategies proved to be effective or not? What anticipated and unanticipated factors have promoted or impeded the project’s progress?

-       Was sufficient learning component included in the project MEAL system?

-       Which internal and external factors have influenced the overall achievements of the programme (positive or negative)?

-       What is the perceived added value of countries being part of a multi-country programme?

-       Did the project contribute to the Millennium Development Goals on education and health?

 Sustainability

-       Did the achieved outcomes lead to long-term improvements in the general environment for youth and children (impact)?

-       Are the exit and hand-over strategies adequate? What is the likelihood that the benefits of the programme are sustained upon its completion?

-       Did the achieved outcomes lead to long-term improvements in the general environment for youth and children (impact)?

1. Which key outcomes were achieved by the Nepal MRMV programme? To what extent do these achievements correspond to the objectives stated in the global Theory of Change?
2. Based on the available evidence, did the achieved outcomes lead to long-term improvements in the general environment for youth and children (at impact level)? Did the programme contribute to the Millennium Development Goals for Nepal?

3. Process and steps taken to achieve these outcomes:

a)      Where there any unexpected results of the programme? (positive or negative)

b)      What was the involvement of youth in planning, monitoring and evaluation and communication initiatives?

c)      Was sufficient learning component included in the project MEAL system?

d)      What is the perceived added value of Nepal programme being part of My Rights My Voice as a multi-country programme?

e)      Were recommendations of the Mid-Term and Gender Reviews sufficiently taken into account? 

4. Which internal and external factors have influenced the overall achievements of the programme (positively or negatively)?

5. Was the chosen approach and its practical implementation carried out in an economical and efficient way? Was the project strategy flexible and responsive to address to address short comings during implementation or to make use of opportunities? 

6. Did the approach suit the priorities and needs of the diverse groups of young people and their communities? Was it inclusive enough for harder-to-reach youth? 

7. Are the current exit and hand-over strategies adequate? What is the likelihood that the benefits of the programme are sustained upon its completion?

Evaluation questions will be further fine-tuned throughout the process to ensure they respond to the specific information needs of our key stakeholders. Issues of gender equality should be taken into account when answering the evaluation questions. Particular consideration should be given to the different ways in which young women and men have been involved in and responded to the programme.

5. Deliverables

The expected deliverables of the evaluation are as below:

-       Inception report with along with the detailed timeline and methodology

-       Finalised data collection tools

-       Draft report

-       A clear and concise final evaluation report, not exceeding 50 pages including executive summary, details of methodologies, findings from document review and field visit, comprehensive recommendations, conclusions and appendices with inception report with final work plan, list of participants, interviewees, locations visited, documents reviewed interview notes, data worksheets etc.)

6.         Qualification/Skills required

We are looking for a national team of two to three experienced evaluatorswith the following qualifications:

-       At least  5 years of proven experience in the field of social research and evaluation research

-       Proven knowledge and understanding of Women’s Rights, Gender Equality, Child Safeguarding and Sexual and Reproductive Health Rights and Youth issues in Nepal

-       Proven professional analytical and writing skills

-       Excellent communication, writing and presentation skills in both English and Nepali

-       Knowledge of the work of Oxfam or other international NGOs desirable

7.         Timeline

 The assignment is expected to take approximately 35 working days to complete.

-    Desk review is planned to take place from 2nd January 2016 to 12th January 2016

-    Field visit should take place between 12 January 2016 and the 27 January 2016.

-    Draft report should be submitted by 7 February 2016 and the final report based on comments and recommendations from Oxfam should be submitted by 15February 2016.

8.      Basic documents required for the submission of proposal

In order to consider for this assignment by Oxfam, following basic documents need to be submitted:

·         Bio-data of key persons involving in this initiative

·         Copy of documents/materials with evidence of engagement in and successful completion of similar initiatives in the past

·         Copy of VAT registration certificate

·         Latest tax clearance certificate

·         Detailed contact address including telephone, mobile, fax, street and postal address, email etc.

·         Copy of firm registration with updated renewal, details of founder members, copy of Article of Association & Memorandum and any other relevant documents

 Interested  firms are requested to send their proposal clearly mentioning the title of assignment in their email subject line  by 7 December 2015 via mail to recruitment_nepal@oxfam.org.uk