TOR for Joint Programme Evaluation & Context Analysis

1.      Background

DanChurchAid (DCA) is a faith-based, non-missionary organization and work for the poor, vulnerable and socially excluded communities and believe in life before death. In Nepal and Bangladesh, we are involved in several thematic areas with our work focusing on resilient livelihood, active citizenship and migrants’ rights, among others since 1980.

DCA has three goals for the international work. All DCA’s activities are carried out in support of one or more of these goals, which are: save lives, build resilient communities and fight extreme inequality. DCA SARO seeks to strengthen and scale up its on-going initiatives (active citizenship, migrants’ rights, food security, resilient livelihoods, disaster risk reduction and immediate humanitarian response in the aftermath of disasters), through an integrated and country specific approach  that addresses the felt need  of deprived and poorest of the poor in rural areas of the country.  The ultimate aim of DCA is to strengthen community resiliency and realisation of rights through empowerment and providing basic support and options at the field level through its partners to live with dignity.

DCA supports the Governments of Nepal, Bangladesh and India’s efforts to reduce extreme poverty and resilience enhancement. DCA has been implementing following projects in Bangladesh, India and Nepal with a total value of USD 6 million projects supported by Danish government
(DANIDA), EU, ERD, Gift Catalogue, ECHO, DERF (DANIDA Emergency Response Funds) and implemented by partner organizations.

Name of the Programmes, location total budget and start and end date:

• Inclusive Citizenship for Accountable Governance (ICAG) (January 2013 to December 2016)
• Regional Migrants’ Rights Programme (MRP) (2012-16) in South and Southeast Asia
• Resilient Livelihood and Sustainable Food Security (RLSFS) in South Asia (January 2012 to December 2016)
• Humanitarian Response and Disaster Risk Reduction programme

2. Purpose, objective and evaluation questions

2.1 The objective of the evaluation

In line with the DCA headquarters commitment for country specific planning from 2017, commitments given to the donors, government and partner agencies in the approved project, the independent evaluation of the programmes will assess the level of progress being made towards the achievement of project impact, outcomes and outputs. In addition to the formal requirements, it is best practice that a thorough review is undertaken to identify areas to continue, improve and design new similar programme in the years to come.

The evaluation will focus on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, results and sustainability of project implementation; lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.

The evaluation is scheduled for early to mid 2016, prior to the project end date in most of the cases. The results of the evaluation are intended to help to design country specific programmes/ projects in Nepal and Bangladesh and also identify the need for any further technical assistance to support the strengthening of resilience in the above countries. The evaluation should also help to understand the relative merits of different implementation options and thematic approaches.

To assess the effectiveness and outcome of DanChurchAid’s thematic programmes in South Asia, particularly in Nepal and Bangladesh, with a specific focus on their contribution to the reduction of inequalities and poverty for women and men, and to provide a Context Analysis of the draft Concept Note for the new Country Programme, in view of the findings from the evaluation.

2.2 The purpose

To carry out a consolidated evaluation of DCA South Asia Regional Office (SARO)’s current thematic programmes, (i.e. Active Citizenship, Resilient Livelihoods and Sustainable Food Security, Migrants’ Rights, and Humanitarian Action.)

To use the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation and context analysis to provide substantial guidance to the design of the Nepal and Bangladesh country programme.

To provide findings that will feed into the Global Report and to DCA organisational learning.

2.3. Standard DCA programme evaluation questions

Relevance

Key question:

To what extent are the programme strategies relevant to the needs and priorities of target groups, including the structural causes of rights violations in the given context?

To what extent are the programme strategies relevant to DCA’s strategic goals and priorities, relevant national policies and priorities, and in keeping with international human rights and humanitarian standards?

To what extent is the programme portfolio relevant to the programme objectives?

Sub questions:

• To what extent are the interventions aligned with international human rights and humanitarian law? 
• To what extent are the interventions compliant with national and local frameworks that advance human rights and gender equality?
• To what extent were programme interventions informed by the needs and interests of discriminated groups among the extreme poor?
• To what extent was disaggregated data strategically used to ensure relevant targeting and interventions?
• To what extent were relevant barriers and causes to inequalities, discrimination, and impoverishment of the rights-holders addressed under the different programmes?
• To what extent were the mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participation of and accountability to the targeted rights-holders relevant?
• What is the added value of DCA, and the programme approach (as opposed to project approach) in the programmes?
• To what extent and how is there synergy and cohesion between the projects within and between the thematic programmes?
• In what way does the programme strategies contribute to the strategic goals of DCA (programme specific goals, the Rights Based Approach and Gender Equality goals) as per DCA´s international strategy for the period under evaluation?

Effectiveness

Key questions:

1) To what extent were the programme objectives achieved at outcome level (and if verifiable at impact level?)

Sub questions:

·         To what extent did the programmes´ theory of change (implicit or explicit) and/or results framework reflect a rights-based logic?

·         To what extent were the participatory and accountability mechanisms used effective at reaching the rights-holders?   

·         To what extent have the interventions under all thematic programmes contributed to the empowerment of rights-holders to claim or access their rights and entitlements and of duty-bearers to fulfil their obligations?

·         What results were achieved in terms of reducing the underlying causes of inequality and discrimination? How did programme activities contribute to this achievement?

·         To what extent has the monitoring undertaken in the course of the programmes provided management with sufficient information to follow progress towards the desired results? 

·         To what extent has monitoring been used in communication with beneficiaries?

·         To what extent has DCA (RO and HQ) been an effective manager of the programmes (strategic planning, staffing, resource management, monitoring, partnerships, etc.)?

2) How have partnerships been enhanced as a result of the programmes? (DCA and partners, partners and rights holders, rights holders and duty bearers, and partners among themselves?

Sub questions:

·     Based on what criteria were the partners selected?

·    What is their involvement and decision-making power in the planning and implementation of the programme, including the cross cutting activities? Do partner platforms fulfil their purpose as identified by the programme strategies?

·         Has DCA´s support to partners’ capacity and organisational development been effective? Is DCA responsive to needs identified by partners? Does the support affect in a positive way the partners’ organisation and capacity to implement its projects?

·         Do the partners have the right skills, commitment and constituency to contribute to the achievement of the goals in the programmes? Has the programme approach contributed to the effectiveness of the partners?

·         How effective has DCA been at strengthening partner´s strategic advocacy work e.g. through capacity-development, through facilitating links to decision-makers, networks, international fora etc.?

·       Have the programmes stimulated relations between partners in any significant way?

·       How has this affected the programme´s results and/or the partners´ organisations?

·      Assess the extent to which a project or programme contributes to delivering DCA’s Accountability Framework, (HAP) in particular in relation to Benchmark 3 (Sharing information), Benchmark 4 (Participation) and Benchmark 5 (Handling complaints).

Efficiency

Key question:

Has the programme approach been a cost-efficient way to implement development assistance?

Sub questions:

·         What are the overall costs of the programmes compared to the number of rights-holders?

·         How economically have resources been converted to results?

·         Were the human and financial resources adequate for implementing the programmes?

·         Is there any indication that a modest increase of resources to more effectively incorporate rights-based strategies would have contributed to a substantive increase in results?

·         To what extent can one argue that the interventions were cost-effective and the resources used in an efficient way to reach the most discriminated groups and facilitate their effective participation and to address the rights issues identified in the programme strategies?

·         Were there challenges during implementation in addressing the human rights and gender equality concerns of the rights-holders and were resources used efficiently to address these challenges during implementation?

·         Have programme activities adequately built on the assets and positive strategies of the targeted rights holders (men and women)?

·         Have risks been properly identified and well-managed? With hindsight, what could have been done better in this regard?

Impact

Key question:

What, if any, have been the wider social, economic, human rights and political impact of the programmes?

Sub questions:

·         What evidence is there that the interventions contributed to rights-holders increasing their enjoyment of their rights; of duty-bearers better performing their duties and obligations; and of accountability mechanisms being strengthened?

·         What evidence is there that this has contributed to reducing inequalities and poverty at local or national levels?

·         What evidence is there of changes in gender inequalities e.g. in access and use of resources, in decision-making, in division of labour etc.?

·         Were there any unintended positive or negative results of the programmes?

·         Were there any unintended effects on groups not included in the intervention?

·         Are the rights-holders targeted satisfied with the achievements (in terms of impact and process)?

·         How many women and men have benefitted from programme activities?

Sustainability

·         To what extent have programmes furthered institutional changes (changes in laws, policies, practices, resource levels) for furthering human rights and gender equality? To what extent are these changes sustainable?

·         To what extent has the intervention strengthened citizen claiming and monitoring of human rights and gender equality? To what extent is this likely to continue once the programmes end?

·         To what extent has the programmes contributed to attitudinal changes that will further the protection of human rights and gender equality among the poorest after this intervention has ended?

·         To what extent did the programmes manage to shift power balances and contribute to the redistribution of resources, power etc. to more discriminated/excluded groups?

Other context specific programme evaluation questions

·         If country specific issues cannot be addressed in the sections above, please make sure they are addressed through additional relevant questions here.

3. Context Analysis: Based on the findings from the evaluation, as well as the draft Concept Note for the new country programme submitted by SARO, prepare a Context Analysis addressing the following questions –

• Verify the relevance and feasibility of the programme focus proposed by DCA in its draft Concept Note 
• If the suggested programme focus is found to be problematic, this should be discussed and the office should be given a chance to refocus the programme outline.
• Analyse the identified problem and any observed new trends
• Analyse the selected rights-holders and the extent and impact of the problem on them, including differences noted due to gender and/other identity characteristics (age, ethnicity, religion, economic status, etc.)
• Identify and elaborate the rights issues and relevant international human rights standards that need to be in focus
• Analyse the immediate and root causes for the problem, including any discriminatory norms and practices (gender and others)
• Analyse key barriers within institutions and within the social and organising practices of rights-holders and organisations that represent them. Note any non-compliance with relevant human rights standards
• Identify and analyse key legal and moral duty-bearers
• Identify any key opportunities (events, new actors, and/or developments) within the programming period that could be maximised for addressing the problem
• Analyse the response and priorities of regional and international actors, other ACT members, and international, regional and local organisations particularly active on the issue
• Identify the comparative advantage of DCA and its partners and provide recommendations for DCA´s support in the area
• Identify any particular risks that a programme of this nature might face and suggest ways that the risks can be managed or alleviated.

The way forward

Key question:

What are the key recommendations for the design of the future DCA country programme?

Sub questions:

·         How can synergies between the thematic activities, partners, geographic areas and the local-national level be improved?

·         How can useful and necessary regional programme components be maintained under the new programme approach?

·         Which innovative approaches and new technologies could be tested and/or adopted in the new country programme?

·         Please provide recommendations to the mix of partner profiles for a future country programme?

·         What elements/activities could/should be carried forward in the country programme in order to sustain the benefits and results of the current programmes?

4. Scope

The evaluation assignment is planned to take place from 19 April 2016 to 01 June 2016

The evaluation team will visit the project locations covering all four (4) thematic areas both in Nepal and Bangladesh. In addition, partners in India and other locations (regional partners) will be consulted through questionnaires and Skype interviews.

The evaluation will cover the following projects and activities in terms of assessing the extent to which the results created at project and activity level has contributed to the achievement of the objectives of the thematic programmes:

1. PT 1

2. PT 1 Asia

3. PT 3 and 5

4. Humanitarian activities

Specify criteria for selecting projects:

Projects will be selected in consultation with the DCA SARO Programme Team And the partners. Criteria would involve grant size, length of partnerships, national and regional focus, service delivery and advocacy focus.

5.      Evaluation Methodology

It is expected that the consultants will further develop the methodology to be applied within this consultancy but the below key elements should guide the development of the proposed methodology. The team will consist of external consultants, internal DCA staff and partner representatives led by an external team leader. It will be up to the external consultants to design and facilitate the process and the external consultant shall have the right to conduct independent interviews and exercises with no internal participation as they see fit. It will also be the responsibility of the external team to draw the final conclusions and recommendation based on the findings of the total team.

Participatory methodologies must be employed to ensure that the rights holders targeted by the programmes effectively participate in the evaluation process.

The method developed must also be gender sensitive and it must describe how it fits the purpose of the evaluation.

In the data collection and analysis phase the team can use both qualitative and quantitative data collection. The methodology should allow for collection of data from multiple sources, like document review, stakeholder interviews, focus group discussions, participatory workshops.

In order to facilitate the Context Analysis portion of the assignment, the following methodologies are suggested in addition:

a)         Desk review of Background Literature and Statistics

b)         A Partner/Stakeholder Workshop 

c)         Interviews with Primary Stakeholders and Key Informants

d)         Participatory Assessments with the selected right holders.

Please refer to annex II for a list of available documentation

6.      Team composition

The evaluation team is expected to consist of 1 external team leader and 2 consultants covering human rights, advocacy, migration, food security, resilient livelihood, disaster risk reduction and humanitarian issues, preferably from the country or region. Adequate gender representation should be ensured.

In addition, 2 technical advisors from DCA headquarters in Copenhagen, 3 programme officers, the programme coordinator and 3-6 partner representatives are expected to participate as in the whole or parts of the exercise for mutual learning purposes.

The team leader should possess the following expertise:

• Proven team leader skills
• Extensive experience with evaluations, reporting and design processes, including skills such as indicator development, sampling, participatory evaluation methodology, appreciative enquiry methods, focus group interviews, etc.
• Experience with multi-sectoral evaluations
• Proven experience from NGO and CBO based development assistance in X country
• Proven expertise on the cross cutting issues such as Rights Based Approach and Gender.
• Experience with faith based organisations in general and DCA in particular is an asset

Further, the team as a whole should have proven expertise in the following areas (adjust and adapt as needed)

• Active Citizenship (local governance, gender-sensitive electoral reforms, anti-corruption and national/local budget advocacy and monitoring, legal advocacy on civil and political rights and discrimination, civil society space)
• Migrants’ Rights, both regionally and globally
• Right to Food (food security including kitchen gardens and pastoralism, local savings and loans schemes, disaster risk reduction, as well as farmer field schools).
• Humanitarian action
• Anti-corruption and organisational accountability
• Organisational capacity development

Consultants’ applications will be evaluated according to a specific DCA Matrix.

7.      Output

• A detailed evaluation methodology and matrix, not exceeding 30 pages
• A Context Analysis, not exceeding 20 pages
• A brief debriefing note on the most significant findings and recommendations to be discussed in a debriefing session with the Regional Office
• An evaluation report in 1-3-25 format

Additional project/ programme specific information, DCA evaluation guidelines, consultant selection criteria, etc. are available upon request.