Consultancy Service

Summary

>      Purpose: External Mid-Term Review of the Strengthening Urban Resilience and Engagement (SURE) Programme to reassess the programme logic and theory of change; assess programme quality, efficiency and effectiveness; and identify practical ways to adapt the programme where necessary.

>      Audience: Nepal Red Cross Society management, staff and volunteers, British Red Crossmanagement and staff, programme donors, membersof the public, and other stakeholders including Government of Nepal.

>      Commissioner: Rajesh Srivastava- Country Manager, British Red Cross Nepal; and Mona Aryal- Director of Disaster Management, Nepal Red Cross Society.

>      Review manager:Srishti Adhikari, Country Support Officer, British Red Cross Nepal.

>      Timeframe: 8 weeks upon signing of contract

>     Locations:  Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Bhaktapur, Kaski and Kailali Districts, Nepal

1.   Background

1.1 British Red Cross (BRC) British Red Cross (BRC) is a member of the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement (RCM) committed to increasing the impact of the RCM in supporting communities and individuals to better prepare for, withstand and recover from disasters, conflicts and other crises. BRC’s international work is focused primarily on supporting the following four outcomes:

• People in disaster-affected communities receive timely and effective humanitarian support, saving lives and protecting livelihoods
• Vulnerable communities and individuals around the world are better prepared and able to withstand crises, recover and rebuild their lives
• National Societies are stronger and well organised, and able to sustain delivery of quality services and programmes to vulnerable communities and individuals
• A Movement working effectively and efficiently together as the world’s largest humanitarian network, with more co-ordinated action and greater collective impact in the lives of beneficiaries

Under the2019-24 Corporate StrategyBRC has been increasing its support to the RCM’s disaster response operations around the world and further enhancing its long-term support to some 30 partners in Africa, Asia, the Middle East, and the Mediterranean in the areas of disaster preparedness, health and social care, water, sanitation and hygiene, disaster risk reduction, and organisational development.

1.2   Programme background

The SURE programme works in seven municipalities across five of Nepal’s major urban centres to build resilience to, and preparedness for, a range of disasters. The programme is designed to improve disaster resilience of municipal governments, Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) and citizens, specifically vulnerable groups in urban and peri-urban contexts. Vulnerable communities are engaged through programme champions who represent the four target communities in each municipality and who disseminate programme information to facilitate the increased knowledge and resilience of their networks. The SURE programme uses multi-hazard and network approaches to increase the overall disaster resilience of people in urban areas. The programme is implemented in the following municipalities: Kathmandu metropolitan city and Budhanilkantha municipality in Kathmandu district; Godawari municipality in Lalitpur district; Bhaktapur and Madhyapur Thimi municipalities in Bhaktapur district; Pokhara metropolitan city in Kaski district and Dhangadhi sub-metropolitan city in Kailali district. These cities are experiencing significant unplanned development, with urbanisation rates of above four per cent.   The programme is working towards the following goal: ‘Target municipalities and citizens have increased disaster resilience’. The programme outputs are as mentioned below:

·       Output 1: Populations and target vulnerable groups in the 7 municipal areas have increased awareness of DRM and are able to advocate to municipal government (including elected officials) for actions to increase resilience.

·       Output 2: Municipal population and targeted vulnerable groups in 7 municipal areas are more resilient to disasters.

·       Output 3: 7 Targeted municipal governments are better engaged with municipal populations and have greater capacity to prepare for and respond to disasters.

·       Output 4: NRCS has increased capacity to respond and work with municipal government, municipal populations and target vulnerable groups to build their resilience to disasters.

·       Output 5: NRCS and BRC systematically collect, analyse, disseminate and apply learning to adapt and strengthen programming on an on-going basis.

2.   Purpose and objectives

The purpose of this external mid-term review is to reassess the programme logic and theory of change; assess programme quality, efficiency and effectiveness; and identify practical ways to adapt the programme where necessary.

Review objectives:

·       To systematically and objectively analyse the programme design and implementation based on evidence, using the approach suggested in this ToR.

·       To identify gaps and challenges that need to be addressed and to provide practical recommendations for how the programme design and implementation can be improved.

·       To draw out key learnings including successes that can be replicated.

3.   Scope ofthereview

The review will include information from the seven municipalities in which the programme is implemented, covering the period from September 2016 until August 2019. It is expected that the review will be conducted over a period of up to eight weeks, starting upon signing of contract.

4.  Review criteria and questions

The focus of the review will be developed together with the evaluation team during the inception phase, however, the following areas are likely to be included:

1.       Relevance and Appropriateness:

·       Is the existing capacity and experience of NRCS sufficient to implement the programme?

·       To what extent are programme activities relevant to the needs, priorities and interests of target communities?

·       Were the criteria for targeting beneficiaries appropriate to the needs and context?

·       To what extent have beneficiaries participated in decision-making, informing programme design, and implementation?

2.       Effectiveness:

·       To what extent are the assumptions of the theory of change accurate?

·       To what extent does coordination and engagement with different levels of government offices (and/or other relevant stakeholders) take place and it is effective?

·       Has the SURE programme been effective in influencing government Disaster Risk Reduction (DRR) priorities and targets?

·       Is there evidence to suggest that disaster resilience of targeted communities has increased as a result of the programme? (in line with resilience framework)

·       Are information sharing and feedback channels developed by the programme effective?

·       Is the programme resulting in behaviour change, if so which aspects of the programme are most effective in creating this change?

·       Is monitoring information being used to inform programme decision making?

·       Is there evidence for sharing learning between different geographic locations within the programme?

·       Is the SURE Programme achieving Value for Money as defined by the programmes Value for Money indicators?

3.       Impact:

·       What are the positive and negative, intended and unintended, effects of the programme?

·       To what extent the programme has been able to build disaster management capacity of different stakeholders?

·       Has the advocacy component of the programme contributed to government recognition of community identified issues in their disaster risk management programming?

4.       Sustainability:

·       To what extent NRCS has ownership over the programme (at all relevant organisational levels)?

·       To what extent do municipal and local government, and community have ownership over the programme?

·       Do local governments have a better understanding of their roles and responsibilities in disaster risk management?

·       Can programme outcomes be sustained in the communities without Red Cross support? What can be done to improve the likelihood of sustainability?

·       What measures are in place to ensure that NRCS can continue to implement without technical support from BRC?

·       To what extent has BRC’s technical support strengthened NRCS’ capacity to support vulnerable people?

5.       Coherence:

·       How does the programme fit with BRC and NRCS strategies?

·       Is there variation in the level of understanding and acceptance of the programme across the seven municipalities?

5.  Methods and approach

The reviewwill be carried out in a transparent manner, making sure that all relevant stakeholders participate[1], as appropriate. A BRC counterpart will work alongside the evaluation team. A combination of mix methods to gather data should be used, including:

·       Desk review of relevant documents including: most significant change stories; results harvesting register; champions (or other) surveys; programme reports; issue tracker, previous reviews and data from secondary sources (if relevant).

·       Analysis of existing survey data

·       Primary data collection, including interviews and focus group discussions with relevant staff, volunteers, beneficiaries, community leaders and other relevant stakeholders.

·       Collect case stories (‘mini’ case studies)

·       At the end of the data collection phase a debrief with NRCS and BRC is expected

·       A validation workshop to present and discuss the review findings and recommendations.

The proposal should clearly state how sampling will be done and how data verification and triangulation will be achieved.

6.    Review deliverables

1. An inception report, including:

·       A detailed methodology based on this ToR, including a rationale for the choice of methods and how they will be used to highlight different elements of the programme.

·        A detailed evaluation timeline.

·       Review matrix (main questions, sub-questions, sources of data, methods).

·       Initial findings from the desk review (e.g. of programme documentation, existing data and secondary data).

·       Suggested areas for investigation not covered by this ToR and any suggested additions/alterations.

2. One electronic copy of (a clean version of) qualitative and quantitative data collected

3. Draft and final versions of the review report/outputs. The review report should:

·       Be jargon free, clear, and written to a high quality and in accessible language.

·       Not exceed 25 pages.

·       Include an executive summary, brief programme background, outline of the methodology used, including any limitations, findings and recommendations by evaluation criteria and questions used.

·       Ensure analysis is backed up with relevant data and validated, with reference to the data source.

·       Ensure recommendations made are specific and include relevant details for how they might be implemented in similar programme in future.

·       Contain at least the following annexes:

o   Terms of Reference

o   List of documents reviewed

o   Itinerary for field visits

o   Meetings attended, persons interviewed/ involved in FGDs

o   Data collection tools

4.       A presentation of findings and recommendations for dissemination

5.       2-4 pager summary, preferably with a combination of visuals and text

6.       Nepali translation of the executive summary and final presentation

Note: All deliverables will be reviewed and validated by BRC and NRCS.

6.  Schedule

The consultancy will start in August 2019 for up to eight weeks.

7.  Consultant team specification

This evaluation requires a team and applications will not be considered from single consultants. Between the proposed team members, the following criteria should be met:

·       Significant experience of conducting evaluations, reviews and/or learning initiatives, including methodology design, data collection and analysis.

·       Considerable technical knowledge and experience in evaluating disaster resilience programmes.

·       Familiarity with theory of change approach and methodology.

·       Extensive experience; 5-7 years or at least three examples of evaluating projects.

·       Ability to produce high quality, accessible reports/outputs.

·       Fluency in written and spoken English and Nepali.

·       Strong coordination and facilitation skills, including ability to work in a different culture and context.

·       Capable of working and travelling within Nepal.

·       Experience of working in developing country contexts.

8.  Application procedure

We will select applications from consultancy firm/team. Given the scope of the evaluation we will not consider applications from individual consultants. Approaches that incorporate creative methodologies to draw out and document learning are welcomed. Applications must include:

·       Curricula Vitae (CV) for all proposed team members

·       Cover letter outlining how the consultant/s meet the person specification as mentioned  in the clause number 8, confirmation of availability in the timeframe indicated.

·       Proposal not exceeding six pages, outlining a proposed approach and methodology with timeframe and budget, and an outline of the roles and responsibilities of each member of the consultancy firm/team.

·       A sample of a similar piece of work previously conducted.

·       Contact details for three professional referees.

If you believe you are the right consultancy firm/team for the above consultancy and can clearly demonstrate your ability to meet the indicated qualifications, then submit the above-mentioned documents to Indu Acharya at indu.acharya@ifrc.org subject heading: consultants to undertake an External Mid-Term Review of the Strengthening Urban Resilience and Engagement (SURE) Programme in Nepal. Deadline for Applications is on or before 23rd August 2019 and we thank you in advance for understanding that only short-listed candidates will be contacted for the next step in the application process.