Kader project ‘Promoting local dialogue for disability inclusive livelihood and social cohesion in Upper Egypt’ 2019- 2023

  • Egypt
  • TBD




    • Job applications may no longer be accepted for this opportunity.


Handicap International - Humanity & Inclusion

TERMS OF REFERENCE

PROJECT FINAL EVALUATION

Kader project

‘Promoting local dialogue for disability inclusive livelihood and social cohesion in Upper Egypt’

2019- 2023

Introduction

  1. About Handicap International (Humanity & Inclusion)

HI is an international, independent and impartial non-profit organization that intervenes in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside persons with disability and vulnerable populations, HI acts and takes notice, to meet their basic needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. HI is currently implementing projects in more than 60 countries worldwide.

  1. About Handicap International (Humanity & Inclusion) in Egypt

Handicap International (HI) registered in Egypt with the Ministry of Social Solidarity in 2013 and has its permit renewed until 2025. Since then, HI has been implementing various programs to promote access to inclusive and adapted services for persons with disability and vulnerable groups.

Areas of Intervention

  • Early childhood development
  • Inclusive education
  • Economic inclusion
  • Functional and physical rehabilitation

Context of the evaluation

    1. Presentation of the project to evaluate
  • Project title
    • ‘Promoting local dialogue for disability inclusive livelihood and social cohesion in Upper Egypt’
  • Implementation dates
    • 01/05/2019 – 30/04/2023
  • Location/Areas of intervention
    • Assiut – Egypt
  • Operating Partners
    • Ank Association
  • Target Groups
    • 100 vulnerable household living with disability in targeted areas
    • Ank association for orphan and community development in ANK village / Qusia district
  • Project Budget
    • 838,890.57 Euro
  • Funded by
    • European Union (EU)

Project Information:

Overall objective:

Foster the collaboration of civil society, local authorities, and the private sector to promote equitable development and support economic segments able to reduce poverty among most disadvantaged groups.

Specific objective

In El Qusiya district of Assiut governorate, the El-Ber DPO is empowered to contribute to the improvement of the livelihoods of vulnerable HHs living with disabilities, through a multi-stakeholder approach engaging the civil society, private sector and local authorities.

Expected result 1: A local Multi-Stakeholder Working Group (MSWG), including public authorities, the private sector and civil society, jointly identify and support productive initiatives to enhance the participation of HHs with disabilities to local economic development and improve social cohesion.

The indicators of the result one

  • A study report on socio-economic profile of vulnerable HHs is available
  • List of production/marketing strategies for each of the prioritized market opportunities identified by the MSWG
  • Number of participatory working sessions held by the MSWG to perform their role
  • Improvement of MSWG’s members confidence in the HHs with disabilities’ potential to contribute to local economy

Expected result 2: A local DPO, El Ber, is empowered to represent vulnerable HHs with disabilities in the MSWG and to facilitate an enabling environment at the community level for HHs’ participation in the productive initiatives enabled by the MSWG

The indicators of the result 2

  • Number of El Ber members and Ank association members trained
  • Mapping of the livelihood’s actors available
  • Improvement of El Ber confidence in engaging other MSWG members

**Expected result 3:**In the targeted communities, thanks to El Ber’s tailored support, vulnerable HHs living with disabilities improve their income generation capacity

The indicators of the result 3

  • Number of HHs accompanied by El Ber and Ank association to develop and implement an action plan
  • Proportion of HHs who complete their action plan: 70%
  • Proportion of the supported households who report improvement in their economic indicators of quality of life

Main activities implemented

1.1 Facilitate and support the creation of a local multi-stakeholder working group (MSWG)

1.2 Capacity-building of the MSWG members

1.3 Study on the socio-economic profile of vulnerable HHs and the factors constraining their capacity to generate income

1.4 Identification of market opportunities through a participatory assessment and the commissioning of a market analysis

1.5 Participatory identification of the most efficient production and marketing strategies

1.6 Mobilization of local resources and creation of partnerships between local entrepreneurs and El Ber

1.7 Support the MSWG to manage sub-grant mechanisms for the stimulation of local production initiatives

Activity 1.8 Conduct a final study on the impact of the inclusive production initiatives on social cohesion in the target communities

2.1 Definition and support to El-Ber’s action plan to take a leading role in representing vulnerable HHs with disabilities in the MSWG and supporting them in the communities

2.2 Training El-Ber representatives

2.3 El Ber coaching to represent vulnerable HHs with disabilities in the MSWG and to promote the role of civil society to contribute to local development processes, through policy dialogue

2.4 Mapping and mobilization of local actors contributing to socio-economic inclusion in the area

3.1 Analysis of identified HHs’ vulnerability factors and disability-related barriers/facilitators to livelihoods

3.2 Development of HHs’ action plan

3.3 Accompany HHs in the implementation of their action plan: business coaching, basic life skills training, referral/support to access livelihoods services

3.4 As part of the follow-up, support targeted HHs’ access to the sub-grant mechanisms managed by the MSWG and to local trainers/mentors

3.5 Facilitation of peer-to-peer support and/or formal collaboration between targeted HHs

    1. Justification of the evaluation

The final evaluation is a mandatory activity with the project closure assessing the project, programme or policy, its design, implementation and results. The aim of the final evaluation is to assess the quality of the project based on the criteria of the HI quality framework. The final evaluation would assess the whole life period of the project 2019 -2023.

Objectives of the evaluation

    1. Overall objectives and expectations of the evaluation

The general objective of the final evaluation is to provide an assessment that compares the results/objectives initially planned for the project: “Promoting local dialogue for disability-inclusive livelihood and social cohesion in Upper Egypt”, with what was achieved. The aim of the evaluation is to assess the project’s effectiveness, level of change, relevancy, and compliance with all stakeholders.

Eventually, the final evaluation process will mobilise all stakeholders, including HI, MSWG. benefeciaries. and partners.

3.2 Specific objectives

    • Assess the changes and impact of the project in terms of achieving positive and measurable changes, mitigation measures of any potential adverse effects and the extent to which actors strengthen and empowered to reduce the vulnerability of the targeted population.
      – Assess the relevance of the project in regard to responding to the demands and needs of the affected population, adaptation to the local context and learning lessons from experience.
      – Analyse the extent to which the project’s results contributed to achieving project objectives and adjustments made based on regular monitoring of project activities.
      – Evaluate the project’s compliance in communicating with stakeholders, respecting international and national laws and donors’ obligations, and documenting data and evidence per internal data protection frameworks.
      – Provide lessons learnt and recommendations to improve the continuation of the future design and strategies for providing disability-inclusive livelihood and social cohesion action technical support.

3.3 Evaluation criteria and evaluative questions

  1. Changes (Effects and Empowerment):
    1. Did the value chains improve the beneficiaries’/households’ livelihood? Did the value chains impact the lives of the beneficiaries and their households in other manners (ex. social)?
    2. Has the intervention impacted the ability of households to meet their basic needs?
    3. To what extent are these effects sustainable?
    4. Did the project activities support the economic and social empowerment of the target beneficiaries (those who participated in the value chains)?
    5. What was the impact on the project stakeholders (MSWG, partners, entrepreneurs, etc.)? Was the impact positive or negative? How this impact affected the successes and/or failures of the project?
  2. Relevance (Needs, Context, and Lessons Learned):
    1. To what extent was the original project design relevant to the context of the geographic area of intervention? To what extent did the project’s MSWG supported adjustments of modalities and activities when needed?
    2. To what extent has the project been reactive to the lessons learned during its implementations and able to adjust its modalities and activities to achieve the project’s objectives?
  3. Effectiveness (Results, and Adjustments):
    1. To what extend did the project meet its expected results? Do the results obtained contribute to the achievement of the project objective?
  4. Compliance (Communication, Regulations, and Documentation):
    1. Was the internal and external communication of the project adequate and adapted to the different targets?
    2. Did the project comply with international and HI standards for the protection of beneficiaries’ data?

Evaluation methodology and organization of the mission

4.1 Collection methodology

The evaluation methods should be rigorous yet at all times appropriate to the context of the project intervention and will be discussed with the HI steering committee. The evaluation will be based on primary and secondary data in particular documentation directly related to the project proposal, narrative and financial report, databased, lessons learnt reports, good practice documents, and other documents produced to analyse individual project components and inform the decision regarding the course of the activities.

HI, values the contributions of the external evaluator toward proposing appropriate, innovative, and robust methods of evaluation. Some basic methodological requirements, however, are:

  • All evaluation tools should be accessible for the use of persons with disabilities*.*
  • The evaluation must be a participative and interactive process with HI, its partners, the MSWG and the direct beneficiaries.
  • The methodology will combine quantitative and qualitative data collection techniques and analysis, consultants are responsible of data collection and identifying data collectors, recruitment and payment
  • The evaluator is responsible for keeping timely and accurate records of interviews and other data collection and submitting the soft forms by the end of the consultancy.
  • The proposed methodology should also describe how cross-cutting issues of gender, and disabilities will be addressed and incorporated throughout the various stages of the evaluation.
  • The evaluator should adhere to HI’s and their research ethics for collecting, using and storing data and communication with the respondents.

The main addressees of the evaluation are:

  • Partner and its project staff
  • Beneficiaries
  • Entrepreneurs
  • HI’s Project staff
  • MSWG

4.2 Actors involved in the evaluation

  • HI:

    • The main implementer of the project activities.
  • MSWG:

    • MSWG (Multi-Stakeholder working group) is the referee of the project and responsible for each step of the implementation of the project
  • Entrepreneurs:

    • regularly assess market demand and place production order to the household provide the raw material to the households’ productions; buy the final products from the households and market them (at his/her own profit); provide partner households with technical support to ensure the attainment of the agreed products’ quality standards.
  • EU:

    • The main donor of the project

4.3 Organization of the mission

Steering Committee Members:

  • Egypt Country Manager
  • Regional Technical Unit Manager
  • Regional Logistics Manager
  • Project Manager
  • Regional MEAL Manager

Steering Committee roles and responsibilities:

  • Attending kick-off, follow-up and presentation meetings.
  • Defining the selection criteria of external consultant(s).
  • Validation of the ToR.
  • Contribution to consultancy contract.
  • Validation of Inception Report.
  • Validation of data collection tools.
  • Validation of evaluation report.

Principles and values

5.1. Protection and Anti-Corruption Policy

  1. Code of Conduct
  2. Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment
  3. Child Protection Policy
  4. Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy

5.2. Ethical measures*

As part of each evaluation, HI is committed to upholding certain ethical measures. It is imperative that these measures are taken into account in the technical offer:

  • Guarantee the safety of participants, partners and teams: the technical offer must specify the risk mitigation measures.
  • Ensuring a person/community-centred approach: the technical offer must propose methods adapted to the needs of the target population (e.g. tools adapted for illiterate audiences / sign language / child-friendly materials, etc.).
  • Obtain the free and informed consent of the participants: the technical proposal must explain how the evaluator will obtain the free and informed consent and/or assent of the participants.
  • Ensure the security of personal and sensitive data throughout the activity: the technical offer must propose measures for the protection of personal data.

*These measures may be adapted during the completion of the inception report.

Any incident foreseen during the implantation of the evaluation shall be directly reported to Egypt Country Manager – Caroline DAUBER ([email protected])

Expected deliverables and proposed schedule

6.1. Deliverables

  • An inception report refining/specifying the proposed methodology for answering the evaluation questions, action plan, evaluation matrix and data collection tools. This inception report will have to be validated by the Steering Committee.
  • A presentation document presenting the first results, conclusions and recommendations to be presented to the Steering Committee and HI members.
  • A final report of approximately 20-30 pages maximum (excluding annexes) and that includes the following:
    • Executive Summary
    • Introduction & Background
    • Methodology and Approach
    • Findings
    • Conclusions
    • Recommendations
    • Annexes (ToR, Inception Report, List of interview/FGDs, Data collection Tools, References)
  • A summary of 3-4 pages

6.2. End-of-Evaluation Questionnaire

An end-of-evaluation questionnaire will be given to the evaluator and must be completed by him/her, a member of the Steering Committee and the person in charge of the evaluation.

6.3. Evaluation dates and schedule

  • ToR validated
    • Feb 28th
  • Announcement of consultancy
    • Mar 7th
  • Received applications shared with the steering committee
    • Mar 21st
  • Applications scored and initial shortlist selected (2-3 candidates)
    • Mar 26th
  • Contract signed
    • Mar 30th
  • Kick-off meeting with consultant (1 working day)
    • Apr 2nd
  • Desk review documents shared with consultant
    • Apr 3rd
  • Inception phase including inception report and data collection tools (9 working days)
    • Apr 10th
  • Data collection phase (10 working days)
    • Apr 24th
  • Data Analysis and reporting phase (including validation of final report) (6 working days)
    • Apr 30th
  • Presentation of findings and sharing of final validated report (2 working days)
    • May 1st
  • End of evaluation questionnaire completed
    • May 1st

Means

    1. Expertise sought from the consultant(s)
  • At least 5 years of experience in designing, conducting and leading project evaluations (or assessments) in humanitarian and/or development projects and programmes for international donors, especially in the monitoring and evaluation field.
  • Strong qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis experience, particularly in terms of participatory methodologies and facilitation skills.
  • Proven experience in conducting evaluations in the field of livelihood and economic empowerment projects.
  • Previous proven experience in conducting evaluations for EU-funded projects and/or HI-implemented projects is an asset.
  • Very good understanding of disability and Inclusion.
  • Excellent Arabic and English oral and writing skills with logical clarity.
    1. Budget allocated to the evaluation

The evaluation budget submitted should be detailed including daily rate of consultant(s), flights, accommodation, transportation, communication and any other related costs. Any offer with no detailed budget will be disregarded. The applications must detail in the financial offer: the cost per day for each evaluator; the breakdown of the time spent per evaluator and per stage of work; the ancillary costs (services and additional documents); the overall cost of the intervention including transport costs (international and local), logistics costs, translation costs; with proposals for payment modalities.

Caution: please note that the last payment is conditional on the validation of the final report and not on the sending of the final report. By validation, we mean validation of the quality and under no circumstances of the appreciation of the project evaluated (based on the quality checklist attached, chapter 6).

7.3. Available resources made available to the evaluation team

  • The proposal of the project – Logical framework
  • Annual reports
  • The reports of the project studies
  • The entrepreneurs report
  • MSWG reports
  • Soft skills report for beneficiaries

Submission of applications

In order to apply for the external evaluation consultancy, the following documents are expected to be submitted:

  • Technical offer that includes general understanding of the ToR, suggested methodology and approach.
  • Detailed financial offer
  • Two copies of previous evaluation experience (reports).
  • CV(s) of the consultant(s)
  • Legal registration for companies/firms.

The submissions should be shared with the following email address: [email protected]

with the subject of “PROJECT FINAL EVALUATION” no later than March 20th, 2023, at 18:00 Cairo Local Time (GMT+2). Any applications received after the designated date and time will be disregarded*.*

End

How to apply

he submissions should be shared with the following email address: [email protected]

with the subject of “PROJECT FINAL EVALUATION” no later than March 20th, 2023, at 18:00 Cairo Local Time (GMT+2). Any applications received after the designated date and time will be disregarded*.*

Deadline: 20 Mar 2023