Organization: Integrity Action
Closing date: 13 Feb 2017
Nepal 16 / Community Monitoring of Nepal’s Earthquake Reconstruction – Integrity Action
Terms of reference for evaluation
CIB Community Integrity Building
DAC Development Assistance Committee
FE Final Evaluation
IA Integrity Action
PVF Pro Victimis Foundation
VDC Village Development Committee
TOR Terms of Reference
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
Integrity Action (IA) is a UK based not-for-profit organisation, whose mission is to empower citizens to act with and demand integrity, actively taking part in building institutions to promote a state that is open, accountable and responsive to their needs and expectations. Without integrity, measures to safeguard human rights, protect the environment, strengthen democracy, promote social equity and reduce poverty are compromised.
IA serves as a catalyst and incubator for important innovations and networks. IA works with governments, businesses, academia and civil society, sharing high levels of expertise and insight to develop the practical knowledge and skills required to tackle corruption and promote integrity effectively. In doing so, we seek to address the causal link between poverty and poor governance. IA operates from offices in Jerusalem and London.
IA is seeking consultancy services for the Final Evaluation (FE) for activities funded by Pro Victimis Foundation under Nepal 16 / Community Monitoring of Nepal’s Earthquake Reconstruction project. The purpose of the FE is to provide an independent assessment on the performance, impact and sustainability of activities which have received PVF’s funding from 1st April 2016 to 28th February 2017 as well as derive key learnings for the IA and partners. The FE will be used by IA and partner organisations, and possibly other interested stakeholders to inform their future work.
General Context: Community Integrity Building
Integrity Actions mission is to empower citizens to act with and demand integrity
Integrity Action empowers citizens to act with and demand integrity through its Community Integrity Building programme (CIB).
CIB uses a social accountability/ community integrity building approach to improve the way services are delivered in fragile and developing countries. CIB’s biggest contribution is its unique community driven, collaborative problem-solving approach, focusing on integrity problems and solutions to public service delivery. Local and regional government leaders and local service providers are often reluctant to collaborate, but the persistent strategy of pursuing collaborative solutions (backed up by community monitoring and evidence of mistrust or dissatisfaction with service delivery), has in most cases paid off. The result of this effort has been a catalogue of integrity innovations that follow an overall strategic design but that are responsive to local needs and organisational capacities.
The CIB programme currently provides support to thirteen different local NGOs, in nine specified countries, with whom Integrity Action currently works in partnership with to carry out this CIB approach. CIB does not propose ready-made service delivery solutions to integrity challenges at the local level. Instead, the CIB programme supports people at the local level to identify integrity challenges, suggest solutions and advocate for these solutions with local service providers, especially local state institutions.
Nepal 16 / Community Monitoring of Nepal’s Earthquake Reconstruction
Under the support from PVF, Integrity Action worked with local partners in Nepal to train and enable citizen monitors to monitor the reconstruction efforts in the District of Sindhupalchok, one of the worst-affected districts as a result of the 2015 earthquake. The total amount of the project grant was EUR 40,000.
The support received from PVF complemented other Integrity Action’s initiatives in Nepal, all aimed at monitoring reconstruction in Sindhupalchok. These other initiatives were funded by a number of donors, among which SIDA, FeedbackLabs and Global Giving.
Under PVF’s grant, Integrity Action focused their monitoring efforts in the 3 VDCs of Kiwool, Palchowk, and Dubachaur, and the Municipality of Melamchi, with a total population of 13,8621.
Through this project, Integrity action aimed to:
- Engage communities to ensure they get the help they need.
- Reduce the failure rate of reconstruction projects.
- Reduce fraud, corruption, waste, mismanagement and duplication, while increasing efficient use of resources.
- Enhance trust between donors, implementers and recipients.
Overall goal & scope of the FE
PVF funded activities for Integrity Action will come to an end in February 2017. To facilitate knowledge generation and future planning, IA need an external objective and independent assessment of the impact and change created by the PVF funded project, intended and unintended outcomes, in addition to positive and perhaps even in some cases negative results. The evaluators will assess the planned results and important lessons for future programmes.
Therefore, the final evaluation is to:
- Identify the project outcomes and impact and discuss sustainability of results achieved
- Record lessons and enable them to be shared
- Enable accountability to local stakeholders for the programme’s achievements
- Inform future programme design and management
The final evaluation needs to emphasise on the learning orientation and needs, and therefore be participatory and involve Integrity Action staff, partners, stakeholders involved in the projects and beneficiaries to ensure that lessons are captured and taken on board. A comparative analysis of the 3 VDCs and municipality where PVF funded activities took place is an integral part of the evaluation.
Evaluation questions and levels of analysis
The evaluator will carry out an independent evaluation of the Community Monitoring of Nepal’s Earthquake Reconstruction project activities funded by PFV against the agreed project document.
Project Activities Cover the period from 1st April 2016 to 28th February 2017.
Some of the guiding questions are:
- The extent to which the objectives of the project are consistent with the needs and interest of local communities and other relevant stakeholders in the targeted VDCs and municipality.
- How well does/did the programme improve community engagement in monitoring and decision-making for more transparent, accountable and effective public resource management?
- Was it relevant?
- How well does/did the programme strengthen capacity, tools and lessons learnt within the targeted VDCs and municipality?
- What was the programme’s overall impact and how does this compare with what was expected?
- Have interventions achieved Logframe/ToC objectives?
- How effective and appropriate was the programme approach?
- To what extent have the targeted population, citizens, participants, local and national authorities made the programme their own, taking an active role in it?
- To what extent and in what ways did Integrity Action contribute to the goals of collaborative joint working using social accountability tools at country and local level?
- What are the prospects for the benefits of the programme being sustained after the funding stops? Did this match the intentions?
- How has/could collaboration, networking and influencing of opinion support sustainability?
- Have any good practices, success stories, lessons learned or transferable examples been identified? These will need to be described and documented.
- Did the project represent good value for money?
- Were activities inclusive in terms of gender, age, social/ethnic/religious background, and disabilities?
Methodological approach and deliverables
The methodology will focus around field and desk research. The evaluation report should include a section on each of the 3 VDCs and municipality where PVF funded activities. The consultants are expected to analyse all relevant information sources, such as reports, programme documents, internal reports, programme files, strategic country development documents, and any other documents that may provide evidence on which to form judgements. The evaluation team will make sure that the voices, opinions and information of targeted citizens/participants of Integrity Action are taken into account.
The evaluation team must submit a draft report to Integrity Action in a word format (A4, font Arial 12) and a final report. The evaluation team will be asked to prepare a summary of recommendations and actions to be taken in future project implementations..
Technical principles and premises of the final evaluation
The consultants are required to follow the DAC (1991) Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance within the section on impartiality and independence state:
- The evaluation process should be impartial and independent in its function from the process concerned with the policy making, the delivery and the management of development assistance.
- Impartiality contributes to the credibility of evaluation and the avoidance of bias in findings, analyses and conclusions. Independence provides legitimacy to evaluation and reduces the potential for conflict of interest which could arise if policy makers and managers were solely responsible for evaluating their own activities.
The final evaluation of Integrity Action is to be carried out according to ethical principles and standards followed by Integrity Action. More specifically:
- Anonymity and confidentiality. The evaluation must respect the rights of individuals who provide information, ensuring their anonymity and confidentiality.
- Responsibility. The report must mention any dispute or difference of opinion that may have arisen among the consultants or between the consultant and Integrity Action management in connection with the findings and/or recommendations. The team must corroborate all assertions, or disagreement with them noted.
- Integrity. The evaluators will be responsible for highlighting issues not specifically mentioned in the TOR, if this is needed to obtain a more complete analysis of the intervention.
- Independence. The evaluators should ensure their independence from the intervention under review, and they must not be associated with its management or any element thereof.
- Incidents. If problems arise during the fieldwork, or at any other stage of the evaluation, they must be reported immediately. If this is not done, the existence of such problems may in no case be used to justify the failure to obtain the results stipulated by IA in these terms of reference.
- Validation of information. The evaluators will be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information collected while preparing the reports and will be ultimately responsible for the information presented in the evaluation report.
- Intellectual property. In handling information sources, the consultant shall respect the intellectual property rights of the institutions and communities that are under review.
- Delivery of reports. If delivery of the reports is delayed, or in the event that the quality of the reports delivered is clearly lower than what was agreed, the penalties stipulated in these terms of reference will be applicable.
Qualifications of the consultant / consultancy firm
The evaluators need to be:
- Based in Nepal
- Appropriately qualified independent consultant(s) with a proven track record of evaluating similar projects.
- Knowledge and understanding of the context of Nepal.
- Understanding of integrity, good governance and development issues.
- They should not have been involved in the design or implementation of the project
- PVF will be included in the review process according to the formula they choose and the consultants should be open and willing to accept close cooperation with PVF.
- Engage IA management team, partners and advisors involved in programme M&E in the reviews.
The draft evaluation should be submitted to the Integrity Action management team no later than 10th March 2017. The evaluation schedule runs as follows:
Advertising the Final Evaluation 3 February 2017
Submission of technical and financial proposals to IA management 13 February 2017
Contract and initial briefing 17 February 2017
Evaluation Process Up to 10 March 2017
First Draft to Integrity Action team 10 March 2017
Comments on the draft and final draft 14 March 2017
Report sent to PVF management team 15 March 2017
Documents to be included when submitting a proposal
Interested consultants or consultancy firms must submit the following documents/information to demonstrate their qualifications:
Explaining why they are the most suitable for the work (250 words).
Provide a brief methodology on how consultant/team will conduct this evaluation with a clear outline of the research design including any suggested changes to evaluation questions (250 words).
Description of the consultant/team expertise and the permanent e-mail and phone contact.
A list of previous similar exercises conducted by the consultant or the firm
Financial offer indicating estimated cost of the final evaluation and if the timeline can be met. Please note that our maximum budget for the FE is EUR 2,000
How to apply:
Please email your proposals to Judy Tuwei (firstname.lastname@example.org) by 5pm GMT on Wednesday, 13 February 2017.
Assessment of Received Proposals
The final evaluation contract will be offered to the consultant/ consultancy firm whose offer has received the highest score out of a pre-determined set of weighted technical and financial criteria as follows:
- Technical expertise of evaluation and conducting final evaluations 20%
- Research design and methodology 15%
- Technical expertise of integrity, anti-corruption, local governance, citizen monitoring and community-based development 20%
- Knowledge of Nepal’s context 20%
- Soundness and cost-effectiveness of the financial offer 25%
Responsibility and Coordination
The main contact person for this evaluation is
Outline of the final evaluation
The Final Evaluation must include the following sections:
Title Page including Programme Identification Details
Table of Contents
Abbreviations / acronyms page
Executive summary (maximum 3 pages)
A short introduction to the programme
The evaluation methodology
Findings in relation to standard review criteria
Innovation and lessons learned
Photos of beneficiaries and other stakeholders and quotes from the field
Summary of recommendations.
Annexes must include:
- Terms of reference for the Final Evaluation
- Evaluation schedule / timetable
- List of people met
- Documents consulted
- Detailed statistical data such as updated baseline surveys, etc.
For details on what may be included in the key sections of your evaluation, please refer to generally accepted principles and standards of development evaluation, such as those in the IEG/DAC Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs: Indicative Principles and Standards, 2007, and by an entity satisfactory to the PVF.
Documents to be reviewed
The evaluation team will have full access to key programme documentation. The team should review the following documents and materials:
- Accepted principles and standards of development evaluation, such as those in the IEG/DAC Sourcebook for Evaluating Global and Regional Partnership Programs: Indicative Principles and Standards, 2007
- Project proposal, logframes and budget
- All project reports
- Integrity Action website’s and facebook pages
- Partners reports and materials produced including training manuals
- Any other relevant documents that may be provided by the team and/or partners
- DevelopmentCheck website and app
Read more here:: ReliefWeb