Childcare Capacity and structure building for sustainable and non-discriminatory child protection to strengthen resilience of the affected. At Jesuit Refugee Service

Call for Expression of Interest

Consultancy Job to conduct a project evaluation for the project titled “Childcare – Capacity and structure building of sustainable and non-discriminatory child protection to strengthen the resilience of conflict affected and marginalized children from IDP and host communities in Western Equatoria, South Sudan” financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

Duration: 74 Calendar Days

1. About Jesuit Refugees Service

The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) South Sudan has been registered as an independent, non-profit organization in South Sudan since 1997 is part of the international structure of Jesuit Refugee Service International and is integrated into the organization’s East Africa program. The organization implements 600 projects worldwide in over 58 countries in the areas of poverty reduction, refugee aid, education, peace building and reconciliation, mental health and psychosocial support and human rights. The aim of the organization in South Sudan is to support refugees, internally displaced persons and vulnerable host communities with a focus on peace education, promoting the education of children and young people, mental health and psychosocial support, reconciliation and integrating marginalized groups.

Both organizations are cooperating in other contexts in South Asia (India) and Central Asia (Afghanistan) since 2010. JRS South Sudan has been a cooperation partner of terre des hommes Deutschland e.V. since 2020.

2. About terre des hommes Germany

Terre des Hommes Germany (hereafter “tdh”) is an international children’s rights organization that promotes equitable development without racial, religious, political, cultural, or gender-based discrimination since 1967. Together with our local partner organizations in 37 countries, we support more than 240 projects in Latin America, Africa, Asia, and Europe. TdH is an independent non-governmental organisation that promotes civic engagement and the participation of children and youths in all aspects of its work. TdH sees its mission in strengthening children and realising children’s rights for all children because every child has the right to live and to develop in the best possible way. At TdH, we are convinced that sustainable development is possible for all people if the interests of children and future generations are respected and realised.

3. Background and Rationale

The initiative entitled “Child Care – Capacity and structure building fo sustainable and non-discriminatory child protection to strengthen the resilience of conflict affected and marginalized children from IDP and host communities in Western Equatoria, South Sudan “ is implemented by the International Non-government Organization JRS (Jesuit Refugee Service) its head quarter based in Italy (Rome) and East Africa Regional Offices in Kenya (Nairobi) and South Sudan (Juba, Maban, Yambio). The initiative is supported by terre des hommes Germany and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) with an amount of 5,900,00 Euro budget for the periods from September 2020 to December 2024.

The formulated impact of the project is to contribute to increase the resilience of vulnerable and marginalized children and youth from IDP, refugee returnee and host communities in three Counties (Yambio, Nzara and Ezo) in Western Equatoria State. Its intended outcome is to reduce vulnerability through facilitating durable solutions for education, protection and psychosocial needs.

The main target group consists of war affected children and youth (including children associated with armed groups and armed forces – CAFAAG), women and people with special needs (PSN) in 16 villages of 3 Counties in Western Equatoria. In total

Group

Total

Male

Female

School children

9,590

5,083

4,507

Teacher Trainees

195

81

114

Parent Teacher Association (PTA) members, School Management Committee, School Border of Governance

384

235

149

Key stakeholders in education

1,254

627

627

Persons with Special Needs/PSN

3,466

1,386

2,080

PSN caretakers

600

300

300

Social Workers

124

62

62

CBO members and Interfaith Groups

240

120

120

Women and Girls

1,600

1,600

Men and male youths

1,640

1,640

Community police and community leaders

550

420

130

CAFAAG

130

45

85

total

19,773

9,999

9,774

%

100

50,6%

49,4%

In total, around 19,773 people (51% male, 49% female) will benefit directly and 114,910 indirectly from the project.

Below table depict the project ‘s overall objective and planned outcomes:

Overall Objective

Reduce vulnerability through facilitating durable solutions for education, protection and psychosocial needs for internally displaced persons, returnees and host communities in Wester Equatoria State, South Sudan.

Outcome 1

Strengthen protection and well-being of conflict affected children and adolescents by increasing access to quality education and life skills training in safe learning spaces

Outcome 2

Strengthen the wellbeing and resilience of marginalized groups (Older adults, People with disabilities) affected by conflict and displacement through provision of critical protection-related assistance and promoting inclusive protective communities that promote their well-being and resilience

Outcome 3

3. Ensure survivors of gender-based violence and at-risk women and girls can access psychosocial support in safe spaces to support their recovery and wellbeing and increase the community’s capacity to address gender-specific protection concerns of girls and women at-risk of violence, exploitation and abuse.

Outcome 4

Facilitate social cohesion and reconciliation through strengthening inclusive community-based initiatives and capacities to promote coexistence and conflict resolution among IDP returnee and host communities in Western Equatoria.

The project is supported by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

The original plan was for the project to be implemented via the terre des hommes association structures by the sister organization terre des hommes Lausanne. Against the background of the coronavirus pandemic and the associated severe restrictions in the education sector in South Sudan, limited freedom of movement and increasingly high running costs for security measures that could not be fully maintained by third-party funds and own resources, the program of terre des hommes Lausanne on site was reduced to a minimum and largely discontinued affecting the proposal submission of already committed institutional funds (BMZ, GFFO). Based on its existing cooperations with JRS in South and Central Asia, tdh Germany got in touch with JRS in Italy and subsequently JRS South Sudan in order to discuss a possible cooperation to commonly utilize the committed funds.

4. Purpose, Objectives and Use of the Final Project Evaluation

The overall aim of this project evaluation is the provision of an external, strategic review of the project’s performance, achievements, and challenges. It shall analyze the overall results of the project. In doing so, it shall provide lessons learned about the project design, implementation, and management and identify components, which were beneficial or harmfulfor achieving the project’s objectives. The evaluation is further commissioned in order to:

• Analyze the project planned objectives, results, strategies, measures/activities, as well as the target group and the stakeholders, organizations and institutions involved and to evaluate whether the applied strategies have met the desired results.
• Critically examine the project measures as per OECD-DAC criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.
• Ensure financial accountability and transparency.
• Resulting from the analysis, the evaluation shall provide clear recommendations for all stakeholders involved regarding the project outcome, project monitoring, or project management by implementing partners and/or tdh.
• Provide objective feedback on project conceptualization, implementation as well as operationalization (e.g. methodological approaches) to JRS and tdh.
• Identify major successes and challenges.
• Identify problems and obstacles regarding project design, implementation, and or management.
• Identify lessons learned for potential next project phases.
• Evaluate how well the project addresses the peoples’ needs, which have been identified in the beginning of the project.
• Identify components that ensure the sustainability of the project’s beneficial results.
• Point out unintended effects induced by project activities and how they might be considered in future project planning.

The evaluation results will be used by JRS and tdh head office (tdh Africa programme, tdh humanitarian assistance team) in order to:

• Strengthen accountability and transparency vis à vis the project donor tdh/BMZ.
• Provide evidence to be used for public relations and fundraising.
• Learn about challenges and potentials when working in the field of improving the resilience of conflict-affected children and youth, women and PSN in the context of fragile, protracted multiple crises contexts through capacity and structure building for education, reconciliation and psychosocial needs.
• Learn about challenges and potential when working in contexts of protracted and multiple crises in general and South Sudan in particular.

5. Evaluation Questions

Overarching question

• How successful has the project been in achieving the goals set?
• How successful has the project been in initiating substantial and sustainable structural changes, especially for children and youth in the target region(s)?
• To which of tdh’s and its partner organizations strategic goals for the period 2019-2023[1] did the project contribute and to what extend?
• Which major successes did the project achieve and which major obstacles did it face?
• How successful and beneficial was the collaboration between involved stakeholders?
• Were the measures to address and integrate CAFAAG relevant and appropriate? What was good, where are gaps? What should be replicated and where is space for improvement?
• How can national and international civil society actors act effectively to achieve sustainable results in contexts where state structures and services are largely absent?
• What should JRS/tdh consider in conceptualizing longer-term projects focusing to address the triple nexus and attempts to achieve longer-term results in protracted humanitarian contexts in the field of protection of vulnerable groups (children, youth and women in particular). Please advise on thematic focusses as well as methodological approaches in the field of protection and sustainable livelihood support for youth and women.
• Based on the evaluation of the educational activities of the project, please also provide recommendations for a holistic and participatory approach in providing longer-term life perspectives for young people/youth after school, including access to (higher) quality education, access to vocational training and job opportunities or entrepreneurship with view on the difficult context of South Sudan.

The following evaluation questions can be derived from the abovementioned, overarching question, enabling an assessment of the project regarding the OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability):

5.1 Relevance

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the project’s objectives and design responded to beneficiaries on country level, to partner’s needs, to policies and priorities, and how they will continue to do so if circumstances change:

• Was the project intervention of relevance to the target groups’ (specifically women and youth) needs and priorities?
• Was the right implementing partner chosen for this specific project? Was the project in line with the implementing partner’s strategies and capacities?
• Was the project intervention of relevance for the needs of other important stakeholders (e.g. local authorities, government representatives)?
• Was the project in line with the policies/strategies/principles/findings of the national government/German development policies/researchers etc.?
• Was the planning and design of the project done in accordance with the needs and with the participation/consultation of the target group and other important stakeholders?
• To what extent was the project’s results framework/logical framework coherent?
• Was the cause-effect-hypothesis of the project plausible?
• Were the indicators relevant to the measurement of the project’s outputs and outcome?
• Did the project effectively adjust to external changes to maintain relevance over the entire project period?

5.2 Coherence

The compatibility of the intervention with other institutions in a country, sector or institution. Here it is important to differentiate between internal and external coherence. Internal: Synergies and interlinkages between the intervention (and other interventions) carried out by the same institution.

External: Consistency of the intervention with other actor’s interventions in the same context (adding value, avoiding duplications

5.2.1 Internal coherence

• Was the project in line with at least one of tdh’s strategic goals? If yes, in which way and did it create synergies among the strategic goals?
• Was the project in line with tdh’s Child Safeguarding Policy?
• Did the project enable adequate child and youth participation? Which measures were particularly conducive to child and youth participation, which ones were hindering?
• Was the project in line with the local project partner’s objectives/strategies and did it take into account the local partner’s capabilities?

5.2.2 External coherence

• To what extent did the project support national policies in South Sudan regarding education, psychosocial support and peacebuilding and reconciliation?
• Did the project take into account interventions of other actors (both state and non-state) in the same locality/area of intervention?
• Was the coordination with other stakeholders effective in terms of complementarity and harmonization? How could this be further improved?
• Was the project’s methodology and activities up to date and in line with local/national/international research findings in the area of intervention.
• Which added value does the intervention have in comparison with other projects/programs in the same field of action and/or in the same locality?

5.3 Effectiveness

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the project achieved its objectives and results, including any differential results across groups:

• Did the project design prove adequate in order to achieve the envisaged project outcome? Which components were particularly beneficial? Where is room for improvement?
• Were the project management capacities adequate? Were all involved stakeholders aware of their roles and responsibilities and did they live up to these responsibilities? Where is room for improvement?
• How effectively has the project contributed to improving the resilience and protection of the target population as well as their psychosocial well-being?
• How did coordination and cooperation with other stakeholders such government departments, other civil society organizations in the region, religious leaders, community leaders and community groups influence the achievement of the project’s objectives? Were coordination and cooperation with other stakeholders satisfying?
• Did the defined project objectives and related indicators prove realistic? If not, why?
• Which internal and/or external factors had a positive influence on the achievement of the project’s objectives
• Which internal and/or external factors had a negative influence on the achievement the project’s objectives?
• Which obstacles and challenges did the project face regarding the participation of women, children and youth? How were these overcome?
• Can any good practices be identified regarding the project’s effectiveness, which may be used in future projects by JRS and tdh in South Sudan and other contexts of protracted crises in particular focusing on longer term approaches and a Triple Nexus (humanitarian -development-peace)?

5.4 Efficiency

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the intervention delivered results in an economic and timely manner:

• Have well qualified staff and funds been allocated strategically to achieve the envisaged outcome? What went especially well? Where is room for improvement?
• Was the relationship between input of resources and results and impact achieved appropriate and justifiable? What is the cost-benefit ratio? Where is room for improvement?
• Was coordination with other stakeholders implemented in a way that increased the project’s efficiency? What went especially well? Where is room for improvement?
• Were the project management, monitoring and evaluation structures and practices designed and conducted in an efficient way regarding funding, staffing and expertise?
• Were the project’s resources used appropriate and timely to achieve improved access to quality education and improve the protection of women and youth through providing psychosocial support, the involvement of different social groups in peacebuilding measures, the targeted support of women and children/youth? What went particularly well? Where is room for improvement?
• Were any good practices identified regarding the project’s efficiency, which may be used in future projects in South Sudan/the context of prolonged and multiple crises?

5.5 Impact

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the intervention generated significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level / structural changes and effects:

• How did the project contribute to the envisaged impact of contributing to the harmonious and peaceful coexistence of returnees, internally displaced persons and host communities in three South Sudan Counties (Yambio, Nzara and Ezo). Which activities and measures were particularly helpful for achieving the envisaged impact? Which were hindering?
• Did the project provide lessons learnt from failure and/or best practices from which the partner organization and tdh can learn for future project planning, design, and implementation?
• Has the project led to overarching structural changes? Which activities and measures were particularly helpful for achieving structural change? Which were hindering?
• How successful were capacity development measures carried out in the partner organizations as part of the project? Where is room for improvement?
• How many people have benefitted directly/indirectly from the project? If the targeted numbers could not be achieved, what were the reasons?
• What would have happened if the project had not been implemented?
• Did the project contribute to tdh’s strategic goals? If yes, which ones and how?
• Did the project contribute to/induce any unintended changes/effects?

5.6 Sustainability

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions helps to assess the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention will continue or are likely to continue:

• Did the project have any impact beyond its target regions? If yes, which measures and activities were particularly helpful for reaching a broader impact?
• Did the project have any impact beyond its runtime? If yes, which measures and activities were particularly helpful for reaching a lasting impact?
• What risks to and potentials for the sustainability/durability of the results/effects exist?
• To what extent is the local partner organization and/or the institutions/groups/ networks created during the project’s runtime able to maintain their activities without outside intervention and support the project’s positive effects?
• To what extent has the local partner organization and the target groups achieved resilience vis a vis external changes and shocks (economical, ecological, political)?
• To what extent has local ownership and leadership been achieved?

Normally an analysis of the project’s sustainability should encompass the economic, social, ecologic and institutional sustainability/durability of the project’s positive effects/results (please also compare project proposal chapter 7):

• Economic/financial: To what extent can the project’s positive results be maintained without outside funding? Are there other funding entities that might/can/will take over?
• Social: Are the positive changes made anchored sufficiently in social norms, individual/collective behaviours?
• Institutional: Are the positive results anchored in stable institutions such as state institutions, civil society networks, laws, regulations etc.
• Environmental: Are the positive environmental effects likely to endure?

6. Methodology

6.1 Methodology

In order to respond to the questions above, the consultant(s) is (are) expected to conduct both a desk study and field work in South Sudan, applying both qualitative and quantitative methods allowing for triangulation. In doing so, the consultant(s) shall create a holistic understanding and analysis of the project’s output and outcomes.

Special attention should be paid to participatory methods of data collection, carried out in close cooperation with the partner organizations and representatives of the target groups. The data collection should always be child-oriented and highly sensitive to gender relations; methods must be adapted to target groups and local conditions. The consultant(s) is (are) encouraged to implement the applied methodologies as creatively as possible.

Accordingly, the consultant(s) is (are) expected to apply the following methods when conducting the project evaluation:

• A desk study – analysis of the project’s background documents, including, but not limited to,
  • Feasibility study and/or evaluations of earlier and/or similar projects,
  • The project proposal,
  • Project progress reports,
  • Results of available baseline studies,
  • Results of an available gender analysis or other relevant analysis/studies conducted during the project period,
  • Policies and strategies, etc.
• Key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders (e,g, with tdh staff in the head office and/or regional/country office, staff of the partner organizations, key persons in the local administration, key persons from the local communities).
• Focus group discussion(s) with relevant stakeholders who benefitted from the project.
• Individual interviews with beneficiaries.
• Questionnaires with beneficiaries.
• Participatory Rural Appraisal (incl. respective practical exercises such as lifeline, participatory mapping, road journey, diagrams, etc.).

The following stakeholders are considered critical and should be involved in data collection:

• TdH staff at head office,
• Staff of local partner organization(s),
• Key informant(s) in the local or national government administration in South Sudan,
• Key informants from local communities,
• Target group(s) representatives, such as children, youths, women, men, people with special needs (PSN), etc.

Whenever the projects’ target groups are involved in the research process, particular attention must be paid to the poorest, most vulnerable, and most remote members of the target groups in order to give them an opportunity to participate in the evaluation. The (results from) focus group discussions and interviews are to be transcribed in English to be available for analysis in the long term.

When conducting the study, the child safeguarding standards must be observed in the connection with data collection and the methodologies applied as well as in the creation and use of image material.

7. Deliverables, responsibilities, and tentative schedule

The evaluation is managed directly by the responsible desk officer at tdh HQ and the project partner JRS. If (a) local consultant(s) is (are) chosen to conduct the evaluation, the respective contract is signed between the consultant(s) and the regional office. In case an international consultant is chosen, the head office is responsible for contracting.

General roles and responsibilities include:

Evaluators, evaluation team

Put together evaluation team; carry out arrangements for national or international travel, including purchase of tickets (taking into account relevant procurement rules), visas, vaccination; carry out desk study and field research; compile reports plus annexes (draft report, final report); prepare, moderate and systematize follow-up workshop

Tdh Germany head office

Overall responsibility for tender process and selection of evaluation team; responsible for final approval of reports; offer guidance to and/or accompany the evaluators; prepare and facilitate all necessary project documents; be available as interviewee

Local project partner (JRS South Sudan)

Selects evaluation team together with and approves reports together with tdh Germany; gives access to entire project documentation and facilitates access to the target group; arranges local travel where necessary; is available for interviews and further inquiries; takes part in the stakeholder workshop and facilitate project site visits and data collection processes.

The following table provides an overview about the tentative schedule and specification of inputs

Evaluation measures

To dos / deliverables

Responsible institution

Deadline / schedule

Consultants’ Working days

Consultant Selection

Advertising the consultancy service

TdH Germany

1st Aug’24

Selection of the consultant

TdH/JRS

23rd Aug’24

Agreement signing with the consultant

TdH/JRS

27th Aug’24

Preparation phase

Clarification of tasks & responsibilities

Provision of materials for desk study

– tdh Germany

– JRS

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

30th Aug’24

Information about tdh child safeguarding policy

Clarification of open questions

Desk study

Familiarization with explicit knowledge regarding the project

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

2nd -6th Sept’24

5 days

Analysis of strategies, project proposal, previous evaluations, etc.

Writing of desk study as part of final evaluation report

Inception report

Drawing up of concrete workplan & schedule

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

9th 13th Sep’24

5 days

Definition of tasks & responsibilities within evaluation team

Detailed description of methodology

Inception workshop

Moderation

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

16th -20th Sep’24

5 days

Active participation

– tdh Germany

– JRS

Adaptation of inception report and development of data collection tools

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

Evaluation measures

To dos / deliverables

Responsible institution

Deadline / schedule

Consultants’ Working days

Field work phase

Travel organization

Planning & organizing field phase, including arrangements for meetings etc.

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

21st – 25th Sep’24

2 days

Organization of required travel documents, tickets, etc.

Data collection

Training of Enumerators

Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

26th Sep’ 24 to 11th Oct’24

13 days

Key informant interviews

Focus group discussions

Observations

Closing workshop: Presentation & discussion of preliminary findings

Preparation

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

14th – 15th Oct’24

2 days

Moderation

Documentation

Active participation

– tdh Germany

– JRS

21st Oct’24

1 day

Analysis & concluding phase

Preliminary draft of evaluation report

Following the instructions & structure provided in tdh evaluation report template (attachment No 1)

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

22nd- 25th Oct’24

5 days

Feedback on draft

Written statement

– tdh Germany

– JRS

28th 31st Oct’24

3 days

Final evaluation report

Following the instructions & structure provided in tdh evaluation report template (attachment No 1)

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

11th Nov’24

Follow-up workshop

Preparation

– Lead consultants

– Assistant consultant

14th Nov’24

1 day

Moderation

Active participation

– tdh Germany

– JRS

Qualifications, competencies, and experience

• At least master’s degree and above in the field of Social Sciences, Psychology, etc.
• Proven experience with evaluations in the field of protection, education, peace building and reconciliation and psychosocial support.
• Experience of conducting evaluations and research using a mixed methods approach, including participatory and child sensitive methods.
• Profound knowledge and experience with the socio-economic, child rights, humanitarian, etc. situation in South Sudan.
• Very good oral and written proficiency in English.
• Acceptance of and compliance with JRS Child Safeguarding Policy.
• Professionalism: Demonstrable experience in implementing; strong analytical skills and knowledge of research methodologies and international standards on data collections.
• Planning and management: Ability to work to tight deadlines.
• Communication: Excellent communication skills.
• Teamwork: Ability to interact and to establish and maintain effective working relations with people of different national and multi-cultural backgrounds; strong interpersonal skills.

Specification for offers

• A narrative / technical proposal of no more than 3 pages, including relevant experience, planned methodology, timeline, and staffing for the evaluation,
• A detailed financial proposal for the evaluation,
• A separate list of expected travel expenses, which will be reimbursed upon presentation of proof,
• Two sample reports; published or unpublished reports approved by the respective clients focusing on the same sector.

Payment Schedule

• The consultancy fee will be paid against key deliverables.

Reporting

• The Consultant will be reporting to the Project Director – Western Equatoria, on a day-to-day basis.