Consultant – Final Evaluation of Tajikistan CISU Programme 2019-2021 “Building a Brighter Future for Persons Living with Disabilities” At Mission East

Mission East

TERMS OF REFERENCE For a Final Evaluation of Tajikistan CISU Programme 2019-2021

“Building a Brighter Future for Persons Living with Disabilities”

1. Summary

Purpose: The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the implementation, impact and sustainability of the Tajikistan part of the CISU 2019-2021 programme, in particular from the capacity building point of view

Duration of evaluation: The duration of the evaluation is maximum 17 working days**

Time frame (tentative): Field work December 2021, reporting January 2022

Location: Tajikistan (with travel to project sites in Sughd and Khatlon regions)

2. Background to the Evaluation

2.1. Programme Context

Mission East is an international relief and development organisation founded in Denmark in 1991. Mission East has been engaged in humanitarian and development work in Tajikistan since 1998. To date, our projects in Tajikistan have centred around equal rights for people with disability, especially children, in addition to the building or rehabilitation of WASH services for rural populations combined with disaster risk reduction.

Throughout the years we have worked on a two-pronged approach whereby we have been building the capacity of local organizations to promote the human-rights based development approach in country and in parallel directly responded to investment gaps in the delivery of basic services for vulnerable and isolated populations combined with disaster risk reduction and resilience building.

Cooperation between ME and our Tajik civil society partners takes various forms. Our default approach is to put local organizations in the forefront and build their capacity for advocacy, networking and delivery. This approach attracts ongoing funding from Tajik authorities to support partners’ service delivery. In areas where ME builds or rehabilitates basic public services – such as water supply systems – the sustainable management of these systems is then taken over by a community organisation combined with strengthened local capacities to manage natural hazards.

The multi-year programme Developing civil society for inclusive and resilient communities, funded by CISU / Danish Ministry for Foreign Affairs, is implemented by Mission East and its partner organisations in 4 countries from 2019-2021. The programme’s main strategic priority is to strengthen civil society to help communities and individuals overcome poverty, marginalisation and vulnerability. Taking inclusion and resilience as core themes, and working with existing partnerships in Myanmar, Nepal, Tajikistan and Armenia, the programme objective is to improve socio-economic status of marginalised and vulnerable groups in four programme country locations as a result of civil society interventions. These ToR refer to the Tajikistan part of the said multi-country programme.

2.2. Description of the Project to be Evaluated

“Building a Brighter Future for Persons Living with Disabilities”

Project objective: Strengthen civil society organizations in Tajikistan to understand and advocate for the rights of persons with disabilities, contributing to more inclusive policy and service delivery in Khatlon and Sughd.

• Outcome 1: Tajik Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) take an active advocacy role for the rights of people with disabilities within their country.
• Outcome 2: Duty bearers have an increased capacity and understanding of policy relating to the rights of people with disabilities and can better implement these policies.
• Outcome 3: Persons with disabilities in Khatlon and Sughd have an improved capacity and ability to access their rights and available resources.

Implementing partners – local NGOs: Nuri Umed and Zarshedabonu

Tajikistan is struggling in overall national development, with a poor resource base, challenging geography and extensive poverty especially in the rural population. A legacy of stigmatisation of disability means that people with disabilities (PWD) are often ‘hidden’, do not receive adequate health or education services, and their families bear the economic burden of their dependency along with the associated social stigma. The context for persons with disabilities can be noted as follows:

• The political sphere in Tajikistan has less of a democratic character with limited room and little history of civil society input in decision-making and policy design and implementation. Tajikistan has signed CRPD recently, but this is not yet ratified and no developed plan in sight for support of its implementation;
• In the civil society sphere, there is no concerted advocacy yet voicing the rights of PWD; human rights defenders have not consistently been engaged in disability rights issues; no systematic monitoring of the rights position of people with disability is taking place, yet;
• In terms of service provision: lack of technical knowledge about and low availability of resources for a rehabilitation approach of PWD; very little technical knowledge available about special needs education, let alone inclusive education meeting the special needs of Children with Disabilities (CWD);
• In the cultural sphere the main challenge is social exclusion and discrimination of PW, and their family members, mainly due to a lack of understanding of causes of disability, and actual abilities for PWD and a national history of medicalized and institutional approach of children and adults with special needs.

The project builds on the joint organizational missions of Mission East and its partners to promote rights-based development opportunities for all, extending previous work in the field of disability-inclusion which has resulted in development of rehabilitation services (including service delivery by CSO partners). As the government takes over resourcing the rehabilitation service delivery, the programme moves into a new phase to focus on 1) further capacity building of civil society for monitoring / supporting sustainable government-led service delivery and 2) building stronger joint civil society initiatives to advocate effectively for the rights of people with disabilities 3) promoting and piloting initiatives to develop inclusive educational opportunity for children with disabilities.

Key outputs include increased access to rehabilitation and education opportunities for children with disabilities, legal support for PWD especially women, strengthened support for/action by parents via Parent Support Groups, coordinated civil society engagement in monitoring application of the CPRD at grassroots level, better trained service providers and increased access to rehabilitative services.

3. Rationale, Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation

The ongoing phase of the CISU programme covers the years 2019 – 2021. The collaboration with and capacity building of the current local partners has, however, started nearly a decade earlier. Whilst the main focus of the evaluation will be on assessing the results achieved during the 2019-2021 programme period, it is expected that the evaluator takes into consideration the earlier years of the partnership as well in order to assess the whole process.

The evaluation will provide important information for Mission East concerning the partnership approach as well as reaching out to the final beneficiaries, and the results of the evaluation will be used by Mission East, its partners and other stakeholders when planning and implementing future development interventions.

The main objectives of the evaluation are:

1) Analysis of the achievements and impact of the project:
The evaluation should provide an overall assessment of the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and coherence of the project, primarily during the 2019 – 2021 programme period. The main focus should be on results at the outcome and impact levels.

2) Assess the contribution of the project to the following objectives:

a. To what extent the programme has contributed to the nexus (humanitarian-development and peace) objectives

b. To what extent has the project contributed to localization objectives of empowering the local civil society in Tajikistan.

c. Have the project management, monitoring and reporting systems been adequate and fit to purpose for the goals of the project?

3) Analysis of sustainability and future prospects of the work: The evaluation should assess the prospects for sustaining the results of the project in terms of both the future prospects of the partner CSOs and local civil society at large, as well as the sustainability of the structures providing services for the CWD.

4) Assess the lessons learnt and how the lessons learnt are applicable to Mission East Tajikistan for planning and managing its Country Programme in future.

4. Scope of the Evaluation

This evaluation focuses on the implementation, impact and sustainability of the CISU Tajikistan project during the period 2019 – 2021 and, as the background, the previous projects related to the partnerships that formed the 2019-2021 project. The assignment is conducted as a desk review, discussion(s)/interviews and field visits to Sughd and Khatlon regions.

Stakeholder groups to be interviewed include the main beneficiaries (CWD, their parents, parents’ support groups, staff of rehabilitation centres, key staff from Government authorities, medical staff), implementing partners’ staff and management, Mission East representatives and other relevant units.

This evaluation upholds Mission East’s commitment to accountability and organizational learning, and its findings and recommendations can be used for replication and roll-out of similar activities to new target areas.

This evaluation is inscribed in the multi-country desk review of the whole of the CISU programme in 4 countries. Therefore, the evaluator is expected to work closely with the consultant that will be doing the overall analysis of the programme level, as well as ME MEAL unit, and provide support with data collection and analysis.

5. Evaluation Issues

5.1. Evaluation criteria and evaluation questions

The evaluation should focus on the following questions; however, the evaluator is encouraged to address all issues that are relevant to the achievement of sustainable results in the project being evaluated.

RELEVANCE: IS THE INTERVENTION DOING THE RIGHT THINGS?

Relevance refers to the extent to which the objectives of the project are consistent with beneficiaries’ rights and needs, global priorities and partners’ and Mission East’s policies.

• Has the development context and context related to the space for civil society changed since the approval of the 2019 – 2021 Country Programme plans? Has the strategy for promoting civil society development and inclusion remained relevant during the programme period?
• Have the activities addressed the underlying causes of inequality and lack of fulfilment of rights related to C/PWD?
• Have the activities addressed the capacity for civil society to participate in fulfilment of the rights of C/PWD?

COHERENCE: HOW WELL DOES THE INTERVENTION FIT?

• How well does the project fit with other interventions by Mission East and by other actors in the sector?
• Are there synergies or interlinkages across Mission east projects in Tajikistan, and possible duplication?
• In particular, how coherent was the emergency response (to address the effects of Covid-19) with other activities of the project and other projects of Mission East? How agile and adaptable were processes and systems to accommodate the change from planned programming to emergency response activities?
• Has there been any synergies built across the CISU programme with Mission East head office and the projects in other 3 countries of the programme

EFFECTIVENESS: IS THE INTERVENTION ACHIEVING ITS OBJECTIVES?

Effectiveness focuses on evaluating the achievements of the project’s intended outcomes and outputs. It describes if the results have contributed to the achievement of the planned impact of the project or are expected to do so in the future. The evaluation will be made against the related indicators.

• Assess progress towards the planned results (outcomes and outputs) of the project. Have the results contributed to the achievement of the project’s impact? Which forms of work have been successful and which unsuccessful?
• To what extent has the capacity of the local partner organisations been strengthened during the programme period, especially with regard to knowledge and ability to advocate for the fulfilment of the rights of CWD?

EFFICIENCY: HOW WELL ARE RESOURCES BEING USED?

The efficiency of a project is defined by how well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended results in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. Comparison should be made against what was planned.

• Have sufficient resources (finances, time, human resources) been allocated to the design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the interventions?
• How well has the project been able to transform the available resources into the intended results? Consider also management of the resources.

IMPACT: WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES THE INTERVENTION MAKE?

Impact describes how the project has succeeded in the attainment of its overall objective, i.e. targeted impact for its beneficiaries. The evaluation will be made against the related indicators.

• Has the project contributed to the achievement of its planned development impacts? In what ways? Have there been any unintended positive or negative impacts?
• Are there changes related to the fulfilment of the rights CWD that can be directly attributed to the Country Programmes? Changes might include, e.g. changed behaviour of rights holders or duty bearers, new policies, increased state funding to inclusive access to services. Are there changes to which the project has contributed together with other actors?
• What were the outcomes and impact of the emergency response (to address the effects of Covid-19) as part of the project activities? Is the ‘right to humanitarian assistance’ of the project’s target groups, CWDs and PWDs now better recognized by different stakeholders in the aftermath of the project?
• Are there changes in how the Government actors collaborate with civil society actors to fulfil the rights of CWD? Are there changes in how the civil society actors are perceived by other stakeholders, including the communities?
• Assess to what extent, through its use of rights-based and LNOB approaches, has the project contributed to achieving coherent collective outcomes, and contributed towards the objectives of humanitarian response, development, and building greater social cohesion, community ownership and acceptance (Nexus approach)?

SUSTAINABILITY: WILL THE BENEFITS LAST?

Sustainability can be described as the degree to which the results achieved by the project continue after the external support has come to an end.

• Assess the degree to which the project has demonstrated financial, institutional, technical and socio-cultural sustainability. What prospects are there that the results of the project will be sustained into the future? Consider both the organisational sustainability of the partner organisations as well as the actual work with CWD.
• To what extent do stakeholders have confidence that they will be able to build on the changes brought about by the intervention?

Based on the evaluation, the consultant is expected to make clear and actionable recommendations that build on the achievements and lessons learned in the project also taking into account challenges and difficulties encountered in implementation.

6. Methodology

The proposed methodology for the assignment is:

1. Desk review and analysis of the project documentation.
2. Interviews, discussions and meetings with relevant stakeholders.
3. The evaluator is encouraged to propose any additional methodology that he/she finds most relevant for the purpose of the evaluation.

7. The outputs / deliverables of this consultancy are:

• Inception report outlining the evaluation matrix, timelines, methodology and evaluation tools
• Raw data collected in interviews and FGD discussions
• Final report
• Presentation of the evaluation results for relevant stakeholders.

8. Reporting requirements and evaluation timeline

The consultancy has been scoped for 17 days of work with the following provisional schedule:

• 4 days desk work,
• 8 days field work,
• 5 days analyses of collected information and report preparation

The draft report should be submitted to Mission East tentatively by 20 January 2022. The draft report can be submitted in an electronic format.

The final report should be submitted to Mission East tentatively by 10 February 2022. The reporting format can be found in Annex 1. Use of illustrations in the form of photographs, schematic representations, diagrams and tables etc. is encouraged.

The evaluator is to present the key findings at a debriefing meeting with the reference group. The debriefing meeting will be organised by Mission East as an online event on DATE: TO BE AGREED UPON. The purpose of the meeting is to present the main findings to key persons involved in the Country Programme management, supervision and implementation, to check the factual basis of the evaluation, and to discuss the draft findings, conclusions and recommendations.

The report should address all of the evaluation issues. Clear and concrete recommendations for how to improve the programme performance in the future need to be in the essence of the report.

9. Expertise required

The evaluator should have the following qualifications and experience:

• Former experience in conducting project or programme reviews or evaluations, preferably including effectiveness and impact in the development cooperation field
• Experience of conducting evaluations addressing the rights of Persons with Disabilities is desirable
• Analytical skills and capability to summarize and focus on the larger picture
• Familiarity with development cooperation principles and work by NGOs and local CSOs
• Expertise on Human rights-based approach and children’s rights
• Fluency in English
• Knowledge of Russian or Tajik Language is an asset
• Good communication and interpersonal skills

10. Budget and practical arrangements

Mission East Tajikistan will assist with local travel and accommodation arrangements and possible visa arrangements. Travel and accommodation costs will be reimbursed by Mission East against invoices and are not to be included in the financial offer for the consultancy. No per diems are paid.

11. Application:

Interested individuals should send the following by email to jobs.taj@missioneast.org

• Financial Proposal (Please note that per-diems are not issued as part of consultancies with Mission East. Please take this into consideration in the financial proposal)
• Signed Consultant Statement Confirming Eligibility (see below)
• Cover letter, individual CV, consultancy proposal, example of past work, and recommendations from past clients.

Deadline for applications: Applications must be submitted by 21 Nov 2021.

Annexes:

1. Outline of the Evaluation Report

Annex 1: Layout, structure of the Final Report

A recommended length for the final report should be ca. 20 pages (excluding annexes). Additional information should be confined to annexes.

* Executive summary

* Introduction

* Description of the evaluation methodology

* Situational analysis with regard to the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy

* Key findings, including best practices and lessons learned

* Conclusion and recommendations

* Appendices: charts, terms of reference, field visits, people interviewed, documents reviewed

More detail on the objectives and outputs of the consultancy will be discussed during interviews and after contracting.

This template is a tool to support the drafting of the Evaluation Report. The format may be modified, but it should always include a short overview of the programme evaluated, short description of the evaluation process and methodology, and clear presentation on the evaluation’s findings, conclusions and recommendations.

2. Exclusion criteria

If any of the following are true for the applicant at the time of submitting their application or at any time during the procurement process, they will be excluded from consideration for winning a contract with Mission East. The bidder may also be blacklisted for participation in future Mission East procurements.

Violations of sanctions & support for terrorism

a) The company, organisation or an individual associated with the tender are listed in the sanction and embargo list of the UN Security Council, the European Union or EU Member States, United States (OFAC) or United Kingdom (OFSI).

b) They have provided support (material or other) or any resource to any individual or entity that advocates, plans, sponsors, engages in, or has engaged in terrorist activity; or to anyone who acts as an agent for such an individual or entity;

c) They have association with a designated terrorist entity or their ownership, control, or influence;

d) They are not compliant with laws and regulations stipulated by the UN Security Council Counter Terrorism and Sanctions policies, as well as those stipulated by the European Union and its member states, the United Kingdom, or the United States of America.

Unacceptable interaction with Mission East

a) They have engaged in corrupt, fraudulent, collusive or coercive practices in their interactions with Mission East or its partners in relation to the current procurement process or any time in the past;

b) They are subject to a conflict of interest. If there is any personal or business relationship between the bidder and Mission East staff, its partners or its donors, the bidder must state this at the time of tendering, and this may result in exclusion of the bidder;

c) Following another procurement procedure or grant award procedure with Mission East, its partners, or financed by the European Union, they have been declared to be in serious breach of contract for failure to comply with their contractual obligations;

d) They are guilty of misrepresenting the information required by Mission East as part of the procurement procedure or fail to supply this information.

Unethical practices by the bidder

a) They are engaged in the exploitation of child labour or other forms of trafficking in human beings;

b) They do not respect their employees’ basic social rights and working conditions as per international labour standards;

c) They are actively supporting a conflict or are engaged in the manufacture of arms and/or landmines, or the sale of such to governments which systematically violate the human rights of their citizens, or where there is internal armed conflict or major tensions, or where the sale of arms may jeopardise regional peace and security.

d) They are involved in unethical exploitation of natural resources, in particular sensitive commodities such as precious metals, stones, and rare earths.

e) They are engaged in activities which directly cause harm to the population that Mission East is aiming to assist, including environmental harm to their communities.

Unacceptable legal situation of the bidder

a) They are bankrupt, subject to insolvency, or being wound up, are having their affairs administered by the courts, have entered into an arrangement with creditors, have suspended business activities, are the subject of proceedings concerning those matters, or are in any analogous situation arising from a similar procedure provided for in national legislation or regulations;

b) It has been established by a court’s final judgment or by any means that Mission East can justify that the bidder is guilty of grave professional misconduct by having violated applicable laws or regulations or ethical standards of the profession to which the bidder belongs, or by having engaged in any wrongful conduct which has an impact on its professional credibility where such conduct denotes a wrongful intent or gross negligence.

c) They have not fulfilled obligations relating to the payment of social security contributions or the payment of taxes in accordance with applicable laws;

d) They have been the subject of a court’s final judgement for acts of fraud, corruption, involvement in a criminal organisation, money laundering, hiding unlawfully obtained financial benefits, or any other illegal activity detrimental to Mission East or its donors’ financial interests;

e) Applicants must complete and sign the ‘Consultant Statement Confirming Eligibility’ below and submit the signed ToR together with their application package to confirm that that they are not in one of the situations listed above. Even if such confirmation is given by a bidder, Mission East will investigate any of the situations listed above if it has reasonable grounds to doubt the contents of such confirmation.

Anti-Fraud Policy:

Mission East has a zero-tolerance approach towards corruption and fraud in all its forms. Mission East aims to prevent fraudulent activities and to respond to any allegations or potential fraud swiftly and effectively. In line with Mission East’s Anti-Fraud Policy, which can be viewed on the Mission East website, Mission East requires the consultant to report any suspected fraud, waste, theft or abuse to Mission East. Any reports of such misconduct can be reported to Mission East headquarters through contact details on their website.

Other Requirements if Selected:

• Mission East will require the successful consultant to sign our organisational Code of Conduct.
• Mission East upholds high standards in Counter Terrorism (COTER) and sanctions regulation compliance. In view of the nature and location of Mission East’s work, Mission East will conduct background checks of the successful consultant, including checking through relevant sanctions lists.
• The successful consultant will also be required to commit to the following clause relating to the Prevention of Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment: The consultant agree to actively prevent sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment (PSEAH), and to ensure, in the best possible way, that the intervention is carried out in an environment free of all kinds of exploitation, abuse and harassment, sexually or otherwise, especially in the case of particularly vulnerable groups.
• Mission East upholds high standards in all aspects of Safeguarding. In view of the nature of this role potentially requiring unsupervised access to children or vulnerable individuals (including situations where there are potential imbalances of power), you may be required to provide a certificate of good conduct.

Consultant Statement Confirming Eligibility:

By signing this Terms of Reference, the consultant certifies that that they are not in one of the situations listed above under ‘*Exclusion Criteria’*. The consultant also certifies that all the information provided, and any related documents submitted are truthful and correct at time of signature.

Name: _ Signature: *Date: **__***