Consultant to conduct End-line Evaluation At Concern Worldwide

Terms of Reference for End-line Evaluation of *Food and Livelihoods Assistance to Vulnerable Households in Tanganyika and Haut Katanga in DRC*

1. Context

Since August 2020, Concern and ACTED have been implementing a FSL Program in Tanganyika province. Concern and ACTED partnership provides life-saving assistance to vulnerable households through improved access to food and livelihoods using a gender and protection approach. The increased focus of humanitarian community on rapid response has reduced attention on other lifesaving activities as well as on the understanding of community dynamics. The partnership focuses on the areas identified as most in need (Manono, Kabalo and Nyunzu territories) through an area-based approach (Activity 1.1.). Simultaneously, it aims to maintain a contingency capacity through a flexible mobile approach to provide emergency response in all targeted areas after a food insecurity alert has been raised (Activity 1.2.) The combination of both area-based (non-mobile), and a flexible mobile response, allows for a comprehensive approach in addressing needs of different vulnerable households in the province, including the displaced population as well as those remaining in their area of origin.

Purpose and Scope of the Outcome Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to gather information that will assess project performance and impact against intended objectives and enable Consortium partners to design future programs and influence/shape its programmatic strategy. This evaluation will be conducted to assess: 1) the degree to which the project is successful in achieving the established results and objectives as laid out in the project proposal, and 2) to identify future project options to provide Food and Livelihoods Assistance to Vulnerable Households in Tanganyika and Haut Katanga. The data collected will be compared to the baseline data, routine monitoring data, and other information collected as part of the intervention.

Appropriateness: Assess the extent to which the programme met immediate needs

• Was the intervention appropriate and its implementation relevant to the operational context
• Were the project’s goals and objectives aligned with the policies and strategies of Concern/ACTED and USAID?
• Did communities and people targeted by the intervention consider that their needs were met sufficiently?
• How were women, men, youth and vulnerable populations engaged in the planning and delivery of activities?
• Were there particular ethnic, religious or demographics who did not benefit or were negatively affected by the project?

Connectedness: Assess whether longer-term problems were given consideration during implementation of emergency activities

• Were the emergency activities carried out in a way that considered longer-term programmes and relevant approaches?
• To what extent have communities been supported and prepared to withstand future emergencies?
• Did the partners ensure synergy between humanitarian and development programming?
• How did the implementation of program contribute to USAID’s Journey to Self-Reliance Policy (to be done via a FGD with key local market actors, project participants, partners, institutions, associations and government representatives)

Coverage: Assess whether the programme reached the most vulnerable

• Have we reached major population groups facing life-threatening suffering?
• Did women, men, boys and girls, people living with HIV and AIDS and people with disabilities equally benefit from the project?
• Have we sought to reach those who are least well served by the wider response?

Efficiency: Assess project outputs – qualitative and quantitative – in relation to the inputs to understand whether the project was implemented in a cost-effective manner to achieve the desired results:

• Were the modalities used cost-effective?
• Did the inclusion of local vendors and wholesalers result in value for money for the project?
• Were adequate human, financial and logistical resources applied to delivering program outcomes?
• Did adaptive management decisions and programming pivots a) result in more effective delivery, b) create added value for money and c) impacted intended results (positively and negatively).

Effectiveness: Measure the extent to which the project attained its objectives:

• To what extent did the project achieve its Impact Objective, Outcome Objective and Outputs? What factors promoted and/or inhibited achievement?
• Were Area base and Alert support strategy and efforts effective (and what spin offs, transformations, and systemic impacts/results did these generate)?
• Was the program sufficiently adaptable to a fluid, volatile and insecure context to deliver outputs in a timely fashion and sufficiently achieve targets?
• Were the monitoring mechanisms (incl. PMDs) effective in providing timely data to inform programming decisions?

Impact: Assess the positive and negative changes produced by the program, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. Understand the main impacts and effects resulting from the project on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators:

• To what extent did the Programme contribute to the improvement of food security of the targeted households?
• How did the program contribute to strengthening/improving household food security pillars (accessibility, availability, stability and utilization)?
• How did the program contribute to the improvement of livelihoods of the targeted households?
• Where there any unanticipated positive or negative consequences of the project? What factors contributed to these?

2. Specific objectives of the evaluation

The evaluation will examine the short and medium-term outcome of the program on household food security and livelihood and identify critical lessons to inform future programming decisions. Where possible, the outcomes analysis will compare the appropriateness, coverage, connectedness, efficiency, effectiveness, local economic impact and accountability of the implemented program.

Two main objectives identified are:

Assess the appropriateness, connectedness, coverage, efficiency and effectiveness of Concern and ACTED’s response to food and livelihood insecurity in the wake of the humanitarian crisis in Tanganyika Prefecture, DRC in the short and medium term. The following five dimensions will be explored under this specific objective:

• To assess the change in the nutrition knowledge levels, attitudes and skills as a result of programs intervention interventions
• To identify any other changes at household level, intended or unintended, which have resulted from the program
• To provide insights into progress against set targets of the program (food security and dietary diversity, agricultural livelihoods, etc.)
• To examine how and why the program has or has not contributed to the outcomes
• To provide recommendations to Concern and ACTED on what strategies should be adopted in order to improve program design

Identify and compile lessons learnt throughout the lifespan of the program to inform future program design in similar context. The following dimensions will be explored under this specific objective:

• What were the key factors of success and how can these be replicated?
• What were the failures in the program implementation (role and responsibility, beneficiary identification and suggested improvements)?

3. Methodology

The evaluation will use a mixed method approach consisting of both qualitative and quantitative data collections. The consultant will make extensive use of the available monitoring and evaluation data collected by M&E staff in Manono, Kabalo and Nyunzu. This will include, when available, program surveys and assessments, baseline, program quarterly reports (i.e. post distribution monitoring reports, market monitoring reports, card distribution reports, etc.) and findings from beneficiary feedback mechanisms.

The consultant is expected to review the above background documentation as part of the desk review phase of the study. A strong part of the information will come from the field data collection. The evaluation will be conducted, using participatory methods to collect qualitative data, triangulated for validation.

Aligning with the content of the scope of work shared for this study, the consultant will develop the methodology, the data collection tools and propose the team set up for data collection, to be validated by the Concern Director of Program. The consultant and his/her team will collect primary data through direct interviews and focus group discussions (FGD) with program beneficiaries and other stakeholders.

4. Roles & Responsibilities

The consultant/s will be responsible for:

• Drafting inception report
• Leading the Desk Review
• Methodology and tool development/ finalization
• Field evaluation process
• Writing and validation of the report

The Concern/ACTED Area Coordinators of Kalemie, Manono, Nyunzu and Kabalo will help him/her identify the relevant actors for interviews and field visits and will provide the consultant with available documentation.

5. Key Deliverables

• Inception report
• Data collection tools including FGD guide ahead of field work
• Data analysis and presentation of preliminary findings through a Power point presentation
• Power point presentation of the main findings
• Final Report: minimum of 10 pages and a maximum 30 pages, excluding executive summary table of contents and annexes.

6. Sample Size

The consultant will determine the appropriate sample sizes considering the geographical areas, targeted groups, and the homogeneity of the target population.

7. Timeline

This consultancy is expected to start on 15^th August 2021 with approximately (21) days of consultancy. The Consultant is requested to remain available for reviews and improvements until the evaluation report is validated by the consortium partners.

A proper work plan will be developed with the consultant

8. General conditions of the consultancy.

• Concern will provide accommodation for the consultant in team guesthouses while in Goma/Kalemie/Nyunzu/Kabalo and Manono.
• Meals and other incidentals will be the responsibility of the consultant.
• The consultant will conduct his/her work using his/her own computer.
• Other miscellaneous costs directly related to the task that can include photocopying of questionnaires, etc. shall be covered by Concern. Any costs need to have prior approval from Concern.
• The movement of the consultant and team to and from the field will be facilitated by the Concern/ACTED.
• The cost related to travel from/ to field of the survey teams will be covered by Concern.

9. Minimum Qualifications

At the minimum, the consultant/s must possess the following:

• Advanced degree in food security and livelihood or equivalent. Knowledge on nutrition is an added asset
• Over 5 years’ proven experience undertaking surveys, analysis and reporting, with some experience in food security and livelihoods sector.
• Have proven knowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research.
• Excellent organizing, facilitating, presentation and communication skills.
• Excellent report writing skills.
• Experience working in emergency context. Experience in DRC is a plus.

10. Budget:

The budget for the implementation of this activity is $ 15,000.