Mid-term evaluation Child-Centered Holistic Approach to a Nurturing Care Enabling Environment (CHANCE) At Handicap International – Humanity & Inclusion

TERMS OF REFERENCE

PROJECT MID-TERM EVALUATION

Name of the project

Child-Centered Holistic Approach to a Nurturing Care Enabling Environment (CHANCE)

Project implementation dates

January 2022 – December 2026

1. General information
   1. About Humanity & Inclusion

Handicap International (Humanity & Inclusion) is an international non-profit organization, implementing humanitarian and development actions in over sixty countries. In Uganda, we work to identify and support those with specific needs and ensure the meaningful inclusion of refugees and asylum seekers. We assist vulnerable populations from both host and refugee communities by providing physical rehabilitation, mental health, and psychosocial support, inclusive education, health, and livelihoods. We work in partnership with Disabled Peoples Organizations (DPOs), communities, local leaders, non-governmental organizations, the United Nations, and the Ugandan government.

1.2 About Humanity & Inclusion in Uganda

In May 2017 HI re-opened our Uganda programme to contribute to the South Sudanese and Congolese refugee response. Currently, HI works across 10 Districts and 8 refugee settlements.

We work to identify and support those with specific needs and ensure the meaningful inclusion of refugees and asylum seekers. We assist vulnerable populations from both host and refugee communities by providing physical rehabilitation, mental health, and psychosocial support, inclusive education, health, and livelihoods. We work in partnership with Disabled Peoples Organizations (DPOs), communities, local leaders, non-governmental organizations, the United Nations, and the Ugandan government.

1. Context of the evaluation

2.1 Presentation of the project to be evaluated

Project title

Child-Centered Holistic Approach to a Nurturing Care Enabling Environment (CHANCE)

Implementation dates

January 2022 – December 2026

Location/Areas of intervention

Terego District, West Nile Region-Uganda

Operating Partners

National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU).

Target Groups

• Children from 0 to 12, especially those with disabilities and at risk of developmental delay within the host and refugee communities
• Parents and caregivers
• Community-based structures (including VHT, Protection and Child Protection Committees),
• Health and education service providers, and other relevant stakeholders
• Local authorities (local councils, district authorities, Refugee Welfare Committees, OPM).

Objectives of the project

Improve motor, language and social outcomes and quality of life for children (0-12)

Expected results and indicators

Result 1: Child Health and Development (0-15) is improved through improved access to quality and comprehensive services

Result 2: Caregivers are empowered and provide adequate care to children while improving their quality of life

Result 3: Communities support children’s development (0-5) and quality of life (6-15), particularly the most vulnerable including children with disabilities or at risk of developmental delay

Result 4: Quality delivery and monitoring of inclusive health and education services are improved

Result 5: Support the implementation of enabling policies for nurturing care in Uganda

Main activities implemented

Activities

The project applies the nurturing care framework. It supports children to access nurturing care services, caregivers to offer nurturing care to their children, services to better answer the nurturing care needs of children and policy to embed nurturing care. (Please refer to the project proposal)

2.2 Overview of the evaluation

The evaluation aims at monitoring, learning from and reporting on CHANCE’s project’s interventions.

The present evaluation is a mid-term evaluation; therefore:

• it will focus on some parts of the program: the application of the nurturing care framework approach and the rehabilitation service provision activities;
• it will focus on key challenges of the program: the sustainability of the program within a development-humanitarian nexus context and the consideration of gender within the project;
• it will give concrete and realistic recommendations on how the intervention should be adapted until the end of the project to better reach its objectives and targets;
• it will propose ideas and suggestions for a future nurturing care grant (after 2026).

The evaluation will identify areas of success and areas that may require adjustment or additional support to ensure the project deliver results with high quality. If the evaluation identifies challenges or gaps in project implementation, recommendations will be proposed to address these issues and improve the project implementation moving forward.

The findings and recommendations of the mid-term evaluation will inform planning for the remainder of the project and beyond.

Criteria

Keywords

Adaptation

CHANGES
The project aims to achieve positive short-, medium- and/or long-term changes for the target populations

Effects

1. Is the project likely to contribute to the achievement of positive and measurable changes for the targeted beneficiaries in at least 3 (good health, nutrition and responsive caregiving) components of the nurturing care framework through direct or coordinated actions with other actors?
2. Are changes as a result of the project benefiting girls and boys; women and men fairly/with equity?
3. Are there potential negative effects of the project on beneficiaries that need to be mitigated?

Empowerment

(1) How does the project intervene to strengthen local and national actors on the nurturing care framework and ensure that the nurturing care approach continues after the end of the project?

(2) How does the project empower parents/caregivers and the community to respond to the needs of their children in terms of nurturing care?

RELEVANCE

The project meets the identified needs and is adapted to the context of intervention

Needs

1. Does the project address the needs of the beneficiaries from at least 3 (good health, nutrition and responsive caregiving) components of the nurturing care Framework?
2. Does it address the priorities of other stakeholders? Does it integrate coherently with other ongoing interventions in the area to ensure a comprehensive response to the multiple and evolving needs of children aged 0-12 years and their parents?
3. Does the project consider sufficiently the cultural beliefs and practices of its beneficiaries, especially in terms of child care and gender role?

EFFECTIVENESS

The objectives of the project are achieved

Results

1. To what extent are the project interventions contributing to the achievement of the project results?
2. Do the project activities tend to be gender transformative?

EFFICIENCY

Resources (human, financial, logistical, technical, etc.) are converted into results in an economical way

Skills

(1) To what extent have the resources (human, logistical, financial, technical) available enabled the project to achieve its objectives?

PARTNERSHIP

Operational partners are involved in each phase of the project cycle

Collaboration

1. Does the project collaboratively develop operational partnerships that are thoughtful, relevant, and effective for the implementation of interventions to advance nurturing care and the adoption of the nurturing framework at the provincial and national levels?
2. Has the project developed the good partnerships to ensure the sustainability of the project?
3. How does the project strengthen the capacity of its partners as key actors within the ECD/nurturing care sector? actors which can advocate for a better inclusion of children with disabilities and developmental delays?
   1. Overall objectives and expectations of the evaluation

3. Objectives of the evaluation

The general objective of the mid-term evaluation is to assess the effectiveness and sustainability of the Child-Centered Holistic Approach to a Nurturing Care Enabling Environment (CHANCE) Project. This evaluation aims to provide stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of the project’s performance, identify strengths and weaknesses, and generate recommendations for improvement.

The evaluation is driven by the need to ensure that the CHANCE Project is achieving its intended outcomes on nurturing care for children. The evaluation aims to identify factors that may be hindering or facilitating the project’s success, allowing stakeholders to make informed decisions about future programming and resource allocation.

3.2 Evaluation criteria and evaluative questions

Below are non-exhaustive examples of evaluative questions for each criteria and keywords of HI’s project quality framework that the mid-term evaluation should consider.

Scope of Work

The scope of work for the mid-term evaluation includes, but is not limited to, the following

1. Reviewing project documents, including the project proposal, work plans, monitoring and evaluation frameworks, and progress reports.
2. Conducting key informant interviews with project staff, stakeholders, beneficiaries, and partners to gather qualitative data on project implementation.
3. Administering surveys or questionnaires to beneficiaries and stakeholders to gather quantitative data on project outcomes and impacts.
4. Analyzing data collected to assess progress towards achieving the specified result areas and to identify challenges and opportunities.
5. Conducting a SWOT analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to project implementation.
6. Developing a comprehensive mid-term evaluation report summarizing findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
7. Evaluation methodology and organization of the mission

4.1 Methodology

The evaluation methodology will be defined by the consultant including sampling techniques, the method (quantitative and/or qualitative), and the tools to be used for data collection. The analysis method also should be defined including the data management tools based on the methodology proposed.

4.2 Actors involved in the evaluation

1. Humanity & Inclusion (HI): HI is responsible for overseeing the overall evaluation process, coordinating with the evaluation team, and providing access to project documents, data, and stakeholders. HI will play a key role in ensuring that the evaluation is conducted in accordance with the agreed-upon terms of reference and that findings and recommendations are effectively utilized to enhance project performance.
2. Partner Organizations: Partner organizations especially the National Union of Disabled Persons of Uganda (NUDIPU), RIAD Foundation and other stakeholders involved in project implementation will provide input on evaluation design, participating in data collection activities, and sharing insights and perspectives on project progress and impact as needed.
3. Beneficiary Communities: Beneficiary communities, including caregivers, children, community-based volunteers and community leaders, will play a crucial role in the evaluation process by providing firsthand insights into the effectiveness of project interventions, the challenges faced, and the overall impact on their lives. Their participation in data collection activities, such as interviews, FGDs and surveys, will help to ensure the relevance and validity of evaluation finding.

4.3 Constitution and Functioning of the Steering Committee:

The Steering Committee for the mid-term evaluation will comprise of the Project Manager, Technical Specialists, MEAL Manager, Head of Programs, and the representatives from the partner organizations and nurturing technical group. The committee serves as a strategic oversight body responsible for guiding and monitoring the evaluation process. Its functions include:

1. Setting Evaluation Objectives and Priorities: The Steering Committee collaboratively establishes the objectives and priorities of the mid-term evaluation, ensuring alignment with project goals and stakeholder interests.
2. Approving Evaluation Plan: The committee reviews and approves the evaluation plan developed by the evaluation team, providing feedback and input as needed to ensure its relevance and feasibility.
3. Monitoring Evaluation Progress: The Steering Committee monitors the progress of the evaluation, reviewing interim findings and outputs, and providing guidance and support to address any challenges or issues that may arise.
4. Reviewing and Validating Findings: Upon completion of the evaluation, the Steering Committee reviews and validates the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the evaluation report. Their input ensures the credibility and relevance of the evaluation findings.
5. Utilizing Evaluation Results: The committee utilizes the findings and recommendations of the evaluation to inform decision-making processes related to project management, resource allocation, and programmatic adjustments. They may also use the evaluation results to advocate for policy changes or additional support for project activities.

4.4 Modes of Communication between the Evaluation Team and the Steering Committee:

Effective communication between the evaluation team and the Steering Committee is essential for ensuring the evaluation process’s success. The following modes of communication will be utilized:

1. Regular Meetings: The evaluation team and the Steering Committee will hold regular meetings to discuss progress, review interim findings, and address any issues or concerns that may arise. Meetings may be conducted in person or virtually, depending on logistical considerations.
2. Email Updates: The evaluation team provides regular email updates to the Steering Committee, sharing updates on progress, upcoming milestones, and any emerging issues or challenges.
3. Written Reports: The evaluation team submits written progress reports including inception report, a draft / intermediate (to be revised) report and final report and interim findings to the Steering Committee for review and feedback. These reports serve as a basis for discussion during meetings and help to keep stakeholders informed of the evaluation’s progress.
4. Presentations: The evaluation team delivers presentations to the Steering Committee at key milestones in the evaluation process, such as the presentation of the evaluation plan, interim findings, and final report. Presentations provide an opportunity for stakeholders to ask questions, provide feedback, and discuss implications for project management and decision-making.

4.5 Organization of the mission

The Steering Committee for the CHANCE Project mid-term evaluation will comprise of the following members:

1. Project Manager: The Project Manager will serve as the focal point person for the CHANCE Project and will work closely with the evaluation team at field level, including stakeholder and beneficiary coordination.
2. Technical Specialists: Technical specialists with expertise in child health, development, nurturing care and other relevant areas will provide technical input and guidance in the evaluation process.
3. MEAL Manager: The MEAL Manager will support in defining the evaluation criteria, review evaluation methodology, evaluation tools and findings.
4. Head of Programs: The Head of Programs will provide leadership and coordination for all programmatic activities related to the CHANCE Project and ensure alignment with organizational goals and priorities as well as ensuring that evaluation findings are utilized for learning and program improvement.
5. Representatives from Partner Organizations: Representatives from partner organizations involved in project implementation will be included to ensure that diverse perspectives and stakeholder interests are represented in the evaluation process.

Occurrences of Meetings:

The Steering Committee will convene at various stages of the mid-term evaluation process, including:

1. Kick-off Meeting leading to Inception Report: The committee will discuss the objectives, scope, and methodology of the mid-term evaluation and establish roles and responsibilities.
2. Exchanges session on the inception report
3. Presentation of Interim Findings: The Consultant will present interim findings and progress updates to the Steering Committee for feedback and input.
4. Review of the Interim finding: The committee will provide input and feedback on specific aspects of the mid-term evaluation process through answering the evaluation questionnaire or informant interview.
5. Communication on the Midterm Evaluation Report: The committee will discuss findings and recommendations presented in the mid-term report and provide feedback to the evaluation team.
6. Validation of the Final Report of the mid-term evaluation: The committee will review and validate the findings, conclusions, and recommendations presented in the final mid-term evaluation report, ensuring that it meets the required standards of quality and accuracy.
7. Principles and values

5.1. Protection and Anti-Corruption Policy

Code of Conduct

Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment

Child Protection Policy

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:

1. Guarantee the safety of participants, partners and teams: the technical offer must specify the risk mitigation measures.
2. Ensuring a person/community-centered 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.).
3. 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.
4. Ensure the security of personal and sensitive data throughout the activity: the technical offer must propose measures for the protection of personal data.
   1. Expected deliverables and proposed schedule

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

6.1. Deliverables

1. Inception Report: The inception report will serve as the initial documentation of the mid-term evaluation process, refining and specifying the proposed methodology for addressing the evaluation questions and outlining an action plan for the evaluation activities.
2. Presentation Document: The presentation document summarizes the first results, conclusions, and recommendations derived from the mid-term evaluation findings. It provides an overview of key insights and highlights areas for further discussion and action.
3. Final Report: The final report is a comprehensive document that will present the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the mid-term evaluation in detail. It will provide a comprehensive overview of the mid-term evaluation process and outcomes, serving as a valuable reference for stakeholders and informing future decision-making and programming. The final report will include the background and context of the evaluation, objectives and methodology, findings and analysis, conclusions, recommendations, lessons learned, and annexes with additional details such as data collection tools, survey instruments, and raw data. It adheres to a structured format and may include executive summaries or key highlights for ease of reference. The final report will be approximately 20-30 pages maximum, ensuring that it is concise, focused, and accessible to readers. However, additional annexes or supplementary materials may be included as needed to provide further detail or context. The final report will undergo a thorough review process, including validation by the Steering Committee, to ensure accuracy, relevance, and alignment with evaluation objectives and stakeholder expectations. Any feedback or suggestions for improvement are addressed before finalization and dissemination.
   1. Means

The final report should be integrated into the following template:

The quality of the final report will be reviewed by the Steering Committee of the evaluation using this checklist:

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

Contract Signing

26th August 2024

Expected start date of assignment

28th August 2024

Briefing at Kampala Office

28th August 2024

Presentation of Inception Report

10th September 2024

Data Collection

16th September 2024

Presentation of initial findings

10th October 2024

Submission of Draft Report

21st October 2024

Validation of Final Report

4th November 2024

Submission of Final Report

13th November 2024

Dissemination Workshop

20th October 2024

End date of assignement

25th October 2024

7.1 Expertise sought from the consultant(s)

The ideal consultant for the mid-term evaluation of the CHANCE Project should possess the following qualifications, skills, and experience:

1. A relevant degree in public health, social sciences, development studies, or a related field. Additional certifications or training in program evaluation, gender or child development are desirable.
2. The consultant should have a strong background in child health, early childhood development and well-being, gender with knowledge of best practices, policies and interventions in the field of nurturing care.
3. Demonstrated experience in conducting program evaluations, particularly in the context of child-focused projects or initiatives. Experience with mid-term evaluations is preferred.
4. Proficiency in employing mixed methods approaches to evaluation, including both qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis methods.
5. Strong research skills, including the ability to design evaluation methodologies, develop data collection instruments, conduct literature reviews, and analyze data using appropriate techniques.
6. Excellent communication and interpersonal skills, with the ability to engage effectively with diverse stakeholders, including project staff, partner organizations, government officials, and community members.
7. Familiarity with ethical guidelines and principles for research involving human subjects, with a commitment to upholding ethical standards throughout the evaluation process.
8. Strong analytical and critical thinking skills, with the ability to synthesize complex information, identify key findings and insights, and draw meaningful conclusions.
9. Proficiency in writing clear, concise, and well-structured evaluation reports, with the ability to present findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a compelling and accessible manner.
10. Sensitivity to cultural differences and the ability to work effectively in diverse cultural contexts, particularly in low-resource or vulnerable communities.
11. Experience in project management, including planning, coordination, and oversight of evaluation activities, adherence to timelines and budgets, and coordination of multiple stakeholders.
12. Proficiency in English is required. Knowledge of local languages spoken in West Nile region of Uganda may be an asset.
    1. Budget allocated to the evaluation

Statement of Budgetary Modalities:

The candidate must detail the following budgetary modalities in their offer:

1. Provide the daily rate for each evaluator involved in the evaluation process. This should reflect the consultant’s expertise, experience, and the market rate for similar services.
2. Specify the number of days each evaluator will dedicate to different stages of the evaluation process, including preparation, fieldwork, data analysis, report writing, and presentation.
3. Detail any ancillary costs associated with the evaluation, such as services (e.g., transcription, translation), additional documents (e.g., printing, stationery), and travel expenses (e.g., accommodation, meals).
4. Calculate the overall cost of the evaluation, including all components such as evaluator fees, ancillary costs, and transport/logistics costs. This should be presented as a total figure.
5. Specify the estimated transport costs for international and local travel related to the evaluation, including flights, ground transportation, and any other associated expenses (If applicable)
6. Include logistics costs for organizing meetings, workshops, and other evaluation activities, such as venue rental, equipment hire, and refreshments.
7. If translation services are required for documents or communication with stakeholders, estimate the associated costs.
8. Propose payment modalities for the evaluation, including the timing and method of payments (e.g., lump sum upon completion, installment payments at key milestones).
9. Financial proposal should include:

• VAT 18 % (Applicable for Ugandan and non-Ugandan residents)
• WHT (6 % for Ugandan / Resident or 15% for non-Ugandan residents)
• Health coverage cost
• medical repatriation insurance cost (Applicable for non-Ugandan residents only)
• Civil insurance cost