Project Evaluation ToR At Handicap International – Humanity & Inclusion

TERMS OF REFERENCE

PROJECT EVALUATION

Inclusive Employment in Jordan

July 2018 – June 2022

This project is supported by the DROSOS FOUNDATION

Editor: Lama KILANI – Project Manager*

Date of writing: 24/8/2021*

1. General information

1.1 About Humanity & Inclusion and the DROSOS FOUNDATION

HI is an independent and impartial aid and development organisation with no religious or political affiliations operating in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. We work alongside people with disabilities and vulnerable people to help meet their essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. Since the organisation was first founded in 1982, we have set up development programmes in 62 countries and responded to many emergencies. Today we have a budget of around 150 million euros, with 3,500 employees worldwide. HI is engaged in an employment policy in favour of persons with disabilities. For further information about the organisation please visit www.hi.org.

DROSOS FOUNDATION is a Swiss private foundation committed to enabling young people to unlock their potential and to empower them so they can have equal opportunities.

The Foundation strengthens programmatic impact in economic empowerment for and with young people. The project herein under evaluation “Inclusive Employment in Jordan” is implemented with the support of the DROSOS FOUNDATION.**

1.2 About Humanity & Inclusion in Jordan

HI has been operating in Jordan since 2006, implementing projects ranging from the provision of comprehensive rehabilitation services, directly, through service providers or through a community-based approach; inclusive local development, disability movement strengthening through capacity building of Disabled People’s Organizations and multi-stakeholder dialogue, among others.

The ‘Inclusive Employment in Jordan’ project is funded by the DROSOS Foundation for a four-year period. The goal of the project is to achieve significant improvement in employability, access to decent work and socio-economic participation for and by populations vulnerable to exclusion from the employment market. Between mid-2020 and mid-2022, the project aims to support up to 150 persons with disabilities, among which expectedly 90% will be engaged in wage-employment and 10% in self-employment.

1. Context of the evaluation

2.1 Presentation of the project to be evaluated

In the form of one or more tables, containing at least the following information:

Project title

Inclusive Employment in Jordan

Implementation dates

July 2018 – June 2022

Location/Areas of intervention

Amman & Zarqaa

Operating Partners

JOHUD & Shams Alamal DPO

Target Groups

Target groups of the project include:

• People with disabilities: 150 people with disabilities with improved employability skills
• 90% of the persons with disabilities mentioned above will be engaged in wage-employment and 10% in self-employment
• Service providers: 8 service providers with improved accessibility and inclusion of People with disabilities in their services
• Employers: 5 companies/employers with improved accessibility and inclusion of People with disabilities in their workplaces
• Key actors of employment (authorities, Ministry of Labour, Higher Council for the rights of persons with disabilities, chamber of commerce etc.).

Project Budget

1,170,000 EUROS

Sources of funding: DROSOS FOUNDATION and Humanity & Inclusion

The below table illustrate the logical framework of the project that consist of, objectives, results, indicators, sources of verification and activities

Logic of the intervention

General objective(s)

Vulnerable youth achieve significant improvement in access to decent work, and socio-economic participation.

Specific objective 1

In Jordan, youth with disabilities improve their employability on the local labour market

Expected results

Expected result 1: Vulnerable population have acquired demonstrable employability and business skills

Expected result 2: Families and communities are demonstrably supportive of vulnerable population access to work.

Expected Result 3 CSOs have the capacity to advocate employers at local levels.

Expected Result 4 Multi stakeholder connections among key actors (job seekers, job coaching actors, employers, DPOs) are set up in order to share good practices and promote inclusive employment.

Expected result 5: Targeted public and private service providers are able to propose and provide services adapted to the specific needs of vulnerable populations Promoting inclusive livelihood service delivery.

Expected Result 6: Targeted employer partners have developed and implemented effective inclusion practices and have become agents of change.

2.2 Justification of the evaluation

This evaluation is an informative evaluation which aims to assess the achievement of the project outputs and outcomes, assess the impact of the intervention on the beneficiaries, stakeholders and partners of the project as well as to inform programme design of the upcoming phase of the project. It is also critical to take into consideration the impact of COVID 19 on the project progress and on the contextual situation and opportunities for the future.

HI is currently working on amendment of the upcoming phase of the intervention and the recommendations and findings of this evaluation will guide and shape the intervention modalities and framework of the next phase of the project.

Who will take part in and benefit from the findings of the evaluation?

The evaluation will use insights of supported persons with disabilities, local partners, project team members and stakeholders to address the following:

1) capture key lessons learned in this period and how the experience could be utilized for adaptation and tackling specific local challenges in the remaining period of the project.

2) provide inputs to allow HI to develop a plan for continuation after the project ends.

3) provide input for end-of-project lessons learning process and provide recommendations on the prospects for the future to support economic inclusion of Persons with disabilities in Jordan.

1. Objectives of the evaluation

3.1 Overall objectives and expectations of the evaluation

The evaluation aims to assess the effectiveness, efficiency, level of change and relevancy of the project approach / interventions as well as the level of cooperation with different stakeholders. Furthermore, it aims to provide recommendations to inform the design and/or amendments on the upcoming phase of the intervention. The key findings of the evaluation will provide overall wider context recommendations on the sectoral opportunities for persons with disabilities’ inclusion in the labour market.

3.2 Specific objectives

The evaluation will focus on the 39-month implementation period (from July 2018 to September 2021) of the project (herein after referred to as evaluation period). The objectives of the evaluation are to:

1. Determine if the project design and implementation address the identified needs;
2. Assess the participation level of different stakeholders to the different project phases;
3. Capture effectively best practices for future scale up, and suggest improvements for the remaining 6 months of the project;
4. Assess the relevancy of amending the project activities and/or objectives according to the needs of community and partners;
5. Review project objectives and outcomes in relation to sustainability, continuity and scale up;
6. Assess the impact of COVID 19 on the project outcomes and on future progress.
7. Suggest relevant recommendations and lessons learned for future scale up or for the design of similar projects.

3.3 Evaluation criteria and evaluative questions

· Relevance: the evaluation will review project design and assumptions made at the project conception phase to assess how well it has addressed the needs and issues of the target beneficiaries, the country context, HI and partnering organisations’ policies. The evaluation will investigate what has and what has not worked in project design and implementation for future planning.

· Effectiveness: the evaluation will assess the performance of the project against planned results to see whether the project is on track and achieved its expected outputs and outcomes according to plan.

· Synergy: the evaluation will assess how the project is coherent and complementary with other livelihood projects in Jordan and how partnerships can support scale up.

· Changes: the evaluation will assess aspects of the project contributing to produce significant positive changes in the lives of the beneficiaries in a sustainable manner.

· Cooperation: the evaluation will assess aspects of the project cooperation with other stakeholders; partners, CSOs, DPOs, Vocational Centres, and Employers.**

Criteria

Questions

Relevance

· To what extent did the project implementation was affected by the situation of COVID- 19 pandemic? Are objectives of the project still relevant to current context?

· What can be done to improve the relevance of the project to its target beneficiaries, partner organisations and the project context?

· To what extent was the selection of partners relevant for the project?

Effectiveness

· To what extent have outputs and objectives achieved or are likely to be achieved? What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?

· What local/ existing systems or setups did the project miss out on but should link up with?

· Are there any and what alternatives strategies would be more effective in achieving its objectives?

Synergy

· What other employability / employment support / job creation programs (INGOs/NGO, UNs, World Bank, etc.) could the project partner with in the last 6 months or future to scale up its outcomes?

Changes

· To what extent did the project contribute to a positive change in the target Partners’ knowledge and skills and practices to support inclusive employment within their interventions?

· To what extent did the project produce positive changes in the lives of beneficiaries with disabilities (through empowerment and personalized support approach)?

*Cooperation

· To what extent target partners and stakeholders consider the collaboration with HI for inclusive employment useful? How do they wish to continue such collaboration in their future programming?

· What other strategic collaborations could be forged to strengthen outcomes for Persons with disabilities?

1. Evaluation methodology and organization of the mission

4.1 Collection methodology

Evaluation methods should be rigorous yet at all times proportionate and appropriate to the context of the project intervention and will be discussed with HI steering committee. The project works across various governorates and sites in Jordan, though all at day-trip distance from Amman, site visits will be arranged in line with the methods selected.

Due to the current COVID-19 crisis in Jordan, parts of the evaluation process may have to be conducted online/remotely. HI asks applicants to please provide a plan for conducting the evaluation remotely in case in-person activities cannot be carried out.

The evaluation will be based on primary and secondary data, in particular documentation directly related to the project – proposal, narrative and financial reports, monitoring datasets, surveys, financial information, other documents produced to analyse individual project components and inform decisions regarding the course of the activities. Other contextual and related information by other organisations will also be made available. Finally, key stakeholders involved in the project at different stages will be mobilized for the evaluation – in addition to the whole current project team, former senior management and experts, main representatives of partners and finally volunteers and beneficiaries.

HI values the contributions of the evaluator towards proposing appropriate, innovative, and robust methods of evaluation. Some basic methodological requirements, however, are that:

• The evaluator should try to make tools and evaluation processes of the sample as inclusive as possible for persons with disabilities as much as they possibly can.
• The evaluation must be a participative and interactive process.
• The evaluation should consist of a series of evaluation tasks that shall be implemented throughout the duration of the evaluation. It will allow to build evidence using a logical sequence of activities.
• The methodology should use qualitative and quantitative data collection techniques and analysis.

The proposed method should also describe how crosscutting issues of disability, gender and age addressed and incorporated throughout the various stages of the evaluation.

4.2 Actors involved in the evaluation

The following actors are involved into oversee and implementation of the evaluation process as indicated below:

Portfolio

Role

DROSOS FOUNDATION– [Director of Egypt and Levant and other relevant DROSOS Program Managers]

DROSOS is the project donor and periodically reviews its implementation giving key recommendations.

HI Project Manager (Livelihood)

Your day to day interlocutor regarding the evaluation process including field work, meetings, FGDs etc.

Project partners’ staff: the project has two local partners, they are JOHUD & Shams Alamal. Two staff members are allocated from each partner

The main role for partners’ staff is to ensure the active involvement of targeted beneficiaries into the evaluation. This will include their contribution into distributing and applying the evaluation tools and practices among related beneficiaries within their localities

HI volunteers – four livelihood community-based volunteers

The main role for partners’ staff is to ensure the active involvement of targeted beneficiaries into the evaluation. This will include their contribution into distributing and applying the evaluation tools and practices among related beneficiaries within their localities

Regional Technical Unit Manager

Responsible for giving technical guidance of the evaluation process including validating the evaluation methodologies and report

Operations Manager

Oversees and monitors all operation aspects of the evaluation alongside the technical team

Regional MEAL Manager

Oversees the overall evaluation process and ensure the adherence to guidelines and procedures

Country MEAL Technical Officer

Oversees the overall monitoring process of the project and leads different monitoring exercises at project level

4.3 Organization of the mission

The Evaluation Steering Committee will be responsible for validating the proposed evaluation methodology after the closure of the selection process. In addition, the steering committee and DROSOS must approve the inception report and evaluation methodology prior to the commencement of any fieldwork or any other substantive work.

HI and DROSOS will review the proposed evaluation methods by the evaluator after the closure of the selection process.

The steering committee will be part of the kick-off meeting, presentation of results meeting and closure of the evaluation.

The final report shall be reviewed and validated by the steering committee before publishing.

The Steering Committee Members are:

• HI Regional MEAL Manager;
• HI Operation Logistics Manager;
• HI Livelihood Project Manager;
• HI Operations Manager;
• DROSOS Director of Egypt & Levant

The evaluation should consist of 8 phases:

1. Preparatory phase (briefing with HI team, document review, appreciation-review of the evaluation feasibility), sampling, preparation of data collection tools, logistics arrangements.
2. Kick – off meeting leading to the inception report presenting the proposed evaluation methodology includes the questionnaire completion and tools for the use of data collections.
3. Fieldwork – data collection with partners and beneficiaries.
4. Communication between the steering committee and the evaluator on the final report
5. Development of the final report based on the feedback of all the reviewers.
6. Organize workshop for debriefing and presentation of the results orally to the steering committee and Project team, includes present the step of filling the end of evaluation form as presented in the standard process.
7. Data analysis and presentation of preliminary findings (meeting with relevant stakeholders to present analysis, conclusions and recommendations).
8. Validation of the final report on the basis HI quality checklist and according to the steering committee decision.

5. 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 considered in the technical offer:

o Guarantee the safety of participants, partners and teams: the technical offer must specify the risk mitigation measures.

o Ensuring a person/community-centred 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.).

o 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.

o Ensure the security of personal and sensitive data throughout the activity: the technical offer must propose measures for the protection of personal data. **

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

5.3. Participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries

Eventually, the evaluation process will mobilize all project stakeholders, local partners and Authorities as it is indicated below:

Stakeholders

Portfolio

Direct beneficiaries

Persons with disabilities who have been identified and served within the project period. There are two categories of beneficiaries; 90% of the beneficiaries been supported to achieve significate improvement to access wage employment sector, whereas, 10% of them been supported to achieve significant improvement to access self- employment through Home Based Business (HBB).

Families of persons with Disabilities (indirect beneficiaries)

Family members of the direct Project beneficiaries.

Local Partners

There were total of 3 partners organisations during the pilot phase ; Youth Society for Self-Development (YSSD), Jordanian Hashemite Fund for Human Development (JOHUD), and Shams Alamal. However, number of partners reduced to only 2 partners during the implementation phase (YSSD excluded).

Local Authorities / Ministry of Labour (MoL)

Signed an MoU with the project to support the implementation of some activities under First, Fourth and the Sixth Result of the logframe

Vocational Training Centres

Considered as service providers, who signed MoU with the project to provide vocational training for persons with disabilities.

Community-Based Organisations

Signed an MoU with the project to support the inclusion of persons with disabilities into the workplace and improve their accessibility level.

Employers

Private companies who signed MoUs with the project to improve their recruitment and services provisions in inclusive employment.

5.4. Others

It is essential that the process of data collection, as well as storage of data, be supported by careful ethical practice, including informed consent, anonymity and confidentiality, do no-harm and protection of data and data storage. Informed consent needs to include awareness of the evaluation data collection process and that the evaluation report may be published and publicly disseminated. Extra precaution must be taken in involving project beneficiaries considering the sensitivity of the thematic issues tackled by this project. To protect the anonymity of communities, partners and stakeholders’ names or identifying features of evaluation participants (such as community position or role) will not be made public.

The evaluator should uphold and respect the following ethical principles:

• HI’s protection policies (child protection and protection from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment …etc.)
• Integrity (respect of gender sensitivity issues, especially when performing interviews/focus groups, religion and beliefs, and local norms).
• Anonymity and confidentiality.
• Independence and objectivity.
• Veracity of information.
• Coordination spirit.
• Intellectual property of information generated during and by the evaluation (including report and annexes) will be transferred to HI and donor.
• Quality of report and respect for timelines. **
• Expected deliverables and proposed schedule

6.1. Deliverables

ü An inception report no more than 15 pages specifying the proposed methodology for answering the evaluation questions and a detailed action plan. This inception report will have to be validated by the Steering Committee and DROSOS FOUNDATION.

ü A presentation document presenting the first results, conclusions and recommendations, to be presented to the Steering Committee and DROSOS FOUNDATION.

ü A final report of approximately 20-30 pages maximum and the following annexes: **

o Table of contents.

o Abbreviations list

o Executive summary (that can be used as stand- alone document).

o Brief on General Jordanian context at the design and implementation phase.

o Introduction that includes evaluation objectives, methodologies, the used techniques, and limitations of the evaluation where relevant.

o Presentation of the evaluation analysis and findings, covering the five focus areas (Efficiency, Change, effectiveness, relevance, and Cooperation).

o Conclusion and recommendations with a clear relationship between them.

o Report annexes include, The Final Evaluation Term of Reference; The Data collection tools; list of the people interviewed; list of documents and bibliography as well as composition evaluation form.

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

It is expected that the evaluation overall process (including the hiring) will take around 2 months for the period from October 2021 to December 2021. A detailed action plan will be submitted as part of the inception report. The final report should be validated no later than the 15^th December 2021, and the consolidated report should be finalized by 31^st December 2021.**

7. Means

7.1 Expertise sought from the consultant(s)

The evaluation expert (or team of experts) who will undertake this assignment should have the following skills, experience and knowledge:

A. Mandatory qualifications:

• Academic background in Disability, Economy, Social Sciences or developmental studies with a minimum of a Master’s Degree in the relevant field or Bachelor degree with at least 10 years of experience in the relevant field.
• Experience in project evaluation and related methodologies
• Demonstrated Experience in conducting participatory (qualitative and quantitative) evaluation techniques.
• A wide experience in all aspects of project cycle management.
• Strong analytical and report writing skills.

B. Desirable qualifications:

• Experience in the Middle East context.
• Experience in project evaluation and related methodologies with DROSOS funded projects is a plus.
• Experience working with persons with disabilities in general is an asset.
• Practical knowledge of rights-based approaches and Inclusion.

Qualified persons with disabilities are encouraged to apply!

7.2 Budget allocated to the evaluation

The overall cost of the evaluation including transport costs (international and local), logistics costs, accommodation, and translation costs; with proposals for payment modalities shall be submitted by the evaluator with detailed budget. Ensuring that costs are tax applicable

Caution: please note that the last payment is conditional on the validation of the final report and not on the sending of the final report. By validation, we mean validation of the quality and under no circumstances of the appreciation of the project evaluated (based on the quality checklist attached, chapter 6).

7.3. Available resources made available to the evaluation team

Document and resource of information:

· Project proposal and logical framework

· Monitoring Box, (PM Box) which include all project activities with the timeframe. In addition, human recourse involved

· Memorandums of understanding and letters of Agreements.

· Interim Donor Reports

· MEAL Plan (including MEAL matrix, calendar and narrative plan).

· HI Operational and monitoring tools, including; KAP Survey, Technical Assessments, training reports, pictures, attendance sheets, accessibility reports.

· Supported partners operational and monitoring tools.

8. Submission of applications

Bids from interested individual consultants or firms should include:

• A detailed technical offer that includes the methodology and evaluation plan, an alternative plan in case the current context doesn’t allow for in person interviews/activities and timeframe.
• A detailed financial offer that covers all anticipated costs (taxes, travel, accommodation, transportation, insurance, translation, etc.) in Euro.
• A CV (list of CVs) detailing relevant skills and experience of the consultant and her/his team of no more than 3 pages each, including contactable referees. In case of team of experts, the Team Leader must be clarified.
• At least one sample of a relevant previous evaluation preferably for international donor funded project in a similar area or context.

Note: Humanity & Inclusion reserves the right to accept or reject any proposal without giving reasons and is not bound to accept the lowest or the highest bidder.

9. Appendices

· HI’s Quality Framework, on which all evaluators must base their evaluation.

· The Disability – Gender – Age Policy, which must guide the approach and the construction of evaluation tools in the technical offer.