CONTEXT
Concern Worldwide is an international non-governmental humanitarian organization dedicated to reducing suffering and working to eliminate extreme poverty in the world’s poorest countries.
Concern Worldwide has been operational in the Central African Republic (CAR) since 2014, starting with a relatively small programme in Bangui, focusing on livelihoods and food security. Within months, activities had expanded to the sub-prefectures of Bossembele, Kouango, Grimari and Mobaye, in the prefectures of Ombella M’Poko, Ouaka and Basse Kotto respectively.
Concern’s actions focus on improving food and nutrition security, access to water, basic hygiene and sanitation, strengthening health services and strengthening livelihoods.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SOCIAL, HUMANITARIAN AND POLITICAL CONTEXT
Compared to the last five years, the humanitarian context in the Central African Republic has relatively improved in 2023. Progress has been observed in some parts of the country, particularly in the southwest and major cities. Compared to the previous year, there is a positive evolution in terms of critical intersectoral severities. However, it is important to remember that several humanitarian challenges persist, hence the need to anticipate risks that populations could face throughout 2024 due to local, regional and global factors, including insecurity in several parts of the country, the arrival of displaced populations from Sudan and Chad, climate change, the impacts of the wars in Ukraine and Palestine on the economy.
In this context, the living conditions of thousands of women, children, men, elderly people and those living with disabilities continue to be affected. Indeed, half a million remain in a situation of displacement, while 70% of the population lives on less than $2.15 per day and struggles to meet their basic needs. The increase in returns reflects relative stability according to the local perception of the affected communities, making it more relevant than ever to explore new avenues of sustainable collaboration, particularly with regard to peace and sustainable development.
2.8 million people will be extremely vulnerable in 2024. This humanitarian response plan targets 1.9 million people with an amount of 367.7 million US dollars. The changing context now requires a strong mobilization of other partners, particularly those in development in areas characterized by a good level of stability, to complement humanitarian response efforts that have become largely insufficient, with only 56.3% of the necessary funding having been mobilized in 2023. [1]
Indeed, the consultations carried out upstream with the different groups affected by the underlying factors of the crisis, place the communities at the heart of the 2024 humanitarian response plan, by integrating their priorities into the response approach. This year, humanitarian interventions are more localized in high or moderate priority municipalities, according to the results of regional consultative workshops. On the other hand, multi-sectoral interventions integrating a lighter humanitarian response followed by continuous advocacy for the strengthening of resilience activities are encouraged.
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The external evaluation will focus on the contribution of the program to alleviating the suffering of targeted households through a multi-sectoral response aimed at meeting the immediate needs of 1,000 households (8,000 people including 560 IDPs, 640 refugees): phase 1 and 650/1,000 targeted households for phase 2 in food, shelter, and WASH in the sub-prefectures of Zangba and Mobaye, Basse Kotto prefecture in CAR. In doing so, the objective of the evaluation is to learn and report. More specifically, the evaluation will determine the extent to which the program has achieved the expected results at the end of the 20 months of implementation (May 2023 – December 2024) with the financial support of the European Union.
PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The objective of the evaluation is to determine the extent to which the program has succeeded in achieving the established results and objectives, as illustrated in the project proposal, and to identify future options for the program in order to provide sustainable and satisfactory assistance to the targeted individuals.
The evaluation results will be compared with baseline data collected during assessments, routine monitoring data (RMP) and other information collected during implementation. The information collected will be used to establish good practices and help formulate new interventions in the programme areas. Specifically, this evaluation aims to:
- Assess progress in achieving the objectives, indicators and targets, as well as the relevance of the implementation strategy used,
- To assess the extent to which the proposed activities have complied with the planned implementation and achieved the intended objectives, goals and results,
- Support the organization’s commitment to accountability to stakeholders (donors, government, beneficiaries) by assessing good practices and gaps and integrating lessons learned into future programs,
- Highlight the extent to which changes – expected and unexpected, positive and negative – have occurred as a result of the proposed program and the impact they have had on targeted participants, community members and other stakeholders,
- Assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the programme using the DAC criteria,
- Identify lessons learned and provide practical, innovative and sustainable program options to help improve future programs.
EVALUATION CRITERIA
Relevance
- To what extent were the proposed activities aligned with the needs and priorities of target groups, including internally displaced persons, refugees and vulnerable host households?
- Did the programme address the immediate needs of targeted households in terms of food security, water, sanitation and hygiene and shelter?
- To what extent will access to these services be improved in the long term/sustainably?
- Did the programme improve the resilience of affected populations?
Efficiency
- How did budget utilization compare to the planned budget?
- What was the comparative cost of the program compared to the program results?
Efficiency
- To what extent have the programme objectives, as defined in the project proposal, been achieved?
- What changes were made to the initial proposal to accommodate unforeseen circumstances, if any? What lessons were learned from these experiences?
Impact
- Did the program contribute to reducing the prevalence of negative coping mechanisms that target populations resorted to due to the lack of resources and services provided by the program?
- Did the programme enable households to meet their basic needs for food, water, hygiene and sanitation and shelter?
Sustainability
- Did the programme fully involve beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the process of its implementation?
- Did the programme promote ownership of activities and results by actively involving beneficiaries in decision-making and action at each phase of the programme cycle?
- Was the partnership with a national organization carried out within the framework of equitable collaboration leading to a sharing of capacities between partners?
Integration
- Have gender and ethnic groups been duly taken into account so that the programme intervention does not increase the vulnerability of target groups and tensions between different ethnic or other vulnerable groups?
Monitoring and evaluation and project management
- What were the strengths, weaknesses and challenges of the programme’s monitoring and evaluation activities, particularly with regard to data quality assurance?
- What are the lessons learned from current gaps identified throughout the programme cycle? What are the key action points from this learning to be incorporated into future programmes?
Rating scale
5 – Exceptional performance
4 – Very good overall performance with some shortcomings
3 – Good overall performance with some minor shortcomings
2 – Generally acceptable performance but with some major shortcomings
1 – Barely acceptable performance with many major shortcomings
0 – Completely unacceptable performance or insufficient data to make an assessment.
Concern’s cross-cutting approaches, including conflict sensitivity, protection, disaster risk reduction and environment, will be considered as part of the evaluation and the evaluation report will include a section covering these approaches, describing which ones were considered and the extent to which they were successfully addressed in programme implementation.
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation will use mixed methods of performance assessment with quantitative and qualitative data. To do this, the evaluator will:
- Review of quantitative data on programme indicators, including a comparison of baseline, routine monitoring (PDM) and endline data, and an analysis of these data with reference to the evaluation questions set out above. In addition, the evaluator will review performance monitoring data throughout implementation to assess the project’s systematic approach to results-based monitoring. This review will be based on data collected throughout the project.
- Qualitative data collection. The qualitative approach design will address the evaluation questions through a range of approaches, including focus group discussions with beneficiaries, key informant interviews (KIIs) among staff and other stakeholders. In addition to answering the evaluation questions outlined above, qualitative data collection will explore issues identified through the review of quantitative data. Focus group discussions with programme participants and key informant interviews with project stakeholders will be the primary means of generating qualitative information on these issues, paying attention to different societal structures.
a. Research/documentary review:
The evaluation team will be required to conduct a comprehensive review of the project proposal, progress reports, implementation monitoring reports, distribution report and other supporting documents. The evaluators will draw on quantitative data collected by Concern during project implementation, in line with the project’s key indicators.
b. On the ground:
Where relevant, Concern’s M&E team at the Mobaye base level will support the evaluation in organizing interviews and discussions with a sample of program participants and non-participants, as well as staff, through household interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Key informant interviews with other stakeholders – including program participants, local authorities, humanitarian actors and relevant clusters will also be conducted to facilitate triangulation of the findings from the FGDs. External evaluators will be responsible for proposing a clear and representative sampling methodology for this study.
c. Post-collection analysis:
After the fieldwork, the evaluation team will be given 13 days to analyze and review the data collected and prepare the narrative report.
As part of the responsibility/accountability to beneficiaries, Concern will ensure that the main findings of the assessment are disseminated to beneficiaries through community consultations in the two sub-prefectures. This process should take place within a month, with detailed accountability levels. The zone coordinator will share the results with local authorities, and the Country Director will in turn share with the Humanitarian Coordination if relevant. The work plan will be developed by the Programme Support Officer, with clear lines of accountability and communication deadlines.
DELIVERABLES
The assessor will be fully responsible for the following:
- An inception report, detailing the data collection methodology – qualitatively and quantitatively, the questionnaire for data collection, the work plan and deadlines for submission and review. This inception report will include full details of the proposed sampling approach, including sample sizes, number of focus group discussions and key informant interviews for each category of respondents.
- A presentation of the first results and lessons learned before leaving the country
- A first draft of the assessment report with a summary and clear recommendations (without annexes) for comments by Concern CAR within one week after departure from the country
- A complete final version of the evaluation report, incorporating the comments received within one week after receipt of the consolidated comments. The report, written in French, must be 10 to 15 pages excluding annexes and must be submitted in electronic format (Word or PDF) to the PD as well as to the DP, and include the following sections:
- Summary (2 pages maximum),
- Brief context and description of the intervention and evaluation,
- Presentation of the evaluation methodology and any limitations encountered,
- Presentation of the main results, conclusions and recommendations using graphs, charts and tables, where appropriate,
- Recommendations with a strong emphasis on broader lessons learned by Concern to improve programme planning and implementation in the future,
- Scoring against the CAD’s expanded criteria,
- Annexes: including ToR, list of people/groups consulted, interview frames/questionnaires, tools, list of sites visited, abbreviations, maps, diagrams or graphs that may have been used for this evaluation.
Results/data should be disaggregated in accordance with ECHO guidelines for the project. The analysis should integrate the results of the quantitative data, with the questions identified to inform future intervention strategies to address the constraints of humanitarian interventions and improve the impact of the programmes.
CALENDAR
The assessment will be conducted over a period of 8 weeks, including 30 working days from the start date. This duration includes time for all work, including document review, field visits, debriefing and submission of the final report.
COMMUNICATION LINES
The external evaluator will report to the Concern Worldwide Programme Director in CAR and will liaise with the MEAL Manager and Programme Support Officer, the Project Manager and the Desk Officer.
For field data collection, Concern’s M&E Officer will be the point of contact for the external evaluator.
QUALIFICATIONS
Essential :
- Advanced Diploma in Food Security, WASH, Shelter or equivalent
- 5 years of experience in project monitoring and evaluation, managing final external evaluations of projects, particularly in the field of Food Security, Wash and Shelter Emergency Projects
- Have proven knowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research
- Excellent organizational, facilitation, presentation and communication skills
- Excellent command of French and English, both written and spoken, is essential
- Excellent report writing skills
- Solid knowledge of Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS)
- Excellent knowledge of the CAR context, particularly in terms of security and culture, is required.
Desirable:
- Mastery of results-based management approaches.
How to apply
Please send your application to leo.vuillermoz@concern.net by Sunday 29 September at midnight, mentioning the title of the project: “External Evaluation_Your name” in the subject of the email. Any late application will not be considered.
The application file must include and will be marked on the basis of all of the following elements:
- Curriculum Vitae, including professional references
- Technical proposal including the methodology that will be applied
- Financial proposal (budget)
- At least one example of a study report previously carried out and relevant to the accomplishment of this mission.
