Terms of Reference (ToR) for DCA Cash and Livelihoods Based Humanitarian Response in Upper Nile State Phase III (HRUN III) and Upscale Project

1 Background and Introduction

DanChurchAid (DCA) is a decentralized Danish NGO, which primarily works with both national and international NGO partners. DCA is a member of the international networks / alliances of churches.

This term of reference (ToR) for the consultancy describes DCA South Sudan’s objectives to undertake an independent evaluation for one of its projects; “Cash and Livelihoods Based Humanitarian Response in Upper Nile State Phase III (HRUN III) and Upscale” project implemented in five counties of Upper Nile State in North Eastern South Sudan. The project is implemented together with three local partners (Universal Knowledge and Empowerment Agency (UNKEA), Nile Hope and National Relief and Development Corps (NRDC)) with funding from Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH) and Germany Federal Foreign Office. The TOR briefly describes the project’s background, specific outcomes/outputs, and proposed scope of work, methodologies and deliverables from a consultant identified through a competitive process.

2 Project Summary:

2.1 Introduction of the project:

As South Sudan has recently come out of a 5-year period of frequent and unpredictable conflict, the needs are higher than ever. Fundamental livelihoods structures are destroyed, insecurity and fear of return of fighting as well as inter-community conflicts are some of the main drivers of displacement. Yet, trust in the September 2018 peace agreement is slowly growing. The second half of 2018 has seen a reduction of fighting in the Greater Upper Nile region, including Upper Nile State, in the counties of Maiwut, Ulang, Longechuk, Fashoda and Panyikang. However, localized conflict is still ongoing. This has made life unsafe and unpredictable for the civilian population. Their everyday life is characterized by road ambushes, targeted killings, torture and looting. In the targeted areas, repeated localized fighting, between communities as well as between armed groups, means that displacement and influx of internally displaced people (IDPs) are not only affecting those returning or fleeing, but is also putting a massive pressure on host communities. All targeted areas are classified under the integrated food security phase classification (IPC) as levels 3 (Acute Food and Livelihood Crisis) or 4 (Humanitarian Emergency) according to the September 2018 IPC reports prediction for the first quarter of 2019. Yet, some areas in Panyikang are classified as with the highest possible level 5 (Famine / Humanitarian Catastrophe). The widespread food insecurity means that the population is skipping meals and selling households assets to purchase food. Main markets are functioning but do struggle with accessing the limited flow of goods.

This project builds on the ongoing humanitarian projects in South Sudan supported by the DCA. The project is implemented in the Upper Nile State in areas classified as IPC levels 3 or 4. With the aim of saving lives, the project provides unconditional multi-purpose cash transfers to the most vulnerable households, during the lean season, to help them meet immediate food as well as other basic needs. This is combined with distribution of productive assets (including seeds, tools and fishing gear) as well as training in apiary and dairy production to support resilience. Based on its experience, DCA and partners have found the combination of unconditional cash transfers and the provision of productive assets to be the most effective modality in reducing the likelihood of beneficiaries selling assets and enhancing coping mechanisms to counteract household food consumption gaps. Training on improved agronomic and fishing practices is also conducted and links to markets are facilitated through contacts between traders and beneficiaries for surplus production.

2.2 Program Impact:

The main objective of the project is to contribute to improved resilience of vulnerable and conflict affected communities in Upper Nile State, South Sudan. This is achieved through a combined approach of improving household access to capital as a mean to address basic needs and reinforce livelihoods, strengthening and reinforcing local market systems, addressing protection gaps at community level through community-led approaches and conflict/crisis-affected households receiving multi-purpose cash transfers (MPCT) briefly after a conflict/crisis. This is achieved through a combined approach of some of the activities undertaken to realize the expected impact of the project, including assisting targeted households with MPCT, engaging able-bodied households in public asset recovery through cash for work (CfW) opportunities, distribution of livelihood inputs as means of reinforcing livelihoods, supporting producer groups are supported with capacity building opportunities linked to local markets, supporting local markets through market strengthening initiatives, identification of protection concerns, mapping referral pathways and a basic early warning system, closing of protection gaps through CfW initiatives and ensuring early warning mechanisms are in place and available to support crisis/shock affected populations with life-saving support.

Overall Project Outcome: Contribute to improved resilience of vulnerable and conflict affected communities in Upper Nile, South Sudan.

Project outcome indicators:

· 90 percent of households reporting spending the distributed money only on food or other basic essentials (healthcare, shelter, school fees, and clothes).

· A 10 percent reduction in reported use of negative coping mechanisms.

The project will assess change through the following five specific objectives;

1. Households’ access to capital as a mean of addressing basic needs will be improved.

2. Households’ livelihoods are reinforced.

3. Local market systems are reinforced and strengthened.

4. Protection gaps at community level have been addressed through community-led approaches.

5. Conflict/crisis-affected households received multi-purpose cash transfers briefly after a conflict/crisis.

Project expected outputs:

1.1 Targeted households are assisted with multi-purpose unconditional cash transfers.

1.2 Able-bodied households are engaged in public asset recovery through cash for work opportunities.

2.1 Target households receive livelihood inputs as a mean of reinforcing livelihoods.

2.2 Producer groups are supported with capacity building opportunities linked to local markets.

3.1 Local markets are supported through market strengthening initiatives.

4.1 Community protection committees have identified protection concerns, mapped referral pathways and established a basic early warning system.

4.2 The identified protection gaps have been closed through cash for work initiatives.

5 The early warning mechanism is in place and available to support crisis/shock affected populations with life-saving support.**

3 Purpose of the Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to demonstrate how the project achieved its intended objectives and determine what changes it brought to the target communities.

The specific objectives of this evaluation are to:

· Assess the extent to which the project achieved its objectives with special emphasis on the outcomes and impact including most significant and indirect changes attributable to the project.

· Assess the relevance of the project design and strategy with special emphasis on:

• Community needs at the time of project identification.

• Results as articulated in the project’s logical framework

• Cross-cutting issues of gender and a rights-based approach (RBA).

• Local Government Authorities (LGAs), community structures capacity building and its relevance to project implementation.

• The external environment (context) within which the project was operational and its influence on project successes and/or failures.

· Assess the effectiveness of the processes of beneficiary engagement and project implementation against best practices in the project.

· Assess project efficiency in utilisation of mobilised and committed resources during the implementation and procurement of project inputs

· Asses the cost effectiveness of delivering humanitarian assistance through cash and market-based

· Establish and determine the level of synergies, networking and coordination with its direct stakeholders and other actors and make recommendation aimed at achieving greater synergies and networking in future programming.

· Evaluate the existing DCA and partner MEAL (especially monitoring) procedures and practices. Since there were some challenges identified throughout this project, it is important to understand what is in place and working well as well as areas in need of some strengthening

· Establish the level of networking and/or coordination achieved by the project with its stakeholders.

· Draws lessons learned and best practices from the project.

· Assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the project monitoring and evaluation, focusing on DCA and its partners monitoring tools and how these could be strengthened in future projects.

· Assess the functionality of the complaints handling mechanisms that were put in place and how effective the mechanisms were during the project.

4 Evaluation Scope and Methodology:

This evaluation is expected to cover the HRUN AA III Upscale implementation period from 1 September 2018 to 31 May 2020, as implemented in selected counties of Fashoda, Maiwut, Longechuk, Panyikang, Manyo and Ulang in Upper Nile State. The evaluation will be conducted from 1 to 29 June. However, given the current uncertainties around the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, flexibility in the use of methodology and timeframe will be allowed during the evaluation. Virtual interviews with key informants and other remote evaluation methodologies should be considered. Any adjustments of the timeframe will be allowed only after agreement with DCA and its donor.

DCA recommends a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches. Proposed approaches could include or extend beyond cross sectional household surveys, key informant interviews/virtual key informant interviews, focus group discussions, documents reviews and analysis, case studies, observation or any other appropriate techniques.

The evaluator is required to use a mix of techniques which best collects required data from both direct and indirect project beneficiaries and where applicable, the evaluator will adopt a participatory approach to data collection when engaging with different respondents. Furthermore, where appropriate, use joint sessions that can make use of stakeholder engagement and analysis tools to evaluate project relevancy, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability.

It is important to reiterate that the proposed evaluation techniques should explicitly demonstrate how cross cutting themes, such as protection, gender and disability, shall be integrated across the modalities including the do no harm principles.

4.1 Key End of Project Evaluation Questions

This evaluation is expected to provide answers to the following evaluation questions;

Relevance and Quality of the Design:

· To which extent were the needs of different stakeholders (women/ men, girls/ boys) met by the intervention?

· To what extend did the project conform to the goals of DCA South Sudan country strategy?

· To what extend have recommendations and lesson learnt from previous evaluations been incorporated in the design?

· Was a thorough risk assessment carried out to identify risks to the project, including possible mitigation measures? How was this used to shape the project, what can be learnt from this?

· How were modalities selected to implement the separate activities? Did a response analysis take place and was modality appropriateness reviewed during the project?

· Were the selected modalities the most appropriate to meet the needs of beneficiaries (including types of cash used (multipurpose cash and cash for work)) and appropriate to the geographical areas?

Appropriateness:

· Were markets able to deliver affordable food and other essential items?

· Were markets safely accessible to all beneficiary groups?

· Did recipients prefer cash over other types of assistance? Why?

· Were recipients satisfied with the transfer mechanisms? Why/ why not?

· Are there appropriate, functioning systems of accountability (participation, information sharing, feedback and complaints) that beneficiaries are using?

· Are beneficiary feedback and complaints received used to shape the response? How?

· Is there an appropriate system of information management and communication in place?

· Is new learning being captured and acted upon during implementation? If yes, how and what? If no, why not?

Efficiency of Implementation:

· Were all inputs delivered in time?

· What was the local leaders and chiefs’ assessment of this intervention?

· Have most of the project outcomes been achieved to an acceptable standard?

· Was the budget been spent according to the proposed budget lines?

· Was the rate of spending acceptable?

· Did DCA and its partners have sufficient skills to manage the project effectively?

· Was the selected financial service provider good value for money?

Effectiveness of the Project:

· Have there been any unplanned effects and are these good or bad?

· Has coordination with other humanitarian actors been effective?

· Have the effects of the project been felt equally across the whole project area or are some areas neglected?

· Have the effects of the project been felt equally across the project stakeholders or other stakeholders neglected?

· What project component/s were more effective and why?

· Was cash delivered and spent safely according to beneficiaries?

· Did beneficiaries see payment levels as fair and adequate?

· Was there any corrupt abuse by agency staff, local elites or authorities reported?

· Did women successfully partake in the cash for work component and the business support activities (market related)? What best practices, areas for improving this can be identified in this regard?

· To what extend did the partner coordinate with authorities, other NGOs as well as clusters and relevant working groups (cash working group) (at local or national level) to ensure this project is complementary to their efforts, duplication is minimized, learning is shared and technical recommendations are known and understood?

· How did DCA and partners ensure that beneficiary data was handled responsibly and safely throughout the project cycle? What practices emerged, what gaps are being identified?

Impact of the Project:

· To what extent have beneficiaries, including duty bearers/local government institutions/local leaders benefited from project outputs and outcomes?

· In what ways have local markets benefited from the project?

· To what extent did the project contribute to the improvement of the Food Consumption Score (FCS), copying strategy index (CSI)and Dietary Diversity (DD) score of the vulnerable and food insecure households?

· How did households decide on how to use the cash and who made these decisions?

· What needs did people cover with the cash received?

· What effect did the project have on local markets for key goods and services?

· What processes were in place at DCA and partner level to monitor project process and outputs (especially for the cash component and including the monitoring of local markets)? Were the monitoring processes in place sufficient or can gaps be identified?

· What processes were in place at DCA and partner level to ensure participation and accountability to beneficiaries throughout the project cycle? How were these used to shape the project?

· Did the cash transfer cause any conflict (e.g. in the household, community, between groups, etc.)?

· How, if at all, were gender dynamics affected at the household level, and how can the project strengthen positive change in this area?

· How has the cash project affected traditional community self-help systems?

· Where there any unintended positive or negative impacts different for men, women and marginalized groups due to the different cash approaches and the sand dams?

· What are the current challenges in using Financial Service Providers(Equity Bank (Ulang and Longechuk counties), Alpha Bank (Maiwut County) and Kuelkier Money Transfer Agent (Fashoda, Manyo, Panyikang Counties)) as a delivery mechanism for cash transfer programming in slow onset humanitarian contexts (also with view towards using digital identification means)?

Potential of Project Sustainability:

· To what extent can the outputs be expected to be sustainable?

· Do the community have the capacity to sustain the results of the intervention?

· Do the local government authorities/ community leaders / chiefs fully support the initiatives taken by the project?

· To what extent are the target communities contributing to the sustainability of the initiatives?

· Has special effort been made to educate and train women to assume decision-making roles?

· Did the project design include practical exit strategy?

· Were the all the stakeholders involved in designing the exit strategy?

· How sustainable were the market-based activities aiming to enhance improvement/ recovery of livelihoods? What elements of the project contributed towards this and what gaps remained? What specific recommendations can be made to strengthen similar interventions in the future?

· Did the project establish any referral mechanisms for needs beyond the assistance provided or specialized services required for groups with special needs? If so, how were referrals made and what learning emerges from this? Did any unmet need remain?

5 Evaluation Approach:

The consultant is expected to develop the evaluation methodology, but the expectation is that the incumbent will adopt an inclusive and participatory approach in which key project staffs have a chance to meaningfully participate in the evaluation process.

Considering the foregoing, it is recommended that: **

· The entire exercise is structured to adopt joint planning sessions with project staff, program briefings by management staff in line with the log frame, project document, and the country strategy. Others include focus group discussions, key informant interviews with stakeholders and government representatives in each county.

· Electronic data collection for household survey. The consultant is expected to collect data using a design and program data collection software preferably magpi.

· The communities to be visited will be chosen from the targeted communities based on the different types of activities that have been implemented in that community. This is to ensure a convincing assessment of project sites accessibility, cost effectiveness, ability to mobilize the respondents within the consultancy period.

· Using different methods, the consultant is expected to collect relevant data and triangulate information thus ensuring greater validity of information. Groups that will provide the required data include the NNGOs, INGOs, DCA and Partner program staffs, the community groups, government representatives and special interest groups within the community (such as flood task forces, cash distribution committees, farmers’ groups, dairy production groups, fishing groups, protection committees, and trade union representatives, among others. Secondary data from previous reviews, progress reports, proposals, and other related documents will be considered.

· A debrief session will be held with the program staff at the end of the field visit both in the field and in Juba. The debrief sessions will provide a summary feedback of the outcome of the evaluation.

6 Expected Outputs of the Evaluation/Deliverables:

The following are the expected outputs:

· Inception report: The evaluator will develop a detailed inception report that sets out conceptual framework to be used in the evaluation, stating the key evaluation questions and methodology, including information on data sources and collection, sampling and key indicators. The inception report will also include a timeline for the evaluation project and drafts of data collection instruments.

· Presentation of first draft: The evaluator will be required to organise one day presentation of the first draft report, debriefing meeting with DCA and partners to discuss and feedback on the draft evaluation report.

· Evaluation report: The report will make use of the project’s baseline report and PDMs clearly having a comparative analysis of key indicators and well as disaggregated results.

· Final evaluation report: The report will comply with the format and answering the evaluation questions in a 1-3-25 format making use of the suggested report structure to be share by the evaluation manager.

· Documentation of most significant change stories, one per location.

· Market Based Programming (MBP) case study – presenting best practices, challenges, recommendations for MBPs in contexts with volatile markets such as South Sudan

Below is the proposed itinerary for the evaluation:

Activity / Milestone

Duration (days)

Consultant preparation

2 days

Consultant travels

1 day

Meeting with project management team in Juba – administrative matters, reviews of background documents, tools finalization, presentation of project inception report, etc.

1 day

Field work – selected states and counties

19 days

Debrief

1 day

Preparation of draft report and distribution to DCA and partners

4 days

Total number of days

30

7 Terms and Conditions:

7.1 Logistics:

· DCA will guide the consultant to a budget for the field related costs, including food, and accommodation.

· DCA will guide the consultant to a budget for the daily payments of data collectors/enumerators in the field.

· DCA will cater for in-country flight bookings and payment to field locations.

7.2 Professional Fees:

· Interested consultants are expected to provide a budget for the exercise.

· DCA will consider proposals that are within the approved rates as per its policy on professional fees.

7.3 Tax and insurance:

· Personal income tax payable to the Government of the Republic of South Sudan shall be deducted from the consultant’s fee during payment in accordance with the South Sudan tax laws.

7.4 A contract will be signed by the consultant upon commencement of the evaluation which will detail additional terms and conditions of service, aspects on inputs and deliverables including DCA’s Code of Conduct.

7.5 Data collection and data processing costs are included in the account of the consultant. The consultant is expected to use his/her own computer.

7.6 Consultant will budget for actual payments for enumerators at rate of USD 10 per enumerator per day. This is based on actual costs in the field.

8 Consultancy Experience:

Below follows a brief explanation of the consultant(s) with emphasis on previous experience in similar work; profile of the consultant(s) to be involved in undertaking the consultancy; proposal for undertaking this assignment as detailed in the ToR is required. A financial proposal including cost estimates for services rendered and daily consultancy fees.

The consultancy must offer expertise with the below essential and desirable profiles and qualifications. A gender balance could enable complete coverage of the different aspects of the consultancy as set out in these terms of reference, including cross-cutting issues.

Essential:

· Holding a higher university degree in economics, statistics, Monitoring and evaluation, project planning and management, social sciences and any other relevant field with over 12 years of experience in food security and livelihoods programming in fragile countries.

· Knowledge on community vulnerability; disaster risk reduction, humanitarian aid, core humanitarian standards; NEXUS; rights-based approach and participatory approaches.

· Strong understanding of the South Sudan context (specifically the context Greater Equatoria, Greater Upper Nile and Jonglei States), policy and advocacy work.

· A solid and diversified track record of experience in running, overseeing or evaluating cash and voucher assistance and/ or market-based programmes.

· Broad knowledge of humanitarian and development issues, specifically in Food Security, livelihoods and market-based approaches.

· The ideal consultant will have a minimum of 5 to 7 years of relevant experience from a relief and development agency.

· Sound understanding of SPHERE standards, Core Humanitarian Standards, familiarity with key cash transfer guidelines and MEAL best practices and approaches.

· Fully conversant with the principles and working methods of project cycle management Knowledge of humanitarian evaluation methods and techniques, including a thorough understanding of data collection, evaluation methodologies and design, participatory approaches and strong qualitative and quantitative research skills

· Experience with evaluations in conflict and drought-affected contexts

· Experience of integrating gender dynamics within participatory data collection

· Fluency in English, strong analysis, report writing and communication skills

· Strong analytical skills, ability to clearly present findings, draw conclusions and make recommendations

· Good interpersonal skills and understanding cultural sensitivities

· Ability to work under pressure and to meet deadlines

· Ability to deal with hardship and remote area field work

Desirable:

· Experience working in South Sudan or East Africa

· Experience working for German NGOs or experience of evaluating projects funded by German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO).

· Active member of CaLP or other global networks championing research and best practice in the field of cash and voucher assistance.

· Knowledge of local languages is seen as an asset.

· Knowledge of South Sudan context as it relates to COVID19 situation.

NB:

· Consultants and Service providers to DCA are subjected to comply with the organization’s Code of Conduct and Child Protection and PSEA policy.**

· Bids that are able to demonstrate to carryout the assignment with the context of COVID19 restrictions will be given favorable consideration.**

· DCA reserves the right to cancel this assignment without giving any notice.**

How to apply:

Soft copies of proposal and budget should be send to program coordinator Sarah Alex (salx@dca.dk), copying mkch@dca.dk, umlu@dca.dk and jnfe@dca.dk no later than COB 20 May 2020.