Project ending evaluation

Bachelor's Degree   Multi Location Full Time 2041
Date Posted:Jul 11, 2017
Closing Date:Aug 17, 2017
Work Type:Full Time
Number of Vacancies:1
Functional Area:Consulting
Salary Range:Salary is negotiable
Years of Experience:7 Years
Contract Duration:Not specified
Extension Possibility:Yes
Contract Type:Fixed-term
Probation Period:Unspecified
Required Languages:

About Afghanaid:


Afghanaid is a British-registered international NGO, which has worked in Afghanistan for over 30 years. We assist community-driven processes that address the rights and fundamental needs of people in some of the most remote areas of Afghanistan, providing basic services, supporting development of rural livelihoods and responding to humanitarian emergencies. We are headquartered in Kabul, and operate 20 provincial and district offices across Badakhshan (north-eastern region), Samangan (northern region) and Ghor (western region), as well as a Marketing and Fundraising office in London. We employ around 160 personnel, 97% of whom are Afghans.

Job Summary:

The 36 months long project named “Supporting Actors for sustainable protection of Human Rights in Afghanistan (SAHRA)” was intended to contribute to the global objective of the call for proposal to strengthen the role of civil society in promoting human rights and democratic reform. More specifically, the proposed action will address the specific objectives of the call which is “to support and protect human rights and their defenders by reinforcing their capacities to do their work in the short and long-term, as well as providing tangible support and means of action to local civil society in the promotion of human rights and fundamental freedoms in some of the world's most difficult, dangerous, repressive and unpredictable political situations and/or where they are the most vulnerable and threatened”.

The proposed project aimed to undertake substantial capacity building of women human rights defenders to serve as change agents and advocate for their rights and societal welfare. The women rights defenders were enabled through training, to assist communities in developing skills and activities to improve future life chances of women. Activities included awareness raising on human rights, women’s rights, and gender using appropriate tools such as theatre and role-play. The project’s training was not confined to staff members who worked directly with human rights development programmes, but all others too throughout Afghanaid, Afghan Civil Society Forum-organization (ACSFo) and Afghan Education Production Organisation (AEPO), reflecting the programme’s overall objective of introducing women-focused development across all activities.

The project was expected to achieve the following results:

Result-1: Enhanced capacities and visibility of 100 women/ human rights defenders and civil society human rights network organizations;

Result-2: 20% improvement over the baseline on women’s participation in the reform and development process and provision of sustainable legal avenues for addressing women rights; and

Result-3: Enhanced awareness on women/human rights and fundamental freedom through broadcast and print media

Duties & Responsibilities:

2.1 Purpose of the independent final evaluation
In line with Afghanaid’s policy, an end-of-the project was planned in order to promote accountability to stakeholders and learning lessons which would help in improving future programming. The evaluation will assess the performance of the project against the log-frame indicators and document lessons learnt and best practices. This will enable the European Commission (EC) and Afghanaid to know whether Project Cycle Management (PCM) and other good practices in development programming guided the implementation of the project. For this purpose Afghanaid intends to commission an individual consultant, with sufficient exposure to human rights and women’s rights, to conduct this evaluation

2.2 Key objectives of the evaluation
The evaluation has two explicit objectives that are explained below:
1. To independently verify, and supplement wherever necessary, the achievements of the Supporting Actors for sustainable protection of Human Rights in Afghanistan (SAHRA) project already described in the revised project log-frame (enclosed) and reported to the donors through the project’s monthly and other periodic reports;
2. To assess if the project was good value for money measured by:
a) How well the project met its objectives;
b) How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency and relevance in relation to delivery of its outcome;
c) What happened because of the intervention that would not have otherwise happened?
2.2.1 Verification of reporting by Afghanaid and its partners
The first task of the final evaluation is to verify Afghanaid and its partners’ achievements of the specific objectives of SAHRA project from reports prepared and submitted by project management. This exercise start with cross-checking and verifying the claims made by Afghanaid and its partners, and supplementing and re-evaluating available evidences with additional ones to reveal the true quantum and quality of achievements. While the consultant will be free to choose her own methods for doing this, it is expected that her enquiry will attempt independent verification from a representative number of as many different kinds of stakeholders as possible. Verifying achievements against milestones and targets set in the project log-frame may not present the full picture as there could have been other activities and results which occurred beyond those set in the log-frame. Verification of reports might further necessitate reviewing of data collection systems that were used to gather evidence, and the adequacy of project’s M&E systems enhancing the authenticity of evidences.

2.2.2 Assessment of value for money
The final evaluation should assess the extent to which the delivery and results of the project are good value for money. Value for money can be defined in different ways, but at the minimum the evaluation report should include an assessment against:
a) How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency in relation to delivery of its outcome;
b) How well the project applied value for money; and
c) What has happened because of EIDHR funding that would not have otherwise happened.

2.3 Evaluation questions
The evaluator is encouraged to structure her research questions according to the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development – Development Assistance Committee (OECD-DAC) criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact.

1. Has the project contributed to achievement towards the SDGs at the provincial level and to what extent?
2. To what extent did the project target and reach the poor and marginalised?
3. To what extent did the project mainstream gender equality in the design and delivery of activities (and or other relevant excluded groups)?
4. How well did the project respond to the needs of target beneficiaries?

1. Did the project make sufficient progress towards its expected outcomes and to what extent (e.g. fully achieved, partially achieved, not achieved)?
2. To what extent are the results that are reported a fair and accurate record of achievement?
3. To what extent has the project delivered results that are value for money?
4. To what extent has the project used learning to improve delivery?
5. What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the delivery of results for the project?

1. To what extent did the commissioning organization deliver results on time and on budget against agreed plans?
2. To what extent did the project understand cost drivers and manage these in relation to performance requirements?
3. What were the constraints that hindered the project implementation (e.g. political, religious and security) and were these managed effectively?
4. What mitigation measures were adopted to overcome the challenges faced by the project and what were the success rates of these measures?

1. To what extent has the project leveraged additional resources (financial and in-kind) from other sources? What effect has this had on the scale, delivery or sustainability of activities?
2. To what extent is there evidence that the benefits delivered by the project will be sustained after the project ends?

1. How many people are receiving support from the project that otherwise would not have received support?
2. To what extent and how has the project affected people in ways that were not originally intended?

3. Evaluation methods

The chosen consultant and Afghanaid will be jointly responsible for choosing the methods that are most appropriate for highlighting the achievements of the project. Evaluation methods should be rigorous yet at all times appropriate to the context of the project intervention. Where possible, the evaluator will be encouraged to cross-verify data through other sources so that findings are as well founded as possible.

3.1 Different approaches to assessing impact
Although it is not strictly mandatory, the evaluator is encouraged to apply a mixed-methods approach for assessing impact. This would combine qualitative data to provide an explanation of ‘why’ and ‘how’ the project has achieved the type and scale of results that are quantitatively observed. It should adopt a participatory approach and try to incorporate views of the projects’ various stakeholders such as the communities served by the Human Rights Defenders, the defenders themselves, the government ministries of Women’s Affairs, Justice and their provincial counterparts in Balkh and Kabul, and Afghanistan Independent Human Rights Commission. Wherever necessary, the evaluator may also consult staff directly involved in the project.
3.2 Assessing impact through experimental or quasi-experimental approaches
To definitively attribute impact, then the establishment of a counter factual is required: e.g. What would have happened to beneficiaries in the absence of the intervention? Evaluator is encouraged to consider the extent to which approaches, such as measuring the difference between treatment and control groups, can be successful in capturing impact while also balancing concerns relating to proportionality

3.3 indicative materials to be reviewed
Relevant to review documents may include:
a. EIDHR approved SAHRA project proposal;
b. EIDHR approved revised project log-frame along with the original log-frame;
c. Monitoring reports generated by Afghanaid and its implementing partners;
d. Studies undertaken, if any, by Afghanaid and its implementing partners;
e. Published materials / other materials used to disseminate good practices and lessons learnt;
f. Protocols used by Afghanaid and its implementing partners for capturing and storing field data;
g. Project financial reports / data on resources spent;
h. Additional documents considered to be relevant.
3.4Indicative methods for conducting primary and secondary research
Relevant primary and secondary research may include:
a) Interviews with project staff involved in the management and delivery of work;
b) Focus group discussions with ultimate beneficiaries;
c) Field Surveys covering project partners and other stakeholders;
d) Review of secondary sources and published studies, measuring impact where possible through comparison groups and other quantitative methods;
e) Assessing the authenticity and quality of reported data through sample checks and source verification

3.5 Data collection methods
The selected consultant will choose data collection methods as appropriate taking fully into consideration time, cost and language constraints. In case the candidate has not worked in Afghanistan before, it is strongly suggested that the cost of hiring a competent interpreter in Kabul and in Balkh is built into the cost of the evaluation.

Job Requirement:

4.1Profile of the Independent Evaluation provider
The Independent Evaluator should be an independent consultant or a consulting firm meeting criteria described below.
a) An evaluation specialist with a minimum of seven years’ experience in programme/project evaluation in an international development context;
b) Experienced in results-based monitoring and evaluation;
c) Able to plan and design evaluation approaches and research methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research methods. Where feasible and proportionate, the person or team should include skills and expertise required to design, plan and conduct impact evaluation, potentially using experimental or quasi-experimental techniques;
d) Possess relevant knowledge of subject matter and experience with women’s economic and social empowerment through diversification of their livelihood opportunities that enables the evaluator to make sure that the evaluation design and research methods are relevant and meaningful to the aims and objectives of the project and its context;
e) Experienced in developing and applying gender sensitive participatory research, evaluation and review methodologies in traditional Islamic cultural contexts
f) Able to manage a potentially large-scale and complex evaluation and research process, including interpreting baseline data and conducting a final evaluation;
g) Ability to design and manage data and information systems capable of handling large datasets for monitoring and evaluation purposes;
h) Excellent analysis and writing skills
i) Ability to work independently with minimum supervision
j) No conflict of interest with the ongoing activities of commissioning organization.
k) Appropriate country knowledge/experience or experience from other conflict affected countries;
l) Local language(s) proficiency;
m) Willingness to live and work in a very basic conditions during the assignment.

4.2 Management arrangements
Afghanaid is responsible for the recruitment and briefing to the final evaluator, and within Afghanaid, for the duration of the contract, the SAHRA Project Manager will be the point of contact. Afghanaid will also provide logistical and technical support to facilitate required meetings and interviews. The consultant will report directly to the Project Manager SAHRA, while being accountable to the Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Advisor for methodological issues
4.3 Deliverables and timeframe
In order to minimalize the risk of not being able to access the required project staff and key stakeholders, the consultancy is expected to start 1st Sep 20
The consultant will submit the first draft of the report to the SAHRA. Project Manager one week after the field research. The final report must be submitted maximum two weeks after the field research but no later than 23rd Sep 2016.
The final evaluation report needs to be a substantial document that
(a) Fully addresses the Terms of Reference (ToR);
(b) Provides findings and conclusions that are based on robust and transparent evidence; and
(c) Supplements Afghanaid’s own data with independent research wherever necessary.
The main body of the report (draft and final version) must be limited to 40 pages. A table summarising the findings according to the OECD-DAC criteria must be provided as an annexure.
The consultant will be required to complete the work over period not exceeding 22 days as outline in the table below. The consultant will include following specific activities in the assignment and will indicate the number of days they propose for each activity. Ultimately, the duration has to be discussed and agreed with Afghanaid.

Management response to findings and recommendations

4.5 Evaluation timeframe and duration
The consultancy is expected to start in late August – early September 2017. The consultant will submit the first draft of the report to the SAHRA Project Manager within 10 days of completion of field work. It is important that the final report is submitted not later than September 23, 2017.
The consultant will be expected to complete the work over a period not exceeding 22 days as indicated in the table below. However, the consultant is free to include any other activity as deemed fit by her while estimating the duration of the consultancy.

Job Location:

Afghanistan, Balkh, Kabul
This job is expired