South Sudan: END OF PROJECT EVALUATION

Project Title: South Sudan Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation project -Jonglei State (SSERR Project).

Background

The Lutheran World Federation Department for World Service (LWF-WS) South Sudan Program has been operational in the country since 2004. LWF/WS has experience working in different localities in South Sudan. Its competences are emergency response, and development. In South Sudan LWF-WS works in three states of Jonglei, Upper Nile and Unity in collaboration with local authorities and community structures. In Jonglei State, LWF/WS scaled up its emergency response after the 2013 crisis and up to date, it has delivered the anticipated results of contributing to the basic household needs through NFI, WASH, production inputs distribution including cash transfers targeting internally displaced persons (IDPs), Returnees and vulnerable host communities.

This consultancy is for a DCA/ Danida funded Emergency Relief and Rehabilitation project implemented in two counties of Jonglei (Twic East and Duk). The project ran for a period of 12 months and implemented by Lutheran World Federation/ World Service (LWF/WS). The Danida funds are channelled through DanChurchAid (DCA) office in south Sudan. This project phase is a continuation of a similar 2015 DCA funded emergency relief and rehabilitation project that aimed at addressing the acute humanitarian needs of households in Twic East and Duk Counties of Jonglei State.

The primary target groups for the project were the most vulnerable and marginalised IDPs, returnees, and Host Communities that were at the risk of hunger associated to the effect of the conflict, and the prolonged dry spell that resulted to the poor harvest as witnessed in 2015,

Introduction to the SSERR Project

The project aims at saving lives and building resilience of the most food insecure IDPs, returnees, and host communities in Jonglei, particularly Twic East and Duk Counties through two main specific objectives; one - improve access to essential lifesaving assistance to the most food insecure and support the most food insecure to sustainably produce and access food as the second specific objective.

This project was designed in response to the dire food insecurity situation triggered by conflict, macroeconomic pressures, and market shocks that have continued to contribute to the reduced access to food and income compared. Prices for staple food (Maize and sorghum) steadily increased over the project life compared to the previous year -2014 averages.

Through this project, LWF/WS has been responding to the needs of 3050 most vulnerable IDPs, returnees and host community households. The expected project results/ outputs include:

· 1,200 most vulnerable households benefit from multi-purpose cash grant to access food and other immediate household needs

· 1,483 most vulnerable farmers receive cash vouchers for inputs to purchase cereals and vegetables seed and tools

· 20 Crop Producer groups (200 HHS heads) formed and equipped with appropriate knowledge and skills on improved farming methods

· 25 Fisher folk group (250 HH heads) supported with fishing gears and trainings to engage in fishing as an alternative livelihoods source

· 20 Village Savings and Loan Associations (200 HH members/ 1 each HH/ started and nurtured to sustainably save and extend loan services to group members.

Purpose of the Evaluation.

The cash based project was innovative in design and strategy, despite the project location; LWF used electronic vouchers for cash transfers including inputs provision. Therefore within the 12 months project period covering two counties, LWF would like to focus on learning as well as the significant level of resources and time devoted implement this nature of project in the area. This call for an evaluation is to demonstrate how the project have achieved its intended objectives and determine what change it has brought to the target communities. In addition, this evaluation will enable LWF and its donors to meet their focus on innovative humanitarian response as included in this project. Majorly establish

The ToR is fine but it’s more a generic ToR for end of project evaluation. I suggest that more detail should be given to use of Red Rose (electronic cash transfer and its level of success given the context in which it was piloted. The evaluation should seek the views of the vendors, beneficiaries, and LWF project staff on the use of the one platform how it has been in terms of time, timeliness and accuracy.

The specific objectives of this evaluation are to:

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

2. Assess the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the project strategy with special emphasis on:

· Community needs at the time of project identification

· Results as articulated in the project log frame

· Cross cutting issues of Gender, Rights Based Approach,

· 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.

1. Assess the processes of beneficiary engagement against best practices in the project

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

3. Determine the synergies of this project with other LWF implemented projects in the same geographic area and make recommendation aimed at achieving greater synergy in future programming

4. Establish the level of project results sustainability with various stakeholders (beneficiary, community, LGAs and other actors) with focus on innovation and best practice

5. Evaluate the efficiency and effectiveness of using electronic data collection system Magpie of the project monitoring and evaluation, focusing on LWF monitoring tools and how these could be strengthened in future projects

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

7. Capture how effectiveness and appropriateness of the new innovation of digital data collection (magpie), and community preference, and preference of staff plus key stake holders in relation to other ways of delivering cash assistance.

8. Ascertain the views of the vendors, beneficiaries, and LWF project staff on the use of the one platform how it has been in terms of time, timeliness and accuracy

9. Assess the appropriateness and cost effectiveness of delivering cash assistance through E-Voucher in the context of Twic East and Duk Counties

10. Assess HH food consumption before and after the project

Evaluation Scope and Methodology:

This evaluation is expected to cover the SSERR project as implemented in Twic East and Duk Counties by LWF. It should cover the entire project period of 1^st January to 31^st December, 2016.

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

Relevance & quality of design

· Does the project proposal conform to the goals of LWF country strategy?

· Is the project design appropriate for the geographic area?

· Is the intervention logic coherent and accurate?

· Have recommendations from previous evaluations been incorporated in the design?

· Were any lessons learned from previous projects in the area used?

· Are the indicators of progress and impact in the design of good quality?

Efficiency of implementation

· Did the project start in time?

· Were all key staff in post maintained through project life?

· Were all inputs delivered in time?

· Were inputs of acceptable quality?

· Was the implementation methodology used appropriate?

· How was the cooperation between local government authorities and LWF?

· What was the local government’s assessment of this intervention?

· What was the chiefs’ assessment of this intervention?

· Did LWF get good cooperation from relevant local leaders?

· Was access to project areas acceptable by stakeholders?

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

· Have the community contributed in cash and/or in kind to the project?

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

· Was the rate of spending acceptable?

Effectiveness

· To what extent were activities listed in the proposal contributing to achievement of the project specific objectives - attainment of outputs and the project outcomes?

· Have there been any un-planned effects and are these good or bad?

· Has coordination with other development 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 the technical design effective and appropriate for that environment?

Impact

· To what extent have beneficiaries, including duty bearers benefited from project outputs and outcomes?

· Has the project changed beneficiaries’ lives in any meaningful way?

· To what extent have the duty bearers/ local government institutions benefited from the outputs and outcomes?

· To what extent have local leaders benefited from the outputs and outcomes?

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

· To what extent is the impact sustainable over a longer term?

· Has the project increased or decreased dependency on outside intervention?

Potential sustainability

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

· What characteristics make the outputs sustainable or unsustainable?

· Do the local government authorities fully support the initiatives taken by the project?

· Do the local 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?

· Are the Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLA) working as intended?

· Did the project design include practical exit strategy?

Evaluation Approach:

In principles, 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 staff have a chance to meaningfully participate in the evaluation process. In light of 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.

· The communities to be visited will be chosen from the beneficiaries, 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 to triangulate information thus ensuring greater validity of information. Groups that will provide the required data include the LNGOs, INGOs, LWF program staffs, the community groups, Government representatives and special interest groups within the community (such as Flood Task Forces, VSLA groups etc. Secondary data from previous reviews, progress reports, proposals, and other related documents will be taken into account.

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 of the outcome of the evaluation.

Expected outputs from the Evaluation

The following are the expected outputs;

· A debriefing meeting with LWF to discuss and feedback on the draft evaluation report.

· The final evaluation report complying with the format and answering the evaluation questions

Proposed Evaluation activities scheduling.

Below is the proposed itinerary during the evaluation:

Activity/ Milestone

Duration

Consultant preparation

01^st Mar. 2017

Consultant travels

06^th Mar. 2017

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

06^th Mar. 2017

Field work - Twic East and Duk counties.

07^th Mar. 2017

Debrief

15^th Mar. 2017

Preparation of draft report and distribution to LWF

20^th Mar. 2017

Final report to LWF

28^th Mar. 2017

Total days

Terms and Conditions

· Logistics: LWF will cover the cost of the consultant’s travel to the field and back, including food, and accommodation.

· Professional fee: Interested consultants are expected to provide a budget for the exercise. LWF will consider proposals that are within the approved rates as per its policy on professional fees.

· Tax and insurance: 10% income tax payable to GOSS shall be deducted from the consultant’s fee during payment.

· 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 LWF’s Code of Conduct, Child safe guarding principles

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

Consultant experience

Brief explanation about the consultant(s) with particular 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 including daily consultancy fees. The consultant should meet the following criteria:

§ Higher university degree in relevant field with over 10 years’ experience in food security and livelihoods programming in fragile countries

§ Knowledge on community vulnerability; Disaster Risk Reduction, humanitarian aid; LRRD ; Rights Based approach and participatory approaches

§ Strong understanding of South Sudan context (specifically the context in Jonglei State), policy and advocacy work

§ Excellent written English;

§ Knowledge of local languages is an added asset

NB: Consultants and Service providers to LWF are subjected to the Code of Conduct and child protection compliance

Applications Deadline: Interested qualified applicants should submit electronic copies at the latest date of 24^th Feb 2017 to lwfdws.consultancy@gmail.com

Child Safe Guarding:

LWF is a child safe organization and is fully committed to promoting the realization of children’s rights including the right to protection from violence and abuse. We therefore, have particular responsibilities to children we work and come into contact with to keep them safe from any harm or risk. In line with LWF policy, any appointment is contingent on thorough criminal record checks.