//
estás leyendo...
Ofertas de empleo

Consultant – Final Education Programme Evaluator – Edu-Eval SSD

Organisation:  Intermon Oxfam

Title: “Support for the reconstruction of the provinces in Southern Sudan which are affected by the Peace Agreement of January 2005: support for those who have returned, with special focus on the educational sector. Sudan. 3 years”

Country:  Sudan (the)

Closing date:  20 Feb 2012

1. INTRODUCTION

IO’s intervention on Education in Sudan aimed to support the reactivation of an efficient education system oriented to guarantee basic level of quality and equity in the education in the region of Bahr el Ghazal. A number of activities have been planned for the course of three years. To ensure that this objective is achieved indicators and means of verifications were also formulated. The objective of this evaluation is to analyze the relevance of the activities implemented and the pertinence of the methodologies used to try to achieve the main objective of the intervention.

Revising the pertinence and adequacy of the strategies chosen is a key factor of the evaluation of the execution of this program. At the time of formulation, there was no in depth analysis of the context and the reality of the country just coming out of 23 years of civil war made it extremely difficult to have reliable data. Therefore, it is appropriate to ascertain if the approaches used to reduce gender disparities have been effective and the partners involved had the skills and expertise to implement this task.

Furthermore, because the intervention was strongly focused at supporting the new government to reconstruct the education section especially in the area of reducing the gender disparities, we are very keen to find out the pertinence of the gender strategies we developed so that these can be changed, improved and ultimately replicated by other actors. .

A participatory evaluation will be conducted with involvement of the beneficiary communities, implementing partner, Intermon Oxfam (Head quarter & Country office,) OTC/AECID (the principal donor for this program), local stakeholders and program allies (research institutions, academia) if applicable. It is believed that this participatory evaluation will be research institutions, academia) if applicable. It is believed that this participatory evaluation will be undertaken between March and April 2012 with duration between 5 and 8 weeks, including the time taken for data gathering, analysis, reflection and report writing or submission of the evaluation report.

This evaluation has been designed to assess the impacts brought to the livelihoods of the target beneficiaries due to the major accomplishment of the program activities and results obtained for the past four and a half years. The evaluation results will help to capture the lessons learned from the process and results of the program implementations. This can be substantiated by measuring the changes in the set indicators against the baselines and the set program targets, and analyzing the information obtained. Recommendations on the technical and program management/coordination aspects will be the major outcome of this evaluation.

1.1.Main Objectives of the Terminal evaluation:

  • To look in to the outputs, outcomes and assess the direct and indirect impacts of the specific actions and cumulative impacts with particular emphasis to women, children and the poor
  • To assess the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program
  • To critically analyze the implementation and management arrangements of the Program
  • To identify lessons concerning program design, implementation and the overall management process
  • To assess relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability and contribution of the program to empower the beneficiaries and partners
  • To critically asses the major strengths and limitations of the program and draw lessons for the future programming.

Project performance will be measured based on the quantitative and qualitative indicators defined in the Logical Framework and the Results Framework of the Project Document. The Report of the Evaluation will be stand-alone document that substantiates its findings and conclusions.

2. INTERVENTION’S BACKGROUND

The Sudan civil war lasting more than two decades (1983 – 2005) caused a very high number of victims, displaced more than 4 million people, and has destroyed not only social – economic and administrative infrastructures. With the signing the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) in January 2005, South Sudan entered a new political era. Following the referendum held on January 2011, the population voted for independence, and the process led to the birth of the Republic of South Sudan (RoSS) in 9th July, 2011. Despite this the civil war had destroyed South Sudan’s economic and social infrastructures, mining major development plans and programmes that, together with unresolved political tension and tribal conflicts, made the country exposed to further humanitarian crises.

These terms of reference are designed for evaluating the education component of the IO- AECID programme. This component of the programme is focused in the state of Southern Sudan in Western Bahr- el Ghazal. This state was created in 1994 and its capital is Wau. It is divided administratively into 3 counties: Wau, Jur River and Raga. The education project activities are carried out in the counties of Wau and Raga.

Intermón Oxfam has been working in Southern Sudan since 1992. It has supported local organizations in their humanitarian response to emergencies as well as in development projects. As far as education is concerned, IO has been working on this since its early interventions in the country. IO has gained experience in various aspects of education: school construction and rehabilitation, providing educational materials, teacher training, curriculum development (including subjects contributed by IO such as education for peace), adult education, etc.

At the institutional level, IO has been supporting education projects in different developing countries for more than 15 years. Once IO decided to start a new intervention process in Sudan, it went through a selection process out of which it identified two new partners: Windle Trust International and Women Empowerment Group.

2.1.Windle Trust International:

Windle Trust International is a charity organization whose main objective is to equip refugees and displaced people in eastern Africa to meet the challenges of development through providing access to education and training.

Windle Trust has been running an English language training programme for Arabic-pattern primary school teachers in Wau town. Previous to it, Windle Trust Kenya worked in Kakuma Refugee Camp in north-west Kenya teaching English language to more than 3500 Southern Sudanese refugees, and running a teacher training college there. Windle Trust has worked with Southern Sudanese refugees and internally displaced in Khartoum, Uganda, Kenya, Ethiopia and the UK for the past twenty years. Windle Trust’s Southern Sudan Programme Director, Regional English Language Advisor, and Regional Programmes Manager have all worked for the organisation for ten years or more.

Many of the tutors are qualified English language teachers, with experience and good skills in the language themselves. Other tutors are teachers trained in other fields, or graduates in other fields, and are given extra support by Windle Trust to convert to teaching English. Still others are not qualified teachers at all, but have completed their secondary education in Kenya or Uganda before returning to Sudan, and are particularly strong in their own command of the language.

Tutors are all Southern Sudanese, ranging in age from 21 to 61, from a variety of different backgrounds, and from different parts of Southern Sudan. Windle Trust employs only three expatriates in Southern Sudan – the Programme Director is Ugandan (but spent many years in Sudan as a refugee), the English Language Advisor is British, and the Wau Centre Manager has dual nationality (Sudanese and Ugandan).

In line with IO  ́s rights-based approach, IO involved beneficiaries in the design of its program in the area by facilitating consultations with the population in May 2006. IO did this through interviewing key actors such as:

  • Primary and secondary school teachers in WBeG
  • Primary and secondary school directors in WBeG
  • University of Bahr el Ghazal professors (Wau campus)
  • Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of WBeG
  • Ministry of Education, Science and Technology of the Government of South Sudan
  • Civil associations such as youth and women’s groups
  • Community and religious leaders.

The support programme helping to reconstruct Southern Sudan aimed on the one hand to improve conditions regarding the food security of the families who have returned, are displaced and native to the Bahr-el-Gazal region, using the increase and the diversification of food and agricultural production as well as emergency actions which allow those who have returned to do so in a dignified way. On another hand the programme aimed to support the reactivation of an efficient educational system which guarantees basic levels of quality and equality in the education of the Bahr-el-Gazal region. Needs are huge in the majority of areas, but throughout the agreement emphasis is places on improving food security levels of people and improving the quality and equality of the educational system.

The Program formulated back then and which will be evaluated in this final evaluation is in line with geographic and sector priorities established in the Spanish Cooperation Master Plan for the period from 2005 to 2008.

With regard to geographic priorities, Sudan falls under the category of countries with special treatment. With regard to sector priorities, in the “Covering basic social necessities” section of chapter 2 of the Master Plan the convention fits under two parts: dedication to “Food self-reliance and the fight against hunger” and dedication to “Education”.

While drafting the proposal IO was in constant contact with the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MOEST), at both the national level (in Juba) and the state level (in Wau) in order to ensure that all of its programs were in concordance with MOEST’s general plan.

The promotion and defense of the gender equality of women has been included in the present program as one of its main components and corresponds to the horizontal principles of AECI’s Master Plan, as defending the principle of non-discrimination and equality. Education actions have a clear goal of improving gender equality in the education system, and recognizing girls’ right to education. To do this, various actions will be put into place that go from working with key actors to raise awareness about girls’ right to education, reducing dropouts and reducing sexual abuse in schools, to actions geared towards increasing the number of women that work in the education system, among others.

2.2.The beneficiary population of this program have been:

  • The WbeG MOEST staff
  • Teachers and directors of primary and secondary schools
  •  Management staff of the Education system
  • Teachers and parents association
  • Community and religious leaders
  • Civil society women groups associations
  •  Our local partners WEG and WTI through the institutional capacity building by being part of this program
  • WbeG students,

2.3.Local context and strategy chosen:

At the proposal stage, Wau County had a population of about 242,288. There were 46 schools with 16,061 pupils, of which 7,293 (48%) were girls and 8,768 (52%) were boys. There were 320 teachers, a ratio of one teacher to 55 pupils (Ministry of Education, Science and Technology, Wau May 2006 2 Starbase, Sudan Transition and Recovery Database, Wau County, Version 2, 7 April 2004). In 2003 there were 59 schools with 17,765 pupils: 11,259 boys and 6,506 girls. This represents 63% boys and 37% girls.

Attendance rates are relatively high in Wau town. Primary school attendance was 71% for both males and females while literacy rates were 58% for females and 54% for males in 2002.There were thirteen secondary schools with a teacher population of and a shortage of 152 teachers to cover all subjects2.

Raja had a population of about 34 200. We don’t have figures of how many men or women. In Raja in 1999, the estimated enrolment rate in primary education in the state was 52% while the ratio of girls to boys in primary education was 0.50 (50 girls for every 100 boys) The number of schools in 2001 (before the fighting in June 2001) was reported to be 21 with 9,018 students (6,000 males and 3,018 females) However, the war partially destroyed school buildings and school furniture was looted

According to Ministry of Education, Science and Technology Raja had seventeen schools which were fully functioning with another twelve partially functioning, meaning that only Primary one to three are operating. As the programme started, there was a combined school population of six thousand five hundred and fifty seven students enrolled in schools in Raga County. There were four thousand, two hundred and fifty eight boys and two thousand, two hundred and seventy five girls. Raga had a teaching cohort of one hundred and 99 teachers between those trained and untrained. This gave a pupil teacher ratio of 33:1 which is a very favourable ratio.

Based on this scenario our initial conversations with the Ministry of Education Science and Technology, MOEST at the national and at the state level, the MOEST generated a litany of concerns in Education. In particular the Ministry made known its need to recruit and train more than 10,000 teachers and to provide teachers with English courses in areas such as Western Bahr el Ghazal where the existing teachers use Arabic language as the language of instructions.

Up to April 2006 teachers in Western Bahr el Ghazal State taught through Arabic pattern. In April the National Ministry of Education Science and Technology, Government of South Sudan introduced the new unified curriculum which has to be taught through English. So as not to bring confusion to the entire education system the medium of teaching was changed only for students of P1, and next year 2007 the entire new entrant into secondary school were expected to use English. In subsequent years English was to be extended throughout the entire primary system and secondary school respectively. Unfortunately, for the Ministry of Education, very few teachers are capable of teaching through English hence the urgent need for the provision of intensive English courses to all teachers. In addition, the new system of Teacher Training which will be delivered through English require all the students to use English, also the MOEST Staff need to use English as the official language in their offices and communication.

Coupled with this, the Ministry also expressed another great concern to reduce the gender disparities in the education sector which according to the statistics carried out by UNICEF at proposal stage, registered only 6% of women teachers and almost the same statistics represented the number women official at different levels of the Ministry of Education department both at the National and State levels.

The education system itself is not accommodating to the needs of girls and women. Some of the reasons contributing to this situation are: forced early marriages, lack of sanitary pads for girls, and lack of female models teachers to encourage them to dream big.

In addition to that, the effects of long years of war were hard to shake off and many people (especially teachers) were waiting for the National Ministry of Education Science and Technology to start investing in education and especially in paying salaries to teachers.

It is due to some of these reasons stated above that IO chose to implement all her education programs with a gender strategy. This was as a result of a critical analysis of how other NGO were implementing their education programs. Though some of them were supporting women education, their strategy had been mainly addressing short term challenges such as giving handouts like clothes and paying school fees. This kind of intervention was good in the short term but it did not address the root cause of why there was high drop out of girls in school and alarming rates of imbalances in the education system. IO went deeper in this issue by not only providing fees or scholarship to women but by involving the communities in trying to change their negative ideas and beliefs towards women is supporting the work of local women’s groups so that these can mobilize community members and local leaders.

3. EVALUATION SECTOR AND ACTORS INVOLVED

For this evaluation the education programme will focus on Wau County, and the focus for the evaluation will be to analyze the education and gender component of the intervention.

The evaluators will have access the baseline survey done before the intervention, the materials produced during the interventions and interview the main actors involved in the interventions. An Evaluation Committee will be set up to accompany the evaluation process. The Committee will also be in charge of selecting the most suitable technical proposal for the carrying out of the evaluation (consequently it will select the evaluator/evaluation team) and will of course facilitate the work of the evaluator (or evaluation team) throughout the desk review and field phases.

Once the evaluation will have been finalized, it will give inputs to the evaluator on the first draft produced so that the final evaluation report will be clear in its results and can be adequately shared with across the different institutions taking part of the evaluation.

The Evaluation Committee will be composed of:

  • Programme Director and Manager WTI
  • Directors of Gender, Education and Planning MOEST
  • IO Programme Officer, Field Manager and Head of Programmes

Some of the initial documentation the Evaluation Committee will facilitate to the Evaluation Committee can be found in the table below:

4. QUESTIONS & LEVEL OF ANALYSIS

The key questions and specific objectives of the final revaluation should provide answers to or establish the extent to which the following objectives have been executed to realize project outcomes and results of the FS Rehabilitation Programme:

4.1.Detailed Objectives of the Terminal evaluation:

The Objective is to have a deep vision of the Program, following the Evaluation Criteria to be accountable to all stakeholders participating in it and to find out whether the strategies that have been used to reduce gender disparity at schools have been adequate to the context and effective in reaching the general objective of the project.

The evaluation will therefore focus on:

Strategies. Have the strategies been adequate and enabled to reach the specific objective set out in the Convenio? How could have these be improved? Linked to this, how could the role of partners & IO have been improved so that the program would have reached more efficiently, effectively and successfully its results?

Context change and analysis. Given the volatile-post conflict and changing situation at which this project has been implemented, we would also like the evaluation to touch upon contextual issues that have affected the strategies chosen at an initial phase.

This will be done through:

  • Looking in to the outputs, outcomes, level of activities execution and assess the direct and indirect impacts of the specific actions and cumulative impacts with particular emphasis to women, children and the poor
  • Assessing the effectiveness and efficiency of the Program
  • Critically analyzing the implementation and management arrangements of the Program and Cross cutting issues related to management of the programme and its coordination during implementation
  • Assessing internal management issues within WTI and IO. E.g. financial management systems that affect implementation.
  • Identifying lessons concerning program design, implementation and the overall management process
  • To assess the implementation of the recommendations of the interim evaluation and in the agreement signed between AECID and Intermón Oxfam in the “Addenda to the Convenio”
  • Assessing relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability and contribution of the program to empower the beneficiaries and partners
  • Critically assessing the major strengths and limitations of the program and draw lessons for the future programming.

The general issues to be evaluated are relevance, impact, effectiveness, efficiency sustainability and participation. Each of these has a direct relation to a specific level or levels of the intervention logic and the logical framework. The sustainability factors to be evaluated are policy environment, economic and financial feasibility, institutional capacity, socio-economic aspects, participation and ownership, gender, environment and appropriate technology promotions.

Each of the evaluation issues and factors must be clearly addressed in the evaluation process. The appropriate major guiding questions for each criterion are presented as follows.

4.2. Relevance:

Relevance concerns whether the results, outcome and overall objectives of the integrated education and gender program are in line with the needs and aspirations of the beneficiaries in the targeted areas of intervention, and with the policy environment of the AECID and Intermon. The major question on this criterion tries to see “Does the project make sense within the context of its environment?”

  • In the selection criteria for girls and teachers to learn English, have adequate criteria been chosen for ensuring that the right beneficiaries accessed to the courses?
  • Have there been changes in the context that affect the type of girls and women that were attracted to these courses? Did these girls/women become teachers? Finally and closely linked to this matter, how could have negative attitudes of girls towards the teaching profession be changed?
  • Has WTI ́s strategy of focus on English teaching been adequate and pertinent to the context or should it have been further extended into General Training of teachers?
  • Have the empowerment clubs been pertinent and adequate strategies for the context where they have been applied? How could have they been improved? Was the training of coordinators at schools for them to be in charge of the empowerment clubs suitable to the context and was the recommended duration such trainings appropriate?
  • Have the four- day gender workshops been adequate and pertinent for producing the changes we wanted to produce? How could have this been improved and specifically in terms of their follow up strategies?
  • Have there been significant changes in the context that have affected priorities and needs of the population? Should any of our gender strategies have been adapted, changed, reinforced as a result of this?
  • Has the programme specifically laid out a strategy for working on women’s practical needs and strategic interests?
  • Has the intervention strategy been the most adequate for promoting the changes intended in the lives of people and the community in general?
  • Did the strategy respond to the priorities established in relation to the IO partner strategy?

4.3. Efficiency:

Efficiency concerns the relation between the results and means i.e. whether the process of transforming the means into results has been cost-effective. Efficiency assessments are normally part of the planning and monitoring process. They may be included also in evaluations, especially if the evaluations cover management performance. It tries to give answer to the basic question “does the quantity and quality of the results of the project justify the quantity and quality of the means used for achieving them?”

  • Have chronograms been respected and if not what could be done from side of IO and WTI to improve this in the future? Were decisions made at the right time with involvement of the right people?
  • Could we have reached the same results with fewer resources?
  • In what way has institutional management contributed to reach the results we have targeted for?
  • Has IO ́s coordination & support role with partners been efficient? How could it have been improved? Likewise, how could IO ́s role have been adapted and transformed to increase the overall efficiency of the management of the Convenio?
  • Were the IO plans to manage, supervise and monitor the program, adequate, timely and transparent?
  • Were there obstacles in terms of management or others that are becoming an impediment to reach the results we want to reach? What can be recommended for improvements in terms of management and to ensure that we reach the set out results?
  • Have the funds available been used in the most adequate way to achieve the changes proposed?
  • Have indicators, sources of verification, etc been useful and well formulated?
  • Have all the components of the Program used the available resources in the most efficient way? Is it possible to compare the Efficiency among the different components?
  • Evaluate Cost-efficiency of IO Model of Work with partners. Is there enough information to have a solid view on this field?
  • Have synergies with other actors and interventions been taken advantage of to ensure better programme or project/management unit performance? (Government program, communities program, other actors?

4.4. Effectiveness

Effectiveness describes how well the results achieved have furthered the achievement of the project purpose. It tries to figure out to what extent has (or is likely to be) the program objectives been achieved?

  • Have objectives and results set in the program been achieved? • Have the English courses given to women and young girls adequate in their content, duration and adaptation to the context for young girls and women to obtain Basic English skills after completion?
  • Have there been obstacles in terms of management or others that are becoming an impediment to reach the results we want to reach?
  • In relation to the role of IO, how effective has its current coordination & support strategy with its local partners and how could have been improved?
  • What initial changes have the projects or programme activities had on the beneficiaries?
  • Have the results achieved contributed to changes in policies, practices, ideas and beliefs? Values?

4.5. Coherence:

  • Has there been consistency/relevance of agreed programme/project objectives, activities, outputs, expected outcomes and results?
  • Were activities on the ground coherent with the institutional commitment to integrate gender in the activities? What is the adequacy of the strategies to work with a gender perspective? What improvements can be done?

4.6. Impact

It concerns whether there has been a change towards the achievement of the overall objective(s) as a consequence of the achievement of the program results. Both intended and unintended impacts are reviewed in this evaluation process. In this regard, the evaluation team will critically consider how far the achieved program results (outputs) contributed to bring changes on the material life, knowledge, skills, attitude, behavior and socio cultural context of the target people (men, women, Boys & girls). In general the key question to be answered here is “What has happened (or is likely to happen) on the lives of the poor people as a consequence of this program?”

The following additional discussion guiding questions can used to collect relevant information on program impact

  • To what extent were the objectives laid out in the programme achieved?
  • What changes have been achieved in the lives of women?
  • What changes have been achieved in the power relations between women and men?
  • Has there been any unintended change in the lives of women and men (both positive and negative)?

4.7. Sustainability:

In this program, sustainability can be described as the degree to which the benefits produced by the program continue after the external assistance has come to an end. It is a central theme in all evaluation work and relates to all elements of the logical framework and indicators for the program. The foregoing evaluation issues have a direct relation to a specific level or levels of the intervention logic. The sustainability issue needs to answer basic evaluation question “What has happened (or is likely to happen) to the positive effects of the program after the external assistance has (or will) come to an end? Other supplementary guiding questions are mentioned below:

  • Are the women empowerment clubs a sustainable strategy through which to deal with gender issues at schools? What can be recommended to ensure the sustainability of these clubs? How do these coordinate with other forms of working of WEG (through the Women’s Group) and what can be recommended for a stronger integrated approach of clubs, with women groups and the overall strategy of WEG? Finally, how long should WEG support the functioning of these clubs and in specific the role and training of teacher coordinators inside these clubs?
  • Has the exit strategy been adequate? • Which measures have been used to guarantee that the positive effects of the intervention are sustainable over time?
  • Do sufficient institutional capacities exist to maintain the changes produced?
  • Has appropriation by both women and men been promoted?
  • Which recommendations can be given in order to follow up on the result of girls droop outs at school?

4.8. Participation and empowerment

Increasing ownership requires that power and control is increasingly transferred to the beneficiary community. Development must be a participatory process, which means that the various stakeholders influence and share control over the development initiatives, decisions and resources which affect their lives. In this regard, the evaluation results should inform us the level of participation & collaboration of communities, stakeholders, partners, IO, donor and other supporter in the overall programming process starting from (Identification, design/planning, implementation, monitoring, evaluation, etc). There are specific questions and discussion guide to assess the level of participation by all program constituents.

  • To what extent have the beneficiary groups or their representatives participated in decision-making processes and the different phases of the project?
  • Have the strategies been adapted to ensure the active participation of women in all of the phases of the programme or project/management unit?
  • To what extent have the project or programme actions contributed to the beneficiaries being protagonists of their own individual and community development, understanding, demanding and proposing changes in policies and practices that generate their exclusion and/or discrimination against them?
  • To what extent did the local stakeholders (sector offices) participated in the program implementation & monitoring/review process?
  • To what extend did the youth members (boys & girls) participated in the programming process? • Have the strategies been adapted to ensure the active participation of women in all of the phases of the programme or project/management unit?
  • What measures have been taken by the community to ensure their ownership of the program end results and continue as goal owners of these program outcomes?

4.9. Environment

All development programs have a direct or indirect effect on their natural or man-made environments. Making development sustainable requires that planners, decision-makers, implementers and evaluators understand these impacts, and operate accordingly. The program components were designed to contribute for restoring the physical environment and the production/ environment protection aspects complement each other. This evaluation is designed to assess environmental impacts brought as the result of this multi year program.

  • To what extent was the program integrated with environmental protection? • Were the beneficiaries intentionally engaged in environmental rehabilitation works? • Were there active social groups organized around the missions of environmental protection? • Were there community based/managed natural resource management systems/units?
  • Which are the long and short term benefits the communities gained/will gain from the environmental protection/rehabilitation programs?

4.10. Gender

The overall objective of efficient and sustainable development is only attainable when the needs and roles of both women and men are fully recognized in the planning and implementation of projects. Also sustainable development programs can be said effective if and only if they are able to address the immediate and strategic needs of women in a given community where poverty and food insecurity are prevailing.

  • Did the program give equal regard to men & women beneficiaries? • Which are the main constraints towards gender equality?

5. METHODOLOGY AND WORK PLAN

In general this will be a participatory Joint evaluation involving all development part takers and the program beneficiaries mentioned before. Likewise, it is considered as participatory learning process aimed at assessing effectiveness of the development process, achievements, achievements, challenges, empowerments made so far, etc.

The major participatory evaluation tools that shall be employed include;

  • Focus group discussion with informants from various social/gender and age groups: (women, men, boys, girls, etc). The number of discussants in each focus group ranges from 8 – 12)
  • Key Informant Groups: The local elders, community leaders, teachers, health staffs, development agents, etc. The numbers clusters and combination of the key informants will be determined from the proposals of the consultants. Moreover, the consultants are expected to prepare the detailed discussion guide questions for the focus groups and KIGs.
  • Field level observation including transact walk: the evaluation team members will conduct visit to the major activity sites, observe the accomplishment status at field level, discuss with beneficiary individuals/groups and capture their feelings on the status. This can be done in line with the FGD &KIGDs
  • Document review: Useful records and documents will be utilized as secondary sources to enrich the data gathering works
  • Participatory Survey. Furthermore, we expect the evaluation proposal shall clearly describe the sources of information (in addition to those stated above), sample size, sampling techniques for quantitative surveys, data analysis tools, etc.

The proposals are expected to contain the following methodological topics as a minimum:

  • Description of the sequence of phases related to the evaluation approach proposed.
  • Sources of information for primary data collection.
  • Sampling strategies, including area and population group represented in the sample, sampling procedures and sample size.
  • Instruments to be used for data collection.
  • Different types of data analysis that will be carried out.
  • Reference indicators for each evaluation.
  • Documents review – programme documents with IO and WTI.
  • Field visits to all project areas
  • Interviews and/or focus group discussions and interviews with: community members (men & women), village headmen, PCs, APCs, DMPCs members, local & civil authorities, SRRC field monitors, elders and the direct beneficiaries (men & women) randomly selected.

This point will be updated once the selection process has been completed. Although we expect the evaluator herself/himself to put forward a detailed work plan about how the activities will be carried out, and this will undoubtedly related to the methodologies proposed, we suggest some minimum elements to be included in his/her proposal. These are outlined as it follows:

Preparatory phase: 

o Briefing with the actors involved

o Consultation of available information

o Assesment of the evaluability

o Preparation of tools for data gathering

o Logisitcal arrangements

Field phase

Phase of analysis and presentation of preliminary analysis.

o This must incorporate a meeting with stakeholders in which the analysis, conclusions and recommendations are presented for discussion.

Phase of writing up the final report.

The allocation of specific numbers of days to be dedicated to each phase will form part of the technical offers presented by the people or teams who apply for the job and this will also be updated to include agreements reached with the team that will responsible for the evaluation.

6. EVALUATION REPORT’S STRUCTURE AND PRESENTATION

The evaluation Final report will not be of more than 30 pages. It will be accompanied by an executive Memorandum with a maximum of 5 pages. It will also be required to present an evaluation summary card according to the template established by the CAD from the OCDE concerning the evaluations’ inventory of this institution.

After presentation in electronic support and once approved, the team will hand in 10 paper copies of the definitive Final Report version as well as 10 CD with the electronic version of the document.

The following format should be followed:

  • Executive Summary:

A summary of the evaluation with a specific focus on main results, main conclusions, lessons learnt and most important recommendations.

  • Introduction Here the purpose of the evaluation and its main question should be presented:

1. Background and Objective of the Evaluation

2. Methodology of the Evaluation.

3. Limitations of the Evaluation

4. Introduction of the Evaluation Team

  • Intervention and context
  • Findings from stakeholders, community meetings etc. 
  • Analysis of findings based on the TOR and emerging issues

Which should answers to each of the answers put forward in the ToRs and does this by providing clear evidence for the conclusions drawn.

  • Conclusions of the Evaluation, In relation to the questions and criteria established in the ToRs.
  • Recommendations Regarding strategies, the intervention in general and its possible changes as it has been specifically asked in the ToRs
  • Lessons Learnt This should be directly derived from the Conclusions of the evaluation. Here we expect the identification of good practice so that these can be replicated and feed the rest of the Convenio.
  • Annexes

They should include ToRs, a detailed description of the methodology used; tools used for gathering information and, brute gathered data. It is important to list the products that are to be submitted in appendices along with the evaluation report:

1. Data collected

2. Materials for dissemination (summaries, photos, slides, etc)

7. EVALUATORS TEAM

We expect one evaluator to be contracted for this purpose, preferably from South Sudan or an external person with a relevant and vast experience of working in South Sudan.

7.1. Desirable professional qualifications, skills and experience:

  • A graduate in Social Sciences or similar field
  • Proven experience in carrying out evaluations for NGOs
  • Proven experience in the carrying out of evaluations in the region
  • Proven experience in working with MoE and their Gender Staffs on policy formulation
  • Thematic knowledge on gender & education
  • Strong facilitation skills
  • Good understanding of the context and social dynamics. Where possible we will contract a national evaluator
  • Due to the high sensitivity of some of the issues to be dealt with, it should be preferably a woman
  • Knowledge of Arabic will also be a plus.

8. EVALUATION PREMISE, AUTHORSHIP AND PUBLICATION

While doing their work, the Evaluator or Consultant, shall know that his duties and responsibilities form an integral part of their contract. He shall therefore ensure that he behaves in accordance with the following code of ethics; which is considered an important guide to cooperate with IO in accordance with the values it stands for:

8.1. Professionalism

Working IO with utmost professional manner in all related aspects and adhere to the agreed action plans; including all scheduled activities to accomplish the consultancy.

8.2. Confidentiality

Confidentiality on IO activities and policies i.e. all findings and reports are the sole property of IO, HARD and AECID. No findings or reports should be disclosed to any other parties without prior written authorization from IO.

8.3. Intellectual capital or property rights

All documents or information generated from this consultancy shall be the sole property of IO, HARD and AECID. Such information will not be shared or published without the explicit approval of IO and the other parties.

8.4. Integrity and objectivity

This involves serving IO with integrity, competency, and objectivity in order to avoid conflicts of interest that affect the relationship and outcomes of this consultancy. No previously un-contracted parties shall be involved or sub-contracted to carry out the assignment, unless mutually agreed on, and all allocated resources utilized for the specified purpose of the consultancy.

8.5. Commitment to the work

Must commit to the determined scope of work according to the technical proposal or specifications and make sure that the execution will be according to the agreed and/or adopted methodology. This includes commitment to work closely with IO and HARD on all the assignments’ phases in order to conduct the consultancy or evaluation successfully.

8.6. Team work spirit

IO believes in team work and good communications to enhance the strong partnership spirit with its partners. The Evaluators or Consultants are expected to encourage and use this approach which IO considers a strength that will help in carrying out the evaluation in a harmonious, holistic and professional manner.

8.7. Abiding by internal regulations

The Evaluators/Consultants shall abide by all IO internal regulations and adherence to them in all matters related to conduct and behaviour. Also in the unlikely event of the risks of working in Southern Sudan, the Consultants have been informed about, and shall agree to respond primarily to security rules of IO and/or UNMIS based on minimum security operation standards that must be adhered to by staff of all Agencies and INGOs working in Southern Sudan

8.8. Information validation

The evaluating team should guarantee the authenticity of the information, gathered for the reports elaboration and it shall be responsible for all the information presented in the final evaluation report.

9. TERMS FOR THE EVALUATION REALISATION

The evaluation will take place during March and April 2012. . It is believed that this participatory evaluation will be undertaken between March and April 2012 with duration between 5 and 8 weeks, including the time taken for data gathering, analysis, reflection and report writing or submission of the evaluation report.

The budget available for the evaluation is between EUR € 10.000 and 20.000. The technical offer that the people or teams interested in the work present must disaggregate the costs into these items as a minimum:

  • Salaries, per diem and other costs linked to the personnel contracted
  • Travel
  • Materials
  • Administration costs (visas, administrative work, etc.)

The financial offers will be analysed when the proposals received are assessed.

10. TECHNICAL PROPOSAL AND EVALUATION CRITERIA PRESENTATION

While assessing the technical proposal to be presented by different candidates, we will give outmost importance to:

  • M&E experience of the evaluators.
  • Technical knowledge & experience of the evaluation team.
  • Familiarity with context and proven analytical skills.
  • Feasibility of the methods proposed (in terms of time, geographic context, theme.
  • That the methodology covers all the essential questions put forward in the TOR (7)
  • Knowledge on gender and integration of such knowledge in the proposal itself.
  • That the proposal is economic & cost- effective

We are expecting the methodological proposals to be sent to afmgrss@intermonoxfam.org by February 20th, 2012. We will prefer to have a local consultant carry out the evaluation but this will not be central to the choice of the evaluator/evaluation team since we are aware of the fact that at the moment it is not easy to find suited evaluators based in South Sudan.

Comentarios

Un comentario en “Consultant – Final Education Programme Evaluator – Edu-Eval SSD

  1. Hello! I’ve been following your website for a while now and finally got the bravery to go ahead and give you a shout out from Austin Texas! Just wanted to say keep up the excellent work!

    Publicado por check my source | febrero 5, 2013, 10:56 pm

Responder

Introduce tus datos o haz clic en un icono para iniciar sesión:

Logo de WordPress.com

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de WordPress.com. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Imagen de Twitter

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Twitter. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Foto de Facebook

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Facebook. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Google+ photo

Estás comentando usando tu cuenta de Google+. Cerrar sesión / Cambiar )

Conectando a %s

A %d blogueros les gusta esto: