Consultancy on Project Evaluation - NGO Jobs UN EU Charity Nonprofit Academic Higher Ed Tenders

Background

UNDP and the Norwegian Government have collaborated on the development and implementation of conflict prevention initiatives. The intervention is designed to address gaps in infrastructure and capacities for conflict prevention, management and peacebuilding in Nigeria through strategic research into root causes of violent conflicts; integrated early warning and early response system and grievance redress mechanisms, as well as, national infrastructure for peace at national and state levels; capacities for conflict prevention and community level platforms for dialogue, peacebuilding and reconciliation; strengthen institutional capacities to fulfil strategic conflict prevention roles in the Niger Delta; and youth, women and victims of violence empowered to enhance peacebuilding at community level.

The evaluation will largely focus on the support provided by UNDP and the results engendered through this support. This evaluation also provides an important opportunity to assess the place of UNDP’s implementation strategy which is through Direct Implementation Modality (DIM) whereby the UNDP leads the implementation because of the sensitive nature of the project and more importantly the convening power, trust and confidence it enjoys among the stakeholders in the country.

Duties and Responsibilities

Purpose and scope of the Evaluation

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the contribution of the project in preventing and reducing conflict as well as building peace in the target communities. This will be done, primarily, by assessing the degree to which the outputs outlined in the project proposal have been successfully delivered, and whether these outputs were well-targeted to best support the UNDP’s conflict prevention engagement. While taking into consideration the support provided by other similar projects, the evaluation will focus on the project period 2018 to 2020, reflecting on the contribution made since the reformulation of the partnership.

The evaluation will primarily consider contributions made by the project in building the capacity of the national level, including through results supported by state beneficiaries, and identify recommendations and next steps to further strengthen these efforts. It is expected that the evaluation findings will assist the project in strengthening UNDP’s conflict prevention engagement and in further refining the design and implementation of appropriate strategies, policies and project approaches to peacebuilding and conflict prevention, while also strengthening the UNDP’s contribution to the UN’s system-wide conflict prevention architecture

Evaluation Objectives and Criteria

The key evaluation objective is to examine the project’s contribution to building the Nigerian Government and UNDP’s capacity to engage in conflict prevention and enhance the capacity of the country to respond in complex political situations. The following criteria will be used in support of this objective: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability.

The evaluation will be guided by the following questions pertaining to these respective criteria:

Effectiveness

Are the projects objectives and outputs clear, practical and feasible within its frame?
To what extent did the project contribute to the country programme document (CPD) outcomes and outputs, the SDGs, the UNDP Strategic Plan and national development priorities?
To what extent were the project outputs achieved?
What factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving intended country programme outputs and outcomes?
To what extent has the UNDP partnership strategy been appropriate and effective?
What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness?
In which areas does the project have the greatest achievements? Why and what have been the supporting factors? How can the project build on or expand these achievements?
In which areas does the project have the fewest achievements? What have been the constraining factors and why? How can or could they be overcome?
What, if any, alternative strategies would have been more effective in achieving the project’s objectives?
To what extent have stakeholders been involved in project implementation?
To what extent are project management and implementation participatory and is this participation contributing towards achievement of the project objectives?
To what extent has the project been appropriately responsive to the needs of the national constituents and changing partner priorities?
Has the project been supporting efforts to enhance linkages between conflict prevention and other projects supported by development partners, such as governance, peacebuilding, education, poverty reduction etc.?
To what extent are the current support services provided by the project to government and communities perceived as being effective and how could they be changed or improved?
To what extent have the project’s efforts to build system-wide capacity on conflict prevention and conflict analysis contributed to the country’s effectiveness in engaging on conflict prevention?
To what extent has the project contributed to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the realization of human rights?

Efficiency

Are beneficiaries including persons trained to manage infrastructure for peace, early warning and early response systems and grievances redress mechanisms, etc. provided with the adequate resources and support necessary to enable them to efficiently undertake their assignments?
Are there any unanticipated circumstances, events, opportunities or constraints that limit the value of the project support?
Was the objective and nature of support/engagement of the project effectively communicated to beneficiaries, government, partners and donors?
Sustainability
Are there mechanisms put in place by government to ensure long-term presence of relevant skills and capacities to manage infrastructure for peace, early warning and early response systems and grievances redress mechanisms, etc. setup by the project?
Are there any financial risks that may jeopardize the sustainability of project outputs?
To what extent will financial and economic resources be available to sustain the benefits achieved by the project?
Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outputs and the project’s contributions to country programme outputs and outcomes?
Do the legal frameworks, policies and governance structures and processes within which the project operates pose risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project benefits?
To what extent did UNDP actions pose an environmental threat to the sustainability of project outputs?
What is the risk that the level of stakeholders’ ownership will be sufficient to allow for the project benefits to be sustained?
To what extent do mechanisms, procedures and policies exist to allow primary stakeholders to carry forward the results attained on gender equality, empowerment of women, human rights and human development?
To what extent do stakeholders support the project’s long-term objectives?
To what extent are lessons learned being documented by the project team on a continual basis and shared with appropriate parties who could learn from the project?
To what extent do UNDP interventions have well-designed and well-planned exit strategies? Are these exit strategies being appropriately implemented?
What could be done to strengthen exit strategies and sustainability?
Are there other initiatives and measures that could be part of the project that would further the sustainability of the conflict prevention engagement?

Relevance

To what extent was the project in line with the national development priorities, the country programme outputs and outcomes, the UNDP Strategic Plan and the SDGs?
To what extent does the project contribute to the theory of change for the relevant country programme outcome?
To what extent were lessons learned from other relevant projects considered in the project’s design?
To what extent were perspectives of those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the attainment of stated results, considered during the project design processes?
To what extent does the project contribute to gender equality, the empowerment of women and the human rights-based approach?
To what extent has the project been appropriately responsive to political, legal, economic, institutional, etc., changes in the country?
Has UNDP been able to help design conflict prevention and peacebuilding interventions in line with local and national realities and priorities and other development strategies?
Does the support provided through the project serve the needs of targeted beneficiaries?

Impact

Has the intervention caused a significant change in the lives of the intended beneficiaries?
How did the intervention cause higher-level effects (such as changes in norms or systems)?
Did all the intended target groups, including the most disadvantaged and vulnerable, benefit equally from the intervention?
Is the intervention transformative – does it create enduring changes in norms – including gender norms – and systems, whether intended or not?
Is the intervention leading to other changes, including “scalable” or “replicable” results?
How will the intervention contribute to changing society for the better?

Cross-cutting issues

Human rights

To what extent have poor, indigenous and physically challenged, women and other disadvantaged and marginalized groups benefited from the work of UNDP in the country?

Gender equality

To what extent have gender equality and the empowerment of women been addressed in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project?
Is the gender marker data assigned to this project representative of reality?
To what extent has the project promoted positive changes in gender equality and the empowerment of women? Were there any unintended effects?
To what extent has traditional gender roles have been modified?

Additional questions pertaining to each of the three outputs, and linked to the four criteria areas, may also be considered, upon further discussion with UNDP, the Nigerian and Norwegian Governments.

Methodology

The Evaluation will be undertaken by an independent consultant with expertise in peacebuilding and conflict prevention. The evaluation should employ a combination of both qualitative and quantitative evaluation methods and instruments.

Desk reviews: The Evaluation consultant will conduct desk reviews of relevant project documents and related documents such as routine monitoring reports, Standard Operating Procedures, ToRs, project progress reports, and relevant review and evaluation reports, lessons learned studies, and other analytical studies.

Evaluation Consultations: The evaluation will require extensive review of existing documentation, as well as consultations/interviews with a sample of key partners and key local stakeholders in-country. This will also include review of existing project evaluations and assessments of relevant to UNDP programme. The focus will be to triangulate information from documents and interviews by gathering objective data on key achievements and areas for improvement. The following will be the approach adopted in conducting data collection:

Semi-structured interviews with key stakeholders including key government counterparts, donor community members, representatives of key civil society organizations, UNCT members and implementing partners:

Development of evaluation questions around relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability and designed for different stakeholders to be interviewed.

Key informant and focus group discussions with men and women, beneficiaries, and stakeholders.
All interviews should be undertaken in full confidence and anonymity. The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments to individuals.

Surveys and questionnaires including participants in development programmes, UNDP members and/or surveys and questionnaires involving other stakeholders at strategic and programmatic levels.

Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions.

The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the evaluation managers, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries.

At the end of visits, the Evaluator is expected to present initial findings for validation of information and findings.

Finalizing reports: The third phase of the evaluation will include a discussion of the findings and the draft report with the Evaluation Reference Group, the subsequent finalization of the evaluation report, as well as dissemination of lessons learned through existing UNDP and DPA mechanisms. The report should specifically highlight key lessons learned and good practices that could be replicated in future programs.

The suggested table of contents of the evaluation report is as follows:

Title and opening pages
Project and evaluation information details
Table of contents
List of acronyms and abbreviations.
Executive summary (four-page maximum).
Introduction
Description of the intervention
Evaluation scope and objectives.
Evaluation approach and methods.
- Evaluation approach
  
  Data sources
  
  Sample and sampling frame
  
  Data-collection procedures and instruments
  
  Performance standards
  
  Stakeholder participation
  
  Ethical considerations
  
  Background information on evaluators
  
  Major limitations of the methodology
Data analysis
Findings
Conclusions
Recommendations
Lessons learned
Report annexes.

Note: Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, if it is not possible to travel to or within the country for the evaluation then the evaluation consultant or team, in consultation with UNDP, should develop a methodology that takes this into account the conduct of the evaluation virtually and remotely, including the use of remote interview methods and extended desk reviews, data analysis, surveys and evaluation questionnaires. This should be detailed in the Inception report and agreed with the Evaluation Manager. Please refer to the updated COVID-19 evaluation guidance.

If all or part of the evaluation is to be carried out virtually then consideration should be taken for stakeholder availability, ability or willingness to be interviewed remotely. In addition, their accessibility to the internet/ computer may be an issue as many government and national counterparts may be working from home. These limitations must be reflected in the evaluation report.

If a data collection/field mission is not possible then remote interviews may be undertaken through telephone or online (skype, zoom etc.). International consultants can work remotely with national evaluator support in the field if it is safe for them to operate and travel. No stakeholders, consultants or UNDP staff should be put in harm’s way and safety is the key priority. A short validation mission may be considered if it is confirmed to be safe for staff, consultants, stakeholders and if such a mission is possible within the evaluation schedule. Equally, qualified and independent national consultants can be hired to undertake the evaluation and interviews in country if it is safe to do so.

Evaluation ethics:

This evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. The consultant must safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers, interviewees and stakeholders through measures to ensure compliance with legal and other relevant codes governing collection of data and reporting on data. The consultant must also ensure security of collected information before and after the evaluation and protocols to ensure anonymity and confidentiality of sources of information where that is expected. The information knowledge and data gathered in the evaluation process must also be solely used for the evaluation and not for other uses with the express authorization of UNDP and partners.

Evaluation Deliverables & Schedule:

The Consultant is expected to provide the following deliverables in accordance with the schedule indicated below:

Evaluation inception report (10-15 pages).
Evaluation debriefings.
Draft evaluation report (within an agreed length).
Presentations to stakeholders.
Evaluation report audit trail (Comments and changes by the evaluator in response to the draft report should be retained by the evaluator to show how they have addressed comments.)
Final evaluation report.

Please note: Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, some meetings and consultations can be done virtually via online platforms such as Zoom, Google Meet, Skype, etc.

ACTIVITY 1

Inception meeting with UNDP, IPCR, NSCDC, MBNP, Kaduna State Peace Commission (KSPC), Ministry of Budget and Planning, Osun State, Adamawa State Emergence Management Agency (ADSEMA), Poverty Alleviation and Wealth Creation Coordination Office, Yola, Office of Secretary to the State Government, Yobe State, Ministry of Rehabilitation, Reintegration and Resettlement, Borno State, Ramat Polytechnic, Maiduguri, Peugeot Automobile Nigeria (PAN), Learning Centre, Kaduna, International Centre for Peace & Harmony (ICIPH), Kaduna. Desk review, Evaluation design, methodology and detailed work plan (inception report).

Timeframe: 3 day

Place: Abuja

Responsible: UNDP and Evaluation consultant

ACTIVITY 2

Present and refine inception report.

Timeframe: 1 days

Place: Abuja

Responsible: UNDP and Evaluation consultant

ACTIVITY 3

Consultations, meetings, interviews related to the project with stakeholders and funding partners.

Timeframe: 15 days

Place: States (Adamawa, Borno, Kaduna, Osun, Yobe & FCT)