Rapid Real Time Review Consultant 48 views


Organization
  • Plan International
Posted
Closing date

  • Cabo Delgado – Pemba

Rapid Real Time Review

Cabo Delgado Joint Response – Dutch Relief Alliance

July 2021

Background of the Dutch Relieve alliance (DRA)

The DRA 2018-2021 builds on the innovative and successful DRA 2015-2017 which, by April 2017, had effectively programmed €202 million saving lives and alleviating suffering. Through multi-annual funding, DRA members will implement acute crisis Joint responses (JR) and multi-year protracted crisis JRs enabling capacity building, localisation and investment in community resilience. Within acute crisis, the focus is on life-saving activities. To incorporate learnings from protracted and acute crisis JRs directly into operations and programming at field level, Real Time Reviews will take place. A Rapid Real-Time Review (RRTR) is defined as: *‘A rapid and interactive review carried out during the implementation of a Joint Response, comprising interactive learning sessions with teams involved in the response, based on information collected from key stakeholders, including affected people, local authorities and implementing organisations*’.

Summary Cabo Delgado Joint Response (CDGJR)

Non-state armed groups (NSAG) have severely disrupted the lives of thousands of people in the northern districts of Cabo Delgado province, Mozambique, since October 2017. The group, known in Mozambique as Ansar al-Sunna or Al-Shabab (but not related to the Somalia group) announced it aims to turn the oil-rich region into a caliphate (Human Rights Watch, 2021). Multiple towns and villages were attacked throughout the last four years, in which people were brutally killed and their houses left looted or burned. Following the escalation of the conflict in 2020, displacement surged rapidly. While the number of internally displaced People (IDP)s was 110,000 in March 2020, in the same year at least 527,000 people were being displaced in October, of which 45% were children (HRP 2021). From October 2020 onwards, the violence in Cabo Delgado intensified, resulting in the displacement of a total of 670,000 people by the end of 2020 (UN OCHA 2021). The recent attack on Palma town (24 March 2021) has forced another 20,000 people to leave their homes and flee to the districts of Nangade, Mueda, Montepuez and Pemba districts (UNHCR 2021, April 2021), while tens of thousands more are thought to be displaced inside Palma district or on the move to safety (OCHA, April 2021). Fleeing from the geographically expanding violence such as beheadings, kidnappings and killings, 70% of the IDPs, of which the real number is likely to be higher, found refuge with host families in the southern and eastern districts of Cabo Delgado, as well as in the neighboring Niassa and Nampula provinces. The remaining 30% of IDPs reside in settlements and collective shelters or are still searching for a place to shelter. The conflict has disrupted agricultural activity and livelihoods. This is compounded by climatic shocks like tropical storms Chalane and Eloise, which hit the provinces of Manica, Sofala and Zambezia at the end of December 2020 and January 2021, respectively. As a result, 1.3 million people are now in desperate need of humanitarian assistance in Cabo Delgado province and the surrounding districts in Niassa and Nampula provinces (HRP 2021). Of those, 950,000 face severe food insecurity levels, classified as IPC3 and IPC4 (IPC 2020). In many parts of Cabo Delgado insecurity has driven up the cost of basic commodities, especially in areas particularly affected by the conflict, including Palma, Macomia and Mocimboa da Praia districts (UN OCHA 2021, February 2021).

JR-partners in Cabo Delgado are Plan International, CARE, Cordaid, Tearfund, SOS and Oxfam Novib. The DRA Joint response adopts a multi-sectoral response to the IDP crisis, in line with the HRP 2021 (Humanitarian Response Plan) which puts forward this approach. The JR is implemented in Cabo Delgado, being the province with the highest needs and prioritizes the following districts: Mecufi, Chiure, Metuge, Montepuez, and Ancuabe. The Acute Joint Response Cabo Delgado has a multi-sector approach with holistic Shelter/NFIs, WASH, Food Security and Livelihoods (FSL), and Protection programs.

Food Security & Livelihoods (FSL): The JR works to ensure 43,135 people are able to meet their basic food needs (FSC-I2) and are provided with resources to protect and start rebuilding their livelihoods (FSC-I1). This includes the following activities: – Procurement and distribution of vegetable seeds (cabbage, tomato, carrots and covo-10g each) and a hoe to for local NGOs FHM and AMA – Food packages to Households (HH) in line with cluster recommendations. – In-kind food (3 consecutive months), training on improved farming techniques – Protection is mainstreamed in project design through safe distribution location close to beneficiaries (with crowd controllers), CFRM, including women and PSN in project design.

Shelter / Non-Food Items (NFI): The JR focuses on individual household shelters and NFI to ensure that 4,500 people have access to dignified and safe shelter solutions (SHL-I1) and NFIs (SHL-I4), including: – Distribution of 1,000 survival kits to newly arrived IDPs and 1,000 comprehensive family kits to both settled and newly arrived IDPs.

Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH): The JR WASH response will reach 57,935 individuals and will focus around ensuring access to safe and sufficient water (WSH-I4), hygiene promotion and provision of soaps (WSH-I1), ensuring access to dignified, safe, clean and functional excreta disposal facilities (WSH-R2) and hygiene promotion (WSH-I6) through reaching people with awareness programming. This includes the following activities: – Distribution of WASH and Dignity kits – Distribution of material for construction of an improved latrine, incl. training – Distribution of latrine slabs to assist self-HH latrine construction (by partners: FH/AMA) – Immediate water supply through water trucking for affected people as well as construction of water systems (boreholes with handpumps and solar water systems) – Hygiene and sanitation promotion in the resettlement camps. This activity will be conducted by local volunteers.

Protection: The JR will reach 24,050 individuals and will mainstream protection throughout the response in line with HRP objectives, and also ensures specific programming to ensure people receive an appropriate response to protection risks (PRO-I2), are provided with information (PRO-I5), are reached by the implementation of specific Gender Based violence (GBV) prevention measures (PRO-I11), Unaccompanied and separated children are specifically supported to address their various and complex needs (PRO-I8), and children receive support specific to their needs (PRO-I15). This includes: – Unaccompanied and separated children (UASC) services including identification and case management, linkages with agencies for Family Tracing and Reunification (FTR) and provision of family-based alternative care, including support to informal foster families.

  • Establish community protection committees at shelter centers to support and promote a community-based approach to protect women, men, girls and boys from different background. This includes training to members of community protection committees, local leaders and Internal displaced people in GBV, Psychosocial (PSS) incident reporting mechanisms. – Training of teachers in CP and provision of PSS (Psychosocial support) and disability inclusion – Capacity building of Child friendly spaces (CFS) facilitators and PSS animators on Child Protection, psychosocial support, including PFA, Child Safeguarding, PSEA (Prevention against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse) & GBV.

The Rapid Real Time Review

For the CDGJR, the RRTR will replace the more common Mid Term evaluation. Instead of focussing on quantitative aspects and accountability, the RRTR will focus on learning and search for quick adaptations to improve programme quality during the remaining second half of the JR. Given that the CDGJR runs from 14/05/2021 till 14/11/2021, the RRTR will take place at mid-term of the project (August, September 2021). A local consultant with thorough knowledge of the local context will be hired by the lead organisation (Plan International) to facilitate the RRTR and to consolidate a report based on peer-to-peer field visits and a one-day workshop.

Scope and Objectives of the Review

This RRTR will be performed by a local consultant with thorough knowledge of the context in Mozambique and the area’s of intervention. The RRTR is part of an official evaluation (donor requirement), but primarily serves for partners to learn from each other and to provide direct real-time input into ongoing CDGJR planning (and future Joint Responses). It should produce be practical and useful lessons and recommendations for the remaining time of the intervention. The Reviews serves:

· To enable JR-partners, particularly field staff, to visit each other and learn about the programs and activities of CDGJR partners through peer-review

· To identify lessons learned and best practices in program design and implementation for the delivery of effective, efficient, and relevant aid for beneficiaries

· To formulate quick adaptations to improve the programme quality of the response

· To share solutions for common challenges experienced during implementation

· To strengthen ongoing monitoring of CDGJR activities

· To provide insights for future DRA acute responses

Areas of Focus for Review**[1]**

The review should focus on the following Core Humanitarian Standards:

· CHS #1: The CDGJR is appropriate and relevant (topic A)

· CHS #2: The CDGJR is effective and timely (topic B)

· CHS #7: The CDGJR continuously learns and improves (topic C)

· CHS #6: The CDGJR is coordinated effectively and complementary with other actors (topic D)

· CHS #4/#5: The CDGJR is based on communication, participation and feedback, and welcomes and addresses complaints (topic E)

The CDG RRTR needs to be light and focussed. Therefore, within the above mentioned areas, the RRTR will focus on a limited number of questions (see Annexes).

Budget

Plan as CDGJR Lead will cover consultant fees, transport (travel to/from meeting location), and accommodation from the joint budget. Costs for 1 day workshop to reflect on findings from the RRTR are also included in the joint budget.

Consultant [2]

Data Collection

TBD

TBD

One-day workshop

TBD

Total

Max 5000 EUR[3]**

Methodologies & Tools

The CDG RRTR needs to be light and focussed and therefore a mixed approach methodology is proposed. The RRTR consists of 4 parts:

  1. peer to peer assessments by the JR teams & partners

  2. Data collection and field check by the consultant.

  3. one-day workshop organized by the consultant

  4. Consolidation of assessments and Data collected by consultant & report writing.

The peer to peer assessments: The CDGJR-partners (Plan International, CARE, Cordaid, Tearfund, SOS and Oxfam Novib) will visit shared or geographically clustered project sites (combining multiple partners to limit the number of project sites that need to be visited) to conduct peer to peer assessments, based on a developed list of questions (see annex). Partners in the 4 districts that are part of the response (Mecufi, Chiure, Metuge, Montepuez, and Ancuabe) will be visited for 1 to 2 days by multi-partner teams. During the visits, interview with the ‘hosting’ organisation will be held and sites will be visited.

These visits will involve project staff, management and interact with beneficiaries. Monitoring discussion guides will be used to structure this form of data collection and learning.[4] The consultant will explain how the tools need to be used.

Data collection and field check by the consultant: The data collection will consist of document review and In-country data collection such as visiting project locations and speaking to crisis affected people. Possibly, some additional interviews will be held with:

· Key Information interviews with Senior / Field Staff

· Key Information interviews with Local Authorities

· FDG with beneficiaries

One-day workshop organized by the consultant & reporting: Findings from the peer assessments, and the data collection will be discussed during a one-day workshop organized and facilitated by the consultant. Findings from the data analysis and observation from the peer reviews andfield visits will be shared in a consortium workshop (1 day) to reflect on observations, analysis, challenges and lessons learned. Based on this a practical report will be produced by September 1st by the consultant, including clear recommendations to improve ongoing projects and suggestions for quick adaptations to foster programme quality (max 10 pages). This planning allows to incorporate the lessons learned in time during the second half of the CDGJR.

In the annexes to this Termes of Reference, tools are proposed. These are based on DRA RRTR tools templates and need to be adapted for the purpose of this specific RRTR. The tools include:

  • Annex 1: Key Informant Interviews – Senior Staff

  • Annex 2: Key Informant Interviews – Local Authorities

  • Annex 3: Focus Group Discussions – Beneficiaries

  • Annex 4: Learning Workshop: Facilitator Guide and Template for Notes

  • Annex 5: Field Visit Observation Report Template

  • Annex 6: Reflection Paper – Visiting Team

  • Annex 7: Reflection Paper – Receiving Organization

  • Annex 8: Reporting Template RRTR Report

Child Protection & Ethics

It is understood and agreed that the consultants shall, during and after the effective period of the contract, treat as confidential and not divulge, unless authorized in writing by the Plan, any information obtained in the course of the performance of the Contract.

The ethics process and research will ensure compliance with:

  • The requirements of Plan International child protection policy and standards (Annex 9);

  • Plan’s Research Policy and Standards (Annex 10) in relation to: informed consent, voluntary participation, confidentiality and anonymity; steps to minimize discomfort and harm, including intervention and support; feedback of study findings to participants/communities; participation of children under 18 years, and appropriate safety measures for researchers.

Responsibilities

Consultant

· Review available RRTR tools and adapt if needed

· Develop draft list with questions for peer to peer review, based on previous DRA RRTR

· Facilitate exchange visits

· Collect data

· Analyse data and present and validate data during a one-day workshop (including facilitation of the workshop)

· Ensure that analysis of data is constructive, do proper investigation of (negative) findings, check and account for bias in reporting

· Report writing

Lead Organization (Plan)

· Develop TOR for consultant and hire consultant**

· Coordinate with organizations to schedule visits**

· Follow-up with CDGJR members to ensure peer-to-peer review is taking place on schedule**

· Together with the consultant, present findings to all CDG JR partners, facilitate discussion through a one-day workshop**

Partner organizations

· Establish availability and identify tentative dates for the visit, coordinating with Plan

· Designate staff responsible for visit:

  • 2-3 key staff will be responsible for visiting project partners. Staff will conduct a peer to peer review, including answering questions, participating in discussion, etc. The participating staff comprise both technical field staff as well as M&E staff.

  • Receiving staff will have overall knowledge of programs, and will include colleagues that will enable them to answer all questions in the monitoring discussion guide (depending on sector, M&E, etc.)

  • 1-3 key staff per host partner will be present to facilitate the entire visit, and as many others brought in at necessary times to answer questions in their area(s) of overview/expertise

· Make necessary logistical and security arrangements to receive the visits

· Collect qualitative data from monitoring discussion guide based on the list of questions developed by the lead

· Identify Best Practices and Learning from the organizations that will be useful to share/discuss with consultant

· Ensure consultant understands security and code of conduct

Consultant deliverables

· An Inception report

· Adapted tools to be used during peer-to-peer visits

· A draft RRTR report (max 10 pages)

· Final RRTR report

Timeline

What

Who

When

Recruitment of Consultant

JR Field Coordinator

10/08/2021

Inception report

Consultant

13/08/2021

2 days for reading and tools and inception report

Peer reviews/data collection

Peer review teams with support of the consultant

Between 9 and 20 August.

Draft report

Consultant

01/09/2021

Feedback on report

Plan PME

03/09/2021

1 day workshop

Consultant

06/09/2021

Final report

Consultant

08/09/2021

Feedback final report

CDG JR members

09/09/2021

Submission to BGH

Lead

13/09/2021

Consultancy requirements

In view of the purpose, scope and focus of RRTR, the Joint Response seeks to hire an external consultant with experience with RTRs and the humanitarian sector .

Qualification of the consultant:

  • Track record related to conducting evaluations and RTRs of humanitarian programmes

  • Have excellent academic and research background

  • Be an expert in humanitarian programmes

  • Be an expert in qualitative data collection

  • Have proven gender sensitivity and capabilities to handle ethical aspects of the study

  • Excellent written and verbal communications skills in both Portuguese and English **

  • Knowledge of the local languages is an asset **

  • Experience with working with Plan International or any other member of the DRA is an asset. **

  • Consultant preferably should have M&E background and able to quickly understand the monitoring discussion guide.

-o-o-o-o-

Annex 1 – Key Informant Interview Report – Senior Staff

Section 1 – General Information

In this section general information regarding the KII is reported.

Report prepared by:

Report prepared on date:

KII roles:

Interviewer:

Observer:

Note taker:

KII Date:

Interviewee name, function and organisation:

Interviewee has verbally agreed on informed consent: yes/no (select one)

Interviewee agrees to be: cited as a source/kept anonymised (select one)

Location and setting:

Section 2 – Questionnaire – Senior staff JR

*The interview should take between 60 and 90 minutes, depending on time availability of the interviewee and of the RTR team. For the short version, guidance is provided on which questions should be skipped, indicated by [optional] at the very start of the question**.***

Introduction

(5 mins max)

Thank you for agreeing to meet with us. I’m _ from (organization) ___

I also have my team members __ to support us in this interview and take notes for us.

We are collecting data for a Real Time Review for the Joint Response 4. To do so, we are speaking with key informants to get various impressions of how they think and perceive the work of the JR. We will also interview local authorities, have focus group discussions with beneficiaries, and a learning workshop with staff from different partners involved in this JR. The data collected will then be analysed and results will be shared with all JR partners in a report, due in October.

The RTR has a specific focus on learning – we intend to use the findings and learnings coming from this exercise to inform the planning of the next phase of this JR.

If you agree to be cited as a source, we may do so in the RTR report. Otherwise, we will treat your answers as confidential. We will not include your name or any other information that could identify you in any reports we write. We will destroy the notes after we complete our study and publish the results.

Do you have any questions about the RTR?

Topic A

Appropriateness and Relevance

(15 minutes)

A1. How much has the collaboration between JR partners contributed to appropriate response of specific needs and priorities of the most vulnerable groups, including women, children and disabled persons? (Could you make some examples of this contribution?)

[OPTIONAL] A2. How well have the activities been implemented compared to the original plan? (Did any changes/shifts happen in implementation?)

[OPTIONAL] A3. Are we responding in the most affected geographical areas? How have we decided where to work? Is that strategy still relevant (if not, what could have been done differently when deciding?)

Topic B

Effectiveness and Timeliness

(15 to 20 minutes)

[OPTIONAL] B1. How effectively are we identifying and reaching our target groups? In other words, how well are we addressing their needs?

[OPTIONAL] B2. Are we meeting our objectives in terms of timing? (substantiate answer)

B3. What internal and external factors affected the speed of our response in the start-up phase specifically, including the contingency (preparedness) plan, procurement, HR, financial management systems, pre-positioning of relief items, staff recruitment, staff deployment systems, general external factors?

B4. How integrated the various sectors/focus areas are? To what extent are the sectors working in parallel, or as separate siloes? To what extent have opportunities to integrate activities been explored and acted on? How did we utilize different partner’s expertise in this?

B5. Do you have examples to share of more effectiveness in this JR due to collaboration?

Topic C

Continuously learn and improve

(15 minutes)

C1. Can you tell me about the quality and availability of information collected about the context? (Substantiate answer)

C2. How are we analysing and using this information? (Substantiate answer)

C3. Is PDMs being done regularly? What is the frequency? How does it work? And how is the information coming from PDMs being used?

C4. Do we have the ability to adapt quickly and effectively respond? (Substantiate answer)

C5. Are any quality standards being used in planning and monitoring? (if yes, provide details)

Topic D

Coordination and complementarity

(20 to 35 minutes)

D1. What choices were made in terms of collaboration and non-collaboration during programme design in terms of complementarity? Why were these choices made?

D2. Are there any concrete examples of successful models of collaboration of JR partners (within the JR) on geographic level, not just in terms of avoiding duplication but increasing complementarity and integrated programs affecting the reach and impact on beneficiaries – any barriers/enablers?

How are we coordinating with the wider humanitarian sector? Which clusters/working groups are we active in and what is the role of the JR in those structures?

[OPTIONAL] D3. Does working in a consortium help you in coordination with local authorities? How?

[OPTIONAL] D4. How is the actual complementarity programming that was planned in the beginning working in practice?

[OPTIONAL] D5. To what extent have harmonized approaches (e.g. harmonizing PDM’s and cash transfer approaches) contributed to efficient and effective programming?

[OPTIONAL] D6. Coordination commitments between JR partners – meetings, arrangements, etc. – how are those working in practice?

[OPTIONAL]

Topic E

Communication, participation and feedback/complaints

(10 minutes)

[OPTIONAL] E1. Is information shared with beneficiaries systematically? And vice versa? Do we actively seek input and suggestions from communities? Specific examples of how this is taken into account?

[OPTIONAL] E2. Is there a way for beneficiaries to provide feedback and/or lodge complaints? How do we deal with feedback/complaints?

[OPTIONAL] E3. How have we positioned ourselves toward (local) government and the UN in the response?

Final thoughts (F)

(5 minutes)

F1. Do you have any final thoughts about this Joint Response that you would like to share?

F2. Would you like to share any learnings from this JR that have not been captured in our conversation?

Those were all the questions that we wanted to ask.

Thank you for your time.

Annex 2 – Key Informant Interview Report – Local authorities

Section 1 – General Information

In this section general information regarding the KII is reported.

Report prepared by:

Report prepared on date:

KII roles:

Interviewer:

Observer:

Note taker:

KII Date:

Interviewee name, function and organisation:

Interviewee has verbally agreed on informed consent: yes/no (select one)

Interviewee agrees to be: cited as a source/kept anonymised (select one)

Location and setting:

Section 2 – Questionnaire – local authorities

Introduction

(5 mins max)

Thank you for agreeing to meet with us. I’m _ from (organization) ___

I also have my team members __ to support us in this interview and take notes for us.

We are collecting data for a Real Time Review for the Joint Response 4. To do so, we are speaking with key informants to get various impressions of how they think and perceive the work of the JR. We will also interview senior staff from partner organisations of this JR, have focus group discussions with beneficiaries, and a learning workshop with staff from different partners involved in this JR. The data collected will then be analysed and results will be shared with all JR partners in a report, due in October.

The RTR has a specific focus on learning – we intend to use the findings and learnings coming from this exercise to inform the planning of the next phase of this JR.

If you agree to be cited as a source, we may do so in the RTR report. Otherwise, we will treat your answers as confidential. We will not include your name or any other information that could identify you in any reports we write. We will destroy the notes after we complete our study and publish the results.

Do you have any questions about the RTR?

Topic A

Appropriateness and Relevance

(15 minutes)

A1. PROVIDE THE KII WITH A BRIEF INTRODUCTION/DESCRIPTION OF ACTIVITIES IN THE RELEVANT LOCATION.

Are we responding in the most affected geographical areas?

A2. How suitable is our response in the current context and needs?

A3. How did JR partners contribute to appropriate response of specific needs and priorities of the most vulnerable groups, including women, children and disabled persons?

Topic B

Effectiveness and Timeliness

(10 minutes)

B1. Is the strategy around the location-specific design of this JR still relevant?

B2. How do communities perceive more organisations working together, and together delivering one program? Does this lead to delays?

Topic C

Communication, participation and feedback/complaints

(5 minutes)

C1. How well is the JR engaging and maintaining relationships with key stakeholders (at field level)?

Topics D

Coordination and complementarity

(5 minutes)

D1. How well is the JR accepted by key stakeholders? (UN agencies, government)

D2. How do you see the positioning of the JR in the broader context of the humanitarian response?

Final thoughts (E)

(5 minutes)

E1. Do you have any final thoughts about this Joint Response that you would like to share?

Those were all the questions that we wanted to ask.

Thank you for your time.

Annex 3 – Focus Group Discussion Report

Section 1 – General Information

In this section general information regarding the FGD is reported.

Report prepared by:

Report prepared on date:

FGD facilitator roles:

Lead:

Observer (summarising discussions):

Note taker:

FGD Date:

Location and setting:

Participant Demographics:

nr of participants (specify if the group is mixed, only men, only women, and how many per gender):

Age range (ask the participants, to obtain the age range, include the youngest and oldest):

Section 2 – Participants perspectives on themes

This section is organized by topic, covering each key topic from the FGD guidance tool. Please summarize the discussion under each topic and use participants’ quotes to enhance the narrative, following the format provided at the bottom of the questionnaire.

This activity works best with one team member recording discussions using the table below and reporting answers to each question (note taker), and another team member (observer) summarising the overall viewpoint of the focus group, paying particular attention at group dynamics and attitudes.

Specific guidance for the note taker

· Transcription should be as much as possible word for word and not a summary.

· A new line should be started each time a new person speaks.

· If something is inaudible, write “inaudible” between the words that can be understood.

· Names should never be included in the transcript, participants can instead be assigned a number, and if they mention the name of a person it can be transcribed as “__*”*

FOR LEAD FACILITATOR AND NOTE TAKER:

Introduction

(10 minutes max)

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this discussion. I’m _ from (organization) ___

I also have my team members __ to support us in this interview and take notes for us.

We are collecting information for a research we are conducting on our activities to respond to your needs in this emergency situation. The information collected will then be analysed and results will be shared with all JR partners in a report, due in October.

We will treat your answers as confidential. We will not include your name or any other information that could identify you in any reports we write. We will destroy the notes after we complete our study and publish the results.

Do you have any questions before we start?

Warm-up

Make sure everybody gets the chance to briefly answer – no need to record their names in the notes, but the facilitator can use this opportunity to make a scheme of the setting and note the names for his/her reference during the discussion

(10 minutes max)

Can you tell us your name, how many people are in your household, and for how long have you been in this location?

Topic A

Briefly explain the topic to be discussed

Appropriateness and Relevance

(20 minutes)

A1. What are your needs? Have you been consulted on your needs, and how? how have your needs been addressed (or not)?

A2. Are you aware of the collaboration among the different agencies?

IF YES, ASK: How has the collaboration between JR partners contributed to respond to the needs and priorities of those most in need (women, children, elders and disabled persons)?

A3. How suitable is our response in the current context and needs?

Topic B

Briefly explain the topic to be discussed

Effectiveness and Timeliness

(25 minutes)

B1. Have you received support in a timely manner?

B2. What is your perspective of collaboration between organizations? Is it improving the quality of the programs, is it leading to more efficient and effective programming? If you have received support from other organisations, can you share differences you noticed?

B3. How well is the response saving lives?

B4. How well is the response alleviating suffering?

B5. How well is the response restoring dignity?

OPTIONAL

Have a 10 minutes break

Topic C

Briefly explain the topic to be discussed

Communication, participation and feedback/complaints

(25 minutes)

C1. Do you feel that information you shared was taken into account when starting our activities? Do we actively seek inputs and suggestions from communities?

C2. did you ever submit a complaint (or did anyone you know submit a complaint) and if so what feedback did you get (if any)?

were you (or the person who submitted the complaint) satisfied with this feedback?

C3. Do people in the communities participate in this Joint Response? How?

C4. How often is information shared with you? And how and how often do you share information with organisations in this Joint Response? Specific examples of how this is being taken into account?

Topic D

Briefly explain the topic to be discussed

Coordination and complementarity

(10 minutes)

D1. Do people understand who receives assistance and why? That is, do you know which criteria are used to select beneficiaries? And are you aware that there are different criteria for different activities?

Topic E

Briefly explain the topic to be discussed

Continuously learn and improve

(15 minutes)

E1. Do you think aid organisations are learning? How?

E2. Do you think aid organisations are getting better? How?

E3. How well did we identify and understand your priority needs?

E4. How well did we respond to those priority needs?

Final thoughts (F)

(10 minutes)

F1. Do you have any final thoughts about this Joint Response that you would like to share?

Those were all the questions that we wanted to ask.

Thank you for your time.

FOR OBSERVER:

Topic A:

Briefly summarise the topic discussed:

Attitudes noted:

Summarise responses:

Overall viewpoint (or if disagreement arises, please summarise the issue):

Topic B:

Briefly summarise the topic discussed:

Attitudes noted:

Summarise responses:

Overall viewpoint (or if disagreement arises, please summarise the issue):

Topic C:

Briefly summarise the topic discussed:

Attitudes noted:

Summarise responses:

Overall viewpoint (or if disagreement arises, please summarise the issue):

Topic D:

Briefly summarise the topic discussed:

Attitudes noted:

Summarise responses:

Overall viewpoint (or if disagreement arises, please summarise the issue):

Topic E:

Briefly summarise the topic discussed:

Attitudes noted:

Summarise responses:

Overall viewpoint (or if disagreement arises, please summarise the issue):

Section 3 – Overall summary of the discussion and recommendations

Please provide a short summary of the discussion, making sure to cover: which themes/questions got more participation and which ones less; what group dynamics you could observe; what was the overall appreciation of the discussion from participants; what were the main asks you recorded from the participants (if any); what activities or aspects of the intervention were most appreciated (if any); what points for follow up/further consideration the team recommends based on facilitation and observation of the discussion.

Annex 4 – Learning Workshop – Facilitator guide and notes template

1. Introduction of the workshop

Welcome everyone and provide an introduction to the day, and the purpose:

· To capture learning from staff who we will not be able to have one to one interviews with;

· To pause and reflect on the experience of this Joint Response, and to learn from a wide range of colleagues;

· To discuss what has gone well, what was/is challenging or problematic, and how we might be able to improve in the future.

Establish workshop rules

Ideally, ask participants to identify the workshop rules, or provide some of the rules below and get them to add to them.

Instead of just reading out the rules, it can be helpful to write them in large print and pin them up in the workshop venue as a reminder for all participants.

Examples include:

· Be respectful to other people

· Don’t blame other people

· Avoid naming or targeting individual people (focus on behaviours or actions that were successful or problematic, rather than people who were successful or problematic)

· Be constructive if you have criticism (if there was a problem, try to think about a solution or what could be done differently to prevent the problem happening again)

· Equal participation – Give others a chance to speak

· Focus on what we learnt

o What worked well?

o What can be improved?

o What would we do differently next time?

2. Activities

Activity 1: Circles

Approx. time needed: 25 minutes

Objective: a warm up activity to get staff thinking about their experience of the JR and to get them talking to new people not within their team. Notes do not need to be taken for this activity.

  1. Divide group in two. Half of the people form a tight circle in the centre of the room facing outwards. Remaining people pair up with someone in the circle so you have two circles of people.

  2. Facilitator will ask a question and each pair will discuss individually.

  3. Then the facilitator will ask the outer circle to rotate 2 places left (so a new pair is formed). Repeat with new questions.

Questions:

* Describe a high point during your time working on the joint response (something that went well or that you are proud of).

* Describe a low point during your time working on the joint response (something that was difficult or disappointing).

* Describe something you’ve learnt during the joint response.

* Talk about a time when someone supported or helped you during the project.

At the end of the activity, ask if there are any volunteers who would like to share something that surprised or interested them (without sharing private stories of colleagues).

Introduction to the CHS

Provide a short introduction to the CHS and how RTRs are aligned to it. Show the short video on the CHS to the group: https://youtu.be/dAkxy3o9vDY

Activity 2: Agree/disagree

Approx. time needed: 60 minutes (depends on how long you spend discussing)

Objective: encourage people to think about the extent to which the JR has met parts of the Core Humanitarian Standard (and to do this is an active/lively way).

  1. Explain that during the next activity we will be focusing on some but not all of the CHS commitments, and asking you to think about the extent to which we’ve been meeting them in this response.

  2. Stick up two pieces of paper at either side of the room; one should say agree and one should say disagree.

  3. Ask all participants to stand in a line between the agree and disagree signs.

  4. Read out a series of statements, and ask participants to move to show how much they agree or disagree with the statement.

  5. After people have moved to show their agreement or disagreement, ask a couple of people each time to explain why they have stood where they have. Explain that there will be more time to discuss these topics in the next session.

Suggested statements (n.b. some are phrased positively and some are phrased negatively!):

A) The JR was designed and implemented based on a good assessment of needs and risks (Commitment 1)

B) The JR was slow or failed to adapt when the context or needs changed (Commitment 1)

C) Project activities were implemented in a timely manner (Commitment 2)

D) Data has been used for programmatic decision making (Commitment 2)

E) The JR ignored local capacities (Commitment 3)

F) Sometimes our programmes accidentally cause harm (Commitment 3)

G) Information about the response activities and partners was shared in a way that would be easy for beneficiaries to understand (Commitment 4).

H) There were opportunities for affected community members to participate in decision making processes during the response (Commitment 4).

I) Beneficiaries appreciate the collaboration component of the JR (Commitment 4)

L) Complaints mechanisms are in place and beneficiaries have access to them. (Commitment 5)

Beneficiaries know how to use complaints mechanisms. (Commitment 5)

M) We have taken action/modified our intervention based on inputs received via complaints mechanisms (Commitment 5).

N) I coordinated with other agencies (Commitment 6)

O) Working in a consortium has helped me in coordinating the response better with other (non- JR) partners and UNOCHA (Commitment 6)

P) Working collaboratively with other partners has increased efficiency and effectiveness of the programme (Commitment 6)

Q) PDM is done regularly (Commitment 7)

R) We quickly adapt to changing needs and context (Commitment 7)

S) We use quality standards for planning and monitoring of our interventions (Commitment 7)

T) I can share something I learnt during my work for this joint response (Commitment 7)

Make sure that all those who have learnings, have the chance to share them and notes are taken accurately.

For note taker, identify the most common answer for each statement and indicate that in the table below. Write down reasons for agreement/disagreement for each statement.

Statement letter

Most common answer

(Agree/Neutral/Disagree)

Note reasons for agreement/disagreement

A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

I

L

M

N

O

P

Q

R

S

T

For note taker/observer: write down here any relevant observation or learning coming out of this exercise.

Activity 3: What worked well, what didn’t and how can we improve? CHS focus

Approx. time needed: 60 to 75 minutes

Objective: in depth discussion of the extent to which the response met the CHS commitments we are focusing on, identifying what went well, what didn’t and how we can improve. This is also the time when the inputs collected during the KII with senior staff and FGDs can be discussed and triangulated.

  1. Divide the participants into groups

This should be flexible depending on the number of participants – between 3 and 5 people should be in each group.

Please note: for CHS 6 you will form 2 separate groups to address a different set of questions. If participants are less than expected, the facilitator may have to cut some groups (a minimum of 3 people forms a group) based on his/her own judgement of what topics are most relevant for this RTR.

As part of their discussions, if you see that some groups find it difficult to proceed in the session, you may ask those groups to consider systems and processes (e.g. finance and procurement procedures, databases etc), people and their skills, and external factors as things that may influence our ability to meet the CHS commitments.

Some supporting questions:

a. What do you think worked well during the response, related to this CHS commitment?

b. What do you think did not work well during the response, related to this CHS commitment?

c. What could JR partners do to improve their ability to meet this CHS commitment in the future?

d. What could JR partners do to improve their ability to meet this CHS commitment in the future?

Group A: CHS 1 Communities and people affected by crisis receive assistance appropriate to their needs

Focus questions:

A1. How has the collaboration between JR partners contributed to appropriate response of specific needs and priorities of the most vulnerable groups, including women, children and disabled persons?

A2. How was the needs assessment conducted and how were decisions/designs (selection of locations, sector, activities) based on these findings?

A3. Are we responding in the most affected geographical areas? How have we decided where to work?

Group B:

CHS 2 Communities and people affected by crisis have access to the humanitarian assistance they need at the right time.

Focus questions:

B1. How effectively are we identifying and reaching our target groups? In other words, how well are we addressing their needs? Are we meeting our objectives in terms of timing, quality and quantity?

B2. To what extent (and how) has the collaboration between JR members contributed to efficient and timely assistance? (for example, by coordinating logistic activities and processes?)

B3. What internal and external factors affected the speed of our response in the start-up phase, including the contingency (preparedness) plan, procurement, HR, financial management systems, pre-positioning of relief items, staff recruitment, staff deployment systems, general external factors?

B4. How integrated the various sectors/focus areas are? To what extent are the sectors working in parallel, or as separate siloes? To what extent have opportunities to integrate activities been explored and acted on? How did we utilize different partner’s expertise in this?

Group C:

CHS 3 Communities and people affected by crisis are not negatively affected and are more prepared, resilient and less at-risk as a result of humanitarian action.

Focus questions:

C1. How is the JR working (in addition to the JR Localization efforts) with local partners to increase their capacity in a sustainable way?

C2. How has the JR partners in this location worked with local partners to increase their capacity for a potential future hand-over?

C3. Have local partners been active participants, also in the collaborative aspect of the JR, and how has their knowledge been integrated into the programme?

Group D:

CHS 4 Communities and people affected by crisis know their rights and entitlements, have access to information and participate in decisions that affect them.

and CHS 5: Communities and people affected by crisis have access to safe and responsive mechanisms to handle complaints.

Focus questions:

D1. How are beneficiaries (communities) participating in the joint response?

D2. Is information shared with beneficiaries systematically? And vice versa? Do we actively seek input and suggestions from communities in a systematic way? Specific examples of how this is taken into account?

D3. Is there a way for beneficiaries to provide feedback and/or lodge complaints? And how do we deal with feedback/complaints?

Group E:

CHS 6 Communities and people affected by crisis receive coordinated, complementary assistance.

Focus questions:

E1. Does working in a consortium help you in coordination with local authorities? How?

E2. What choices were made in terms of collaboration and non-collaboration during program design in terms of complementarity? Why were these choices made?

E3. Are there any concrete examples of successful models of collaboration of JR partners (within the JR) on geographic level, not just in terms of avoiding duplication but increasing complementarity and integrated programs affecting the reach and impact on beneficiaries – any barriers/enablers?

Group F:

CHS 6 Communities and people affected by crisis receive coordinated, complementary assistance.

Focus questions:

F1. What has been the most effective way in which to coordinate with other partners/actors on the ground?

F2. How is the actual complementarity programming that was planned in the beginning working in practice?

F3. To what extent have harmonized approaches (e.g. harmonizing PDM’s and cash transfer approaches) contributed to efficient and effective programming?

  1. Give each group a copy of the CHS Commitment(s) and questions they will be focusing on. Give the groups some flip chart paper and pens to write down notes.

Ask the groups to discuss the questions and provide an answer. Invite them to not necessarily find consensus, but to clearly indicate disagreement if this arises, specifying the different viewpoints in the group (in cases of disagreement, interesting learnings for the participants themselves or the broader exercise of the RTR could arise, therefore stress that consensus is not necessary. Make also sure to observe and note down group dynamics when disagreement arises).

For note taker/observer: write down here any relevant observation or learning coming out of this step in the exercise. If nothing to be reported arises, please state so.

  1. After a group discussion lasting approx. 30 minutes, participants can leave their group and go and visit other CHS commitments to add on to what has already been written. Free movement for 15 mins.

For note taker/observer: write down here any relevant observation or learning coming out of this step in the exercise. If nothing to be reported arises, please state so.

  1. Finally, an original member of the group should present back a summary of the discussion to the whole workshop.

For note taker/observer: write down here any relevant observation or learning coming out of this step in the exercise. If nothing to be reported arises, please state so.

  1. Allow time for a short discussion after each presentation – do the other participants agree or disagree with what the group presented? Was there anything that surprised them?

For note taker/observer: write down here any relevant observation or learning coming out of this step in the exercise. If nothing to be reported arises, please state so.

3. Wrap up

Thank everyone for their participation, ask if anybody has any final question or comment, and reiterate how the discussions will be used to influence the RTR.

Annex 5 – Field Visit Observation Report

Section 1 – General Information

In this section general information regarding the field visit is reported.

Report prepared by:

Report prepared on date:

Field Visit Date:

Location and setting:

Section 2 – Agenda **

The following activities were completed as part of the field visit:

Time

Activity

Participants

Section 3 – General Observations **

Insert your general observations from the monitoring visit here. This may be a few paragraphs up to a few pages. If possible, include photos and quotes to illustrate your points.

Section 4 – Specific Issues and Actions **

List the specific issues / problems that were identified during the visit. Then, in consultation with the receiving partners, identify the actions that need to be taken to solve the problems. This should include the specific individual responsible for taking the action, and when it should be completed by.

Issue identified

Actions to be taken

Example: The agricultural training activity that we observed did not meet the quality standards provided by head office. The Program Manager said that this is because their local trainers have not been briefed on the guidelines.

Technical Advisor: Organise a briefing session for the local trainers by (date) on the quality guidelines. Provide ongoing coaching to help them implement the guidelines.

Program Manager: Ensure that all agricultural trainers are following the quality guidelines by (date) and conduct supervision visits to verify this.

Annex 6 – Reflection Paper – visiting team

The reflection paper is intended to give the opportunity to the RTR team to reflect on their experience individually, gather information regarding how the RTR was rolled out, what added value it provided to the RTR team members, and what should be improved in future RTRs. RTR Team members should complete the questionnaire within 2 working days after completion of the RTR.

Please provide short answers to the following questions:

A. Contextualize your reflection:

  1. What were your learning goals in this RTR?

  2. Did you receive sufficient preparation (pre-reading materials, briefing, tools) before executing this RTR?

  3. What was your role? What did you do?

B. Analytical Reflection:

  1. What were, in your opinion, the key learnings gathered in this RTR? Please list them and explain why, in your opinion, they are important.

  2. What did you learn about the Joint Response in the location you visited?

C. Skills

  1. Which skills did you bring to this RTR that helped this activity?

  2. Did you acquire any new skills by having to work on this RTR?

  3. Was this an easy or a difficult task to undertake? Why?

D. Knowledge

  1. Did you learn anything that will change your approach in future, after new information and experiences were presented to you? Please provide details.

  2. How can you or others in the community use what you learned?

  3. How will you take the learnings from this RTR back to your Joint Response colleagues in your location?

  4. Did this experience differ from your initial expectations? Why or why not?

  5. What personal knowledge and skills did you discover or acquire during this experience that will assist you in future?

  6. What assumptions did you bring? And what new assumptions did you need to form as you undertook this process?

E. Team work

  1. How did you experience the team work?

  2. Was the division of task clear and effective?

F. Receiving organisations

  1. Did you receive all necessary support from the receiving organisations?

  2. How was the communication with the contact points at receiving organisations?

G. Lessons from reflection:

  1. Do you find your experience and expertise were useful for this RTR? Why or why not?

  2. What are your lessons learned for the future?

  3. What suggestions would you make to the JR for planning the next phase?

  4. What was successful in this RTR? Why?

  5. What would you have done differently in this RTR? Why?

Annex 7 – Reflection Paper – receiving organisation

The reflection paper is intended to give the opportunity to the contact persons of receiving organisations to reflect on their experience, and gather information regarding how the RTR was rolled out, what added value it provided to the hosting organisations and to the JR interventions, and what should be improved in future RTRs. Contact persons of receiving organisations should complete this questionnaire within 2 working days after completion of the RTR.

Provide short answers to the following questions:

A. Contextualize your reflection

  1. What were your learning goals in this RTR?

  2. Did you receive sufficient preparation before hosting this RTR?

  3. What was your role? What did you do?

B. Analytical Reflection

  1. What were, in your opinion, the key learnings gathered in this RTR? Please list them and explain why, in your opinion, they are important.

  2. What did you learn about the humanitarian response in South Sudan?

C. Skills

  1. Which skills did you bring to this RTR that helped this activity?

  2. Did you acquire any new skills by having to work on this RTR?

  3. Was this an easy or a difficult task to undertake? Why?

D. Knowledge

  1. Did you learn anything that will change your approach in future, after new information and experiences were presented to you? Please provide details.

  2. How can you or others in the sector or community use what you learned?

  3. Did this experience differ from your initial expectations? Why or why not?

  4. What personal knowledge and skills did you discover or acquire during this experience that will assist you in future?

  5. What assumptions did you bring? And what new assumptions did you need to form as you undertook this process?

E. Visiting team

  1. How was the communication with the visiting team members?

  2. Did their presence and activities provide new insights to your work/the work of your organisation? Please list these and provide details.

F. Lessons from reflection:

  1. Do you find your experience and expertise were useful for this RTR? Why or why not?

  2. What are your lessons learned for the future?

  3. What value added did this RTR provide to your organization?

  4. How they will take this forward in the next few months?

  5. what suggestions would you make to the JR for planning the next phase?

  6. What was successful in this RTR? Why?

  7. What would you have done differently in this RTR? Why?

Annex 8 – Reporting template

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

ACRONYMS

Table of Contents

INTRODUCTION

METHODOLOGY

LIMITATIONS

CONTEXT

Humanitarian Situation Highlights

General Humanitarian response highlights

Joint Response locations, partners and activities

OVERVIEW, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

CHS 1: Response is appropriate and relevant

GOOD PRACTICES (if applicable)

RECOMMENDATIONS

CHS 2: Response is effective and timely

GOOD PRACTICES (if applicable)

RECOMMENDATIONS

CHS X: ………………

GOOD PRACTICES (if applicable)

RECOMMENDATIONS

CONCLUSION

REFLECTIONS AND FEEDBACK FROM RTR PARTICIPANTS

ANNEXES

ANNEX 1: LIST OF RESPONDENTS

ANNEX 2: WORKSHOP PARTICIPANTS

ANNEX 3: TERMS OF REFERENCE

ANNEX 4: DATA COLLECTION TOOLS

[1] The areas of focus will probably be revised in discussion with consultant

[2] One consultant or a team of consultants can be hired for this RRTR

[3] This is strictly the consultant fees. The costs for transportation and logistics can be covered separately in the joint budget.

[4] Two teams of districts that swap – two pairs. Pairs to be decided based on proximity of project locations.

How to apply

Application

To apply for this tender please provide the following:

  • A brief proposal describing your intended methodological approach for the RRTR & budget

  • Résumés of the consultant

The submission date is 06 August 2021

For further information please contact – [email protected]

To help us track our recruitment effort, please indicate in your email/cover letter where (ngotenders.net) you saw this job posting.

Share this tender/job

Newsletter

Subscribe our newsletter for quick response

Contact Info