Terms of Reference for provision of Consultancy Services Kenya Country Program Evaluation (2019 – 2021) 49 views

  • DCA
Closing date

  • DanChurchAid

Terms of Reference

Kenya Programme Evaluation

Note to Country Programmes:

  1. This is the suggested outline of Terms of Reference (ToR) for a country programme evaluation which must be adapted to the specific country situation. Therefore, all the paragraphs with grey shading should be revised as appropriate when finalising the ToR.

  2. The ToR identifies a number of key questions, which are suggested to focus the evaluation exercise. However, these are quite generic and may need adaptation to be relevant to your programming context. Please adjust as needed – and also use the section at the end to identify country-specific issues if preferred. However, some questions have been identified as priority questions for cross-organisational learning. These are highlighted in bold – do not remove or adjust these, unless absolutely necessary.

  3. The country programme evaluation guideline and the evaluation policy gives further instructions and advice on the evaluation process.

  4. Specific instructions on the relevant procurement process for contracting consultants and guidance on the implementation is found in the DCA Procurement Manual.[1] This Terms of Reference (Annex I) and the Proposal Outline at the end of this document (Annex II) may be inserted under Annexes I and II in line with DCA’s request for proposal procedure. Please involve the relevant Procurement Officer in the process as early as possible.

Country or region: KENYA

Country Programme title: Kenya Country Program (Light Version).

Country Programme period: January 2019 to 31st December 2021 (extended to December 2022).

Timing of evaluation: 4th Quarter 2021.

1. Background

DCA has been operating in Kenya since the early 1990s with a focus on humanitarian response, responding to refugee influxes from the neighboring countries especially South Sudan and Somalia. As such, the Kenya program has always been an extension of the DCA Country Program of South Sudan, and since 2016 linked to DCA Ethiopia. As of January 2018, Kenya became a DCA country program in its own right, and an independent Kenya Country Program was developed. Being a new program, the Kenya Country program document was considered a “light” version compared to other DCA Country programs and was meant to run for only 36 months (2019-2021).

The DCA activities has in the past years (before the current country program) focused on the refugee camp in Kakuma, the new Kalobeyei Refugee Settlement and its neighboring local communities in West Turkana, North Western Kenya. Kakuma is one of DCA biggest refugee responses and is set in a context characterized by protracted displacement, poverty and vulnerability. This refugee camp has existed for 25 years and many refugees have lived all or most of their lives in the camp. Turkana is the poorest county in Kenya with frequent droughts, pressure on natural resources, limited livelihood options, conflicts and high level of food insecurity.

As part of the new Country Program, DCA extended its activities to West Pokot County as of mid-2018. During the implementation of the Country program DCA geographic coverage has expanded into 6 new counties namely Elgeyo Marakwet, Baringo, Nakuru, Nyandarua, Siaya & Busia Counties.

The current DCA Kenya Country Program is based on previous experiences, new opportunities, lessons learnt, events, evaluations and discussions on program development with DCA Kenya staff, partners as well as units and management in DCA HQ, as well as a Theory of Change Workshop, held in two phases, in November 2017 and October 2018, respectively which highlight evolving community needs. Since then annual critical reflection workshops have been held in 2019 & 2020 to review the progress of the implementation of the program and suggest course corrections.

The Kenya County program is working towards achieving the following overreaching goals:

  1. Refugees and disaster-affected local communities receive effective, timely and dignifying life-saving humanitarian assistance and protection.
  2. Vulnerable refugees and local communities are empowered and have enhanced self-reliance and resilient livelihoods.
  3. Empowered refugee and local community youth act as agents of change and have meaningful and dignified lives.
  4. Micro and small enterprises (among refugees and local communities) are actively contributing and taking part in local economy and development.
  5. Lives and property is saved through peaceful co-existence amongst refugees, local communities and cross-border communities.
  6. Responsible private sector and resource base engagement and linkages are contributing to sustainable and innovative pro-poor solutions for displaced populations and local communities.
  7. A strong civil society, which supports and stands up for vulnerable communities and refugees including women and youth, and addresses root causes.

The program is working with the following partners[2]:

CSOs: LWF, ADS-North Rift Region, SAPCONE, NCCK, Momentum Trust, Turkana Christian Development Mission, Concern worldwide.

Private sector: Ingemann, Juhudi Kilimo, Kentegra Biotechnology, The Bug Picture, College of Career Guidance and Development, Quercus Group, SME Denmark & Growth Africa.

Finally the program also is part of and works closely with the following network/alliances: Act Alliance (Kenya Forum) and Smart Communities Coalition.

The program has since March 2020 been implemented under the Covid19 new normal which slowed down project implementation and necessitated funds reallocation from projects as well as injection of new funds for Covid19 emergency response. It is againist this background that DCA Kenya requested an extension of the program duration for 2019 to 2021 to 2019 to 2022 to allow to coverage of the lost time for full implementation of the program.

2. Lessons learnt to date:

The Kenya Country program since its inception in 2019 has had a number of end of project evaluations conducted for major projects implemented in 2019 & 2020. Two annual critical reflection workshops were also conducted at the end of each year of full implementation. The following are the significant issues recorded so far:

a. DCA and partners remained have committed to CHS and also employed the ground truthing tools under the DCA LLA (Listen Learn Act) approach. The complaints mechanisms are functional and process both operational and sensitive complaints as per the DCA policies. Overall, Humanitarian response has improved in terms of timeliness, effectiveness and coordination evidenced by DCA and partners response to various humanitarian crisis in the Country over the programme period including those related to Covid19.

b. DCA Kenya has worked with faith actors on various fronts. DCA has worked with ADS-NRR, NCCK, TCDM, LWF Kenya among other faith actors to implement both development and humanitarian interventions in the country. These faith actors have been working on youth empowerment and advocacy, climate change governance/green churches awareness building, conflictual resource management, local GBV solutions and most recently, a faith-based approach to Covid-19 response.

c. Further, on the innovation front, the Kenya program has implemented key innovative projects that were funded under the DCA innovative pool. These include the commercialization of crickets for food and feed and the blended learning project, harvesting and milling of desert locusts to produce manure and chicken feed, an action research on microinsurance, among others. These innovation projects have led to other innovation projects to complement them and also implement recommendations and learnings observed over time.

d. Responsible private sector and resource base engagement and linkages are contributing to sustainable and innovative pro-poor solutions for displaced populations and local communities. There is entrance of new actors in support of refugees and host community. More resources and better solutions are likely to be injected into KISEDP as well as introduction of pro-poor innovations. The new actors are: Academia/universities on crickets. The engagement with WEF, Private sector (YGLs)as well as the DMDP funding that brings on board many private sector players. The DCA field office in Nakuru is also implementing various projects all with a keen focus on integrating the private sector into development. DCA private sector portfolio in 2020 diversified to include Kenyan and Danish companies, aimed at stimulating inclusion of poor and vulnerable households into various value chains. For example, negotiations with off-takers of vegetables destined for European markets were done, and linkages continue to be pursued.

e. One of the key challenges in the programme implementation is that DCA Kenya Program partner portfolio lacks in the thematic area of fighting extreme inequality. Inspite of this gender issues have been mainstreamed in projects and gender disaggregated data generation for decision making. There is a need to identify partner/s in governance and advocacy as currently, only one partner (NCCK) is engaged in this. Further, under youth empowerment, there is need to identify partner/s specializing on youths. DCA has started implementing on youth in Nakuru, Nyandarua and West Pokot, with a key focus on TVETs and youth led businesses.

f. Relating to accountability and CHS, there is a need to strengthen DCA and partners complaints handling mechanisms and anti-corruption capacity and preparedness. This should be done at all levels including the community and private sector entities involved in the program like VSLA’s, service providers/suppliers and micro-enterprises.

g. Linking up refugee and host communities to MFIs as a sustainability measure to the projects in the refugee and host communities to enable them get loans to develop their businesses. This has proved to be difficult because of bankability issues of the refugees and host communities members targeted. The refugees also have challenges in fulfilling Know Your Customer (KYC) government requirements for MFIs due to lack of national registration documents. This has left the youth disappointed and demoralized and resulted to loss of the momentum gained in the project in motivating the youths to aim higher in business development. To address this, DCA is the process of establishing the DCA Youth Enterprise Fund.

A more detailed synopsis of evaluations and annual critical reflection workshops reports carried out in 2019 & 2020 will be shared with successful consulting firms during the inception process.

3. Purpose, objective and evaluation questions

3.1 The purpose

DCA’s country programme in Kenya is coming to the end of a 4 year cycle in 2022. DCA is seeking to carry out a a consolidated evaluation of DCA Kenya office country programme during the 2019 to 2021 programme cycle for learning and accountability purposes.

The findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation will provide substantial guidance to the design of next country programme cycle, and will contribute to organisational learning at the global and country levels of the organization.

3.2 The objective of the evaluation

To conduct an assessment of the performance of DanChurchAid’s country programme in Kenya, with a specific focus on the contribution of the programme to DanChurchAid’s global goals of Save Lives, Build Resilient Communities and Fight Extreme Inequality.

The evaluation should be conducted against the DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability with a view to draw lessons and make recommendations for future programme periods at country and global levels.The evaluation will also review the strategy, management and monitoring, innovation and technology application in the implementation of the country programme.

The evaluation is also expected to generate findings for organizational and programmatic learning on DCA’s global approaches and thematic priorities. In particular, DCA is keen to understand how DCA’s rights-based approach and country programming approach (including use of theory of change) has contributed to relevance, performance and complementarity in meeting the needs of the target communities in her program work in Kenya. It will also be important that the evaluation generates findings which contribute to greater understanding of how DCA’s integration of cross-cutting priorities for gender localization, engagement with faith-based actors, climate change and nexus may have contributed to relevance and effectiveness of the programme. Finally, the findings and recommendations of this evaluation will be used to in the development of the next country strategy.

3.3 Standard DCA country programme evaluation questions


Key question:

1. To what extent is the country programme strategy relevant to the needs identified, especially related to the structural causes of rights violations in the Kenyan context?

  1. To what extent is the country programme portfolio relevant to the country programme objectives?

Sub questions:

a. To what extent is the intervention aligned with international human rights instruments and principles (including relevant international law for humanitarian and disaster response)? and with national and local frameworks that advance human rights and gender equality?

b. How have faith actors been engaged in addressing norms and perceptions around for instance right to participation, gender equality, accountability/corruption and conflict prevention and peace?

c. To what extent did the country programme pro-actively taking advantage of new opportunities, adapting its theory of change to respond to changes in the development and humanitarian context, including changing national and international priorities?

d. To what extent are the projects contributing to the country programme pathway (theory of change)? In what way do the projects and partners complement each other in achieving the country programme goals (geographically, targeting, thematically, etc.)?

e. To what extent is climate adaptation and mitigation appropriately integrated in the programme and what are the key outcomes and learning ?

f. To what extent has the programme contributed to preparedness for humanitarian emergency response as well as development programming?

g. To what extent are the indicators and targets relevant, realistic and measurable? Were the expected outcomes realistic given the project timeframe and resources?

h. Were the indicators in line with the SDGs and what changes need to be done in the next programme?

i. To what extent and in what ways were risks and assumptions addressed in the project design? How were such risks dealt with during the programme implementation phase?


Key question:

3. To what extent were the country programme objectives achieved at outcome level?

Sub questions:

a. To what extent were the participation and accountability mechanisms used effectively at engaging rights-holders?

b. Have proper accountability and risk management frameworks been established to minimize risk of programme failure?

c. To what extent have the interventions contributed to the empowerment of rights-holders to claim or access their rights and entitlements; and of duty-bearers to fulfil their obligations?

d. What results were achieved in terms of reducing the underlying causes of inequality and discrimination, including gender inequality? What were the key factors that contributed to the achievement?

e. To what extent is the country programme embracing a nexus approach? How is that contributing to the programmes effectiveness?

f. To what extent has the DCA programme been able to adapt and support delivery of humanitarian response when needed according to established quality and accountability standards (e.g. CHS and Sphere)?

g. To what extent has the programme tested and adopted innovative approaches and how has this contributed to programme effectiveness?

Key Question:

  1. How have partnerships been enhanced as a result of the country programme? (DCA and partners, partners and rights holders, rights holders and duty bearers, and partners among themselves?)

Sub questions:

a. How are the partners involved in decision making and what are their decision-making powers in the planning and implementation of the country programme including the cross cutting activities? To what extent does DCA deliver adequate capacity support for project implementation and organisational strengthening, particularly with regards to capacity development to the partners involved in the country programme, and is DCA responsive to needs identified by partners?

b. Do the partners have the right skills, commitment and constituency to contribute to the achievement of the country programme ToC?

c. What are the challenges and opportunities in operationalizing localization in the programme? How did DCA contribute to reinforcing the ability of local and national actors and partners – including local faith actors, women’s groups and women-led organizations – to deliver on needs effectively and timely?

d. To what extent has the country programme enabled the partner’s and DCA’s advocacy work with other relevant actors, e.g. facilitation of networks?


Key question:

  1. Has the country programme approach been a cost-efficient way to implement DCA’s humanitarian and development assistance?

Sub questions:

a. To what extent can one argue that the interventions were cost-effective and the resources used in an efficient way?

b. Implementation modalities: where relevant – what are the key learnings from working in partnerships vs. self-implementation

c. To what extent has DCA (CO and HQ) been an efficient manager of the Kenya country programme (strategic planning, staffing, resource management, monitoring, partnerships, etc.)?

d. What are some of the innovative ways DCA and funded organizations engaged/applied to enhance efficiency in relation to the COVID 19 pandemic?

e. What choices were made for leveraging other opportunities for strategic collaboration and non collaboration with other potential partners?

f. What were the outcomes of these choices in ensuring effective and efficient program delivery?

g. Identify, review and recommend promotion and scale up of DCA innovations and appropriate technology that enhance it’s country programming through use of technology and other means.


Key question:

  1. What has been the positive and negative impact at rights-holders and duty bearers level (outcome) directly or indirectly?

Sub questions:*

a. What evidence is there that the interventions contributed to rights-holders increasing their enjoyment of their rights; of duty-bearers better performing their duties and obligations; and of accountability mechanisms being strengthened in all governance levels especially in Counties?

b. What evidence is there of changes in gender inequalities and women’s empowerment e.g. in access and use of resources, in decision-making, in division of labour, risks of gender-based violence etc.?

c. Were there any unintended effects on groups not included in the intervention?

d. How do right holders perceive the relevance of the interventyions of DCA?

e. To what extent is the program able to adapt and provide appropriate response to context changes both at local and national level?


Key question:

  1. To what extent can the impact of the programme be expected to last beyond the lifecycle of the programme?


a. To what extent has the intervention furthered institutional changes (changes in laws, policies, practices, resource levels) for furthering human rights and gender equality? To what extent are these changes sustainable and recommendations for sustainability?

b. To what extent has the intervention furthered value change (changes in peoples beliefs, convictions and ultimately behaviour) for embracing human rights, participation and gender equality. To what extent can these changes be observed to be sustainable?

c. To what extent has the intervention strengthened citizen claiming and monitoring of human rights and gender equality? To what extent is it likely to continue once the project/programme ends?

4. Scope

The evaluation assignment should cover the DCA country programme period starting in 2019 and ending in 2021.

The evaluation will seek to visit the following areas: All 8 counties of operation:

a. Turkana County – DCA self implemented projects, LWF and SAPCONE implemented projects.

b. West Pokot County – ADS North Rift & NCCK implemented projects.

c. Elgeyo Marakwet & Baringo Counties – NCCK implemented projects.

d. Nakuru & Nyandarua Counties – DCA self implemented projects.

e. Busia & Siaya Counties – Momentum Trust implemented projects.

NB: See Annex 1 for the list of projects per county & partner as well as thematic focus.

There are limitations to including the following projects and areas in the programme evaluation: (If any – eg. Due to security and access): Not Applicable, however the security situation in the northern tip of lake Turkana (Lowarengak & Tondonyang) will be E-monitored and decision to visit or not to visit made.

5. Method

It is expected that the consultants will further develop the methodology to be applied within this consultancy. However, the consultants should be guided by the DAC evaluation quality standards for development evaluation in their development of the methodology, conduct of the evaluation and drafting of the report.[3]

In addition, the below key elements should guide the development of the proposed methodology. Participatory methodologies must be employed to ensure that the rights holders targeted by the programme effectively participate throughout the evaluation process. The method developed must also be gender sensitive[4] and it must describe how it fits the purpose of the evaluation. In the data collection and analysis phase the team can use both qualitative and quantitative data collection. It is recommended that the methodology focuses on outcomes and allows for collection of data from multiple sources, like document review, stakeholder interviews, focus group discussions, participatory workshops.

6 Outputs

  1. Inception report, which comprises initial findings of document review, fully developed methodology and evaluation matrix for the evaluation, and workplan for the evaluation.
  2. A debriefing session on the most significant findings and recommendations to be discussed at the DCA Country Office as well as final report discussed in a Global Debriefing webinar with other country programmes and HQ staff.
  3. Draft and final evaluation reports in 1-3-25 format which makes use of the suggested report structure below as agreed with the evaluation manager.

7. DCA’s 1-3-25 Report Structure.

A good evaluation report prepared for DCA should follow the standard 1-3-25 format:

  1. Start with one page of main messages
  2. Follow that with a 3-page executive summary
  3. Present findings in no more than 25 pages of writing.

Further details are below and outlined in the DCA evaluation policy.[5]


Final Recommendations (once report is finalized)


Executive Summary


The structure of the report is flexible but should include the following sections:

Background to programme

Introduction to evaluation

Description of methods and process.

Overview of evaluation findings



Lessons Learnt.

Include visual graphics in the report as appropriate.

Annexes as needed. To include as a minimum:

Final ToR.

Inception Report.

Tools for data collection

Index, list of abbreviations

8. Suggested Scheduling and milestones for evaluation


Suggested Time frame



  1. Publication of Request for Proposals (including this ToR as Annex 1).

Min. 4 weeks

a. Application deadline – 25th June 2021
b. Selection of evaluation team by the Procurement Committee and negotiation of contract 2nd July 2021
c. Provision of initial documentation pack to evaluation team 2nd July 2021
d. Briefing meeting with DCA, partners and consultants and initial literature review 7th July 2021
e. Inception Report submitted to DCA Min. 1 week after briefing.14th July 2021
f. Feedback and approval of inception report. Min.2 weeks 30th July 202
g. Research, field work and interviews. Ca. 4 weeks. 2nd – 31st August.
h. Debriefing session with DCA team (and partners as appropriate) 3rd Sept 2021.
i. First draft evaluation report Ca. 2 weeks after field work. 24th Sept 2021
j.1st Feedback to evaluation team Min. 2 weeks 8th October 202.
k. Second draft evaluation report 1 – 2 weeks.15th October 2021
l. 2nd Feedback to evaluation team Min. 1 week 22nd October 2021
m. Evaluation finalized and approved by DCA. 15th November 2021.
n. Preparation of management response and action plan 29th November 2021.

9. Evaluation Management

The evaluation will be managed by: Patrick Kibuku, Head of Program (HoP).

10. Team Composition and qualifications.

The evaluation team is expected to consist of 1 team leader and an associate consultant, preferably from Kenya or the region.

The team leader should possess the following expertise:

  • Proven team leader skills
  • Extensive experience with evaluations, reporting and design processes, including skills such as indicator development, sampling, participatory evaluation methodology, appreciative inquiry methods, focus group interviews, etc.
  • Experience with multi-sectoral evaluations
  • Proven experience from NGO and CBO based development and/or humanitarian assistance in Kenya.
  • Proven expertise on the cross cutting issues such as Rights Based Approach, Religion and Development (faith actor engagement) and Gender.
  • Experience with faith based organizations in general and DCA in particular is an asset

Further, the team as a whole should have proven expertise in the following areas:**

  • Build Resilient Communities (community-based disaster risk reduction and risk management, sustainable community livelihoods and development and job creation, community influence decisions for building resilient communities)
  • Save Lives (Humanitarian response and Preparedness, Emergency Livelihoods and Early recovery, community safety and protection)
  • Fight Extreme Inequality (Space for civil society, and protection of human rights defenders, inclusive participation in decision-making, equitable distribution of resources through inclusive and accountable institutions, gender equality, combating discrimination and promoting rights of excluded groups)
  • Anti-corruption and organizational accountability**
  • Organizational capacity development**
  • Private sector partnerships and engagement in development work.**


This annex has been prepared as an adaptation of Annex 2 for DCA’s request for proposal procedure. COs may wish to adjust the requirements below for a simple procurement procedure if appropriate. **

Interested consultants and evaluation teams should submit a proposal using the structure and main sections identified below.

1. Rationale

· Any comments on the Terms of Reference of importance for the successful execution of activities, its objectives and expected results, thus demonstrating the degree of understanding of the Contract. Detailed list of inputs, activities and outputs. Any comments contradicting the Terms of Reference or falling outside their scope will not form part of the final Contract.

· An opinion on the key issues related to the achievement of the Terms of Reference and expected results.

2. Strategy

· An outline of the approach and methodology proposed for the evaluation.

· An outline of the the proposed activities considered to be necessary to achieve the contract objectives.

· (If appropriate) A brief description of the backstopping support that will be available to the evaluation team from the contractor.

· (If appropriate) A brief description of subcontracting arrangements foreseen (eg. for enumerators, local consultants and/or interpreters), with a clear indication of the tasks that will be entrusted to a subcontractor and a statement by the Candidate guaranteeing the eligibility of any subcontractor.)

3. Timetable of activities

· The timing, sequence and duration of the proposed activities considering mobilisation time.

· The identification and timing of major milestones in conducting the evaluation, including an indication of how the achievement of these would be reflected in any reports particularly those stipulated in the Terms of Reference.

4. Key experts

· The proposal should include a detailed description of the role and duties of each of the key experts or other non-key experts, who are proposed as members of the evaluation team. The CV of each key expert shall be included highlighting his/her experience in the specific field of the services and his/her specific experience in the country/region where the services are to be performed.

· The proposal should clearly state existing commitments of experts which may affect their availability to participate in the evaluation to the extent possible.

· The proposal should clearly state any conflicts of interest which may compromise the objectivity of the experts in the evaluation. (eg. involvement in the programme being evaluated and/or employment by DCA and/or DCA partners.)

· The proposal should include 1 or 2 examples of previous work from previous evaluation assignments or similar.

5. Financial Offer

· The financial offer should be presented in the format outlined in consultancy opportunities call for applications. **

· When preparing the financial offer, note that:

o DCA will provide the following: eg. Field level logistical support & transportation.

o The evaluation team is expected to provide the following in financial proposal: e.g. flight costs/arrangements & accommodation.

6. Annexure

Annex 1: List of projects per partner with donor/project period & geographic/ thematic focus.

7. List of Key acronyms

DCA – DanChurchAid

NCCK – National Council of Churches of Kenya

ADS-NRR – Anglican Development Services – North Rift Region

SAPCONE – St Peter Community Newtwork

TCDM – Turkana Christian Development Mission

LWF- Lutheran World Federation

CHS – Core Humanitarian Standard

CO/s & HQ – Country Office/s and Head Quarters

ToC – Theory of Change

SDGs – Sustainable Development Goals

Sphere – Sphere Standards

WEF/YGLs – World Economic Forum/ Young Global Leaders

KISEDP – Kalobeyei Integrated Socio-Economic Development Program

DMDP – Danida Market Development Program

GBV – Gender Based Violence

TVET – Technical & Vocational Education and Training

[1]**Note to country teams:** Link to programme evaluation guideline in DCA Intra; Link to World Bank guidance for drafting ToRs; Link to DCA evaluation policy; Link to DCA procurement manual 6th edition:

[2] See Annex 1 for the list of active projects for DCA and partners from 2019 to 2021 and their thematic and geographic focus.

[3] https://www.oecd.org/development/evaluation/qualitystandards.pdf

[4] The inception process should ensure the data collected on gender aspects is concrete and differentiated impacts on men & women come out strongly.

[5] DCA Evaluation Policy

How to apply


All applications to send on this email address not later than 25th June 2021: [email protected]k

Contact persons:

Incase of any questions or clarifications write to: [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


Subscribe our newsletter for quick response

Contact Info