Final Evaluation of the War Child and TPO Uganda’s project “Protecting South Sudanese
refugee children in Uganda through building family resilience.”
1.0 Introduction:
TPO Uganda and War Child UK are inviting bids to carry out an independent final evaluation of its Comic Relief funded project “Protecting South Sudanese refugee children in Uganda through building familyresilience.”
TPO Uganda is a non-government organization (NGO) that started work in 1994 with a commitment to
empower communities affected by armed conflict to meet their psychosocial and mental health needs. With its mission “to empower communities with the skills and tools they need to effectively address their problems”, TPO Uganda services are delivered through a community and family-oriented intervention model, which mainly focuses on identifying existing community support structures, traditional circles of support as well as systematically building their capacity to identify and participate in supporting the psychosocial and mental health needs of children in need of protection, survivors of gender-based violence, children and families infected and affected by HIV & AIDS; and families whose socio-economic wellbeing has been incapacitated by conflict and/or any other disasters. All this is aimed at achieving its vision of a society where vulnerable and marginalized people enjoy mental health, social and economic wellbeing, and lead harmonious, mutually supportive and productive lives.
War Child UK (WCUK) is a child rights organization founded in the UK in 1993 with a vision of a world
in which children’s lives are not torn apart by war. WCUK exists to support and rehabilitate child victims of war and deal with the lasting consequences of conflict by working with local communities, civil society organizations and local authorities in both conflict and post-conflict countries; ensuring sustainable security for the children; promoting livelihood opportunities and addressing the development needs of the most vulnerable and marginalized children. Currently, we work in six conflict and post-conflict countries: DRC, Uganda, Afghanistan, Jordan (Syria response), Iraq and Central African Republic (CAR). WCUK phased out from direct programme implementation in Uganda in March 2015 but continues to work with TPO Uganda in Kiryandongo and Adjumani in Uganda.
War Child UK in partnership with TPO Uganda is supporting 2,159 refugee children and young people
affected by the conflict in South Sudan through building family resilience.
2.0 Project Description:
Violent conflict in South Sudan has forced over 120,000 people (65% children) to flee into Uganda
consequently endangering their lives, destroying livelihoods and leaving children, in particular at risk of
abuse and exploitation. This project addresses three main issues:
• Lack of access to quality primary education; Schools are overcrowded with a high teacher-student
• ratio which prevents children from reaching their full potential and developing health life-skills
• Lack of child-friendly spaces; Children are deprived of the ability to access structured play,
• recreational and sporting activities which are key in increasing their resilience and well-being. This
• is vital as most of these children are traumatized after having travelled in difficult conditions to
• escape ongoing violence.
• Loss of basic family livelihood; Families have little access to recovery activities that help them
• generate income to pay for basic needs thus are more likely to adopt negative coping mechanisms that expose their children to harm such as child labour or early marriages.To address these issues, the project aims to achieve the following outcomes by February 2017;
• Improved protection & psycho-social well-being for 1,800 children and young people living with the effects of conflict-related trauma.
• 850 refugee children are accessing quality basic education in formal primary schools located near settlements.
• Increased and more secure household incomes for families by developing the skills of 100 young people and 250 parents
• TPO Uganda has increased skills and capacity to design and deliver innovative interventions to support children affected by conflict.
• 3.0 Main purpose of the evaluation
The end of project evaluation shall document:
The extent to which the project outputs and outcomes have contributed1 to improving the protection•
of the children in schools, households and in communities.
The relevance and effectiveness of the approach and assumptions to improving the psychological•
wellbeing, protection, educational status and resilience amongst children in the two refugee
settlement.
Lessons learnt and proposed feasible recommendations to inform future programme design in•
particular with children in a conflict-affected setting within War Child UK, other NGOs, donors
and the government.
Effectiveness of the remote management approach set up by War Child UK and TPO, focusing•
specifically on Grants Management, Technical Support and Organizational Development.
The evidence generated through this evaluation exercise is expected to:
Better inform future programme design/programming with children in relation to their education,•
protection, psychosocial response and skills-building.
Increase knowledge of stakeholders on how to improve the psycho-social wellbeing of south•
Sudanese refugee children and to enhance the protection services available to them.
Report against the outcome indicators as set out in the project log-frame•
The results from this evaluation would help making adjustments/redirection for future interventions•
by TPO, War Child and other child rights agencies.
4.0 Scope, Focus and Evaluation Criteria
The end of project evaluation should focus on longer term results/outcomes as agreed upon in the Grants Start-up form. It will assess the outcomes of the project in the 2 projects sites, Adjumani and Kiryandongo districts, and identify the outcomes of different child protection interventions, such as in the area of psychosocial support, mental health, education, early child development, entrepreneurship and livelihoods. The assessment should determine the extent of coverage of the psychosocial support and child protection interventions in relations to the presence of South Sudan refugee children in different areas of Emergency – both in terms of geographic coverage, and numbers of children reached vs numbers of children in need.
1 Evaluator may want to consider the contribution analysis approach
In addition, the evaluation exercise should result in an overview of the Child friendly spaces (CFSs) created and their contribution to the protection of South Sudanese refugee children in Uganda.
4.1 Evaluation Questions:
Criteria and Evaluation Questions
• Effectiveness
1) To what extent were the intended project outcomes and outputs achieved and how?
2) To what extent has this project generated positive (or negative) changes in the lives of targeted (and untargeted) children? Why? What are the key changes in the lives of those children and their care givers?
3) What internal and external factors contributed to the achievement and/or failure of the intended project outcomes and outputs? How?
4) Has the project increased the knowledge, attitude and practices of children and community members in target communities on child protection issues, referral pathways and children’s psycho-social wellbeing and educational needs?
5) Is there evidence that the livelihoods component of the project has increased the proportion of household income spent on children’s education and psycho-social wellbeing?
6) What are the common denominators for refugee families that are able to protect their children (i.e. who have been successful in education, livelihoods and protection indicators as per the Child Vulnerability Index datasets)?
• Relevance
1) To what extent was the project strategy and activities implemented relevant in responding to the needs of South Sudanese refugee children in Uganda? 2) To what extent do achieved results (outcomes and outputs) continue to be relevant to the needs of South Sudanese refugee children in Uganda?
2) Who has benefitted (women, men, girls and boys) from the programmaticinterventions and in what ways? Specifically, is there evidence that the approaches used in the project contributed2 to improved education, literacy and numeracy skills and a perceived level of Protection and wellbeing amongst children?
• Efficiency
1) How efficiently and timely has this project been implemented and managed in accordance with the Project Document? Specifically have resources been used well. Were the implementation strategies appropriate?
• Sustainability
1) How are the achieved results, especially the positive changes generated by the project in the lives of children and their caregivers, going to be sustained after this project ends? E.g. CFS activities, ECCD classes, schools that are being supported by the project, VSLAs, JFFLS etc.
2) To what degree has project built on existing local capacities and coping mechanism, and a potential exit strategy that builds on local resources and capacities? What networks and Community based groups is the project working with and what has been the impact of the project on these local networks and community based groups?
2 Evaluator may want to consider the contribution analysis approach, Most Significant Change, Outcome Harvesting/Mapping etc.
3) Has the project contributed to improving the capacity of TPO to deliver quality livelihoods, education and child protection programmes across the project cycle and meaningfully impacted the lives of children in the target communities?
• Impact
1) What are the unintended consequences (positive and negative) resulting from the project?
• Quality
1) What is the quality (coherence) of TPO’s psychosocial response, in relation to the Interagency Steering Committee (IASC) Guidelines on Mental Health and Psychosocial support and child protection (MHPSS) and the CPWG Minimum Standards for Child Protection in Humanitarian Response and other quality benchmarks including gender mainstreaming principles?
2) What are the beneficiary and stakeholder perceptions/feedback of the overall project in responding to the child protection and PSS needs of children in such emergencies, especially children, parents and communities?
• Knowledge Generation 1) What are the key lessons learned that can be shared with other practitioners on protecting children especially the children in emergency situations?
2) Are there any promising practices? If yes, what are they and how can these promising practices be replicated in other projects and/or in other communities that have similar interventions?
3) How has the relationships between partners throughout the relationship chain (looking at the War Child UK-TPO Uganda-the communities-target groups) helped or hindered the delivery of change/outcomes?
4) What outstanding advocacy and implementation priorities still require action and commitment from district and national-level stakeholders?
• Protection
To what degree are the Child friendly spaces (CFSs), Child Protection Case Management mechanisms and Child Protection Committees created or activated by the project are contributing to the protection of South Sudanese refugee children in Uganda? How?
4.0 Methodology:
The evaluation will use both quantitative and qualitative methods, as well as document review and, when necessary and appropriate, analysis of programme monitoring data. We would however suggest the use of Most Significant Change and/or Outcome Harvesting approach as we expect a variety of unexpected outcomes because of some innovative approaches we used in this project. This includes but are not limited to Re-Animation Therapy and Child Vulnerability Index.
The final evaluation should focus on a participatory methodology whereby the work engages all key
stakeholders including beneficiaries, community members, WCUK, TPO Uganda, other agencies/service providers e.g. UNHCR, Office of Prime Minister Uganda, Windle Trust etc. The consultant will collect primary data from direct beneficiaries of the project (children, young people and adults) and also use secondary data.
All evaluation tools should be based on a thorough review of relevant literature and existing questionnaires, including the baseline and mid-term survey questionnaires. The evaluation is also expected to carry out the end-line survey along with the Child Vulnerability index (CVI) survey with a representative sample of children and compare the findings with the two already available datasets of CVI assessment conducted in August 2015 and June 2016.
5.0 Tasks and Deliverables
Tasks and Expected Deliverables 1. Design of the sampling strategy, data collection and relative tools and preparation of inception report and work plan.
Inception report (deliverable 1) including work plan, methodological approach, instruments to be used, interview and field visit protocols, annotated outline of final report, to be presented and approved by the Technical Committee.
1. Desk review of available information from TPO and WCUK– in particular the, Project start up form, baseline and Midterm evaluation reports and other documents.
Feedback meeting on findings from desk review.
2. Quantitative Data collation, cleaning and analysis of data.
Progress report and end of field data collection report.
3. Field data collection; Focus group (deliverable 2) discussion and Key informant interviews. Progress report and end of field data collection report.
4. Analysis of findings and draft report preparation.
Draft Evaluation report and presentation of preliminary findings for review (deliverable 3)
5. Validation of technical report / Incorporate comments from TPO and WCK Evaluation Committee and finalize report.
Draft technical report shared with Technical team. Meeting report confirming the validation of findings, including how feedback/recommendations from the committee have been addressed. (Deliverable 4).
6. Draft a concise, user-friendly for nontechnical audience, summary report of key finding from technical report.
Final report(<30 pages) (deliverable 5). The Report should be in simple English, no more than
30 pages and free of jargon, excluding annexes. It should include:
Title Page•
Table of Contents / Figures and Tables•
Abbreviations / acronyms page•
Executive summary (2 pages maximum)•
Background and a short introduction to the project•
The evaluation methodology (includingCase studies/stories should be used to•
highlight/illustrate the findings
Innovation and lessons learned•
Summary of Recommendations•
Conclusion•
7. Lessons Dissemination document
Lessons sharing/dissemination document capturing key impact and learning and presented in a reader friendly and marketable format should be produced both in English. It should not be more than two sides of an A4 page. (deliverable 6)
6.0 Available data sources
The consultant is expected to review all possible sources of existing information and prioritize the list in terms of reliability, cost and time efficiency: The source available include;
War Child UK ethical research policy and Child Safeguarding Policy•
Project proposal, log frame, budgets•
Baseline Report / (Baseline information)•
Mid-term Report•
National data portfolios e.g. government records, government policies, strategy papers, studies etc.)•
TPO’s organisation profile and strategic plan•
Project monthly, quarterly and interim reports.•
Field monitoring data.•
Project M•&E tools and guidelines
Child Protection Minimum Standards, as a reference point for the minimum standards and key•
activities expected to be met and delivered for a project of this nature.
7.0 Roles, Supervision and Reporting:
War Child UK:
Provide clear specific advice and support to the evaluation manager and the evaluation team•
throughout the evaluation process
Review the ToR, inception report and draft evaluation report and ensure final draft meets the Comic•
Relief evaluation Standards.
Together with TPO, coordinate the selection and recruitment of the evaluation team by undertaking•
the necessary procurement processes and contractual arrangements to hire the evaluation team.
Review and provide comments and feedback on the quality of the evaluation process as well as on•
the evaluation products (the TOR, draft reports, final evaluation report, dissemination documents).
Approve deliverables and evaluate consultant’s/team’s work in consultation with TPO and will•
process the payments after submission of the deliverables.
TPO Uganda:
Co-lead the management of the evaluation process throughout the evaluation (design,•
implementation and dissemination and coordination of its follow up)
Connect the evaluation team with the wider programme unit, field teams and key evaluation•
stakeholders, and ensure a fully inclusive and transparent approach to the evaluation.
evaluation/research questions and tools)
Facilitating the evaluation team’s access to all information and documentation relevant to the intervention, as well as to key actors and informants who should participate in interviews, focus•
groups or other information-gathering methods.
Provide the evaluators with overall guidance as well as with administrative support•
Oversee progress and conduct of the evaluation, the quality of the process and the products•
Disseminate the results of the evaluation•
Lead Consultant:
Fulfilling the contractual arrangements in line with the ToR, TPO/WCUK norms and standards and•
ethical guidelines; this includes developing of an evaluation plan as part of the inception report,
drafting and finalizing the final report and other deliverables mentioned in the TOR.
The consultant will be responsible to keep TPO Uganda/War Child UK abreast of progress. S/he•
will be supervised jointly by the TPO Country Office and War Child UK’s MEAL Adviser. A draft
report will be submitted at the end of data collection and both TPO Uganda/ War Child UK will
have a maximum of 3 weeks to submit two rounds of comments on the draft report.
8.0 Evaluation Process and Timeline:
The Final Evaluation is expected to start by December 06, 2016. The final report is expected to be submitted to War Child and TPO by no later than the 24th of January, 2016. The consultant will however be required to update War Child and TPO throughput the execution of the assignment through regular reports/meetings. The final timeline can be confirmed with the evaluation team at the Inception meeting/report stage depending on the proposed methodology and work plan. Below is an indicative timeframe.
# Description and Indicative Timeline:
1 Document Review, development of Inception Report and the data collection tools (quantitative and qualitative). The Inception Report and tools have to be produced in English and should be approved by TPO and WCUK. 5 days
2 Field data collection including the training of enumerators.The number of days depends on the number of enumerators hired and the data collection plan agreed upon at the Inception Report. 18 days
3 Preparation and submission of the Draft Report to TPO Uganda and WCUK. 5 days
4 Submission of the Final Evaluation Report and Lessons Dissemination Document. 1 day
TOTAL = 29 days
Funding and Payment: The consultant will be paid as follows: 30% after successful submission and our approval of the inception report, tools to TPO Uganda and WCUK.
30% on successful submission and our approval of the Draft Report and
40% on successful submission and our approval of the final evaluation report
9.0 Qualification and experience of the consultant
The consultant(s) should have the following qualifications:
• Innovation and lessons learned•
• Masters’ Degree in Development Studies, Social Work, Psychology statistics or a related field
• At least 5 years’ demonstrated experience in evaluation of development/humanitarian work specifically psychosocial support/ Child protection in emergencies. And must have completed at least two high quality programme evaluations in that period, at least one of them being related to psychosocial support and child protection response in emergencies/humanitarian.
• Excellent research, monitoring and evaluation skills including use of participatory appraisal
• techniques in data collection, sensitive to gender issues.
• Excellent writing and communication skills in English (Reference and production of sample work
• required)
• Willingness and ability to travel to project sites, Kiryandongo and Adjumani districts in Uganda.
• The consultant will be provided with a full security briefing before going to the project locations. Note: All Consultants will be required to abide by TPO Uganda and War Child UK organizational policies namely Child Safeguarding Policy with Code of Conduct, Evaluation Policy and Ethics Policy and will be required to sign a statement of commitment to these. The consultant(s) will also be required to complete or provide evidence of references and DBS/police checks in advance of appointment.
10.0 Recruitment and appointment
Interested applicants are requested to submit the following information as part of the initial bid:
CVs of the evaluation team member(s) including current geographical location(s).•
Not more than 3 to 4 page summary outlining the approach to be followed in designing and•
conducting the evaluation (including calendar, key deliverables and tools, research questions).
Detailed budget with breakdown of daily rate plus number of days and other costs. The budget•
should not exceed GBP 10,000 (inclusive of VAT). The budget will be evaluated alongside the
technical proposal and we reserve the right to make alternative suggestions on costing. The
consultant is responsible for meeting their own subsistence, accommodation and international
travel costs whilst the local in-country transportation to field sites will be provided by War Child.
Two references from previous clients.•
An example of a recent/relevant evaluation report. Please share the web link if it is published online.•
HOW TO APPLY:
Applications should be sent to recruitment@warchild.org.uk using reference “Final Evaluation of War
Child and TPO Project in Uganda” in the subject line not later than Sunday 23rd of October.
Any queries
to the ToR can be referred to Hur Hassnain at hur@warchild.org.uk and/or Michael Muwairwa at
mmuwairwa@tpoug.org.
Please note that submissions which do not meet all the above requirements will not be reviewed. Only
shortlisted candidates will be contacted.