Consultation pour l’évaluation de fin de projet : Aide alimentaire d’urgence pour les écoliers souffrant de malnutrition dans le comté de Cueibet, État des lacs, Soudan du Sud.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Purpose
An overview of the purpose of the evaluation
The evaluation shall assess the projects’ relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. Furthermore, the evaluation will also focus on accountability to both beneficiaries and donor against intended results and learning.
Specific objective
• To evaluate the project against the project objective and indicators using the DAC criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence impact, and sustainability
• To document lessons learned throughout the lifespan of the project to inform future program design in a similar context.
• To compare, the project baseline against end-line evaluation findings and to provide the recommendation for future programming
• To provide information on current Humanitarian situations in the project intervention area

C. Methodology
The evaluation team shall evaluate both the process of implementation’s outputs, and the outcomes of the intervention. In addition, an impact survey shall be assessed upon data availability for the EFAM project.
A process evaluation will assess the implementation of the school feeding activity by both PROMISE and EFAM projects in Cueibet through the analysis of indicators, review of programme documents, monitoring reports, case studies as well as interviews and FGDs with key informants among the different stakeholders. The FGDs will be organized among farmers, school staff, parents and government officials to clarify details of the implementation as well as to get a better understanding of the challenges faced by the programme and how corrective mechanisms were adopted (or not) and why. They shall also inquire about the perception of participants’ regarding their roles in the school feeding program, which may provide comparative data between both projects.
An outcome analysis will assess both projects performance as well as the perceived impacts or effects of the programmes among key stakeholders.
In order to measure the effectiveness, efficiency, and outcomes of both projects, the evaluation shall collect qualitative and quantitative data in both supported schools and non-supported ones. Collecting data from non-supported schools is crucial in order to construct a counterfactual, against which the outcomes of the programme can be compared. This approach will help to disentangle changes, which can be attributed to the projects, from changes that have occurred due to external factors.
The process evaluation will draw on both the analysis of quantitative indicators and on qualitative methods. While quantitative results provide progress as per logical framework indicators, the qualitative methods will complement and provide explanation to the quantitative results as well as assessing the evaluation questions.
The outcome evaluation shall be based on the analysis of quantitative indicators, as well as on qualitative methods.
The general rule related to acceptable margins of error (5%) in social research will apply to the study. Sampling criteria should be agreed upon with VSF SSD National office, a 30 x 30 cluster sampling is recommended, however, the Consultant may have the discretion to employ any other sampling methodology upon giving appropriate justification which will then be reviewed by VSF SSD programme team before being adopted.
Triangulation of data is important and comparisons with the baseline have to be presented.
Important: Data collected needs to be disaggregated into Gender, age, location, and any other relevant category to the issue at hand (e.g. duration of residency, HH status, etc.).
For HH surveys, the use of electronic data collection is highly recommended with preference of Kobo toolbox/ODK.
The process summary
• Desk review of secondary data (proposals, reports and HGSF previous studies)
• Interviews with regional teams, advisers and project officers and partner staff
• In-depth explorative Interviews with groups of beneficiaries (incl disaggregation by gender, and age)
• Focus group discussions with beneficiaries using structured questions (incl disaggregation by gender, and age)
• Visits to selected project sites, PRA related methods to enhance participation preferred (Gender sensitive)
• Interviews with other stakeholders (e.g. local authorities, donors, other NGOs, UN, non-beneficiaries)
• Sharing of initial findings and learning with regional team and partners in country.

Coverage
The evaluation will gauge to what extent did HGSF in Cueibet reach the most vulnerable children in schools. Questions to gauge this shall be designed in the following context:
– To what extent has HGSF benefitted the most vulnerable households?
– How can VSF ensure that marginalized individuals also have access to HGSF?

Coherence
Coherence shall question to what extent to which security, developmental, trade, and military policies as well as humanitarian policies, are consistent and take into account humanitarian and human rights considerations. Questions to be formulated should be within below category:
– To what extend is the intervention logically coherent and accurate?
– How coherent are agency policies on protection, and what are the implications?
– How could we advocate that other donors take human rights into account in funding decisions?

Impact
To gauge the impact, the evaluation shall interrogate the positive and negative changes produced by School Feeding, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The evaluation should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also include the positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade and financial conditions. When evaluating the impact of the School Feeding project, it is useful to consider the following questions:
• To what degree has the project made progress toward the results in the project-level framework?
• Have there been any unintended outcomes, either positive or negative?
• To what extent have the outcomes been achieved? What were the major factors influencing their achievement or non-achievement?
• What are the outcomes on school participation, enrolment and educational performance? Are outcomes different for boys, girls, orphans etc.?
• What are the effects on dietary diversification of PROMISE /EFAM approach and how does school meals satisfaction and child nutrition compare in both projects?
• How has the programme improved the situation of the families of the participating school children? Have eating habits been changed at home?
• Have the EFAM III/PROMISE schools improved their fund management capacity?
• Is the intervention in a position to strengthen/empower local institutions and facilitate the capacity development of local leaders?
• To which extent has the project changed attitudes towards gender? Is the intervention in a position to empower girls/women?
• Is the perceived social inclusion different among individuals participating in each project?

Proposals should be submitted electronically to the following Email addresses: [email protected] and [email protected] indicating on the subject line thus “End term evaluation” followed by an abbreviation of the applicant’s name. The closing date for receiving proposals is 28th April 2023. Selection will be done on a rolling basis.Only short-listed applications will receive communication.