Catholic Relief Services Integrated Food Security and Improved Water Management Project Evaluation Job in Kenya

Final Evaluation
Integrated Food Security and Improved Water Management Project
Terms of Reference (Ref. No. 2012/C/47)

1.    Background Information


Catholic Relief Services –USCCB is the official agency of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for relief and development overseas. 
CRS supports programs in over 100 countries and works through local partners.  CRS has been implementing development and emergency relief efforts in Kenya for the past forty years. 
Although CRS mission is rooted in the Catholic faith, our operations serve people based solely on need, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.

The  Kitui Integrated Food Security and Improved Water Management Project (Kitui FRB) project is an initiative of the Global Solidarity Partnership (GSP) between the Catholic Diocese of Kitui and the Archdiocese of Saint Paul and Minneapolis through the facilitation of Catholic Relief Services. 
The project is co-funded by Food Resource Bank (FRB) and CRS to alleviate food insecurity in Nuu Division of Mwingi district, Kitui County. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) in partnership with the Catholic diocese of Kitui has been implementing the project since 2007. 
This project is in its final year and CRS plans to undertake a Final Evaluation of the project to the determine the success of the project. This will provide stakeholders with information on lessons learnt. 
The project focuses on improving food security through development of water facilities for multiple uses, construction of soil and water conservation structures, improved crop production, improved sanitation and hygiene practices by vulnerable communities within the division. 
The Goal of the project is “To improve Food security of marginalized agro-pastoral households in Nuu division of Mwingi district. 
The objectives of the project were to increase food availability and income of 1,250 drought prone and marginalized households; increase access to water resources for improved hygiene practices, sanitation, agricultural production and livestock watering to marginalized households. 
To achieve this, the project has had the following expected results:
  • Increased production and collective marketing of selected crops, high value trees (HVT) and vegetables.
  • Strengthening and active participation of Farmer associations in profitable agro-enterprising.
  • Increased water harvesting for multiple uses
  • Increased access to potable water 
  • Improved hygiene and sanitation practices
  • Increased soil and water conservation
2.    Purpose and Objectives of Evaluation

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess whether the Kitui FRB project met its Strategic Objectives of increased food availability, income and access to water resources among vulnerable communities in Nuu division. 
The evaluation will also measure the impact and sustainability of the project interventions on target beneficiaries.

2.1 Evaluation Objectives
  1. To determine the extent to which the Kitui FRB project increased food availability, income and access to water for the target communities.
  2. Analyze the impact of the Kitui FRB project on the lives of target population
  3. Evaluate the sustainability of project outcomes and impact
  4. Analyze the relevance, costs and benefits of the project strategy used in implementing Kitui FRB project
  5. To identify and document lessons learned and success stories from the Kitui project
  6. Provide recommendations for future programming in food security projects
2.2 Suggested Key Evaluation Questions

Effectiveness: 
  • Did the project achieve its planned outputs (as per the DIP) on the planed timeline? Yes OR No ?; 
  • Did the M&E system provide the right information at the right time to allow  timely project management and decision-making? ; 
  • Has working in partnership increased the effectiveness and quality of the project? ; 
  • Has the project been effective in building partner capacity? 
  • If so, how has partner capacity been built? 
  • If not, why not? 
  • If not, how can this be improved for next time?
Impact: 
  • Has the project achieved its planned impact as per set indicators and theory of change? 
  • Why or why not?;
  • Did impact vary for different targeted areas, households, individuals, groups (i.e. men and women)? 
  • If so, how and why?; 
  • Was there any unintended impact from the project, either positive or negative?; 
  • What impact was most valuable to participating communities?

Sustainability: 
  • What is the likelihood that the community will be able to sustain the impact of the project?
  • How do we know?; 
  • What has the project done to support community structures or groups to be able to continue to address community needs and sustain project impact? 
  • Is this sufficient?
Relevance: 
  • Was the project preceded by a formal needs assessment? 
  • Did the initial needs-assessment identify priority community needs? 
  • Did the assessment differentiate between needs for men and women and for more vulnerable and less vulnerable households? 
  • If so, how? If not, why not?; Is the project design appropriate for meeting the community priority needs? 
  • Why or why not?;
  •  Did the targeting strategy allow the project to meet the greatest need in the community? 
  • Why or why not?; 
  • Was community participation sufficient throughout the needs assessment, design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation of the project? 
  • Why or why not? If not, how can participation be increased during the remainder of the project (for mid-term evaluations) or in a future project (for final evaluations)?; 
  • Has the project met the specific needs and priorities of women? 
  • Why or why not?; 
  • What were the costs of the project in the eyes of beneficiaries?; 
  • What were the benefits of the project strategies and interventions in the eyes of beneficiaries
Lessons learned and success: 
  • What was the most significant change in the eyes of the target population?; 
  • Provide recommendations for future programming in food security projects
3.    Roles and Responsibilities

The evaluation will be undertaken by an external consultant working closely with the CRS Project Officers for Agriculture and Watsan, Monitoring and Evaluation Office and the partner- Kitui diocese. 
CRS and partner program managers (Agriculture, Watsan, M&E,) will be responsible for reviewing the draft reports and participate in the stakeholder feedback presentation. 
The evaluation team will be composed of two sector specialists i.e. agriculture and water and sanitation as per the project objectives. Either may double as the team leader. 
The consultant will have the overall responsibility of designing and conducting the evaluation. CRS and partner staff will provide support in terms of community mobilization, review of tools and handling logistics. CRS will provide vehicles during field data collection. 
The Consultants will be required to understand and adhere to CRS policy of vehicle movements; and this will be provided by CRS staff/s accompanying the Team.

4.    Methodology


The methodology will entail a mix of quantitative and qualitative participatory approaches including secondary literature review, interviews with key informants, Focus Group Discussions with beneficiary groups /key stakeholders and observation of project interventions. 
Quantitative methods will include the of use semi-structured questionnaire to target beneficiaries. 
Data from secondary literature review will be obtained from final approved project proposal, project progress reports (Narrative and Financial) to donors, Agenda/Reports of CRS & CDK / Archdiocese of St. Paul/Minneapolis minutes of Meetings, trip reports, partner project activity reports, monitoring reports, baseline and midterm evaluation reports. 
The consultant can propose other documents deemed important and relevant for review and additional data collection methods to increase the effectiveness of the evaluation. Gender integration will be ensured throughout the evaluation process.

5.    Outputs and Deliverables

  1. Inception report including detailed research instruments
  2. Draft evaluation report to CRS and Partner staff for review
  3. At least one significant change story from each of the project objectives
  4. Final evaluation report in English in line with CRS evaluation guidelines. (Soft copy and two bound copies).
  5. 12-15 slide PowerPoint presentation of report detailing key findings and recommendations
Criteria to ensure quality of evaluation report
  • Report to represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why.
  • Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.
  • The evaluation report to annex the scope of work.
  • Evaluation methodology explained in detail and all tools used in conducting evaluation (e.g. checklists and questionnaires) Annexed to final report.
  • Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on males and females.
  • Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology.
  • Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people’s opinions.
  • Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.
  • Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings and should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.
6.    Feedback and Use

Evaluation results will be used by CRS and the implementing partner for learning and improvement of future projects and communicating project success and challenges to key stakeholders. 
The findings will also serve as critical input into the ongoing development of a proposed phase two of the project. 
Feedback from the evaluation will be shared with stakeholders through a dissemination meeting in which all key stakeholders will be represented.

7.    Work plan

The overall time frame for the evaluation is approximately four weeks. Note that the first draft and the results presentation must be undertaken within this period. The final report is expected no later than 15th August 2012.

8.    Consultants’ Qualifications


The consultants must have the following competencies:
  • Team Leader must have led at least three similar evaluations
  • Both sector specialist and team leader should have a minimum educational qualification equivalent to a Masters degree in environment, Agriculture, water or a discipline related to one of the technical areas addressed by the project, from recognized universities
  • Both should have demonstrated skills in research, monitoring and evaluation of livelihood projects
  • Proven experience in conducting participatory qualitative and quantitative evaluation studies
  • Demonstrate local knowledge of the area of study where the project is being implemented
  • Be familiar with program related financing
  • Excellent analytical and report writing skills
  • Excellent written and spoken English and proficiency in Swahili
  • Computer proficiency with good knowledge of MS office and statistical packages
9.    Quotation Requirements

Team Leader to submit a technical proposal and a financial proposal, separately comprising the following components:

Technical proposal
  • The consultants understanding of the Terms of Reference.
  • A detailed methodology on how the Evaluation will be conducted. (Include and elaborate on the tools to be used to facilitate the active participation of different project stakeholders. Specify which tools and how they will be administered for each category of respondents during the Evaluation. Link the skills and knowledge of specific consultancy team members to the administration of tools specified herein. Propose a valid sampling method for data collection for the Evaluation. Propose a process for validating results of the Evaluation with actors at various levels. Elaborate work plan: Outline the major activities involved in the review and specify/link consultancy team members to be involved in each; detailed implementation schedule)    
Financial proposal
  • Itemized budget proposal for consultancy fees and administrative costs. Proposed payment terms and schedule
  • Organizational capacity statement, past experience and activities related to Project Evaluations.
  • Curriculum Vitae for all the consultants and proposed capacity of any complementary staff.
  • Names, addresses, telephone numbers of three organizations that will act as professional referees.
  • Copies of relevant work undertaken in the last 3 years (to be returned after evaluation of bids).
  • Full names, post office box, telephone numbers, e-mail address, physical address and contact person of the consultancy firm.
  • g. Copy of registration certificate, VAT and PIN.
Applicants are kindly requested to send their CV along with a cover letter to CRS Office by e-mail (see below) by Close of Business July 10th 2012.

Human Resources Manager
Catholic Relief Services – Kenya Program
E-mail: hr@ke.earo.crs.org

Note: 1) Please indicate the Reference Number of the position you are applying for on the ‘email subject.
           2)  Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.


Job Summary:
Job Title
Job Category
Job Type
Company / Organization
Approx. Salary
Job Opening Date
Job Expiry Date
Job Details
Job Location




Other Jobs in Kenya

Jobs in Kenya :: Daily Updates of the Latest Jobs in Kenya © 2018