Christian Aid LPRR Conflict Prevention Strand Final Evaluation Consultancy in Kenya - Kenyan Jobs Blogspot :: A Collection of Jobs in Kenya

Daily listing of the latest jobs and career opportunities in Kenya. Subscribe to receive job alerts on email.

We have moved to >>> www.jobsinkenya.co.ke


Post Top Ad

Your Ad Spot

Nov 26, 2017

Christian Aid LPRR Conflict Prevention Strand Final Evaluation Consultancy in Kenya


Christian Aid

Terms of Reference 

LPRR Conflict Prevention Strand Final Evaluation

Background: The Linking Preparedness, Resilience and Response (LPRR) is a consortium run project funded by the DFID Disasters and Emergencies Preparedness Programme (DEPP).

The project is managed by the Start Network and draws together the experience and understanding of Christian Aid, Action Aid, Concern, Help Age, Muslim Aid, OXFAM, World Vision and King’s College London.   

 
All partners have experience in successfully and regularly implementing projects concerning strengthening community based resilience to natural disasters. 

All eight organisations have also identified the need for greater research and experience on how to build resilience in settings characterised by the dual-threats of conflict and natural disaster. 

In a unique step, the consortium will combine security methodologies from Saferworld (SW), an expert in building community security in insecure settings, with the consortium member resilience approaches, to develop a new, combined approach to building community resilience in situations at risk of both natural hazards and conflict-related insecurity. 

This new methodology will be called ‘Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience’ (ICPR) Methodology. 

The project contributes to the Grand Bargain/World Humanitarian Summit localisation agenda aimed at engaging national and local NGOs in owning/decision-making/oversight of the design and process, and judging the evaluations usefulness for them.

The conflict strand was piloted in Marsabit County and was led by Christian Aid but implemented by PACIDA and World Vision Kenya. 

The region selected for the implementation of the pilot project was identified based on the following factors; firstly; ethnic and resource based conflicts; and secondly a strong consortium focused history of operating within these areas. 

This accessibility to project locations was essential to ensuring a strong learning-focused approach to the LPRR implementation.

The priority for the implementation of projects activities in Kenya was the familiarisation and training in the new SaferWorld Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience Methodology.

This conflict sensitive approach (CSA) was introduced to Christian Aid, PACIDA, Action Aid, HelpAge and World Vision in 2015. 

Following the training, the project moved to field implementation at village level and will end in December 2017. 

Christian Aid and partners conducted the macro and local (village) conflict analysis using the ICPR methodology and conducted a Knowledge Attitude and Behaviour (KAP) survey. 

Next, the information produced in the conflict analysis informed the Participatory Vulnerability Capacity Assessment (PVCA) process which led to the identification of community action plans, which are being implemented.

Definition of resilience: The term ‘resilience’ is understood in this context as strengthening the capacity of communities to anticipate, prepare for, address, manage and respond to future risks, vulnerabilities and emergencies, and to successfully respond to unpredictable shocks and changes in their circumstances (LSE, 2015). At community/village level ‘resilience’ will be translated as ‘having the skills and capacity to look after yourself whilst knowing how and where to ask for support when needed’ (Murphy, 2017).
 
Objective of the final evaluation:

The project has been running at the community level since December 2016 and the planned activities will be completed in December 2017. 

Although the approach looks at behavioural change, the evaluation has been planned on the last month of the project as the project is ending. 

Being a pilot project the LPRR project has a strong interest in understanding if the newly developed ICPR methodology could fulfil its scope, identifying successes and challenges, and determining if it provided value for money.

The objective of this final evaluation is to explore what contribution the LPRR project made to enabling communities to address the intertwined risk of natural hazards and fragility.

In particular, it will be assessing the following indicators:
  1. A.    Change in level of organisational preparedness
  2. B.     Change in household disaster risk knowledge
  3. C.     Behaviour change in households related to preparedness
  4. D.    Change in community level preparedness /vulnerability / resilience

The final evaluation will integrate gender, Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) and inclusion of vulnerable groups as a cross-cutting concern throughout its methodology and all deliverables, including the final report. 

It will also explore how gender roles have changed, how the community members are working together to address concerns and the relationship between community members and the local government.

The findings and recommendations from the evaluation will be used to review the ICPR methodology, contribute to the learning agenda of LPRR as well as to improve resilience programming of the LPRR consortium members. 

The main audience of this evaluation is therefore humanitarian and development practitioners of Christian Aid, PACIDA and World Vision Kenya, the LPRR project and the individual consortium members. 

The key findings and recommendations will be later used, together with LPRR pilots from Pakistan, Myanmar and Honduras, to produce a collated learning paper on resilience in fragile settings.

The study will explore the following questions:
  1. To assess how much the Integrated Conflict Prevention and Resilience’ (ICPR) Methodology has contributed to behavioural change in the 5 target communities in Marsabit County (Indicator A)
  2. To what extent has the use of ICPR methodology enabled the targeted communities to understand and address the risk of conflict and natural hazards? (indicator B)
  3.  To what extent has the target communities understanding of the risks of conflict and natural hazards reduced their identified vulnerabilities and the potential escalation of violence? (indicator B and C)
Methodology:

In order to capture both the expected and unexpected changes of this resilience building process, both a survey and outcome harvesting (see Annex 1) will be used. The full methodology is as follows:
                                 
  • 1.      Desk review of project documents.
  • 2.      Conduct a Knowledge, Attitude and Practice (KAP) survey (same questionnaire and sample to the one conducted in 2016) in the 5 target villages (see Annex 4 for questionnaire). This has the scope to quantify the behavioural change in comparison to last year.
  • 3.      First round of individual interviews with village members. In each village, a sample will be selected with equal distribution between men and women, youth and elder. The interview will use the Outcome Harvesting questionnaire (in annex 1 the format):
a.       Who acted differently?
b.      What did they do that was different?
                                                              i.      What were the barriers that prevented them from acting differently?
c.       When did this happen?
d.      Where did this happen? (location)
e.       Why is this change significant?
f.       What contribution did LPRR make towards this changed behaviour/relationships?
                                                              i.      If none, what could the project have done differently?
  • 4.      Produce a summary report on the first round of individual interviews, identifying the five most mentioned changes reported by individuals.
  • 5.      Conduct Focus group discussions with each village development committee (men and women) in the target villages to validate or not and discuss the changes identified in point 4.
a.       Plotting exercise of the most mentioned changes identified by individuals during point 3 (see annex 2 for tool).
b.      Conduct steps a-f from point 3 with the group to identify any additional key outcomes. Plot these outcomes on the contribution/significance matrix.
c.       In case there is a difference from the KAP survey from the FGD findings, explore with the group the reasons behind such a difference.
  • 6.      Conduct interviews with CA, PACIDA, WVK, SW and other key project consortium members (the most active only) to capture their perspective on the project with focus on its outcomes and especially a reflection on the practical process of implementation (like the added value or not of the macro and local conflict analysis, PVCAs, etc).
  • 7.      Assess the project implementation within the framework of Value for Money (see annex 3).
  • 8.      Develop 2-3 case studies (individual stories representatives of the findings) to back up the study findings.
  • 9.      Analysis and collation of all the data collected into a final report.
Target areas:

Name of Village
Name of ward
Estimated population of selected village
Level of Hazard Risk
% of affected population
VDC
Sample individual interviews
PACIDA
Turbi
Turbi
3,000
High
+80%
1

Funan Qumbi
Uran
1,380
High
+80%
1

Forole
Maikona
2,100
High
+80%
1

Odda
Golbo
3200
High
+75%
2

Funanyatta
Golbo
1250
High
+75%
1

Iladhu
Golbo
550
High
+75%
1

Gimbe
Golbo
180
medium
+75%
0

Hadesa
Golbo
240
medium
+75%
1

Qalaliwe
Golbo
300
medium
+75%
1


Evaluation steering committee:

The consultant will report directly to Christian Aid. The evaluation committee will support and steer the consultant in the delivery of the evaluation. It is composed by:
  • Zablon Omungo Christian Aid - Kenya
  • Simone Di Vicenz Christian Aid - UK
  • Hezron Matsitsa World Vision Kenya
  • Sharon Kibor Christian Aid Kenya
  • Job Wafula- World Vision Kenya
Consultancy outputs:

The main outputs of the evaluation are:
  1. Final evaluation and summary report documents layout
  2. KAP survey of the 5 communities report (same methodology and structure of survey conducted in 2016- max 20 pages)
  3. Summary report of individual interviews (max 10 pages excluded annexes)
  4.  Final evaluation report inclusive of key findings and recommendations and executive summary (suggested between 20-30 pages excluded annexes)
  5. 2-3 case studies (individual stories representatives of the findings) to back up the study findings (3 pages each)
  6.  Presentation of findings to LPRR consortium members/DEPP projects (2 Hours)
All outputs must be in English.
 
Evaluation timeline:

The consultancy will run over a period of one month and one week from the signature of contract.

Description of the key stages of the evaluation process:

time
Milestone
Output
after one week of start of consultancy
Submission and agreement with steering committee of ‘Final evaluation report’ and ‘summary report’ layouts
Final evaluation and summary report documents layout

2 weeks after start of consultancy
KAP survey report submitted
KAP survey of the 5 communities report
after 2.5 weeks of start of consultancy
Draft summary report of individual interviews submitted

4 days
Review time for the steering committee of summary document

after 3 weeks from start of consultancy or one week after reception of feedback from steering committee
Final Summary report of individual interviews
Summary report of individual interviews
after 3.5 weeks from start of consultancy
Draft Final evaluation report submitted

0.5 week
Review time for the steering committee of summary document

4 weeks from start of consultancy
3-4 Case studies submitted
2-3 case studies
5 weeks from start of consultancy
Final evaluation report submitted
Final evaluation report inclusive of key findings and recommendations and executive summary
same week
Presentation of findings to LPRR consortium/DEPP
Presentation of findings to LPRR consortium members/DEPP projects

Consultant/s specifications:
  • Significant field experience in humanitarian or development programming (both would be a plus)
  • Excellent knowledge of written and spoken English
  • Fluency in Kiswahili would be an added advantage
  • Significant experience in designing and testing research methodologies
  • Knowledge of Outcome harvesting methodology
  • Good knowledge and practice of participatory research methodologies
  • Good communications skills
  • Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work to tight deadlines
  • Ability to write clear and useful reports
To apply:

Applications should be submitted on or before 4th December 2017, 5pm closing.

The applicants should include the following in the application and submit to: [email protected]

  1. Cover letter – brief explanation about the consultant with emphasis on previous experience in this kind of work
  2. A technical and financial proposal (The Technical Proposal should outline:  interpretation of the TOR, methodology to be applied, and a detailed implementation plan for the consultancy.
  3. A copy of a report for previous work conducted
  4. A tentative budget on fees with details on costing -: please include your logistics (accommodation, transport, meals, enumerators) budget
  5. Resume and relevant references

No comments:

Post Top Ad