National Consultant ? Evaluation Expert for Mid-term Evaluation (CPD Outcome 1) - Dhaka

Objectives: 

Purpose: The purpose of this mid-term outcome evaluation is to take stock of achievements to date, document lessons learned and propose ways to correct the course of intervention for the next two years of the country programme cycle.

Timing: The mid-term evaluation is conducted in the second half of 2014 because it is the penultimate year to the MDG deadline, and the midway point of the 2012–2016 CPD/UNDAF. The timing is in line with the CPD/UNDAF Evaluation Plan 2012-2016, which foresees that UNDP Bangladesh undertakes a mid-term outcome evaluation on the CPD Outcome 1.1 and 1.2 in 2014. The timing of the evaluation also ensures that evaluation results will be key input into the UNDAF mid-term review scheduled for early 2015.

Utilization: The evaluation results are to be utilized by not only UNDP Bangladesh but also by the government partners as well as other key development partners/donors. They will also become critical inputs to the UNDAF mid-term review scheduled in early 2015, where UNDP acts as lead agency in four UNDAF pillars and these outcomes contribute directly to UNDAF Pillar 1.  The mid-term outcome evaluation also aims to identify which UNDP approaches have worked well and which have faced challenges, use lessons learned to improve future initiatives and generate knowledge for wider use at all levels (corporate, regional and country) and serve as a means of quality assurance and hold UNDP accountable for the resources invested in its work as well as for its national partners and stakeholders. Notably, the evaluation will become critical inputs for the alignment of UNDP’s new Strategic Plan (SP) 2014-2017. Following the evaluation conclusions and recommendations pertinent to UNDP, UNDP Bangladesh will prepare a management response and implement follow-up actions through the UNDP Evaluation Resource Centre (ERC).

Scope of work:

Evaluation Objectives and Scope

Objectives: The mid-term outcome evaluation will primarily assist UNDP Bangladesh in assessing its effectiveness in progressing towards the outcomes – the causal linkage if and/or by which outputs contribute to the achievement of the outcomes and the extent to which the planned outcomes have been achieved and likely to be achieved by the end of 2016. It will assess both negative and positive factors that facilitate and/or hinder the progress in achieving the outcomes including the external environment, weaknesses in design, management and resources. In addition, the evaluation will assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and potential sustainability of its interventions.

Scope: The mid-term outcome evaluation covers a time span from January 2012 - the beginning of the CPD cycle - up to the outset of the evaluation. It will focus on the geographic area covered by the projects in the outcome areas. While there have been 20 programmes/projects implemented under the outcome 1.1 and 1.2 during the CPD cycle, this evaluation focuses on key programmes and projects which contributed directly to achieving the outcomes. This includes projects and programmes that started prior to 2012 but continued into 2012 and beyond. The primary stakeholders for both outcomes include government institutes directly involved with project implementation: Supreme Court of Bangladesh, Bangladesh Police, Bangladesh Election Commission, Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs and Ministry of Local Government, Rural Development & Cooperatives, Ministry of Chittagong Hill Tracts Affairs. Other constituencies include the National Human Rights Commission, civil society organizations, academia and direct beneficiaries such as ethnic minorities.

Evaluation Questions

The following evaluation questions help define the information that the evaluation will generate. The evaluation questions are formulated and clustered to address the primary evaluation criteria and the effectiveness criteria will be weighted most from other criteria in this evaluation to demonstrate how UNDP initiatives have or have not contributed to the achievement of the outcome. The evaluation questions may be adjusted upon consultations and discussions with the programme during the inception phase.

Outcome 1.1.: Government institutions at the national and subnational levels are able to more effectively carry out their mandates, including delivery of public services, in a more accountable, transparent, and inclusive manner

Relevance of UNDP's involvement and approach:

To what extent are UNDP's key governance programmes and projects relevant to make government institutions more accountable, transparent, and inclusive?

Effectiveness in contributing to the achievement of the outcome):

To what extent are targeted government institutions in Bangladesh more effective in carrying out their mandate compared to before 2012?To what extent are targeted government institutions in Bangladesh more accountable, transparent, and inclusive compared to before 2012?To what extent are these changes due to UNDP's interventions?

Efficiency in delivering outputs:

To what extent were outputs of UNDP’s key governance programme or project delivered in time and in good quality?To what extent did UNDP ensure value for money?Has there been any duplication of efforts among UNDP’s own interventions and interventions delivered by other organizations or entities in contributing to the outcome?

Sustainability of the outcome:

What indications are there that the outcome will be sustained?

Outcome 1.2.: Justice and human rights institutions are strengthened to better serve and protect the rights of all citizens, including women and vulnerable groups (Outcome 1.2.)

Relevance of UNDP's involvement and approach:

To what extent are UNDP's key justice and human rights programmes and projects relevant to better serve and protect the rights of all citizens in Bangladesh?

Effectiveness in contributing to the achievement of the outcome):

Compared to 2011, do justice and human rights institutions now better serve and protect the rights of all citizens?To what extent are these changes due to UNDP's interventions?

Efficiency in delivering outputs:

To what extent were programme or project outputs delivered in time and in good quality?To what extent did UNDP ensure value for money?Has there been any duplication of efforts among UNDP’s own interventions and interventions delivered by other organizations or entities in contributing to the outcome?

Sustainability of the outcome:

What indications are there that the outcome will be sustained after external funding ends?

In addition, the evaluation should also consider if and how UNDP promoted gender equality, human rights and human development in the delivery of outputs.

Methodology

The suggested approach and method for conducting this evaluation is to use a multi-level, mixed-method approach. This includes collecting both quantitative and qualitative data sets on multiple levels that will need to be validated and triangulated. The overall guidance on evaluation methodologies is found in the UNDP Handbook on Planning, Monitoring and Evaluating for Development Results. It is for the evaluation team to examine and determine the specific design and methods for this mid-term outcome evaluation during the initial inception period in close consultation with the programme Cluster. During the inception phase, the evaluation team will elaborate a detailed methodology how to answer each evaluation question.

The following data collection methods and analysis should be applied, but not limited to:

Desk reviews of relevant documents (CPD, UNDAF, relevant project documents, reports of relevant flagship projects, project surveys, studies relating to the country context and situation, evaluation reports, etc.);Key informant interviews and/or focus group discussions with beneficiaries or representatives of beneficiaries, government partners both at the central and local levels; development partners/donors including bilateral and multilateral partners; other UN agencies, NGOs, and CSOs working to contribute to the same outcome; UNDP Country Office’s senior management, programme, and project staff, etc. The selection of interview partners should follow a deliberate purposive sampling strategy;Direct observations during visits to national implementingpartners and field visits;Gap analysis and review of national statistics as well as administrative and survey data collected by the programmes/projects and other stakeholders, including the CPD outcome indicators and the new corporate Strategic Plan[1] (SP) 2014-2017 indicators; data and information from the 4W Database, the DMIC Portal, Cyclone shelter DB, Union Fact sheets, Inundation Maps, CDMP Risk Management Information; review of the Profitability & Replication Study on HHK Demo Plants, UNDP 2013. The evaluation team is expected to review existing data sets from programmes/projects and the national statistics relevant to this outcome evaluation, and identify what/where the gaps exist for the CO in aggregating the data and monitoring the CPD and Strategic Plan indicators for the rest of the monitoring cycles (till 2016 for the CPD and 2017 for the Strategic Plan);Quantitative analysis of budgets and expenditure reports in ATLAS and project reports;Administration of surveys or questionnaires, as applicable.

The data collection methods should be participatory and inclusive of disadvantaged and marginalized populations. Major methodological limitations or limitations based on data collections should be noted in the final evaluation report.

Evaluation Team Composition and Required Competencies

The evaluation team will comprise 4 members: one team leader, two evaluation experts and one data analyst. The presence of an international consultant is deemed desirable given the complexity and sensitivity of some of the issues concerned, and therefore to safeguard independence and impartiality of the evaluation.

Expected outputs/deliverables:

The consultant, working closely with other evaluation team members, is responsible for submitting the following deliverables to UNDP Bangladesh at the agreed work plan:

Inception Report: An inception report should be prepared by the evaluators before going into the full-fledged data collection exercise. It should detail the evaluators’ understanding of what is being evaluated and why, showing how each evaluation question will be answered by way of: proposed methods, proposed sources of data and data collection procedures. The inception report should elaborate and finalize the two evaluation matrices and a proposed schedule of tasks, activities and deliverables, designating a team member with the lead responsibility for each task or product. The inception report provides the programme Cluster and the evaluators with an opportunity to verify that they share the same understanding about the evaluation and clarify any misunderstanding at the outset. The inception report should follow the structure proposed in the UNDP Outcome-Level Evaluation: A Companion Guide, Annex 1, p.31;Draft Evaluation Report: The evaluation report should follow the structure outlined in the UNDP Outcome-Level Evaluation: A Companion Guide, p. 29-30. The programme Cluster and key stakeholders in the evaluation should review the draft evaluation report to ensure that the evaluation answers in depth all evaluation questions and backs up the arguments with credible and sufficient quantitative and qualitative evidence. The draft evaluation report should not exceed 40 pages without annexes;Presentation: Debriefing with stakeholders to present key findings and recommendations and collect feedbacks; Final Evaluation Report: The final report will reflect the comments and feedback from stakeholders, including feedback provided during the presentation;Evaluation Brief: A concise summary of the evaluation findings in plain language that can be widely circulated. This can be in a form of a PowerPoint presentation or a two-page briefing document;Data Review Report:  The report is a supplementary document to the final evaluation report describing, but not limited to, 1) an analysis and findings on data gaps and availability of independently verifiable sources in monitoring the CPD and Strategic Plan indicators among existing national statistics, administrative and project data sets relevant to this CPD outcome  evaluation and 2) recommendations on how to maximize the use of existing project data and how to fill in the gaps of information between now and 2016/2017 (the CPD and the Strategic Plan respectively). The report should not exceed 10 pages without annexes.

Supervision and performance evaluation:

Implementation Arrangement 

This evaluation is commissioned by UNDP Bangladesh. The Democratic Governance Cluster and the Local Governance Cluster in the Country Office will be responsible for coordinating and managing the evaluation throughout the entire process and provide the evaluation team any logistics and administrative support as needed. The Results and Resource Management Cluster (RRMC) will serve as quality assurance to provide overall technical guidance and ensure the corporate compliance of outcome evaluations. The consultant will be under direct supervision of the head of the Governance Cluster in close consultation with the RRMC. In order to guide the evaluation process and assure quality, an evaluation reference group is planned to be formed from approximately five members from the Cluster, the Country Office, key stakeholders, the Regional Bureau for Asia and the Pacific or the Independent Evaluation Office, where the members are asked to provide inputs on the ToR, selection of consultants, inception report, draft report and the final report.

Evaluation Ethics 

Evaluations in UNDP will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation’. Evaluators should ensure to be in compliance with evaluation ethics and procedures to safeguard the rights and confidentiality of information providers during the designing, implementing and managing evaluation activities.

Period of the Assignment / Service:

This evaluation assignment is contracted for a total period of 30 days and should be completed by December 7, 2014. The following activities should commence within four weeks of signing the contract:

Comprehensive literature review and analysis of background data including project documents, project/Country Office/UNDAF progress reports, annual reviews, evaluation reports and other key documents (Home based -02 days);Briefing and kick-off meeting with UNDP staff from respective Cluster(s) and RRMC (Dhaka-01 day);Prepare and submit the inception report including the adjusted work plan, an evaluation matrix and other items as in the Companion Guide(Dhaka -02 days);Conduct data collection and analysis, interviews, site visits, stakeholder meetings, workshops, etc. in the country (Dhaka and outside of Dhaka -15 days);Prepare and submit the draft evaluation report to UNDP (Dhaka-05 Days);Debrief with key stakeholders and present key findings and recommendations; collect feedback from the debriefing workshop (Dhaka-01 Day);Incorporate comments from key stakeholders, respective Cluster(s) and the government partners (Dhaka -03 Days);Finalize and submit the final evaluation report and evaluation brief to UNDP (Dhaka-01 Days).

Inputs:

UNDP Bangladesh will provide office space and transport to field sites and will also arrange meetings and consultations to ensure access to key stakeholders. The Democratic Governance Cluster will provide key documents and data relevant to the evaluation. No laptop will be provided.

Tentative Payment Schedule:

50% upon submission of the draft evaluation report;50% upon submission of the final evaluation report;

View the original article here

This post was made using the Auto Blogging Software from WebMagnates.org This line will not appear when posts are made after activating the software to full version.