Re-advertisement - International Lead Consultant - Mid-Term of Judicial Strengthening Project - Dhaka

Evaluation objectives:

The main objective of this mid-term evaluation is to provide the project partners i.e. UNDP & Supreme Court with an independent review of the success in achieving desired outputs, lessons learned, findings and recommendations.
The evaluation results are envisaged:

To assess progress towards the outcome;To assess both negative and positive factors affecting the outcome;To assess key UNDP contributions (outputs made with UNDP’s direct contributions), including those produced through “soft” assistance, to outcomes;Assess the partnership strategy;To assess the relevance including the project’s theory of change, effectiveness, efficiency and likely impact of programme design and implementation in the context of Bangladesh’s Judiciary;To assess the stakeholders’ level of satisfaction with the programme’s results so far;To assess the sustainability of implemented activities;To draw lessons learned and make recommendations for adjustments in the remaining months of project implementation to comply with the requirement of the programme document/funding agreement and UNDP Evaluation Policies;To assess the emerging next programming phase in light of the MTE findings;To assess the programme’s alignment with and contribution to the UNDP’s country strategy and the reflection of MDG.

Scope of evaluation

Geographic scope:

At present, JUST project operates in the Supreme Court of Bangladesh and in 6 pilot district courts of Dhaka, Kishoregonj, Rangamati, Rangpur, Rajshahi and Comilla.

Target Group:

The ultimate beneficiaries of the project are the citizens of Bangladesh, in particular, court users and their families in pilot districts. The judiciary, as a recently strengthened pillar of the state is also the direct beneficiary of the project.

The scope of the evaluation will cover the success in:

Utilization of resources allocated in this project;Case management, establishing modern case management and court administration;Strengthening the technical capabilities/ capacities of judiciary;Appropriateness/ validation of reform initiatives;Addressing the barriers in current court system;Increasing disposal rate in pilot district courts;Impact and sustainability of activities and outputs.

Issues to be addressed by the evaluation

To achieve the above objectives the Mid-Term Evaluation is to address the following:

Relevance of outcome/output;Strategic positioning of UNDP;Partnership strategy and formulation;Production of outputs (possibly with partners);Possibly status of outcome and factors affecting it;Assessment of the project progress towards attaining its expected objectives and outcomes and recommend measures (if any);Investigation of the relevance of these objectives to the national development objectives and priorities, the UNDP/Supreme Court areas of interest and the demand of beneficiaries. Hence recommend means of incorporating those priorities;Reviewing the roles and responsibilities of key justice stakeholders and the level of coordination between themselves;Review of the project concept and design with respect to the clarity of the addressed problems by the project and suitability of the approaches adopted by the project to solve these problems;Assessment of the performance of the project in terms of timeliness, quality, quantity and cost effectiveness of the activities undertaken including project procurement: experts and equipment, training and workshop programs, etc.Review of the Result Framework matrix and the indicators to assess the periodic result based progress for the result and resource management of the project;Assess the prospects of the sustainability of the project outcomes and benefits and recommend prospective scope of work for further development endeavors;Identify and describe the main lessons learned from the project performance in terms of awareness raising, strengthening of technical and financial capacity, efforts to secure sustainability and approaches and methodologies used.

Lessons learned in the following areas should be highlighted:

Effectiveness of the training activities and its impact on the quality of individual performance. The sustainability of these training activities should take into consideration the role of the training institutes and its commitment to replicate the introduced training curriculum for the judges from subordinate judiciary;Appropriateness of the current inter-linkages between the major stakeholders and recommend measures for their improvement;The future of sustainability of different project achievements in relation to the roles and linkages among the stakeholders.

Methodology:

The evaluation will be based on the findings and factual statements identified from review of relevant documents including the project document, quarterly progress reports (QPRs), Annual Result Reports (ARR), in addition to the technical reports produced by the project and the different promotional materials. A list of the above reports will be shared with the consultants before the beginning of the mission. The mission will also undertake field visits and interview the stakeholders including the target beneficiaries, government officials. Participation of stakeholders in the evaluation should be maintained at all the times, reflecting opinions, expectations and vision about the contribution of the project towards the achievement of its objectives.

The consultant understands of the programme design and its emerging findings and recommendations will be drawn through a structured dialogue with the programme stakeholders and the service users in a series of interviews, focus group discussions and facilitated kick off and debriefing workshops.

More specifically, the methodology involves the following four steps:

Ascertaining the status of the outcome;Examining the factors affecting the outcome;Assessing the contribution of UNDP;Assessing partnerships for changing outcome;Apply the evaluation methodology in the field through a sequence set out in the fieldwork calendar.

The sequence of evaluation steps are as follows:

Desk Review/ Pre-mission briefing:

Review of background literature and project documentation lead by the Evaluation Team Leader in consultation with his/her team. It will involve necessary clarifications by UNDP and SC, JUST Project Personnel and other national and international staff, Assistant Country Director and senior management of justice institutions;This phase will culminate in the preparation of a brief Inception Report to be forwarded to JUST / UNDP for comments. The Inception report should incorporate the information from the desk review, present the reconstructed intervention logic, spell out the evaluation questions and a plan for how these will be tackled by the team including draft interview questions;This phase will help the team to prepare for the team hypothesis meeting that is held when the team assembles in Dhaka and for the Inception Workshop with stakeholders.

Mission in the Supreme Court:

Evaluation hypothesis meeting and preparation for fieldwork;Kick- Off meeting to share evaluation approach and questions and receive feedback;Briefing of the Evaluation consultants by UNDP, and project personnel;Initial consultation with the NPD, UNDP Country Director/Deputy Country Director (Programme) and government / other relevant national institutions;Inception workshop for key stakeholders set up to interact with the consultants;Interviews by the consultants with key stakeholders such as judges, lawyers and Bar Association members; initial consultations in Dhaka with UNDP JUST teams, High Court Judges, Lawyers, Bench Officers.

Field visits to the Pilot District Courts – (visits to intervention areas generally considered the minimum requirement):

Interviews with judges, lawyers, CMC members and court officials;Interviews/focus group discussions with key stakeholders;Interviews with knowledgeable informants;Focus Group Discussions with group representative of broad population and with a group representative of the very poor (representatives of women, youth, etc.);Collection and analysis of case disposal, pending case data in pilot district courts;Assessment of project schemes (Mediation, Case Management Committee etc.);Feedback meeting to present preliminary findings.

Debriefing:

Debrief UNDP, JUST, Supreme Court and Pilot District Judges;Debriefing workshop with key stakeholders to present and discuss findings & recommendations – this workshop will generally review which presents the key findings, recommendations (conveyed in power point) and collect feedback from stakeholders;Incorporate feedback as well as observations from stakeholders during the MTE.

Evaluation Products (Deliverables):

The final report should contain a matrix of recommendations to be used for the Management Response and action, and recommendations for the next phase of the programme. The team leader will also be requested to provide a 1000-word synopsis of the evaluation and key findings and recommendations.

The mission will be responsible for submitting the following deliverables:

Inception report of the MTE, which includes a finalized ToR including a comprehensive approach and methodology; review questions, the main elements of the evaluation and a detailed work plan; schedule of tasks and activities and deliverables for evaluation process. The inception report needs to reflect the evaluators understanding of the assignment;An executive summary and preliminary recommendations at a debriefing meeting with JUST/UNDP, Key stakeholders;Power point presentation for briefing and debriefings workshop;A draft MTE report with findings (highlighting achievements and challenges), project relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact of project activities, sustainability, lesson learned and recommendations.Recommendations on possible project document revisions;Brief synopsis of evaluation and key findings (1000 words for corporate communications use);A final MTE report with Executive Summary, Introduction, The Development Context, Findings and Conclusions (including reflection of 1. Status of the outcome, 2. Factors affecting the outcome, 3. UNDP contributions to the outcome through outputs, 4. UNDP partnership strategy), Recommendations, Lessons Learned, Annexes (TOR, Itinerary, List of people met, List of documents reviewed); incorporating earlier feedback.

Supervision and performance evaluation:

The MTE Team’s work progress will be monitored and coordinated by the Chief Technical Advisor and the overall supervision by the National Project Director of the JUST Project. The NPD and the ACD will be responsible for reviewing the performance of the consultant and approve their deliverables.

Reports:

The international consultant will report to the Chief Justice of Bangladesh and the Government of Bangladesh through ERD represented by the National Project Director, and UNDP, represented by the Assistant Country Director (Programme). The MTE Team leader will first present his/her results to the JUST Management Team. A presentation will also be delivered to the UNDP Management and RRMC. The Monitoring Officer, JUST will be the project focal point person and will coordinate activities under this contract.

Tentative payment schedule:

50% upon submission of draft report;50% upon submission of final report.

Evaluation team composition and required competencies:

The Mid-term Evaluation is an independent evaluation carried out by UNDP. The exercise will be conducted by a team of two. Evaluation team, led by an Evaluation Team Leader, with overall responsibility for providing guidance and leadership for conducting the assessment, and for preparing and revising draft and final reports. The Evaluation Team Leader will be an international professional with significant experience across a broad range of development issues. It is estimated that workload of the team leader would be 25 days. The Evaluation National Consultant (expert in judiciary) will support the Evaluation Team Leader and provide the expertise in specific subject areas of the evaluation, and may be responsible for drafting relevant parts of the report, one Evaluation National Consultant will be contracted to cover the following areas: local justice, and broadly human rights and governance, and cross-cutting issues. It is estimated that workload of the National Consultant would be approximately 30 days.

Implementation arrangements:

The consultant should work towards timely submission of the evaluation report and work closely with the national consultant contracted for this mid-term evaluation. The consultant will be contracted by UNDP Country Office in consultation with Supreme Court and JUST. The evaluation team will be working closely with JUST staff, Judges and lawyers of the Supreme Court and Pilot District Courts, UNDP Democratic Governance Cluster and Results and Resource Management Cluster (RRMC).The Project Management shall arrange for the consultant all necessary field visits and meetings in the project sites according to the ToR. The UNDP JUST will fix the date for all types of meeting and will set the meeting as per the schedule and will arrange the inception workshop, briefing and de-briefing.

Time frame for the evaluation process:

This contract is for a period of up to 25 days including the final report submission. The consultant will stay minimum 21 days in Bangladesh. The consultants should submit work plan of how the following activities will be implemented within two calendar months from the day of signing of the contract:

Briefing; meeting with UNDP/JUST and other staff, common approach and framework; tasks, work plan and initial desk review of key documentation. – Day 1;Review kick-off meeting with team to the JUST/UNDP/Supreme Court. – Day 2;Comprehensive desk review and consultation to gather and review the existing literature, rules of business, orders and laws as regards to courts procedure, tools, formats and plan and process mapping as done by the national consultants. – Day 3-5;Presentation by the Evaluation team to the JUST /UNDP/Supreme Court on the inception report. – Day 6;Interviews and consultation with relevant actors and stakeholders. Visit to different settings and field locations (district courts). – Day 7-13;Preparation for the draft report and recommendations by the Evaluation team. – Day 14-16;Briefing the draft MTE Report and preliminary presentation of the findings to the UNDP/JUST Management and Supreme Court. – Day 17;Review and upgrade the draft MTE Report to ensure accommodation of the findings made by the Supreme Court and UNDP and validate the information through cross verification, system scan and triangulation. – Day 18-19;Debriefing with key stakeholders (UNDP, JUST, Supreme Court and Pilot District Judges ) to present and discuss findings & recommendations – this workshop will generally review which presents the key findings, recommendations (conveyed in power point) and collect feedback from stakeholders. – Day 20; Ensure accommodation of the feedbacks from debriefing workshop and get the concerned sections endorsed by relevant stakeholders. – Day 21;Review and upgrade the final draft and submit to the Supreme Court and UNDP for final review. – Day 22-23;Ensure accommodation of the comments and make final review of the document. – Day 24;Final MTE Report with the approval of the Supreme Court and submit to UNDP. – Day 25.

Inputs:

UNDP will provide office space (no computer) and will also arrange various meetings, consultations, interviews and ensure access to key officials as mentioned in proposed methodologies. UNDP will bear the cost of such meetings.

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.

International Consultant - Team Leader for Mid-term Evaluation (CPD Outcome 2)

This vacancy is advertised by UNDP
Duty Station: Home-based with a travel to Dhaka, BANGLADESH
Level: International Consul Contract type: - (More info about Levels and Contracts)

Closing date: 1970-01-01

Do not contact the UN Job List with questions regarding specific vacancies. Thanks

Apply to this job on the UNDP site now!

The vacancy is online since: 2014-09-03
Days online: 13 Total views: 7

   

Graphs are experimental and only reflect UN Job List data, 'Views' reflect the number of views of the original vacancy viewed fromt the UN Job List (graph capped at 20 views per day). Interest is estimated based on UN Job List data from all UN Job List jobs.

Want even more jobs? Search the UN Job List!

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.

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.

Afghanistan: Consultant (Midterm Evaluation)

Background

1.1 Context

Strengthening key governance structures is a major issue to be addressed to ensure that the Government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRoA) will achieve the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), which provide the framework of the GIRoA’s Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS) as well as forming of the government’s National Priority Programmes (NPPs). Relatively the involvement and strengthening of Non-State Actors is equally important and will make a key contribution into development process in Afghanistan. At present while people in general and the poor in particular are passive recipients of development, they also lack true and substantive representation at all levels. Thus there is a great need for careful intervention with local authorities and non state actors in the Afghan context to ensure that the needs of those remaining on the sidelines of development are addressed and are brought on board this platform.

1.2 Organization

Afghanaid is an international NGO (www.afghanaid.org.uk), registered in the UK, specializing in Afghanistan since 1981. Afghanaid has been assisting and facilitating people-driven processes of emergency assistance, recovery and development to address rights, entitlements and fundamental needs of Afghans in some of the most remote areas of the country for nearly three decades. The Head Office is located in Kabul, Afghanistan. Afghanaid works in three provinces of Badakhshan in north-eastern region, Samangan in northern region and Ghor in western region. Afghanaid has 18 district offices and 3 provincial offices, which are well resourced with experienced and skilled Afghan women and men staff, with management support and technical guidance provided by a team of senior national and international specialists and managers based in Kabul and provinces. Afghanaid has over 400 staff members, 97% of them are Afghans. Afghanaid is mandated to facilitate and support Afghan women, men and children in their fight against poverty, inequality and vulnerability through a range of interventions, most supporting grass-roots and local level capacity development, facilitating local development processes, and institution building.

1.3 Project

The project titled “Non State Actors and Local Authorities in Development” is an EU funded project with a duration of 36 months and is implemented in partnership with local partner Integrity Watch Afghanistan (IWA) in Dawlatyar district of Ghor province and Aybak district of Samangan province. The project aims to promote and strengthen a broad-based and inclusive civil society in Afghanistan in order to enable communities to influence governance, policy formulation, strengthen civil society, and facilitate interaction between State and Non-State actors and empowering women.

The overall objective of the project is to contribute towards an inclusive and empowered Afghan Society through strengthening of non state actors and local authorities engaged in development.

More specifically this action is addressing all four specific objectives through:

a) Capacity building of civil society and local authorities in monitoring governance, development process, public goods, and making public institutions accountable.

b) Strengthen public institutions to promote inclusiveness, tolerance & peace

c) Capacity building & advocacy for women leadership

d) Facilitate and consolidation of NSA networks for coordinated efforts, and to present joint messages

Moreover, the project addresses underlining causes of multi facet poverty through the prism of governance, which is crucial to the overall framework for developmental interventions in Afghanistan and seeks the following three results:

Result 1: Enhanced institutional capacity of non-state actors (both existing and new actors) for the promotion of accountable, pro poor and transparent governance:

Result 2: Public forums and institutions bring inclusiveness, tolerance and peace in society:

Result 3: Increased capacity of NSAs and the advocacy undertaken will create an enabling environment for women to take a lead role in the local institutions and the political process

2.The Consultancy Assignment

2.1 Purpose and Scope of Mid -Term Review

Afghanaid intends to commission an individual consultant –specialized in governance and community development to conduct the midterm evaluation of its EU funded project Non State Actors and Local authorities in development.

As per agreement with European Commission and in line with Afghanaid’s own policy a mid-term external evaluation has been planned to review the project performance to improve the performance and quality of the project in the remaining period of project cycle as well as to inform future programming.

The assignment shall include:

Performance (quantitative and qualitative) against the project’s specific objectives and results approved in the project documents (primarily the proposal, LFA and work plan)Identification and analysis of what is working and what is not working and whyPropose recommendations for course correction measures. More specifically the mid- will assess/determine the following through measurable evidence (both qualitative and quantitative) and its analysis:

a. The relevance, appropriateness, and technical soundness of the project to Afghan context.

b. The efficiency and effectiveness of the relationship between project costs and results and attaining its stated objectives.

c. Progress made towards the achievement of results at the output, outcome and impact level.

d. The degree to which the programme has meaningfully targeted the non state and local authorities.

e. Respect for and adherence to the guidelines and regulations of EU

f. The performance in terms of the planned interventions and their outcomes

g. The fit with the Afghanaid’s Strategic Paper

h. A well thought out project sustainability and exit strategy is in place

2.2 Methodology

Among the guiding principles of this consultancy assignment will be inclusiveness, listening and respecting views and opinions of Community Development Councils (CDCs), CLDCs, District Development Assembly (DDA), stakeholders such as Directorate of women Affairs (DoWA) and Directorate of Rural Rehabilitation and development (DRRD), project staff and Implementing partner staff (IWA) on the project’s implementation and its outputs and outcomes.

The selected consultant will be required to develop detailed methodology including methods and checklists that will be used in this assignment.

The specific methods proposed to be used in this exercise include, but are not limited to:

Review of documents and reports (proposal, LFA, budget, interim narrative and financial reports, project partnership documents) and etc.Review of other published and un-published literature.Discussions with relevant TA and other EU representativesField visits and meetings with staff and relevant stakeholdersFocus group discussion and interview with key informants.Debriefing meetings and give presentation at district level, provincial level and head quarter level with project and management staffs.The scope of assignment must also cover any additional conditions described in the grant application as well as addendums and subsequent correspondence with Afghanaid donor i.e. European Union.

2.3 Deliverables

The consultant will deliver a report on midterm evaluation of Non state actors and Local Authorities in development covering the scope and the specific objectives of this study described above.

2.4 Evaluation Timeframe and Duration

The consultant will be required to complete the work over a proposed period of 15 days as outline in the below table. The resource person will include following specific activities in the assignment and will indicate in their proposal number of days they propose for each activity to be discussed and agreed with Afghanaid. The consultancy expected to start in May, 2014.

ActivityNumber of DaysReview of documents (literature and project related documents) ; development and agreement with Afghanaid on methodology, detailed planning e.g. survey, formats, meetings 2 Field visits (visiting project sites, meet with CDC, CLDC, DDA, DoWA, DRRD and other stakeholders; Meetings/ debriefings with the project teams in provincial and district offices 5 Briefing meetings in Kabul with Afghanaid, IWA and EU in Kabul 1 Draft report 2 Final report 1 Travel time (actual) – international and local 4Total 15

3.Commissioning Manager / Reporting Line

The consultants will report directly to “Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Manager”.

4.Consultants Expertise and Skills

Essential:

· Designing and conducting similar assignment.

· Understanding of and experience using qualitative and quantitative technical and social research methodologies

· Excellent analysis and writing skills.

· Experience of producing academic and broader communications products

· Excellent English language

· Planning and good time management

· Able to work independently with minimal supervision

Desirable:

· Previous work experience in Afghanistan, or other conflict affected countries - particularly in remote areas, living and working in a very basic environment

1.Submission of Expression of Interest (EoI)

Please send:

a) A covering letter explicitly referring to previous similar experiences, preferably in Afghanistan

b) CV

c) Detailed methodology

d) Work plan indicating dates and number of days for each task

e) Professional fee (in USD – either lump sum or daily rate)

f) Availability (date)

Your EoI must reach by COB on 7th Jun 2014, clearly marked NSA projects midterm evaluation, Samangan and Ghor, Afghanistan; mailed at:jobs@afghanaid.org.uk

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.

National Consultant to Conduct a Mid-term Evaluation of the Project Strengthening Capacity for Aid Effectiveness in Bangladesh

Purpose of the Evaluation:

The main purpose of the evaluation is to assess the outputs and results achieved by the AE project and explore future scope an opportunity for further action.

Specific Objectives:
The specific objectives of this Mid-Term Evaluation are to assess, and make recommendations with regard to, the following:

1. Continued project relevance, i. e. , are the project outcomes consistent with the national priorities; have the requirements of aid effectiveness support changed since the start of the project, in particular considering the conceptual evolution from ‘aid effectiveness’ to ‘development effectiveness’; does the project still offer the right scope of support.

2. Efficiency and cost effectiveness: the extent to which best value-for-money has been obtained (results delivered vs resources expended), which risks do the investments face;

This includes,

* Assess programme’s financial management and procurement procedures including analysis of (i) budget spend vs planned, (ii) how value for money is achieved through effective procurement and contracting (iii) whether the project is on track against financial forecasts
* Assess the relevance of various project activities and its bearing on the project’s objectives
* Review the importance and appropriateness of procurement and its use in achieving the project’s objectives
* Assess the alignment of programme budget with the budget breakdown as agreed in the project document
* Assess time scale of the project and impact of the delay in project start up
* Assess how unfunded portion of the budget and any withdrawal of fund from co-funders affects the target of achievement of the project.
* Provide a clear plan for use of existing finances until the end of the programme.
* Review the reporting and M&E system of the project and provide suggestion how to make it simple, effective and standardized and possibly review it in view of the evolving project needs. Asses availability of evidence for project results
* Assessing the role of project partners 3. Project ownership at the national and local levels and stakeholder participation.

4. Results: Assess the performance of the project against its results and resources framework, log-frame. Assess the positive and negative, foreseen and unforeseen changes and effects driven by project-supported interventions. Results include direct project outputs, short-to-medium term outcomes and longer-term impact including national benefits, replication effects and other, local effects.

This includes,

* Check if the programme is on track to achieve outcomes, and determine if any adjustments need to be made
* during the remainder of the programme;
* Assess progress according to the annual work plans, risks and value for money.
* Make recommendations where appropriate to improve project performance;
* Assess progress against recommendations from previous reviews
* Assess and make any recommended changes for strengthened Results and Resource Framework and DFID
* logframe;
* Record programme innovation and lessons learnt 5. Project effectiveness: progress achieved to date against planned outputs and likelihood of achieving planned objectives. The extent to which the project has been carried out in line with the planned objectives and outcomes;

6. Sustainability: the likely ability of project-supported interventions to continue to deliver benefits for an extended period of time after completion. Assess project’s role in influencing wider policy at the national and international level.

Scope of work:

The national consultant will work with an international consultant. The consultants are expected to provide an independent evaluation of the performance of the Aid Effectiveness Project. The scope of the evaluation will include the period Sept 2011 to April 2014. The international consultant will be the team leader.

The output will be an evaluation report (no more than 25 pages) which outlines findings and recommendations with regard to the 7 evaluation objectives listed under “specific objectives’ above.

Methodology:

* Document review: Read key background documentation on Aid Effectiveness project. These documents include, inter alia: project document, agreement with co-funders, Revised TPP, Annual work plan and budgets, periodic reports, Annual Reports, Expenditure reports, minutes of LCG meetings, Minutes of Steering committee meetings.
* Consultation: Meet key stakeholders-including representatives from ERD and GoB; AE project management team, UNDP management; co-funders, other development partners, key CSO representatives.
* Guidelines: The IC will use UNDP guidelines for evaluations
* Present ‘Draft Report’ to AE project management, UNDP and co-funders for comments
* Integration of comments and submission of final report to ERD and UNDP Expected deliverables / outputs:

* Action plan/Work plan (day 3);
* Draft Evaluation Report (end week 2)
* Final Evaluation report (end of contract) The report should be logically structured, contain evidence-based findings, conclusions, lessons and recommendations, and should be free of information that is not relevant to the overall analysis.

The report will address the questions of the DFID annual review template where possible.

It should include a set of specific recommendations formulated for the project, and identify the necessary actions required to be undertaken, who should undertake those and possible time-lines (if any).

For this contract payments will be made as follows:

* 50% upon submission of draft report;
* 50% upon submission of final report, Evaluation Team Composition:

The consultants will report to the Government of Bangladesh, represented by the National Project Director, and UNDP, represented by the Assistant Country Director for Policy Support and Communication. The national project manager will function as a coordinator for this mid term evaluation. The NPD and the ACD will be responsible for reviewing the performance of the consultant and approve their deliverables.

A national consultant will work with an international consultant. The international consultant will be the team leader. The team leader will have overall responsibility for the delivery and quality of the evaluation products.

Time frame and deadlines:

The evaluation will take 20 working days, broken down as follows:

* Submission of detailed action plan (2 days)
* Desk Review/Documents Review (3 days)
* Meeting, consultation, interview with stakeholders (8 days)
* Preparation of draft report (4 days)
* Debriefing on draft report and finalization of evaluation report (3 days) Inputs:

UNDP will provide office space (no computer) and will also arrange various meetings, consultations, interviews and ensure access to key officials as mentioned in proposed methodologies. UNDP will bear the cost of such meetings.

Competencies

* Technical understanding of changing scenario of global aid architecture and development effectiveness agenda;
* Technical understanding of project management, life cycle of project and use of objectively verifiable indicators;
* Excellent communication, facilitation and analytical skills;
* Strong interpersonal skills;

How to apply: read the vacancy details shown aboveif you feel that this vacancy is suitable for you read the full details by clicking "View Full Details" buttonfollow the instructions shown in that new pagePlease note that each vacancy has its own eligibility requirements and method to apply.

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.