Kenya: Final evaluation Consultant Child Protection

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Organization: Terre des hommes
Country: Kenya
Closing date: 05 May 2018


Country: Kenya

Location : Kenya, Dadaab refugee complex and Nairobi

Starting date: 14.05.2018

Duration of the field mission: 15 days

Time dedicated to the desk review and to the writing of the report: to be defined with the consultant

Under responsibility of: Marie Joron, Country Representative

HQ follow-up: Rolland Gueneau, Desk Manager and Marion Prats Estingoy, CPiE Expert

Funding Sources for the evaluation: BPRM


· In general

Tdh is the leading Swiss NGO focusing on child rights. It is active in more than 30 countries with development and emergency projects. Tdh focuses its action on the two following areas of intervention: health and protection of particularly vulnerable children. Modern management and communication tools ensure the quality of Tdh’s projects. The Foundation constantly aims to improve its services.

· Brief presentation of Tdh in Kenya

Tdh started operations in Kenya in September 2011, as part of the response to the Horn of Africa famine. Since 2012, Tdh has provided direct aid to refugees in Dadaab’s Kambioos (closed in March 2017) and Hagadera refugee camps, though psychosocial support, recreational activities, case management, community mobilization and awareness

In addition, Tdh implements Maternal and Child Health Nutrition and Child Protection projects in partnership with the government in Garissa district, and Child Protection projects in Nairobi’s Korogocho slum.

Tdh is currently the only Child Protection services provided in Hagadera camp, funded by BPRM and UNICEF (and UNHCR from 1st January 2018). Tdh works in coordination with Save the Children which is the Child Protection agency in the 3 other camps of Dagahaley, Ifo and Ifo 2 impending closure of Ifo 2 camp in 2018.

Tdh's national coordination office is located in Nairobi. Two field offices are located respectively in Dadaab (e.g Dadaab Main Office – DMO) and in Hagadera camp to ensure the implementation and the coordination of the activities. The Tdh office in Garissa will also support Dadaab field activities in terms of security management, liaison with the local authorities, administrative and logistics support.

Several underlying risk factors related to the Dadaab refugee camps create uncertainty. The Kenyan government (GoK) announced the closure of Dadaab camps in May 2016, suppressing the prima facie for Somali nationals, ending registration of refugees / asylum seekers. The GoK continues to put pressure on camp closure, and steps are already underway to close Ifo 2 camp (the smallest) by March 2018 (as announced by UNHCR during several inter-agency meetings / workshops). The plan is to close one camp at a time, consolidating the population after each closure. Other than Ifo 2, there is no clear timeline, stoking fears of eventual refoulment.

Continued instability in Somalia may bring additional New Arrivals and Returnees, which would also put pressure on resources, and limit the humanitarian community’s ability to effectively respond to current and emerging needs. The recent reduction of food rations by 30% stretches the already meagre resources in families, especially if they share with undocumented asylum-seekers. The uncertainty around camp closure and its implications, along with food reductions, create an environment of anxiety and tensions (more or less violent) between local host communities and humanitarian agencies (especially UNHCR). Indeed, the consolidation exercise with the plan to stretch the existing infrastructure, resources, and services have created tensions among the local host communities who see the camp as an economic development opportunity, especially in terms of job creation. Tensions are especially felt between local (Somali) and non-local (inpatriate staff). In order to decrease tension, UNHCR talks more and more about possible local socio-economic integration of the refugee, using the model of Kakuma / Kalobeyei approach and the next funding of the World Bank to GoK who will be channelled to the Counties administration.

The presence of undocumented asylum-seekers, including new arrivals and returnees (those who returned after repatriation) is a source of multiple protection concerns. The number of Undocumented residents is speculative; the official UNHCR figure is 5,300, while other estimates are two to three times higher. Since 2013, the GoK has prohibited the registration of New Arrivals, while Returnees are not issued refugee ID cards, rendering both populations without access to food rations, shelter, and other services requiring a card.


  • Title: Transferring enhanced child protective capacities to children and caregivers of Hagadera camp in preparation for eventual voluntary repatriation
  • Start: 23rd May 2017
  • Duration: 12 months
  • Total budget: 1,200,000 USD

· Donors : BPRM, UNICEF and UNHCR

· INGOs partners : Save the Children (SCI), International Rescue Committee (IRC), Danish Refugee Council (DRC)

· Local authorities: host communities leaders, refugee representatives, RAS (Refugee Affairs Secretary)

· Project beneficiaries : Hagadera camp population

  • General and specific objectives: The children of Hagadera camp are free from harm within the camp through enhanced participation and agency of children and caregivers.

Specific Objective 1: Protection Preparation for Return: To increase the child protective capacities of 30,000 parents/caregivers at section level in Hagadera camp in view of ongoing VolRep and intended camp closure, by May 2018.

Specific Objective 2: Response for Enhanced Resilience: To provide immediate and urgent comprehensive support to current and emerging child protection needs for 5,000 children in Hagadera camp through BIDs, referrals, counseling, case management, and structured recreation, by May 2018.

Specific Objective 3: Participation and Advocacy: To strengthen the engagement and participation of 20,000 children, with a focus on 8,920 adolescent boys and girls in Hagadera camp in their own protection through targeted trainings and community participation, by May 2018.

  • Target population of the project: 60,000 refugees as direct beneficiaries – 65,000 indirect beneficiaries

  • System of monitoring evaluation forecasted in the project documents: 8 weeks final evaluation (changed to be separated as mid-term and final evaluation), quarterly reports and monthly update of the internal monitoring tool (see annex 6).


To make an assessment, as systematic and objective as possible, of the above mentioned project, its design, implementation and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, developmental efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability. The evaluation should provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the decision-making process of Tdh.

Principles underpinning the approach to the evaluation are:

· Impartiality and independence of the evaluation process from the programming and implementation functions;

· Credibility of the evaluation, through use of appropriately skilled and independent expert and the transparency of the evaluation process, including wide dissemination of results;

· Usefulness of the evaluation findings and recommendations, through timely presentation of relevant, clear and concise information.


Result 1: The project activities are evaluated trough the following criteria relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact.

Result 2: Recommendations for improving each of the criteria are shared

Result 3: A suggested action plan corresponding to each recommendation is included in the evaluation report

The evaluation report should then provide conclusions and recommendations on the following questions:

· Effectiveness: To which degree did the activities meet the objectives and results set out in the project (as outlined in the logical framework)?

· Matching needs: Did the project/activities meet relevant needs of the beneficiaries?

· Relevance: Was the project designed in a way that is relevant to reach its goals?

· Alignement: to which extend the project is in line (and using) with international relevant standards (such as the CPMS)

· Efficiency: Was the project run in an efficient way?

· Sustainability: Are the results achieved so far sustainable?

· Internal coherence: Were the result indicators and their means of verification adequate? What possible adjustments would the consultant recommend?

· Gender mainstreaming: To which extent did the project succeed in including a gender perspective?

· Impact: Where there any unforeseen positive/negative effects of the activities?

· Which unmet needs did the evaluator identify that would be relevant for Tdh to look into in an eventual continuation of the project?

· Identify lessons learned and provide recommendations.


Overall evaluation approach and data collection methods proposed:

Preparation phase: Secondary data review, briefing with Tdh personnel at headquarter and at Nairobi, writing an inception report for evaluation stating the sources of information, tools for collection. The methodological proposition of evaluation must allow a mutual understanding between the Tdh teams and the consultant, regarding the objectives, scope, time and expected results of the evaluation.

Field phase (Dadaab and Hagadera camp): Meeting key stakeholders, especially local authorities, refugee representatives, beneficiaries and other relevant people (from IRC, SCI, DRC, UNHCR, RAS etc) using individual questionnaire and Focus Group Discussions (FGD).

Analysis and debriefing phase: The results and preliminary conclusions will be presented to the Tdh teams and partners (UNHCR, BPRM representatives for instance) at field level. A debriefing in the capital and headquarter will be organized (if necessary via Skype) to discuss the results and the recommendations.


All deliverables are to be submitted to Tdh Desk Manager and CP specialist at HQ and Tdh Country Representative in Kenya in English. Deliverables include:

· An inception report, to be submitted one week after the beginning of the evaluation, explaining the methodology, work programme and timetable for the evaluation.

· A final report to be submitted at the end of the evaluation with a maximum extension of 30 pages excluding annexes. The final evaluation report will be structured as follows:

Table of contents


Executive summary (2-3 pages)

· Overview of the project

· Evaluation objectives and intended users

· Methodology

· Most important findings and conclusions

· Main recommendations

I. Introduction (1-2 pages)

· Scope and purpose of the evaluation, intended users, team composition and structure of the report

· Evaluation questions and criteria

· Eventual changes to the initial request (objectives and questions)

II. Methodology (2 pages**)**

· Description of methods used and rationale

· Description of project ToC if any

· Limitations and constraints, potential bias and mitigations measures

· International standards used as reference for the evaluation

III. Context : Analysis of the context (1,2- 1 pages)

IV. Core sections of the report (10-15 pages) by evaluation criteria and questions. Presentation of the evidence gathered , triangulation and findings

V. conclusions (2-3 pages) final appreciation ( clear and defensible basis for value judgments. Provide insights pertinent to the intervention that has been evaluated and to the purpose of evaluation.

VI. Recommendations (2-3 pages) (clear, specific and relevant, implementable, linked with conclusions and reflect consultations with stakeholders, presented per priority level, with timeframe and suggestions of where responsibility for follow up should lie.


· ToR

· List of groups people interviewed (anonymized), sites visited

· List of documents consulted and secondary data used (please provide the sources through wetransfer or dropbox)

· Data collection instruments

· Evaluation matrix

· Power point presentation of the main findings and recommendations


3 weeks, from 7th to 27th May 2018


  • Minimum 5 years proven experience in relief/development project evaluation
  • Preferably he/she should have a broad working experience in refugee camp context, in Kenya and in Dadaab is a plus
  • Experience in collaborating with government officials, representatives of bilateral aid agencies, UN agencies, and other international institutions.
  • Fluent English and good writing skills (the report should be in English)

· Swahili and Somali an asset

· Previous experience working with a child protection organisation is compulsory, preferably with Tdh

He/she will conduct his or her duties in respect of the Charter of Terre des hommes and the Tdh Child Safeguarding Policy.

Tdh expects that its contractors’ professional conduct reflects proper behaviour in accordance with local culture and traditions. The incumbent assures the moral protection of the name of Tdh and defends in all circumstances the interests of the movement.

Tdh intervenes without any affiliation for politics, religion or financial profit. He/she will direct his or her activities and engagements without preoccupation of political, racial or religious affiliation.

How to apply:


Interested candidates should submit:

· A technical offer including:

An understanding of the issues at stake of the study and the Terms of Reference (ToR): development of problems and formulation of questions which the offer will aim to answer

Methodology and proposed tools

The timetable showing the details for the completion of each of the evaluation phases. The proposed schedule should include time for briefing and debriefing on the mission and as much as possible at Tdh headquarter.

· A financial offer including of a detailed budget in columns (fees, other costs)

· An up to date CV

· Technical sample of an evaluation report done by the candidate

· 3 references

Only complete applications will be considered.

The applicants must send off requested documents electronically to , clearly indicating on the subject line “**KEN application for** Final Evaluation BPRM your NAME

The deadline to apply is 30th April 2018


The consultant shall commit to respect Tdh’s Risk Management Policies including: Child Safeguarding Policy, Safety and Security Policy and Anti-Fraud/Corruption Policy, Whistle Blowing Policy. The consultant immediately agrees to respect all specific security instructions of Tdh and based on Tdh security analysis and knowledge of the zone and those involved there. The consultant shall commit to inform supervisors and to deal with any cases, allegations, or possibility of transgression, even potential, of the Tdh Risk Management Policies.

No data can be used by the consultant concerning this study without the written permission of Tdh for a duration of 5 years. The consultant acting as service provider will make sure to present himself as such for all discussions held within the framework of the consultancy.

· Working hours, holidays: from 8am to 5pm, 5 days a week with a break of 1 hour for lunch

· Conditions that may influence data collection: if any demonstration or security incident happened, evaluation might be impacted as the consultant won’t be able to access Hagadera camp

· Availability and provision of services (local translators): Tdh staff would support translation when needed (English/Swahili/Somali)

· Availability and provision of office space, cars, laptops, tape recorders, and procedures for arranging; meetings, requirements for debriefings: No computer or laptop provided to the evaluator, a desk will be available. Transport from Nairobi to Dadaab and in Hagadera camp will be managed by Tdh. Based on the evaluator preliminary note, Tdh team will propose a meeting schedule that might evolve regarding constraints and availability of the people to be met.

Did you find apk for android? You can find new Free Android Games and apps.