Kenya: Terms of reference: final evaluation for promoting the role of youth in peaceful elections in Kenya project

Want create site? Find Free WordPress Themes and plugins.

Organization: Saferworld
Country: Kenya
Closing date: 27 Jul 2018

1. BACKGROUND TO PROJECT CONSORTIUM PARTNERS

Saferworld is an independent non-governmental organisation that works to prevent violent conflict and build safer lives. We work with civil societies, governments and international organisations to encourage and support effective policies and practices through advocacy, research and policy development, and through supporting the development of local capacities and structures. Saferworld has extensive experience of working on conflict and promoting peace building in the Horn of Africa and globally. Since 2003, it has been working to prevent violent conflict, enhance community security and governance in Kenya. Our thematic expertise includes conflict transformation and peace building, inclusive and effective justice and security provision and improved governance that addresses the drivers of conflict, including electoral management processes.

Life and Peace Institute (LPI), founded in 1985, is an international and ecumenical centre based in Uppsala, Sweden, that supports and promotes nonviolent approaches to peace building through a combination of research and action. LPI strives to strengthen local civil society organisations through capacity building and accompaniment of locally-led peace building processes. It brings a range of participatory approaches and methodologies that have been proven to be effective tools for creating space for dialogue and peace building action different LPI's areas of intervention. Through its Horn of Africa Regional Programme (HARP) based in Addis Ababa, LPI is also able to link the local peace building initiatives and structures with the policy debates taking place at regional level forums and has Memorandums of Understanding with the African Union (AU) and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD); adding value to the existing peace building landscape in the countries in which LPI works. LPI has carried out peace building work in Kenya since 1986 with a focus on regional issues, community engagement and research. LPI’s experience in Kenya builds on peace building engagement in both rural and urban parts of the country.

Handicap International is an independent and impartial aid organization working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. It works alongside people living with Disabilities (PLWD) and vulnerable populations, taking action and bearing witness in order to respond to their essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. Handicap International (HI) has been working in Kenya since 1992, focused on improving the living conditions of people living with disabilities and advance their rights with a special focus on refugee-related issues.

2. PROJECT SUMMARY

Based on their working experience in Kenya, Saferworld, Life & Peace Institute (LPI) and Handicap International (HI) came together to form a consortium and developed an 18 month project entitled Promoting the Role of Youth in Peaceful Elections in Kenya project. The overall aim of the project was to contribute to a peaceful, free and inclusive 2017 electoral process in Kenya with a leading role for youth. It has been funded by the United States – Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and implemented in Nairobi, Kisii and Homabay counties. The project had national level activities targeting students in universities who are usually susceptible to being negatively used by politicians, but who are also capable of being powerful agents for peace, and CSOs to strengthen both formal and informal peace coordination mechanisms at the national and local level before, during and after general elections of August 2017.

The project intended to achieve the following outcomes:

§ Key actors, across traditional social and political divides, recognise their role and others’ role in election violence, and help to prevent and reduce election violence in areas identified as hotspots.

§ Youth in the target counties are active participants in early warning and response structures, ensuring they react to youth-specific needs and concerns.

§ Youth in the target counties have a greater voice in advancing peaceful elections, and are proactively advocating to county-level political actors.

To achieve the above outcomes the project envisaged implementing the following activities; conflict, gender and disability-sensitive analysis; youth-led drama, theatre and sports for peace activities; youth-led inter-ethnic reconciliation dialogues; conflict sensitive journalism training and mentorship; inclusion of youth in formal early warning and response platforms; town hall meetings between youth and key political, governance and development stakeholders; inter-university student-led dialogues; and youth-driven advocacy initiatives among others. It is expected that by the time the evaluation takes place all the project activities will have been completed.

3. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

The consortium partners would like to engage an external evaluator on a short-term basis to conduct a comprehensive end-of-project evaluation. This will be done by assessing the extent to which the project outcomes have been achieved, the effectiveness of the project, its efficiency and relevance, its sustainability and contribution to wider efforts in supporting peaceful elections in Kenya.

4. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS

A set of evaluation questions have been formulated under each of the three project outcomes and additional two sections critical for assessment in this evaluation. The information generated from these questions will specifically show the extent to which each of the outcomes has been achieved. The evaluator will be free to adjust or add to these questions to ensure sufficient data is collected.

1. Key actors, across traditional social and political divides, recognize their and others’ role in election violence, and help to prevent and reduce election violence in areas identified as hotspots.

o Which actors including peace and security actors, media and People with Disability (PLWD) were engaged in the process of preventing violent conflict before, during and after general elections?

o What was their role individually and collectively in the response actions in preventing violent conflict?

o What was the consortium partners’ contribution in the efforts of influencing the target actors before, during and after general elections?

o What impact, if any, did the response actions generated and implemented by different actors have on the electoral environment at the national level and in the target counties?

o How were communities involved in preventing violent conflict in the target counties before, during and after general elections?

2. Youth in the target counties are active participants in early warning and response structures, ensuring they react to youth-specific needs and concerns.

o Which early warning and response structures at the county level were identified and involved in the project?

o Which youths (age, sex, PLWD and location) were engaged in early warning and response structures?

o How many youth leaders and groups were involved in preventing violent conflict before, during and after the general elections in the target counties?

o Which were the youth specific needs and concerns identified by youth’s groups and leaders over the project period?

o How did the early warning structure ensure the needs of youth in the target counties have been taken up and included in the actions?

3. Youth in the target counties have greater voice in advancing peaceful elections, and are proactively advocating to county-level political actors.

o In which ways did youths get organised to engage governance, political and other leaders in the target counties?

o Were those ways effective in ensuring the voices of youth have been taken into account in the action plans?

o What actions were taken by the political and governance leaders in responding to the youths’ needs in target counties?

The evaluator will also be expected to seek information on how the project was implemented, its operations and how the consortium partners ensured mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues as listed below:

1. Project management and operations

o Were the project activities under the three outcomes implemented as planned by Saferworld and consortium partners? What were deliverables/outputs?

o How effectively was the project managed and implemented by consortium partners, youth leaders and youth groups?

o How did the project adapt to the complex and volatile electoral context before, during and after general elections?

2. Cross-cutting issues

o What was the overall female youth and PLWD participation in the project?

o How effective was the youth engagement approach (which was central to this project) in preventing violent conflict in target counties?

o How effective was the coordination between various partners including CSOs, media, county and government institutions at national and county level?

o Were there unexpected changes (positive and negative) achieved by the project at the national, county and community level under the three outcomes?

o Which external factors facilitated or hindered the project implementation at the national level and in the target counties?

o What key aspects of the project can be replicated in others parts of the country to enhance prevention of electoral violent conflict in Kenya?

o What distinct components of the project can be sustained for further improvement of the electoral context at national, county and community level?

5. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluation covers the period between April 2017 to September 2018 during which all the project activities were to be implemented at national level and three target counties. The consultant will be expected to draw a feasible and representative samples from the following project participants for the purposes of answering the evaluation questions: youth leaders, youth groups, different ethnic groups in target counties, journalists from national and local media, members of peace and security structures, CSOs operating at national and county levels, university students among other targets, state and non-state actors reached during the implementation of this project. The evaluation will be conducted in nine sub counties in the three target counties namely Nairobi, Kisii and Homabay. The evaluator will also engage university students, civil society organisations and consortium partners based in Nairobi.

To generate sufficient data, the evaluator will be expected to undertake;

Desk review of the existing project documents including but not limited to project documentation, youth groups and leaders’ activities reports, monitoring data presented in activity data sheet and indicator performance tracking tables, harvested outcomes and change stories and quarterly progress reports. The evaluators will also be expected to review other literature relevant to the delivery of this project.

Conduct key informant interviews with the project team, consortium partners and other key stakeholders to review overall efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project. The evaluator will be expected to identify the key informants in advance in consultation with the evaluation team and contact persons in the three target counties. Where vulnerable members of the population are engaged in the data collection, the evaluator will seek for consent before their engagement.

Focus group discussions: Two focus groups discussions will be conducted with target beneficiaries in the three counties and another focus discussion will be conducted with university students from all the target universities. These FGDs will aim to gain knowledge and capture opinions and perspectives of the participants on key aspects of the project such as the relevance, impact, implementation arrangements and general satisfaction with the project benefits.

Outcome evaluation: In addition to the above data collection methods, the evaluator will be expected to employ appropriate outcome evaluation methods accounting for the difference the project has made among the target beneficiaries. Consortium partners have over the years perfected using outcome harvesting process as a monitoring, evaluation and learning tool. The evaluator is expected to consider using Outcome Harvesting as the first choice in this evaluation in addition to other result oriented evaluation methods which include and are not limited to most significant change methodology, success stories, human interest stories, and ripple effect mapping among other participatory evaluation approaches.

6. KEY EXPECTATIONS FOR EVALUATOR AND CONSORTIUM PARTNERS

The evaluator will be expected to:

  • Share inception report consisting sampling procedures, data collection methods and tools, consent letter especially where vulnerable members of the population will be interviewed and evaluation work plan
  • Participate in inception meeting with the evaluation team where a common understanding on how evaluation will be done will be agreed
  • Conduct data collection exercise professionally and ethically
  • Generate adequate data to answer all the evaluation questions.
  • Seek all necessary information, documents and support to ensure that the evaluation process is completed successfully.
  • Meet the project teams from Saferworld and consortium partners to validate the findings prior to drafting the evaluation report.
  • Produce an analytical draft evaluation report and share with Saferworld and consortium partners. The report should articulate key findings; lessons learnt/best practices and recommendations.
  • Submission of a comprehensive final evaluation report which should not exceed 25 pages, Times New Roman, Font 12.

Consortium partners will be expected to:

  • Provide existing literature on the organisation relevant to the evaluation
  • Ensure unlimited access to staff, beneficiaries and stakeholders
  • Facilitate transportation to the field
  • Provide accommodation and meals throughout the exercise
  • Facilitate translation if necessary
  • Ensure field travel security during the process
  • Organise and facilitate a validation workshop

7. MANAGEMENT AND TIMING

The evaluation of this project will be managed by the Saferworld Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Coordinator with support from the LPI – Monitoring and Evaluation manager, HI – project manager, Saferworld MEL Assistant. Saferworld Project Manager, Saferworld and LPI Project Officer. The Project Officer will liaise with the contact persons from youth leaders and groups in the target counties who will be in charge of identifying and mobilising respondents in the target counties. The members drawn from consortium partners form an evaluation team with Saferworld MEL coordinator as a convener.

The evaluation will take a total of 20 working days between 1st and 31st August 2018 with the final report expected by 31st August 2018. The evaluator is expected to develop a work plan with all evaluation activities within this evaluation period.

8. REQUIREMENTS

Saferworld and consortium partners are looking for an interested and experienced evaluator to conduct this end of term evaluation. Essentially the applicant(s) must have:

· Experience in conducting evaluations on prevention of violent conflict, peace building and security and/or youth-related programmes/projects;

· Knowledge of the national and target counties’ electoral and political context;

· Demonstrable practical experience in monitoring and evaluation approaches. Practical experience in outcome harvesting, most significant change and utilisation focused evaluation tools will be an added advantage;

· Practical knowledge of the OECD DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance and other USAID and state departments evaluations requirements; and

· Demonstrable skills in facilitating discussions with partners and communities.

How to apply:

To apply, please send your Expression of Interest (maximum 5 pages) detailing your understanding of the terms of reference, evaluation methodology proposed for the assignment and financial quotation. The application should be accompanied by CV, cover letter and samples of previous work relevant to the assignment. A soft copy of the application should be sent to recruitment@saferworld.org.uk. Your e-mail must have the subject heading indicating DRL Project Evaluation. Deadline for applications is 27th July 2018. Only selected evaluator(s) will be contacted about the outcome of their application.

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