In line with the five priorities of the UNDAF, developed after an extensive process of consultations with the Government and other stakeholders in the country, UNDP has identified three interrelated key areas to be addressed during the CPD period. They come under the umbrella of support for creating an enabling environment for achieving the MDGs as the country office continues to work in assisting the Government and people of Ethiopia to make progress in achieving their goals. A key cross-cutting driver will be capacity-building in all activities. The three areas are: reducing poverty and working towards achievement of the MDGs; deepening democratic governance; and addressing the HIV/AIDS epidemic. UNDP would work with regional structures to assist in regional planning, strengthen regional councils and support the development of woreda capacity to address development challenges at the local level. During the CPD period, UNDP would focus on (a) promoting multisectoral responses that mainstream HIV/AIDS in national and decentralized development plans and in all activities of government institutions, including sector programmes, budgets, poverty reduction strategies and implementation modalities; and (b) providing technical assistance to implement the national social mobilization strategy using community conversation as a tool. A key focus of that would be enabling communities to address stigma and change behaviour. Supporting the human rights of those living with HIV/AIDS will be a priority. The impact of HIV and AIDS on women are expected to be considered and addressed in all interventions. Following to the Country Programme Mid Term Evaluation (2009), UNDP Ethiopia programme went through a country programme re-profiling. The programme is currently framed around three strategic priorities: Enhanced economic growth and poverty reduction; Democratic governance and capacity development; and development of a Low-Carbon and Climate-Resilient economy (LCCR). The programme component of governance and capacity development would support improvements in leadership capacity, business processes and management systems in public institutions to enhance efficient management of public resources, development of responsive policies and improved delivery mechanisms to expand and enhance the quality of service provision for communities, with an emphasis on women, vulnerable groups and businesses. The principal focus of this approach will be on strengthening institutions in the Developing Regional States to lead participatory planning and implementation processes; generate and sustain revenue; and ensure equitable access to services. Before the re-profiling of UNDP programme, the outcome identified under the UNDP CPAP 2007-2011 component relative to Democratic governance and capacity development were the following: 1. A Decentralization of power significantly enhanced and the civil service reform implemented, resulting in more effective response to community driven needs and better and more equitable access to quality public services and utilities. 2. Plans to effectively mainstream HIV/AIDS into national development plans/programmes at federal and regional level with implementation modalities to create an enabling environment to protect the right of people living with HIV/AID, especially women. After the re-profiling the outcome statement became: By end 2011, Pro-poor development accelerated through enhancement of local capacity for service delivery. Outcome indicators covering the cycle - 2007-2011: - Increase in the number of woredas and kebeles that are developing and implementing development plans in a participatory manner
- Increase in the number of poor and vulnerable groups that are accessing enhanced quantity and quality of basic services
- Percentage increase of the economic growth of the involved Woredas/ Kebeles
- Enhanced tracking and reporting system of the MDGs
- Percentage increase in public, private and Civil society institutions that have workplace HIV/AIDS policies and strategies and have allocated budgets to activities that address HIV/AIDS
- Improvement in service delivery capacity of major public institutions in the developing regional states (both at the regional and local level)
National goal: Institutional frameworks and processes for democratic governance and human rights strengthened to ensure citizens’ empowerment and participation. UNDAF outcome By 2011, contribute to the achievement of Millennium Declaration principles through enhanced democratic empowerment and participation at the grassroots level through justice sector reform, civil service society capacity building and promotion of decentralization at all levels, including upholding of human rights principles, transparency and accountability. Purpose and Objective The Purpose of the outcome evaluation is to enhance development effectiveness, to assist decision making, to assist policy making, to re-direct future UNDP assistance. The overall objective of the outcome-level evaluation is to find out how UNDP has gone about supporting processes and building capacities and whether indeed these have, helped make a difference. In doing so, evaluation aims to identify which approaches have worked well and under what conditions and which have faced challenges and why, as well as lessons learned to improve future initiatives. This evaluation also serves the purpose of holding UNDP accountable for the resources invested in its work. The outcome evaluation will be undertaken to learn lessons and good practices so that this knowledge can contribute to the next Programme Cycle 2012-2015. To learn lessons for next CP formulation by identifying the status of outcome and factors affecting it, relevance of outcome/outputs, Strategic positioning of UNDP, Production of outputs, Partnership strategy, formulation and performance. Objectives of the Evaluation: - Assess progress towards the outcome
- Assess the factors affecting to the outcome
- Assess key UNDP contributions (outputs), including those produced through "soft" assistance, to outcomes
- Assess the partnership strategy
Evaluation Questions - Relevance: Is the outcome still relevant to UNDP’s mandate, to national priorities and to beneficiaries’ needs?
- Effectiveness: Is the outcome achieved or has progress been made towards it? Has UNDP made significant contributions in terms of strategic outputs? To what extent has UNDP outputs contributed to the achievement of the outcome?
- Efficiency: what is the extent of UNDP’s contribution to the outcome versus that of its partners?
- Degree of change: What were the positive or negative, intended or unintended, changes brought about by UNDP’s interventions?
- Sustainability: Will the positive change in the development situation endure/continue in future?
- Outcome Analysis - Are the stated outcomes, indicators and targets relevant for the context, needs and priorities of Ethiopia and those of UNDP? What is the current status and prospects for achieving the outcome with the indicated resources and within the time frame? Are the outcome indicators chosen relevant and sufficient to measure the outcome? What are the main factors (positive and negative) impacting the achievement of the outcome? How have other partners contributed to the achievement of the outcome and how instrumental has UNDP been in rallying this contribution?How has UNDP influenced policy, institutions, cultural factors and gender in addressing the outcome?
- Output Analysis: What are the key outputs that have been or that will be most likely be produced by UNDP contribution to the outcome? Can causality linkages (results chain) be demonstrated between production of outputs and achievement of the outcome? Are UNDP outputs relevant to the outcome? Are the indicators appropriate to link outputs to the outcome?
- Output-Outcome Link: Can UNDP outputs or other interventions be credibly linked to the achievement of the outcome? What are the key contributions that UNDP has made to the outcome Given current interventions and in partnerships with other, actors and stakeholders will UNDP be able to achieve the outcome within the set time frame and resources? In what way has UNDP been able to develop sustainable national capacity in this area? Has UNDP been able to respond to changing context and circumstances? What is the prospect for sustainability as a result of UNDP interventions related to the outcome?
- Resources, Partnerships and Management Analysis: Were partners, stakeholders and/or beneficiaries involved in the design of the intervention relating to this outcome? If yes what was the nature of their involvement? Are UNDP structures and working methods appropriate and supportive of the achievement of the outcome? Does the project and institutional arrangements foster sustainability of benefits beyond the current UNDP support?
Methodology: Overall guidance on outcome evaluations methodologies is provided in the UNDP Handbook on Monitoring and evaluation for Results and the UNDP Guidelines for Outcome Evaluations. Reference should be made to these documents when addressing issues of methodology. Based on these guiding documents, and in consultation with UNDP Ethiopia, the evaluators should develop a suitable methodology for this specific outcome evaluation. During the evaluation, the evaluators are expected to apply the following approaches for data collection and analysis: - Desk review of relevant documents (see attached list, documents and weblink)
- Discussions with UNDP Ethiopia senior management and programme staff.
- Interviews with partners, stakeholders, beneficiaries, and relevant programme staff
There is no official blueprint for how to conduct an outcome evaluation. Each must be tailored to the nature of the individual outcome under review as well as the realities of time and data limitations. Two main limitations related to the outcome evaluation have been identified and these are the following: - The outcome formulation has changed during the programme cycle 2077-2011
- Not all outcome indicators are in line to the outcome statement
Usually, an outcome evaluation begins with a review of change in the outcome itself, proceeds to an analysis of pertinent influencing factors, and then addresses the contribution of UNDP and its partners. It culminates in suggestions about how to improve the approach to results. More in details, the first step is for the evaluators to ascertain the status of the outcome. Evaluators should take the following steps: - Begin with the description of the intended outcome, the baseline for the outcome and the indicators and benchmarks used. Obtain information from the country office gathered through monitoring and reporting on the outcome. This will help inform evaluators of whether change has taken place or whether a deconstruction of the outcome statement has to be undertaken.
- Obtain contextual information beyond what UNDP has tracked. Before organizing an outcome evaluation, the country office will have undertaken preliminary data collection (contextual data as well as evaluations, monitoring reports, etc.) and, depending upon the country office, possibly started to analyze the data. An outcome evaluation is not only designed to tap UNDP-specific information about the outcome but also to derive contextual information from other sources that detail trends in policy formulation, changes in human development indices over time and other changes.
- Examine contextual information and baselines contained in project documents, the Country Programme Document (CPD) 2007-2011 and the Country Programme (for newer programmes), United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and other sources. These documents speak to the outcome itself, as opposed to what UNDP is doing about it, and how it was envisaged at certain points in time preceding UNDP’s interventions. The situation analysis section of both the Country Programme and the project document, for example, could each provide useful information and hyperlinks to other sources of information.
- Employ a means to validate information about the status of the outcome that is culled from contextual sources such as monitoring reports. To do this, evaluators may use interviews or questionnaires during the evaluation that seek key respondents’ perceptions on a number of issues, including their perception of whether an outcome has changed.
- Probe the pre-selected outcome indicators, go beyond these to explore other possible outcome indicators, and determine whether the indicators have actually been continuously tracked. The one or two indicators provided are unlikely to yield sufficiently relevant evidence of change in the outcome. In time, it is expected that the monitoring process will lead to modification in the outcome indicators themselves.
- Undertake a constructive critique of the outcome formulation itself (and the associated indicators). This is integral to the scope of outcome evaluation. Evaluators can and should make recommendations on how the outcome statement can be improved in terms of conceptual clarity, credibility of association with UNDP operations and prospects for gathering of evidence.
- This will follow with the activities, such as a series of meetings with the key actors in public, private at national, regional and local levels. In this regard, field visits will be conducted in order to undertake several interviews to focused groups and beneficiaries. Data and information to be collected should be evidence-based, as well as qualitative and quantitative in nature. Where there is required, evidence-based data need to be presented with digital pictures. As much as possible, the evaluation will follow a participatory approach.
The consultant will be provided with all the relevant documents for their review. Once the consultant join in his assignment, his tasks, in consultation with the Team Leader and M&E officer, will focus on: - Field visits and meeting with key stakeholders
- Data collection and analysis
- Development of a draft evaluation report; and (d) presentation of findings, recommendation and the way forwards.
|
| The consultant is expected to produce an Outcome Evaluation Report that highlights the findings, lessons learnt and recommendations. This report should follow the Outcome Evaluation Report Template and include all sections recommended therein (see attached template). The evaluators are also expected to produce an inception report before they commence on the bulk of the evaluation work. Once the draft evaluation report is developed by the consultant, it should be shared with all the key relevant stakeholders for their comments, views, suggestions and recommendations. Deliverables: - Inception report: (3 days after the commencement of the assignment): The consultant needs to submit the overall methodological framework which should define: eventually the deconstruction of the outcome statement/indicator and how such would be assessed/evaluated, Data collection tools and instruments, data source, sampling approach, type of data analysis, reference indicators and benchmarks (if relevant)
- First draft of the evaluation report: shared with M&E officer, Team Leader, stakeholders and comments incorporated where relevant.
-
Final Evaluation Report: High quality Evaluation Report with the implementable action plan /recommendations both in hard and softy copies. Moreover, disseminate findings among implementing partners. Dissemination kits (PowerPoint Presentation, reader-friendly summary version of report, etc
Time Frame: It is expected that the evaluation would be undertaken during 30 days, as per the following timeframe: | | Main Activity | Working Days Assigned | officers | transport | | 1 | Desk Review of the relevant documents | 4 (home-based) | | | | 2 | Travel | 1 | | | | 3 | Consultations with key stakeholders, including donors, at federal level | 02 | | | | Ministry of Federal Affairs (Ato Adgo) | ½ day | | Vehicle | | Ministry of Civil Service (Ato Adamu, State Minister) | ½ day | | Federal HIV/AIDS Prevention and Control (HAPCO) Conversation with relevant officers in UNDP | ½ day ½ day | | 4 | Field visits for data and information collection, through focused-group interviews as well as consultations and meetings with the stakeholders | 10 | | | | | Benishangu Gumuz Capacity Building Bureau | 5 days including travel | | Air (vehicle to be provided for travel within the region) | | | Benishangul Gumuz BoFED | | | Amhara HAPCO | 5 days including travel | | Air (vehicle to be provided for travel within the region) | | | Amhara Capacity Building Bureau | | 5 | Data analysis and compiling, and drafting the Evaluation Report, with recommendations and Action Plan | 5 | | | | 6 | Arrangement for a one-day Stakeholder meeting (PPP) | 1 | | | | 7 | Travel | 1 | | | | 8 | Finalization and submission of Evaluation Report | 06(home-based) | | | | | Total Days Required: | days 30 | | |
Team composition One national will be recruited as for this evaluation exercise. The national consultant will be recruited for 30 days. The consultant will report to the UNDP Team Leader/ M&E officer. This evaluation requires the support of senior professionals, these are: one national consultant, UNDP Team leader, UNDP M&E officer. The qualifications and experiences of the national consultant are, as follows: Administrative and Logistics support
- The consultant will be recruited under the UNDP terms and conditions, applicable to the short-term SSA contract holders, and undertake their assigned tasks and responsibilities under the direct supervision of the UNDP Team Leader, Governance Unit, and the M&E officer in collaboration with other UNDP Units, and other key stakeholders at federal, regional and local levels. During the evaluation period, the consultant will directly report to the UNDP Team Leader/ M&E officer.
- All the payments of the Consultant will be borne by the Programme. For the field trips and meetings, UNDP will provide logistic and administration support to the Consultant. In this regard, the Consultant is required to plan their trips in advance.
- Payments to Consultant: The national consultant shall receive their respective consultancy fees upon certification of the completed tasks satisfactorily, as per the following schedule:
| Installment of Payment/ Period | Tasks to be completed by Consultant | Payment to be made by UNDP | | 1st Installment: | Upon submission of the acceptable (1) draft Evaluation Report | 40 % of the total consultancy fees | | 2rd Installment: | Upon submission of the acceptable Final Evaluation Report | 60% of the total consultancy fees | |
| National Consultant: Education: - Master’s Degree in Democratic Governance areas (e.g. Human Rights, Political Science, Development Studies, International Relations, Law, Public Administration, or other related disciplines) , Sustainable Local Development, or development related fields, with the participation in several international training courses, relating to local or/ and economic development, or capacity development.
Experience: - Minimum 7 years of relevant experience in planning, implementation and management of the local development and/ or economic development programmes.
- Several years experience in assessment and evaluation of development strategies, programmes and projects at national and local levels.
- Experience in providing high quality technical and advisory support to the governments at federal and local levels in development policy, strategy and programme development
- Excellent analytical skills in reviewing and developing high standard evaluation reports
- Working experience or familiarity with the development efforts of the national and international development partners, especially UN agencies, NGOs and CSOS.
- Sound understanding of the national and international development policies, strategies and programmes, and their implementation issues and challenges, especially in development areas.
- Organizing and facilitating high level forums on local development.
- Understanding of the Ethiopia’s socio-economic and geo-political contexts.
- Published a number of research materials in well-known journals at national level.
- Full proficiency in using computer software, such as Microsoft offices and internet.
Language: - Proficiency in both spoken and written English and Amharic.
- Proficiency in other local languages will be an asset
|
No comments: