Latest Consultant Job at Save the Children

Save the Children is the world’s leading independent organisation for children. We work in 120 countries. We save children’s lives; we fight for their rights; we help them fulfill their potential. We work together, with our partners, to inspire breakthroughs in the way the world treats children and to achieve immediate and lasting change in their lives.
We are recruiting to fill the vacant position below:
Job Title: Consultant – Endline Survey Assessment For the Emergency Nutrition, WASH, and Protection Response for Conflict – Affected Populations in North East Nigeria (OFDA)
Location:
 Borno
Background
  • Save the Children (SC) has been working in Nigeria since 2001. The early focus was on getting children actively involved in shaping the decisions that affect their lives.  Today, SC is working in 20 states focusing on child survival, education and protecting children in both development and humanitarian contexts.
  • The conflict in Northeast Nigeria has left 8.5 million in need of humanitarian assistance (HRP 2017), in particular the more than 1.8 million IDPs.
  • Over half of the displaced are children (55%), half of whom are under five years old. Borno state has been the most affected and is host to nearly 1.4 M IDPs (IOM).
  • The conflict has resulted in alarming rates of malnutrition with high global acute malnutrition (GAM) and Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) rates, many of which exceed WHO emergency threshold levels of 15% and 2% respectively. Of the 398,188 children suffering from SAM, less than one third (only 114,097 children) have received treatment.
  • A lack of adequate water and sanitation infrastructure along with poor Infant & Young Child Feeding (IYCF) and hygiene practices are increasing Global Acute malnutrition and stunting
Project Summary
  • Through OFDA funding, SC strived to meet the emergency nutrition and Water, Sanitation & Hygiene (WASH) needs of 70,526 conflict-affected Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) and host community members in four local government authorities (LGAs) in Borno State.
  • The primary audiences for the project included children under five suffering from SAM, caregivers of children under two, health care and community outreach workers, IDP and host community households benefiting from WASH and Protection activities. While the Secondary audience are patients at health facilities who benefitted from hygiene promotion activities at health facilities.
  • The project was implemented in Jere, Magumeri, Mafa, Konduga, and Kaga Local government areas of Borno state, to Meet Emergency Nutrition, WASH, and Protection Response for Conflict-affected Populations in Northeast Nigeria.
  • OFDA project provided life-saving treatment for 1,826 children with SAM through four Out-patient Therapeutic feeding Program (OTP) sites within existing health facilities, as well as through five mobile outreach units which enable health workers to deliver treatment in communities, ensuring that children who live farther from a health facility are also reached. Children with complicated cases of SAM which require in-patient care weretreated at a Save the Children-run stabilization center in Molai General Hospital in Jere. In order to prevent further malnutrition or relapse, Save the Children  worked with Health Workers and a cadre of Community Nutrition Mobilizers (CNMs) to counsel 3,450 Pregnant and Lactating Women (PLW) and caregivers of malnourished children on IYCF in emergencies and hygiene.
  • In order to enable conflict-affected families and children to meet their needs for WASH and to prevent further malnutrition, SC has constructed 6 boreholes which currently serve 11,400 people as well as install/rehabilitate sanitation infrastructure in the support health facilities. SC’s approach to emergency response programming ensured that Nutrition and WASH interventions are integrated, and that linkages are created when possible to other available services (i.e. food assistance and child protection). Counselling for PLW and caregivers of young children not only promotes IYCF-E but also focuses on key hygiene messages. Similarly, community members identified to take part in Water User Committees to promote hygiene were trained in screening children for malnutrition and referral pathways.
Key results of the project includes:
  • Increased access to life-saving treatment services for children under 5 with SAM, while promoting appropriate IYCF-E practices that optimize nutrition and health survival outcomes
  • Children and families affected by conflict have improved access to safe, adequate and quality water, sanitation services and improve hygiene practices towards reducing sicknesses and ensuring better health
  • Safe spaces for children to develop and express themselves and to build capacity of key humanitarian workers and community members on psychosocial support.
Assignment Purpose
The purpose of this assessment is to conduct an Endline study in the implementation communities of Jere, Magumeri, Mafa, Konduga and Kaga LGAs. This endline will be compared against the benchmark of the baseline which basically focused on KAP (knowledge attitude and practice) of community across the 3 sectors that the OFDA project targeted. The specific objectives of the study are to:
  • Generate data for a set of indicators outlined in project M&E plan;
  • Suggest other priority areas for future supports/recommendations
  • Use collected data as benchmark for measuring project success or failure;
  • Compare current status of situation with what was present prior to project implementation
The endline study would essentially inquire the following criteria:
  • Nutrition: What are the current nutrition outcomes in each of the proposed communities compared to a year ago when the project started? How knowledgeable are the community members on nutrition outcomes (EBF, complementary feeding etc). Additionally, the study will ascertain the state of the health facility listed for OTP. Specifically, the facilities will be assessed for space (waiting area), toilet facilities, availability of staff and general organization.
  • WASH: To what extent are the community members aware of the key practice and knowledge of WASH? The WASH component will also involve observation walks by enumerators. Observation walks will be conducted around WASH hard-wares in the selected communities as well the general functioning-status of these hard-wares including walking minutes from the water hardware to the nearest households.
  • Challenges: Based on the evidence from the study, what are the challenges recorded during project implementation and how can this be remedied against possible future projects.
  • Recommendation: Actionable recommendation based on the evidence and data collected during fieldwork to inform implementation strategies across the sectors (Wash, Nutrition and Child Protection).
  • Child Protection: This will be limited to assessing knowledge/practice of child protection among adults. Specifically, this section will focus on knowledge on child discipline and awareness of protection concerns in the communities. The result of this will be compared against the baseline study to ascertain what has changed
Table 1: Location of Study:
  • LGAWard CommunityWash Nutrition Child Protection
  • JereDusman Dusman2 WP
  • Lawanti Gwozari
  • Madinatu2 WP
  • Bale
  • Galtimari Molai 2 WP +
  • 1 LatrineSCPSS/CM/CFS
  • KhaddamariZabarmari 2 WP
  • GaltimariPolo Gwozari OTP/IYCF
  • Magumeri  Magumeri  Magumeri Town 1 WP + 2 Latines PSS/CM/CFS
  • Gajigana Gajigana OTP/IYCF
  • Fuwuri OTP/IYCF
  • MalumkereliOTP/IYCF
  • Huyo Chingowa OTP/IYCF
  • Goniawanari OTP/IYCF
  • Mafa Tumsu
  • NgamduMalakyareri 5 WP + 1 LatrineOTP PSS/CM/CFS
  • Kaga Ngamdu Ngamdu  OTP/IYCF
  • Jetete OTP/IYCF
  • Konduga AunoAtomriOTP/IYCF
Evaluation criteria and key questions:
  • Evaluation study will explore the following key areas and questions based on the most relevant of the OECD-DAC criteria for evaluating humanitarian action and some additional areas which SCI would like to explore in depth:
Relevance/Appropriateness:
  • To what extent the interventions address the needs of beneficiaries?
  • Were the activities/output consistent with the needs of the affected community as agreed at baseline study?
  • Were the interventions per sectoral planned and implemented in an integrated manner?
  • Were communication and coordination between sectors regarding implementation secured?
  • Are there overlaps of interventions in sectors (geographical or beneficiaries)? What was its impact?
Coverage, and non-discrimination:
  • Did the project reach to the most vulnerable children affected by the crisis? Did the project reach out to children at risk of exclusion from service provision as identified in the baseline study? If so, how?
  • How sensitive was the programme interventions to address the inequalities due to gender, race and age?
Effectiveness:
  • Were the activities implemented as planned, achieving intended outcomes and objectives within the planned budget and timeline? Did the intervention meet international quality standards (Sphere, including Child Protection Minimum Standards (CPMS), HAP, as appropriate, Core Humanitarian Standards)?
  • What were the key underlying factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of specific objective and overall goal of the project?
  • How effective were the project intervention to address key bottlenecks to ensure access to interventions to treat SAM cases.
  • Document effective approaches which influenced community behavior to improve malnutrition status of children.
  • How effective were the interventions to address the inequality in SAM treatment on the basis of gender, income and social status.
  • How effective were Child Protection Committees (CPC) in identifying and appropriately referring child protection cases? What barriers to their effectiveness have been addressed and which ones still exist?
  • How effective were Child Friendly Spaces (CFS) in providing age/ gender sensitive and culturally appropriate activities as well as psychosocial support and referral services?
  • Did the intervention cause a change in the lives of the affected population vis-à-vis the project objectives
More specifically, the endline will provide analyses for the following list of indicators:
  • % of respondents who know at least 3 of 5 critical times to wash hands
  • % of respondents who practice at least 3 of 5 critical times to wash hands
  • Percentage of girls and boys 0-<6 breastfed="" exclusively="" li="" mo.="" were="" who="">
  • Percentage of boys and girls who initiated breastfeeding within 30 minutes after delivery
  • Percentage of boys and girls 6-<12 12-="" 18-24="" are="" breastfed="" li="" months="" nbsp="" who="">
  • Percentage of children 6-<24 4="" achieve="" age="" consume="" dietary="" diversity="" food="" groups="" li="" minimum="" months="" more="" of="" or="" to="" who="">
  • Percentage of boys and girls >6months who had timely initiation of complementary feeding
  • Initial number of functional water points  in the communities (prior to project implementation)
  • % of parents/caregivers who use physical punishment as a means of discipline
  • % of caregivers who state they would report a suspected case of child abuse
  • Key protection concerns in the communities
Child outcomes:
  • Was there a sufficient child-focus in the project design and implementation?
  • Were the intended outcomes of this project specifically for children met?
  • Were any unintended child outcomes observed from NFI/shelter activities under this project (e.g increase in school attendance; preventing children from being placed in institutions; reduction of the stress caregivers feel in meeting survival needs; reduction of the physical and verbal punishment of children; decreasing stress in children; improvements in children’s wellbeing).
Accountability:
  • How were the communities engaged in the whole project cycle? Did the project encourage the genuine and active participation of children and communities?
  • How accountable has the implementation been in terms of addressing the needs of children and their families?
  • How effective is the accountability mechanisms set in place during implementation? Was the project able to resolve identified or perceived issues, conflicts, or complaints in the community through the mechanisms?
Efficiency and Effectiveness:
  • Assess the activities are cost-efficient within the programmes supported by project?
Impact:
  • What are the key short term and long term changes produced by the project, positive or negative and what are the key factors behind these changes?
  • What are the key intermediate and lasting changes lead by the project interventions?
  • Were there any unintended results of the intervention and how did it affect the outcomes?
Sustainability:
  • To what extent will the benefits of the projects continue after the fund support is ceased?
  • What will be the structures at community level and health facility level to identify, screen and treat malnutrition
  • What will be the structures at community level to identify protection issues? Will the CPCs be continuing their activities?
  • Has there been an exit strategy implemented
Lessons Learned:
  • What were the good practices and challenges in the project? How was  it able to affect implementation and project delivery?
  • Were the recommendations from the baseline taken into consideration in the implementation on the project?
Accountability:
  • To what extent did the project benefit from the existing SCI accountability system
  • How many complaints were received and resolved during the project implementation
Evaluation Design and Methodology
  • The evaluation team will be responsible for developing an evaluation strategy and methodology that includes a mix of qualitative and quantitative data collection.
  • The quantitative data will be collected using questionnaires as deployed through KoboToolBox while health facility assessment data will be collected using the dedicated OTP/SC facility assessment tool.
  • The methodology will be presented as part of the draft work plan as outlined in the deliverables below and included in the final report.
  • As this study is an endline, the evaluation will include reviews of internal document such as project proposal, baseline report, progress report and project data including the MEAL plan.
The following guidance should be taken into account:
  • There should be meaningful and safe participation of children and young people, ensuring ethical standards for research with children are followed, including informed consent and assent, ensuring the best interest of the child, confidentiality and avoiding harm.
  • Focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and lessons learned and validation workshops are encouraged.
  • In terms of analysis the evaluation should include; identification   of   strengths   as   well   as   weaknesses   of   the  implementation of the project, the results chain of the programme and the underpinning theory of Change.
The following data analysis is expected for the consultant to deliver:
  • Baseline vs. Endline
  • Evaluation Results vis-à-vis the ToR questions
  • Evaluation Results vis-à-vis the logframe
  • Gender and locale disaggregation
Profile and Responsibilities of Evaluator
The external evaluator/team must have experience and significant knowledge of humanitarian response mechanisms, specifically regarding the North East humanitarian response, and have previous experience in conducting external evaluations for conflict responses. The evaluation team must be external to all stakeholders of the project. In addition, the following characteristics are highly desirable:
  • Significant experience (5-8 years) in coordination, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of emergency response programmes AND expertise in at least 1 relevant sector (WASH, Nutrition, Child Protection)
  • The primary point of contact within the Humanitarian response will be the MEAL Adviser. Though the evaluator/team will be operating independently, field movements will always be in coordination with SCI Borno’s safety and security team for access to implementation areas in scheduling of KII and FGDs with the community. SCI will make additional staff available to support the evaluation where required, for example for community entry support.
  • Demonstrated experience of evaluating humanitarian response projects is essential (experience of evaluating OFDA-funded projects is desirable)
  • Knowledge and experience in child participatory approaches and child safeguarding
  • Fluency in English and ability to write clear and concise reports (examples of previous work will be required)
  • Understanding of OFDA requirements as a humanitarian donors and specific requirements for this evaluation.
  • Ability to manage the available time and resources and work to tight deadlines.
Deliverables
The evaluator/team is expected to provide a number of deliverables. These deliverables are to be submitted to SCI in both electronic and hard copy, as described below:
  • Inception report according to the standard template, including detailed work plan (Please see the template proposed in the tools). Also, once TAs will review and sign off the inception report then consultant will start the data collection.
  • Draft evaluation tools (interview guides) for the evaluation for approval by SCI.Draft and final evaluation reports.
  • The final report, which should not exceed 25 pages excluding annexes, should be written in English and will be shared with OFDA as well as other stakeholders.
  • Complete Logframe with the actual achievements disaggregated (by gender and location).
The suggested evaluation report format is:
  • Cover Page
  • Table of Contents
  • List of Acronyms
  • Executive Summary: must be a standalone summary, describing the Project, main findings of the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 3 pages in length.
  • Main Body: The main body of the report shall elaborate the points listed in the Executive Summary. It will include the following sub-sections:
Background Information:
  • Methodology
  • Evaluation Challenges and Limitations
  • Main Findings & Analysis of Project Results
  • Identified Good Practices and Lessons Learned
  • Conclusions and Recommendations
  • Annexes (including list of stakeholders consulted for the evaluation, research tools, etc.)
  • All documentation including raw data gathered during the evaluation would be handed to SCI before the evaluator/team’s work is certified complete.
Time-Frames
Time frame for the activities will be:
  • June 1 – July 30, 2018.
Timeframe and activities:
  • The evaluation should be completed over a period of 33 working days from June 1, 2018.
Budget:
  • Consultant should be able to take into account on their budget all human resources costs and transportation. Interested applicants must bid competitively for the works and include a detailed budget of all costs associated with the deliverable. Note that all laptops, software, and communications equipment should be provided by the evaluator/team.
  • SCI will provide logistical arrangement during field visits. All other costs associated with the consultancy must be included in the bid.
Consultant’s fee and proposed mode of payment:
Consultant’s fees shall be paid as per the contract. The break-down of payment shall be based thus:
  • 30% upon signature of contract and submission of inception report
  • 40% upon submission of draft report
  • 30 % upon submission of final evaluation report.
SCI reserves the right to withhold payment if deliverables do not meet the requirements outlined in this Terms of Reference. In addition to the consultancy fees, the followings are possible re-imbursable costs:
  • Transportation Cost: Flight cost shall be paid based on submission of flight ticket/receipts. Transportation to and from airport shall be paid based on submission of invoice. Other than flight, inter-state travel to Maiduguri shall be based on SCI milage.
  • Per Diem: This shall be provided as per SCI rate for the number of days the consultant spends in the field
  • Car Hire: This shall be provided only for the number of days of field work
  • Enumerator Fee: The fee for the enumerator shall be paid based on the number of days they are engaged- 8,000 per day to survey supervisor and 6,000 per day to enumerator. A transportation allowance and refreshment shall be provided to the enumerators only for the day(s) of training. The enumerator shall be paid directly into the enumerators’ bank account (or as specified by the SCI Finance team).
  • Accommodation: This shall be provided to the Lead Consultant and co-consultant – should there be any co-consultant (subject to availability of space in the guest house) or re-imbursement will be made to the consultant for accommodation (subject to submission of hotel receipt/invoice). The reimbursement for accommodation shall be in line with SCI rate.
How to Apply
Interested and qualified candidates should:
Click here to apply
Application Deadline 18th May, 2018.

Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe to FREE Job Alert

Click verification link sent to your inbox to complete subscription!