Type to search

International / Multinational

Fresh Vacancies at Save the Children Nigeria – Maiduguri, Borno

Share

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 position below:

Job Title: Endline Evaluation Consultant

Job Ref: 1900020J
Location: Maiduguri, Borno
Employee Status: Fixed Term

Purpose of the Endline Evaluation
This endline evaluation will be conducted in the implementation areas and communities of Jere, Magumeri, Mafa, Konduga and Kaga LGAs. This endline will be compared against the baseline results which focused on the knowledge attitude and practices (KAP) of communities 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;
  • Use collected data as benchmark for measuring project success or failure;
  • Compare the current status of the context with what was present prior to project implementation
  • Suggest priority areas for future programming

The endline study will include 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). 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.
  • 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 results of this will be compared against the baseline study to ascertain what has changed.
  • 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 hardward in the selected communities as well the general functioning-status of this hardward including walking from the water hardware to the nearest households.
  • Livelihood: To determine the average net come of the beneficiary who received IGAs in OFDA supported locations.
  • 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).

Evaluation criteria and key questions
Evaluation study will explore the following key areas and questions based on the most relevant of the OECD-DAC and CHS 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/outputs aligned with the needs of the affected community during the design phase of the project??
  • Were the interventions per sector planned and implemented in an integrated manner?
  • Was communication and coordination between sectors regarding implementation well aligned?
  • Are there overlaps of interventions in sectors (geographical or beneficiaries)? what is the outcomes of the integrated programming when compared to the non-integrated?
  • What is the impact of the integrated programming when compare to OFDA.

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? Did intervention accountable to affected population.
  • 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?
  • 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 (CPCs) in identifying and appropriately referring child protection cases? What barriers to their effectiveness have been addressed and which ones still exist?  Once referred did Save the Children adequately follow up to make sure child protection cases were appropriately addressed.
  • How effective were Child Friendly Spaces (CFS) in providing inclusive (age/ gender/disability), 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 on the following list of indicators:

  • % of respondents who know 3 of 5 critical times to wash hands
  • Percentage of girls and boys 0-<6 mo. who are exclusively breastfed
  • Percentage of children 6-<24 months of age who receive foods daily from 4 or more food groups (to achieve minimum dietary diversity)
  • 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 cash transfer and other FSL/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?
  • What was the level of adaptive programming that resulted from the accountability data?
  • How effective is the accountability mechanisms set in place during implementation? Was the project resolved identified or perceived issues, conflicts, or complaints in the community through the mechanisms?

Efficiency:

  • Were the project activities are cost-effective?

Impact:

  • What are the key short term and long term changes produced by 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 funding ceases?
  • What will be the structures at community level and health facility level to identify, screen and treat malnutrition once the project is over?
  • Which of the structures at the community level to identify protection issues are the most sustainable and why? Will the CPCs be continue their activities after the project?
  • Has there been an exit strategy that has been well implemented?

Lessons Learned:

  • What were the good practices and challenges in the project? How did it able to affect implementation and project delivery?
  • Were the recommendations from the baseline taken into consideration in the implementation on the project?

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 Kobo Toolbox 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 a endline evaluation, which will reviews of internal document such as project proposal documents, baseline report, progress reports and project data, including the MEAL plan and more. 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, which is aligned with SC’s Child Safeguarding Policy.
  • Focus group discussions, key informant interviews, and lessons learned and validation workshops are required.

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
  • With 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 Northeast 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 (Food Security & Livelihoods, Nutrition, Child Protection)
  • 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 requested)
  • Understanding of OFDA requirements as a humanitarian donor and specific requirements for this evaluation.
  • Ability to manage the available time and resources and work to tight deadlines

The primary point of contact within the Humanitarian response will be the MEAL Team. 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.

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.
  • 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).
  • Draft evaluation tools (interview guides) for the evaluation for approval by SCI. Draft and final evaluation reports.

 

The suggested evaluation report format is: (Please share the standards reporting template with consultant)

  • 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.)

PowerPoint Presentation of key evaluation findings. Should the evaluator conduct any presentations as part of the evaluation, he/she should submit electronic copies to SC before the end of the evaluation, preferably at the time of the presentation.

All documentation including raw data gathered during the evaluation should be handed to SCI before the evaluator/team’s work is certified complete.

Time-Frames 
Time frame for the activities will be:

  •  July 14 – August 15 2019

Timeframe and Activities:

  • The evaluation should be completed over a period of 30 working days from July 14, 2019

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.

Deadline: COB 5th July, 2019.

How to Apply
Interested and qualified candidates should submit the following documents below to “Awolusi, Oluwakayode” via Oluwakayode.Awolusi@savethechildren.org

Documents

  • Technical proposal describing how the requirements of the Terms of Reference will be met within the given timeframe (As a standard practice we encourage consultants to submit the Expression of interest according to the shared template).
  • Budget
  • CV(s) of lead evaluator/team (CVs are not very useful as each person have different information on their CV)
  • 1-2 samples of relevant work

Click here for more information

Note

  • All consultant is expected to submit the expression of interest by email.
  • Proposals will be evaluated according to the following criteria:
    • How well the requirements laid out in the ToR are met
    • Skills and experience of the evaluator/team
    • Cost effectiveness

Tags:

Leave 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!