Handicap International ,Multicountry final evaluation

I.
Foreword

These ToR specify
the details for the final technical evaluation of the project mentioned above
implemented by the organization Handicap International (HI) in 5 countries (DR
Congo, Burundi, Rwan
da, Laos and Vietnam) and funded by the Belgian development
Cooperation (DGD).

The evaluation will
focus on the Maternal, Newborn and Child Health (MNCH) activities implemented
(according to the agreement between HI and DGD) and whether the activities lead
to the achievement of expected results and project objectives. Following this
evaluation, the recommendations of the evaluator(s) are expected to improve the
quality of possible future projects. These recommendations should carry useful
and credible information and lessons learned in the field of MNCH to both HI and
DGD.

The whole evaluation
process should take place between the 10th of October and the 20th
of December.

II.
Evaluation Context

HI has developed
MNCH and Reproductive Health (RH) projects since 2004, beginning in Mali and
Nicaragua. The reason is that many types of impairments can be prevented in the
periods of perinatal and early childhood.

HI’s MNCH projects
try to establish a ‘continuum of care’ for families, where diverse medical,
surgical, rehabilitation and related health departments are brought into closer
working contact for the benefit of the impaired family members. Whenever
feasible, HI also endeavors to realize this continuum over the life cycle,
facilitating access to services providing psychosocial support, inclusive
education, employment or income generation, and encouraging joining Disabled
Persons’ Organizations in order to influence official policy.

This vision is
defined in the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Impairments, promoting
both the individual autonomy and social participation of every person living
with impairment.

III.
List of projects for evaluation

DR CONGO : Support for improving the
supply of preventive care, detection, medical care and rehabilitation of disability
in pregnant women and children between 0 and 5 years in primary health care in
Kinshasa

BURUNDI : Improve the early detection,
referral and accompanying congenital or acquired deficiencies of children
through health services and the voluntary sector

RWANDA : Promoting access to care
and community integration of people with epilepsy through a global and
innovative action in the Western Province of Rwanda

LAO PDR : Impairment Inclusion
within Maternal and Child Health in Lao PDR: Pilot of Hospital-based Services
for Screening and Treatment of Children with Impairments, Inclusion of
Impairment in NGO/OI partners’ Community-based MCH projects

VIETNAM : Supporting the development
of a model on the prevention and care of birth defects in Quang Tri Province,
Vietnam

The five projects
aim to improve the quality of life of the population by reducing the number of
preventable impairments and minimizing their impact for pregnant women and
children.

The five projects
have adopted the same specific objective but have adapted the logical framework
including expected results and indicators to reflect every country’s social,
economic, political and cultural realities.

Specific objective
is to reduce the number of MNCH related impairments, and minimize their impact on
pregnant women and/or children through the development of a reproducible model
for the early detection, referral, and management of childhood and maternal
impairment.

IV.
Objectives of the Evaluation

The purpose of this
final five country evaluation is to clarify and to justify the HI support
provided on behalf of DGD, and to draw lessons and make recommendations
regarding the setup of similar interventions in future MNCH projects.

The period under
consideration for this evaluation covers January 2014 to December 2016.

The projects must be
studied considering the four aspects characterizing the quality of projects
including: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and the sustainability of the
actions. A cross-cutting approach will, beyond the comparative study of the
four above-mentioned aspects, study the aspects of impact, coverage, coherence
and gender.

V.
Issues to be studied

A- Relevance

· In which aspects
did the project actually answer a verified need?

· To what extent
were the originally defined objectives of the project realistic? Were they
appropriate for the project partner’s capacities?

· To what extent do
the project goals and intervention targets correspond to the basic principles
of HI’s mandate? To what extent does the intervention align with the policies
of the partner government?

· How was the
logical framework designed? How SMART were the indicators?

B-
Efficiency

· To what extent
are/will the objectives of the intervention achieved? So far, what are the
positive and negative, intended and unintended effects of the project?

· Which factors
helped achieve the objectives?

· To what extent
were local capacities developed or strengthened?

· In awareness
raising campaigns, what activities and approaches were best perceived by direct
beneficiaries? Volunteers? Staff members?

· How did the
projects change knowledge and practices of targeted beneficiaries?

C-
Effectiveness

· How far were
deadlines respected?

· Describe
communication channels within the team, with the partners, outside the project.

· Were the partners
satisfied with HI support?

· What were the
staff and volunteer turnover rates? Was there an impact on the projects and how
was it?

· How appropriate
was the reporting system? Did it provide sufficient feedback to a good
management?

· To what extent was
the budget respected?

D-
Sustainability

· To what extent did
the project strengthen local ownership and leadership? What project results and
activities seem to have a significant chance of continuing? Is there any
intention to re-use the training modules?

· To what extent are
project partners capable and prepared to maintain the good intervention effects
after HI support stops?

E-
Cross-cutting aspects:

· On which aspects
is it possible to compare the different projects?

· How far were the
contrasting needs of men, women, boys and girls identified in the needs
analysis? Did women and men make an equal contribution to the design of the
project? Were data analyzed and interpreted in a gender-, age- and
impairment-disaggregated manner?

Country-Specific
Queries

DR CONGO

1. How was the partnership
efficient?

2. To what extent was the
beneficiaries’ database used properly and found useful by the project’s
different parties?

BURUNDI

1. Based on which elements can
we perceive the satisfaction of the partners with the support provided by HI?

2. Are the families of
beneficiaries involved in the implementation of the project’s activities?

RWANDA

1. Did different community
members have equal access to services through the project?

2. How far the project has
managed to fit into the local environment of interventions for epilepsy? What
was the level of collaboration with international actors including FRACARITA in
terms of the management of epilepsy?

LAOS

1. Did the project benefit from
the previous experience? How was the implementation based on previous gains
from the last project?

2. Did the project succeed
making referral system and procedures clear and systematized?

VIETNAM

1. What are providers’ experiences
integrating preconception care messages into existing MNCH programs? How to
systematize preconception care at grassroots level?

2. Is the project ready for
handover to local stakeholders in the province of Quang Tri?

VI.
Methodology

It is for the consultant
to propose the methodology for this transversal evaluation.

· The consultant
will receive all project documents necessary to prepare the upcoming agendas.

To the possible
extent, the following categories of persons are to be included in the evaluation
for each country:

Field level:

– Pregnant women and women of childbearing age

– Families of children living with impairments

– Other families in the same communities, by age
or gender where useful

– Village health volunteers, traditional birth
attendants

Provider
level:

– Health center staff

– Maternity staff

– Pediatrics staff

– Rehabilitation staff

– Specialized impairment related services

– Health Promotion specialists

– Social/Community leaders

Decider
level:

– Diverse national health system partners

– Various international and local NGO
representatives

VII.
Consultancy profile

Lead
Consultant profile:

REQUISITE

– international development related university
studies

– at least 5y experience working in development

– experience working in Sub-Saharan Africa and in
SE Asia

– solid evaluation experience

– strong analytical, presentation and writing
skills

– fluent English and French, spoken and written

USEFUL

– previous multi-country evaluation experience

– familiarity with MNCH programs

– experience working in the field of disabilities

– experience with project management

VIII.
Reports and debriefing

Prior to the first
country evaluation, the Lead Consultant should visit the Brussels HI
Headquarters for briefing and negotiation on the overall and country specific
evaluation approaches.

Prior to departure
from each country, the Evaluation Team is expected to hold a debriefing
presentation on preliminary findings and first conclusions with recommendations
to those who were actively involved in the evaluation. This will also specify
the key points to be included in the evaluation report.

The full evaluation
report will consist of 5 separate sub reports, one for each country plus one
comparative report plus one cross-cutting report discussing issues of impact,
coverage, coherence and gender.

Each sub report will
be written in the country’s working language, while transversal reports are
produced both in English and in French. The Evaluation Team will ensure each HI
Programme Director receives 2 (two) paper copies of their country evaluation
report in addition to a digital version on USB.

The 5 missions will
be conducted from the 10th
of October 2016. The missions will be planned taking into
account the specificities of each country context, in agreement with the
project teams and suiting their activities planned for the proposed timeframe.
The final report is expected to be submitted to HI by the 20th of
December 2016.

Each mission will
last for about 15 days for which follows a proposed agenda:

DAY 1 : Review of documents
submitted Revision of action plan and timetable of the mission

DAY 2-9 : Fieldwork, data gathering
and analysis

DAY 10 : Debriefing of the HI team
and partner

DAY 10-15 : Report writing

Given the short
period for the general evaluation process, several missions will be made of
concomitant manner in different countries. This implies a multiple and
organized assessment team.

Draft reports are
each time expected within a week after the end of field research. The final
version of the complete report consisting of the five sub reports shall include
an Executive Summary covering the full evaluation, and will be sent in no later
than two weeks after receiving HI comments or else by December 20th.

Deliverables

1. Five Country specific
sub-reports with the following structure: Cover page – Contents – List of
abbreviations / acronyms – Summary – Report (must begin with a description of
the methods used. It should be structured by result) – Annexes

2. One general comparative report

3. One general report on
cross-cutting issues of impact, coverage, coherence and gender

Indicative
Timetable

09/09/2016 :
Application deadline (Online)

09 – 23/09/2016 :
Applicants’ selection (Online)

10/10/2016 :
Briefing at HI HQ (Brussels, Belgium)

11/10 – 19/12/2016 :
Field work (Field)

20/12/2016 :
Debriefing at HI HQ (Brussels, Belgium)

Administrative
formalities

The proposed
contract will be a service contract according to HI procedures. The evaluator
is fully responsible for all costs related to consultancy (visa, travel,
insurance, etc.) except for transportation between field bases in the countries
of the different projects.

The payment will be
done by bank transfer and based on two invoices issued by the evaluator with
the following breakdown:

If necessary, the
mission expenses (including visa fees and international transport) may be paid
before the start of the mission at the time of contracting.

To apply, candidates
most forward:

1. A five pages (max) letter of
motivation indicating:

a. A proposed
evaluation methodology

b. A proposed
timetable (to be adjusted and validated with field teams and partners)

c. A financial plan
for the evaluation, in accordance with following constraints:

· Note 1: The total
cost of this transversal evaluation may not exceed 41.300€. Any
financial plan exceeding this amount will not be considered. The total amount
must include:

· Note 2: The
following expenses are covered by Handicap International and should not be
included in the consultancy’s financial plan:

2. The evaluator’s/Company’s
professional profile, detailing expertise and experience in the areas covered
by this evaluation

3. A sample of a previous
evaluation

The assessments
should take place between October 10th and December 20th
2016 at the latest.

The
deadline for submission of proposals is September 9th, 2016.

Proposals
should be submitted to Dr Rafik BEDOUI (rbedoui@handicap-international.org), HI
Technical Advisor for MNCH. The selection of candidates will be done within a
commission composed of representatives of HI and representatives of field teams
no later than September 23rd 2016.

The
above-named commission will define, in due time, the selection criteria and a
candidate classification scale.