Myanmar: Consultancy for Project Final Evaluation

Terms of Reference

Final Project Evaluation

Plan International Myanmar

“Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction in Coastal Areas of Myanmar Project”

in Toungup and Kyauk Phyu Townships, Rakhine State, Myanmar

I.Introduction

Plan is an international humanitarian, child-centered development implementing development programs that promote the realization and fulfillment of children’s rights and the alleviation of child poverty and organization without religious, political or government affiliation. Plan’s vision is a world in which all children realize their full potential in societies that respect people’s rights and dignity. Plan started operations in Myanmar in 2008 following Cyclone Nargis, carried out activities in emergency relief, DRR, school construction and ECCD centres in cyclone-affected townships of Ayeyarwaddy Region. Plan Myanmar signed its MoU in July 2012 with the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement and primarily implements its programs through partners to reach marginalised children, families and communities, supporting change in six key areas: Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD); Maternal, Neonatal and Child Health with Nutrition (MNCHN); Water, Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH); Child Protection and Advocacy, Disaster Risk Reduction and Emergency Response.

“Working with partnership and alliances” is one of Plan strategic directions. The strategic direction was translated into Plan’s rights based approach “*Child Centered Community Development (CCCD)”* which serves as the solid basis for enriching the work of Plan and its partners.

II.Project Background

The Child- Centred Disaster Risk Reduction (CCDRR) project is a three year project (2013-2016) designed to promote the role of children as change agents through preparedness measures for disaster risk reduction funded by BMZ (German Ministry for Development Cooperation). Swanyee Development Foundation (SDF), one of the local partners of Plan Myanmar started the implementation in 40 villages of Toungup Township and 30 villages of Kyauk Phyu Township in Rakhine State from May 2013 to June 2016 with the technical and financial supports of Plan Myanmar.

The main Activities of the project are as following:

·Community Based Disaster Risk Reduction

·School Based Disaster Risk Reduction

·Child Centred Disaster Risk Reduction

·Awareness raising and sensitization for inclusive CBDRR

·Organizational Development of local partner

·Disaster Risk Reduction Process Development of local partner

The overall objective of the project is “Vulnerable communities in hazard-prone coastal areas can better prepare to mitigate and efficiently respond to recurrent natural hazards”. The specific Project Objective is stated as follows: “To strengthen the role of civil society organizations in programming, monitoring and advocating for disaster risk reduction and preparedness measures through promoting the role of children as change agents”. In order to achieve this objective, SDF implemented activities to deliver the following 3 main results:

Result 1: The target communities have capacities, knowledge and techniques to be able to plan and to implement disaster risk reduction measures in an organized, sustainable and coordinated manner

Result 2: The main stakeholders in the domain of disaster risk reduction have capacities, knowledge and techniques to integrate children into their DRR measures and to allow them to become active themselves

Result 3: Civil society organizations including local non- government organizations (NGOs) and community- based organizations have operative systems and trained staff members to be able to manage and to implement projects independently from institutional donors.

III.Objective of Evaluation

The key objective of the final evaluation is to assess the results and impacts of the Child-Centred Disaster Risk Reduction CCDRR project against the project goal and objectives. In addition, the evaluation will look to capture the lessons learnt to increase the understanding of the implementing organizations and partners and make recommendations for future planning and longer term sustainability of the CCDRR approach and mechanism in place in the community as the project is phasing out from the implementing areas Taungup and Kyauk Phyu in Rakhine state

In particular, the evaluation aims to:

1) Assess the project result area in relation to the following evaluation criteria:

Ø Relevance of the project activities in addressing the needs of the target groups and in delivering the results and objectives of the project with regards to strengthening a child centered approach to disaster risk reduction. Key questions to answer include:

o Was the theory of change of the investment realistic, appropriate and relevant?

o To what extent were the project objectives and approaches relevant and consistent with beneficiary needs, expectation and priorities, relevant government policies, and the overall operating environment?

o To what extent were the project objectives and approaches relevant and consistent with Plan International’s relevant Country and Regional DRM Strategies/policies as well as relevant international targets (such as the SDGs, HFA II, and UNFCCC agreements)?

o How consistent is the program with Plan’s CCCD approach?

o Was the approach undertaken the best option for achieving planned results?

o What is the relevance of the completed project to progress on the broader disaster risk reduction objectives of the communities in which it occurred?

o To what extent is the project design relevant to the broader child-centred DRR and resilience agenda internationally? How does it align and compare with best practice in the sector?

Ø Effectiveness of project implementation, in relation to expected results and current levels and capacities of staffing and other resources. Key questions to answer include:

o Did the project make the difference that was expected at the end of the investment? To what extent were risk reduction capacity and resilience built – at individual child and adult community?

o How the project has delivered to achieve the objectives and outcomes on set targets as outlined in the project proposal, log frame and project outline.

o What unexpected outcomes or changes were brought about as a result of project activities?

o What activities have been expanded, replicated and scaled up across the implementation sites, and what are the contributing factors to this replication and expansion?

o What participatory methodologies and processes were used by the project, which ones were found to be successful, and why? How did these methods or processes contribute to both expected and unexpected outcomes?

o How have the communities and partners involved in the project defined success – and what evidence is there of achieving their visions of success?

o To what extent were the project activities genuinely child-centered?

§ How have children benefited from activities, including the disaster mitigation measures and participatory VCA and DRR action planning?

§ How were children involved in the design and monitoring of activities?

§ To what extent did children take on a role as agents of change? To what extent have they come to be considered as risk reduction champions across their schools/communities?

§ How did the level and nature of children’s involvement in activities impact on the success of the project?

o How the project has adhered to Plan Program principles of Child Centered Community Development approach, learning, gender equity, empowerment, sustainability, environmental sustainability.

Ø Efficiency of the implementation in terms of efficient and economical use of resources and within appropriate timeframe and budget. Key questions to answer include:

o Were the activities cost-efficient? If not, why?

o How did the project financial management processes and procedures affect project implementation?

o Were the project’s own monitoring systems adequate and appropriate?

o Is the project mode of delivery still considered to be the most efficient method of using staff and funding to achieve the expected development outcomes?

o Was the size of the project appropriate to achieve the intended outcomes?

o What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats of the project’s implementation process?

Ø Impact of the project in the lives of the beneficiaries, in particular in terms of realizing children’s’ rights and promotion better disaster risk reduction and resilience. Key questions to answer include:

o What has happened as a result of the CCDRR project?

o What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?

o How many people (disaggregated by sex, age and disability) have benefitted from the program (targeted and non-targeted)?

o Systematic analysis of changes in the capacity of children, village and school disaster management committee members and community groups involved in the project

o Determine the extent to which these changes can be attributed to project implementation at the level of the target groups, the level of partner organization and at any other levels

o Comparison of results between girls and boys; men and women, to determine if there are gender gaps in the results achieved, as well as any explanations for the gaps

o Once Plan has left, how will the beneficiaries (disaggregated by sex, age and disability) continue to benefit from the project?

o How have the roles of the different actors (right holders, duty bearers, intermediaries and Plan) changed over time?

o Is Plan improving local capacity and actively involving beneficiaries in implementation?

Ø Sustainability in terms of prospects for continuity and long-term benefits of the project outcomes as well as the ownership and partnerships by community and stakeholders. Key questions to answer include:

o How sustainable are the results of the project and the systems and models developed?

o How village and school disaster management committees are functioning and what is the ownership consideration of the risk reduction measures in their community

o How the project has been able to work with existing community and other stakeholder structures in building their risk reduction capacity to be able to sustain the project.

o What measures have been put in place or evolved through the project that will contribute to this sustainability?

o What is the capacity of local partners to take forward the work? How has the project contributed to strengthening this capacity?

o What needs to be further put in place to sustain the benefits of the project? Is there evidence of the resourcing and commitment needed being made available by government?

o Over the coming years, what benefits can realistically be expected to continue as a result of the project?

o Identify the various challenges and solutions that may affect the sustainability of the project.

Ø Cross-cutting issues to what extend the project activities have been designed and implemented to be considerate of child-centeredness, inclusion, ethnicity, gender, disability and accountability. Key questions to answer include:

o To what extent were the most vulnerable populations, including, but not limited to, people with a disability, ethnic and linguistic minorities, rural and remote communities and any other excluded groups, reached through the project? What approaches were utilized to ensure these cohorts were included?

o Did the project ensure the appropriate safeguarding of children through its activities?

o Did the project contribute to achieving equitable outcomes for women and men, boys and girls?

o How did the project benefit men, women, boys and girls differently in the context of their locally ascribed gender roles?

2) Identify the project’s key challenges during implementation, and lessons learnt to inform both Plan’s future programming in this area and for the others working in this field;

3) Generate concrete conclusions and recommendations that can feed into decision making processes regarding up-scaling child centered disaster risk reduction/ resilience programming in the country and beyond.

IV.Utilization of the Evaluation Report

The evaluation report will be used to reflect on the overall impact of the project strategies employed in this action. Plan will be the primary user of the report and a summary of the report will be shared with all relevant stakeholders. . The lessons and recommendations arising from the evaluation will inform and guide future programming of projects of a similar nature, especially with regards to replicating and scaling up the project by Plan or other agencies.

V.Methodology

In consultation with Plan International, the recruited consultant/s will be expected to propose a detailed methodology (based on the information given in this ToR) suggesting adjustments to the methodology recommended below and to the available tools as necessary to meet the objectives of the evaluation above detailed.

The evaluation will be conducted in most effective manner within the available budget and duration and, the consultant will provide detail of the methodology and tools they will use for data collection and analysis to produce a high quality reliable report. It is expected that the methodology will include both qualitative and quantitative data collection methods and will consider both primary and secondary data sources.

The methodology may include the following:

Document Review– The consultant will be expected to review project documentation such as project proposal, project design, bi annual narrative reports, work plans, log frame, KAP baseline and endline survey, monitoring and evaluation data, case studies, training materials and other resources developed by the project.

Focus groups discussion– focus groups will be conducted with different beneficiary groups in a participative manner (e.g. Village Disaster Management Committees, School Disaster Management committees)

Key Informant Interviews– interviews with community leaders, representatives of VDMC children and adult and SDMC students and teachers, Plan International staff at country office and program unit, as well as staff from partner organization, local government counterparts, representatives of villagers and relevant key stakeholders etc.

Site observations– Site visits to selected communities in each of the township to conduct meetings and participatory exercises with community members, including children. This will help verify evaluation findings and dig findings to further layers through continued interviews after observation.

Most significant change stories– this is mostly to serve measuring effectiveness and impacts of the projects' interventions.

PRA– PRA consist of powerful tools that can be used during the study at grass-roots level. The consultants will make use of PRA tools whenever appropriate.

Case studies– case studies is a highly appropriate method for best practice documentation.

VI.Expected outputs and timeframe

#

List of Outputs

Completed by

1

Evaluation design (inception report)

Including child friendly methodology based on the ToR including interview questionnaire agreed with Resilience Programme Manager

22 September 2016

2

1^st Draft report (English)

Following completion of the field work, a draft report with preliminary findings and key recommendations

14 October 2016

3

Presentation (power point)

Draft report and recommendations to Plan International Myanmar staff

17 October 2016

4

Final report (English)

Incorporate and compile feedbacks from Plan International Myanmar staffs and to submit to Plan Management team

10 November 2016

Consultant (s) to review an inventory of all background materials during the study, and to submit any data gathered and analyzed during the study (including survey results and transcripts from interviews.

VII.Report Format

The evaluation report in English, must adhere to the Plan International style guidelines and will be structured as follows:

Title Page

Content page

List of abbreviations and acronyms

Executive Summary

Introduction and background

Objectives of Evaluation

Scope and Methodology

Limitations

Project Description

Findings and Analysis

Results, including logic model showing baseline and final results of the project

Lessons Learned

Recommendations

Annexes: These might include:

Summary assessment of Child Centered Community Development

All data collection tools;

Consent forms

Additional methodological information if required

Evaluation work plan schedule

Interview Questionnaire

List of persons/organizations interviewed.

List of key documents reviewed

Maps, photos or more detailed case studies

VIII. Duration of Consultancy

19 September to 31 October 2016 in (20) working days and the final report should be submitted on 10 November 2016.

IX. Responsibilities

i. Responsibility of Consultant(s)

· Designing the methodology (qualitative/quantitative) Reviewing related documents

· Hiring in-country research assistants and translators

· Qualitative and quantitative data collection in the field

· Using gender sensitive evaluation methods and approach

· Data disaggregated by sex and age

· Data analysis and report writing

· Final Report submission in soft and hard copies

The consultant(s) will be responsible for timely delivery of the outputs as outlined in the section VI. In addition, the evaluation team leader will closely work together with the KAP endline survey team leader separately hired, to link the survey data and final evaluation report in quantitative and qualitative measures are well captured.

ii. Responsibility of Plan staff

· Preparation for the evaluation and coordinate the field work

· Recruit consultant and monitor the process.

· Assisting to organize meetings, field visits and logistics.

· Accompanying at least one Plan International staff in field work

· Make sure that the process is participatory and well-coordinated

· Make sure that the quality of the evaluation is met (Support to finalize the tools, methodologies etc.)

iii. Responsibility of Partner Organization:

· Coordinate the participation of community in the process

· Be part of the evaluation process

X. Level of Contact with Children:

Medium level: Some interaction with children in consultations. The consultant must comply with Plan’s child protection policy and standards throughout the research process.

XI. Qualifications of the consultant

Formal qualifications (required):

• Masters level degree (or undergraduate level coupled with appropriate practical experience) in a relevant field, such as disaster risk reduction, climate change, international development, child and human rights, etc.

Practical skills and experience (Required):

• Demonstrable expertise (5-10 years) on disaster risk management issues
• Demonstrable experience (5-10 years) in designing and conducting quantitative and qualitative research/evaluation and including the development and use of qualitative data collection tools and analysis using participatory methodologies, particularly in rural communities in Myanmar
• Performed team leader functions in similar evaluation assignment.
• Ability to meet deadlines and respond to requests and feedback appropriately and in a timely manner

· Understanding of country level policies, framework and strategy on Disaster Risk Reduction

• Strong analytical skills
• Excellent report writing skills in English
• Experience in undertaking participatory evaluative methodologies, particularly with children, and community engagement and consultations
• Excellent and demonstrated understanding of Child Protection and ethical issues in research
• Knowledge of children’s rights and child protection, and previous experience conducting research with children and vulnerable groups would be considered an asset.

XII. Budget

The fee for consultants will be negotiated and applied following according to Plan International Myanmar regulation. The consultant is required to propose the detailed budget for the consultancy together with the research proposal, and submit to Plan International Myanmar for review and approval. The budget should include number of days and daily rate for the lead consultant(s) and any in-country research assistants, in-country accommodation, and other meeting logistics in the field. Plan Myanmar considered paying 40 % of consultancy fees at the beginning of the evaluation after the agreement of MoU signed. 40 % will be paid uponthe submission of draft report and final payment 20 % will be met on submission of final report.

Application for this assignment will be accepted from a team of evaluators (team leader and consultant) from consulting firm, or an individual evaluator. Applicants are suggested to mention clearly on their proposals/applications, which position are applying.

Reference & background checks will be performed for successful candidates including clearances on child related offences in conformity with Plan’s Child Protection Policy. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. Plan is an equal opportunity employer.

Applicants should prepare and submit an application package via email to Myanmar.CO@plan-international.org with Cc to Khual.Tawna@plan-international.org

Kindly submit the following application documents:

· Expression of interest should not exceed four (04) pages, outlining how the Consultant(s) meets the selection criteria and how their research proposal meets these TOR and the proposed evaluation methodology

· A proposed activities schedule/work plan with time frame

· Copy of CV of the consultant(s) who will undertake the evaluation

· One recent example of similar evaluation report written by the applicant

· Financial proposal detailing consultant(s) itemized fees, data collection and administrative costs

· Declaration of independence and potential bias that might influence the judgments and conclusions

· Details of 3 referees

For further information please contact: Khual.Tawna@plan-international.org with copy to JennySweSwe.Myint@plan-international.org.

The deadline for application is 11 September, 2016.

I. General Obligation

Income tax of 2% will be withhold for a residence consultant and 3.5 % for international consultant as per income taxation law in the country.