Colombia: FINAL EVALUATION OF MFA FUNDED HEALTH, MITIGATION OF VIOLENCE AND SEXUAL VIOLENCE IN AMERICAS 2015 - 17

1 BACKGROUND

The Norwegian Red Cross has supported 4 interventions in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador, Colombia in 3 years (2015-2017).

The projects implemented in each country aim to increase the resilience and the capacities of both communities and the National Societies to cope with humanitarian challenges in terms of DRR, health, violence and sexual violence prevention.

In Guatemala, the main outcome of the project that will be assessed is a protection outcome: Preventing and mitigating the humanitarian consequences of armed conflict and violence” focused on mitigating the humanitarian consequences of violence through activities in schools, vocational training for people affected by urban violence and access to medical care for victims. The GBV component directed the funds to GRC’s victims’ assistance centre – mainly female victims of sexual violence - which provides psychosocial support and referrals for rehabilitation and medical care in coordination with the government system.

The programmes in Honduras are mainly directed towards mitigation of the consequences of violence, including violence against health care workers, and health promotion being implemented in northern Honduras in the municipalities of Tocoa and Colon and La Ceiba. The two main components are: 1) “Health Outcome: Communities have reduced exposure to health risks”. This outcome focuses on strengthening government services; raising awareness of health issues and giving first aid trainings; providing psychosocial support”. 2) “Social inclusion outcome: Promoting the inclusion of excluded groups and communities focuses on facilitating youth networks, sexual and reproductive health activities as well as in vocational training for youth in risk being recruited by local criminal gangs”. The project in El Salvador focused on mitigating the consequences of violence, disaster risk reduction and health, in particular in urban environments in the municipality of Ciudad Delgado in the capital San Salvador, highly affected by extraordinary levels of violence perpetrated by organized gangs and invisible barriers. The project had different components but the evaluation will be focus on outcomes : 1)“Social inclusion outcome: Preventing and mitigating the humanitarian consequences of armed conflict and violence”; 2) “Social inclusion outcome: Promoting the inclusion of excluded groups and communities” aimed to reduce vulnerabilities for students and young people through a range of activities that break down stigma and discrimination young people experience by being labelled as gang members, fosters peaceful co-existence and provide youth with skills and training that increases income generating opportunities. More over workshops on preventing HIV/AIDS and STIs; training in the management of emotions and healthy school life; street mediation, livelihoods, conflict resolution and healthy lifestyles and vocational trainings were carried

out.; “Preventing and mitigating the humanitarian consequences of armed conflict and violence”;

In Colombia, the project focuses on mitigation of violence and sexual violence in the areas of, Tumaco, Cali and Medellin. The project had 2 main components: 1) “Mitigation of Humanitarian Consequences of Violence in Cali and Medellín”: To increase incomes and reduce the risk of young people being recruited by armed groups, youth participated in initiatives on issues such as business plans, micro-projects and vocational training; To promote peaceful co-existence, improve communities’ emergency response capacity and reduce the risks associated with violence in terms of education, teams were set up in prioritised schools and trained in issues such as first aid, safe behaviour for the prevention of accidents caused by urban weapon contamination, sexual and reproductive rights, drug consumption and the prevention of early and unwanted pregnancies. 2)” Protection outcome: Preventing and responding to Sexual and Gender-Based Violence in Tumaco”: the project strengthened vulnerable people´s capacity to prevent, mitigate and respond to SGBV,

2 OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

The Evaluation is part of the project cycle aimed at ensuring accountability for the management of the allocated funds, promoting a lesson-learning culture in development projects as well as throughout the organizations of the Red Cross Movement.

The End-of-Project Evaluation will be forward-looking, focusing on lessons learned and recommendations for actions with similar components. It will also serve for the implementation and the smooth transition of future NorCross funded actions.

In order to complement our internal reports there is a need to generate data through an assessment of the program by an external evaluation. A final evaluation of the ‘MFA funded, health, mitigation of violence and sexual violence activities in Americas 2015 - 17 – namely in Colombia, Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala. The evaluation will have a horizontal learning approach with the aim of strengthening the national PMER units. The purpose of this initiative is to be able to take advantage of the opportunity to make a final participatory evaluation at regional level using the network of PMER focal points. This will be done through a rotational methodology, meaning that the PMER focal point of Honduras will participate in the evaluation of the MFA project of the Colombian Red Cross, while the PMER focal point of Colombia will participate in the evaluation of the MFA project of the Red Cross of El Salvador, in turn the Salvadoran Red Cross PMER focal point will participate in the evaluation of the MFA project of the

Guatemalan Red Cross and the PMER focal point of the Guatemalan Red Cross will participate in the evaluation of the MFA project of the Honduran Red Cross.

An external evaluator/evaluation firm will be hired as the leader of the evaluation team including the respective PMER focal point will accompany the external evaluator/evaluation firm for the field visit.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are as follows:

• Determine whether the program has achieved desired results (objectives), and/or has been conducted in compliance with established agreements.

• Determine the extent to which the costs of the intervention can be justified by its results, taking alternatives into account (efficiency).

• Determine the extent to which the intervention is suited to the needs and priorities of the target groups, the country context, global priorities, and existing policies (relevance).

• The effectiveness and the relevance of the programme areas, projects and activities, i.e. the extent to which the purpose, the development outcomes and impact (if possible) i.e. the changes and effects positive or negative, planned and unforeseen, seen in relation to target groups and others who are affected.

• The sustainability of the programmes, projects and activities, i.e. assessment of the extent to which the positive effects of the programmes, projects and activities are still continuing after the external support to the program has been concluded.

• Take into account identified lessons (positive and negative) for improved programming, and to inform strategic policy and planning, including on how future initiatives may mainstream gender from design to evaluation.

Based on identified lessons learned the evaluation should establish specific recommendations and suggestions for potential improvements to the program components and activities for ongoing and future work. The total budget for the MFA program is NOK 40,133,000.00 and it is distributed in different projects. Please find below the breakdown per specific allocations. All the amounts below are reported in NOK.

4 PURPOSE AND SCOPE

The main purpose of the evaluation is to provide NorCross and back donor with an overall independent assessment of the project design, performance and key results obtained to improve the current and future strategies and programmes focusing on lessons learned and recommendations in relation with the MFA funded actions implemented in Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Colombia from January 1^st 2015 to December 31^st 2017.

There is a specific interest that the evaluation report will contribute with clear findings at the following levels:

• Management: to inform NorCross management decision-making for ongoing or future work related the evaluated thematic areas.

• Learning: collect and systematize lessons (positive and negative) in order to improve programming and to inform strategic policy and planning.

• Accountability: to determine whether the projects have achieved desired results (objectives), and/or have been conducted in compliance with agreed standards and rules contemplated in the Partnership Agreements and specific project Operational Agreements.

The evaluation should start with a desk study based on data produced and existing documentation followed by the field visits.

5 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH TO THE EVALUATION

The evaluation will be undertaken in three phases:

1. Inception phase in order to plan and scope the evaluation and to develop the evaluation tools;
2. Data collection phase using the tools developed during the inception phase to collect the needed information by visiting the 4 NSs with the support of the PMER focal points of another country (survey, semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions etc.);
3. Data analysis and reporting phase in order to undertake analysis and synthesis of all the collected data using qualitative and quantitative tools and to prepare and present the evaluation report.

These three phases should be conducted through an interactive process; the evaluation team should be able to consult with key stakeholders at each stage of the evaluation, and make corrective changes to better align the focus, and ensure maximum relevance to stakeholders. The evaluation should be conducted through a participatory process.

The consultant will be responsible for gathering the information from the NorCross country offices, Nationals Societies from Guatemala, Honduras, el Salvador, and Colombia. The different teams involved on the implementations of the projects from the National Societies of Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador and Colombia will be available and will coordinate the different evaluation sessions with the concerned communities and the different key stakeholders. PMER focal points in each national society should be included as process facilitators and focal points, while PMER focal point from another country will assist/ support to the external evaluator on field visits, data collection and analysis accompany the external evaluator. The facilities and logistics of the different National Offices will be at the disposal of the consultant to carry out the activities related to the evaluation.

All relevant existing documentation will be made available such as initial baseline, intermediate baseline, internal evaluations, end lines and lessons learned.

The evaluation aims to make recommendations based on solid conclusions from the evidence collected during desk review and fieldwork in line with OECD DAC evaluation criteria. The conclusions and recommendations will be derived from in the fieldwork and will reflect a general outcomes assessment of the operating National Societies and IFRC regional office work in health and organizational development.

The evaluation will assess the following criteria:

• Relevance and appropriateness

• Effectiveness

• Efficiency

• Impact

• Sustainability

The evaluation will answer in a not exclusive manner the following questions:

1. Relevance: The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group, recipient and donor.

2. To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?

3. Do the programmes reach the most vulnerable?

4. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal of the intervention as designed?

5. Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and effects?

6. Effectiveness: a measure of the extent to which the project attains its objectives

7. To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved?

8. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?

9. Efficiency: Measures the outputs - qualitative and quantitative - in relation to the inputs. It is an economic term which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to achieve the desired results.

10. Were activities cost-efficient?

11. Were objectives achieved on time?

12. Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?

13. Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators.

14. What has happened as a result of the programme or project?

15. What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries and targeted institutions.

16. Sustainability: Measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well as financially sustainable.

17. To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?

18. What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the programme or project?

6 MAIN TASKS

The final evaluation will be carried out considering the following guiding principles:

• Cross-check reference information with stakeholders at all levels;

• Complement the desk review information and secondary sources of information;

• Identify elements of success and establish the strengths or good practices;

• Identify difficulties in operations; programme implementation and execution

• Make recommendations for improvement.

The evaluation team will undertake the following:

• Develop a work plan for the consultancy

• Conduct a desk review of key documents and communications products

• Develop guidelines for the review including methodology for information gathering and assessment of the information with NS

• Develop question guides for key informants

• Conduct sites visits to all 4 projects to interview project staff, volunteers and beneficiaries. Together with PMER focal point from another country

• Interview any other stakeholders in the region identified by Norcross Team

• Compile and analyse data, and review with technical staff and Norcross Americas team for critical review

• Present key findings and recommendations in a written report

• Present a draft report in Spanish to NorCross Americas team that will be review by the responsible parties

• Submit the final report in Spanish and English addressing comments and feedback from the first draft

7 TIME FRAME AND DELIVERABLES

The deadline for the submission of the evaluation report is by 30^th of January in order to allow for its findings to be incorporated into the final report.

It is expected that the evaluation team will provide the following products:

• Evaluation Work plan with schedule of activities

• Methodology design for the evaluation including tools for data gathering

• Desk review of key documents

• Implementation of methodology including field visit

• First draft report

• Presentation of key findings and recommendations

• Final report including the recommendations coming from the revision of the first draft.

The final report will have a maximum of 40 pages plus the annexes which have to include the following:

• Executive summary

• Evaluation methodology

• Key findings, lessons learned and good practice examples

• Conclusions and recommendations

• List of reference and relevant appendices

• A list of key informants

It is expected that the evaluation will last maximum of 55 natural days. Starting October 15^th and ending December 10^th 2017 (Due date for submission of the draft version of the evaluation report) From December 1^st to January 15^th there will be a round of potential clarifications and the submission of the final evaluation report will be scheduled February 15^th

The reports will be submitted to Anna Wrochna, Regional PMER officer Norwegian Red Cross Americas; anna.wrochna@redcross.no and Gonzalo Atxaerandio, Norcross Regional Representative: gonzalo.atxaerandio@redcross.no

8 TERMS OF CONSULTANCY

The evaluation team should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and communities as well as ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, and is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, contributes to organizational learning and accountability.

The Evaluation Standards are:

1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
3. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
4. Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
6. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
8. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

9 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

The evaluation team should encompass the following qualification:

• Minimum qualification of a Masters or PhD with equivalent combination of education and relevant work experience in relevant topics.

• Demonstrated experience planning and implementing final project evaluations required.

• It is required that the evaluation team brings concrete expertise on ccommunity based health programmes, DRR and mitigation of violence as well demonstrated competence in managing quantitative data and carrying out inferential statistics required.

• Proven track record of conducting qualitative and quantitative research including the development of interview schedules and qualitative data analysis required.

• At least five years of direct full-time experience in the monitoring and evaluation field including work with data collection tools (at the community, family, individual and institutional levels).

• Excellent written and spoken English and Spanish required (including analysis, writing and presentation skills)

• Strong computer skills required, e.g. in word, database management, relevant data analysis tools (SPSS, Stata, SaaS etc), and presentation software).

• Strong interpersonal and communication skills.

• Experience working in Americas strongly preferred.

• Experience working with representatives of the Government and Health Institutions strongly preferred;

• Knowledge and experience working with the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement preferred.

• Familiarity with trends and developments in international Health preferred.

• Demonstrated capacity to work both independently and as part of a team.

Interested candidates should submit their application material by October 3^rd to: Anna Wrochna, Regional PMER officer Norwegian Red Cross Americas; anna.wrochna@redcross.no and copy Gonzalo Atxaerandio, Norcross Regional Representative: gonzalo.atxaerandio@redcross.no

The application materials should include:

1. Curricula Vitae (CV) of all members of the team applying for consideration.
2. Cover letter clearly summarizing the experience of the proposed evaluation team of as it pertains to this assignment, the daily rate, and three professional references.
3. A brief description of the firm or institution proposed (for applicants other than individual contractors).
4. Technical proposal (when appropriate) not exceeding five pages expressing an understanding and interpretation of the TOR, the proposed methodology, and a time frame for the evaluation as well as an activity schedule.
5. Financial proposal itemizing estimated costs for services rendered (daily consultancy fees), accommodation and living costs, transport costs, stationery costs, and any other related supplies or services required for the evaluation.
6. At least one example of an evaluation report most similar to that described in this TOR.

Application material are non-returnable, and we thank you in advance for understanding that only short-listed candidates will be contacted for the next step in the application process.