IRC has been present in Nigeria since 2012 when it organization responded to flooding in Kogi state. In early 2014, IRC opened a field office in Mubi town of Adamawa state in North East Nigeria followed by offices in Yola (Adamawa state) in November 2014 and Maiduguri (Borno state) in October 2015.
The IRC Nigeria country program has implemented multi-sectorial interventions in the sectors of Health, Nutrition, Environmental Health; Child Protection; Education; Women’s Protection and Empowerment; Food Security and Livelihoods; and Protection and Rule of Law. In November 2016, IRC secured funding from EU Trust Fund to implement a two year program entitled ‘Multi-Sector Support to the Displaced in Adamawa and Borno States’. The project was designed with the overall objective of helping strengthen the resilience of conflict-affected populations in Borno and Adamawa states. Specifically, the project works with IDPs, host communities, and returnees to provide economic opportunities around farming and other rural livelihoods, improved access to food security and nutrition, and other basic services. The specific objectives of the project are:
1. IDPs, host communities, and returnees in Nigeria access basic needs and improved livelihood opportunities
2. IDPs, host communities and returnees in Nigeria have access to improved WASH and health services
Under the first objective the IRC provides livelihoods support to IDPs, returnees and host communities whose facing food insecurity due to the high influx of displaced people in their community and returnees from neighbouring countries. The second objective comprises of two intervention areas; i.e. environmental health and nutrition. The objective addresses the health of at risk populations’ nutritional needs by providing treatment for acute malnutrition and protection them from frequent water and sanitation-related diseases including malaria, diarrheal diseases, cholera and Lassa fever. The nutrition approach was designed to tackle direct and underlying causes of malnutrition and to mitigate risks of malnutrition among targeted populations. An indirect result of the project is to enhancing co-existence among IDPs, host communities and returnees.
2.2 Project specific objective
Improved nutrition status of children, pregnant and lactating women (PLWs) in IDPs formal settlements and within the host communities
2.2.1 Expected results and indicators
To help strengthen the resilience of conflict affected populations in Borno and Adamawa States % of beneficiaries (M/F) reporting improvement in their well-being or ability to cope
Outcome 1: IDPs, host communities, and returnees in Nigeria access basic needs and improved livelihood opportunities % reduction in average coping strategy index score (context-specific livelihoods CSI) among targeted households by the end of the project
% increase in number of months of adequate household food provisioning (MAHFP) during project period
Outcome 2: IDPs, host communities and returnees in Nigeria have access to improved WASH and health services % of targeted populations (M/F) which report increase in quality and access to water and sanitation services
% of effective coverage for the treatment of acute malnutrition (M/F)
Output 1: The basic needs of the targeted vulnerable households are addressed % of households with acceptable Food Consumption Scores (FCS)
% of the targeted households which are able to maintain their productive assets
Output 2: Vulnerable individuals, including young people and women, have access to livelihood opportunities % households with increased agricultural productivity of major staples/livestock
% of group members (M/F) that have access to loans from the VSLA funds
% of beneficiary businesses (M/F) reporting increased revenues from project start to end
% of targeted farmers who apply at least two improved practices through the Farmer Field School approach
Output 3: Targeted communities are protected and treated for acute malnutrition
% of health facilities providing CMAM services which achieve the recommended indicator of performance (of 75% cured rate, 10% Death rate and 15% Default rate) under the SPHERE standards protocol.
Ratio of men to women who participate in nutrition education or infant and young child feeding peer support groups
% increase of nutrition providers (health staff, M/F) who are able to correctly explain at least 3 optimal infant and young child feeding practices by the end of the project
Output 4: WASH services including water supply and sanitation infrastructure for targeted communities are provided to contribute to improved wellbeing and resilience
# of persons (M/F) provided with sufficient and safe water for drinking, cooking and personal hygiene use (SPHERE standard: Every person provided with > 15 litres/day)
% of targeted institutions in which at least one key staff member can correctly describe the water treatment method promoted
% increase in households and institutions with hand washing facilities with soap/ash and water.
% of targeted institutions and targeted communities that have sanitation facilities that meet the Sphere standards and are segregated for male and female blocks.
% of targeted institutions disposing of solid waste/refuse in a specified, fenced refuse pit or disposing of waste at a serviced intermediate disposal point.
The successful consultant will be provided with full details of project background, performance indicators and progress reports.
3.0 The Purpose of Endline Evaluation
The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the IRC’s performance and delivery of the EUTF multi sector support for the displaced project results. The endline evaluation report will help the IRC to improve its future projects through lessons learned and best practices generated from the project.
3.1 The scope of the evaluation
The endline evaluation process will be structured around OECD DAC criteria, with suggested evaluation questions as below. However, the consultants shall be encouraged to review the project documents and modify evaluation questions to provide detailed synthesis of the project performance.
• Relevance: Does the project align with humanitarian priority concerns? How relevant was the project to target groups, needs and priorities? Did the project interventions effectively reach the most vulnerable individuals?
• Effectiveness: Were the planned objectives and outcomes in the project achieved as planned? Were the monitoring mechanisms effective in providing timely data to inform management decisions? To what extent did the project meet its targets and deliver outputs?
• Impact: What difference has the project made to the lives of targeted beneficiaries? To what extent did this project achieve the intended outcomes? What is the performance against stated indicators? Are there any unplanned outcomes as a result of this project?
• Efficiency: What evidence is available on cost effectiveness of the interventions? How do intervention costs compare with other modalities in similar context? Were adequate human and financial resources applied to delivering project outcomes? Were outputs delivered in a timely fashion? Was technology deployed to improve efficiency?
• Sustainability: To what extent did the project utilise established institutions/mechanisms to ensure sustainability at the end of project? To what extend are project results (impact if any, and outcomes) likely to continue after the project? Are there elements of exit strategy to ensure sustainability?
4.0 Main Evaluation team tasks
1. Refine evaluation primary questions in consultation with the IRC’s M&E coordinator and the regional measurement coordinator.
2. Conduct secondary data collection and review including using the IRC’s existing project monitoring data, to identify gaps in data coverage and knowledge.
3. Conduct primary data collection to establish and quantify the IRC’s performance against project indicators and criteria outlined.
4. Provide a draft report to country management that will be incorporated into ongoing program planning and evaluation, as well as recommendations for maximizing social impact.
5. While in country, facilitate a workshop to validate findings of the evaluation with IRC and partner staff and stakeholders.
6. Incorporate IRC feedback into a draft report and prepare a final report. The final report should both describe the results of the evaluation in detail, and provide actionable recommendations for improving the IRC’s program work in North East Nigeria.
The IRC recommends a mixed methods approach that can quantify and qualify project results and achievements of overtime. Consultants are advised to recommend the most appropriate approach for the assignment. Nevertheless, the final methodology will be agreed with the IRC country M&E team, and will be contingent upon the listed tasks.
5.1 Data collection and management
The IRC expects a balanced use of both quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand the program performance in addressing community needs. Quantitative data should be rigorously analysed and representative of project locations within reasonable limits. Qualitative data should also be carefully analysed and should focus on developing deeper understanding of the relevance of the project results and providing recommendations for improving and /or strengthening effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the results. Both direct and indirect beneficiary perspectives should be considered, examining any positive or negative spill over effects.
5.3 Presentation and Documentation
This consultancy takes place after end of the grant, starting in second week of March 2019. The final report is expected to be submitted not later than 30th April 2019.The report findings should be shared with IRC in the following formats:
a) A workshop with IRC staff to present and validate preliminary findings.
o Highlights of field findings, lessons and best practices that can be incorporated into relevant sector programming.
o Recommendations to inform and/or improve IRC Nigeria programs, with clear action points.
o Reflections on outcomes and impact based on the field findings
b) Draft Evaluation Report submitted to Deputy Director - Programs and M&E Coordinator within two weeks after completion of field work for comments and input.
c) Final Evaluation Report- The report should be clear and concise (max. 60 pages). and at minimum should include:
o Executive Summary,
o Project background information
o Evaluation methodology,
o Findings: Analysis of findings and conclusions,
o Recommendations and actions points,
o Annexes: ToRs, a timeline of response, a list of individuals interviewed, statistical outputs, templates of data collection tools used, a description of the methods employed, a summary of survey results (if appropriate) and any other relevant materials.
6.0 Key deliverables:
1. Presentation of draft findings to IRC senior program team.
2. Detailed Evaluation Report.
7.0 Profile of consultant(s)
To the greatest extent possible, the evaluation team should consist of diverse backgrounds and experience in multi-sectoral programs. The project is an integrated project covering; WASH, nutrition and economic recovery and development (FSL). Consultants should have good programming understanding in the listed sectors.
The IRC welcomes expressions of interest from seasoned consultants, individuals or firms in academia, social research, or humanitarian evaluation with a background in humanitarian aid, research methods, WASH, development economics, agricultural economics, development studies, or other related fields. The lead consultants should possess;
• Master’s degree or higher in development, international relations or humanitarian work.
• Extensive experience in conducting evaluations along OECD evaluation criteria, ideally leading an evaluation team and experience of designing evaluation methodology / tools and data analysis.
• A minimum of 10 years of progressively responsible work experience in research and or evaluations covering nutrition, environmental health, economic recovery and development programs.
• Experience of working in working or evaluating projects in insecure humanitarian environment
• In-depth knowledge of quantitative and qualitative research methods
• Excellent analytical, presentation and writing skills in English
8.0 General conditions
• The consultant will be based in Mubi in Adamawa state, with field trips to Borno program locations.
• While at the field, the consultant will be required to abide by IRC security protocols and guidelines.
• While in the field, consultants will be provided with security briefings by field security focal person.
• The consultants will conduct his/her work using his/her own computer equipment.
• Terms of payment will be negotiated upon acceptance of the consultancy.
• The total budget for the consultancy will include VAT as/ and if required by national regulations.
• Final payment of consultant will be remitted upon satisfactory submission of agreed deliverables.
9.0 Proposal Details and Submission time frame
This consultancy assignment is anticipated to start in second week of March 2019. The entire exercise will last between 30-40 days including final report submission. The deadline for submission of the technical and financial proposals and accompanying documents is 30th December 2018. Expression of interest applications should include:
1. Technical proposal with clear understanding and interpretation of the ToR, including detailed tasks, recommended methodology summary and proposed schedule, relevant experience, how you meet the profile required and details of time required (maximum 5 pages)
2. Financial proposal, including daily professional fee and any other associated costs for the assignment. The consultant should itemize all costs for the duration of assignment, limped up costs will not be accepted in the financial proposal. IRC will only cover field related costs while in-country. All costs need to be clearly stated in the bid submission.
3. CVs of prospective consultants.