Skip to main content

Multisectoral Aid (Health, Nutrition & WASH) for conflict- and climate-affected refugees, IDPs, returnees & host communities in the Sudan Crisis

Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) Ethiopia
Apply on ngojobsinafrica.com →

Role description

TERMS OF REFERENCE Consultancy Assignment for End of Project Evaluation of the following project: Multisectoral aid (health, nutrition and WASH) for conflict- and climate-affected refugees, IDPs, returnees and host communities in Ethiopia, Eastern Sudan and South Sudan Implemented by ForAfrica in South Sudan, WeDCO in Sudan and humedica Country Office in Ethiopia & Funded by the German Federal Foreign Office
  1. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Ethiopia (Tigray, Amhara, Afar): Eastern Sudan (Al-Quadaref State, River Nile State, Northern State, El Gazira State, Sennar State, Kassala State, Red Sea State): South Sudan (Northern Bahr el Ghazal): PROJECT OBJECTIVES
  • improved access to high-quality primary and secondary health care including the rehabilitation of facilities, and the provision of medicines and medical supplies,
  • provided capacity-building training for healthcare professionals and deployed additional Mobile health and Nutrition teams,
  • treated children of acute malnutrition as well as pregnant and lactating women,
  • improved access to adequate and appropriate sanitation and hygiene facilities, including solid waste management and training for health extension workers and community leaders,
  • improved access to medical care and psychosocial support for victims of sexual violence,
  • improved access to psychological first aid to people in need and forwarding cases of serious illness to the services responsible,
  • improved medical services and advanced treatment in health centers in three refugee camps,
  • improved nutrition status of IDPs and refugees through distribution of food packages and provision of therapeutic supplementary food to children under 5 years of age,
  • improved access to WASH services for IDPs and refugees through rehabilitation of WASH facilities in IDP centers and camps and introducing proper waste management capacities,
  • reduced risk of gender-based violence and improved protection through construction and maintenance of latrines and bathrooms separated by gender,
  • improved medical services and treatment in two Primary Health Care Units and providing a mobile health outreach team to cover remote areas,
  • improved malnutrition statuses through screening of children and pregnant and lactating women and cases will be followed up or transferred to appropriate programs,
  • improved access to water through rehabilitation and upgrading of water sources and drilling of boreholes,
  • improved access to WASH services through the introduction of proper waste management and disposal,
  • reduced risk of gender-based violence and improved protection through construction and maintenance of latrines and bathrooms separated by gender,
  • improved access to psychological first aid to people in need and forwarding cases of serious illness to the services responsible,
  • provided training on GBV, and training for community management of acute malnutrition and maternal infant and young child nutrition.
2. EVALUATION PURPOSE, OBJECTIVE AND USE
  1. In terms of objectives per outcome the evaluation looks at the following criteria: Relevance, Coherence, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability, Scalability/Replicability, Coordination and Cross-cutting Considerations to examine whether the Programme was successful in its strategies to improve inclusion and participation of the most marginalized beneficiaries.
  2. Review of the conducted interventions considering the actual needs of the target population and communities in the project regions with the goal to identify potential gaps for further project developments.
3. EVALUATION SCOPE
  • Assess the overall Programme's performance from planning to implementation, identifying key strengths and areas for improvement.
    • Evaluate the Programme's relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability, with particular attention to gender equality, social inclusion, and child rights.
    • Document vital lessons learned and best practices for future strategies and interventions.
    • Evaluate the effectiveness of partnerships and coordination mechanisms in achieving Programme objectives.
    • Provide actionable recommendations for improving Programme implementation and enhancing impact for follow up projects or for any future interventions.
    • Review the partners field financial accountability.
    • Review field leadership/governance in relation to beneficiaries.
    • Assess the intervention considering actual needs and evaluate the actual needs of the population in the project area (refugees, returnees, IDPs as well as host communities) considering the implemented activities.
  • Humedica Ethiopia Country Office in Addis Ababa and Field Office in Mekele: to make informed decisions about Programme adjustments and improve implementation strategies
  • Local government partners in Ethiopia – Health Departments in Tigray, Amhara and Afar: To enhance coordination and support for Programme´s objectives
  • WeDCO Sudan Country Office in Kasala: to make informed decisions about Programme adjustments and improve implementation strategies
  • Local government partners in Sudan – Health Departments in Al-Quadaref State, River Nile State, Northern State, El Gazira State, Sennar State, Kassala State and Red Sea State: To enhance coordination and support for Programme´s objectives
  • ForAfrica South Sudan Country Office in Juba and Field Office in Aweil: to make informed decisions about Programme adjustments and improve implementation strategies
  • Local government partners in South Sudan – health Department in Northern Bahr el Ghazal: To enhance coordination and support for Programme´s objectives
  • Beneficiary communities in Ethiopia, Sudan and South Sudan: To provide feedback and influence
4. EVALUATION QUESTIONS
  • To what extent are the Programme's objectives and activities aligned with the needs of IDPs, returnees, refugees and vulnerable host communities in project areas in Ethiopiam sudan and South Sudan?
  • How well has the Programme adapted to changes in the context since its inception?
  • How appropriate is the Programme design in addressing the specific WASH challenges in the target communities?
  • To what extent have human rights principles, gender equality, and social inclusion been integrated into the Programme design?
  • How appropriate is the Programme design in addressing the specific health challenges in the target communities?
  • To what extent have human rights principles, gender equality, and social inclusion been integrated into the Programme design?
  • How well does the Programme complement other interventions in the area, including those by local government, other NGOs, and UN agencies?
  • To what extent has the Programme achieved its planned output and outcome targets for WASH services and health services and GBV interventions?
  • How successful has the Programme been in reaching and benefiting the intended target groups, particularly women, children, and other vulnerable populations?
  • How timely has the Programme been in delivering its planned activities and outputs?
  • What signs and mechanisms are in place to indicate that the benefits generated by the Programme will continue after external support endsß
  • Which components of the Programme show potential for scaling up or replication in other areas?
  • How effectively has the Programme coordinated with different stakeholders (local authorities, community leaders, other NGOs, UN agencies) in planning and implementing its activities?
  • Human Rights-Based Approach: How does the Programme assess incorporated human rights principles in its design and implementation
5. METHODOLOGY
  1. End-line household survey using a structured questionnaire designed to measure change in outcome and output indicators against the project baseline. In South Sudan, the survey will compare end-line results against the November 2024 ForAfrika baseline, using the same geographic areas and sampling strategy to ensure comparability.
  2. Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with project staff, humedica and partner management, GFFO representatives (where applicable), government health and WASH officials, cluster leads and other relevant stakeholders.
  3. Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with target beneficiaries, disaggregated by sex and age, including separate sessions with women, men, adolescent girls and persons with disabilities.
  4. Direct observation at health facilities, water points, sanitation facilities and other project sites using a structured observation guide.
  1. Develop an evaluation framework/plan to which humedica and the partner organizations can provide feedback if requested by the consultant
  2. Draft an Inception Report detailing the evaluation methodology in exchange with the project teams
  3. Review available documentation to obtain a general overview of the programme design and progress
  4. Hold meetings and interview relevant stakeholders including implementing partners of the programme
  5. Visit identified project field sites
  6. Conduct data collection and analysis
  7. Draft Evaluation reports
  8. Incorporate comments of the project teams and key stakeholders, complete and submit the final Evaluation report
  9. Consult with the project teams to ensure the progress and the key evaluation questions are covered
  10. Assuring the draft and final reports are prepared in accordance with these Terms of Reference, especially the checklist for the assessment of evaluation report
  11. Facilitate Evaluation meetings to present the main findings and recommendations
  12. Incorporate an outline for adapting key findings in the implementation of the current project in the final report
  13. Incorporate the management responses in the final report
  14. Conduct Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with target beneficiaries, disaggregated by sex and age, including separate sessions with women, men, adolescent girls, and persons with disabilities; and direct observation at health facilities, water points and sanitation facilities using a structured observation guide
  15. Analyse quantitative data using descriptive and inferential statistical methods, with pre-post comparisons against baseline values for all relevant indicators. Qualitative data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Findings across methods will be triangulated to validate conclusions, applying contribution analysis where full attribution is not possible
  16. Facilitate a Stakeholder Validation Workshop to present and validate preliminary findings with humedica, ForAfrika, WeDCO and key stakeholders before the draft report is finalised
  17. Provide a final PDF soft copy report in English
6. EXPECTED OUTPUTS
  1. Inception Report detailing consultancy work-plan and proposed processes
  2. Draft evaluation report
  3. Final endorsed report incorporating comments from humedica. The final report must include but not necessarily be limited to up to 25 pages and have elements outlined in the quality criteria for evaluation reports. The report however can have several annexes (as required by the Consultant or the Consulting Team)
  4. Any knowledge products (evaluation brief, etc.)
  5. Provide a final PDF soft copy report in English
7. EXPERTISE AND QUALIFICATION OF THE CONSULTANT
  • Advanced degree (Master or higher) in Public Health, Social Sciences, Development Studies, Monitoring and Evaluation or a related field is strongly preferred
  • Over 7 years of experience in conducting programme/project evaluations
  • Sound knowledge and practical experience in humanitarian/development planning and implementation
  • Extensive research and analytical skills
  • Excellent writing and oral communication
  • Facilitation and management skills
  • Possess leadership skills and be a team player
  • Knowledge and familiarity in WASH and Nutrition
  • Independence and impartiality
  • Proven experience conducting evaluations in South Sudan, Sudan or Ethiopia, or in comparable fragile and conflict-affected contexts
  • Experience with mixed-method evaluation designs, including quantitative household surveys with pre-post baseline comparison and qualitative data collection
  • Demonstrated ability to apply gender-sensitive and participatory evaluation approaches, including with vulnerable and marginalised groups
8. MANAGEMENT OF THE EVALUATION 9. WORKPLAN CONTRACT PERIOD - Quantity Structure
  • Preparation, desk review and preliminary consultative meetings with the implementing partners coordination and field teams and online with humedica HQ
  • Field visits within the project regions for field meetings, data review, focus group discussions, direct and indirect observations
  • Preparation and presentation of preliminary outline of the Evaluation Report
  • Preparation of the full report that includes findings, recommendations and management response
10. CONSULTANCY SELECTION CRITERIA
  1. Individual consultant or consulting firm profile Capacity to meet requirements, references and financial standing
  2. General strategy/approach. Understanding of objective and results required, risk awareness and mitigation approach
  3. Proposed evaluation methodology. Suitability and strengths of the proposed methodology, proposed technical investment and treatment of key issues
  4. Proposed organization of the work. Planning, proposed scheduling of activities, availability of required skills and quality assurance
  5. Suitability and experience of the Consultant or proposed Consultancy team. Expertise and overall combination of the consultant’s (or consultant team) skills/knowledge proposed: demonstrated knowledge or evaluation strategies and policies, minimum of five years of experience required in each of the tasks above
  6. Financial proposal’s suitability. Fees and other cost structure as against the above
11. TENDER PROCESS
  • Letter of interest demonstrating understanding of the evaluation assignment
  • Evaluator or company profile, including organisational history and relevant sector experience
  • Evidence of previous experience in similar evaluation assignments
  • Technical approach demonstrating a thorough understanding of the TOR, proposed evaluation matrix and methodology, sampling strategy and data management plan
  • Proposed detailed work plan and timeline
  • Team composition, roles and level of effort for each proposed team member
  • At least three references, including contact details, for similar evaluation assignments conducted in comparable humanitarian contexts
  • Professional fees with a breakdown by team member and number of working days
  • Travel and logistics costs
  • All other operational costs
  • A total budget quoted in EUR or USD with applicable taxes clearly separated, in line with the laws of the implementing countries
  • , desk review and preliminary consultative meetings with the implementing partner coordination and field teams and online with humedica HQ
  • Field visits within the project region for field meetings, data review, focus group discussions, direct and indirect observations.
  • Preparation and presentation of preliminary outline of the Evaluation Report
  • Preparation of the full report that includes findings, recommendations and management response.