CHARITY JOBS IN AFRICA

Organization: Concern Worldwide
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Closing date: 16 Jan 2015

DRC WASH Consortium: Terms of Reference for external Mid-Term Evaluation 2015

1. Introduction

The DRC WASH Consortium, led by Concern Worldwide, seeks a consultant or team of consultants to undertake an external mid-term evaluation in April-May 2015 in order to assess the progress of the Consortium programme between July 2013 and March 2015 against the programme strategy and logframe, and evaluate the programme so far against the key OECD-DAC criteria of relevance/appropriateness, coverage/targeting, coordination, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. The criteria of relevance/appropriateness and effectiveness should be prioritised, along with an assessment of potential sustainability based on evidence so far. The evaluation will make evidence-based strategic, programmatic and operational recommendations to the Consortium and the programme donor (DFID) that can be applied by the Consortium from July 2015 to June 2017 and beyond.

Note that the external evaluation will form part of a wider mid-term review and evaluation which will include two components:

• Internal review: drawing on expertise from Concern Worldwide HQ in the operations and governance of consortia, and community mobilisation and behaviour change approaches.
• External evaluation: drawing on external independent expertise in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods evaluations for WASH and using the OECD-DAC criteria; evaluating the technical infrastructure components of WASH programmes from an engineering quality perspective; and knowledge of the Life-Cycle Costs Approach and service delivery approaches for rural WASH.
• Background to WASH in DRC and the Consortium

Despite the country’s relative wealth in terms of water resources, access to clean drinking water in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) remains low. Based on current trends, the DRC will miss the water target under the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) to halve by 2015 the proportion of its population without sustainable access to safe drinking water. The water and sanitation sector is also in a state of change amidst ongoing reforms relating to decentralisation and the implementation of new laws such as the Water Code, while implementation capacity at all levels remains weak. Statistics from the Multi-Indicator Cluster Survey^[1] report that 47 million Congolese do not use sanitary latrines, 10 million defecate in the open, and 40 million do not wash their hands at critical moments of the day.

In this context, the DRC WASH (Water, Sanitation and Hygiene) Consortium comprises five international NGOs working to increase the coverage of sustainable water and sanitation provision and hygiene behaviour in rural areas of DRC. The Consortium members are: Action Against Hunger (ACF); Agence d'aide à la Coopération Technique et au Développement (ACTED); Catholic Relief Services (CRS); Concern Worldwide (as lead agency) and Solidarités International. The DRC WASH Consortium is funded by the UK Department for International Development (DFID) through a grant of £23.9m from 2013-2017 as part of DFID’s 2013-2019 WASH programme in DRC.

3. The DRC WASH Consortium objectives and approach

The DRC WASH Consortium has the following overall objectives:

• Impact: Improved health and productivity through reduced morbidity and mortality resulting from water-related diseases in rural communities in the DRC.
• Outcome: Sustainable and integrated environmental and household health and sanitation which is adopted and managed by communities and integrated with local governance service provision institutions and strengthened locals partners and government.

These objectives are intended to be achieved through seven different outputs. The first five outputs are focused on the benefits for communities:

1. Individuals demonstrate knowledge of the economic, social, health and environmental advantages of improved water, sanitation and hygiene for their communities at community and household level.
2. Functioning governance institutions and service providers with increased capacity engage in WASH provision at the micro level.
3. Representative, accountable and responsive Community Committees are established by community members.
4. Communities have sustained and improved access to and availability of potable water
5. Communities have improved and sustained access to sanitation facilities.

The final two outputs are concerned with the Consortium’s wider influence on the WASH sector in DRC:

1. Increased coordination, participation and planning at the macro, meso and micro levels between consortium members and governance structures, service providers and other stakeholders in the WASH sector.
2. The Consortium produces and disseminates evidence for sustainable, community based solutions to WASH needs in the DRC.

This approach is based on the Consortium’s Theory of Change: By working with communities and local structures, and linking these to Provincial and National stakeholders, the DRC WASH consortium will increase sustainable coverage of WASH services in rural areas in the DRC, which will lead to improved health and productivity outcomes.

In total, the DRC WASH Consortium aims to support 461 villages and 554,122 beneficiaries in up to 17 health zones in rural DRC through a 12-step process which lasts eighteen months in each village, followed by additional monitoring and evaluation for a further six months. Programme activities include the promotion of good hygiene behaviours through “Small Doable Actions”, support to the construction of household and institutional latrines, and (where judged technically and economically feasible for long-term sustainability) the development of water points such as spring protections, protected wells, and boreholes. The Consortium also works with local health services, local authorities, the private sector and civil society to develop their capacity to support communities and ensure the sustainability of WASH services. The Consortium aims to use its experiences, innovation and research to produce and disseminate evidence for sustainable, community based solutions to WASH needs in the DRC.

• For more background on the DRC WASH context, see Annex A.
• Full details on the Consortium’s Theory of Change are included in Annex B.
• The Consortium’s 9-point strategy and 12-step process are summarised in Annex C.
• The full logical framework is included in Annex D, with baseline data from the first phase.
• A map of the Consortium’s areas of intervention is included in Annex F.
• Timing of the Mid-Term Review and external Mid-Term Evaluation in the context of the Consortium programme

The approach of the DRC WASH Consortium is designed to be flexible enough to integrate learning during the programme in line with the need for adaptive programming expressed by DFID and others,^[2] especially if evidence produced shows that parts of the original Theory of Change may not be valid.

The programme therefore proceeds in a sequence of different phases of villages and conducts additional research and innovation projects to enable learning to be fed back into the programme. During the first two years of the programme, extra information becomes available from:

• Field experiences and results from the completion of the first phase of villages (Sept 2013 – Feb-March 2015) and ongoing experiences from the second and third phases (in progress between April 2014 – Oct 2015). The fourth phase of villages is due to start in July 2015.
• Research projects on: spare parts and supply chains for handpumps; community mobilisation and behaviour change.
• Innovation projects on: preparation and rapid response for cholera outbreaks; WASH mapping.
• Sharing of experiences with other sector actors through six-monthly external Technical Reviews.

Key developments to the programme approach so far include:

• Detailed development of an economic approach to better define, estimate and measure life-cycle costs and use this information as part of informed decision-making for investment in drinking water infrastructure.
• Revision of the selection process for intervention areas and villages to increase the likelihood of success given the extremely challenging context in rural DRC.
• Initial review of the Consortium’s approach to community mobilisation and behaviour change.

The mid-term review and evaluation is a key moment to enable learning from the first phase of the programme (Sept 2013 – Feb-March 2015) to feed into the ongoing second and third phases (in progress between April 2014 – Oct 2015) and the fourth phase which is due to start in July 2015.

5. Objectives of the external Mid-Term Evaluation

The evaluation should serve the purposes of learning for the Consortium and accountability to external stakeholders, with the following overall objectives (specific questions are detailed on the next page):

1. To review the progress of the DRC WASH Consortium programme between July 2013 and March 2015 against the programme strategy and logframe.
2. To evaluate the programme so far against the key OECD-DAC criteria of relevance/appropriateness, coverage/targeting, coordination, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability. The criteria of relevance/appropriateness and effectiveness should be prioritised, along with an assessment of potential sustainability based on evidence so far.
3. To make evidence-based strategic, programmatic and operational recommendations to the Consortium (specifically the Governance Board, the Programmes Technical Working Group and the Systems-Finance Technical Working Group) and DFID that can be applied from July 2015 to June 2017 and beyond.
4. Review and evaluation questions

As a minimum, the following questions should be addressed, based on the OECD-DAC criteria.[3] The evaluation team will be expected to develop more detailed questions based on these as part of the development of the methodology. Questions may be amended if agreed in advance between the evaluation team and Concern Worldwide.

1. Have the right things been done? ( relevance/appropriateness) This question represents the ‘theory-based’ component of the evaluation, comparing evidence so far to the programme’s underlying logic. Is the programme relevant, appropriate and strategic to needs and priorities for the intended beneficiaries in the DRC context, for the donor, and for the members of the Consortium?
2. Is the Consortium’s 9-point strategy relevant, appropriate and realistic given the DRC context, donor priorities and the profile of the members?
3. Is the Theory of Change valid? Are the logframe assumptions, and the evidence for these assumptions, justified in DRC?
4. Is the programme coverage and geographical targeting appropriate?
5. Have things been done right? (effectiveness, efficiency and coordination) This question represents the ‘process evaluation’ component of the evaluation: were the actions taken to achieve the outputs and outcomes so far effective and efficient?
6. Are the 12-step implementation approach, the Technical Guide and the monitoring and evaluation framework appropriate?
7. How effectively and efficiently have the 12-step implementation approach, the Technical Guide and the monitoring and evaluation framework been implemented in the intervention areas? (Outputs 1-5).
8. How effectively and efficiently has the Consortium (i) increased coordination, participation and planning at the macro, meso and micro levels, and (ii) produced and disseminated evidence for sustainable, community based solutions to WASH needs in the DRC? (Outputs 6-7).
9. Is the Consortium’s structure and governance appropriate to its strategy? Has the Consortium been governed and managed effectively and efficiently so far?
10. Have the cross-cutting issues identified in the proposal been effectively taken into account in strategy, programming and implementation? The cross-cutting issues identified are the following, but other relevant issues identified as part of the evaluation should also be considered:

· Gender and equality.

· Working with government in the decentralisation process.

· Linking implementation and coordination.

· Working with civil society.

· Climate and environment.

· Accountability.

· Participation of programme participants.

1. Are the results likely to be sustainable based on evidence so far? Are the outputs and outcome likely lead to benefits beyond the life of the programme, in the short-term (up to 2 years after), medium-term (up to 5 years), and longer-term (the 10 year timeframe envisaged by the donor)?
2. Is the Consortium’s exit strategy relevant, appropriate and realistic in DRC?
3. To what extent are local actors capable of financing the life-cycle costs of the WASH services developed?[4]
4. To what extent are local actors capable of delivering on or supporting other key factors for sustainable rural WASH services?
5. How does the potential sustainability compare to other approaches in the sector?
6. How can the Consortium do things better in the future? What recommendations are made at the following levels:
7. Strategic.
8. Programmatic.
9. Operational.

The evaluation review should also consider relevant questions from the “10 delivery questions to consider throughout the programme cycle” from DFID’s 2014 “Smart Rules”[5] (see Annex E).

7. Outline methodology, timetable and limitations

The external evaluation should be completed during April-May 2015 (the internal review will be completed during March 2015). Up to 40 days of work is anticipated.

The detailed methodology for the external evaluation will be developed by the consultants and approved by Concern Worldwide and DFID. The methodology must uphold DFID’s ethical principles for research and evaluation. At a minimum, the evaluation should draw on:

• Existing data available (see list below), including quantitative data collected by the Consortium itself as part of baseline and endline surveys of the phases of intervention completed so far.
• Interviews and/or workshops with key internal and external stakeholders in Kinshasa (predominantly qualitative).
• Interviews, workshops and/or other research methods (such as participatory methods) with key internal and external stakeholders in at least two different areas of intervention, ideally more. These should include the views of direct programme participants. It is anticipated that this part of the evaluation will be predominantly qualitative, however the consultants may propose to collect additional quantitative data if necessary in addition to the data already available.

Existing data to be considered:

ü Six-monthly narrative reports covering July-Dec 2013, Jan-June 2014, and July-Dec 2014. These include logframe updates; strategic and programmatic overviews; operational, governance and communication issues; and orientations for next steps.

ü Baseline data for villages in Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 (a copy of the baseline report for Phase 1 will be shared with this TOR to show the data available).

ü Endline data for villages in Phase 1 (available end of April 2015).

ü Minutes of quarterly meetings of the Governance Board, Programmes Technical Working Group, and Systems-Finance Technical Working Group.

ü Minutes of six-monthly internal Technical Reviews.

ü Reports of six-monthly external Technical Reviews.

ü Reports on research projects (spare parts and supply chains for handpumps; community mobilisation and behaviour change; climate and environment assessment).

ü Reports from the internal mid-term review on the operational and governance elements of the Consortium and the community mobilisation and behaviour change approach of the Consortium (see Section 8).

Limitations and constraints:

• Geographical issues, travel time and logistics: Field visits to project sites typically require at least a week per project site including travel time (e.g. 2-4 days travel + 3-5 days at or near the project site). There is a high risk of delays and/or cancellations of travel in DRC because of the reliance on humanitarian flights.
• Political and administrative issues: no sensitive political issues are anticipated that would limit the evaluation.
• Timing of other key events to be considered as part of the timetable:
• Six-monthly external Technical Review in mid-March 2015 (exact date TBC).
• Six-monthly internal Technical Review in May 2015 (date TBC).
• Expected products and dissemination process

Note that the internal review will result in the following outputs which will inform the external evaluation:

• Report on the operational and governance elements of the Consortium.
• Report on the community mobilisation and behaviour change approach of the Consortium.

External evaluation outputs:

• Draft methodology as part of proposal.
• Inception report and final methodology for approval by Concern Worldwide and DFID after XX days (to be agreed).
• Preliminary presentation of findings and proposed structure of report for feedback in country.
• Final report, including:

o Stand-alone executive summary of 2-4 pages (in English and in French).

o Specific list of recommendations at different levels (strategic, programmatic, operational) targeted to the following groups:

§ The Consortium Governance Board (strategic).

§ The Programmes Technical Working Group (programmatic).

§ The Systems-Finance Technical Working Group (operational).

§ DFID (strategic).

o Annex of all data and analyses undertaken.

The dissemination of the recommendations of the final report will be the responsibility of the Consortium Coordination Unit. In consultation with the Programmes Technical Working Group and the Systems-Finance Technical Working Group, the Consortium Coordination Unit will compile a response to the recommendations which lists the actions to be taken and will be approved by the Board. These actions will be integrated into the Consortium’s approach for its intervention phase which starts in July 2015.

9. Management, reporting and quality assurance arrangements

The consultant(s) for the external evaluation will be contracted by Concern Worldwide as the lead agency of the DRC WASH Consortium and will report to the Consortium Director and the Consortium WASH & M+E Coordinator. To ensure quality, the timing of payments will be made according to the delivery of key outputs, to be agreed in the contract. The inception report and final methodology will be approved by Concern Worldwide and DFID before proceeding to the full field evaluation. The proposed structure and contents of the final report will be approved by Concern Worldwide and DFID before proceeding to the completion of the final report.

10. Composition, skills and experience of the evaluation team

The team member(s) for the mid-term evaluation should be external (independent) to the NGOs of the Consortium. Representatives of external stakeholders in DRC (such as government, donors or other NGOs) should also be included in the evaluation process if possible, in some form of peer review role. Between them, the team members should have the following skills and experience:

Essential

• Relevant academic and professional background in rural WASH, including in fragile states.
• Experience in quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods evaluations for WASH.
• Experience in evaluating the technical infrastructure components of WASH programmes from an engineering quality perspective.
• Knowledge of the Life-Cycle Costs Approach and service delivery approaches for rural WASH.
• Excellent communication and report-writing skills in English.
• Ability to speak French.
• Willingness and ability to work long hours in a difficult environment.

Desirable

• Experience of consortia.
• Experience in DRC.
• Experience of evaluations for DFID and knowledge of current thinking in DFID on approaches to adaptive programming.

[1]MICS 2010.

[2]DFID’s 2013 “end to end review” of programming (led by the Deputy Head of DFID DRC at the time) concluded that the conventional approach to programme management needs to change and that programmes need to be flexible to adapt to changing realities and emerging opportunities (for more info see presentation by Pete Vowles on Adaptive Progamming at “Hard to Measure Benefits” workshop at DFID in London, October 2013).

[3] The OECD-DAC criteria are relevance/appropriateness, connectedness, coherence, coordination, coverage, efficiency, effectiveness and impact (ALNAP 2006). Connectedness and coherence are not relevant to this evaluation. Impact should be considered in terms of a preliminary assessment of likely sustainability of outcomes.

[4] There is a lack of data on life-cycle costs of different WASH services in DRC. The Consortium is trying to develop better estimates of the costs of different services to support informed investment decisions for WASH. The evaluation will be able to draw on estimates so far of life-cycle costs developed by the Consortium.

[5] DFID 2014, The Smart Rules: Better Programme Delivery, p50.

How to apply:

Please submit an Expression of Interest by January 16^th 2015toemily.bradley@concern.net outlining exact availability in line with the approximate timeline. The expression of interest should contain: (a) a technical offer and (b) a financial offer, comprising:

A. Technical offer:

· Up to date CV of the consultant(s) explaining how the consultant(s) meets the skills and experience required.

· Technical proposition detailing proposed methodology and resources needed (max 3 pages).

· At least one example report from similar work which demonstrates evidence of the skills and experience required.

B. Financial offer:

· A list of all expenses expected to be incurred by the consultant(s) including a daily rate. Up to 40 days of work is anticipated.

· Costs of transport in-country and accommodation while on field visits outside Kinshasa will be covered directly by the Consortium and should not be included.

The following additional information is available in the Annexes to this TOR:

· Annex A – Context of WASH in DRC

· Annex B – The Consortium’s Theory of Change

· Annex C – The Consortium’s original 9-point strategy and 12-step process

· Annex D – Logical Framework with baseline data for Phase 1

· Annex E – Map of the Consortium’s Area of Intervention.

Please contact emily.bradley@concern.net for all queries.