Sudan: National Community Health Volunteer Programme (NCHV) evaluation Consultant in Sudan

Summary

1.1. Purpose: The main purpose of the evaluation is to generate substantive evidence-based knowledge by identifying good practices and lessons learned from intended and unintended impact/effects of the program.

1.2. Audience: The Sudanese Red Crescent Society (SRSC), the IFRC Sudan Country office and partners

1.3. Commissioners: This evaluation is being commissioned by IFRC in compliance with its Evaluation Policy for final evaluations.

1.4. Reports to: Asjad ALI (IFRC) and Nagat Malik (SRCS)

1.5. Duration: The consultancy will take place over a period of approximately 32 days

1.6. Timeframe: The evaluation will tentatively take place during May 2016

1.7. Methodology summary: The evaluation will include gathering qualitative data in various field locations and analysing the quantitative data from a household survey.

1.8. Location: SRSC and IFRC office in Khartoum, as well as selected localities in North Kordofan, Sennar, Geizira, Northern State, River Nile and Gedaref states.

1.9. Application requirements: 

University degree in Public Health, Social Science or equivalent qualification 

Demonstrated extensive experience in conducting evaluations and carrying out qualitative data collection. 

Demonstrated experience in community based development approaches / participatory methods.  Experience in qualitative data collection and data analysis techniques 

Excellent communication and reporting skills  Excellent command of both written and spoken English, Arabic is preferable. 

Ability and willingness to travel within Sudan 

Knowledge and experience with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement is preferable. 

Demonstrated experience in evaluating gender and diversity aspects of programmes.

Background

During the last decade new knowledge about illnesses and disease patterns, new technology, previous unknown diseases, new life styles and intensive travelling have changed our understanding of health and how it affects people. It has become evident that antibiotics will not keep people healthy, insecticides will not eradicate malaria and pesticides might have a negative impact on human beings, animals and vegetation. Politicians and professional medical staff have realised that the solutions to health problems are not to be found in more specialised hospitals, bigger clinics or expensive drugs. The interest has therefore grown towards health promotion and prevention and to raise the capacity of local communities to deal with their own health problems. SRCS, IFRC and movement partners represented in Sudan together carried out a comprehensive assessment (PAN Sudan Health Assessment 2005) in order to support the National Society, in identifying its role in area of health and water-sanitation. The assessment team recommended the strengthening of the existing community based first aid (CBFA) approach by building the capacities of the volunteers and shift the focus from facility based primary health to community based primary care in the communities. The assessment team observed that SRCS volunteers are trustworthy, working in communities, reliable and can be called upon quickly. They are seen as neutral in all regions visited. As expected they apply the movement principles. They are strongly recognized by MOH and other organizations involved in health care service delivery. The team recommended SRCS to implement with the volunteers the following interventions:-

Temporary assistance to returnees and Internally displaced persons (IDP’s) in facility based or community based programs.  Emergency health services.  Build SRCS capacity and profile in community health and public health in emergencies through volunteers. Special focus should be on primary health care, public health in emergencies preparedness and scaling up HIV / AIDS interventions.

Besides lack of access to health services for the main part of the population, the government facilities are often understaffed, not adequately resourced and unable to provide comprehensive services. Interest has therefore grown to develop a network of volunteers in the local communities and equip them with basic skills in first aid, prevention of common health risks and health promotion.

Program Overview: The program focuses on addressing basic health care needs for the targeted communities and empowering people to take care of their own health through The NCHVP started in 2007 and is currently implemented in 11 state (4 funded by the Norwegian RC an 7 by the Swedish RC).

Program Objective: To build the community resilience in addressing basic health care needs of the most vulnerable communities and empower people to take care of their own health, in coping with disasters through community based health and care initiatives and enhanced capacity of the Sudanese RC to address humanitarian needs.

Program Core areas of intervention:

1. CBHFA (Community Based Health First Aid)
2. Communicable Disease Prevention (Malaria, TP, Vaccination)
3. Public Health in Emergencies
4. HIV and AIDS Prevention and Reduction of Stigma
5. Water & Sanitation using PHAST to encourage and empower communities to identify and solve health problems connected with water born disease and sanitation.

Evaluation Purpose & Scope

The main purpose of the evaluation is to generate substantive evidence-based knowledge by identifying good practices and lessons learned from intended and unintended impact/effects of the program. This evaluation is intended to unveil the nature of the change that has taken place in the lives of communities, SRCS volunteers and on sustainable well-being of the local communities. The results from this exercise will be highly useful to enable any adjustment/redirection that may be necessary for future SRCS-NCHVP interventions. The evaluation will determine the relevance, effectiveness, impact and beneficiary participation of the NCHVP. The evaluation is concerned with the NCHVP, implemented in 11 states. The evaluation will cover the 3 year period of 2013 - 2015 for 6 states (4 state Swedish Red Cross and 2 state Norwegian Red Cross) and the target group will be the SRCS volunteers and staff in the localities and branches as well as SRSC HQ, members of the targeted communities, community leaders and stakeholders in the area. Due to limitations in terms of budget, security and accessibility the following 6 states have been selected: North Kordofan, Sennar, Geizira, Northern State, River Nile, Gedaref.

Evaluation Criteria – Objectives - Questions

A. To assess relevance of program response from the point of view of the volunteers and targeted community members.  To which extent has the programme built on existing resources and capacities of communities?  Has the program been consistent with the needs and priorities of the intended beneficiaries?

B. To assess the effectiveness of the implementation process of the program’s support and to see if the program achieved planned outcomes and outputs.

Have the activities been undertaken in a timely manner? Were objectives achieved on time?  Were assessments of needs and capacities of the targeted beneficiaries carried out? : what was missing; what can we do differently next time?  Were the supervision and management mechanisms on all levels (branch, HQ, and IFRC) sufficient in relation to the project needs and expectations?  Have lessons and recommendation from previous evaluations and reviews been considered and used?  What monitoring tools were in place to feedback into implementation? Were there any gaps for further improvement?  How effective was the coordination/collaboration between IFRC and SRSC and between SRSC’s different departments?  What was the level and type of support provided by SRSC HQ and IFRC to the branches implementing the activities? Was the support appropriate considering the branches’ capacities?

C. To assess the impact, positive and negative changes (intended or unintended) resulting from the programme. 

What is the stakeholders’ (beneficiaries, partners) viewpoint related to the performance and impact of the project?  Has there been changes in relation to the health knowledge, behaviour and attitudes of the targeted beneficiaries?  Has the project been able to strengthen SRSC presence and image in the community, if so how? 

D. To assess the coordination of program support intervention with the government authorities and other stakeholders. 

How effective has the coordination with external actors and government authorities been?

E. To assess how beneficiaries have participated in the programme planning, monitoring and implementation, considering gender and diversity. 

How were beneficiaries involved in the different phases of the program?  Were beneficiaries able to provide feedback to SRSC on the program?  How was information given to beneficiaries?  Has the programme considered gender and diversity in relation to design and planning of the program, the implementation of activities and the monitoring and evaluation of the programme?  Are there gender sensitive indicators and sex disaggregated data?

Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation will include gathering qualitative data and analysing the quantitative data from a household survey. The methodology should at least include the following elements:

1. Document review of program documents ( including MSC)
2. Review of secondary data, including from the household survey
3. Beneficiary interviews and focus group discussions
4. Interviews with key stakeholders
5. Focus group discussions with volunteers involved in the program SRSC and IFRC are committed to Accountability to Beneficiaries (AtB) and follow the AtB minimum standards: Monitoring, Evaluating and Learning: We will ask beneficiaries about their opinions and we will use this information to measure progress and inform programmes.

To meet the minimum accountability to beneficiaries standards in the evaluation phase, programme managers must ensure that:  Evaluation reports include a section on accountability to beneficiaries  Beneficiaries are involved in evaluations to ensure the community perspective is included.  The findings of evaluations are shared back with communities.  Learning from programmes is documented and disseminated.

As part of the deliverables of the assignment the consultant will propose a methodology for the evaluation, based on the above.

Deliverables (or Outputs)

The evaluator/evaluation team is responsible to submit the following deliverables: a. An inception report, including the proposed design and methodology. The inception report should outline detailed scope, evaluation questions; methodology; sampling, field visit timing, data collection methods, timeline for activities and submission of deliverables. The inception report should also include initial data and findings based on the document review. This report will be used as an initial point of agreement and understanding between the EMT and the evaluator/evaluation team. A draft will be shared in advance for comments, and approved by the EMT. b. Draft Final evaluation report in English to be submitted after completion of the data collection field visits. c. Final Evaluation Report in English to be submitted after receiving consolidated comments and feedback from EMT and key partners. d. A power point presentation in English summarizing the quantitative and qualitative findings of the evaluation using text, charts and diagrams. The Evaluation report should systematically answer the key evaluation questions posed. It should fairly and clearly represent the views of the different actors/stakeholders. It should clearly give the conclusions and recommends in a way that is substantiated by evidence.

Proposed Timeline (or Schedule) The evaluation will tentatively start at the beginning of May 2016.

a. Briefing with SRSC, IFRC and partners - 1 day.

b. Development of inception report, desk review of secondary data/information, development of qualitative data collection instruments - 3 days.

c. Travel to the field (5 states), qualitative data collection, meeting with key partners in the field - 20 days.

d. Debriefing - 1 day.

e. Report writing (1st draft)- 5 days.

f. Report writing (final draft) -2 days

Total: 32 days

Evaluation Quality & Ethical Standards

The evaluators 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 the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards and specific, applicable process outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation.

The IFRC 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.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality. Further information can be obtained about these principles at: www.ifrc.org/what/values/principles/index.asp”

Evaluator/s & Qualifications 

University degree in Public Health, Social Science or equivalent qualification 

Demonstrated extensive experience in conducting evaluations and carrying out qualitative data collection. 

Demonstrated experience in community based development approaches / participatory methods. 

Experience in qualitative data collection and data analysis techniques 

Excellent communication and reporting skills 

Excellent command of both written and spoken English, Arabic is preferable. 

Ability and willingness to travel within Sudan  Knowledge and experience with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement is preferable. 

Demonstrated experience in evaluating gender and diversity aspects of programmes.

Evidence of similar work done in the past will be sought from the consultant(s).

Interested candidates should submit their application material by 20 April 2016 to:

hr.eastafrica@ifrc.org *Application materials should include:

1. Curricula Vitae (CV) for all members of the team applying for consideration.

2. Cover letter clearly summarizing your experience as it pertains to this assignment, your daily rate, and three professional references.

3. A brief description of your firm or institution (for applicants other than individual contractors).

4. Technical proposal (not exceeding five pages expressing an understanding and interpretation of the TOR, the proposed methodology, and a time and 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.