Country: Nepal
Closing date: 30 Nov 2015
Purpose: To review the impact of emergency relief and recovery interventions undertaken by the Nepal Red Cross Society (NRCS) as part of the Flood Appeal Operation supported by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), and to analyze key areas for improvement. The evaluation will specifically look at the design, implementation and sustainability elements of the programmes, with more focus on emergency relief, shelter, WASH, progressive shelter as a part of recovery. It is expected that key lessons and recommendations from this evaluation will guide the NRCS in ongoing as well as future operations and contribute to broader Red Cross Red Crescent learning, particularly to better address needs in emergency, relief and recovery, taking into account long-term impact and sustainability.
Background: Nepal is one of disaster prone countries in the world exposed to various hazards. Floods, landslides, fires and epidemics are most recurrent hazards whereas lightening; glacier lake outburst floods (GOLFs), avalanches and windstorms are other disasters that have great effects in the country. Besides, earthquake is one of the alarming as well as devastating disasters that has caused huge loss in the past. Due to steep terrain, a rugged and fragile demographic condition, high peaks and slopes, volatile tectonic processes, variable climatic condition, increasing population, poor economic condition, unplanned settlement, very rural topography, low literacy rate and lack of awareness are major contributing factors to increase vulnerability of the country. Disasters – earthquakes, floods, landslides, epidemics – often happen time to time causing enormous physical damages and loss of human lives. Nepal is ranked in 30th position in relation to the water induced disasters and also it is ranked in 11th position in terms of risk from earthquake.
Purpose: This evaluation will determine to what degree the humanitarian objectives of the relief and recovery interventions have been achieved and how the methodologies utilized have facilitated and contributed to the results attained. Particular focus will be given to shelter, and water and sanitation interventions, providing recommendations on how this capacity can be further strengthened at both NRCS Headquarters and District Chapter level. The desired result of the evaluation is to provide best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations that may inform NRCS, IFRC and other Movement partners in establishing better guidelines, priorities, plans and implementing ongoing or future operations.
Scope: This evaluation will be mainly concentrated in Surkhet District. Emergency relief as well as longer term support to the affected families for progressive shelter construction were carried out in Surkhet district. Cash Transfer system was piloted for the purpose of shelter support. A representative number of VDCs/municipalities in the district will be identified in agreement with NRCS and IFRC.
Objective:
The evaluation aims to:
Assess the extent to which interventions under the operation have achieved their objectives
Determine the impact on beneficiary living conditions, including access to water and sanitation.
Assess the capacity of the NRCS (particularly the district chapter levels) to deliver relief and recovery assistance effectively and make recommendations on how this capacity can be further strengthened.
The evaluation should highlight good practice, lessons learnt and areas of improvement to inform future response operations, together with recommendations on how to proceed.
Criteria: Criteria will be used to guide the evaluation recommendations:
a) Relevance and appropriateness
How effective were the interventions in identifying the most vulnerable among the affected population and responding appropriately to their particular circumstances?
Was the beneficiary selection process fair, appropriate and effective?
What strategies were used to ensure quality, timely and relevant delivery to target beneficiaries including mechanisms to capture beneficiary complaints/feedback
Was the assistance provided appropriate and sufficient to meet intended needs?
To what extent were the beneficiaries involved in the assessment, planning, design, implementation, and monitoring of the interventions?
Were intervention strategies and priorities in line with local customs and practices of the affected population, the priorities of the Government authorities and other key humanitarian actors?
Were the interventions in line with NRCS and IFRC strategies, standard operating procedures (SOPs) and guidelines?
What problems and constraints were faced during implementation and how did the interventions manage these?
What important lessons have been identified that can improve future interventions in the Nepal and be shared more widely?
b) Coverage
Did the interventions reach all population groups in need, including those in remote areas who would otherwise have not received humanitarian assistance?
Were there exclusions or differential impact between groups based on their location?
How could the coverage and distribution methods be improved?
c) Efficiency/effectiveness/accountability
Did the interventions meet their immediate and intended results?
Were there adequate resources (financial, human, physical and informational) available and were they utilized effectively and efficiently?
Were systems, procedures and control mechanisms adequate to ensure smooth delivery of assistance and protect the National Society and IFRC from financial loss and reputational risk?
Were adequate tracking systems in place to ensure transparency and accountability?
Were complaints/feedback mechanisms put in place for community questions and concerns to be answered? What were the concerns raised by communities during the intervention?
How effective were processes for planning, monitoring and quality management, (e.g. use of assessment data, internal reviews and other quality assurance mechanisms)?
Was there adequate time and effort invested for the integration of interventions across the different operation sectors?
To what degree was integration achieved and how could this be further strengthened?
Would greater investment in preparedness measures have resulted in more efficient, effective and less costly interventions?
How were programme activities managed and coordinated, particularly between NRCS, IFRC, other Movement partners, clusters, and local authorities?
Was the capacity of the human resource system enough to fulfil the needs of the interventions and beneficiaries? Were personnel skills utilized in an efficient and effective manner?
Was there adequate and relevant staffing including: a) decisions concerning the number of staff members needed, where, when, with what competences, at what levels, and at required availability and decision-making chain regarding staffing?
Did the lesson learned workshop result in NRCS addressing the identified capacity and operational gaps for the recovery phase?
d) Impact
What evidence (both direct and indirect) is available that the interventions contributed to the reduction of suffering and that the affected populations were assisted in maintaining or resuming basic dignity and enhancing disaster preparedness?
What impact did the interventions have on how the communities coped with subsequent disasters?
e) Connectedness and Sustainability
- Did the interventions result in enhanced institutional capacity of the NRCS district chapters, in terms of: a) ability to implement recovery programmes,
b) ability to prepare for and respond to disasters in a timely, efficient, and coordinated manner; and
c) ability to mobilize communities at risk to cope with future disasters?
Did the support of the IFRC strengthen and complement the response of local NRCS chapters and coping mechanisms, or hinder them?
Has the impact of programme activities, particularly in shelter and WatSan, been sustained following completion of the interventions?
Did the support provided to affected communities enable them to enhance their resilience to withstand possible future flooding/landslide and others hazards?
Methodology: The methodology will adhere to the IFRC Framework for Evaluations, with particular attention to the processes upholding the standards of how evaluations should be planned, managed, conducted, and utilized. Interviewees will include NRCS, IFRC, and PNS personnel (e.g. managers, field officers, direct implementers, volunteers and community mobilizers), beneficiaries (e.g. District Chapters officials, Sub-chapters executives/volunteers, ‘most vulnerable’ beneficiaries including children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, and families with high dependency ratios), and potentially, non-beneficiaries or people who did not receive assistance. These may be in the form of key informant interviews (KII), focus group discussions (FGDs) or other methods, at the discretion of the evaluation team. Interviews will also take place at the Kathmandu level to include perspectives from high-level management of NRCS, IFRC, and PNS. The evaluation is expected to be no longer than 20 days in duration, including preparation of the report and facilitation of a lessons learned workshop.
The detailed evaluation design is to be created by the external evaluation team; however, the following should be taken into account:
Sampling method is to be decided by the evaluator, as long the final sample to be evaluated on includes all Movement partners involved in the floods operation interventions, municipalities, sectors of the intervention and the ‘most vulnerable’ beneficiaries.
Data collection methods and pace are to be decided by the evaluator, in consultation with the NRCS and IFRC country office focal person(s), but should take into account the reality of difficult-to-reach districts. One-on-one interviews, discussion groups and key informant interviews are encouraged.
The evaluation team should visit a representative number of VDCs/Municipalities in the mid-west region assisted in the floods response. The total evaluation work is estimated at 20 days including travel time.
Appropriate training (estimated one day) should be organized for the chapter and facilitated by the evaluation team to provide volunteers with the knowledge and practice to conduct interviews/fill questionnaires in the evaluation process as required.
The evaluation team will be responsible to clearly outline the support needs in-county in their inception report. This will be agreed with NRCS and IFRC based on resources available.
Outputs/ Deliverable:
- Inception report and detailed work plan for the evaluation
- Draft report to be submitted one week after the conclusion of the evaluation
- Facilitation of a lessons learned workshop to present key preliminary evaluation findings to NRCS and IFRC in Kathmandu, including an opportunity for key stakeholders to clarify any immediate points
- Presentations to be made at workshops and other forums
- Final evaluation report of no more than 20 pages (excluding executive summary and annexes) which highlights key conclusions and recommendation.
Schedule: The evaluation is expected to no more than 20 days, including submission of the final evaluation report. It is proposed to start on 7 December 2015.
How to apply:
Interested candidates/teams should submit their expression of interest to pmer.apzo@ifrc.org by 4th December 2015. In the subject line, please state the position you are applying for, your surname and first name. (SUBJECT: Flood Operation Final Evaluation - Last Name, First Name).
The application should include:
Cover letter clearly summarizing experience of the team as it pertains to this assignment, your daily rate, and contact details for three professional referees
Curriculum Vitaes (CVs)
Applicants will be required to provide samples of previous written work similar to that described in this ToR, (previous evaluations and reviews completed).
Application materials are non-returnable and we thank you in advance for understanding that only short-listed candidates will be contacted.