UNDP Jobs - 33112- Consultant to conduct the Final Evaluation of the

Consultant to conduct the Final Evaluation of the UN Peacebuilding Programme- (Ugandan National)

Location :

Kampala (with travel to Acholi Sub-region), UGANDA

Type of Contract :

Individual Contract

Starting Date :

01-Nov-2012

Application Deadline :

12-Oct-12 (Midnight New York, USA)

Post Level :

National Consultant

Duration of Initial Contract :

20 working days

Languages Required :

English

Expected Duration of Assignment :

20 working days

UNDP is committed to achieving workforce diversity in terms of gender, nationality and culture. Individuals from minority groups, indigenous groups and persons with disabilities are equally encouraged to apply. All applications will be treated with the strictest confidence. UNDP does not tolerate sexual exploitation and abuse, any kind of harassment, including sexual harassment, and discrimination. All selected candidates will, therefore, undergo rigorous reference and background checks.

Background

Status of current UN Efforts in Support of Peacebuilding:

During the conceptualization of the peace building programme in 2010, the UN mechanisms to support Uganda’s recovery and peace processes were: the Consolidated Appeals Process (CAP) and the UN Peace Building and Recovery Assistance Programme (UNPRAP). The UNPRAP, which was a sub-set of the UN Development Assistance Framework (2010-2014), was the common strategy for the UN’s operational activities for the transition from humanitarian relief to recovery and long-term development in northern Uganda. It focused on four priority areas: human rights, justice and reconciliation; local governance; social services; and livelihoods and socio-economic safety nets. In supporting northern Uganda, the UN aims to assist national authorities to initiate immediate, priority recovery actions supporting peace dividends, ensuring crisis resolution and laying the groundwork for longer-term development through strengthened capacity-building and basic service delivery.

The current UN support to recovery in the region comprise of the joint programmes on GBV, Gender Equality, Population; and the UN Area Coordination Systems. The majority of UN interventions in Northern Uganda, and Acholiland in particular, are in line with the Government of Uganda’s Peace, Recovery and Development Plan (PRDP), the second edition of which was launched in June 2012. This includes the peace building programme.

The UN has also received support from the UN Central Emergency Response Fund (CERF) for managing the refugee influx in Western Uganda.

PBF Priority Areas:

The UN has worked closely with development partners to develop and maintain a common understanding of the peacebuilding gaps. The PBF projects with an overall support of 14 m. US$ were intended to be short-term interventions with immediate impact, based on peacebuilding priorities for the UN that have been collated in the UNPRAP, jointly signed by the UN and the Government.

Despite UN interventions, agencies’ plans and the existing joint programmes , large funding gaps remain in addressing the identified priorities in social service provision, and the gap in funding to human rights, transitional justice and reconciliation. It is with this analysis of funding gaps that PBF support has been requested for the following areas:

UNPRAP Outcome 1: Strengthened human rights, accountability and good governance capacity of key government, civil society institutions and mechanisms including traditional structures contribute to improved security, protection, access to justice and reconciliation for all people in Northern Uganda

PBF contributed a total of 8.4 m. US$ to contribute in achieving the following outcomes under two joint programmes:

Programme Outcome 1. Local Justice, law, order and security government institutions and services apply international human rights, justice and protection standards
Programme Outcome 2: Transitional justice processes, mechanisms and capacities for mediation, peace building, conflict resolution and reconciliation facilitated
Programme Outcome 3: Human rights and protection advocacy, monitoring and reporting capacity strengthened among civil society networks and independent national institutions
Programme outcome 4: Recovery, reintegration, protection services, systems and structures established and accessible to vulnerable groups/ affected population groups

UNPRAP Outcome 4: Rural communities in the north have improved gender responsive sustainable livelihoods, diversified economic opportunities and basic social protection. PBF contributed 5.0 m. US$ to contribute in achieving the following outcome:

Programme outcome 4.3: Livelihoods of rural households diversified

Strengthened results-based management system

PBF contributed 0.6 m US $ to reinforce M&E systems for measuring and communicating most effectively programme results within the peacebuilding context.

Programme Outcome 1: Improved coordination, communications and resource mobilization
Programme Outcome 2: Enhanced joint monitoring and evaluation (M&E) systems and tools

Objectives:

The main objective of this final evaluation is to assess the specific added value of PBF engagement within the overall programme and contributing to the achievement of results that are significant for the overall peace building process in Uganda.

The purpose of this evaluation aims in particular to assess PBFs effectiveness in:

Providing an adequate response to existing urgent gaps which will be analysed in their dimensions (financial or non-financial), urgencies and how PBF specific support created a ‘momentum’ to accelerate the overall peacebuilding process;
Achieving catalytic effects in terms of additional financial leverage of PBF funds or unleashing peace relevant processes;
Becoming instrumental to enhance the coherence of UN agencies in their engagement for peacebuilding;
Assess the implementation status and the effectiveness of each PBF supported individual project in achieving outcomes and their relevance for the peacebuilding process. Could major factors of relevant conflict causes, or conflict drivers be addressed, and thus reducing the risk of a future relapse to conflict?;
Evaluate how effectively recipient organizations (RUNOSs) designed, implemented and monitored projects ensuring oversight and quality control to achieve high performance in delivering services and products as planned in the most cost effective way (‘value for money’).

Duties and Responsibilities

The evaluation will review the implementation status of all programme components that PBF contributed to and focus on assessing to what extent project output delivery performance was key for achieving the intended outcomes within the existing local peace and conflict dynamics. The evaluation will include an assessment as to how the output delivery performance contributed to specific results for women. Due to the PBF’s short funding cycle and the consequent challenge of ‘quantifying’ the status of results achievements under these conditions, the evaluators will use perception surveys as a major data source to assess the quality of peace relevant changes in the local context.

The evaluation team will carry out their assessment with reference to the following DAC/OECD criteria, and measure results against the PBF Performance Management Plan indicators to the extent as project or context relevant. The evaluation questions below provide a first guidance, but are not exhaustive.

Relevance (outcomes to be achieved with PBF support, and project based assessment):

Evidence of how the outcome areas that received PBF support were strategic entry points for moving the peace building process forward;
How clear was the design of expected results (outcomes) in providing guidance to the project implementation partners on to what to achieve, and how to measure and monitor them?
How and to what extent were “theories of changes’ taken into account in the results formulation in response to underlying conflict dynamics?
In what way were priorities aligned where appropriate to a broader national strategic framework and/or the changing institutional environment to ensure that they contribute more effectively to the peace building process?
To what extent were the different programme components generating synergies within the targeted sectors, and/or adding value to other donors’ interventions?
To what extent did the selected projects demonstrate key PBF features like ‘comparative advantage based on the right momentum of intervention’ and ‘taking risks’?

Effectiveness (sector and project based assessment):

What were the most significant positive results achieved for peacebuilding with evidence of institutional, behavioral and political changes at the level of groups that were targeted by PBF support?
To what extent did the achieved results impact on the conflict dynamics as anticipated? Any evidence of unexpected negative or ambivalent side effects?
What are the perceptions of conflict-affected groups with regards to the contribution of PBF projects to peace building in the major areas of intervention?

Efficiency (project based assessment):

How fast were fund approvals and fund transfers?
To what extent did recipient agencies achieve peace relevant results within their assigned responsibilities? What were their management capacities for planning, budgeting and monitoring performance targets within the allocated time and budget, and adjust if necessary?
To what extent were interventions risk taking and conflict sensitive?
How efficient and transparent were the selection procedures for projects and fund recipient agencies and/or implementation partners?
What were the strengths and weaknesses of implementation arrangements?
How efficient were project reviews and remedial action taken to improve the implementation performance?
To what extent has the political environment affected the overall efficiency of the projects?
What was the role of relevant coordination mechanisms (JSC) in enhancing the effectiveness of the ongoing projects?
Is there evidence that RBM support improved delivery performance of the different RUNO’s to the overall programme achievements?

Sustainability of results and catalytic effects:

To what extent have the results achieved had catalytic effects for peace building processes and beyond? Were there additional funding commitments from other donors, or the Government attributable to project achievements?
To what extent are the achieved results sustainable? To what extent can they be sustained by national institutions?
Is there evidence of initiatives taken by government and/or other donors (bi/multilateral) to mobilize additional resources that can sustain the results of the projects?
What is the role of the UNCT in enhancing the sustainability of peace building initiatives in Uganda?

National ownership and consolidation of supportive national structures:

How effective were UN coordination mechanisms (JSC) in strategy-decision making, funding decisions, keeping oversight in the transparent use of funds?
How has national ownership of government played a role in the effectiveness of the projects? Did the JSC played an active role in the monitoring of the performance of funding recipient agencies and reporting on their results?
How did the JSC see the added value of the PBF engagement? Risk taking? Contributing to catalytic effects?
To what extent did coordination mechanism play a key function in the documentation of key lessons learned, best practices and recommendations for peacebuilding.
How effective were existing reporting lines and -structures between local level national stakeholders, recipient agencies, UN coordination mechanisms and PBSO NY?
How efficient were the results shared and communicated to national stakeholders and interested partners?

Transparency and accountability:

How efficient was the strategic guidance provided from PBSO to the UN RC office, JSC and recipient agencies?
To what extent were oversights procedures functioning and complementary at PBSO and at the country level?
To what extent was the fund use compliant with PBF rules and regulations?
How transparent were funding and approval decisions at the national level?
To what extent did PBF’s specific support in RBM allow easy access to information? What is the evidence that infoemdd deciosion making was improved at local, national and PBSO HQ level due to this M&E specific support?

Methodology:

The independent evaluation will take an inclusive approach and include interviews and discussions with key national stakeholders, to enhance the quality of the evaluation and to build ownership of the evaluation process and results at country programme level. The UNRCO will consult with recipient agencies and PBSO regarding the appropriate project visits for the evaluation.

The National Consultant should note that the Team leader will be responsible for the development of a detailed methodology depending on access to quantitative and qualitative data for measuring results, incorporating the following elements.

Review of documentation: the evaluation team has to ensure that all relevant documents available, including relevant assessment, surveys, evaluations and other M&E related documents will be taken into account. It will be the responsibility of the team leader to review all M&E documents of all projects posted at the MPTFO gateway.
Field visits: Data will be collected at the level of recipient agencies, implementing partners, partner Ministries, and beneficiary communities.
Inclusive process: Interviews must cover all key stakeholders, implementing partners, beneficiaries and other community members, as well as some peace building actors – if necessary - that are currently not receiving funding from the PBF.
Analysis of qualitative and quantitative data: The team leader will decide the ‘optimal mix’ of available data sources (primary and secondary data) that will be needed to quantify and assess results achievements (outcomes) that are attributable to the projects. All team members will be responsible to achieve a triangulation of views and data sources based on a close exchange during the mission.
The evaluation process and products will adhere to the OECD/DAC principles and UN Evaluation Group Standards.

Key Deliverables:

The consultants will produce the following:

Preliminary assessment (Project Fact Sheets). PBSO will provide the basic inputs into the Project Fact Sheets, with assistance from the M&E expert from the UNRCO. These will be reviewed by the Team Leader prior to the commencement of field visits.
Inception Report: based on a desk review of the relevant documentation, including the Project Fact Sheets, a concise inception report will be developed by the evaluation team. It will outline the proposed evaluation steps and provide a detailed description of the envisaged methodology, its parameters, assumptions and an explanation as to why this is the most appropriate way forward. The report will also include a work plan with associated timetable, sites to be visited and will be presented to the PBSO for comments and approval.
Inception meeting: prior to conducting the field visits, the team will meet with the focal persons of the PBP participating UN organizations to discuss the process, methodology and questions/issues to be address in the evaluation
Debriefing Note: prior to the Team Leader’s departure from Uganda, a debriefing will be given to the RC/UNCT, national counterparts, implementation partners and donors to review a first draft of conclusions and recommendations. A short two to three page debriefing note and power point presentation will support the verbal presentation.
Draft Report: the draft report will be submitted to the PBSO, who will be responsible for co-ordinating the feedback process with the recipient agencies. Expected deadline: latest 15 November 2012.
Final Report: the final report will be approved by PBSO in close consultation with the UN RC office after reception of comments from the country team. The response from the UNCT should be part of the Annex. The report should not exceed 25-30 pages, not including appendices or the Executive Summary. It should provide lessons Learnt and a clear evidence basis for its conclusions; all recommendations should be actionable. The independent team will have editorial control of the final report. Expected deadline: 30 Nov 2012.

The outline of the evaluation report must be compliant with the following format, and will be submitted to Government, PBSO, and the United Nations in Uganda, containing at least the following information:

Executive Summary of the evaluation findings
Background
Assessment of conflict drivers / causes to be addressed
Theory of changes and expected results (for the entire portfolio and per sector intervention)
Key Achievements of the PBF supported projects (overall portfolio, sector contributions to peacebuilding; national ownership, sustainability, overall cost effectiveness / value for money)
Challenges and Lessons Learnt
Recommendations on how to improve programme effectiveness.
Annexes: Project fact sheets to assess project based contributions to peacebuilding process (see PBF standard; reference to project relevant PMP indicators and OECD/DAC evaluation criteria with particular attention to cost effectiveness)

For the desk review, the following documents will need to be reviewed:

PBF project documents (Business Plan, PMP, Annual Report SG 2011, documents related to measuring catalytic effects; Relevant government policy documents; PBF Progress reports submitted by the UN Recipient Agencies via MPTFO gateway.
Relevant UNRCO design-related background documentation (conflict analyses; peacebuilding strategies)
Background documentation on the conflict context in Uganda

Duration and timing:

It is expected that the evaluation will start last week of October 2012 the latest. A total of 30 workdays is estimated for the international team leader and a total of 20 workdays for the national consultant. The evaluation mission will be funded from programme allocations.

The tentative activities of the mission will involve:

Week 1:

(international consultant, home based): Desk review of relevant documentation (2 days)

Week 2: (international: 7 days and national consultant: 5 days)

Finalization work plan/timetable/field visits
Inception report drafted, shared with PBSO and finalised
Inception and individual meetings with UN Recipient Agencies, PBF coordination mechanism members.

Week 3 and 4: (international and national consultant: 13 days)

Meeting with key government partners, field visits of PBF supported projects.
Drafting of debriefing note and presentation
Debrief to discuss the preliminary findings with government, UN Recipient Agencies and PBSO

Week 5 (after mission return):

Finalization of the report (international consultant: 8 days).
National consultant contribution to final draft: 2 days
Debriefing in NY (team leader)

Management and Reporting:

The PBSO will manage the evaluation process with support of the UNRC office in Uganda. The day-to-day work of the evaluation team will be supported jointly by PBSO office (on demand from either the evaluation team or UNRC office).

Competencies

Ability to work in cross cultural setting – particularly when dealing with conflict sensitive issues;
Ability to assess behavioural changes of target institutions within a post conflict dynamic environment;
Ability to effectively convey complex messages cross culturally to a wide range of audiences;
Ability to prioritize and complete tasks in a very limited time span under pressure;
Sound experience in Africa;
Demonstrated leadership and ability to formulate actionable recommendations.

Required Skills and Experience

Education:

Minimum Masters degree in a relevant area including political science, international development, international relations, conflict studies, sociology or law.

Skills and Expertise:

Minimum ten years (international Team Leader) and 5 years (national consultant) evaluation experience in post-conflict countries, in particular focusing on peace building, recovery and reconciliation dynamics; (Experience with gender-focused evaluation processes);
Demonstrated understanding of conflict analysis, conflict drivers and sector interventions that address the major causes of conflict; such as security and rule of law, national and political dialogue, good governance, human rights, gender issues, youth employment, national capacity building;
Experience in working with government officials, UN system and international donor community;
Strong analytical and writing skills, both for qualitative and quantitative research.

Application Process:

Preparation of Proposals:

Language: Proposals prepared by the Offeror and all correspondence and documents relating to the proposal exchanged by the offerer and the procuring UNDP entity shall be in English.

Documents comprising as proposals:

Proposal shall comprise of the following documents:

Proposal submission – online application at the following address: http://jobs.undp.org
Technical Proposal – suggested outline for technical proposal:
a. The offerers interpretation of the assignment;
b. Clarifications and or suggestions on scope of assignment;
c. Approach and Methodology for undertaking the assignment along with timelines;
d. Outline of recent experience on assignments of a similar nature. For each assignment the outline should indicate, the profiles of the staff used, duration of the assignment, the contract amount, the bidder’s involvement and the contact person in the organization;
Any additional information that demonstrates individual capacity to undertake the proposed assignment.
Financial Proposal : All prices to be quoted in Uganda Shillings. Proposed budgets should provide sufficient detail to assess their appropriateness and to indicate possible implications of the methodological approaches.

Payment Schedule:

The project will be completed in 20 working days (i.e 1 month). Payment will be made against submission and approval of the following deliverables by the Consultancy team. Please note that payment shall be made to individual consultants upon confirmation of completion of and contribution to all consultancy deliverables (as identified below) from the Team Leader.

20% of the cost upon submission and approval of the inception report .
50% of the cost upon submission and approval of the draft report.
30% of the cost upon submission and approval of the final report.

Eligible consultants are required to submit application and a detailed CV/Resume at http://jobs.undp.org.

Please note that the system will only allow you to upload one document, therefore all the technical and financial proposals are to be attached to the CVs and uploaded together at once(as a single document). Only successful candidates shall be contacted.