International Consultant - Evaluation Consultant


Lieu : Baku, AZERBAÏDJAN
Date limite de candidature :16-Feb-18 (Minuit New York, États-Unis)
Catégorie supplémentaire :Développement durable et réduction de la pauvreté
Type de contrat :Individual Contract
Niveau du poste :International Consultant
Langues requises :
Anglais  
Date de commencement :
(date à laquelle le candidat sélectionné doit commencer)
05-Mar-2018
Durée du contrat initial2 and half months
Durée prévue de la mission :2 and half months

Historique

The project titled “Enabling civil society to play a greater role in advancing socio-economic rights of vulnerable population” is funded by the EU Delegation to Azerbaijan and implemented by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP). The project is designed to support civil society in Azerbaijan in promoting human rights and fundamental freedoms, with a focus on vulnerable groups.

The overall objective of the action is to advance socio-economic rights of vulnerable populations (particularly women, Persons with disability (PWD), children and young people, imprisoned persons) in Azerbaijan.

The specific objectives of the action are the followings:

Build capacity of civil society organisations to promote social inclusion and human-rights based approach

Support small scale community projects through non-governmental organizations to promote socio-economic rights, issues of equality and non-discrimination.

The areas tackled within the Project include: a) promotion and protection of the rights of vulnerable groups; b) promotion and protection of economic, social and cultural rights; c) promotion of non-discrimination and equality, including gender equality and equality for persons belonging to minorities and vulnerable groups; and d) promotion of tolerance. The project beneficiaries are women, people and children with disabilities, prisoners and others socially vulnerable populations.

The results of the project are focused upon development of vibrant civil society advocating for and working on social inclusion and advancing rights of vulnerable groups. To achieve this, UNDP partners with 12 civil society organisations (CSO) with experience and track record in working for and with vulnerable groups. Each of these organisations tackles the important issues towards achievement of expected results and objectives set by the Action. The activities are implemented in different regions of Azerbaijan.

Capacity development approach constitutes the principal methodology for the implementation of all activities proposed by the action. As practiced and promoted by UNDP, an essential ingredient in the capacity development approach is to bring about transformation that is generated and sustained over time from within.

The indicative project activities are structured under the three Expected Results as below:

Expected Result 1. Capacity of targeted civil society organisations increased to utilize human-rights based approach in advancing the social inclusion, equality and socio-economic rights of the vulnerable groups;

Activity 1.1      Develop and conduct detailed Capacity Development Needs Assessment

Activity 1.2      Capacity Building for utilisation of human rights based approach

Activity 1.3      Develop and implement Monitoring and Evaluation, and quality assurance systems

Activity 1.4      Develop and implement PR/communication strategy

Expected Result 2: Social inclusion and socio-economic rights of vulnerable groups, particularly women, PWD, children and young people, imprisoned persons, advanced at the local level

Activity 2.1      Increasing Capacities of state and non-state actors for provision of legal and social services to PWDs

Activity 2.2      Increasing Capacity of CSOs in the field of Juvenile Delinquency prevention, early detection and intervention

Activity 2.3      Preparation and delivery of prison monitoring services

Activity 2.4      Protecting and promoting economic and social rights of prisoners for their rehabilitation and reintegration of into society.

Expected Result 3: Issues of non-discrimination and equality promoted through active engagement of civil society in community development and social inclusion

Activity 3.1      Build partnership with national and local government and advocate for and promote the issues of non-discrimination and equality

Activity 3.2      Develop networking and partnerships with and between CSOs working on the issues of non-discrimination and equality

Activity 3.3      Build Infrastructure and Documentation Resource for civil society and National Women’s Machinery

Activity 3.4      Enhance Technical and practical civil society capacity to improve the legal, institutional and policy framework for socio-economic empowerment of women in remote areas


Devoirs et responsabilités

The scope of the final evaluation will cover all activities undertaken in the framework of the project. The evaluator will compare planned outputs of the project to actual outputs and assess the actual results to determine their contribution to the attainment of the project objective.

The evaluator will assess the following four categories of project progress.

i.                 Project Strategy

Project design:

·        Review the problem addressed by the project and the underlying assumptions.  Review the effect of any incorrect assumptions or changes to the context to achieving the project results as outlined in the Project Document.

·        Assess to what extend this model of initiatives was the best option to respond to the development challenges in a sustainable way?

·        Review the relevance of the project strategy and assess whether it provides the most effective route towards expected/intended results. Were lessons from other relevant projects properly incorporated into the project design?

·        Review how the project addresses country priorities. Was the project concept in line with the national development priorities of the country?

·        Review decision-making processes: were perspectives of those who would be affected by project decisions, those who could affect the outcomes, and those who could contribute information or other resources to the process, taken into account during project design processes?

·        If there are major areas of concern, recommend areas for improvement.

Results Framework/Logical Framework Matrix:

·        Undertake a critical analysis of the project’s logframe indicators and targets, assess how “SMART” the end-of-project targets are (Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, Time-bound).

·        Are the project’s objectives and outcomes or components clear, practical, and feasible within its time frame?

·        Examine if progress so far has led to, or could in the future catalyse beneficial development effects (i.e. income generation, gender equality and women’s empowerment, improved governance etc...) that should be included in the project results framework and monitored on an annual basis.

·        Verify whether the broader development aspects of the project are being monitored effectively.  Develop and recommend SMART ‘development’ indicators.

ii.               Progress Towards Results

Analysis of Progress towards Outcomes:

·        Review the Logframe indicators against progress made towards the end-of-project targets using the Progress Towards Results Matrix and colour code progress in a “traffic light system” based on the level of progress achieved; assign a rating on progress for each outcome; make recommendations from the areas marked as “Not on target to be achieved” (red).

In addition to the analysis of progress towards outcomes and outputs:

·        Identify remaining barriers to achieving the project objective in the remainder of the project.

·        By reviewing the aspects of the project that have already been successful, identify ways in which the project can further expand these benefits.

Project Implementation and Adaptive Management

Management Arrangements:

·        Review overall effectiveness of project management as outlined in the Project Document.  Have changes been made and are they effective?  Are responsibilities and reporting lines clear?  Is decision-making transparent and undertaken in a timely manner?  Recommend areas for improvement.

·        Review the quality of execution of the Implementing Partner(s) and recommend areas for improvement.

Work Planning:

·        Review any delays in project start-up and implementation, identify the causes and examine if they have been resolved.

·        Are work-planning processes results-based?  If not, suggest ways to re-orientate work planning to focus on results?

·        Examine the use of the project’s results framework/Logframe as a management tool and review any changes made to it since project start. 

Finance and co-finance:

·        Consider the financial management of the project, with specific reference to the cost-effectiveness of interventions. 

·        Review the changes to fund allocations as a result of budget revisions and assess the appropriateness and relevance of such revisions.

·        Does the project have the appropriate financial controls, including reporting and planning, that allow management to make informed decisions regarding the budget and allow for timely flow of funds?

Project-level Monitoring and Evaluation Systems:

·        Review the monitoring tools currently being used:  Do they provide the necessary information? Do they involve key partners? Do they use existing information? Are they efficient? Are they cost-effective? Are additional tools required? How could they be made more participatory and inclusive?

·        Examine the financial management of the project monitoring and evaluation budget.  Are sufficient resources being allocated to monitoring and evaluation? Are these resources being allocated effectively?

Stakeholder Engagement:

·        Project management: Has the project developed and leveraged the necessary and appropriate partnerships with direct and tangential stakeholders?

·        Participation and country-driven processes: Do local and national government stakeholders support the objectives of the project?  Do they continue to have an active role in support of efficient and effective project implementation?

·        Participation and public awareness: To what extent has stakeholder involvement and public awareness contributed to the progress towards achievement of project objectives?

Reporting:

·        Assess how adaptive management changes have been reported by the project management and shared with the Project Stakeholders.

·        Assess how well the Project Team and partners undertake and fulfil reporting requirements.

·        Assess how lessons derived from the adaptive management process have been shared with key partners and internalized by partners.

Communications:

·        Review internal project communication with stakeholders: Is communication regular and effective? Are there key stakeholders left out of communication? Are there feedback mechanisms when communication is received? Does this communication with stakeholders contribute to their awareness of project outcomes and activities and investment in the sustainability of project results?

·        Review external project communication: Are proper means of communication established or being established to express the project progress and intended impact to the public.

i.                 Sustainability

Assess the following risks to sustainability:

Financial risks to sustainability:

·        What is the likelihood of financial and economic resources not being available once the EU grant assistance ends (consider potential resources can be from multiple sources, such as the public and private sectors, income generating activities, and other funding that will be adequate financial resources for sustaining project’s outcomes)?

Socio-economic risks to sustainability:

·        Are there any social or political risks that may jeopardize sustainability of project outcomes? What is the risk that the level of stakeholder ownership (including ownership by governments and other key stakeholders) will be insufficient to allow for the project outcomes/benefits to be sustained? Do the various key stakeholders see that it is in their interest that the project benefits continue to flow? Is there sufficient public / stakeholder awareness in support of the long term objectives of the project?

Environmental risks to sustainability:

·        Are there any environmental risks that may jeopardize sustenance of project outcomes?

Progress towards Results Matrix (Achievement of outcomes and outputs against End-of-project Targets)

 

Project strategy       Indicator                     Baseline Level         End-of-project Target   Achievement Rating      Justification for rating

Outcome 1:                       Indicator1:

 

Output 1:                          Indicator1.1:

                                           Indicator1.2:

                                            Indicator1.3:

 

Output 2:                           Indicator2.1:

                                            Indicator2.2:

                                            Indicator2.3:

 

Output 3:                           Indicator3.1:

                                            Indicator3.2:

                                            Indicator3.3:

 

Evaluation Ratings & Achievement Summary Table for “Enabling civil society to play a greater role in promoting socio-economic rights of vulnerable population” Project

 

 

Measure                                                                          Achievement Description

Project Strategy

 

Progress towards Results                                               Objective Achievement Rating:       (rate 6pt. scale)

                                                                                          Outcome 1 Achievement Rating:     (rate 6 pt. scale)

                                                                                          Output 1 Achievement Rating:        (rate 6 pt. scale)

                                                                                          Output 2 Achievement Rating:        (rate 6 pt. scale)

                                                                                          Output 3 Achievement Rating:        (rate 6 pt. scale)

 

 

Project Implementation &                                             (rate 6 pt. scale)

Adaptive Management                    

 

Sustainability                                                                   (rate 4 pt. scale)

 

 

TIMEFRAME                                                    ACTIVITY

 

09-19 March 2018                                           -Desktop review of materials;

                                                                           -Preparing evaluation methodology (“Inception Report”);

                                                                           -Planning of evaluation mission to Azerbaijan

 

2 April – 12 April 2018                                     During the mission in Azerbaijan (10 days in April):

                                                                           -Debriefing with project administrators

                                                                           -Evaluation mission: stakeholder meetings, interviews, visits,

2-3 field visits as necessary;

-Mission wrap-up meeting & presentation of initial findings

 

20 April – 30 April 2018                                   Home-based work upon completion of mission:

                                                                           -Submission of draft report

                                                                           -Preparation & Issues of Management Response

                                                                           -Submission of final report


Compétences

Competencies

  • Strong reporting and communication skills;
  • Excellent communication skills with various partners including donors;
  •  Demonstrable analytical and strategic thinking skills;
  • Excellent written and spoken English and presentation capacities; working knowledge of Azerbaijani or Russian will be an asset;
  • Result oriented.


Qualifications et expériences requises

 

Only those applications which are responsive and compliant will be evaluated.  Offers will be evaluated according to the Combined Scoring method – where the educational background and experience on similar assignments will be weighted at 70% and the price proposal will weigh as 30% of the total scoring.  The applicant receiving the Highest Combined Score that has also accepted UNDP’s General Terms and Conditions will be awarded the contract.

·        Minimum Master’s Degree in business administration, economics, regional development/planning, project assessment, or any other related fields (15 points)

·       Experience and knowledge on gender equality and women’s empowerment, civil society or related (15 points)

·       Recent experience (minimum 5 years) with result-based management evaluation methodologies and applying SMART indicators, reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios; (15 points)

·       At least five years of experience in programme/project evaluation and proven accomplishments in undertaking evaluations for international organizations, strong knowledge of United Nations development agenda, the civil society and working with government authorities (15 points)

·       Experience working with the EU or EU-evaluations will be considered as an asset; (10 points)

The selection of consultants will be aimed at maximizing the overall qualities in the following areas:

·        Minimum Master’s Degree in business administration, economics, regional development/planning, project assessment, or any other related fields (15 points)

·        Experience and knowledge on gender equality and women’s empowerment, civil society or related (15 points)

·        Recent experience (minimum 5 years) with result-based management evaluation methodologies and applying SMART indicators, reconstructing or validating baseline scenarios; (15 points)

·        At least five years of experience in programme/project evaluation and proven accomplishments in undertaking evaluations for international organizations, strong knowledge of United Nations development agenda, the civil society and working with government authorities (15 points)

·        Experience working with the EU or EU-evaluations will be considered as an asset; (10 points)

 Financial proposal should be done as a lump sum in consideration of supposed travels (including accommodation, ticket and DSA).

The breakdown is necessary.

Daily allowance for Baku/Azerbaijan is 176 USD.

Total working days should be no more than 25 days.

Total no of days in the country/field (evaluation mission in Azerbaijan): 10 days

The system accepts only one attachment, so please, send both technical and financial proposals as one attachment. 


Le PNUD s’engage à recruter un personnel divers en termes de genre, de nationalité et de culture. Nous encourageons de même les personnes issues des minorités ethniques, des communautés autochtones ou handicapées à postuler. Toutes les candidatures seront traitées dans la plus stricte confidentialité.


Si vous éprouvez des difficultés avec les candidatures en ligne, merci de contacter jobs.help@undp.org

© 2016 Programme des Nations Unies pour le développement