Consultancy : Community-Driven Recovery and Safety in Somalia

Description :

Organization: Danish Refugee Council
Country: Somalia
Closing date: 21 Feb 2017

1. CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND TO THE PROJECT

The CDRS project is based on the shared experience of DRC/DDG implementing community-driven recovery, development, safety and conflict management programming in more than 200 communities in Somalia since 2008. In this way, the project benefitted from more than six years’ experience testing and refining the Community Driven approach in Somalia in the evolving context. In particular, the project was informed by experiences and learnings derived from DRC and DDG’s interventions in the following areas: Community empowerment, improved service delivery and bottom-up governance are supported by civic education and community-driven development processes.

The overall aim of CDRS was: To contribute to the stabilisation of fragile parts of South Central Somalia by strengthening social justice through improved community level governance mechanisms and enhancing access to employment opportunities, social services and security for conflict affected populations.

In order to achieve this intended impact, three project outcomes are identified as contributing factors:

i. Community empowerment: Communities in South Central Somalia take control over and freely exercise their right to decide on the design, implementation and evaluation of their own development and safety plans

ii. Bottom-up governance: Local governance structures in three districts in South Central Somalia are reinforced to be more responsive and accountable to community needs

iii. Conflict prevention and management: Traditional systems with additional community involvement are able to identify and address underlying causes of conflict and to manage potential conflicts in a peaceful manner.

iv. Social, economic and security services: Improved access to social and economic infrastructures and services, employment opportunities, security provision for the population of communities in Somalia

v. Safety: Improved community safety in relation to risk management with firearms & Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) and improved conflict management skills for individuals

CDRS Theory of Change

CDRS project is built on the premise that it is critical to support the informal and formal systems of governance and strengthen citizen engagement to enhance community safety, strengthen the provision of services, and livelihood opportunities in order to stabilise fragile areas of Somalia and improve the quality of life for Somalis.

The Theory of Change for the CDRS project postulates that;

a) If the members of each community are empowered to decide on the design, implementation and evaluation of their own recovery and safety projects.

b) If members of each community benefit from a safe environment.

c) If members of each community have equitable access to social and economic infrastructure and services, as well as access to justice and security.

d) If members of each community and their representatives are better able to manage conflict and tensions peacefully.

e) If members of each community have access to jobs and employment opportunities.

f) If members of each community are aware of methods of self-protection in response to explosive remnants of war (ERW)/ small arms and light weapons (SALW) in the communities.

g) If local governance structures are strengthened to become more responsive to recovery and safety needs of all members of all communities, then each community will experience stability. More stable communities and districts in Somalia will contribute to reduce instability in the country.

The ‘Rapid Response (Pre-CDRS) initiative’ and the main CDRS project principally share the same Theory of Change.

DRC/DDG’s strategy for CDRS is guided by the assumption that it is critical to support the informal and formal systems of governance and strengthen citizen engagement to enhance community safety, strengthen the provision of services, and livelihood opportunities in order to stabilise fragile areas of Somalia and improve the quality of life for Somalis. This is in keeping with a context where the relationship between communities and the government has been jeopardised by several factors, and where the government has often been unable to provide services to its citizens. In such cases it is important that the delivery of such services entail community participation and strengthened interaction with local government institutions, both formal and informal. The chart below summarises the theory of change.

CDRS Approach

The CDRS approach encompasses the following key elements:

Community Safety and Recovery Plans

Through the community planning process, communities (i) articulate their self-perception and future vision, (ii) prioritise their needs and develop an action plan (called Community Safety and Recovery Plans – CSRPs) to work towards their vision, (iii) organise into a decision-making body (or refine an existing one, to ensure it represents all segments of the community), (iv) analyse their own resources and mobilise external resources, (v) manage resources to carry out their projects and ensure quality and accountability.

The implementation of the CSRPs takes place through four different processes:

i. Community Block Grants and Social Services Access Grants;

ii. Community safety related activities (delivered by DDG under its CS programme);

iii. Conflict prevention and management activities;

iv. Livelihood interventions

Rapid Response – Piloting a pre-CDRS model

The idea behind the pilot was to see if a fast track peace dividend intervention model can be anchored in communities recently out of conflict and with a changed government structure. The idea of the model was to prepare communities for longer-term CDRS type interventions. The project targeted one district with pre-CDRS.

Peace dividend grants were viewed as an instrument to facilitate collective action between social groups and conflict divisions, as well as to initiate transparent joint decision-making between community representatives and de facto authorities. The assumption is that if community representatives are quickly brought into interaction with each other on clearly defined terms with conflict management safeguards, and newly inserted governance structures are actively engaged while additional livelihood coping strategies are offered to meet immediate household needs and enable residents to engage in communal processes, stability can be enhanced and opportunities for longer-term programming created.

Whereas the TOC are the same, the indicators for outcomes and outputs of this part of the project intervention are slightly modified (please refer to Annex B LFA and Annex C Matrix TOC), as well as the elements of the rapid response mechanism pay more emphasis to social service/infrastructure and livelihood deliverables and less to the processes around empowerment and inclusive governance.

The ‘Rapid Response Initiative’ is, akin to CDRS, focused on the demand side of the state-civic interaction and works directly with community members.

The ‘Rapid Response Initiative’ was envisaged to take around 6 – 9 months to implement and targeted district centres rather than the village level.

The main elements of the pre-CDRS are as follows:’

• · Conduct operational and risk assessment of target districts:
• · Conduct context and stakeholder analysis:
• · Carry out civic education campaigns:
• · Consultation, planning and implementation of a ‘peace dividend’ project:
• · Conflict analysis, management and resolution activities

2. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

This impact assessment has three main objectives:

O1: To measure the extent to which the CDRS project achieved the intended Objective and Outcomes as illustrated by the respective indicators

O2: To examine extent to which DRC and DDG cooperation was operationalized through the project and how this impacted on project implementation and achievement of the desired outcomes

O3: To unpack the concepts and assumptions underlying community engagement both for the pre-CDRS and full CDRS methodology0 To assess the compliance of the clauses in the agreement, results framework, approval of changes by Sida through communication and Correspondences.

Based upon these findings O1, O2, O3, and 04the evaluation should:

R1: Provide recommendations on future programming based on lessons learned, promising and best practices

R2: To provide conjectures about causal mechanisms that may lead to social change and to develop an alternative theory of change

R3: Provide recommendations for future impact evaluations

R4: Inform whether the grant agreement has been complied with in accordance with agreed conditions

3. METHODOLOGY

The impact evaluation should use both qualitative and quantitative methodologies to examine the results of the CDRS activities.

The quantitative method should focus on measuring change in pre-established indicators in order to understand what certain outcomes and impact the activities had on certain key areas. For the quantitative methodology a post-test only treatment and comparison design is required with additional qualitative process tracing (done internally by DRC/DDG) to observe changes in the treatment community, but also to attempt to identify attribution.

In addition, the qualitative method, developed by the consultant/consultancy firm, should seek to understand in more detail what elements come together to make project activities successful and what elements may have hindered success. .

The Consultant/Consultancy firm is expected to provide a detailed description of the methodology that meets the requirements outlined above.

In addition, the Evaluation methodology proposed should include the following mechanisms which are intended to enhance learning and accountability from the Evaluations process:

1) A reflection forum: The purpose of the reflection forum will be to facilitate a structured and systematic engagement of the project beneficiaries/stakeholders in order to directly enlist their perspectives on inputs on the key learning’s based on their experiences with the project that has been implemented. This forum will serve the purpose of validating issues/experiences that may have been gathered in the process of collecting evaluation data and information. By so doing, the evaluator/evaluation firm will be in a better position to identify and prioritize the key learning’s that would be documented in the evaluation report and lessons learned note.

2) Formal beneficiary feedback forums: present an important opportunity to reflect on issues, challenges, problems or concerns that have been communicated by the beneficiaries through existing formal and informal reporting and feedback mechanisms. This mechanism is expected to facilitate a two-way interaction with beneficiaries that will entail a) a more systematic review of feedback received to identify and spot light on key lessons and b) further engagement or probing of the beneficiaries to identify additional experiences/information that could potentially inform lessons learned

4. KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS

1. What outputs did the CDRS project deliver and to what level of quality?
2. What did the CDRS project achieve at outcome and impact level?
3. Are the positive outcomes and impact likely to be sustained / continued? What data can support the results and how reliable is it?
4. Did the programme achieve its Theory of Change and how valid was the underlying assumptions made in terms of DRC and DDG collaboration? Why/why not was the Theory of Change achieved/not achieved?
5. was the grant agreement and the attached terms and conditions fully complied in accordance with agreed procedures?

5. EVALUATION CRITERIA

Overall, the evaluation seeks to identify the impacts of CDRS project through quantitative and qualitative data collection. The qualitative methodology examines this question in a more open-ended manner and also looks more closely at what characteristics are most likely to support successful project objectives, including sustainable sub-projects and communities that are better enabled to drive their own development.

While the quantitative methods answer the question of how successful project activities have been at improving certain outcome and impact indicators, the qualitative research answers a broader question of what makes a project successful or unsuccessful.

Specifically, the research question for the qualitative method can be defined as follows:

What are the most significant outcomes and impacts of the CDRS programme and what characteristics most likely contribute to these results?

A number of guiding questions should be used in the qualitative methodology in order to obtain a full answer to the main qualitative research question. These are based upon the following OECD DAC Criteria:

i. Relevance/Appropriateness

• How relevant were the project activities and prioritised needs from the CSRPs (as perceived by community members and district authorities)?
• How did the pre-CDRS affect the wider process?
• To what extent was the Theory of Change valid in reaching the overall objective?

ii. Effectiveness

• Did the CDRS project reach its outputs and how was the quality of DRC/DDG activities and what issues can be improved?
• To what extent were the four key processes for implementation of the CSRP successful in achieving the planned outcomes?
• What added advantages, if any, are there with DRC and DDG collaboration/joint programming? What are some of the challenges?

iii. Efficiency

• How successful was the CPIUs and the planning process in mobilizing community ownership and participation in identifying and prioritising needs?
• How successful was the CPIUs and the planning process in planning, informing the communities and mobilising for resources?
• How efficient were the Peacebuilding Networks in resolving conflicts? What could improve for future programming?

iv. Impact

• Did the CDRS project reach its intended impact (overall objective) indicators?
• What factors may increase and/or decrease the project’s intended impact to improve relations between the community and different tiers of government?
• What unintended benefits have resulted from the CDRS activities?
• What unintended consequences have resulted from the CDRS activities?

v. Sustainability

• To what extent has the target communities shown improved ability to manage its own development priorities and initiatives? Why / why not?
• What factors may lessen the community’s ability to take charge of their own development?
• What factors are most likely to contribute towards the long term success and sustainability of sub-projects?
• What factors may lead to improved relations between communities, Village Councils (VCs) and District Councils (DCs)?

vi. Cross-Cutting Themes: Participation and Gender/Social Inclusion

• Was the CDRS project considered inclusive by communities and local government?
• What role did women, youth and minorities among others play in the CDRS project? And how did they participate and/or influence decision making?
• By examining these guiding questions, the qualitative methodology should be able to identify more clearly the key drivers for the success of the project, both from a technical perspective (linked to the objectives) as well as beneficiary perspective. Furthermore, it can also assist in identifying other research questions to be examined in the design of future impact evaluations.

vii. Compliance of agreement

• Have all changes and decisions made by DRC/DDG been supported by necessary approval from Sida

6. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

The Impact evaluation proposed here seeks to understand the impact of CDRS activities in the three districts of Baidoa, Luuq and Warsheikh, i.e. a total of 60 communities. All project activities in these districts will have been completed, some for a considerable period of time. The time passed since completion of activities could have the adverse effect of presenting little impact if changes that occurred were short-lived or in cases where benefits might only have very temporary affects. However, if some project activities have led to the type of long-term changes in practices and well-being that are typically the aim of community driven interventions, then any demonstration of impact should suggest sustainable results.

The contract period should be for a maximum of 90 days after signing of the contract, which means that the full evaluation report should be finalized and shared with DRC/DDG by the latest 30 May 2017. The contract duration should be split into two periods:

First period: To develop an appropriate methodology for a post-test only treatment and comparison design is required, which includes a workplan for data collection (approximately 15 days) which should be followed by a review meeting with participation of DRC/DDG, Sida and the external consultant.

Second period: Data collection, analysis, write-up and dissemination (approximately 45 days)The consultant is required to develop a feasible work plan/activity schedule covering the suggested number of workdays and submits as integral part of the proposal for this consultancy.

The consultant can request an extension of the duration, if the assignment is delayed due to any of the following circumstances:

• Changes in the assignment at the request of DRC/DDG.
• DRC/DDG does not take the required decisions or present material or other contributions within the agreed upon time frame.

Bids that do not meet the necessary requirements of the timeline, finances and methodology will not be considered.

7. EVALUATION DELIVERABLES

· Inception Report / Response to ToR

· Draft Report

· Final Report

· DRC Lessons Learned Note

· Dissemination meeting with key stakeholders including a PowerPoint presentation

8. INTENDED USE OF THE EVALUATION FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

The Somalia country team in collaboration with the regional management team will review and use the findings of the impact assessment to make relevant adjustments to future programmes.

From the regional level in collaboration with DRC/DDG HQ will make recommendations on future evaluations in order to improve the overall contribution to knowledge that can be made. Lessons learned from conducting and managing the CDRS impact assessment will be used to further refine the DRC Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning Framework and in particular the guideline for conducting control – treatment methodologies. This will be the responsibility of the global Monitoring and Evaluation Adviser.

DRC/DDG participates and also provides leadership in relevant multi- agency/stakeholder fora and initiatives that seek to influence policy and programmatic changes in humanitarian programming regionally and globally. Through such participation and sharing, DRC/DDG country operations are able to advocate for changes that may be deemed appropriate for improving the quality and impact of humanitarian interventions based on evidence from program implementation, research and evaluations.

With regard to the foregoing, it is also a requirement that the consultant / consultancy firm provides the following in order to enhance utilization of lessons learned for advocacy:

Dissemination & Sharing of evaluation findings with key stakeholders with an emphasis on lessons learned and best practices that have been documented – A PowerPoint presentation will be prepared, for dissemination with key stakeholders including the local community leaders, clusters and beneficiaries.

9. RECOMMENDED DOCUMENTATION

As a minimum the evaluator should be made aware of and have access to the following documentation:

• Project proposal, project document, logical framework and/or theory of change and relevant monitoring reports and data
• Regional and Country Strategic Programme Document (SPD)
• Global and Country Accountability Framework
• DRC’s Operational Principles
• DRC’s Programme Handbook chapter 2.3 (Mandate) and 5 (Assistance Framework)
• Reports from evaluations conducted on similar DRC projects´
• Annual narrative, financial, audit reports
• Third Party Monitoring report
• The grant agreement between DRC/DDG and Sida
• The amendment to the agreement
• Sida’s general conditions

10. PRACTICAL IMPLEMENTATION OF THE EVALUATION

Consultant’s Roles and Responsibilities

• Establish working contacts with all relevant stakeholders in the targeted study areas
• Review relevant programme documents (i.e. programme proposal, LFA, quarterly reports, baselines, DRC/DDG process data, third party monitoring reports etc.).
• Prepare and submit the review proposal with clear illustration of the understanding of methodology (including suggested counterfactuals) to be used, including work plan and schedule for both quantitative and qualitative aspects of the assignment for review and feedback by DRC/DDG Somalia.
• Review of DRC/DDG process tracing tools and results focusing on measuring knowledge, attitude and/or perceptions and behavioural change
• Design, develop, critique (with DRC/DDG team) and refine data collection tools including translation into local Somali language, where appropriate.
• Hire all needed staff in field (enumerators, researchers etc.)
• Develop and/or train the field enumerators on the review design.
• Interview selected respondents during the review.
• Prepare and submit all evaluation deliverables as required in 7)

DRC/DDG Responsibilities

• Provide the consultant with all necessary documents and reports
• Pay the required consultancy fee as indicated in the signed contract.
• Where necessary, facilitate the making of appointments with all relevant stakeholders (government, partners, communities etc.)
• Provide necessary support in training of enumerators

The terms and conditions of service will follow DRC/DDG terms of consultancies. Payment will be done according to the finance procedures of DRC/DDG.

11. REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

For day-to-day operations the consultant will report to DRC/DDG MEAL Manager and CDRS Project Manager. The CDRS Field Offices in the respective locations will extend the required logistics and administrative support to the consultant in carrying out the task when s/he is in the area/field. The consultant may provide updates on progress when requested by DRC/DDG MEAL Manager and/or CDRS Project Manager.

12. EXPECTED PROFILE OF CONSULTANT

• Advanced degree in development studies, social sciences or other relevant field.
• Significant experience in leading reviews of humanitarian programmes especially in the areas of community-driven development (CDD), local governance, safety and security among others.
• Knowledge of strategic and operational management of humanitarian programmes, and proven ability to provide strategic recommendations to key stakeholders.
• Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and prepare well-written reports in a timely manner.
• Demonstrated experience in both quantitative and qualitative data collection and data analysis techniques, especially in community-driven development (CDD).
• Experience, knowledge and clear understanding of Somalia’s humanitarian context;
• Good interpersonal skills and understanding of cultural sensitivities.
• Readiness to travel to Somalia and conduct direct standard assessment activities.
• Documented experience in participatory project assessments /review.

13. TERMS & CONDITIONS

The consultant should be willing to work in the target areas of South Central Somalia, where security allows. The consultant may have his/her own team to work with and then they will entirely be under the jurisdiction of the consultant and at no time will DRC/DDG be held responsible for them.

14. GENERAL

DRC/DDG has a Humanitarian Accountability Framework, outlining its global accountability commitments. All staff are required to contribute to the achievement of this framework (http://www.DRC/DDG.dk/HAF.4265.0.html).

• Email to Friend
• RSS
• Print

Email to a Friend

Friend Name :

Friend Email :

Your Name :

Your Email :

Comments :