Consultant for end of project evaluation CMFM2119

The aim of this evaluation is therefore to measure the impact of the Accelerated Education Programme (AEP), identify its strengths and weaknesses and make recommendations for improvement. The evaluation will also focus on teacher training and community involvement throughout the project implementation process. In addition, the evaluation will aim to generate lessons and recommendations for change and improvement in the programming, planning and implementation of future projects.

The first users of this evaluation will be the Plan International and NRC Education programme teams. The evaluation may also be used by MINEDUB and other humanitarian actors as part of the institutionalisation of the AEP and by the Directorate-General for Civil Protection and European Humanitarian Aid Operations (ECHO). The evaluation report will be published on the NRC website, and the lessons learned and recommendations will be shared with the members of the Education Cluster.

This evaluation will take stock of the pilot phase of the Accelerated Education Programme (AEP) approach launched in May 2020 in the Far North region of Cameroon, particularly in the Mora and Makary districts. This survey will be carried out to highlight the progress of the AEP programme from its inception to 2023. It will also show whether vulnerable children have returned to school in an environment that guarantees their protection. It will also focus on other key project activities, namely the implementation of CARED and the strengthening of school governance structures, as well as the complementary actions of the WASH, shelter and civil documentation components.

The scope of the primary data collection in the field should be between 2020 and 2023 and focus on project outcomes. Secondary data analysis covering the same period would be carried out to highlight the evolution of the programme and map key achievements. Programme resources and theory of change in relation to the education programme for populations affected by displacement should be considered. The evaluation will focus geographically on the Communes of Mora and Makary.

• See NRC’s guideline on developing useful evaluation questions
• Include a maximum of three main questions

Assessment questions

Relevance of the project

• To what extent was the project design relevant to ensuring access to education for the most vulnerable children and young people affected by conflict/crisis?
• What impact has the approach had on integrating and retaining children in the education system in the intervention area?

To what extent have prevention initiatives contributed to the fight against the COVID19 pandemic?

Project performance

• How effective has the project been in achieving the expected results in terms of access to quality education for out-of-school and out-of-school children?
• Has the project been able to provide legal protection through access to civil documentation?
• To what extent has the project enabled children to learn in appropriate conditions (health, safety and security)?

Durability

• Are there any tangible aspects of the interventions implemented that offer potential for the sustainability of the results achieved?
• To what extent has the project contributed to finding durable solutions for displaced people?

Integration

• Has the consortium carried out joint global and cross-sectoral analyses of problems on the ground?
• What internal and external factors have facilitated or hindered the AEP approach?
• Have the services provided by the other sectors (WASH, Shelter, LFS and ICLA) had a positive influence on the project’s results?

Type

• To what extent has the project addressed the specific needs and priorities of both boys and girls?
• To what extent has there been balanced participation, completion rates, access to education and a similar sense of safety, health and security for girls and boys?

Participation

• What is the level of participation of beneficiaries and how was this achieved in the different phases of the project cycle (programming, identification, formulation, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation)?

• What is the community’s perception of the AEP?

• What does the community think should be improved in the AEP?

• What does the community think worked?

• What do teachers think of the AEP approach?

• What do the teachers (AEP instructors) think they have gained from the training they have received?

• What do teachers think the project should improve in terms of teacher capacity building?

• How have the projects integrated the complaints and feedback mechanism into the day-to-day implementation of activities?

• What does MINEDUB think of the results of this approach?

• What does MINEDUB think should be improved? To answer the evaluation questions, NRC would like the evaluator to submit a study design and methodology based on participatory, qualitative and mixed quantitative methods to complement the monitoring data already available. The evaluation methodology should follow a non-experimental design in order to produce credible results and evidence of project performance.

  The evaluation will use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods and the evaluator, taking into account the suggestions of the steering committee, will determine the final methodology. The evaluator will develop the detailed methodology on the basis of these terms of reference and will detail the proposed approach in an inception report, which will be submitted to the Steering Committee for review and validation. As a minimum, the methodology should include the elements below, although potential evaluators are strongly encouraged to go beyond these elements;

• A desk review of key documents, including analysis of existing qualitative and quantitative data from the accommodation programme (covering the project period 2020-2023);

• Structured or semi-structured interviews with key informants (including local authorities, other humanitarian actors, NRC staff);

• Participatory methods, such as focus groups to gather the views and perceptions of specific groups, such as women and disabled people, who may have been under-represented in the household survey sample.

• Surveys of beneficiaries to identify their needs and understand their experiences, their level of participation and the use and appropriation of the goods and services made available to them. Triangulation should be carried out in the document review and analysis phases. In addition, a field validation exercise, to confirm preliminary findings with key project stakeholders, should be considered in the field part of the exercise.

• The evaluator, in consultation with the steering committee, will prepare all relevant tools based on the agreed methodology. The evaluator may propose changes to the methodology, but these must be discussed and approved by the committee. All relevant data must be disaggregated by gender, displacement status, and the different needs of women, men and vulnerable groups must be taken into account throughout the evaluation process. Data analysis will be gender sensitive and ensure the use of appropriate statistics (median, mean, etc.) to highlight trends and correlations. Content analysis is encouraged for qualitative data.

  The appraiser is expected to work to the highest appraisal standards and codes of conduct. High ethical standards, transparency and objectivity will be observed at all times. The evaluation must respect the rights of interviewees by guaranteeing confidentiality and security. Respondents must not be exposed to risk or inconvenience. Data collection tools will therefore be pre-tested and evaluation activities will provide a safe and creative space where respondents feel that their thoughts and ideas are important. All relevant staff, evaluators and interviewers must be made aware of and comply with the NRC Safeguarding Policy and Code of Conduct. The data collection plan must indicate how the NRC and the assessor(s) will classify the data and store it securely. Enumerators (male and female) will be trained in ethical data collection techniques.

  The consultant will carry out his tasks on the basis of an agreed work plan:

  Deliverable 1: Draft Evaluation Inception Report – The draft Inception Report (using the standard RCN template) should outline any proposed changes to the methodology or any other issues of importance to the continuation of the evaluation. The inception report should:

  I. Include a literature review ;

  II. Describe the conceptual framework that will be used to undertake the assessment ;

  III. Present an evaluation matrix: this sets out in detail the approach to data collection, the evaluation methodology, i.e. the way in which the evaluation questions will be addressed by means of data collection methods, data sources, sampling and selection criteria ;

  IV. Include all data collection instruments (in French)

  V. Provide a detailed work plan for the evaluation, indicating the phases of the evaluation and the main results expected;

  VI. Presenting an analysis plan ;

  VII. Draw up a list of the main stakeholders to be interviewed.

  Deliverable 2: Evaluation inception report – The inception report will be finalised after consultation with the members of the steering committee (max. 1 week for review).

  Deliverable 3: Draft evaluation report (30 pages maximum) – including a summary of the main findings, conclusions and recommendations, as well as all raw data.

  All raw data collected is to be transferred to the NRC and is the intellectual property of the NRC. The raw data sets will be transferred at the same time as the draft assessment report.

  The NRC is seeking expressions of interest from individuals and companies for this mission.

  Consultants must have :

  1. Advanced university degree or equivalent in humanitarian/development studies, social sciences, statistics or other fields related to the provision of humanitarian aid in the Education sector ;

  2. Experience in planning, implementing, monitoring and especially evaluating programmes in humanitarian contexts;

  3. Minimum 5 years’ research experience and experience in quantitative and qualitative methods

  4. Good knowledge of data collection methods using tablets and CAPI systems and the ability to analyse, summarise, present and write clear reports;

  4. Good knowledge of outcome evaluation approaches, in particular participatory mixed methods;

  5. Good knowledge of community development mechanisms, gender and equity;

  6. Good communication, writing and summarising skills in French and English;

  7. At least 5 years experience in quantitative and qualitative research and ;

  8. Technical understanding of Shelter programming ;

  9. Adequate knowledge of local cultures and languages as well as of the social, economic and political context of Cameroon – the Far North region – is an asset. The composition of the team must be balanced to ensure comprehensive coverage of the various aspects of the evaluation defined in these terms of reference, including cross-cutting issues. Gender balance in the proposed team will be an asset.