*Tearfund is seeking an External Evaluation Consultant(s) to undertake two evaluations of its WASH work in eastern DRC. In the current context of COVID-19 it is unlikely the Consultant(s) will be able to travel to/within DRC; it is therefore anticipated that the field work will be undertaken by a team of local enumerators under the remote direction and supervision of the Consultant(s).
Tearfund finished implementation of a USAID/BHA funded award in North Kivu, South Kivu and Ituri, Eastern Congo, in the sectors of WASH and Agriculture and Food Security. The purpose of this external evaluation is to provide information to develop and improve programming in subsequent phases of implementation; provide accountability to stakeholders including beneficiary communities as well as funders on the results/impact of the project; identify intended and unintended results of the project; and help develop a more effective evidence base for on-going programming.
It will be a performance evaluation of Tearfund’s programme: Emergency WASH and Food Security support to conflict-affected populations in eastern DRC. The evaluation will take place in Tearfund DRC’s country office in Goma, as well as in the field sites in Djugu Territory (Ituri), Lubero and Beni Territory (North Kivu), and Fizi Territory (South Kivu). Please see the attached full TOR for details of the number of projects to be included in Evaluation 1.
Tearfund has identified five key Evaluation questions outlined below based on the OECD/DAC criteria of Impact, effectiveness, relevance, beneficiary participation and satisfaction and sustainability.
- What impact has the project had on direct and indirect beneficiaries?
- Has the project been effective in achieving the intended project objectives and outputs?
- How relevant is the project to the priorities and needs of the target group and Tearfund?
- How has this project involved beneficiaries during the design and the implementation of the project and was the project satisfactory for the beneficiaries?
- Is there evidence that the project’s outputs can be sustained in the longer term?
EVALUATION 2 - the findings from Evaluation 1 will feed into Evaluation 2
Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) interventions have historically played a major role in Tearfund’s work in the DRC and will continue to do so given the significant unmet and continuing WASH needs in the country. WASH interventions have been carried out in both humanitarian and more developmental (settled) contexts within the DRC, whilst recognising that the country is also classed as a fragile context within Tearfund’s corporate priorities framework. The majority of Tearfund’s WASH work in the DRC has been delivered through its own operational team.
Despite the scale of its WASH work in the DRC, to date no project level evaluations have been carried out, to allow a comparison across the different approaches undertaken to better understand if some are more effective in different contexts and what internal/external factors may have influenced outcomes. This comparative evaluation will help to build the evidence base on what works and what doesn’t, why and how, in order that more informed programming decisions can be made on where future investments in terms of efforts and resources should be placed. Please see the attached full TOR for details of the number of projects to be included in Evaluation 2.
Evaluation Goal, Objectives and Questions
Specific factors (external and/or internal) which have contributed to sustained outcomes and beneficiary satisfaction in Tearfund’s WASH interventions in the DRC between 2014-2020 are identified in order to provide a programmatic decision-making aid based on what has been shown to work well in which context
b) Key objectives and research questions
- To undertake a comparative study of the sustained outcomes between projects which had a distinct ‘outcome’ phase (SWIFT1 and SWIFT2) and those which did not (OFDA1, DRA); is there any evidence to suggest that having a dedicated outcome phase leads to more sustained WASH outcomes? Is there any evidence to suggest that ‘humanitarian’ projects can also achieve sustained outcomes? Is there any evidence that time has an effect on sustained WASH outcomes i.e. is there an identifiable trend of sustained or downward trend in behaviour/activity/facility over time and what factors ( internal/external) contribute to this?
- To undertake a comparative study of the sustained outcomes between different approaches undertaken in SWIFT1 and SWIFT2 intervention areas (i.e. VEA, CHC, semi-urban); is there any evidence to suggest that one programming approach leads to more sustained WASH outcomes?
- To review project tracking data where it exists to explore whether baseline coverage rates influence household construction of hand washing facilities and latrines: is there any evidence to suggest that a higher or lower baseline coverage leads to more sustained WASH outcomes?
Effectiveness and impact
Question 1 : What has been the impact of Tearfund’s WASH interventions in the lives of beneficiaries? (beneficiary satisfaction - reinterview SWIFT beneficiaries; interview beneficiaries from other projects)
Question 2 : Is there any evidence of vulnerable groups being assisted, and participating, i.e. impact of an approach on inclusivity generally (vulnerability criteria will vary per location but should always include people living with disability, older people, women, children)
Question 3 : How do the different programme approaches compare in terms of achieving similar outputs in relation to inputs (staff, time)?
Question 4 : Are there particular programmatic approaches which have led to WASH interventions being more sustainable - compare and contrasts outcomes from different programme approaches implemented
Question 5: Have communities been able to maintain their VA certification? Are there particular factors which have enabled or hindered this in terms of the different programme approaches? Is there evidence of interventions being self-replicated/regulated by beneficiary communities post-intervention?
Question 6 : Are there particular external factors and/or influences which have led to WASH interventions being more or less sustainable? Is there any evidence of a systems strengthening approach being undertaken?
Question 7 : Are different models of community managed water structures more successful than others in providing sustainable and inclusive access to water? If so, what are the particular factors behind success/failure (influencing factors may include type of water infrastructure, number of committee members, ratio of men:women in the committee) (Include analysis of water user payments - what % of users need to pay and do pay in order to maintain a system; what percentage of household income is spent on costs for water and sanitation? What elements of life cycle costs have been taken into consideration? Assessment of water management committees set up by Tearfund utilising the SWIFT sustainability checklists focussing on maintenance plans and financial management
EVALUATION 1 AND 2
Timeframe and Deliverables
It is anticipated that both evaluations will be completed by the end of May 2021.
The expected deliverables for this consultancy are:
- A draft evaluation report for each Evaluation
- A final Evaluation Report for each Evaluation which should include an executive summary and a set of recommendations
- The (Lead) Consultant should have at least 5 years’ professional experience in programme evaluation in WASH
- Knowledge of the WASH sector in the DRC
- Desirable to have knowledge and experience of undertaking food security project evaluations
- Strong research capacity including rigorous qualitative and quantitative data collection, analysis and data visualization skills
- Experience of remote support of data collection using participatory methods and inclusive approaches
- Strong analytical and writing skills
- Fluency in written and spoken English and French within the core team
- Excellent communication, people and remote team management skills **
How to apply
We invite interested individuals, groups and firms to submit the following documents (in English) to , cc’ing by 15 January 2021. You are welcome to get in touch with Rachel and Poppy if you have any questions throughout the application process or if you wish to be sent the full ToR.
- Cover letter: A letter addressing the evaluation criterion and indicating availability during the proposed evaluation time frame (maximum 2 sides of A4)
- CVs for the consultant(s) who will undertake the evaluation, detailing relevant experience (maximum 4 sides of A4 each)
- Technical Proposals for each evaluation which address the TOR. This should include the consultant’s (or consultants’) understanding of the TOR and its objectives; the proposed methodology and analytical framework (linked to the evaluation questions); work plan/schedule, main risks and how these will be mitigated (maximum 6 sides of A4 each).
- Financial Proposal: including Consultant(s) itemised daily consultancy costs, data collection and other associated costs, as deemed appropriate.
Two examples of similar evaluation reports written by the applicant. If these were co-authored, then please include a description of the role of the named Consultant.**