TERMS OF REFERENCE

Promoting Socio-Economic Inclusiveness in Siem-Reap, Cambodia with the support of BLF

End of project final evaluation

1. Background

1.1 About Handicap international Handicap International is an independent and impartial international aid organisation working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, our action and testimony are focused on responding to their essential needs, improving their living conditions and promoting respect for their dignity and their fundamental rights. HI is currently implementing projects in more than 50 countries worldwide, including Cambodia.

1.2 Project background In Cambodia, HI launched its first livelihood initiatives in Battambang Province in early 2000 targeting the extremely vulnerable and/or people with disabilities to be economically and socially self-sufficient and get access to micro-credit scheme.

From 2008 to 2010, HI implemented the project “Towards Income Generating Activities”, known as TIGA, to improve the livelihoods of landmine/UXOs survivors. The project was implemented in partnership with a local NGO, Operations Enfants du Cambodge (OEC).

Since 2011, building on the lessons learned from TIGA project, the “Capacity Development for Inclusive Development Interventions – Increase access to vocational training and income for persons with disabilities in rural communities in Cambodia”, also known as TIGA II project has been launched in Battambang and Kampong Cham provinces. In parallel, HI has run a community based rehabilitation (CBR) project in Siem Reap Province from 2008 to 2013, and has helped establishing two district level Federations of people with disabilities, in order to support 56 self-help groups and advocate at district and provincial level.

1.3 Project summary information

In January 2014, HI launched the ‘Promoting Socio-Economic Inclusiveness in Siem Reap, Cambodia’ project, also known as ‘SEI project’ funded by the Big Lottery Fund. The project will come to an end on 30 September 2017 and a final evaluation is thus planned for. The action aims to contribute to 1/ sustainable reduction in poverty and social exclusion, 2/ improved quality of life among people with disabilities and other disadvantaged households (HH).

It has 3 main outcomes:

OUTCOME 1: Targeted people with disabilities and other disadvantaged persons, and their immediate family members, are benefiting from a sustainable improvement in their household livelihoods.

OUTCOME 2: Local governance has been strengthened through increased dialogue between public authorities and disadvantaged groups and the integration of their interests into local development processes.

OUTCOME 3: Socio economic inclusion of people with disabilities has improved with at least 8 service providers demonstrating improved inclusiveness of people with disabilities in their service provision

Project expected beneficiaries:

Direct beneficiaries

a) households and households working members including youths b) disadvantaged groups leaders (women, youths, people with disabilities) c) Local authorities (commune, village, district and province) d) Self Help Groups (SHG) & their members e) DPOs and their board f) Service providers

a) 200 HH and 600 pers. including 27 youths. 50% male and 50% female. b) 250 leaders c) 58 representatives d) 96 SHG including 200 people e) 2 DPOs, 20 board members f) 8 service providers, 32 staffs

Indirect beneficiaries

a) Other household members b) and c) community at large d) and e) families of SHG members f) service users with disabilities

a) 300 b) and c) 25,299 d) and e) 800 f) 10% of the services’ users

Project location: 4 communes in Srei Snam and Kralanh Districts of Siem Reap Province.

Project partners:

- CABDICO

- 2 District Federations (DPO) of Self Help Groups (SHG) of people with disabilities.

2. Objective of the evaluation The evaluation has two explicit objectives which have been defined at proposal stage: To make an informed assessment on the performance of the project to provide the donor, HI

and its partners with sufficient information regarding the relevance, the effectiveness, the efficiency, the impact and the sustainability of the project as per Organisation for Economic Co-operation & Development (OECD) standards.

To provide HI and its partners with practical recommendations. Strengths and weaknesses of the project’s methodology and implementation process will be identified and analyzed, with an objective to increase impact and sustainability in the next phase of the project.

3. Evaluation questions

The consultant will articulate its analysis around the following set of evaluation questions, which are structured according to the OECD-DAC criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, synergy and impact. When necessary, the consultant will propose a set of sub-questions at desk phase (see part 4). As HI in Cambodia has been involved in the implementation of several inclusive livelihoods projects, this project evaluation intends to provide a comparative analysis with previous project phases in order to support the elaboration of future project strategy. Relevance

To what extent did the project target and reach the poor and marginalized? To what extent did the project support people with disabilities considering the target group

included vulnerable people as a wider target? To what extent did the project mainstream gender equality in the design and delivery of activities (and or other relevant excluded groups)?

How well did the project respond to the needs of target beneficiaries, including how these needs evolved over time?

Was the project design appropriate to the specific context and especially the project approach of working with several members within the same household to build their resilience?

Where the selected IGA aligned with the needs and with the market? Effectiveness

Has the project been successful in producing the desired results, especially for people with disabilities and other disadvantaged persons, and their immediate family members?

To what extent has the project used learning to improve delivery? What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the delivery of results for the project? Have beneficiaries and partners been involved effectively in the project design/monitoring? How many people are receiving support from the project that otherwise would not have

received support? Was there any missing intervention/modality to achieve the outcome level results? How did the team capacities contribute to the effectiveness of the project implementation?

Efficiency

To what extent has the project delivered results that are value for money? To include but not limited to:

o How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency in relation to delivery of its outcome;

o What has happened because of BLF funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened; o Value for money of kits, training services and hygiene kits.

To what extent did the grantee deliver results on time and on budget against agreed plans? To what extent did the project understand cost drivers and manage these in relation to

performance requirements? Has the project allocated sufficient resources to implement the project including capacity

building of the staff? Sustainability

To what extent is there evidence that the benefits delivered by the project will be sustained after the project ends? Including:

o Vulnerability/sustainability of businesses after the end of the action o Efforts towards disability inclusion at service provider level o Dialogue between local authorities and vulnerable groups

To what extent capacity of the stakeholders involved in the project have been developed in a way that can be sustained even after the project?

Synergy: Has the project managed to ensure effective synergies between the 3 project outcomes? Is the project well- accepted by all stakeholders? Has the project sought the involvement of the main stakeholders (local authorities, partners

as well as beneficiaries)? Is the project coherent with other interventions in the area and has ensured a

comprehensive response to the multiple and changing needs of the target groups? Have Project teams adopted a respectful and fair attitude towards everyone and ensured

that actions are socially acceptable to the people targeted in all their diversity and to communities?

Did the process miss an opportunity to make links with other complementary activities/services?

Impact

What is the differentiated impact on beneficiaries between batches 1, 2 and 3 and their impact on beneficiaries (taking into account the different types of teams set-up and supports between the different batches)? Including:

o Participation of people with disabilities, youths and women in the commune investment plan process and whether it links to livelihood resiliency

o Roles and impact of District Federation in advocacy for inclusion o Level of inclusive adaptation of services of service providers, in connection to

livelihoods and health Have target people with disabilities and other disadvantaged persons benefited from a

sustainable improvement in their household livelihoods? Including:

o Comparative impact (including level of resiliency) between families according to the number of family members supported within the household (note: SEI evolved from TIGA to focus on a higher number of people in a household)

o Number of families who are over poverty line because of the action o Wage vs self-employment and their challenges to sustain and grow

Has the adaptation of services provided by service providers have an impact on the capacity of people with disabilities to access services?

What is the differentiated impact on beneficiaries between the approach adopted through the SEI project and with the approach adopted under the previous TIGA2 project? Including:

o Between people with disabilities and other disadvantaged persons (including comparing the level of contribution required from the household to participate to their IGA)

o Between commune councils, chief of village and district authorities o Between service providers

Is there any different level of input required when working with beneficiaries with/without disabilities, women/men, to achieve the same quality of change?

To what extent and how has the project built the capacity of civil society and especially of Disabled People’s organisations (DF)?

What are the least and the most significant changes under each outcome & what are the costs related to these changes (including cost per beneficiary but also level of involvement of staff + partners)?

To what extent and how has the project affected beneficiaries (all target groups) in ways that were not originally intended?

Impact will be measured on 3 main target groups: a) Women and men with disabilities and other disadvantaged households b) Commune councils and district authorities c) Service providers The consultant will also identify good practices and lessons learnt if any and make recommendations which can be shared with stakeholders and wider HI in Cambodia. These good practices may include tools, publications, lessons learned, training materials, management practices etc. The consultant should explain why this is considered good practice and make suggestions on their wider applicability.

4. Methodology required The consultant will propose appropriate methods for demonstrating impact. The proposed methodology shall include: DESK PHASE The consultant (or team of experts) will undertake a desk review based on all documents sent by the project. On this basis, the consultant will:

Develop an evaluation framework to ensure that the final evaluation is objective and transparent.

Finalize the technical proposal and the evaluation methodology to ensure participation of the project beneficiaries and stakeholders

Define a detailed work plan including the list of stakeholders to meet during field phase. These elements will be combined in an inception report. HI team will validate the inception report during the initial briefing. Indicative materials to review:

Project narrative and financial proposal, amendment and contract with BLF

Project donor reports

Monitoring framework (PME), systems and data

Studies undertaken by HI: Quality of life assessments; KAP survey; Capitalisation reports; Satisfaction survey of service users

Previous final evaluations on projects related to inclusive livelihoods in 2013 and 2015

CABDICO Commune Investment Plan report

Action plan of service providers and their report (using Vshesh tool)

Action plan of district federations Evaluation framework The evaluation framework clearly presents how evaluation questions are interpreted and how they will be answered. An example of evaluation framework is provided in annex A. The purpose of the evaluation framework is to ensure:

Transparency: all stakeholders can see the basis upon which judgements will be made;

Objectivity: setting out the judgement criteria and indicators ensures that judgements will be made objectively based on the evidence gathered;

Systematic approach: the framework structures the research and analysis exercise. All of the evidence can be systematically reviewed against the indicators that are set and agreed with stakeholders; and

Clarity: the framework provides clarity on how the evaluation will be undertaken and how the evidence will be used.

FIELD PHASE

Briefing with Operational Coordinator, Inclusion and Livelihoods Deputy Operations Coordinator, Project Manager and the Livelihood Regional Technical referent

Field visits and meetings with the main project partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries. Debriefing to HI

The consultant is required to conduct an impact assessment on a sample of beneficiaries. HI can provide staff to support data collection in this regards. Relevant primary and secondary research may also include: interviews with HI and main partners’ staff involved in the management and delivery of work; interviews with various delivery partners; focus group discussions with beneficiaries; surveys with project stakeholders where (possible and proportionate); verifying reported data through back checking and quality control assessments. Assessment of value for money: The evaluation will include an assessment of the Value for Money of the intervention, including identifying and rating observed changes for each output from the community perspective, sharing the funding allocation of each output, discussing the VFM of the programme and identifying at least 5 recommendations about how we may increase the value of the project and reduce its costs, if applicable. Indicative documents which can be used include: DFID reference documents:

- DFID’s approach to Value for Money - DFID Value for Money in Humanitarian Programming - Disability Framework – One Year On Leaving No One Behind

BOND papers: - “Leaving no one behind: the value for money of disability-inclusive development”, which

the Institutional Relations team of HI UK has actively contributed to - “Value for Money: what it means for UK NGOs, a more detailed background paper on

VfM”. Other documents:

- Christian Aid Value for money case study - Action Aid “How to conduct VfM participatory assessment”

REPORTING PHASE

Preparation of draft evaluation report Discussion with HI Incorporation of HI’s comments and submission of final evaluation report

QUALITY ASSURANCE The consultant will be responsible for quality assuring the evaluation as it is undertaken and it is imperative that the evidence collected as part of the reporting is robust and reliable. Where high quality data is not available, the limitations of the data and any conclusions drawn from it should be clearly stated.

5. Deliverables

The consultant will produce:

An inception report to be introduced at the end of the desk phase. The inception report will include:

o The evaluation framework o A detailed methodology to ensure participation of the project beneficiaries and

stakeholders o A detailed work plan including the list of stakeholders to meet during field phase.

The inception report will be discussed at the initial briefing and will need to be validated before commencing the field phase.

A power-point presentation to support the final debriefing, covering the draft content of the

final report’s chapters “findings”, “conclusions” and “recommendations”. During this workshop, the consultant will also provide detailed explanation of the methodological assessment tools used.

A short summary of the report to be shared with beneficiaries and project stakeholders

A final report. The main body of the report (draft and final version) must be limited to 60 pages. One of the annexes should consist of a table which summarises the findings according to the OECD-DAC criteria. To ensure consistency across evaluation reports, the following structure must be used for reporting:

Executive Summary

Introduction o Purpose of the evaluation o Organisation context o Logic and assumptions of the evaluation o Overview of GPAF funded activities

Evaluation Methodology o Evaluation plan o Strengths and weaknesses of selected design and research methods o Summary of problems and issues encountered

Findings o Overall Results o Assessment of accuracy of reported results o Relevance o Effectiveness o Efficiency o Sustainability o Impact

Conclusions o Summary of achievements against evaluation questions o Overall impact and value for money of BLF funded activities

Lessons learnt (where relevant) o Project level - management, design, implementation o Policy level o Sector level o BLF management

Recommendations

Annexes (such as) o Independent final evaluation terms of reference o Evaluation research schedule

o Evaluation framework o Data collection tools o List of people consulted o List of supporting documentary information o Details of the evaluation team o Grantee management response to report findings and recommendations

The report will be provided in soft copy. The consultant will provide first a draft version of the final report and then incorporate HI comments and produce a final version. Within the report confidentiality will be respected when representing personal information. Photos used will have HI permission form completed, any inclusion of pictures of children will have the statement within the document…. “All names & information about the location of children and family privacy in conformity with HI Child Protection Policy”.

6. Contractual arrangements 6.1 Profile of the Independent Evaluation provider Mandatory requirements:

An evaluation specialist with a minimum of seven years’ experience in programme/project evaluation in an international development context.

Experience of results-based monitoring and evaluation.

Ability to design and plan the evaluation approaches and research methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research methods.

Ability to manage a potentially large-scale and complex evaluation and research process, including interpreting baseline data and conducting a final impact assessment;

Ability to design, manage and implement primary research

Experience in livelihood and inclusive local development

Experience and knowledge in community participation

Excellent spoken and written English Highly preferable:

Experience with regard to disability would be an asset.

Working experience in Cambodia and knowledge of Cambodia context would be an asset.

Spoken Khmer would be an asset.

6.2 Timeframe and location:

Start date & End date: The consultancy is expected to start from 15 August 2017 and shall be

completed no later than 20 September 2017 with all deliverables submitted.

Please note the following restrictions:

o Travel days, both international and local travels, are not working days

o Weekends are not working days, except when agreed

Location: field phase will take place in Siem Reap province according to the table below; the

consultant is free to choose the location from where to carry out the desk and reporting

phase.

No Step Period Location

1 Call for expression of interest and consultant 5 June – 25 June 2017 N.A.

application

2 Selection and contracting 26 June – 15 July N.A.

3 Beginning of consultancy and submission of

projects’ documents for desk review 14 August

Consultant

choice

4 Skype briefing with HI 14 August Phnom Penh

5 Desk review 14 – 16 August Consultant

choice

6 Submission of Inception Report and feedback

from HI on report 17 -21 August

Consultant

choice

7 Briefing with HI and validation of inception

report 21 August Phnom Penh

8 Meeting with HI Finance manager and Logistic

Manager 21 August Phnom Penh

9 Field work in Siem Reap 22 -30 August Siem Reap

10 Debriefing with HI 31 August Siem Reap

11 Submission of draft final report 6 September Consultant

choice

11 Submission of final version of final report (after

review by HI team) 20 September

Consultant

choice

12 Final payment (at the acceptance of all

deliverables)

29 September at the

very latest

6.3 Management arrangements The consultant will:

Organize and pay a return flight (economy class) from the consultant’s country of residence to Phnom Penh (if applicable) according to the timeframe of the evaluation as per chapter 6.2 of the present ToR;

Purchase a business visa at arrival to Phnom Penh airport (if applicable) Organize and pay all local transports in Phnom Penh and from Phnom Penh to Siem Reap in

Cambodia; Organize and pay accommodation and meals in Cambodia – NB: In Phnom Penh, HI has a

guest house and can accommodate the consultant for free. Provide proof of adequate medical insurance coverage including repatriation. Otherwise

Emergency repatriation insurance will be arranged by Handicap International. The fixed premium of € 50 per month, whatever the number of days of presence in the field, shall be deducted from the value of the services provided.

Provide proof of adequate professional, third party liability insurance or a discharge of responsibility by which he/she responds personally to any damages caused to third parties by his/her act.

Handicap International will:

Organize and pay travel costs at Siem Reap Note that per diems will not be paid to the consultant and should not be represented

within the budget. International travel days will not be considered as working days and will not be paid.

Cover the costs associated with interviews, focus groups and other activities involving beneficiaries and stakeholders.

Provide logistical support, including arranging meetings as requested by the evaluator and providing transport for use during the evaluation.

Provide an external interpreter Khmer-English during the field work in Siem Reap Make available all relevant documents to the evaluator. Provide working space, access to the internet, telephone usage and office services (copies,

etc.) 6.4 Budget and payment schedule The maximum budget available for this consultancy is 10 000USD (withholding tax included)1.

The consultant should present a financial proposal with a breakdown of all the costs incurred as

follow:

professional fees (gross of the applicable withholding tax; see footnote in previous page),

calculated as daily fee multiplied by # of working days.

Expected travel and accommodation costs, broken down as follow:

o accommodation

o communication (if required)

o local transport in Cambodia (airport transfers, local buses to field, etc.)

o international plane tickets in economy class (if required)

o business visa (if required)

The consultancy contract will specify the agreed gross professional fees as a lump-sum. HI will

deduct the corresponding withholding tax and then pay the net amount as follow:

• forty per cent (40%) at the signature of the contract

• sixty per cent (60%) after the submission and the acceptance of the final report.

HI will directly bear the following costs:

Interpretation and translation English-Khmer

Printing of documents and materials used during the evaluation

Allowances paid to beneficiaries, partners and stakeholders to participate to the evaluation.

No other costs will be paid or reimbursed by HI.

7. Application procedures Candidates should submit the following information with their application: 1. Cover letter demonstrating the understanding of the assignment 2. Curriculum vitae and list of previous assignments, highlighting those focused on livelihood and/or local development and/or disability final evaluation. 3. Two references from previous evaluation assignments 4. One example of a program/project evaluation carried out 5. A proposal of the detailed methodology in accordance with the terms of reference,

1 As per Cambodia Law, professional fees are subjective to a withholding tax. Handicap International will withhold tax according to the consultant status and pay the tax directly to the Cambodian tax authorities. The consultant will receive the net after tax deduction.- For consultant and/or company located in Cambodia with TIN (Tax identification number): 10% will apply. - For consultant and/or company located in Cambodia without TIN (Tax identification number): 15% will apply. - For consultant and/or company non-located in Cambodia: 14% will apply. The tax will be calculated on the consultancy fees only (excluded accommodation, transport and visa if any). The consultant remains fully responsible to declare and pay taxes in his/her home country if different from Cambodia

6. A tentative work plan, 7. A budget breakdown for the consultancy including:

professional fees (gross of the applicable withholding tax; see footnote in previous page; see chapter 6.4), calculated as daily fee multiplied by # of working days

accommodation

communication

local transport (airport transfers, local buses to field, etc.)

international plane tickets (if required)

business visa (if required) 8. Scan of passport (> 9 months still valid) Evaluation of the expression of interest will be made through a selection committee only if complete

application is received. Criteria to select the best application will be based on quality of the

methodology, realistic work plan, relevance of previous experiences, demonstrated expertise of the

applicant(s), and coherency of the financial proposition.

Complete applications should be sent to:

Handicap International, Sophie Coelho: op.coord2@hicambodia.org and Lionel Le Bot

ssc@hicambodia.org

Applications submitted by email should indicate as subject: SEI evaluation/application

Deadline for submission of applications: 26 June 2017 at 06:00 pm

Applications submitted after the deadline (day or hour) will not be considered. Only short listed candidates will be contacted. Selected applicants may be invited for a (phone/skype) interview.

“Handicap International is committed to protect the rights of the children and opposes to all forms of child exploitation and child abuse. HI contractors must commit to protect children against

exploitation and abuse”.

Annex A: example of evaluation framework

Evaluation question

Judgement criteria

Indicator Research Approach

Data sources Findings

To what extent is the project learning from the delivery process and adapting their activities as a result?

Extent to which project is learning from the delivery process

Number of lessons learned from the delivery process

Desk based review Review of project systems Semi-structured interviews

Monitoring reports Meeting minutes Policy papers Financial Reporting Interviews with staff and other relevant stakeholders

Type of lessons learned from project delivery as reported by grantees

Extent to which the project adapts its activities on the basis of lessons learned

Number of project adaptions as a result of the lessons learned

Desk based research Semi-structured interviews Review of project systems Focus groups discussions

Monitoring reports Meeting minutes Policy Papers Financial Reporting Interviews with staff and other relevant stakeholders Focus group discussions with primary beneficiaries

Type and quality of adaptations that lead to enhanced results