Organization: Islamic Relief
Country: United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
Closing date: 24 May 2019
Islamic Relief Worldwide
Islamic Relief is an international aid and development charity, which aims to alleviate the suffering of the world's poorest people. It is an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) founded in the UK in 1984.
As well as responding to disasters and emergencies, Islamic Relief promotes sustainable economic and social development by working with local communities - regardless of race, religion or gender.
Inspired by our Islamic faith and guided by our values, we envisage a caring world where communities are empowered, social obligations are fulfilled and people respond as one to the suffering of others.
Exemplifying our Islamic values, we will mobilise resources, build partnerships, and develop local capacity, as we work to:
Enable communities to mitigate the effect of disasters, prepare for their occurrence and respond by providing relief, protection and recovery.
Promote integrated development and environmental custodianship with a focus on sustainable livelihoods.
Support the marginalised and vulnerable to voice their needs and address root causes of poverty.
We allocate these resources regardless of race, political affiliation, gender or belief, and without expecting anything in return.
At the international level, Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) has consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council, and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is committed to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) through raising awareness of the issues that affect poor communities and through its work on the ground. Islamic Relief are one of only 13 charities that have fulfilled the criteria and have become members of the Disasters Emergency Committee (www.dec.org.uk)
IRW endeavours to work closely with local communities, focussing on capacity-building and empowerment to help them achieve development without dependency.
Please see our website for more information http://www.islamic-relief.org/
Islamic Relief Worldwide (IRW) is an international relief and development agency that enjoys consultative status with the UN Economic and Social Council and is a signatory to the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Code of Conduct. IRW is dedicated to alleviating the suffering of the world’s poorest people through promoting social and economic development in over 30 countries throughout sub-Saharan Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe as well as responding to natural and man-made disasters.
IRW started its operation in Bangladesh in April 1991 and works in the most poverty-stricken areas of the country to provide support to the neediest people, including In addition to the various humanitarian and development projects that our country office has implemented, Islamic Relief Worldwide believes that all children have a right to personal dignity and protection from abuse, and recognises the special responsibility and duty of care it bears to create a safe environment for children within its projects and programmes.
Although IR Bangladesh has for many years run an orphans one-to-one sponsorship programme globally, including in Bangladesh, the country office, feeling that the sponsorship programme had limitations, developed and promoted an alternative sustainable orphan care model in Bangladesh called “Alternative Orphan Family Sponsorship Program through Sustainable Livelihoods (ALO)’ project in Lalmonirhat district in the North-West region of Bangladesh, and which was to be implemented over 48 months, starting in March 2015.
Islamic Relief is now seeking a suitably experienced and technically sound evaluator/evaluation team to evaluate this project which is very similar to a project by Islamic Relief which won the BOND 2019 Innovation Award. The evaluation will need to capture and document key learnings, and assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of outcomes and impact of the project – both positive and negative.
This project sought to provide an alternative approach to the one-to-one sponsorship programme to ensure children and their guardians, including widows, are able to graduate from the ongoing sponsorship programme within 4 years, through support provided in integrated sustainable livelihood approaches, whilst also ensuring access to education and protection.
The aim of the ALO project was to address the multiple issues affecting the wellbeing of targeted orphans and their families, by sustainably improving their livelihood status, as opposed to the orphans’ one-to-one programme in which orphans and their families are provided a monthly payment towards their food, health, and educational needs.
The project also aimed to provide improved community awareness of, and to establish community organisation linkages with local Government institutions, aiming ultimately to deliver a replicable model to promote a family or community based orphan care system.
The planned results for the project were:
To ensure the sustainable development of the orphans and their families, as well as to restore their social dignity and protection.
Result-1: Enhanced well being of the targeted orphan children including survival, protection, participation, mobilisation, and healthy development to continue their education;
Result 1 indicators:
· 100% of the targeted (at least 650) dropout/out of school orphan children in target families will enrol in education institutions.
· 95% orphan children will continue their education up to grade VIII
· 100% orphan children will get need based health facilities through linkage with health service providers.
· 90% of targeted orphan children have safe & secure home free from abuse.
Result-2: Improved the status of the orphan families and livelihoods through economic productivity, income, asset, food accessibility and- consumption, and improved living status of the targeted orphan and widow households;
Result 2 Indicators:
· At least 80% of targeted orphan households have increased income by at least 3,000 Taka per month (€26).
· At least 95% of targeted households have increased assets by at least 100%.
· 100% targeted HHs enjoy 3 meals per day.
Result-3: Increased community awareness and established community organization linkage with Local Government Institutions for establishing social dignity through participation, social inclusion, attending voice rise to rights and protection.
Result 3 Indicators:
· Developed Union and 01 Upazila based platform by the participation of targeted households for raise their voice and involved with additional socioeconomic activities.
· 100% of orphan family have sanitary latrine and they use it properly.
· At least 90% participants enhanced their awareness, practices, behavior on related issues (children education, child protection, healthcare, WatSan, hygiene, nutrition etc.).
In addition to this, an aim of ALO has been to develop a unique replicable model to promote family or community-based orphan care system instead of institutional orphan care. This ALO project also aimed to facilitate children’s participation in development process, through the belief that children have the capacity to be the most influential change makers in society.
IRW’s efforts to provide an alternative and more sustainable model of support to orphans and communities, through the Alternative Livelihoods for Orphans (ALO) project, has led us to commission of the project in order to obtain an independent perspective of the effectiveness of the project, and of the model overall, against the one-to-one sponsorship programme as well as against other such graduation models, including through the Social Welfare Ministry of Bangladesh.
Objectives of the evaluation
Working closely with the local programmes and M&E teams, the independent consultant will conduct an evaluation of the project activities implemented under this project.
The specific objectives of this assignment are to:
· Evaluate the project’s theory of change (ToC); its relevance to the overall country strategy; the appropriateness of its planned objectives in terms of funding and duration of the intervention; and its appropriateness in providing resilient livelihood support. The OECD/DAC criteria should be used for this purpose, alongside other frameworks deemed appropriate by the consultant.
· The activities and outcomes of the intervention may have changed in part since the start of the project, and so the ToC may need to be reconstructed, in consultation with IR Bangladesh colleagues, as part of the Inception report phase
· Evaluate the extent to which the ALO Project, funded by IRUSA, has delivered the anticipated objectives indicated in the logframe and theory of change, and any additional developments beyond the original objectives.
· Provide evidence of the achievements of this project, including comparing changes with the baseline, in terms of both the positive and negative, intended and unintended, and also the primary and secondary effects of the programme, alongside any direct or indirect contributions to any systemic change.
· Evaluate the effectiveness of the reorientation of the ALO model into a sample of areas where the one-to-one sponsorship is ongoing (reorientation has happened in Rangpur, Thakurgoan, Rajbari, Khulna Sadar, Amtali, Galachipa, Sunamgonj and Cox’s Bazar.
· Assess the key innovations used in the project and their impact, whether positive or negative, upon the delivery of project deliverables.
· Assess the ALO model and its role in any change found as compared to other models, including IRW’s one-to-one sponsorship programme; whether any context specific factors in the project area may have contributed to this change; and also whether the model is sustainable, and replicable, to other locations.
The area in which this iteration of the ALO project, funded by IRUSA, was implemented, has never previously received one-to-one orphans’ sponsorship, so the consultant would be required to suggest an appropriate methodological device to be able to deliver on this objective.
The ALO model has reportedly been replicated in three different unions within the overall project area: the evaluation should consider this replication, how well it has worked, and learning from this.
· Identify any advocacy milestones achieved as a result of the ALO project to influence any changes in governmental systems, particularly in services provided by the Ministry of Social Welfare, subject to ability to secure interviews with officials at national and sub-district levels.
· Other areas to consider:
- Inclusion of newly widowed women into the mother group/Self Help Groups, and the effectiveness of this within the context of the overall intervention.
- Linkages created with the local government, and public and private service providers
- Effectiveness of planned safe environments for the children at family and community level.
- Ability of beneficiaries to advocate for their own development, including any improvements in their access to services as a result.
- Effectiveness of Child Protection and CRM systems in all project areas.
- Changes in leadership capacities of group members/leaders
- Effectiveness of MEAL systems and procedures during the project.
· Document lessons learned, and also develop clear and actionable recommendations for adoption and integration into any similar future development related projects within the region and elsewhere.
The consultant will design methodologies following the indicators of log frame and result framework.
The methodologies will include (but not be limited to):
A desk review of programme information including project proposals and reports.
Meetings with the M&E team at IRW, the leadership and programmes teams in Bangladesh, and the Orphans team.
Where relevant, and in consultation with IRW, IR Bangladesh, and with the Orphans team, design indicators to measure the success of the project.
Interviews with selected project focal points and staff whose work contributes towards the objectives.
Interviews/surveys with local implementing partners, local government officials (including the departments of education, women and children affairs, department of health, department of agriculture, fisheries, livestock, cooperative, youth and sports and local government provided directly support of the project).
Project site visits, Interviews (1 to 1), FGDs with the sample beneficiaries, ensuring the sample is representative and reflective of beneficiaries of all ages and abilities, and any other tools the consultant deems necessary to produce an effective and useful report.
Conduct interviews with similar and appropriate child focus organisations, including Bangladesh Sisu Audikar Forum (Bangladesh Child Rights Forum), as part of findings triangulation.
Conduct key informant interview (KII), particularly the different line agencies at project level and ministry of social affairs at national level.
Develop and oversee household surveys, ensuring the sample size is representative and reflective of beneficiaries of all ages, abilities and gender (suggested HH sample size is 242 at 95% confidence and 5% error margin from total population of 650 HHs or consultant may suggest alternative that would be more appropriate and relevant).
Recruit and train local enumerators to administer the HH surveys (the consultant should partner with or contract the services of a local data collection firm or propose alternative approach to recruit the services of local enumerators. IR will seek to support recruitment of local enumerators at actual cost where proposed).
Organisation of initial workshops to train evaluation teams in evaluation methodology (if relevant) as well as a final post-fieldwork workshop to assess and discuss the initial findings with Islamic Relief partner staff.
Submission of the draft evaluation report to IRW prior to the finalisation of the report.
If requested, a member of IRW staff will be part of the team, and the consultant would be expected to lead and build their capacity.
The Consultant should consider appropriate quantitative/participatory, and qualitative methods, in the design of their evaluation methodology. The overall evaluation should also assess the extent of beneficiary involvement throughout the project cycle.
The consultant would need to ensure that the evaluation conforms to BOND’s evidence principles, and against which the quality of the evaluation will be reviewed by IRW.
The consultant is expected to produce:
A detailed work plan, as part of an inception report, developed with and approved by IRW, setting out the detailed methodology and deliverables prior to commencing the field visits.
A full report with the following sections:
a) Project title and country
b) Organisation and partner names, where relevant.
c) Name of person who compiled the evaluation report including summary of role/contribution of others in the team
d) Period during which the evaluation was undertaken
g) Table of contents
h) Executive summary (setting out key achievements, lessons learned, and recommendations against the log frame; and also a summary of the judgement about the achievements of the project against the OECD/DAC criteria.
k) Context analysis
l) For each key intervention, a section in the form of:
· Findings (effectiveness of the intervention including any under-achievement issues with reasons), as measured against the stated goals, outcomes, and outputs of the project. Case study examples should be given throughout the report to illustrate evaluation findings.
· An assessment of the effectiveness of the ALO model overall, as compared to the sponsorship programme, including judgement on its potential for sustainability.
m) Innovations or notable features of the project/model
n) Overall assessment on project achievements, effectiveness, impact, sustainability
o) Key lessons
· Terms of reference for the evaluation
· Profile of the evaluation team
· Evaluation schedule
· Documents consulted during the evaluation
· Persons participating in the evaluation
· Field data used during the evaluation including baselines
The final report must be submitted in English and within a 30-day window of completing the field work.
- The consultant will be required to visit IRW HQ and provide feedback on, and answer questions about, the findings from the evaluation. This could be done by skype depending on the location of the consultant.
The following are the key inputs to the evaluation:
a) Stakeholders to be involved include:
· IRW and IRW-partner staff
· Community leaders and relevant local officials and line ministries at local level.
· Social Welfare Ministry at national level (subject to availability of relevant national officials familiar with ALO model).
· Bangladesh Shishu Audikar
· Project beneficiaries, ensuring an appropriate balance of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities.
· Other NGOs/INGOs working in the area
b) Relevant IRW and partner reports/documentation
c) External secondary information and data as appropriate to the evaluation
Responsibilities of IRW/IRW partners
a) Develop and manage activity budgets (both itemised and summary) for the project evaluation.
b) Provide in-country accommodation (if required), and all logistical support, for the period of stay in Bangladesh.
c) Provide copies of proposals, baselines, progress reports and other relevant documents.
d) Provide the consultant, with office space, an internet connection and a mobile phone for the duration of the stay in Bangladesh.
e) Give final approval to the consultant at relevant stages of the surveys and assessments, particularly when developing tools, work plans and final reports.
f) Team members drawn from IRW Partner staff and counterparts in all project locations if requested) will support the consultant during the assessment. Team members will be specifically responsible for:
· Participating in the field study, collecting case studies, focus group discussions, one-to-one interviews, and sharing results with other team members.
· Providing any other assistance required by the consultant.
Successful consultant (individual/organisation) will meet the following requirements:
· Familiarity with orphans and livelihoods projects.
· Experience and knowledge of complaints and feedback handling mechanisms within an NGO context.
· Demonstrated experience of working in the field within the humanitarian and development sector.
· Good knowledge of current sector trends in relation to protection mainstreaming, orphans and livelihoods in the context of INGOs.
· Strong experience in writing and communicating learning effectively and clearly in English.
Timetable and reporting information
Total duration of the consultancy/contract = 30 working days between May and July 2019 (including field visit and all deliverables)
Tender live/invitation to submit
10th May 2019
Final date for submission of expression of interest
24th May 2019 (5pm)
Proposals considered, short-listing and follow up enquiries completed
28th May 2019
Consultant interview and final selection
30th/31st May May 2019
Review of all project documents, reports, and relevant secondary data.
By 7th June 2019 (1 working day)
Meeting with the consultant and agree on an evaluation methodology, plan of action, working schedule
By 7th June 2019 (1 working day)
Submission of Inception Report (at least 7 days before commencing the evaluation)
12th June 2019 (3 working days)
Between 17th June 2019 and 5th July 2019 (12 working days)
Collation and analysis of evaluation data, and submission of the first draft to IR Bangladesh/IRW for comments
19th July 2019 (10 working days after completion of data collection)
IRW/IR Bangladesh responses to draft report
26th July 2019
Final report submitted to IRW
31st July 2019 (3 working days)
Presentation and Q&A on evaluation findings and recommendations at IRW (can be done remotely via Skype/Zoom)
1.5 hours (Date to be agreed)
Proposal to tender and costing:
Consultants (single or teams) interested in carrying out this work must:
a) Submit a proposal including the following;
i. Cover letter outlining a methodology and approach briefing note
ii. CV or outline of relevant skills and experience possessed by the consultant who will be carrying out the tasks and any other personnel who will work on the project
iii. Example(s) of relevant work
iv. The consultancy daily rate
v. Expenses policy of the tendering consultant. Incurred expenses will not be included but will be agreed in advance of any contract signed
b) Be able to complete the project within the time frame stated above
c) Be able to demonstrate significant experience of evaluation approaches for similar work
Payment will be made in accordance with the deliverables and deadlines as follows:
· 25% of the total amount – submission of the inception report
· 25% of the total amount – submission of the first draft of the evaluation report
· 50% of the total amount – submission of the final report including all outputs and attachments mentioned above
Invoices are paid on net payment terms of 30 days from invoice date (but we can be flexible).
Terms and conditions
a. The ToR document is between_the consultant and Islamic Relief Worldwide
b. Islamic Relief Worldwide is a legally registered charity under the laws of the United Kingdom charity registration number 328158
c. This document covers the research project identified and described in this document and related correspondence and may not be expended for any other purposes without the prior written approval of Islamic Relief Worldwide, Programme Quality Unit.
d. The project will be carried out under the auspices of the Islamic Relief Worldwide, Programme Quality. The lead researcher will be working in the capacity of a freelance consultant.
e. Collected data, information, reports and reference documents should be submitted, along with any audio files and transcripts collected.
f. Intellectual Property Rights to all research, and data, conducted and collected and the final report belongs solely to Islamic Relief Worldwide.
g. In case of contraventions or breach of any of the terms of the agreement, any outstanding payments to the Lead Researcher will be withheld.
Additional information and conditions of contract
IRW will cover:
· The costs associated with in-country, work-related transportation for the consultant and the assessment team
· International and local travel for the consultant and the local team
· Accommodation while in the field
· Training venues
· Consultancy fees
IRW will not cover:
· Tax obligations as required by the country in which he/she will file income tax
· Any pre/post assignment medical costs. These should be covered by the consultant
· Medical and travel insurance arrangements and costs. These should be covered by the consultant
How to apply:
This will be for an initial period that is to be specified by the consultant commencing from June 2019 (exact date to be mutually agreed). The selected candidate is expected to work from their home/office and be reporting into the Head of Programme Quality.
The terms upon which the consultant will be engaged are as per the consultancy agreement. The invoice is to be submitted at the end of the month and will be paid on net payment terms 28 days though we can be flexible.
All potential applicants must fill in the table beneath in Appendix 4 to help collate key data pertaining to this tender. The applicant must be clear about other expenses being claimed in relation to this consultancy and these must be specified clearly.
For this consultancy all applicants are required to submit a covering letter with a company profile(s) and CV’s of all consultants including the lead consultant(s).
A proposal including, planned activities, methodology, deliverables, timeline, and cost proposal (including expenses) are expected.
Other relevant supporting documents should be included as the consultants sees fit.
All applicants must have a valid visa or a permit to work in the UK (if travel is required to the UK). A valid visa/work permit is also required for those areas required to be visited as part of this consultancy.
GDPR and personal information
All applicants are advised to provide us with a CV that contains information which is only necessary for us to examine, assess and process the application, personal data beneath is not a requirement.
· Full personal residential address (supply country of residence only)
· DOB (date of birth)
· Hobbies and interests
· Phone numbers
· Marital status
· Other personal information
If however, personal data has been submitted your application will be processed and will not be disregarded.
The information beneath will be an essential requirement for us to process your application.
c) Country of residence
d) Employment and work experience history
f) Achievements and accomplishments
g) Responsibilities, memberships, representative and voluntary roles
h) Training received and delivered
i) Written papers, journals, research, books and publications
j) Essential educational and training certificates
k) Languages spoken
l) Skills competency
TENDER DATES AND CONTACT DETAILS
All proposals are required to be submitted by Friday 24th May 2019 1.00pm UK time pursuant to the attached guidelines for submitting a quotation and these be returned to firstname.lastname@example.org
For any issues relating to the tender or its contents please email directly to email@example.com
Following submission, IRW may engage in further discussion with applicants concerning tenders in order to ensure mutual understanding and an optimal agreement.
Quotations must include the following information for assessment purposes.
Full break down of costs including taxes, expenses and any VAT
References (two are preferred)
Technical competency for this role
Demonstrable experience in a similar project
Note: The criteria are subject to change
The applicant is expected to take responsibility for paying full taxes and social charges in his/her country of residence.
Appendix 1: Adapted version of the Core Humanitarian Standards Questionnaire (for reference only)
Below is a suggested questionnaire, for reference, for the consultant to frame some of their questionnaire for this evaluation – the focus and weighting in terms of time allocated should however remain largely towards effectiveness, and the degree to which results, outcomes and impact has been achieved and are sustainable. The consultant should use part of this and any extra questions, including those from DAC criteria, they feel appropriate based on the project logframe and theory of change, to provide an overall judgment about the performance of this project.
Please see the following link to learn more about the CHS:
1. Response is appropriate and relevant.
· Has a comprehensive needs assessment been conducted and used to inform response planning?
· Are multiple sources of information, including affected people and communities, local institutions and other stakeholders consulted when assessing needs, risks, capacities, vulnerabilities and context?
· Are assessment data and other monitoring data disaggregated by sex, age and ability?
· Does the response include different types of assistance and/or protection for different demographic groups?
· Are the project objectives relevant to the specific needs and priorities of the affected community? Are the activities also appropriate to realise the objectives? Was the assistance culturally appropriate?
· Did the project meet the most urgent needs first? Were the project components well integrated?
· Has the assistance provided by IR Bangladesh met the needs of different stakeholders, in particular men and women, children, the elderly, the disabled?
· What, if any, changes do we need to make to the programme to make it more appropriate and relevant?
2. Intervention is effective and timely.
· Are constraints and risks identified and analysed?
· Does planning consider optimal times for activities?
· Are contingency plans used?
· Are globally recognised technical standards used and achieved?
· Are unmet needs identified and addressed?
· How timely was IR Bangladesh’s intervention in meeting the needs of the affected people, especially vulnerable people?
· Was there any implementation delay? If yes, why? If yes, how did you ensure timely completion of the project activities? If yes, were any changes made to the project as a result and if not, should changes have been made to be more appropriate?
· What, if any, changes could we make to improve timeliness of the overall response?
3. Response strengthens local capacities and avoids negative effects.
· What local capacities for resilience (structures, organisations, leadership, and support networks) exist and how can these be strengthened?
· Is existing information on risks, hazards, vulnerabilities and related plans considered
· In what ways are local leaders (formal and informal) and/or authorities consulted to ensure strategies are in line with local and/or national priorities?
· Are there equitable opportunities for participation of all groups in the affected population?
· What mechanisms exist for prompt detection and mitigation of unintended negative effects?
4. Intervention is based upon communication, participation, and feedback.**
· Is information about the organisation and response provided in accessible and appropriate ways to affected communities and people?
· Are people, especially vulnerable and marginalised groups, accessing and understanding the information provided?
· Are beneficiaries’ views, including those of the most vulnerable and marginalised, sought and used to guide programme design and implementation?
· To what extent longer-term and interconnected problems were taken into account?
· What was the programme’s contribution in influencing national/ regional/ local government policies and programs on livelihood recovery through climate change adaptation?
· To what extent local capacity (capacity of government, civil society and other partners) is supported and developed?
· Was a specific exit strategy prepared and agreed upon by key stakeholders to ensure post project sustainability? Do the local institutions demonstrate ownership commitment and technical capacity to continue to work with the programme or replicate it?
· What, if any, changes could we make to improve connectedness of the overall response?
5. Complaints are welcomed and addressed.
· Is information provided to and understood by all demographic groups about how complaints mechanisms work and what kind of complaints can be made through them?
· Are complaints about sexual exploitation and abuse investigated immediately by staff with relevant competencies and an appropriate level of authority?
· Was there a written complaints system developed (preferably in local language) involving the communities?
· Was the complaints system clearly and effectively communicated to staff and partners?
· Was there any complaint received?
· How were they dealt with?
6. Intervention is coordinated and complementary.**
· Is information about the organisation’s competences, resources, areas and sectors of work shared with others responding to the crisis?
· Is information about the competences, resources, areas and sectors of work of other organisations, including local and national authorities, accessed?
· Have existing coordination structures been identified and supported?
· Are the programmes of other organisations and authorities taken into account when designing, planning and implementing programmes?
· What criteria were used to select the project location? Did the project target the most vulnerable areas where the needs were highest?
· How many people did the project target in relation to the total number of people affected? What criteria were used to select the project beneficiaries? Was it participatory and transparent? Has the project reached to the targeted number of beneficiaries?
· Has the project considered the differing needs of men and women, children, adults, the elderly, the able and the disabled, and the poor?
· Which group has benefited most from the intervention, how and why? Was there any group excluded? If yes, why?
· What, if any, changes could we make to improve the coverage of the overall response?
7. Continuous learning and improvement
· Are evaluations and reviews of responses of similar crises consulted during programme design?
· Are monitoring, evaluation, feedback and complaints-handling processes leading to changes and/or innovations in programme design and implementation?
· Is learning systematically documented?
· What kind of actions and systems are used to share learning with relevant stakeholders?
· To what extent has IR’s response been coordinated with the efforts of the broader development community and the government?
· What have been the biggest successes in co-ordination? What were the biggest gaps?
· Have local capacities been involved, used and strengthened and have partnerships with local CBOs, CSO organisations been built-up?
· What internal coordination problems (between field offices, between field and country offices and between country office and IRW) have you faced and how have they been addressed?
· What, if any, changes could we make to improve coordination of the overall response?
8. Staff is supported to do their job effectively, and are treated fairly and equitably.
· Does staff sign a code of conduct?
· If so, do they receive orientation on this and other relevant policies?
· Are complaints received about staff? How are they handled?
· Is all staff provided with an induction and appropriate and ongoing training to help them to effectively do their jobs?
· Was staff working as per the agreed IRW values?
· Does the office have all appropriate and upto date policies and procedures, including the IR Handbook, available to them for reference should they be required?
9. Resources are managed and used responsibly for their intended purpose.
· To what extent were the proposed output achieved as per log frame?
· To what extent have standards, principles and behaviours including the Code of Conduct standards been respected?
· What was the impact on creating communal assets and contribution in enhancing their resilience capacity?
· What, if any, changes could we make to improve impact of the overall response?
· Are services and goods procured using a rapid competitive bidding process?
· Are potential impacts on the environment monitored, and actions taken to mitigate them?
· Is a safe whistle blowing procedure in place and is known to staff, communities, people and other stakeholders?
· How did you ensure that good practices/lessons were incorporated from similar on-going or completed projects (good practice review) in the project design and implementation?
· Have the essential project support functions of IR and partners (including finance, human resources, logistics, media and communications) been quickly and effectively set up and resourced, and performing to an appropriate standard?
· How efficient was procurement process? Did the procurement process ensure that the best and lowest prices were obtained balancing quality, cost and timeliness? What could have been done better?
· Were the funds used as stated?
· How does the project demonstrate value for money?
· Were small scale mitigation activities cost-efficient?
· To what extent have innovative or alternative modes of delivering on the response been explored and exploited to reduce costs and maximise results?
· What, if any, changes could we make to improve efficiency of the overall response?
· How effective has livelihood recovery approaches been in reducing climate vulnerability over time and is there evidence of this?
· To what extent have minimum quality requirements and standards been met?
· Was timely provision of support, goods and services achieved, according to the perceptions of key stakeholders? How do you know?
· What were the biggest obstacles to the achievement of the purpose of the intervention?
· What, if any, changes could we make to the programme to make it more cost effective?
· Do you have a risk matrix? If yes, how often did you review it? If No, why not? How are you adjusting your programme with the unforeseen risks?
Cross cutting issues
· How well did the response mainstream/ensured the inclusion of gender, age and disability?
· How did you ensure protection of children from abuse?
· How well disaster risk reduction (DRR), the environment, and conflict/cultural sensitivities integrated in the project?
· How well this project include ethnic people/ socially excluded
· What examples of innovative good practice can be seen in IR Bangladesh’s response?
· What general lessons can we draw from this response for our preparation for future response?
· To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?
· What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?
Appendix 2: Sex, Age, Disability, Disaggregated data
The below will need to be considered when designing a questionnaire to ensure that they are covered and reported in the final report. Further documentation will also be shared with the successful candidate, for this purpose.
Collection and disaggregation of data throughout the project by sex, age and disability.
Has the project met the differentiated needs of all women, men, girls and boys of all ages and abilities including older people and people with disabilities?
Did the project reflect direct and meaningful participation of all groups?
Did the project implementing partners had proper referral systems in place and what was it for?
Did the implementing partners used differentiated communication tools to reach ALL vulnerable groups to ensure participation in needs assessment, consultation and feedback mechanisms?
Appendix 3: PROJECT SPECIFIC QUESTIONS
In addition to the suggested questions above, responses should be provided to the below:
Key Questions for the Evaluation:
· To what extent was the project design, as evidenced by its log frame components and in the project strategy and approach, and the project budget, appropriate to address the problem and to the physical and policy environment of the project areas?
· To what extent did the latest iteration of the project logframe remedy any issues in previous versions, and how appropriate and relevant is the current version in achieving the stated goals of the project?
· Were the criteria used for selection of the beneficiaries appropriate, and were the beneficiaries therefore also appropriate to the aims of the project?
· To what extent was the project’s timescale/range of activities realistic with regard to beneficiaries’ capacities and deliver the planned results in a sustainable way?
· To what extent were the self-help groups, Child clubs, Union women forum and Upazila women forums, relevant to the aims of the project?
· To what extent were the aims of the project to reduce early marriages, and to ensure protection of the children, successful?
· Were the project monitoring systems and processes appropriate to the needs of the project? Was the baseline report, and any monitoring reports, appropriate towards achieving the stated aims of this project? How could the baseline and monitoring activities be improved for future interventions?
· How useful was the project’s human development and IGA and business management training?
· Were payments (subsistence and asset transfers) made to beneficiaries conducted according to plan and timely?
· How efficient and effective was the asset procurement system in making available assets distributed in this project?
· How effective were the various partnerships utilised in this project, in fulfilling its stated goals? What additional support would IR need to provide to partners to fulfil the stated project objectives?
· How effective were the Self Help Groups, Child clubs, Union women’s forums and Upazila women forums, in line with access in services and rights.
· How appropriate was the project budget in achieving the aims and goals of the project?
· How effective was the project in reducing early marriages, as well as in ensuring appropriate protection for the children?
· How effective was the needs assessment process in ensuring beneficiary participation and satisfaction with the project interventions?
· To what extent have planned project activities, outputs, outcomes, and impact, been achieved? How likely are these objectives to be sustained beyond the close of the project?
· How sustainable would the goals of the project, including the reduction of child marriages, likely be?
· Were there any/what were the indirect and non-tangible benefits created by the project?
· Is there appropriate awareness of this project, and its model, at government level, and are government ministries likely to replicate the ALO model?
· To what extent did the project restore the social dignity of widows, assuming it had been lost?
· What was the impact of the Child led total sanitation (CLTS) for the community and child leadership?
· To what extent are the impacts seen attributable to this project, as opposed to external factors?
· To what extent did the project contribute towards promoting IRB’s visibility?
· Were the various visibility activities in the project appropriate?
· Was there a complaints response mechanism in place for this project, was it active, and did it work?
Please fill in the table below. It is essential all sections be completed and where relevant additional expenses be specified in detail. In case of questions about how to complete the table below, please contact firstname.lastname@example.org
Cost evaluation for consultancy of alternative orphan family sponsorship programme through sustainable livelihoods (ALO), April 2019
Full company trading name
No of proposed hours per week
No. of proposed days
Earliest available start date
Expected project finish date
Non preferred days
Total per week
Total cost for consultancy (less taxes and expenses)
Expenses (in country travel)
Expenses other (please specify)
Total VAT or taxes
Total cost for consultancy (inclusive of taxes and expenses)
The applicant is expected to take responsibility for paying full taxes and social charges in his/her country of residence.