End Term Evaluation of the NCIC-Interpeace Marsabit County Peacebuilding Programme- Stabilisation Phase
Location: Kenya
Application closing: 23 September, 2023
A. Introduction
Interpeace’s Kenya programme seeks a consultant to conduct an end term evaluation of the programme “NCIC-Interpeace Marsabit County Peacebuilding Programme- Stabilisation Phase” which is a Joint stabilisation Programme of the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC) and Interpeace. The period of the programme is from April 2022 to October 2023.
The end term evaluation is expected to be conducted by an external consultant. The consultant is expected to measure the outcomes of the programme, by analysing the achievements, challenges encountered, measures put in place to mitigate challenges and lessons learned.
It is expected that the consultant will provide recommendations that will in return assist in improving future programme design and implementation of peacebuilding programmes. Interpeace anticipates that the evaluation will commence on October 1, 2023, with the time period of the evaluation being 30 days, with a maximum of 15 days being spent in the programme areas in Marsabit and thereafter, the submission of the final draft by October 30, 2023. The final timeframe will be agreed upon with the selected consultant.
B. Background
The NCIC-Interpeace Marsabit County Peacebuilding Programme – Stabilisation Phase aimed to reduce the tensions and violence in Marsabit County in the run up to, and aftermath of, the 2022 national elections.
It also endeavours to lay the foundation for a long-term peacebuilding engagement, which is necessary to address the root causes of the long-standing conflict in Marsabit and to establish sustainable and effective local infrastructures for peace.
The project is co-funded by the European Union (EU) and the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and implemented through a partnership between Interpeace and the National Cohesion and Integration Commission (NCIC).
Objectives
The overall objective of the NCIC-Interpeace Marsabit County Peacebuilding Programme- Stabilisation Phase is to stabilize Marsabit County and reduce violence before and after the 2022 national elections by mobilizing actors across society, while gaining a consensus for long-term peacebuilding and conflict resolution needs and priorities.
As part of this overall objective, the project pursues the following specific objectives:
- Specific Objective 1: Escalation of violence in the lead-up to, and aftermath of, the 2022 national elections is prevented.
- Specific Objective 2: The local infrastructures for long-term conflict prevention and management are strengthened.
C. Justification and Objectives
The main objective of the evaluation is to assess the outcomes, achievements, challenges, and lessons learned from the peacebuilding programme areas.
The evaluation is also expected to analyse the achievements of the stabilisation phase of the programme and to inform the strategies for Kenya peacebuilding programme and potential similar programmes to be implemented in Kenya. The evaluation will be of interest to Interpeace, and the peacebuilding organisations in Kenya as well as to international donors and policy makers engaged in the Kenya region.
D. Timeframe, Methodology and Deliverables
While Interpeace anticipates the use of the elements listed below, the list is not exhaustive. The applicant is encouraged to suggest a comprehensive methodology that includes these elements and others that the evaluators deem fit for meeting the evaluation objectives. The methodology for data collection should be described in the proposals. The final list of elements will be discussed with the selected team of consultants.
The anticipated duration of the evaluation is 30 days with a minimum of 15 days to be spent in the programme areas in Marsabit. The anticipated start date is October 1, 2023, with submission of the final draft by October 31, 2023. The final timeframe will be agreed upon with the selected consultant.
It is expected that the Consultant will use participatory evaluation methodologies which may include but are not limited to, outcome harvesting, contribution mapping/contribution analysis, interviews, focus group discussions, most significant change, etc.
These methodologies used should also be gender, youth, and conflict sensitive and respect the principles of Do No Harm. The evaluator is expected to present, agree upon, and apply a conceptual framework of analysis consistent with Interpeace’s peacebuilding and participatory approach. The evaluation will be both an objective and a consultative/participatory exercise.
| Activity | Deliverable | Responsible parties | Due Date |
| Initial Planning Process | Signed Evaluation Contract | Interpeace | By one week after selection of evaluation team |
| Sharing of relevant documents | Interpeace | By one week after selection of evaluation team | |
| Inception report inclusive of updated methodology, guiding questions, evaluation tools and evaluation workplanThe Inception report is expected to be informed by a Documentary review of relevant documentation, including the original and revised programme document; programme logical framework; programme reports and updates; reports of workshop proceedings; research outputs; and relevant audio-visual material produced for the programme. | Selected evaluation team | By one week after the signature of the evaluation contract | |
| Approved inception report, final methodology, evaluation tools and workplan.Identification and facilitation of contact between evaluators and focal points at Interpeace | Interpeace | By one week after the submission of inception report | |
| Field Work | Facilitation of travel to and within the programme areasProvision of logistical and security support, including arrangement of meetings with stakeholders as required by evaluation team | Interpeace | Within one week of the submission of inception report and during the fieldwork |
| Stakeholder interviews and focus group discussions: including with employees of Interpeace; NCIC; authorities in the programme areas as possible; institutions engaged by the programme; donor representatives; civil society organizations engaged by the programme and community members/youth/citizens/decision makers/media participating in programme activities. Indicators to assess the progress and impact of the programme, complementing existing progress markers and outcome statements, will be developed in consultation with Interpeace. | Selected evaluation team with logistical and security support from Interpeace | To conclude within 15 days of arrival in the Region | |
| End-term Progress report and presentation A preliminary report and a presentation is expected at the end of the fieldwork stage. The report is expected to be no more than 10 pages and shall summarise the progress of the evaluation, highlighting any changes to the evaluation schedule, and providing tentative findings. | Selected evaluation team | At the end of the field work. | |
| Reporting | Draft Report of Evaluation. Please see above for indicative evaluation questions and expected reporting structure. | Selected evaluation team | Within 15 days after completing the fieldwork |
| Final Report of Evaluation considering comments on the draft report. Please see above for indicative evaluation questions and expected reporting structure below. | Selected evaluation team | Within 5 days after completing the fieldwork | |
| Management Response from the programme. | Interpeace | Within one week of submission of final report |
D. Key evaluation Questions
| Evaluation criteria | Evaluation Questions/ Sub-questions | Data collection methods & sources |
| Relevance | · To what extent was the programme intervention logic/strategy relevant to the context of peace and conflict in the programme regions?· To what extent was the programme responsive to the defined needs and priorities of the stakeholders in the region? | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Effectiveness and Impact | · To what extent did the programme meet its goal?· What were the main factors that influenced the outcome of the programme, as to whether the programme reached its goal or not?· To what extent has the programme contributed to changes in the context (peacebuilding), at the local level?· Has the programme been implemented as designed? | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Gender and youth responsiveness | · To what extent did the programme integrate gender into the programme’s strategy?· How effective were the programme’s efforts to integrate gender into the programme strategy?· To what extent did the programme integrate the youth into the programme’s strategy?· How effective were the programme’s efforts to integrate the youth into the programme strategy | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Sustainability | · To what extent are the programme achievements sustainable beyond the programme period?· To what extent are the programme’s established processes and systems likely to support the continued implementation of the programme? | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Coherence | · To what extent has the project been consistent with the objectives of NCIC and Interpeace?· To what extent has the project build upon and align with other programmes undertaken by Interpeace, jointly and separately.· Has the programme been able to provide complementary support to other peace building initiatives within Marsabit and the cross-border regions? | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Efficiency | · To what extent were the programme’s strategies and activities sufficient for meeting the programme’s goal? | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Learning | · What challenges emerged during the various periods of programme implementation that affected the achievement of results?· How did the project adapt to changes in the context and emerging challenges during programme implementation?· To what extent did the programme adhere to the principles of Do No Harm and employ conflict sensitivity while implementing and adapting the programme strategies?· | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
| Project Design Improvement | · What best practices and lessons learnt from the programme should be incorporated into the next phase of the programme?· What strategies should the next programme employ to be more relevant to the context and responsive to the needs and priorities defined by stakeholders?· What mechanisms should the programme integrate to ensure continued monitoring and relevant adaptation of the programme to changes in the context?· What should programme partners take into consideration to improve the overall design of the programme?· What areas/themes would be most relevant for the programme (and any spin-off programmes) to focus on?· What strategies can the next programme employ to improve the integration of gender and youth into the overall programme strategy?· What do the outcomes of the programme imply for peacebuilding initiatives in the target programme areas and in Kenya? | · Key informant in-interviews· In-depth individual interviews with beneficiaries· FGDs and desk review |
Interpeace anticipates that these key evaluation questions will be further refined with the selected evaluation consultants.
F. Reporting and feedback
The evaluators will hold a feedback meeting (or meetings) for the Interpeace Nairobi office. This will be an opportunity to debrief on the evaluation, and to exchange views on preliminary findings and recommendations.
The evaluation report will include a main text of no more than 30 pages with findings and recommendations. The report will be expected to include:
Executive Summary
1. Introduction and brief background
2. Methodology
3. Major findings
- Relevance
- Effectiveness and Impact (including major accomplishments to date)
- Efficiency
- Sustainability
- Coherence
- Cross-cutting issues
4. Overall Assessment
5. Challenges
6. Best Practices and lessons learned
7. Recommendations for improvement
Annexes:
- Terms of Reference
- List of documents assessed
- List of persons interviewed
- Evaluation Matrix
- Presentation of changes identified related to programme outcomes and progress markers
- Proposed revised logical framework
G. Qualifications
The evaluation will be undertaken by a consultant familiar with the Kenya Peacebuilding Programme areas of Marsabit and its neighbouring Counties.
The consultant will be expected to have the following skills and experience at a minimum:
- At least a bachelor’s degree in social sciences, peacebuilding management, evaluation, social research etc.
General professional experience
- Strong analytical skills
- Strong knowledge of and experience in conflict resolution, peacebuilding, and reconciliation programmes
- Experience working in the Kenyas North and specifically Marsabit County or other conflict or post-conflict environments.
- willingness to travel to the regions
- An ability to work within tight deadlines
- Ability to work effectively and inclusively with people of different culture, race, nationality, gender, religious belief, age, sexual orientation, marital status, disability or political
- Knowledge of local language is an added advantage
Specific professional experience
- Peacebuilding management, evaluation, social research
- Experience conducting evaluations/assessments (or collaboration with a person or group with extensive evaluation experience)
How to apply
For consideration for this opportunity, please submit an expression of interest (no longer than 5 pages and inclusive of the proposed methodology for the evaluation, including the framework for gender analysis and a proposed budget and CVs for the proposed consultant/ evaluation team by September 23, 2023 (midnight Nairobi time) via email to: [email protected] and copy [email protected]
Applicants, if shortlisted, will be required to subsequently submit work samples in English, references and a preliminary evaluation methodology.
Interpeace values diversity among its staff and aims at achieving greater gender parity in all levels of its work. We welcome applications from women and men, including those with disabilities.