Terms of Reference for final evaluation of the regional program Central Asia on the move. Phase II (CAM-2)

Transcription

1 Terms of Reference for final evaluation of the regional program Central Asia on the move. Phase II (CAM-2) 1. Introduction In 2012 DanChurchAid (DCA) and ICCO Cooperation launched a joint program Central Asia on the Move ( ) addressing issues of migration. A Central Asia on the Move (CAM) Partner Platform was set up with a coalition of 25 Central Asian CSOs who met together to collectively design, plan and implement a regional program. In 2013 Bread for the World (BftW) joined the coalition and the migration program. The CAM program was a joint initiative of a big range of partners on an important theme internal and external migration in Central Asia region. The main results of the program include the creation of constructive working relationships with authorities in sending and receiving communities and building of community structures that enables migrant communities to articulate their needs and concerns in negotiations with authorities. Up till the end of the CAM program ICCO, DCA and BftW facilitated the work of the partner platform and also assisted with capacity building, brokering and lobby/advocacy activities. In early 2015, DCA decided to phase out from the Central Asian region by 2018, and by the end of 2015 ICCO, too, reduced its work in Central Asia. On the other hand, BfdW made a decision to continue its funding in to support the development programs in the region. With Kyrgyzstan joining the Eurasia Customs Union and Russia changing its migration policy, important changes both in legal and economic spheres have taken place. This influences migrants ability to seek employment abroad as well as their ability to ensure sustainable livelihoods in their home country. From this background, BfdW, ICCO and Public Foundation Fair & Sustainable Development Solutions (FSDS) have supported the development of a 2nd phase of the Central Asia on the Move program for the period March 2016-February 2019 (CAM-2). The overall goal of the CAM-2 project remains ensuring livelihoods of migrants and migration-affected communities and is currently implemented by FSDS. FSDS is a not-for-profit organization founded in 2014 in Kyrgyzstan with the support of ICCO Cooperation, an international Non-Governmental Organization from the Netherlands, whose main themes are economic empowerment, responsible business, food security and emergency response. The mission of FSDS is to enhance the livelihoods of marginalized people in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan through supporting them in economic development, food and nutrition improvement as well as social inclusion. The main strategy of the program, including its Theory of Change and Logical Framework have been developed and finalized during partner workshops with involvement of independent facilitators. CAM-2 program strategy includes the promotion of the rights and access to basic public services (education, health and social protection) and improvement livelihoods of labor migrants (including women and youth) from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This also includes the influencing local decision-making and budgeting to respond to the needs of migrant-workers and their families, linking potential migrants and VET schools, pre-departure awareness (on migration legislation, rights issues, access to basic services, etc.). One of the main components of the program is also creation of alternatives for migration by contributing to job creation, self-employment and building favorable conditions for income generating activities. There are 3 immediate objectives that are all preconditions for the program s ability to contribute to the overall goal: Rights of migrants and their families are recognized and protected Public services are available, responsive and relevant to the needs and rights of migration-affected communities. Conditions to generate income are favorable for families affected by migration At the moment of the evaluation there are 11 on-going projects funded by DCA and implemented by 16 partners contracted by FSDS. The majority of activities are conducted in Kyrgyzstan with the focus on building favorable conditions for income generating and the issues caused by internal migration (in migrants settlements around the main cities of Kyrgyzstan Bishkek and Osh). However, there are implementing partners in Tajikistan and Russia working on migration issues as well.

2 Internal migration issues are addressed by 6 projects implemented by 7 partners (6 partners in Bishkek: CPC, Adilet, Association of NGOs protecting children s rights, Arysh, Kyrgyz Alliance for Family Planning (KAFP), Global Change Fund and one partner in Osh - Advocacy Center). There is one (1) project implemented by 3 implementing partners in consortium Insan-Leilek, Mekhr- Shavkat, ISEDA with focus on promoting income generating activities among labour migrants families in Southern region of Kyrgyzstan. Community Development Alliance (CDA) with the strong focus on women s economic empowerment worked mainly with women community based organizations and initiative groups throughout of Kyrgyzstan. In Tajikistan 3 partners (Gamkhori, HRC, Sukhrob) working in consortium work in Sugd, Gissar and Khatlon regions promoting the rights of labour migrants and their family members, pre-departure preparation and income generating activities. The Program activities in Russia are very limited and implemented by one (1) partner PSP-Foundation in Saint-Petersburg working on legal issues and promoting favourable condition for labour migrants in Russia. 2. Cause and objective of the evaluation 2.1 The objectives of the Final Program evaluation To assess the effectiveness and outcome of Central Asia on the Move. Phase II Program (CAM-2) in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan with a specific focus on their contribution to the reduction of inequalities and poverty for migrants and their family members. 2.2 The purpose On the program level To carry out a consolidated evaluation of the CAM-2 regional program. To assess the extent to which the program has achieved its objectives, has a satisfactory technical level and has the right balance in interventions and partner types. Assess the impact and possible indirect effects of the program; Offer ideas and advise on how to increase effectiveness and influence of future programs and their sustainability; Examine, whether additional measures/activities need to be carried out with existing target groups to ensure sustainability and flexibility in view of changing contexts; To assess the sustainability of project outcomes; On the organizational level To assess the role and performance of FSDS as a program partner. To assess whether FSDS program management is appropriate and adequate for ensuring learning and documentation To provide findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation to provide substantial guidance to the future program/strategy change process in FSDS. To provide findings that will feed into FSDS organisational learning. 3. Key questions Relevance:

3 To what extent was the program strategy relevant to the needs and priorities of target groups, including the structural causes of rights violations in the given context? Effectiveness: To what extent were the program objectives achieved at outcome level (and if verifiable at impact level?) How have partnerships been enhanced as a result of the program? (ICCO Cooperation, BfdW, FSDS and partners, partners and rights holders, rights holders and duty bearers, and partners among themselves?) Efficiency: To what extent were the program interventions informed by the needs and interests of labor migrants and their family members? To what extent were relevant barriers and causes to inequalities, discrimination, and impoverishment of the rights-holders addressed under the program? To what extent are the mechanisms for ensuring meaningful participation of and accountability to the labor migrants and their family members relevant? To what extent and how is there synergy and cohesion between the partner projects within the CAM-2 program? In what way does the program strategy contribute to the strategic goals of FSDS? To what extent did the program Theory of Change and/or results framework reflect a rights-based logic? To what extent have the interventions contributed to the empowerment of labor migrants and their family members to claim or access their rights and entitlements and of duty-bearers to fulfil their obligations? What progress has been made in terms of mainstreaming gender equality in program activities? What results were achieved in terms of reducing the underlying causes of inequality and discrimination? How did program activities contribute to this achievement? To what extent has FSDS been involved in the CAM-2 program development (strategic planning, staffing, resource management, monitoring, partnerships, etc.)? What is the current synergy between the Program and other programs of FSDS in country/region (There are FSDS s Inclusion and Food Security programs)? Based on what criteria were the project partners selected for implementing CAM-2 program? What is their involvement and decision-making power in the planning and implementation of the program, including the cross cutting activities? Do partner platform fulfil their purpose as identified by the program strategies? Is FSDS responsive to needs identified by partners? Does the support affect in a positive way the partners organisation and capacity to implement its projects? Has the program stimulated relations between partners in any significant way?

4 Has the program approach been a costefficient way to implement development assistance? Impact: What, if any, have been the wider social, economic, human rights and political impact of the program? What have been the most important changes that can be attributed to program objectives during the implementation period to date and what has contributed to these changes? What is the overall cost of the CAM-2 program compared to the number of labor migrants and their family members covered by the program? How economically have resources been converted to results? Were the human and financial resources adequate for implementing the program? Is there any indication that a modest increase of resources to more effectively incorporate rights-based strategies would have contributed to a substantive increase in results? To what extent can one argue that the interventions were cost-effective and the resources used in an efficient way to reach the most discriminated groups and facilitate their effective participation and to address the rights issues identified in the program strategy? Were there challenges during implementation in addressing the human rights and gender equality concerns of labor migrants and their family members? Were resources used efficiently to address these challenges during implementation? Have program activities adequately built on the assets and positive strategies of the labor migrants and their family members (men and women)? What evidence is there that the interventions contributed to labor migrants and their family members increasing their enjoyment of their rights; of duty-bearers better performing their duties and obligations? What evidence is there that this has contributed to improving of livelihoods of the target communities affected by migration? What evidence is there of changes in gender inequalities e.g. in access and use of resources, in decision-making, in division of labour etc.? Were there any unintended positive or negative results of the CAM-2 program? Special focus should be paid to component 3 of CAM- 2 program regarding to income generating activities: how many labor migrants families did benefit from the income generating interventions? what activities CAM-2 program delivered to those families? were those activities helpful? Received remittances were directed to consumption needs or income generating activities? How many income generating activities were created? Are there any cases of returned migrants to lead income generating activity?

5 how many employment places were created? How many people did get job/were employed as a result of running businesses by labor migrants and their family members? What is the level of the income increase per family and in total if any? Were there any unintended effects on groups not included in the intervention? Are labor migrants and their family members satisfied with the achievements (in terms of impact and process)? How many women and men have benefitted from program activities? Sustainability: Will the intended positive changes (foreseeably) have a lasting effect? Other specific programme evaluation questions To what extent has the program furthered institutional changes (changes in laws, policies, practices, resource levels) for furthering human rights and gender equality? To what extent are these changes sustainable? To what extent has the program contributed to attitudinal changes that will further the protection of human rights and gender equality among labor migrants and their family members after this intervention has ended? To what extent did the program manage to shift power balances and contribute to the redistribution of resources, power etc. to more discriminated/excluded groups? What have been the main challenges in the implementation of the program strategy and how have they been handled? What difference does it make partners to be part of a joint program from the partners point of view? What are the challenges and lessons learned in facilitating an effective Partner Platform? To what extent does the Partner Platform monitor progress on the program s expected outcomes and strategies? What has been the result of these initiatives and what has changed as a result of them? 4. Evaluation design/methods The evaluation assignment is planned to be implemented within a period of not more then 45 days from the date of the Service Contract signing. It is expected to start the project evaluation not later than 3rd of December The main target audience of the evaluation are:

6 Target audience FSDS Bread for the World (BfdW) local partner organizations CAM partner platform members Project beneficiaries State Migration Agency (KR)/Ministry (RT), Ministry of Social Development, Ministry of Health and local self-governing bodies in the target regions Role The implementing organization of CAM-2 project (incl. grant administration and technical assistance) The funding agency (donor organization) of CAM-2 project Partner organizations subcontracting within CAM-2 project Local NGOs from Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Russia members of CAM partner network on promoting labor migrants rights Local communities (incl. labor migrant families members) who received services and technical support within CAM-2 project National and local authorities the partners of CAM Partner Platform and its members and who have interest in solving migration issues. The evaluation will seek to visit the following areas Kyrgyzstan (Bishkek and Osh, Batken and Jalalabad oblasts) and Tajikistan (Khujand and Dushanbe). The evaluation will cover all 11 projects and activities in terms of assessing the extent to which the results created at project and activity level has contributed to the achievement of the objectives of the thematic programmes. It is expected that the consultants will further develop the methodology to be applied within this consultancy but the below key elements should guide the development of the proposed methodology. It will be up to the external consultants to design and facilitate the process and the external consultant shall have the right to conduct independent interviews and exercises with no internal participation as they see fit. It will also be the responsibility of the external team to draw the conclusions and prepare recommendations. Participatory methodologies must be employed to ensure that the rights holders targeted by the programmes effectively participate in the evaluation process. The method developed must also be gender sensitive and it must describe how it fits the purpose of the evaluation. In the data collection and analysis phase the team can use both qualitative and quantitative data collection. The methodology should allow for collection of data from multiple sources, like document review, stakeholder interviews, focus group discussions, participatory workshops. Follow up workshop The evaluation process should finalize with a workshop on the evaluation results presentation in Kyrgyzstan with FSDS, implementing partners and other key stakeholders where the recommendations will be discussed, and agreement will be reached on how to follow up on the recommendations. The output from this workshop is a recommendation matrix where commitments to follow up action to all recommendations is noted down. 5. Process of the evaluation/time frame The consultant will complete the work over a period of not more than 60 days beginning with the date of signature of the contract and ending with the acceptance of the final report. The Final Program Evaluation will be held in the following locations: Kyrgyzstan (Bishkek and Osh, Naryn, Batken, Osh and Jalalabad oblasts) and Tajikistan (Dushanbe, Sugd and Khatlon oblasts). The preliminary timeframe can be as follows:

7 Type of work Number of days Date or timeframe Desk study of the programme documents 7 days 3-9 December 2018 Travel to Bishkek for international 1 day TBD consultant(s) 1 Briefing with FSDS CAM-2 program staff in 1,5 days 10 December Bishkek at least 2018 Consultations with Program Stakeholders 3-4 days December and Partners in Bishkek 2018 Field visits to the south of Kyrgyzstan and 14 days December to Tajikistan/Interviews and Meetings 2018 Location Before arrival Bishkek, KR Bishkek, KR Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan Field visits to the north of Kyrgyzstan/Interviews and Meetings Additional Document review (project 3 days December Bishkek, KR documents, project progress reports, 2018 monitoring visit report, etc.) Preparation of findings, recommendations 5 days 5-10 January Bishkek, KR and drafting debriefing note 2019 Submission of draft evaluation report N/A 10 January 2019 (major findings, recommendations) Debriefing and follow up discussion 1 day 15 January 2019 Bishkek, KR Partner Workshop as a part of Final 1,5 days 20 January 2019 Bishkek, KR Evaluation Travel back from Bishkek 1 day TBD Final Report writing 5 days January Online communication 2019 Submission of the final evaluation report N/A 25 January 2019 Total 45 days The Consultants will report to FSDS director and CAM-2 program manager and will work closely CAM-2 program and key finance staff. 6. Expected products A detailed evaluation methodology and matrix; A work plan, including foreseen timeline Debriefing notes on the most significant findings and recommendations discussed in a debriefing session with FSDS An evaluation report in the specific format of FSDS (the format will be provided). A strategic planning workshop to present and verify the findings and to plan follow-up project in accordance to formulated recommendations 7. Evaluation team composition and key qualifications The evaluation team is expected to consist of one (1) international/external team leader, and 1-2 national consultants, preferably from the focus countries - Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan, led by an international team leader. The selected consultants will possess the following minimum qualification and skills: 1 In case if national consultant from Tajikistan will be involved

8 Post graduate degree in Development studies, Poverty Reduction, Rural Development and/or related social science discipline. have proven knowledge and expertise in the areas of migration issues and policies, local governance, national/local budget advocacy and monitoring, legal advocacy on civil and political rights and discrimination At least 5 years experience of conducting project/program evaluations, research and programme development. Excellent analytical, facilitation and report writing skills. Extensive experience with evaluations, reporting and design processes, including skills such as indicator development, sampling, participatory evaluation methodology, appreciative enquiry methods, focus group interviews, etc. Experience in the use of participatory and gender sensitive assessment/ research methodologies. Proven expertise on the cross cutting issues such as Rights Based, Gender and inclusion Approaches. Familiarity with socio-economic trends in Central Asian region and a working knowledge of local languages (Russian/Kyrgyz/Tajik) will be an asset.