ToR Midterm Review Every Voice Counts Programme Terms of Reference for the Midterm Review of the Dialogue and Dissent Programme Every Voice Counts
Table of Contents 1 Every Voice Counts programme 3 1.1 Background 3 1.2 Focus in EVC countries 4 2 The assignment 5 2.1 Objective and scope 5 2.2 Evaluation questions 5 2.3 Deliverables 8 2.4 Planning 10 3 Purchase procedure 10 3.1 Procedure 10 3.2 Administrative criteria 10 3.2.1 Deadlines 10 3.2.2 Contents of quotation 10 3.3 Award criteria 11 3.3.1 Assessment of the approach paper 11 3.3.2 Assessment of the CVs 11 3.3.3 Assessment of the Prices 12 3.4 Selection and assessment 12
1 Every Voice Counts programme 1.1 Background The Every Voice Counts (EVC) programme is funded through the Dialogue and Dissent strategic partnership programme of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and aims to contribute to inclusive and effective governance processes in fragile settings. A key obstacle to achieving stability and sustainable development in fragile contexts is the structural exclusion of segments of society from local, district and national level governance processes. The EVC programme Theory of Change (ToC) addresses this by focussing on inclusive governance processes, referring to the extent to which governance processes provide space to overcome the systematic exclusion of disadvantaged groups seeking to participate in decision making, in particular women and/or youth (see Annex 1). CARE believes that inclusiveness leads to more effective governance, since institutions and policies will then be accessible, accountable and responsive to disadvantaged groups, protecting their interests and providing diverse populations with equal access to public services such as justice, health and education. The ToC identifies four domains of change in which change is required to realize our long-term objective: To contribute to inclusive and effective governance processes in fragile settings. The domains are mutually constitutive and change in one domain can trigger change in the other. Figure 1 provides a graphic representation of the EVC programme ToC. Stability and Development Impact Inclusive governance processes Long-term Objective 4. Effective Spaces for dialogue and negotiation 1. Women & Youth 2. Capable Civil Society Organisations 3. Responsive public authorities and other power holders Domains of Change Figure 1 Theory of Change Every Voice Counts 3
Domain 1 is centred around the empowerment of members of excluded groups - in particular women and/or youth - in lobby and advocacy, as most members of excluded groups are affected by harmful norms and traditions, discriminatory social structures, lack awareness of their rights and responsibilities and have limited capacities to articulate and act on their needs. Domain 2 focusses on strengthening the advocacy role of civil society, as it has a key role to play in lobbying on behalf of excluded groups and in holding public authorities and other power holders to account. Domain 3 concerns responsive public authorities and other power holders. We believe that responsiveness increases when public authorities and other power holders have stronger capabilities as well as stronger incentives to act in response to people they serve. Domain 4 focuses on expanding and strengthening space for dialogue and negotiation. We believe that increased engagement and effective interaction between all actors leads to policies and practices that better take into account the interests of excluded groups. 1.2 Focus in EVC countries The EVC programme is being implemented by Care Nederland (CNL), The Hague Academy for Local Governance, CARE Country Offices (COs) and local partners in Afghanistan, Burundi, Pakistan, Rwanda, Somalia and Sudan: EVC Afghanistan aims to increase women s participation in Community Development Councils (CDDs) and aims to improve the availability, accessibility and quality of education and health services. EVC Burundi advocates to ensure that the 30% quota of women s participation is respected at community level, aims for inclusion of women and girls in community development planning and advocates for the completion and implementation of the Gender Based Violence (GBV) law. EVC Pakistan aims to improve the implementation of the GBV law and advocates for the inclusion of women in local governance processes. 1 EVC Rwanda focusses on the engagement of grassroots women and girls in Imihigo 2 planning and budgeting processes to ensure the inclusion of GBV response and prevention in district plans and budgets. EVC Somalia advocates for the approval and implementation of the Youth Policy in Puntland and ISWA (Interim South West Administration) and aims to increase youth participation during the 2020 general elections. EVC Sudan aims to increase the participation of women and youth in Village Development Councils (VDCs) and local-level decision-making bodies; and increase women and youth s inclusion in financial and market services. 1 Note that the programme implementation in Pakistan is pending, due to delays in government approval. 2 Imihigo refers to the annual planning and budgeting process of central and local governments in Rwanda. The planning process includes meetings at every level of government, to give central agencies and district governments a chance to negotiate targets. 4
Baseline studies were carried out in 2016 to establish the situation at the start of the EVC programme, enabling the assessment of change over time. 2 The assignment 2.1 Objective and scope The aim of this assignment is to conduct the external Midterm Review (MTR) of the Every Voice Counts programme and to analyse and describe what went well, in terms of progressing on the ToC in relation to the broader Dialogue and Dissent results framework and identify recommendations to guide and improve planning and implementation for the remaining years of the programme. The MTR will be comprised of two parts: 1. Aggregated results from the six EVC country level programmes 2. Results from an analysis at Head Quarter (HQ) level including: a. The functioning of the strategic partnership b. Lobbying & advocacy and public engagement in the Netherlands The main objectives of the assignment are: - Enable local consultants and CARE country office staff to conduct the MTR through Outcome Harvesting (OH) and other suitable methodologies by: o Conducting a 3-day workshop on evaluation methodologies for the MTR with a specific focus on OH; o Delivering guidelines and tools for facilitating OH workshops; o Providing remote support to local consultants and CARE CO staff. - Analyse and aggregate country-specific MTR results and recommendations. - Collect and analyse data at HQ level. - Present and validate preliminary synthesized results at country level and preliminary results at HQ level during a linking and learning event with local partners and CARE country office staff. - Deliver a comprehensive MTR report including analysis of the context, aggregated country specific results, results at HQ level and conclusions & recommendations. 2.2 Evaluation questions Synthesis of country specific results The MTR report should as a result from the synthesis of the country-specific MTR reports - provide answers to the following evaluation questions 3 : Capacity Strengthening CSOs 1. How many first- and second-tier partner CSOs are included in EVC? (Indicator DD6) 3 Note that these questions are derived from the policy framework Dialogue and Dissent - DD as developed by the Social Development Department (DSO) (see Annex 2) and the policy framework Legitimate Stability and Sustainable Peace in Conflict-Affected States as developed by the Department for Stabilisation and Humanitarian Aid (DSH) (see Annex 3) which form the basis for this part of the MTR. Annex 4 provides an overview of the DSO and DSH indicators to be used in this MTR. 5
2. How many first- and second-tier CSOs have demonstrated increased lobbying and advocacy skills? (Indicator DD5) 3. Which capacities and what expertise have been developed among first- and second-tier CSOs for performing political roles and implementing advocacy strategies? 4. (How) have supported CSOs improved their legitimacy to lobby and advocate for the claims of societal groups? (no indicator formulated, qualitative data required) Capacity Strengthening Community/local Advocacy Groups 5. How many women and/or youth participated in training activities for political participation? (Indicator DSH PI 3.2.2) 6. How many women and/or youth are more aware of their rights and responsibilities? (Indicator DSH OI 2.3) 7. How many and what type of community/local advocacy groups have been supported? 8. Which capacities and what expertise have been developed among community/local advocacy groups for performing political roles and implementing advocacy strategies? How many people were trained? (Indicator DSH PI 3.2.2) Capacity Strengthening Public Authorities and other Power Holders 9. How many public authorities and other power holders from which institutions have strengthened their capacity to respond to the needs and rights of the population? (Indicator DSH PI 1.1-1.2) 10. Which capacities and what expertise have been developed among public authorities and other powerholders? CSO Advocacy 11. How many and what types of advocacy initiatives (political participation, mobilisation, activation) were carried out by CSOs? (Indicator DD4) To which preliminary outcomes have these advocacy initiatives led? 12. How many and what types of advocacy initiatives (political participation, mobilisation, activation) were carried out by community/local advocacy groups? (Indicator DD4) To which preliminary outcomes have these advocacy initiatives led? Responsive Public Authorities and other Power Holders 13. (How) have targeted public authorities and other power holders increased their accountability and transparency? 14. What is the perception on accountability/transparency of public authorities and other power holders among women and/or youth? (Indicator DSH OI 3.2.2) 15. How many women/and or youth feel represented by local authorities and other powerholders? (Indicator DSH OI 3.2.3) Space for Dialogue 16. How many and what type of dialogue processes have been organized by CSOs and/or community/local advocacy groups to influence the political and/or public 6
debate? (Indicator DSH OI 3.2) 17. (How) often have CSOs and/or community/local groups succeeded in creating space for CSO demands and positions? (Indicator DD3) New and Improved laws, policies, norms, attitudes and practices 18. How many laws, policies and policy guidelines were successfully improved/adopted as a result of lobbying and advocacy by CSOs and/or community/local groups? (Indicator DD2) Which strategies were used? 19. To what extent do community members believe that decision-making should be inclusive and responsive? Implementation of laws, policies, norms, attitudes and practices 20. (How) have lobbying and advocacy activities of supported CSOs contributed to the implementation of laws, and/or polices and societal norms that have been put into practice? Which strategies were most effective? (DD1) 21. (How) has decision-making as a result from EVC programme activities - become more inclusive of women and/or youth? (DSH OI 3.2.1) 22. To what extent do community members believe that decision-making is inclusive and responsive? (DSH SCI 3.2.2) Changing Context 23. (How) have changing internal and external contexts affected the EVC programme? What are the implications of this change in context for the remainder of the EVC programme? As part of the synthesis of country specific results, it should also be described: When programme activities did not result in the desired change, and what implications this has for the remainder of the programme; When CARE COs/CSO partners did not work with local CSOs and/or community/local advocacy groups, how this affected results, and what this implies for the remainder of the programme; What the main lessons learned are, along with recommendations for the EVC programme in the six countries; How OH can be used for monitoring purpose during the remainder of the EVC programme. Results at HQ level In addition, the MTR report should as a result from data-collection at HQ level provide answers to the following evaluation questions: 24. To what extent has the partnership led to synergy in the delivery of the EVC programme? In what way have partners 4 been able to show their added value? How could this be improved? 25. To what extent were the partners inputs of quality and provided in a timely manner? How can this be improved? 4 With partners, we refer to: The Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs: DSO, DSH and embassies, CARE Nederland, The Hague Academy for Local Governance, CARE COs and CSO partners. 7
26. What was the relationship between the partners like during the contract period? How can this be improved? 27. To what extent has CARE Nederland s lobby and advocacy support to EVC countries contributed to an increased capacity of CARE COs and CSO partners in EVC countries? 28. To what extent have CARE s lobbying & advocacy and public engagement activities in the Netherlands had the desired effect? How can these activities be improved? 29. To what extent has the shrinking/shifting space for civil society affected the EVC programme? How can it be dealt with during the remainder of the programme? At HQ level, lessons learned should be documented along with recommendations for the remainder of the EVC programme. 2.3 Deliverables In view of the above, the deliverables are (all in English): - A 3-day training on required evaluation methodologies for the MTR with a specific focus on OH 5 ; - Guidelines and tools for facilitating OH workshops in countries; - (limited) Remote support to 6 CARE COs and local consultants during data-collection period; - Presentation and validation of preliminary synthesized results at country level and preliminary results at HQ level during linking and learning event; - A comprehensive MTR report with a maximum of 40 pages excluding annexes with the following table of contents: 5 The location of the training is still to be determined 8
Table of Contents MTR EVC Programme Title page Table of contents Abbreviations Executive summary Introduction Methodology Main findings Conclusions and recommendations Including: Title of report Date of submission Names of consultants No longer than 2 pages Including: Introduction Methodology Main findings Conclusions Recommendations Including: Background EVC programme Background at country level Objectives and scope of evaluation Description of methodologies used in relation to the evaluation questions Including: Findings related to evaluation questions at country level Findings related to evaluation questions at HQ level Including main conclusions related to: Evaluation questions at country level Evaluation questions at HQ level Including recommendations for: CARE COs and CSO partners CARE Nederland The Hague Academy for Local Governance Ministry of Foreign Affairs (DSO, DSH, embassies) Annexes Including: Finalised data collection tools used for analysis at HQ level A selection of stories from respondents 9
2.4 Planning Deliverables (see more detailed description above) Time period Payment Final detailed work plan 1 June 2018 3-day training on evaluation methodologies for MTR 25-27 June 2018 with a specific focus on OH Guidelines and tools for facilitating OH workshops 2 July 2018 Remote support to country offices/local consultant June-July 2018 Data collection to produce results at HQ level June-July 2018 Synthesis of MTR reports at country level August 2018 Presentation/validation of preliminary results 11-13 September Comprehensive MTR report 1 October 2018 30% 70% Remuneration is based on submission of final deliverables as mentioned in the preliminary planning. No payment will be made in advance. 3 Purchase procedure 3.1 Procedure This procurement procedure is organised to contract the service of providing a 3-day training, the development of guidelines and tools for facilitating OH workshops at local level, providing remote support to CARE country offices, data collection at global level synthesis of MTR reports at country level, validation of preliminary results during a linking and learning event and the delivery of a comprehensive MTR report. After careful consideration and pre-selection, a selection of potential suppliers is asked to take part in the competitive negotiated procedure for the above-mentioned contract. These potential suppliers are asked to make a quotation based on the administrative criteria, selection criteria and the award criteria mentioned below. These quotations are assessed on their compliance, quality and price. The contract will in principle be awarded to the organisation with the economically most advantageous quotation. This means that not only the price, but all award criteria will be taken into consideration. CARE Nederland withholds the right to conduct interviews with one or more potential suppliers before an award decision is made. Purpose of the interview is to seek further clarification on the submitted quotations and learn more about the background and previous experiences of the potential suppliers and their teams. 3.2 Administrative criteria 3.2.1 Deadlines Quotations should reach CARE no later than 6 May 2018. 3.2.2 Contents of quotation The following should be included in applications: 10
At least two relevant reference assignments, previously performed by the supplier that are comparable in content, time and money; Copy of the registration with the Chamber of Commerce; An approach paper, including a detailed work plan based on this ToR; CV(s) of the proposed consultant(s), proving relevant experience and/or diplomas. See also chapter 3.3, award criteria; Total price, accompanied with a cost break down in days or hours spent and the related fee. Quotations should be submitted by e-mail to: Mirjam Locadia, PMEL Coordinator (locadia@carenederland.org), and a copy to Lori Cajegas, EVC Programme Coordinator (cajegas@carenederland.org). 3.3 Award criteria The evaluation of the quotations will be based on the best value for money criterion, covering technical quality (the evaluation methodology and the C(s) of the consultant(s)) and price of the quotation. 3.3.1 Assessment of the approach paper The assessment of the approach paper will be based on the following criteria. The best fitting approach paper for the assignment will be given the most points. 1) Training and support material enables workshop participants to lead an OH trajectory as part of evaluation efforts; 2) Proposed evaluation methodology will lead to a quality MTR report of the EVC programme providing answers to the evaluation questions in this ToR; 3) Realistic time planning, given the assignment. 3.3.2 Assessment of the CVs The assessment of the CVs will be based on appropriateness of the proposed consultants based on the following criteria. The best fitting CV for the assignment will be given the most points. The following competencies should be made clear in the CVs provided: Required a) Experience in conducting Outcome Harvesting b) Experience in MEL training and support c) Experience in evaluating multi-country programmes d) Experience in evaluating lobbying and advocacy programmes e) Experience with Dutch and/or international (I)NGO s f) Good writing and communicative skills g) Good command of English Preferred h) Experience with working with Dialogue and Dissent framework 11
3.3.3 Assessment of the Prices The maximum budget for this assignment is 30,000 (excluding VAT), excluding costs for travel and accommodation in relation to the workshop. The contractor will have to make provisions for covering all costs associated with the assignment. Remuneration is based on submission of final deliverables as mentioned in chapter 2.4. 3.4 Selection and assessment The assessment of the quotations will start with an assessment of the administrative criteria, as mentioned in chapter 3.2. These criteria are all Knock-out criteria. That means that if these criteria aren t met in your quotation, this quotation will be put aside and the award criteria of this quotation will not be assessed. The quotations that meet the administrative criteria will be assessed against the award criteria. The award criteria are assessed according to the following distribution of points. Criteria Administrative criteria Quotation received within deadline At least two relevant reference assignment previously performed by the supplier that are comparable in content, time and money. Copy of the registration with the Chamber of Commerce An approach paper, including a detailed workplan based on this ToR CV( s) of the proposed consultant(s), proving relevant experience and/or diplomas Award criteria Knock out (KO) / Max. Point Technical criteria Approach paper 30 out of 100 KO KO KO KO KO CV s 30 out of 100 Price 40 out of 100 If necessary, interviews will be organised with the two suppliers with the highest scoring quotations in the week of 7-11 May 2018. Purpose of the interview is to seek further clarification on the submitted quotations and learn more about the background and previous experiences of proposed consultants and their competencies. After the interviews the total points scored on the award criteria can be reassessed. 12