Mid Term Evaluation of the “Enterprise Development for Rural Families in Kenya at Hand in Hand Eastern Africa (HiH EA)

Terms of Reference

Request for Proposal to Conduct the Mid Term Evaluation of the “Enterprise Development for Rural Families in Kenya: Phase III (EDRF III) Project” [Ref. No: HIHEA/010-2021/M&E]
Hand in Hand Eastern Africa (HiHEA) seeks the services of a team of qualified consultants to conduct a Mid Term Evaluation for the above 4-year program in Kenya. This evaluation is commissioned by HiHEA, in consultation with Hand in Hand International (HiH I), the Hand in Hand global network’s coordination and support office based in London and with the Swedish Embassy of Kenya/SIDA in Nairobi.  

The assignment

 

The aim of this Mid-term Evaluation is to:

1. Assess the programme’s progress against the log-frame indicators
2. Assess the relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of the programme
3. Assess the program’s capacity to sustainably achieve the expected outcomes and impact
4. Make recommendations for the remaining program period to guide implementation.

The review will involve interviews with staff to uncover lessons learnt through implementation, challenges faced and best practices obtained so far which will inform the remaining phase of project implementation period. The assignment will ensure comparison with baseline survey results and the recent gender analysis findings to measure the progress/ achievement in the proposed indicators. The emphasis on lessons learnt speaks to the issue of understanding what has and what has not worked as a guide for future planning. The evaluations will track the performance of the programme against planned results especially given that the project is gender specific targeting 80% of the beneficiaries as women. They will also assess the preliminary indications of potential impact and sustainability of results including the contribution to beneficiaries’ capacity development, women economic and social empowerment and achievement of sustainable development goals. The evaluation exercise should not only assess project performance, but also seek to answer the “why” question by identifying factors contributing to (or inhibiting) successful implementation and achievement of results among beneficiary women, youth and men.

Scope of the Mid-term Evaluation

The mid-term evaluation will cover the project’s seven beneficiary counties of Machakos, Laikipia, Nyandarua, Nakuru, Baringo, Kajiado and Makueni, in the period from project start-up (October 2018) through to July 2021 when the evaluation’s data collection is expected to be completed. As at end of May 2021, the project had mobilized 24,595 beneficiaries The beneficiaries comprise of two cohorts; cohort 1 and cohort 2 members distributed across the seven counties served through five HiH EA branch offices.   

The evaluation activities will include:

1. Desk review of key project documents, including theory of change, MEL plan, baseline report, project data collection tools, donor reports, etc.
2.  Adaptation of data collection tools to fit the task at hand
3. Collection of qualitative and quantitative midline data from project participants against logframe indicators
4. Interviews with project staff to uncover implementation strengths, challenges, and lessons learnt
5. Comparative analysis of midline data against baseline data to assess whether the programme results are on track
6. Assess the extent to which capacities have been built both for staff and the beneficiaries on project implementation.

Methodology

Applicants should outline suggested methodologies for answering the evaluation questions below which incorporate quantitative, qualitative primary and secondary research methods. Appropriate data collection and sampling approaches should be outlined. Currently, the program team have a Management Information System which contains relevant data related to some of the program output indicators. We expect the evaluators to validate the data that we have collected to report on our results.  
There are outcome and output indicators that will require primary data collection. We expect the evaluators to build on some of our existing data collection tools to carry out this data collection.   
The evaluators will be expected to ensure maximum engagement with the project implementing team in liaison with the core internal evaluation team. The evaluators will conduct daily debrief meetings with the branch teams after each day of data collection. In addition, learning events will be organized by HiH EA across the implementing branches to disseminate lessons learned through a presentation and a workshop facilitated by the consultant.

Mid Term Evaluation core areas of enquiry and questions  

1. Relevance: Does the intervention design align with its objectives?
2. To what extent did the project target the appropriate beneficiaries and reach the intended target groups (women, young men and women (under 35 years)?  
3. How well is the project responding to the stated needs and requirements of the target beneficiary groups, specifically:  
   1. Gender: how can the project improve/build on good practices when targeting women specifically?  
   2. Youth: how can the project improve/build on good practices when targeting youth (young women and men)? How is the project actively involving young women and men in enhancing their capacity on enterprise development?
4. How relevant are the Climate Smart Villages in demonstrating impact amongst the target beneficiary women, youth and men that is attributable to the project?
5. Are there avenues to strengthen the market linkages approach to address gender based challenges in market access?
6. Coherence: How well does the intervention fit?
7. To what extent has the project maximized on the synergies and interlinkages with other similar interventions in the project sites?
8. How has the project ensured complementarity, harmonization and co-ordination with others, and to what extent has the intervention added value while avoiding duplication of effort?
9. Effectiveness: How well is the project delivering against targets?  
10. Is the program on track to meet all outcome and output targets by the end of the project? An overview of these outputs and outcomes indicators are highlighted in Annex 1.
11. Should the program adjust any work streams to achieve the outcomes of the project?  
12. What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the delivery of results for the EDRF III project?  
13. What innovations have been deployed to reach targets? Have they been effective?
14. Is the training delivered effectively among women, youth and men beneficiaries?
15. Among beneficiary women, youth and men, who has benefited the most from the training provided and why? Which group among the above categorized has benefited least and why?
16. Are there any areas of improvement for women, youth and men beneficiaries that should be incorporated to address any challenges identified in relation to the training program?
17. How has the project so far contributed to reducing gender-based inequalities in enterprise development, maintenance and growth among beneficiary women, youth and men?
18. What practical activities can the project team undertake to build on both gender and youth mainstreaming?
19. How has the project contributed towards changes in intrahousehold and extra household gender dynamics??
20. How far has the Technical Assistance under this project contributed to improved capacity among HIH EA staff on market access, gender, climate resilience and M&E aspects?
21. Efficiency: Is the project delivering on budget and on schedule?  
22. To what extent does the program deliver results on time and on budget against agreed plans?
23. Are there any areas where the program can make cost savings or improve efficiencies?
24. Sustainability: Will the project benefits outlive the implementation period?
25. To what extent are the benefits delivered by the project likely to be sustained after the project ends?
26. What are the key factors that ensure the functionality and sustainability of the Self-Help Groups, enterprises survival rates?
27. How adequate is the capacity of the exit structures especially the CBOs to function after the project ends? Which areas of support do beneficiary women, youth and men require as priorities for sustaining their established enterprises?
28. In order to ensure sustainability, are there other partners, approaches etc. that we should consider?
29. Impact: What are the ultimate consequences of the intervention?  
30. What are some of the direct and indirect benefits of the project among beneficiary women, youth and men?
31. Has the project had any unintended positive consequences?
32. Has the project had any unintended negative consequences?
33. To what extent is our Theory of Change valid? Do its assumptions hold true?

Deliverables  

1. A Mid Term Evaluation Inception report which details what the consultancy team will do,  and what research methodologies they will use. All data collection tools must be annexed. (Template to be agreed with HiH EA and HIHI).
2. Qualitative and quantitative data collection plan.
3. A Powerpoint presentation of draft findings to both the HiH EA and HiHI teams for discussion and feedback.
4. A Concise Mid Term Evaluation Report of not more than 30 pages, including user-friendly graphs comparing midline data against baseline data for key metrics.
5. An Executive Summary of no more than 3 pages.  
6. Presentation of the Mid Term Evaluation to HiH EA/HiHI stakeholders for validation.  
7. Clean quantitative datasets in excel format with a data dictionary and data cleaning log
8. Worked quantitative dataset in Excel format showing analysis and graphs
9. Clean, transcribed qualitative datasets
10. Worked qualitative datasets showing analysis and coding
11. 3 learning events for project staff, stakeholders and partners across the five implementing branches. The structure and activities of the learning and evaluation meeting will be agreed with Hand in Hand Eastern Africa.

Audience  

The report will be used to improve program implementation on ongoing program learning. It will be shared internally across the HiH network as well as with SIDA. It will also be published externally on the HiH EA and HiHI website and shared with key partners. 

Consultant Skills and Experience

1. At least 10 years’ experience in field research and evaluation of community development projects. 
2. In-depth knowledge of climate change resilience enterprise development programs, involving the poor, rural entrepreneurs and smallholder farmers.  
3. Expertise in gender and social inclusion on women’s and youth’s economic and social empowerment programs and the challenges to participation in the economic and development programs in the society will be an added advantage.
4. Prior experience in integrating gender in impact evaluation with a focus on economic activities as well as evaluating market systems development approaches along gender lines.
5. Should demonstrate evidence of past relevant evaluation assignments in rural areas of Kenya and be able to provide examples as requested.
6. Fluency in English and local languages, including Kiswahili.
7. Include a summative table on relevant assignments undertaken and references and state the role of each consultant in the stated assignments.

Suggested Mid Term Evaluation timeframe

The total duration of the MTR will be approximately 30 working days spread over a time period of 8 weeks starting 26th July 2021, and shall not exceed 2 months from when the consultant(s) are hired. This timeline may be subject to minor changes with the successful appointment of a consultant.
However, the final report for the Mid Term Evaluation must be submitted according to timelines agreed upon during the inception meeting.

Budget and Payment 

The consultancy firm will provide a detailed budget summary splitting the consultant’s fees and expenses. The terms of payment will be negotiated with the firm upon signing of the contract.

ANNEXES
Annex 1: Indicators for data collection

Result  

Impact: Poverty is reduced and household wellbeing improved in Baringo, Kajiado, Laikipia, Machakos, Makueni, Nakuru and Nyandarua counties

Indicator

Impact indicator 1: Most Significant Changes experienced by SHG Members (M/F, Y/A)

Result  

Long-term Outcome 1: Increased resilience and sustainability of SHG Member enterprises   

Indicator

LT 1a: % of sampled Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 Members who have diversified and/or intensified their enterprise activities   
LT 1b: Enterprise survival rate 12 months after Member graduation (green/non-green)

Result   

Long-term Outcome 2: Increased financial resilience of SHG Member households   

Indicator

LT 2a: % of Members who report that their households are able to fully meet their daily needs from their own income sources
LT 2b: % change in average monthly savings in KES per member

Result  

Long-term Outcome 3: Increased women's economic empowerment and agency   

Indicator

LT 3a: % of sampled women Members who participate in decision making (Youth / Adult)

Result  

Short-term Outcome 1: Increased capacities to save, borrow, and repay   

Indicator

ST 1a: % of sampled Members who feel Table banking / MGR has improved their financial management skills (M/F, Y/A)

Result

Short-term Outcome 2: Improved knowledge, capacities, and enabling environment for men and women to run profitable enterprises   

Indicator

ST 2a: % of sampled Cohort 1 and Cohort 2 members who practice target business methods

Result

Short-term Outcome 3: Increased incomes and economic activity in the target communities   

Indicator

ST 3a: % increase in sampled members' average monthly net enterprise income from baseline for Cohort 1 and Cohort 2

Result
Short-term Outcome 4: Increased uptake of appropriate financial services for business growth by SHG Members   

Indicator

ST 4a: % of sampled SHG members who feel that they have access to the credit they need to grow their business (M/F, Y/A)
ST 4b: % of borrowers who feel that the loan helped them to grow their business (M/F, Y/A)

Result

ST Outcome 5: Increased capacity among HIH EA staff on market access, gender, climate resilience and M&E   

Indicator
ST 5a: % of HIH EA staff trained and who report improved performance in market access systems, M&E, gender and climate resilience (M/F) on an annual basis.

Result
Output 1: 1,326 community-owned platforms for savings and peer support   

Indicator

OP 1c: % of SHGs practising Table banking / Merry-go-Round

Result

Output 3: 18,564 enterprises created or enhanced by SHG Members  

Indicator

OP 3b: % programme members who are active members of functioning CBOs