Request For Proposals To Conduct End-Term Evaluation Integrated Food Security and Livelihoods Project in Taita Taveta County at Kenya Red Cross Society

Purpose:

• The primary purpose is to conduct the end-term evaluation for the Integrated Food Security and Livelihoods project in Taita Taveta County. The end-term evaluation seeks to provide relevant data and analysis against the Project indicators and understand the impact of the project interventions.

Partners

• British Red Cross, Kenya Red Cross Society and County Government.

Duration

• 30 days

Estimated Dates

• 22nd November – 22nd December 2023

Geographical Location

• Mata, Chala and Mahoo wards of Taita Sub-County; Taita Taveta County – Kenya.

Target Population

• Targeted community members, stakeholders (County Government Representatives & Partners), Project Staff and Volunteers.

Deliverables

• Inception report and tools, Draft and final report plus all data sets.

Methodology

• Quantitative and Qualitative methods.

Evaluation Management Team

• KRCS M&E team and Project representatives and British Red Cross Representatives.

Background Information

• Taveta sub county is an arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL) area, with agriculture being the main source of livelihood, contributing to about 95% of the households’ income1. It was further noted that the sector is greatly affected by prolonged droughts, floods, unpredictable and unreliable below average rainfall, and high temperatures caused by climate change. The IFSL project was designed to strengthen the crops and livestock value chains in the target areas and improve on community resilience. The project is funded by the British Red Cross (BRC) and was designed through collaborative efforts between the donor, KRCS, relevant government line ministries at county and sub-county levels as well as the target communities. The project adopted an integrated and multi-sectoral approach to enable address the root-causes of persistent food insecurity and acute malnutrition in the target areas. Main areas of intervention include: a) Food security and livelihoods; b) Nutrition; c) Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH); d) KRCS cash and voucher assistance preparedness; and e) Strengthening social protection delivery systems in Taita Taveta county.
• The project adopted an integrated and multi-sectoral approach to enable address the root-causes of persistent food insecurity and acute malnutrition in the target areas of Taveta sub-county, specifically in Challa, Mata, Mboghoni and Mahoo wards to cope and adapt to climate variability and changes through enhanced resilience. The main areas of interventions included:
• Food security and livelihoods – that focused on: undertaking an in-depth livelihoods and market assessment; mapping, sensitization and formation of 30 farmers’ groups; promotion of modern farming practices; empowering mother to mother support groups; Village Saving and Loan Association (VSLA) formation and training; linkages to markets, market information and financial institutions and services; strengthening early warning mechanisms; contribute to environmental conservation; and advocacy to the county government and stakeholders.
• Nutrition – which focused on strengthening capacity of KRCS volunteers, health care workers and community health volunteers (CHVs); marking nutrition calendar days (bi-
• annual Malezi Bora celebration and World Breastfeeding Week); and support of nutrition surveillance at community level.
• Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) – that focused on: enhancing water supply systems; formation and training of water user committee; training of KRCS volunteers, health care workers and CHVs on community-led total sanitation (CLTS) and participatory hygiene and sanitation transformation (PHAST), sanitation and hygiene campaigns, establishment of farm ponds for mother to mother support groups to enhance kitchen garden operations; procurement and distribution of water treatment chemicals; and marking WASH National/International calendar days.
• KRCS cash and voucher assistance preparedness – which had a focus on: training of KRCS staff and key volunteers in CVA programming, including market-based programming, including market based programming for WASH sector.
• Strengthening social protection delivery systems in Taita Taveta county by creating an enhanced Single Registry for all poor and vulnerable households and increasing access to social and economic inclusion interventions by the Government and other non-state actors.
• A baseline evaluation for the Integrated Food Security and Livelihoods Project in Taita Taveta County was conducted by the Kenya Red Cross Society between February and March, 2022 covering Challa, Mata and Mahoo wards with the aim of providing a starting point for the project and the basis by which performance, progress, achievements and impact will be measured during and after the project life.

Project Objectives
The goal of the project was to promote protection and promotion of sustainable rural livelihoods of poor and vulnerable households in Taita Taveta County, Kenya.
The specific objectives of the project were:

• To Improve food production through appropriate irrigation technology, drought tolerant crop farming, mixed subsistence and commercial farming (agribusiness) in Taveta Sub-County.
• To improve access to safe and sustainable drinking water, improved sanitation as well as adaptation of good hygiene practices at household level in Taveta Sub-County.
• To improve inclusion of communities into SP systems / NS integrated into SP systems.
• To Strengthen capacity of KRCS and targeted community groups to support sustainable community owned development.

Key Project Stakeholders

• The project was implemented in close coordination with the National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) – managing the Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP), Ministry of Health, Ministry of Labor and Social Protection, Ministry of Planning and Devolution, Ministry of Interior and Coordination of National Government, Taita Taveta County Government – KRCS is a member of the County Steering Group (CSG) to coordinate preparedness and response activities with other actors at county level.
• At the community level, the programme was implemented by KRCS volunteers’ and the community health volunteers (CHVs) supervised by the Community Health Assistants (CHAs) with links to the health facilities structures. The programme staff worked closely the extension officers from the Ministry of Agriculture & Livestock as well as hygiene and sanitation officers. Community members: women, men, boys, and girls, including those with disabilities were also important stakeholders at the community level.

The project reached the community members through the various components as tabulated below:

• Component
• Reach
• Nature
• Food security and Livelihoods
• 372 HH
• 123 Livestock/Goat keepers
• 69 Poultry keepers
• 100 Crop farmers
• 80 Cash Grants-Mother to Mother groups
• Nutrition
• 1800 HH
• 1,800 Caregivers
• WASH
• 926 HH
• 926 HH (4,630 people - clean, safe, potable water
• 438 HH
• 438 HH with software/ hygiene and sanitation

Evaluation Purpose & Scope

Purpose.

• The end-term evaluation seeks to provide relevant data against the project indicators, to understand the impact of the project’s interventions. It will also bring out issues that were affecting the project implementation and things that aided the success of the project as well as looking into the impact of the project.

The specific objectives of the end-term evaluation will be:

• To measure project achievements against log frame indicators and compared to baseline findings.
• To understand whether shifts in knowledge, attitudes and social norms around food security & livelihoods occurred amongst the target community/population as a result of the project interventions.
• To provide evidence of the impact of a program or intervention on the target population.
• To highlight the sustainability measures in place, lessons learned from the project and make practical recommendations for improvement of future projects.
• To review the proposed indicators within the log-frame and set targets based on the findings that will guide the next phase of the project implementation.

Key Questions

• The following are the key questions to be addressed during the ETE. The evaluator may however suggest changes/additional questions at the inception stage:
• Measuring against indicators and targets
• What are the endline values for indicators?
• Did the project achieve the targets?
• Are they meaningfully different from baseline?
• Service access and utilization
• How were farmers, volunteers, extension workers, CHVs and health workers trained as part of the project able to apply new knowledge and skills?
• To what extent was the project able to improve food security and livelihoods status of the targeted community members?
• To what extent were the target community members able to utilize the trainings given to them to better their livelihoods.
• In what ways were project interventions inclusive or not inclusive to people with disabilities?

Effectiveness

• To what extent were the project expected results achieved (objectives, outputs and outcomes)? How does that compare to the target and the baseline findings?
•  
• What changes as reported by the community/stakeholders can be attributed to the project (positive, negative, expected and unexpected)
• What changes could have happened because of other projects in the same area?
• What is the level of resilience amongst the targeted groups?
• Have there been any positive or negative unintended outcomes of the work?

Efficiency

• Were all activities done within the budget? If there were any significant variances (whether early or late, over or under expenditure), what caused them?
• How did the efficiency affect the effectiveness of the project?
• Was there value for money?
• What has been done in an innovative way?

Sustainability

• What sustainability measures were put in place – institutional/financial/technical?
• To what extent have socio-cultural factors affected uptake of project interventions? And what measures have been/should be taken to address the same?
• To what extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue, or are likely to continue?

Relevance

• How satisfied are the community members with the interventions undertaken by the project?
• What do the beneficiaries feel is the effect of the project on their lives in the short term and in the long run?
• The extent to which the intervention objectives and design respond to communities’ needs, policies, and priorities, and continue to do so if circumstances change.

Coherence

• How well has the project’s intervention been compatible with other interventions in the County.
• Was the intervention aligned with the national development plan and other relevant policies and strategies?
• Did the intervention contribute to the overall development goals of the country?

Impact.

• What positive and negative changes has the intervention brought about?
• What are the long-term effects of the intervention likely to be?
• How many people have benefited from the intervention?
• What are the main factors that have contributed to the impact of the intervention?

Community Engagement and Accountability

• To what extend were the KRCS minimum accountability standards integrated?
• How much do the beneficiaries understand the project?
• How much were beneficiaries involved in the project decision making?
• What complaints and feedback mechanism were put in place? What were the common community complaints addressed during the project period?
• Do the community members think that the project respected their culture/religion/daily routines/community calendars etc. and how did that affect the project uptake?

Survey Methodology

• The consulting firm will propose the most suitable study design, sampling methods, sample size, data collection and analysis approaches that is suitable end term evaluation. This should be clearly outlined in the bidding document/proposal and if qualified to oral stage to have further discussion with the evaluation management team. The consulting firm will also propose targeted respondents to interview or data sources that can answer the log frame indicators and provide comparable statistics to document any changes. The methodology should consider triangulation of findings, adequate and representative sample size for the targeted beneficiaries with clear sampling methods. All the log frame indicators should be given operational definition in the bid submission. Data analysis plan should be embedded indicating how the indicators will be analyzed and presented.
• The evaluation will use the following literature and any other for reference and to inform the evaluation process further:
• Final Baseline Survey Report
• Project proposal, theory of change and log frame.
• Existing project reports by the time of data collection.
• Livelihood and Market Assessment reports.

Documents, policies and frameworks by partners, county and national government.

• The project outcome and output indicators are shown in the table below: - Hierarchy of Objectives Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVI) Goal: Protection and promotion of sustainable rural livelihoods of poor and vulnerable households in Taita Taveta County, Kenya Outcome1: Communities have enhanced their food security and reduced malnutrition status due to improved nutrition-sensitive and climate smart food production 1a: % reduction in the negative coping strategy index of targeted households 1b: % of target households that have enough food and income to meet their livelihoods protection threshold

Output 1.1: Farmers have increased their food production due to the adoption of climate smart

• OP1.1a: % of targeted farmers who have adopted one or more climate-smart agriculture practices
• OP1.1b: % of targeted farmers who improve their production
• OP1.1c: % of farmers engaged in functional agri-businesses at the end of the project

Output 1.2: Farmers, especially women, are increasing their bargaining power through increased community networks

• OP1.2a: % of farmers who get better prices by selling through cooperatives (disaggregated by gender)
• OP1.2B: % of mother-to-mother support groups/VSLAs that are engaged in viable income generating activities at the end of the project

Output 1.3: Reduced malnutrition levels among the targeted community members

• OP1.3a: % of children and pregnant and lactating women in the community screened using the MUAC and referred
• OP1.3B: % decrease in malnutrition cases among the targeted community members Outcome 2: Improved access to safe and sustainable drinking water, improved sanitation as well as adaptation of good hygiene practices at household level in Taveta Sub-County. OC2a: Proportion of population using safely managed drinking water services. OC2b: percentage of targeted community members with improved hygiene and sanitation environments.

Output 2.1: Improved water supply systems are in place

• 2.1a: Percentage of targeted with improved access to safe and clean water free of fecal and priority chemical contamination.

Output 2.2: Improved hygiene and sanitation

• 2.2a: percentage of targeted community members with improved hygiene and sanitation Outcome 3: Improved inclusion of communities into SP systems / NS integrated into SP systems OC3: Increased % of targeted beneficiaries who are aware of social protection systems and how to access them thanks to Red Cross information

Output 3.1: Strengthened Cash and Voucher Assistance and Market Based Programming

• 3.1: percentage of targeted county branch staff and volunteers with enhanced CVA capacity

Output 3.2: Enhanced national single registry thanks to NS inputs

• 3.2: Number of community members supported by KRCS to be registered in the single registry. Outcome 4: Strengthened capacity of KRCS and targeted community groups to support sustainable community owned development OC4.1: percentage of targeted KRCS staff and volunteers having enhanced capacity. OC4.2: percentage of targeted community members satisfied with KRCS project implementation

Output 4.1: KRCS Taita Taveta branch has improved capacity on community engagement and accountability procedures

• OP4.1: percentage of targeted KRCS staff and volunteers having enhanced CEA capacity.

Output 4.2: Enhanced understanding of the Protection and Gender inclusion and PSEA policies in Taita Taveta county.

• OP4.2: percentage of targeted KRCS staff and volunteers having enhanced PSEA capacity.

Output 4.3: Improved capacity of the national society

• OP4.3: percentage of KRCS branches with enhanced capacity

Output 4.4 Enhanced project monitoring and evaluation

• OP4.4: percentage of targeted community members satisfied with KRCS project implementation

Quality & Ethical Standards

• The consultant shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the assessment is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team shall be required to adhere to the assessment standards and applicable practices as recommended by International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.
• Utility: Assessments must be useful and used.
• Feasibility: Assessments must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
• Ethics & Legality: Assessments must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the assessment.
• Impartiality & Independence: Assessments should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that considers the views of all stakeholders.
• Transparency: assessment activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
• Accuracy: Assessments should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
• Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the assessment process when feasible and appropriate.
• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the assessment process improves the legitimacy and utility of the assessment.
• Inclusion: The assessment must include clear steps to ensure meaningful engagement and participation of all sections of community, including persons with disability.
• It is also expected that the assessment will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity and 7) universality.

Qualifications and Experience for Consultants
The lead consultant must possess the following qualifications:

• A minimum of a master’s degree in Climate Change/Disaster Risk Reduction/Social science/Agri-Business management/community development or related field.
• A minimum of 5 years’ extensive experience in carrying out comprehensive evaluations or similar assignments.
• Good understanding of Climate Change, Disaster Risk Resilience, Food security and Livelihood interventions, disability and gender inclusion, and age among vulnerable populations in Kenya.
• Proven experience in participatory and results-based M&E knowledge and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research methods.
• Must have led in at least five participatory assessments. Experience of conducting Baseline, End line, Midterm evaluations monitoring and assessment work in the target or similar communities (preferred)
• High level of professionalism and an ability to work independently and in high-pressure situations under tight deadlines.
• Strong interpersonal, facilitation and communication skills
• The team must have a statistician able to analyze quantitative and qualitative data as well as key technical team members to handle specific components of the project evaluation.
• Team must have experience in participatory data collection methods and using mobile phone technology for data collection, monitoring and reporting.
• The lead consultant must have strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner.
• Availability for the period indicated and ready to carry out the assignment and deliver results within the specified period/time.
• Availability of experts in each of the subject areas, with experience and relevant qualifications for the assignment will be highly preferred.