Consultancy Opportunity at Goal Kenya

1.1 Background

GOAL has been operational in Kenya since 1995 implementing integrated child empowerment and protection (CEP), water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH), health and livelihoods programming. Since its inception, CEP programming has been the core of GOAL Kenya’s (GK) operations.

In terms of GK’s approach to CEP, the organisation aims to bridge the gap between policies and guidelines developed by the government at national and county levels, and programming for vulnerable children and young people at community level. GOAL works to bring evidence from community level (including community challenges and priorities) to inform policy development/review and roll out, service design and service delivery. Through partnership with local implementing partners (LIPs), and in collaboration with Ministry of Education, Science and Technology and Department of Children’s Services (DCS), GOAL is currently supporting 151 schools, seven Statutory Children’s Institutions (SCIs), 63 Charitable Children’s Institutions (CCIs) and 1,800 parents to strengthen child violence detection, prevention and response mechanisms, reaching a total of 75,400 children. In collaboration with the MoH, GOAL and its LIPs have strengthened the operational and technical capacity of 29 Community Health Units (CHUs), benefitting 101,500 households.

Since 2012 GOAL has directly impacted the lives of 238,767 vulnerable children and youth living in urban informal settlements in Nairobi and hard to reach, disaster-affected populations such as pastoralist communities in Marsabit.

1.2 Integrated Action to End Child Violence Programme

The results of a 2010 Government of Kenya survey, titled ‘Violence Against Children in Kenya’ 2010, revealed that violence against children is a serious problem in the country. Sexual, physical and other types of violence are all too common in the life of Kenyan children; over three-quarters of females and nearly 80% of males experiences a form of violence before the age of 18, most often perpetrated by those that the children are supposed to trust, in particular by parents, teachers, romantic partners, and others in authority.

In 2013, GK began implementation of a three year European Union funded ‘Integrated Action to End Child Violence’ programme that sought to eradicate all forms of violence against children. GOAL Kenya, as lead agency, delivers a set of interventions in partnership with the following local non-governmental organisations; Life Skills Promoters (LISP), Mukuru Slums Development Projects (MSDP) and Horn of Africa Development Initiative (HODI). The operational areas of the programme include Mukuru, Korogocho, Kariobangi, Dandora informal settlements in Nairobi County and Marsabit Central Sub County in Marsabit County.

2.0 Definition and Scope

2.1 Project Objectives

The overall objective of the programme is to contribute to the eradication of all sorts of violence against children in extremely marginalised communities in Kenya.

The specific objective of the programme:

To improve the capacity of marginalized/vulnerable households, institutions, and communities in Nairobi’s informal settlements and Marsabit Central Sub County to detect, prevent and respond to any form of violence against children, and improve rehabilitation of child victims of violence.

These objectives were to be realised through six results areas as follows:

1. Improved life skills for children, parents and families in communities affected by child violence. The program sought to equip children, youth and their caregivers with life skills to facilitate them to develop adaptive and positive behaviour that enable them to deal effectively with the demands and challenges of everyday life.
2. Improved income opportunities for parents and children in line with national and international legal framework. The action intends to achieve the strengthening of livelihood capacity through improved income opportunities for parents and children which has the ripple effect of reducing pressure on parents, reduced levels of domestic violence, increased support for victims and the development of positive coping mechanism for life changes. In the spirit of striding towards addressing the link between poverty and violence, the action is using training programmes to impart vocational, apprenticeship, entrepreneurship, and business management skills to young people and parents of extremely vulnerable children and youth. The participants receive in-kind capital for business start-up with access to income generating activities and also through the apprenticeship and mentorship programmes, their employability is increased manifold.

3. Improved capacity of target communities to recognise, mitigate and respond to child violence. This outcome is based on the premise that violence against children is not random neither is it perpetuated by strangers but well known individual(s) who are close and at times have personal ties to the victims . More specifically, the resulting effect of such violence is that victims of childhood violence engage in drug and alcohol abuse as well as risky sexual behaviour. The aim of the intervention is facilitate the community on how to prevent the different forms of child abuse, how to identify abusers and report abuse to the appropriate community structures. Owing to the broad spectrum of the community; the capacity of local leaders (chiefs, their assistants, community opinion leaders, voluntary children officers) is built to achieve this goal.

1. Strengthened capacity of schools and child protection institutions to mitigate and respond to child violence. This result focuses on supporting institutions responsible for safeguarding children in target communities. This support aims at strengthening the mechanisms of prevention, early identification and response to survivors of child violence. The institutions targeted includes; schools, Charitable Children’s Institutions, Area Advisory Councils, Child protection and Gender desks in police station among others.
2. Enhanced referral systems and networks to support sustainable and effective rehabilitation of victim of child violence. The programme seeks to support existing referral mechanisms among service providers as well establishing such mechanisms at community levels where they do not exist within the structures of the DCS.
3. Promote coordination, participatory learning and knowledge sharing among key stakeholders to advocate for and inform child protection policies. The program seeks to support government in consolidation and implementation of child protection policies, dialogue forums between children and key stakeholders, documentation of good practices as well as sensitise media on child violence.

A baseline survey “Integrated Action to End Child Violence Baseline Survey Report: Nairobi and Marsabit Action area” while a mid-term evaluation conducted in 2016 showed the progress made in the implementation of the program. The specific objective indicators that were assessed are:

1. % of children, parents and families with improved life skills that enable the participants to reduce their vulnerability to child violence
2. % of beneficiaries who have secured employment (including self-employment)
3. % of community groups with increased capacity to mitigate child violence risks, and recognize and respond to child violence incidences
4. % of schools and institutions with increased capacity to mitigate child violence risks, and recognize and respond to child violence incidences
5. # of functional referral systems in the target areas
6. # of good practices and lessons learnt, disseminated to influence coordination and policy environment on issues of child violence

2.2 Evaluation Purpose

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess GK’s performance and impacts of the EU funded project according to OECD evaluation criteria and against the above objective indicators. The evaluation will help GK to improve its future CEP programming through lessons learned and recommendations generated through the evaluation exercise.

2.3 Evaluation Scope

The project is operational in Nairobi and Marsabit Counties reaching out to 151 schools, 63 Charitable Children’s Institutions, seven Statutory Children’s Institutions and targeted communities in Nairobi’s informal settlements (Mukuru, Korogocho, Dandora and Kariobangi) and Marsabit Central district.

The research project should be organised around OECD evaluation criteria. Approximately 88% of the program interventions are in Nairobi while Marsabit has 11% of all activities.

Details of targeted institutions/groups in both intervention areas are as follows;

Nairobi County

Marsabit County

136 schools

15 schools

7 Statutory Children Institutions

0 Statutory Children Institutions

58 Chartable Children’s Institution

4 Chartable Children’s Institution

12 Community conversation groups

6 Community conversation groups

8 CPUs and gender desks

1 CPU and gender desks

The research project should be organised around OECD evaluation criteria as follows, with suggested research questions provided.

Relevance: Does the programme align with national and international priority concerns? Were targets in line with international standards in this sector, (if available?) Did this programme effectively reach the most vulnerable households? Did the project address the priority needs of the affected population?

Effectiveness: Were the monitoring mechanisms effective in providing timely data to inform programming decisions? To what extent did the project meet its targets and deliver outputs?

Impact: To what extent did this project achieve the intended outcome and impact? What was the performance against the stated indicators? Are there any ill effects or unplanned impacts as a result of this project?

Efficiency: What evidence is available/can be determined on the cost effectiveness of the intervention? How do intervention costs compare with other modalities? What evidence is available that efficiencies were sought in programme design? Were adequate human and financial resources applied to delivering project outcomes? Were outputs delivered in a timely fashion? Was technology deployed to improve efficiency?

Sustainability: To what extent did the programme utilise established institutions/mechanisms to ensure sustainability at the end of the project? To what extent were relevant partnerships/capacity developed to ensure sustainability? Was an exit strategy developed to ensure sustainability?

2.4 Evaluation Tasks

§ Refine the primary research questions to respond to the above specific objective indicators in consultation with GOAL’s technical and management teams;

§ Incorporate specific research questions regarding strategic programme areas and pilot activities undertaken during the programme ;

§ Devise and test a methodology and evaluation tools to address the specific objectives and assess the following;

o how the programme aligned with national and international priorities, policies and strategy

o how effective was the programme’s beneficiary targeting strategy, especially in terms of reaching the most vulnerable

o How effectively the program addressed the priority needs of the affected population.

o What challenges and opportunities exist for stakeholders engaged in this sector,

§ Conduct desk review of existing documents including using GOAL’s existing programme monitoring data and documents (Integrated Action to End Child Violence programme proposal and log frame, Integrated Action to End Child Violence 2014 and 2015 annual reports, Integrated Action to End Child Violence Mid-Term Programme Evaluation Report, National Plan of Action for Children 2015-2022, Nairobi and Marsabit County Children’s Service Providers Directories, ‘Let us Keep our Children Safe’ Ministry of Education (2015), Draft Positive Discipline Handbook and Day Care Centre Guidelines for Nairobi County).

§ Carry out analysis on verification performance, verification of implementation process, relevance, effectiveness, efficient, impacts and sustainability.

§ Collect primary data to establish and quantify GOAL’s performance against selected programme indicators and criteria outlined above

§ Provide a draft report to programme management that will be incorporated into ongoing programme planning and evaluation, as well as recommendations for maximising social impact and formulate policy recommendations to support child protection programming

§ Facilitate a meeting/workshop to validate the findings of the evaluation with GOAL and partner staff and other stakeholders

§ Incorporate GOAL’s feedback into a draft report and prepare a final report. The final report 21qshould both describe the results of the evaluation, and provide actionable recommendations for improving GOAL’s programme

3. Methodology

A recommended methodology is outlined below, but the methodology and tools to be used is to be advised by the evaluation team and will be contingent on the above tasks. GOAL recommends a mixed methods approach that can quantify impact and achievement against targets and indicators.

3.1 Planning

Once the consultant is engaged, the evaluation team will be expected to do the following:

§ Review key internal and external documents and datasets above in section 2.4 ;

§ In partnership with the Programmes Director, MEAL and CEP Coordinators and Managers, and refine and finalise the specific evaluation questions to be explored from the scope described above;

§ Propose to the Programmes Director and MEAL Coordinator and programme team the appropriate methodology to be developed for the context to evaluate the programme and address the OECD evaluation criteria;

§ Prepare an outline of the data collection methods that are required and the relevant survey templates and participatory data collection guides to be used for data collection;

§ Develop a work plan consisting of key milestones required for data collection in order for logistics to be arranged by the MEAL Coordinator;

§ Hold a short planning meeting with all members of the evaluation team including the MEAL Coordinator and relevant programme and implementing partner teams, to review and amend the questions as needed for the data collection tools;

§ Liaise with the MEAL Coordinator on the training and recruitment of the data collection staff and the use of mobile data collection for the proposed survey tools and qualitative guides, as primary data collection will be required for the study;

Hold a brief workshop with GK Programmes Director, CEP and MEAL Coordinators and Child Protection and MEAL Managers to communicate evaluation methods, objectives, and outcomes. This will include a short description of the evaluation questions and methods proposed.

3.2 Primary Data Collection

Area/s of primary data collection include Nairobi and Marsabit. To the greatest extent possible, the evaluation should consider both beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries, examining any potential positive or negative spill over effects.

While quantitative methods such as household surveys, observation checklists, and physical testing are desirable for the measurement of indicators, GK expects a balance of quantitative and qualitative methods to better understand the mechanisms that produce certain results or may hinder greater results.

3.3 Data Analysis

GK expects all quantitative data to be rigorously analysed and representative of the programme area within the reasonable limits and constraints of the context. Qualitative data should also be rigorously analysed and should primarily focus on developing a deeper understanding about the relevance of the programme, and providing recommendations for improving or strengthening the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the results of the programme.

4. Presentation and Documentation of Findings and Recommendations

This consultancy will take place at the end of the grant period, starting no earlier than 1st February, 2017 with the final approved report submitted by no later than 31st March, 2017.

The key deliverables would be the following:

• A short inception report including a detailed work plan, list of key informants to be interviewed, data collection tools and outline interview questions – one week after signing contract.
• Closing workshop with GOAL and implementing partners staff to present and validate findings and get feedback

i)  Agreed lessons learned and best practices that can be incorporated into relevant sectors’ programming

ii) Agreed recommendations that will inform and improve GOAL’s future programmatic strategy, with agreed action points and deadlines

• Draft Evaluation Report submitted to CEP and MEAL Coordinators, Programmes Director, Global Surveys and Assessment Advisor for feedback and comments, two weeks after conclusion of field visit.
• Final Evaluation Report- The report must be clear and concise and the following sections must be included as a minimum: Executive Summary, Literature Review, Methodology, Analysis of Findings, Recommendations, Annexes: TORs, a timeline of the response, a list of individuals interviewed, statistical outputs, templates of data collection tools used, a description of the methods employed, a summary of survey results (if appropriate) and any other relevant materials.
• Submit complete data sets and codebook and all original recordings and transcripts of qualitative, raw and cleaned quantitative data sets.
• Summary of the evaluation report presented to stakeholders during the programme close out forum

5. Dissemination of Findings

Results and recommendations will be made available externally to interested stakeholders at the discretion of GOAL Kenya senior management. The final report and any primary data collected will be the property of GOAL. GOAL will require the consultant to prepare a summary evaluation report for sharing with stakeholders during the programme close out meeting.

If particular sections of the evaluation are deemed useful or informative for the greater humanitarian community as lessons learned or opportunities to improve programming, GOAL reserves the right to create a separate report with excerpts from the final evaluation report to share with the wider community.

6. Ethical Considerations

The evaluation team will make clear to all participating stakeholders that they are under no obligation to participate in the evaluation study. All participants will be assured that there will be no negative consequences if they choose not to participate. The evaluation team will obtain written consent from the participants and guardians of children to be interviewed. The research team will ensure prior permission is received for taking and use of visual still/ moving images for specific purposes, i.e., ‘for research report and presentations’.

The evaluation team will assure the participants’ anonymity and confidentiality and will ensure the visual data is protected and used for agreed purposes only. In particular, the evaluation team will employ robust data security measures to further ensure participants’ confidentiality and anonymity. The evaluation team is responsible for determining whether or not their proposed methodology would require Institutional Review Board (IRB) clearance, and will be responsible for clearing the process and training if such approval is required.

GOAL will require every member of the evaluation team to have a certificate of good conduct and sign up for GOAL child protection code of behaviour.

7. Assumptions and Requirements

• Evaluators will have access to all documentation and can take part in relevant meetings and field trips within Nairobi and Marsabit.
• Evaluators will have access to key staff in the responding GOAL offices in Nairobi and Marsabit and partner offices to obtain adeqate information provided.
• The evaluation team will have access to members of the targeted population for conducting interviews.
• Evaluators will take confidentiality and objectivity into consideration during the process.
• Security concerns could impact the timing and the scope of the evaluation. It is important for the team to remain flexible. They must be open to making changes to the schedule and itinerary such as visiting alternate sites, conducting remote reviews and interviews, etc.
• GOAL Kenya has a database of data enumerators both in Nairobi and Marsabit however the cost for paying the enumerators should be factored in the consultancy budget. Daily rates for the enumerators is 3000 per person. The cost for training data enumerators should be factored in the consultants’ budget
• GOAL Kenya will not provide transport and accommodation costs hence these costs should be included in the consultants’ budget
• GOAL requires the consultants to build in all other related costs to the evaluation exercise such as transport and accommodation costs within Nairobi and Marsabit operational areas.
• GOAL Kenya will cater for the programme close out workshop costs.
• GOAL Kenya will mobilise survey respondents in both Nairobi and Marsabit