Job Vacancies at Horizont3000 - 3 Positions

Objective of the Evaluation

The general objective of the evaluation is to assess the completion and achievements of the project objectives as well as the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project intervention. The evaluation will provide a well-founded, comprehensive and concretely argued document in order to assess the quality of the project and its implementation. The recipients of the evaluation are the back-donors Austrian Development Agency (ADA), Brother and Sister in Need as well as HORIZONT3000 and the implementing partner DESECE.

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to provide information on the following points:

Evaluate the DESECE project to draw out key lessons, strengths and weaknesses of the current project and make recommendations on completion of the current phase and for the development of the next project.

Analyse the approach used by DESECE and state whether it is suitable to be transferred and implemented by other development actors in the region. Please specify which particular models are working well.

Outline and asses the contributions of the HORIZONT3000 KNOWHOW3000 activities to this project.

• Evaluation criteria and guiding questions
• Relevance (appropriateness) of the intervention
  • To what extent does the intervention reflect the actual needs and interests of the target group?
  • To what extent is the intervention in line with national strategies of Kenya?
• Effectiveness (achievement of targets) of the project in terms of the defined objectives
  • What is the progress from the beginning towards the agreed project objective (as determined in the project document)?
  • Does the target group practice the new techniques, e.g. in sustainable agriculture and marketing with an increase of income?
  • To what extent is behaviour change visible with regards to mediation of conflicts, public engagement (participation in forums), reporting of rights violations.
  • Did unforeseen external factors intervene? If so, how flexibly did the management adapt to ensure that the result would still achieve the objective?
• Efficiency (use of resources)
  • Is the relation between input of resources and results achieved appropriate and justifiable?
  • Is a monitoring system in place to gather timely relevant information on the achievement of results and objectives?
  • Organisational set-up: are the number and professional/managerial skills of the project team as well as the organisational set-up, adequate for the activities of the project and where are improvements needed?
• Impact (effects) of the intervention on the general situation of the target group and other stakeholders
  • What changes have happened since the project implementation?
  • To what extent has the project intervention resulted in increased household income? To what extent have the trainings changed and improved the attitudes and conflict resolution capacities of the beneficiaries?
  • What are the positive or negative, intended, unintended and visible effects of the project on the target groups, surrounding communities, the institutional (DESECE) level and the district?
• Sustainability (durability) of the intervention and its impact
  • To what extent can activities, results and effects be expected to continue after the project has come to an end?
  • How self-sustaining is DESECE in general?
  • To what extent does the project take into account factors which have a major influence on sustainability like e.g. ecological and socio-cultural aspects, gender equality, women’s empowerment, institutional and management capacity building?
  • Institutional sustainability: to what extent is the intervention designed to develop the institutional capacities of DESECE in terms of improving internal processes, structures and skills of staff members?
• Participation and ownership
  • To what extent have stakeholders been involved in decision-making during implementation?
  • How did the implementing team choose the beneficiaries?
  • What is the level of local ownership and the identification with the project?
  • How satisfied is the project partner with the cooperation with HORIZONT3000? What should be kept, changed or improved?
• HORIZONT3000 Knowledge Management
  • Did the partner organisation participate in any KNOWHOW3000 activity? If yes, which one?
  • What was the benefit of the participation for the partner organisation and for the target group?
• Lessons learnt and recommendations
  • What are the main lessons learnt from the project?
  • What good practices (e.g. approaches, trainings and methods) are suitable to be replicated in other projects with similar objectives?
• The Evaluator
• The Evaluator needs to proof technical experience in rural development, fluency in English and managerial skills in designing and performing a project evaluation. The Evaluator needs to come up with an appropriate methodology for the evaluation. The Evaluator will be in charge of the entire evaluation process and is expected to provide HORIZONT3000 with a final evaluation report as stipulated in the timetable below.
• Methodologies
• The evaluator chooses the appropriate methods.
• Tentative timetable
  • The whole assignment including the final evaluation report should be concluded by April 30, 2018. The Evaluator will develop, discuss and agree on the evaluation schedule with DESECE before commencement of the assignment. The final evaluation schedule will be shared with HORIZONT3000.

Evaluation Report

• The report shall present findings on the evaluation objectives.
• The report should contain a description of methodologies / design.
• The report should describe the involvement of local actors (project partner, target groups).
• It shall summarize the findings of the evaluation in the light of the criteria mentioned in point 3 above (maximum 5 pages).
• It shall be clear and concise, limiting itself to essential points (maximum 20 pages without cover page, content, appendices etc.).
• The report shall be written in English language.
• The report shall be drawn up using Microsoft Word software and submitted electronically; including tables and graphics were useful and necessary.

go to method of application »

Background

The project “Sustainable Rural Agro-Enterprise Development Project, Arua, Nebbi and Nwoya” aims to contribute to improving livelihoods of farming communities in West Nile sub-region and Nwoya district by engaging in market-oriented agriculture. Specifically, the project aims to ensure that 625 farmers and their families start engaging in market oriented farming while safeguarding food security and managing their natural resources sustainably through applying the Enabling Rural Innovation approach.

The following four result areas are stated in the proposal:

• 25 farmer groups are strengthened and operational
• Farmers have improved their food security
• Farmer groups have developed profitable enterprises in response to market demands and derive sustainable income from them.
• Farmers have improved their farming skills and apply sustainable natural resource management (NRM) practices
• Capacity Building: RICE WN as an institution and 6 of its staff have acquired expertise in the ERI approach and facilitate farmers to apply innovative approaches and also monitor their performance
• The results of the evaluation will directly feed into shaping the new project phase.

Objective of the Evaluation

• The general objective of the evaluation is to assess the completion and achievements of the project objectives as well as the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project intervention. The evaluation will provide a well-founded, comprehensive and concretely argued document in order to assess the quality of the project and its implementation.
• The recipients of the evaluation findings are project partners, HORIZONT3000 and donors Austria Development Agency (ADA), DKA Austria, Welthaus Graz, Brother and Sister in Need.
• The specific objectives of the evaluation are to provide information on the following points:
• Evaluate the ERI project to draw out key lessons, strengths and weaknesses of the current project and make recommendations on completion of the current phase and for the development of the next project.
• Analyse the approach used by ERI and state whether it is suitable to be transferred and implemented by other development actors in the region.
• Recommendations for improvement of the package based on modules approach.
• Outline and asses the contributions of the HORIZONT3000 KNOWHOW3000 activities to this project.

Evaluation criteria and guiding questions

Relevance

Assess the extent to which the project is justified and appropriate in relation to the needs and situation of the region.

• To what extent does the intervention conform to the needs and interests of the target group?
• To what extent is intervention in line with national strategies of Tanzania and Uganda?

Effectivess

Assess the extent to which the project stated objectives have been achieved or are likely to be attained by project end.

• What is the progress from the beginning towards the agreed project objective (as determined in the project document)?
• Is the project model realistic to increase access to market?
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of objectives?
• How is the project contributing to improvement in management of natural resources?
• Specify any unplanned results observed and how it has affected the project in positive as well as in negative way
• Did unforeseen external factors intervene? If so, how flexibly did management adapt to ensure that the project would still achieve the purpose?

Efficiency

Assess the overall project performance, the results in relation to the input, financial management and the implementation time.

• Was the project design appropriate?
• Is the relation between input of resources and results achieved appropriate and justifiable?
• Is a monitoring system in place to gather timely relevant information on the achievement of results and objectives?
• What is the cost-benefit relation in comparison of all partners?
• Organisational set-up: are the number and professional/managerial skills of the project team as well as the organisational set-up, adequate for the activities of the project and where are improvements needed?

Impact

Assess the effects of the project on the general situation of the target group and stakeholders, measuring both positive and negative impact.

• What changes have happened since the project implementation?
• To what extent does the project contribute towards increased income and socio-economic empowerment of farmers in the target communities?
• Is there any impact on neighbouring communities that have not directly been addressed by the project?
• To what extent does the project contribute towards addressing cross-cutting issues like, inclusion of disadvantaged groups, human rights and gender?
• What are the positive or negative, intended, unintended and visible effects of the project on the target groups, surrounding communities, the institutional (ERI partners) level and the district?

Sustainability

Assess the extent to which benefits from the project will continue after the donor support has come to an end.

• Have the local partner organisations/target groups embraced the vision and aims promoted by the project? Can they continue the project independently? Do they have their own problem-solving strategies?
• How self-sustaining is in general are the local/implementing project partners? (Assess each organisation individually).
• To what extent does the project intervention consider factors influencing sustainability e.g. political support, appropriate technology, socio-cultural aspects, institutional and management capacity building?
• What adjustments can be made to the project intervention logic for increased sustainability of future projects?

Participation and ownership

• To what extent have stakeholders been involved in decision-making during implementation?
• How did the implementing team choose the beneficiaries?
• What is the level of local ownership and the identification with the project?
• How satisfied is the project partner with the cooperation with HORIZONT3000? What should be kept, changed or improved?

HORIZONT3000 Knowledge Management

• Did the partner organisation participate in any KNOWHOW3000 activity? If yes, which one?
• What was the benefit of the participation for the partner organisation and for the target group?

Lessons learnt and recommendations

• What are the main lessons learnt from the project?
• What good practices (e.g. approaches, trainings and methods) are suitable to be replicated in other projects with similar objectives?

Evaluation Team

The evaluation will be carried out by an evaluation consultancy firm/company which shall assign a team of at least three experienced evaluators with profound experience in assessing agriculture projects and who have up-to-date knowledge about the local context of Uganda and Tanzania agriculture sector. The consultancy firm will state the name of the lead evaluator who will act as a focal person for communicating with HORIZONT3000 and ERI Project partners, and specifically be responsible for submitting the final evaluation report.

Methodologies

The evaluator chooses the appropriate methods.

Timeframe and tentative timetable

The whole evaluation exercise will take 40 days inclusive of travel, preparation and report writing. The evaluation is planned to start in February and should be concluded by 15 of April 2018. During this period, the evaluation team will carry out all tasks related to the assignment and present / discuss the draft report with the project team before submitting the final report. A tentative timetable is drawn below.

Evaluation Report

• The report shall present findings on the evaluation objectives.
• The report should contain a description of methodologies / design.
• The report should describe the involvement of local actors (project partner, target groups).
• It shall summarize the findings of the evaluation in the light of the criteria mentioned in point 3 above (maximum 5 pages).
• It shall be clear and concise, limiting itself to essential points (maximum 20 pages without cover page, content, appendices etc.).
• The report shall be written in English language.
• The report shall be drawn up using Microsoft Word software and submitted electronically; including tables and graphics were useful and necessary.

go to method of application »

Background

The project “Water supply and Basic Sanitation in Turkana County ( Lodwar V)” aims to contribute to the alleviation of poverty and improved health of habitants of rural Turkana. Specifically, the project aims to provide sustainable access to adequate, clean and safe water and to improve livelihoods and promote sanitation and personal hygiene of the target group.

The following result areas are stated in the proposal:

The needs of the communities in the target area are assessed and the exact locations and types of interventions for the implementation phase are specified.

Safe, sustainable, reliable and well managed water facilities are accessible to the target communities and improve livelihood (Water supply).

The Community Led Total Sanitation (CLTS) approach for improved hygiene is adopted by the target communities (Sanitation).

Solar and wind driven systems for lighting and water pumping are operational in the target communities. (Renewable Energy).

M&E system is implemented and used by the Water and Sanitation department of the Diocese of Lodwar and participatory working with other departments is strengthened (Capacity Building, Documentation and M&E).

Target group of the intervention are 47,000 inhabitants of the Parishes: (with population)

Turkwel and Lorgum Parish (including former pilot area 1) 15,000 inhabitants

Kalobeyei Parish 12,000 inhabitants

Katilu Parish (including former pilot area 2) 10,000 inhabitants

Lokori Parish (including former pilot area 3) 10,000 inhabitants

• The project duration is January 2016 till December 2018, another period with the duration of three years (January 2019 – December 2021) is envisaged and in planning. The results of the evaluation will directly feed into shaping the new project phase.
• Objective of the Evaluation
  • The general objective of the evaluation is to assess the completion and achievements of the project objectives as well as the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the project intervention. The evaluation will provide a well-founded, comprehensive and concretely argued document in order to assess the quality of the project and its implementation. The recipients of the evaluation are the back-donors Austrian Development Agency (ADA), eRko, DKA Austria as well as HORIZONT3000 and the implementing partner Diocese of Lodwar (DoL).
  • The specific objectives of the evaluation are to provide information on the following points:
  • Evaluate the Dicoese of Lodwar project to draw out key lessons, strengths and weaknesses of the current project and make recommendations on completion of the current phase and for the development of the next project.
  • Analyse the approach used by Diocese of Lodwar and state whether it is suitable to be transferred and implemented by other development actors in the region. Please specify which particular models the other development actors are using and are working well.
  • Outline and asses the contributions of the HORIZONT3000 KNOWHOW3000 activities to this project.
• Evaluation criteria and guiding questions
  • Relevance (appropriateness) of the intervention
  • To what extent does the intervention reflect the actual needs and interests of the target group?
  • To what extent is the intervention in line with national strategies of Kenya?
• Effectiveness (achievement of targets) of the project in terms of the defined objectives
  • What is the progress from the beginning towards the agreed project objective (as determined in the project document)
  • To what extent has the access to water facilities improved? To what extend is behaviour change visible with regards to hygiene and sanitation?
  • Did unforeseen external factors intervene? If so, how flexibly did the management adapt to ensure that the result would still achieve the objective?
  • How did the drought last year impact the project and also the Diocese operation as such? What lessons could be taken for the future
• Efficiency (use of resources)
• Is the relation between input of resources and results achieved appropriate and justifiable?
• Is a monitoring system in place to gather timely relevant information on the achievement of results and objectives?
• Organisational set-up: are the number and professional/managerial skills of the project team as well as the organisational set-up, adequate for the activities of the project and where are improvements needed?
• Impact (effects) of the intervention on the general situation of the target group and other stakeholders
• What changes have happened since the project implementation?
• To what extent has the project intervention resulted in improved water facilities? To what extent have the trainings changed and improved the attitudes and practices of the beneficiaries in sanitation?
• What are the positive or negative, intended, unintended and visible effects of the project on the target groups, surrounding communities, the institutional (Diocese of Lodwar) level and the district?
• Sustainability (durability) of the intervention and its impact
  • To what extent can activities, results and effects be expected to continue after the project has come to an end?
  • How self-sustaining is Diocese of Lodwar in general?
  • To what extent does the project take into account factors which have a major influence on sustainability like e.g. ecological and socio-cultural aspects, gender equality, women’s empowerment, institutional and management capacity building?
  • How does the organisation work with the county government, what is the government and other actors doing in the water sector in the area? Where are areas synergies and of complementation?
  • Institutional sustainability: to what extent is the intervention designed to develop the institutional capacities of Diocese of Lodwar in terms of improving internal processes, structures and skills of staff members?
• Participation and ownership
  • To what extent have stakeholders been involved in decision-making during implementation?
  • How did the implementing team choose the beneficiaries?
  • What is the level of local ownership and the identification with the project?
  • How satisfied is the project partner with the cooperation with HORIZONT3000 and eRko? What should be kept, changed or improved?
• HORIZONT3000 Knowledge Management
  • Did the partner organisation participate in any KNOWHOW3000 activity? If yes, which one?
  • What was the benefit of the participation for the partner organisation and for the target group?
• Lessons learnt and recommendations
  • What are the main lessons learnt from the project?
  • What good practices (e.g. approaches, trainings and methods) are suitable to be replicated in other projects with similar objectives?

The Evaluator

The Evaluator needs to proof technical competence and experiences in Civil Engineering, Water Resources Engineering or Environmental Engineering; WASH programming and in rural development, fluency in English and managerial skills in designing and performing a project evaluation. The Evaluator needs to come up with an appropriate methodology for the evaluation. The Evaluator will be in charge of the entire evaluation process and is expected to provide HORIZONT3000 with a final evaluation report as stipulated in the timetable below.

Methodologies

The evaluator chooses the appropriate methods.

Tentative timetable

The whole assignment including the final evaluation report should be concluded by April 30, 2018. The Evaluator will develop, discuss and agree on the evaluation schedule with Diocese of Lodwar before commencement of the assignment. The final evaluation schedule will be shared with HORIZONT3000.

Evaluation Report

• The report shall present findings on the evaluation objectives.
• The report should contain a description of methodologies / design.
• The report should describe the involvement of local actors (project partner, target groups).
• It shall summarize the findings of the evaluation in the light of the criteria mentioned in point 3 above (maximum 5 pages).
• It shall be clear and concise, limiting itself to essential points (maximum 20 pages without cover page, content, appendices etc.).
• The report shall be written in English language.
• The report shall be drawn up using Microsoft Word software and submitted electronically; including tables and graphics were useful and necessary.