Terms of Reference (ToR) for DCA Consultant, End of Project Evaluation

Background and overview of the projectDanChurchAid (DCA) has been implementing Humanitarian Assistance Programme in the remote areas of South Sudan since 2011, providing humanitarian support to over 1.8 million people affected by conflict. The programme is centered around providing immediate relief assistance, supporting community resilience, building on the local capacity and facilitating coordination of humanitarian actors.Currently, DCA in collaboration with the local implementing partners has been implementing a multi-year emergency assistance project in the regions since January 2024, focusing on providing multi-purpose cash transfers to the vulnerable households. This is aimed at reaching conflict-affected communities including IDPs who have fled from the conflict which erupted in Sudan in April 2023. In addition to addressing the immediate needs of the vulnerable households, the cash programme also stimulates local market structures and builds on the coping capacities of households. Besides cash assistance, the project has provided physical inputs to the conflict-affected communities including vegetable seeds, Non-Food items (NFIs) and tools to support environmental protection and ecosystem restoration for improved agricultural and livelihood opportunities through Integrated Watershed interventions.The project also scaled up integrated watershed management interventions, which built the capacity of communities, local leaders and technical secretariats to sustainably use natural resources and mitigate environmental degradation for increased adaptation to the impacts of climate change on agricultural production and water resources and reduced disaster risk. Through partnership with IRC, the project recently expanded to integrate the provision of health and WASH services-ensuring women, men, girls, and boys enjoy improved health outcomes and reduced exposure and susceptibility to diseases.Summary of the projectProject name: Emergency response and resilience building through coordinated humanitarian support to conflict affected communitiesProject goal: Provide lifesaving and locally led emergency support to conflict affected households in R1 and R2.Objectives of the project* Promote effective, broad-based humanitarian coordination and information management in and outside R1 and R2 * Improve access to food and other essential commodities via cash distribution to vulnerable households affected by conflict * Provide access to safe, habitable and appropriate living spaces and non-food items to conflict and disaster affected households in need * To save lives of conflict-affected, food-insecure IDPs and vulnerable host community populations, through scaling up access to emergency primary healthcare and WASH services * People are aware of key public health risks related to WASH and can adopt individual, household and community measures to reduce them, and PIN have access to safe, portable water.IndicatorsHumanitarian coordination* Number of humanitarian organizations actively coordinating in the proposed area of work * Number of humanitarian organizations actively participating in inter-agency coordination mechanisms * Number of other key humanitarian actors actively participating in humanitarian coordination mechanisms * Number and percent of humanitarian organizations utilizing information management services * Number and percent of humanitarian organizations directly contributing to information products * Number of products made available by BHA-funded information management services that are accessed by stakeholders.Emergency cash and food assistance* Total number of individuals (beneficiaries) assisted through emergency cash for food * Percent of (beneficiary) households who report being able to meet their basic needs as they define and prioritize them * Percent of beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner * Percent of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS) * Mean and median Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI) score * Total USD value of cash transferred to beneficiariesShelter and settlements* Number and per item cost of NFIs distributed * Number and percent of beneficiaries reporting satisfaction with the quality of the NFIs received * Amount and percent of the activity budget spent on goods and services produced/procured in country * Number and percent of households in identified settlements occupying shelter that is provided by BHAHealth* Percent of total weekly surveillance reports submitted on time by health facilities * Number of health facilities rehabilitated * Number and percent of pregnant women who have attended at least two comprehensive antenatal clinics * Number and percent of deliveries attended by a skilled attendant * Number and percent of community members who can recall target health education messages * Number of health facilities out of stock of any of the medical commodity tracer products, for longer than one week, 7 consecutive days * Number of health facilities supported * Number of health care staff trained * Number of outpatient consultations * Number of Community Health Workers supported (total within activity area and per 10,000 population) * Number and percent of newborns that received postnatal care within three days of delivery * Number of consultations for communicable disease * Number of consultations for noncommunicable diseases * Number of consultations for any mental health condition * Number of consultations for trauma-related injuries * Number of individuals trained in medical commodity supply chain management * Number of individuals treated for the restricted use indication * Quantity of pharmaceuticals purchased to treat individuals for the restricted use indicationWASH* Number of individuals directly utilizing improved water services provided with BHA funding * Average liters/person/day collected from all sources for drinking, cooking, and hygiene. * Number of individuals directly utilizing improved sanitation services provided with BHA funding * Percent of individuals targeted by the hygiene promotion program who know at least three (3) of the five (5) critical times to wash hands * Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the contents of the WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits) or vouchers * Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quality of WASH NFIs received through direct distribution (i.e. kits), vouchers, or cash * Percent of water points developed, repaired, or rehabilitated with 0 feacal coliforms per 100 ml sample * Number of individuals gaining access to basic sanitation services as a result of BHA assistance * Number of individuals receiving direct hygiene promotion (excluding mass media campaigns and without double-counting) * Number of individuals receiving improved service quality from solid waste management, drainage, or vector control activities (without double-counting) * Average number of community cleanup/debris removal activities conducted per community targeted by the environmental health activity * Average number of communal solid waste disposal sites created and in use per community targeted by the environmental health activity * Total number of individuals receiving WASH NFIs assistance through all modalities (without double-counting).Project targetsTotal number of affected people: 3,639,641; Target: 357,844 (182,500 IDPs)Food security: 135,090 (81,054 IDPs)Shelter and settlements: 51,000 (30,600 IDPs)Health: 97,603 (58,562 IDPs)WASH: 137,300 (27,460 IDPs)This project will end on 31st May 2026. Therefore, this ToR describes DCA’s plan to evaluate the project performance. It outlines the project background and specific outcomes, objectives of the evaluation, methodology, and the expected deliverables. Guidance has also been provided for the competitive bidding and sourcing of the External Consultant.2. Purpose and objectives of the evaluationThe main purpose of the end of project evaluation is to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and potential impact of the project interventions. The evaluation will help to provide practical recommendations and document the lessons learned for adoption in other similar projects in the regions. Specifically, four key evaluation themes will be covered during the evaluation process: project logic, participation, partnership, and sustainability. The Consultant will also assess cross-cutting themes, including disability inclusion, gender and social inclusion, accountability to the affected population, social cohesion (IDP vs host community) and environment during the evaluation process. The pre-and-post-project performance analysis with the baseline values compared against the end-of-project targets, significance of the change in the indicator performance will also be determined during the endline evaluation.The specific objectives of the evaluation will be:1. To establish whether and to what extent the project design and interventions have been relevant to the needs of the target participants. 2. To assess the extent to which the project has achieved the planned outcomes and outputs. 3. To assess the extent to which the components of cash transfer, shelter and settlements, health, WASH, agriculture and natural resource management interventions have been efficient 4. To establish the indications of the impact of the project interventions on the target participants 5. To assess if the benefits of the project are likely to continue beyond the project life span 6. To assess the extent to which the project contributed to reducing vulnerability and reliance on humanitarian assistance 7. To assess the extent of corrective measures identified and addressed in a timely manner during the implementation process 8. To document lessons learnt and good practices that can be replicated in future projects.Scope of the EvaluationGeographically, the endline evaluation will cover 12 counties across R1 and R2 where the project activities were implemented between January 2024 and May 2026. The evaluation will broadly assess the key achievements of all the expected outcomes as outlined in the project logframe. The evaluation will also assess the different project activities as in the logframe, with a strong emphasis on the following:* Determining the extent to which the project outcomes and outputs have been achieved and whether there were unexpected outcomes * Determining the relevance, effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the project * Documenting the challenges, lessons learnt and key recommendations for improvement.The endline evaluation will take place between April and May 2026.3. Evaluation Questions and CriteriaThe endline evaluation will be guided by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development's/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) and Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance (ALNAP) criteria for evaluating humanitarian actions of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, impact, and sustainability criteria).Evaluation QuestionsRelevanceThe relevance of the project will be assessed by looking into whether the humanitarian action is tailored to local needs, increasing ownership, accountability, and cost-effectiveness accordingly.* Are interventions tailored to IDPs and the host community’s needs (men, women, PwDs, and other vulnerable population segments), settings and locations? * To what extent did the project build local capacities and worked towards improving the resilience of communities and people affected by crisis human-made or disasters? * Were the project participants involved in the process of developing, implementing and evaluating the project? * How well was the project aligned with the Humanitarian Response Plan?CoherenceThe extent to which the interventions of different actors are harmonized with each other promotes synergy, avoid gaps, duplication, and resource conflicts.* To what extent has the project engaged in stakeholder coordination, including local authorities and clusters? * Which factors have restricted coordination, and which factors have supported it? Are there any coordination success factors that can be transferred to other situations? * How did the various components of the project work together to achieve the overall goals and objectives? * Are the project activities and outputs logically connected and aligned with the project's purpose and intended outcomes? * To what extent did the project adapt and adjust its strategies in response to changing circumstances and new information while maintaining its overall coherence? * Do the staff understand the approach to the project and how their individual roles contribute to its success?EffectivenessEvaluation of coverage will involve determining who is supported by humanitarian action, and why.What were the main reasons that the intervention provided or failed to provide major population groups with assistance and protection, proportionate to their needs?* To what extent have the intended outcomes (and use of outputs) been achieved by the end of the project? * Are the IDPs and host community participants being identified and assisted in a timely manner? * What factors contributed to the achievement or non-achievement of planned project results? What are the main operational bottlenecks, what is causing them and how can they be addressed? * To what extent are the most vulnerable participants being reached by the project interventions? Do men, women and PwDs have equal access to the project interventions? How successful have project partners been reaching the most vulnerable groups in the most affected geographic areas? * To what extent has the affected population been properly targeted and reached by the project? If not reached, what were the impediments? What strategies can be used to improve targeting? * Is the project covering an appropriate number of people in need? * Is the project adequately responding to the changing humanitarian context?EfficiencyThis will assess the project output, both qualitative and quantitative, in relation to the inputs i.e., were inputs, staff, time, funding, equipment used in the best possible way to achieve outputs.* To what extent were the components of cash transfer, agriculture, shelter and settlements, health, and WASH interventions efficient? * Did the project leverage on other projects in the same area? * How did the costs compare to other projects targeting similar outputs? * Did the project adhere to established timelines and milestones? * Were there any unexpected challenges or obstacles that affected the project efficiency?SustainabilityThe project sustainability will be assessed by establishing to what extent the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue?* To what extent was the project able to connect…