Housing and Community Development Program Evaluation
Please findbelow a Request for Proposal for the Housing and Community Development Program Evaluation in Cambodia. Interested Cambodia based consulting team (International and National) are requested to submit the following:
- A brief program evaluation proposal (max 2 pages)
- Financial Proposal
- CVs of Evaluation Team
Please submit the above mentioned requirementson or before 20th of June 2010 to the emails below:
Melissa Cronin
Habitat for Humanity Cambodia
[email protected]
and copy
Bernadette Bolo-Duthy
Habitat for Humanity Cambodia
Country Director
[email protected]
The evaluation is expected to commence field work on the 28th of June 2010.
Regards,
Wayne A. Bacale
Manager, Design, Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Asia-Pacific Region
Asia-Pacific Office, Q House, 8th Floor, 38 Convent Road, Bangkok 10500, Thailand
Mobile: +66 (0) 847162698
Skype: wayne_bacale
Tel: +66 (0) 2 632 0415
Fax: +66 (0)2 632 0445
Visit us at www.habitat.org/ap
Scope of Work (SOW) Habitat for Humanity Cambodia Program Evaluation of (SRHCDP and PPHCDP) in Habitat for Humanity Cambodia
1. Introduction and objectives
The work of Habitat for Humanity began in Cambodia in 2003 with an initial project to assist poor families with micro loans to provide an exit from the jaws of proliferating loan sharks in the communities and to foster savings for shelter improvement. Subsequently, the Siem Reap Housing and Community Development Project (SRHCDP), and Phnom Penh Housing and Community Development Project (PPHCDP) commenced in partnership with communities, local NGO, Credit MFI which were funded by the Charitable Foundation Australia (TCF) and Habitat for Humanity International.
The SRHCDP began in July 2007 with the aim of providing 338 housing solutions by June 2010. To date, the project has assisted approximately 733 families through the provision of housing solutions, access to water and sanitation and livelihood support.
The PPHCDP began in October 2007 with the aim of providing 548 housing solutions by December 2010.To date, the project has assisted approximately 417 families with a range of housing solutions, health awareness raising and livelihood support.
SRHCDP and PPHCDP are two of Habitat for Humanity Cambodia (HFHC) programs and part of the long term plan along with 5 other locations in need- Phnom Penh, Battambang, Sihanoukville, Bantey Meanchey, Komgpong Cham and Kompong Chhnang. HFHC aims to serve 6,000 families by 2011 in need of simple, decent and affordable housing.
HFHC, in collaboration with Habitat for Humanity Australia (HFHA), is undertaking a Program Evaluation of SRHCDP and PPHCDP to assist HFHC to develop a practical and realistic mechanism for assessing the programs performance, and to begin to assess the development, impact and sustainability of the project activities. It will assess impact of the programs and the sustainability of development outcomes in order to see what lessons can be learned that could improve the performance of on-going project implementation, including performance reporting. The evaluation will also assist in developing the next three years of program planning (2010-2012). This will in turn assist HFHC to improve the quality of information reported to its various stakeholders.
Objectives:
The review has the following objectives:
To assess the effectiveness of SRHCDP and PPHCDP in achieving its stated objectives and the sustainability of outcomes.
To identify the impact of the project activities on the home partners and community participation.
To identify factors affecting the development of the housing sector as it influences the availability of housing for poor families.
To identify issues and challenges encountered during project implementation that influence project outcomes.
To draw critical lessons learned about project design, implementation and management.
To make recommendations for future family selection processes, use of revolving funds, community building, livelihood and development.
2. Evaluation Questions
In order to produce relevant information for the above mentioned objectives, the review will address (but not necessarily be limited) to assess impact and outcome as the following over-all question: (1) what were the objectives of the project, including any changes during the course of the project, the reasons for the changes, and what were its expected benefits and impact? (II) what are the major factors influencing the achievement or lack of achievement of the above? (III) to what extent can it be determined whether these changes have been due to the impact of the project or to the influence of other non-project factors? (IV) does the project alleviate poverty in a direct and tangible way? (V) have the overall costs been appropriate to the range, level and distribution of benefits? (VI) has the project used the least costly resources necessary to achieve its objectives, or could more have been achieved for the resources expended? (VII) have the institutional arrangements for project implementation strengthened or hampered the possibilities of sustained project activities? Has the management capacity of the Local Associations (LAs) been strengthened? (IIX) does the project have the necessary support from beneficiaries, for example, in the form of active participation in housing design, in identifying livelihood & health training, etc?
The consultant will follow the SOW as the following:
National Level
What is the trend of socio-economic development of the country in terms of using the Decentralization and Deconcentration Reform (D&D), Cambodian Government Rectangular Strategy (CGRS), and Cambodian Millennium Development Goals (CMDGs) that is defining the key development indicators (food security, poverty, employment, health, sanitation, education, environment, income distribution, etc.) across the different sectors and enterprise development in the country?
Country Program/ National Office Level
a) Accountability: How is HFHC accountable to its stakeholders (Asia Pacific (AP) donors, government, project participants, etc.) in implementing the program? Is HFHC legally registered as international branch office?
b) Institutional and Organisational Capacity Building: Does the HFHC office coordinate project management activities to ensure the smooth project implementation through project partners? Is the staff able to handle his/her work? Do we want to include some assessment of financial management performance and capacity? This is the question I asked? Do you want to include? Need to frame the question.
c) Networking and communication:, Has HFHC enhanced (within the planned period) its communication and networking with the AP team, project partners and government institutions to serve the peri-urban and rural communities?
e) Gender Equity: Are women respected and empowered to participate in decision-making processes? How many women staff are there in HFHC country program?
Project Level
a) Accountability: How are the project partners accountable to Habitat for Humanity Cambodia? Are project partners accountable to HFHC in terms of program and financial management, reporting, monitoring and evaluation systems? Are HFHC program staff accountable to donors/HFHA in terms of program and financial management, reporting, monitoring and evaluation systems?
b) Institutional and Organisational Capacity Building: Do the project partners coordinate project management activities to ensure the smooth project implementation through project participants, local authorities and other development partners? Are the project partners able to handle his/her work? What due diligence was conducted in the selection of partners; what assessment was made; any capacity support needs identified and/or undertaken throughout the project?
e) Gender Equity: Are women respected and empowered to participate in decision-making processes? Do project partners give sufficient consideration to gender issues? Do the project partners have sufficient women on staff within the project?
Community Level
a) Accountability: How are Village Associations (Vas), Community Based Organizations (CBOs) and Self-Help Group (SHG) formed and function?
b) Institutional organisation capacity: What is the capacity of VAs, CBOs, Construction Skilled Workers (CW) home partners and SHGs committee? What capacity support has been provided by the project; how effective has that been; how sustainable are these structures? In what ways have the conditions of the intended beneficiaries changed during the project implementation? What role did the intended beneficiaries play in the implementation of the project?
c) Networking and communication: How is the level of information sharing among the local au thorities and citizens? How does the community access information? What is the technical collaboration between local authorities, VAs, CBOs and home partners?
d) Gender equity: Is the role of women promoted in socioeconomic development as a key component? Are women consulted, respected and empowered to participate in decision-making processes?
e) Housing provision and technology transformation: Does the project alleviate poverty in a direct and tangible way? In what ways have the conditions of the intended beneficiaries been changed during the project implementation? Are the overall costs appropriate to the range, level and distribution of benefits? Has the project used the least costly resources necessary to achieve its objectives, or could more have been achieved for the resources expended? Is the home partner satisfied with his/her house construction? Is the new technology appropriately accepted by the local need
f) Holistic development approach for nutrition and income generation/livelihood improvement (health, water-sanitation, agricultural production opportunities, environment, MFI-marketing skills): Does the project alleviate poverty in a direct and tangible way? In what ways have the conditions of the intended beneficiaries been changed during the project implementation? Does food production and consumption increase among rural families? Do the home partners increase income from selling pigs, chickens, ducks and agricultural products? Do the project partners use available local resources for environmental sustainability? Have home partners practiced and applied their acknowledge in the rural community and wider expansion? Do home-partners and/or wider community have increased access to clean water and hygienic sanitation facilities; is there any evidence of improved health and/or changed behavior among beneficiaries in relation to health and hygiene; what factors limit the uptake of loans for toilets; how has financial literacy training impacted homepartners has their savings ability improved; better budgeting?
g) Monitoring and evaluation
How does HFHC implement monitoring as follows:
Project monthly, quarterly and annual reports Project monthly, quarterly and annual financial reports Field visits by HFHC staff HFHC staff annual participatory self-review and planning workshop Annual financial audits What M&E framework does HFHC use; methodology, tools etc? How is information gathered under this framework, used and shared, with whom?
How does HFHC implement evaluation as follows:
Annual HFHC staff performance evaluation Annual Strategic Plan Review Mid-term project evaluation by external consultant Final strategic plan evaluation by AP planning and evaluation department and others
h) Recommendation:
3. Evaluation Methods
Interviews with national office staff, field staff, project partners, homepartners, relevant government officers and project participants Focus group discussions Site visits to document project work, Document review (Strategic Plan 2007-2011, Habitat for Humanity Cambodia Annual Reports (2007-2010), Habitat for Humanity Cambodia Financial Reports (2007-2010), Habitat for Humanity Cambodia Annual Reports (SRHCDP & PPHCDP), Monitoring Reports, Audit Reports, meeting minutes, training reports, training curriculum, training assessment reports, financial policy, admin and personnel policy, Code of Conduct, legal registration papers, agreements/project proposal, inventory reports, communication and networking materials produced, job descriptions all staff, performance appraisal reports, etc. ) Questionnaires/checklist comparison against the baseline data? Homepartners and non-homepartners (Sample size: 50% randomly of homepartners, and 10% randomly of non-homepartners). PPHCDP will select the sample size 200 randomly of home partners and 100 randomly of non-homepartners. SRHCDP will select the sample size 90 randomly of home partners and 40 non-homepartners. How do these numbers relate to the percentages above?? Doesnt look correct to me.
To include some family case studies in qualitative analysis
4. Requirement of the Evaluation Team
The evaluation team shall consist of:
i) External/Local Independent Consultant,
ii) Water-SAN Specialist,
iii) Resource Development Program Manager
iv) Sr. Program Coordinator,
v) 2 Representative of Homepartners,
vi) 2 Representative of Local Authorities
The preferred skills and experiences of the consultant are:
a) Experience and skill working as a consultant, and knowledge related to the field (at least 5 years experience)
b) Experience working with NGOs, INGOs and Community Based Organisations (CBOs), housing solutions for the poor, environment and MFI-marketing skills
c) International experience is preferred in Asia South Pacific Region
d) Knowledge of basic accounting principles, economics and social development context
e) Ability to work with multinational and multidisciplinary groups
f) Knowledge in evaluation methods, data analysis, and interpretation (to convert, read and write in English)
The Evaluation Steering Committee will consist of:
Two Program Managers (SRHCDP/PPHCDP),
One Senior Program Coordinator
Two Field Program Officers (SRHCDP/PPHCDP) One Country Director, HFHA International Program Manager
5. Schedule and Major Tasks:
The period of the assignment is for 19 days of the monthly calendar between the Evaluation Team and Evaluation Steering Committee. The schedule will begin Mid June 2010 (can be flexible depending on the conditions), and is anticipated to include approximately:
4 days preparation of instrument/checklist/briefing with Evaluation Steering Committee, and document review (2 days for each project),
8 days field visit (4 days for each project)
2 days for data analysis for both project (PPHCDP & SRHCDP)
3 days report writing (drafted)
1 day workshop to present the first draft report to HFHC staff and project partners
1 day report writing (final)
Quantitative data collection, as outlined above, will be collected and analysed by a local consultant prior to the commencement of the above schedule.
The consultant will be paid for the actual days worked which is stated in the contract services.
The consultant team/leader will be led the groups members, and shall be responsible to share the report (first draft and final report) with the Evaluation Team, and then submit the draft/final report to the Evaluation Steering Committee.
Number of days for further comments from Evaluation Steering Committees on the first draft and final reports are not counting for the consultant in the number of working days
6. Financial Requirement and Logistic Support
Stated in the service contract.
7. Application and Concept Paper
The interested consultant is required to submit the teams experiences and qualification as an example and CV to HFHC for reviewing. Qualified consultants will be contacted for an interview accordingly. A successful consultant will require to submit a concept paper to HFHC which includes the overall approaches, proposed methodology, budget and time frame to be completed as stated in the TOR.
Attachment: suggested evaluation report format.
1. Title page
Name of the service, program or project evaluated Name and address of the organization the report is submitted to Names and organizations of the evaluators Date
2. Table of Contents
3. Acknowledgments (optional)
Identify those who contributed to the evaluation.
4. Executive Summary
Summarize the activity evaluated, the purpose of the evaluation and the methods used, the major findings and the recommendations in priority order.
2-3 pages (usually) and able to "stand alone" without reference to the rest of the report.
5. Introduction
Describe the activity being evaluated (the setting and problem addressed, objectives and strategies, funding).
Summarize the evaluation context (purposes, sponsors, composition of the team, duration).
6. Evaluation Objectives and Methodology List the evaluation objectives (the questions the evaluation was designed to answer).
Describe fully the evaluation methods (e.g., what data were collected; specific methods used to gather and analyze them; rationale for visiting selected sites).
7. Findings (sometimes called Findings and Conclusions) State findings clearly with data presented graphically in tables and figures. Include effects of the findings on achievement of program goals.
Explain the comparisons made to judge whether "enough progress" was made.
Identify reasons for accomplishments and failures, especially continuing constraints.
8. Conclusion
The conclusion shall be described the fact and views options of the consultant which is linking to the key major finding, challenging and areas to be improving in the country program.
9. Recommendations
List the recommendations for different kinds of users in priority order. Include costs of implementing them to the extent possible.
Link recommendations explicitly with the findings, discussing their implication for decision-makers.
A proposed timetable for implementing/reviewing recommendations
10. Lessons Learned
Identify lessons learned for planning, implementing or evaluating activities based on this evaluation.
11. Appendices
List of people interviewed and sites visited Data collection instruments (copies of questionnaires, surveys, etc.).
Terms of Reference.
Abbreviations.Country data.
