Job Details
Life and Peace Institute (LPI), founded in 1985, is an international and ecumenical centre based in Uppsala, Sweden, that supports and promotes nonviolent approaches tpeace building through a combination of research and action. LPI strives tstrengthen local civil society organisations through capacity building and accompaniment of locally-led peace building processes. It brings a range of participatory approaches and methodologies that have been proven tbe effective tools for creating space for dialogue and peace building action different LPI’s areas of intervention. Through its Horn of Africa Regional Programme (HARP) based in Addis Ababa, LPI is alsable tlink the local peace building initiatives and structures with the policy debates taking place at regional level forums and has Memorandums of Understanding with the African Union (AU) and Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD); adding value tthe existing peace building landscape in the countries in which LPI works. LPI has carried out peace building work in Kenya since 1986 with a focus on regional issues, community engagement and research. LPI’s experience in Kenya builds on peace building engagement in both rural and urban parts of the country.
Handicap International is an independent and impartial aid organization working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. It works alongside people living with Disabilities (PLWD) and vulnerable populations, taking action and bearing witness in order trespond ttheir essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. Handicap International (HI) has been working in Kenya since 1992, focused on improving the living conditions of people living with disabilities and advance their rights with a special focus on refugee-related issues.
PROJECT SUMMARY
Based on their working experience in Kenya, Saferworld, Life & Peace Institute (LPI) and Handicap International (HI) came together tform a consortium and developed an 18 month project entitled Promoting the Role of Youth in Peaceful Elections in Kenya project. The overall aim of the project was tcontribute ta peaceful, free and inclusive 2017 electoral process in Kenya with a leading role for youth. It has been funded by the United States – Department of State, Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor (DRL) and implemented in Nairobi, Kisii and Homabay counties. The project had national level activities targeting students in universities whare usually susceptible tbeing negatively used by politicians, but whare alscapable of being powerful agents for peace, and CSOs tstrengthen both formal and informal peace coordination mechanisms at the national and local level before, during and after general elections of August 2017.
The project intended tachieve the following outcomes:
Key actors, across traditional social and political divides, recognise their role and others’ role in election violence, and help tprevent and reduce election violence in areas identified as hotspots.
Youth in the target counties are active participants in early warning and response structures, ensuring they react tyouth-specific needs and concerns.
Youth in the target counties have a greater voice in advancing peaceful elections, and are proactively advocating tcounty-level political actors.
Tachieve the above outcomes the project envisaged implementing the following activities; conflict, gender and disability-sensitive analysis; youth-led drama, theatre and sports for peace activities; youth-led inter-ethnic reconciliation dialogues; conflict sensitive journalism training and mentorship; inclusion of youth in formal early warning and response platforms; town hall meetings between youth and key political, governance and development stakeholders; inter-university student-led dialogues; and youth-driven advocacy initiatives among others. It is expected that by the time the evaluation takes place all the project activities will have been completed.
PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The consortium partners would like tengage an external evaluator on a short-term basis tconduct a comprehensive end-of-project evaluation. This will be done by assessing the extent twhich the project outcomes have been achieved, the effectiveness of the project, its efficiency and relevance, its sustainability and contribution twider efforts in supporting peaceful elections in Kenya.
KEY EVALUATION QUESTIONS
A set of evaluation questions have been formulated under each of the three project outcomes and additional twsections critical for assessment in this evaluation. The information generated from these questions will specifically show the extent twhich each of the outcomes has been achieved. The evaluator will be free tadjust or add tthese questions tensure sufficient data is collected.
Key actors, across traditional social and political divides, recognize their and others’ role in election violence, and help tprevent and reduce election violence in areas identified as hotspots.
Which actors including peace and security actors, media and People with Disability (PLWD) were engaged in the process of preventing violent conflict before, during and after general elections?
What was their role individually and collectively in the response actions in preventing violent conflict?
What was the consortium partners’ contribution in the efforts of influencing the target actors before, during and after general elections?
What impact, if any, did the response actions generated and implemented by different actors have on the electoral environment at the national level and in the target counties?
How were communities involved in preventing violent conflict in the target counties before, during and after general elections?
Youth in the target counties are active participants in early warning and response structures, ensuring they react tyouth-specific needs and concerns.
Which early warning and response structures at the county level were identified and involved in the project?
Which youths (age, sex, PLWD and location) were engaged in early warning and response structures?
How many youth leaders and groups were involved in preventing violent conflict before, during and after the general elections in the target counties?
Which were the youth specific needs and concerns identified by youth’s groups and leaders over the project period?
How did the early warning structure ensure the needs of youth in the target counties have been taken up and included in the actions?
Youth in the target counties have greater voice in advancing peaceful elections, and are proactively advocating tcounty-level political actors.
In which ways did youths get organised tengage governance, political and other leaders in the target counties?
Were those ways effective in ensuring the voices of youth have been taken intaccount in the action plans?
What actions were taken by the political and governance leaders in responding tthe youths’ needs in target counties?
The evaluator will also be expected to seek information on how the project was implemented, its operations and how the consortium partners ensured mainstreaming of cross-cutting issues as listed below:
Project management and operations
Were the project activities under the three outcomes implemented as planned by Saferworld and consortium partners? What were deliverables/outputs?
How effectively was the project managed and implemented by consortium partners, youth leaders and youth groups?
How did the project adapt tthe complex and volatile electoral context before, during and after general elections?
Cross-cutting issues
What was the overall female youth and PLWD participation in the project?
How effective was the youth engagement approach (which was central tthis project) in preventing violent conflict in target counties?
How effective was the coordination between various partners including CSOs, media, county and government institutions at national and county level?
Were there unexpected changes (positive and negative) achieved by the project at the national, county and community level under the three outcomes?
Which external factors facilitated or hindered the project implementation at the national level and in the target counties?
What key aspects of the project can be replicated in others parts of the country tenhance prevention of electoral violent conflict in Kenya?
What distinct components of the project can be sustained for further improvement of the electoral context at national, county and community level?
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The evaluation covers the period between April 2017 tSeptember 2018 during which all the project activities were tbe implemented at national level and three target counties. The consultant will be expected tdraw a feasible and representative samples from the following project participants for the purposes of answering the evaluation questions: youth leaders, youth groups, different ethnic groups in target counties, journalists from national and local media, members of peace and security structures, CSOs operating at national and county levels, university students among other targets, state and non-state actors reached during the implementation of this project. The evaluation will be conducted in nine sub counties in the three target counties namely Nairobi, Kisii and Homabay. The evaluator will alsengage university students, civil society organisations and consortium partners based in Nairobi.
To generate sufficient data, the evaluator will be expected to undertake;
Desk review of the existing project documents including but not limited tproject documentation, youth groups and leaders’ activities reports, monitoring data presented in activity data sheet and indicator performance tracking tables, harvested outcomes and change stories and quarterly progress reports. The evaluators will also be expected to review other literature relevant to the delivery of this project.
Conduct key informant interviews with the project team, consortium partners and other key stakeholders treview overall efficiency, effectiveness and impact of the project. The evaluator will be expected to identify the key informants in advance in consultation with the evaluation team and contact persons in the three target counties. Where vulnerable members of the population are engaged in the data collection, the evaluator will seek for consent before their engagement.
Focus group discussions: Twfocus groups discussions will be conducted with target beneficiaries in the three counties and another focus discussion will be conducted with university students from all the target universities. These FGDs will aim tgain knowledge and capture opinions and perspectives of the participants on key aspects of the project such as the relevance, impact, implementation arrangements and general satisfaction with the project benefits.
Outcome evaluation: In addition tthe above data collection methods, the evaluator will be expected temploy appropriate outcome evaluation methods accounting for the difference the project has made among the target beneficiaries. Consortium partners have over the years perfected using outcome harvesting process as a monitoring, evaluation and learning tool. The evaluator is expected tconsider using Outcome Harvesting as the first choice in this evaluation in addition tother result oriented evaluation methods which include and are not limited tmost significant change methodology, success stories, human interest stories, and ripple effect mapping among other participatory evaluation approaches.
KEY EXPECTATIONS FOR EVALUATOR AND CONSORTIUM PARTNERS
The evaluator will be expected to:
Share inception report consisting sampling procedures, data collection methods and tools, consent letter especially where vulnerable members of the population will be interviewed and evaluation work plan
Participate in inception meeting with the evaluation team where a common understanding on how evaluation will be done will be agreed
Conduct data collection exercise professionally and ethically
Generate adequate data tanswer all the evaluation questions.
Seek all necessary information, documents and support tensure that the evaluation process is completed successfully.
Meet the project teams from Saferworld and consortium partners tvalidate the findings prior tdrafting the evaluation report.
Produce an analytical draft evaluation report and share with Saferworld and consortium partners. The report should articulate key findings; lessons learnt/best practices and recommendations.
Submission of a comprehensive final evaluation report which should not exceed 25 pages, Times New Roman, Font 12.
Consortium partners will be expected to:
Provide existing literature on the organisation relevant tthe evaluation
Ensure unlimited access to staff, beneficiaries and stakeholders
Facilitate transportation to the field
Provide accommodation and meals throughout the exercise
Facilitate translation if necessary
Ensure field travel security during the process
Organise and facilitate a validation workshop
MANAGEMENT AND TIMING
The evaluation of this project will be managed by the Saferworld Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Coordinator with support from the LPI – Monitoring and Evaluation manager, HI – project manager, Saferworld MEL Assistant. Saferworld Project Manager, Saferworld and LPI Project Officer. The Project Officer will liaise with the contact persons from youth leaders and groups in the target counties whwill be in charge of identifying and mobilising respondents in the target counties. The members drawn from consortium partners form an evaluation team with Saferworld MEL coordinator as a convener.
The evaluation will take a total of 20 working days between 1st and 31st August 2018 with the final report expected by 31st August 2018. The evaluator is expected tdevelop a work plan with all evaluation activities within this evaluation period.
REQUIREMENTS
Saferworld and consortium partners are looking for an interested and experienced evaluator tconduct this end of term evaluation. Essentially the applicant(s) must have:
Experience in conducting evaluations on prevention of violent conflict, peace building and security and/or youth-related programmes/projects;
Knowledge of the national and target counties’ electoral and political context;
Demonstrable practical experience in monitoring and evaluation approaches. Practical experience in outcome harvesting, most significant change and utilisation focused evaluation tools will be an added advantage;
Practical knowledge of the OECD DAC Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance and other USAID and state departments evaluations requirements; and
Demonstrable skills in facilitating discussions with partners and communities.
