BACKGROUND OF THE EVALUATION
The three objectives of the program are:
To increase the capacity of youth for peace building and conflict transformation in their communities,
To enhance livelihoods for youth at high risk of conflict and
To strengthen policy advocacy and partnership for youth integration in peace building and conflict transformation.
The program rolled out into two counties: Nairobi and Kakamega Counties. At the initial moment four partners were engaged: AVP Kenya Trust, Quakers Peace Initiative (QPI), Footprints for Change (in Nairobi County) and Friends for Peace and Community Development (FPCD) in Kakamega County. Later in mid-2019, a fifth a partner was engaged: Kenya Economic Youth Network (KEYNET) in Kakamega County.Implementation of the program has focused on the first and last objectives. In September 2018 an external review of the program was made to come up with clearly defined objectives, results framework and delivery model in order to make the program effective.
AFSC would like to conduct an Evaluation to systematically and objectively assess the relevance, effectiveness, impact, sustainability and efficiency of the interventions of this program as well as the current operational context.
THE PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The purpose of this evaluation is to consider a continuation of the peace program or development of new better one that draws lessons from the current.
The Specific Objectives of the evaluation are:
To ascertain results (output, outcome, impact) and assess the effectiveness, efficiency and relevance of the program interventions as a peace building program targeting the youth and their communities
To highlight success stories, challenges and uncover relevant learning’s evident from the program implementation.
To provide findings, conclusions and recommendations in respect to this program that are relevant and evidence-based in a peace context (both Peace Writ Small and Peace Writ Large)
THE SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION The evaluation will look at the entire Kenya Peaceful Youth and their Communities program under the following suggested aspects:
Program goal, objectives and theory of change
Implementation
Implementing partners
The results chain (inputs-outputs-outcomes-impact)
The evaluation will cover Nairobi and Kakamega Counties where the program has been rolled out by AFSC implementing partners. The evaluator is expected to visit our five partners and an appropriate sample of the program beneficiaries in these counties.
EVALUATION QUESTIONS
Relevance
To what extent did the objectives and activities of the program respond to the needs of the peace building process?
Is this program accountable to Peace Writ Large: the extent which the program ties with the country’s peace framework and AFSC shared security framework?
How grounded was the Theory of Change?
Effectiveness
Has the program achieved its intended objectives, or can it reasonably be expected to do so on the basis of its outputs with respect to its immediate peace building environment, in a timely fashion?
How effective were the partners in implementing the program?
Efficiency
Has the program delivered its output and outcomes in an efficient manner: results against resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time etc.)?
Impact
What are the primary and secondary, direct and indirect, positive and negative, intended and unintended, immediate and long term, short term and lasting effects of the program? Does it impact significantly on key conflict or peace factors?
Sustainability
To what extent will the positive impacts or changes of the program (are likely to) continue?
What are the major factors influencing the achievement or non achievement of sustainability of the program?
Does the program contribute to momentum for peace by encouraging the youth and their communities to develop independent initiatives?
EVALUATION METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH
The evaluation will mainly employ participatory, quantitative and qualitative methods of research and use of methods such as interviews with direct beneficiaries, Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with some beneficiaries of Implementing partners and program participants to establish impact of the program (appropriate sample size to be discussed with the wining consultant). Key tools to be used are Key Informant Interviews (KII), FGD guides and undertake short case studies to bring out the Most Significant Change among others, for primary data collection. The tools will be administered in a participatory manner to various respondents, including AFSC Kenya Staff, AFSC implementing partners and their staff, program participants and key informants. The secondary data collection will involve review of literature and documents from AFSC, which includes program proposals, progress reports, annual and training reports, mid-term evaluation, last year program evaluation, project documents, implementing partners reports, etc and partners reports. The findings of the evaluation will be validated and disseminated using appropriate dissemination tools and processes such as 1-day validation workshop with implementing partners and AFSC collaborating partners. The final report will be submitted to AFSC for further sharing with relevant stakeholders.
The evaluation will be carried out in a maximum of 15 working days during the month of September 2019. Validation could spill over to early October. The consultant is expected to deliver the following:
Evaluation Design/Inception Report
Prepare an inception report (approx. 3-5 pages) defining how the objectives, questions and reports as described in the TOR can be achieved within the evaluation. The inception report will also detail the evaluation design, methodology, and data collection tools to be discussed and agreed upon with AFSC before the beginning of the evaluation process. The evaluator is permitted to make suggestions to improve, supplement, or restrict the TOR. AFSC may decline any suggestions which modify the objectives and crucial questions of the evaluation, if not convinced of their validity.
Draft and Final Evaluation Report
Before the final report, the evaluator must also submit a draft report that will be reviewed during a one-day validation workshop in Nairobi. The final report will contain (max 30 pages without annexes) and has – as a minimum – to include the following contents:
Key data of the evaluation
Executive summary: a tightly drafted, to-the-point, free-standing document (about 3 pages), including the key issues of the evaluation, main analytical points, conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations.
Introduction: purpose of the evaluation, evaluation scope and key questions. Short description of the program to be evaluated and relevant frame conditions
Evaluation design/methodology
Key results/findings*: with regard to the questions pointed out in the TOR/inception report (including program and context analysis). Key findings must include partner feedback during validation workshop.
Conclusions* based on evidence and analysis
Recommendations* regarding future steps/activities/follow-up – carefully targeted to the appropriate audiences at all levels, relevant and feasible (if possible for each conclusion a recommendation).
Lessons learnt* (generalizations of conclusions applicable for wider use).
Most Significant Stories and analysis
Annexes (ToR, list of persons/organizations consulted, literature and documentation consulted etc.). CV of the consultant should be also annexed.
*The inter linkages between key results/findings, conclusions and recommendations / lessons learnt have to be logical, clear and transparent.
TIMETABLE AND PHASESThe timetable and phases will be negotiated with the evaluator, but it is anticipated that the level of effort will be 15 working days over a period of approximately two months:
Analysis of relevant documents, development of evaluation design and tools-1 day
Initial meeting with Kenya program team -1 day
Finalize inception report and Evaluation tools -1day
Conduct semi-structured interviews, FGDs and KIIs Kakamega and Nairobi-6 days
Compilation and Preparation of preliminary findings -3 days
Validation workshop in Nairobi and compilation of partner/staff feedback- 1 day
Preparation of draft report and submit for feedback -1 day
Finalize report taking into consideration AFSC feedback – 1 day
PROFILE OF THE EVALUATOR
The evaluation consultant should have:
Fluency in English, spoken and written.
Strong analytical skills, good listening and discernment skills.
Proven experience in evaluating peace programs.
Advanced university degree in relevant field with at least 5 -7 years of experience conducting similar assignments.
Experience working with/evaluating youth, peace education and partner implemented programs is an added advantage.
Good knowledge of quantitative and qualitative methods of evaluation and mixed evaluation designs.
Proven capacity to write analytically, understandable and simple reports.
Experience of working with secondary data analysis/desk reviews.
Experience of developing participatory evaluation tools and carrying out participatory evaluation.
Familiarity with Reflecting Peace Practice (RPP) framework
Broader experience working with relevant peace building approaches including Alternative to Peace Program (AVP), Turning the Tide (TTT), Help Increase the Peace Program (HIPP) and Healing and Reconciliation of Communities (HROC).
Good knowledge of the Kenya’s Peace Writ Large.
Proven ability to deliver against targets and meeting deadlines within short time frame.
Relevant computer skills in research/evaluation .
RESPONSIBILITIES AND DUTIES
This is an independent evaluation commissioned by the AFSC. The Terms of Reference are approved by AFSC. While the evaluator is expected to work independently, AFSC’s QIAR will assist in facilitating access to evaluation participants, documents, and solving problems and concerns that may develop throughout the course of the review. AFSC staff could help arrange transport and accommodation as needed and with prior approval by QIAR. QIAR, assisted by the program officers and support staff from AFSC office, is responsible for approving the Inception Report and providing comments on the draft Evaluation Report.
