Organization: Mercy Corps
Country: Uganda
Closing date:
15 Jan 2016Scope of Work
End of RAIN Program Evaluators Terms of Reference- 2015 Mercy Corps Uganda
Program
to be Evaluated:
Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets (RAIN) Program
Donor:
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Location:
Uganda (Lamwo, Kitgum, Pader and Agago Districts in Acholi)
Timeframe:
January - March 2016, for a duration not exceeding 45 working days
Application Deadline:
January 15th, 2016
Contact:
Deputy Program Director and Director of Programs
Overview
Mercy Corps, an international relief and development agency that exists to alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build secure, productive and just communities, has been running programs in Uganda since 2006. Mercy Corps seeks an experienced consultant to undertake the end of program evaluation of USDA Food for Progress (FFPr) funded Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets (RAIN) program now in its final year of implementation. Since inception in October 2011, the program has experienced various changes, all aligned to better achievement of its goal of stimulating economic prosperity and food security in Northern Uganda by improving the performance of the agriculture sector. The program has three strategic objectives: these are Increasing agricultural productivity and profitability of small holder farmers; Improved agribusiness and trade performance in key input and output markets; and Expand access to rural financial services. RAIN is conducted under a Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) approach to achieve its goal and objectives.
Mercy Corps will evaluate this program so as to learn from and document results, determine program impact, effectiveness and efficiency, examine potential sustainability of interventions and draw any lessons learned from the program. Results from this evaluation will also inform programming for Acholi moving forward. This evaluation will be conducted in districts that benefited from all three thematic interventions and will be conducted by a lead evaluator. A separate evaluation will specifically be focusing on an in depth assessment of the impact of financial service interventions. (Note: separate scope of work and consultancy services is in place for the RAIN financial services impact study which is annexed under the final evaluation SOW). The lead consultant of RAIN program final evaluation will be responsible to manage the consultant working on the financial services inclusion study
The successful consultant will be required to conduct fieldwork from the months of January - March 2016 and quickly execute other tasks leading to final report and dissemination of findings.
Program Objectives and Results:
With support from the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Mercy Corps in partnership with TechnoServe is implementing a four year market development program that focuses on the agriculture sector. The program called Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets (RAIN) is being implemented in Northern Uganda. The program uses a market facilitation approach based on the Making Markets Work for the Poor approach (M4P). RAIN works with businesses large and small who have the potential to generate economic benefits to small holder farmers who are their clients and target groups of the program. The targeted crops include, but are not limited to, cassava, sesame, groundnut, beans, maize, sorghum and rice. The goal of the RAIN program is to stimulate economic prosperity and food security in Northern Uganda by improving the performance of the agricultural sector. RAIN targets 50,000 small holder farmers, 140 agribusinesses in the input and output sectors, 5 radio stations, 5 financial institutions, 8 large companies, and 500 Village Savings and Loan Associations (VSLAs).
Using the M4P approach, a thorough analysis of the core commodity market, comprising the crops mentioned above, its supporting functions, and rules and regulations was carried out to inform the interventions and ensure that they address systemic constraints. Using that analysis, RAIN has since worked to improve the performance of the following key supporting markets: inputs, trainings and skills, financial services, tillage, information (with a focus on capacity building of local radio stations), market facilities, output markets, postharvest handling and key rules and regulations under the respective sectors. The program principally works with service providers; input supply companies, distributors and agents; big output market actors, intermediaries and produce aggregators; tillage service providers; financial institutions (Banks and SACCOs); equipment suppliers; relevant government agencies; and consultancy firms.
RAIN has the following strategic objectives (SO) and sub sectors:
SO 1: Enhance Agricultural Productivity and Profitability for Smallholder Farmers:
- Increased volume of quality produce for sale
- Farmers have extension knowledge to produce quality crops including postharvest handling practices.
SO 2: Improve Agribusiness and Trade Performance of Input and Output Businesses:
- Increased availability and use of quality agricultural inputs including tillage services
- Increased output market options for producers and consumption of locally processed agro products
SO 3: Expand Access to Rural Financial Services:
- Improved access and usage of financial services by small holder farmers and agribusinesses
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) within RAIN
RAIN has an embedded Monitoring and Evaluation system led by the Senior MEL Manager with support from team MEL Officers and sector MEL focal persons. The key sectors in the program have results chains that are an internal planning tool charting the logical flow of activities through to the desired impact and providing information on how specific interventions/activities fit into the overall strategic framework. Monitoring plans are developed for every sector with a set of indicators, which are based on the results chains and the baseline survey conducted in the beginning of the program. The baseline survey and midterm evaluation collected both qualitative and quantitative information triangulating a synergy of various techniques (KII, FGDs, semi-structured interviews configured in smartphones) from a range of relevant stakeholders in the program areas.
Scope of evaluation: Main Purpose and Objectives
The main purpose of this assignment is to evaluate program achievements towards meeting the objectives and targets and to assess relevance, effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability of the program at program end. The evaluation will also generate recommendations for future programming. The information will be used for public presentations and learning, for sharing with government counterparts, local stakeholders and private sector partners, and for promotion of services in the community, as well as identifying possibilities for project replication. The results from the independent evaluation will also support Mercy Corps' agency-level learning, by documenting and explaining why planned activities succeeded or failed. The final evaluation is expected to establish plausible links between program inputs and outcomes and results, and draw lessons for improvement of future agricultural development and M4P (market facilitation) programs or similar future activities. More specifically, the evaluation should:
1 Determine the extent to which program outcomes and their targets were achieved.
The evaluator will be expected to collect and analyze quantitative and qualitative data and report on the outcomes and results of the program on beneficiary households. Outcome refers to the effect of the more immediate tangible benefits and includes access to services such as; inputs and finance, increased incomes, and improved performance of agribusinesses in the input and output (buyer) markets. The key program outcome indicators include % increase in yield; % increase in income; % reduction in postharvest losses; % increase in sales and profit by agribusinesses; loan repayment rates; and number of producers and agribusinesses accessing financial services. It will capture the observable changes resulting directly from linkages between target smallholder farmers and the supporting agribusinesses and financial institutions facilitated by the program.
1 Determine the effectiveness of programmatic activities and alternative implementation approaches.
The evaluation is also expected to examine, as systematically and objectively as possible, how well the program attained its overall goal and strategic objectives and whether the achievements were efficient, relevant and sustainable. Focus may be placed on, but not limited to: what worked (why) and what did not work well (why not), provision of technical assistance (TA) through village based agribusinesses and market facilitation as an effective way of integrating vulnerable households into formal markets, relevance of the program and interventions to meet beneficiaries' needs, and relevance of the program to the GOU's laws, programs, and policies.
1 Evaluate the extent to which the program's cross-cutting themes have been addressed and integrated.
The consultant will also be expected to evaluate how well the program has addressed and integrated cross-cutting themes such as Gender, Behavior Change as it relates to all three objectives, community-driven development, and Environmental Compliance. An evaluation on their effect and effectiveness on beneficiaries is important to designing future projects.
1 Examine the potential sustainability of established mechanisms and activities.
This refers to how the program activities will continue after the program ends, such as the degree to which established market linkages and microenterprises are likely to continue without program support; community management committees will continue with viable operations; and beneficiaries will sustain relationships with the private sector (suppliers/distributors, buyers, , producers). Overall, the evaluation needs to establish whether targeted beneficiaries will continue to have long-term positive benefits resulting from the program, including organizations whose capacity has been built by the program that may provide some continuation of the services once the activity has completed.
1 Identify key lessons learned and best practices for replication.
The evaluation is also expected to draw key lessons learned (positive and negative) in the past four years in implementing the program. The evaluator should illustrate best practices for replication in future programs. Areas of interest may include comparison of the market facilitation approach (crowding in potential market actors, etc.) that RAIN has undertaken vs. the classic TA and distribution approach.
Annex 2, located at the end of this Scope of Work, contains several key evaluation questions the consultant will be expected to address during the course of the evaluation.
Methodology
The evaluation will be implemented in four districts (Kitgum, Agago, Pader and Lamwo). A mixed methods evaluation will be employed. In addition to a quantitative household survey, the evaluator will collect contextual information using standard qualitative methods like focus group discussions, key informant interviews as well as results validation workshop. Quantitative data will be collected in January and February 2015, at nearly the same timeline when the baseline took place in March 2012. The same questionnaire as developed for the baseline will be used, but with slight adjustments to capture modifications in performance management plan that happened mid implementation. Additional modifications will be included to allow for proper measurement of factors that affect activity outcomes, both promoting and inhibiting factors. A scientifically-based sampling frame will be developed by the consultant to address the sample size and sample locations and allow for comparison to the baseline. Qualitative information will be collected at the same time as the quantitative data, by reviewing documents, direct observations, focus group discussions and key informant interviews with beneficiaries and other stakeholders. Stakeholders will include business operators (small, medium and large), donor representatives, partners, associations, business forums, sub-country and district-level government officials and Mercy Corps team.
In order to maximize efficiency in data collection and analysis processes, we propose that survey data be captured using smartphones and relayed through a web-based interface in granular form so as to cut time on data entry, cleaning, synching effort. Mercy Corps Uganda is already using a similar method in some of its internal monitoring and evaluation activities.
Data Analysis and Results Dissemination Plan
For quantitative data collected via the household survey during the months of January and February, the evaluation team will conduct descriptive and bivariate analyses using the appropriate tests of statistical significance. Where comparisons between groups (defined through bivariate analyses) are made, the level of statistical significance associated with the difference between groups will be cited. Confidence intervals, p-values and other criteria used in hypothesis testing will be documented. Qualitative information collected will also be synthesized with supporting quotations, to highlight key points and conclusions. Qualitative information will provide insights to quantitative results and is expected to uncover if, why and how program activities led to varying levels of outcomes as well as unintended and unexpected results.
The evaluator will present initial findings from both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis in a half-day debrief workshop attended by district and local council leaders, donors and, other NGOs, Mercy Corps staff. Feedback from the workshop will guide the finalization of the second draft report that will be circulated to respective Technical support units of Mercy Corps and USDA. Feedback from this will culminate in the final report. The consultant will be responsible for sharing of findings and lessons learned with Mercy Corps, and if and when requested by Mercy Corps, the consultant will share findings and lessons learned with the donor and government representatives. Hard and soft copies will be shared with USDA and Mercy Corps for internal utilization.
Evaluation Team
The consultant will be external, as will enumerators who will be hired by the consultant. The lead consultant will be responsible for coordinating financial services impact assessment consultant and enumerators tasks, liaising with program staff and other potential interviewees for appointments. Mercy Corps in country team will take responsibility in coordinating logistics and introducing to key informants and other sources of information, as well as ensuring that adequate resources are in place to have swift evaluation flow. Mercy Corps global MEL team and Technical support units will provide input to the evaluation design and draft report. The consultant will report to the RAIN Chief of Party/Director of Programs and Deputy Program Director, who will provide relevant program documentation (prepared or requested). At minimum, the evaluator should have experience in market facilitation evaluation and programming, financial services, agriculture development, and food security. Mercy Corps Senior MELC Manager will support the team to ensure access to existing program data, reports and documentation, setting up data collection with target beneficiaries, households, farmers and partners and support with arranging meetings, focus group discussions and key informant interviews.
Key Deliverables
The consultant will be responsible for:
Comprehensive evaluation plan submitted within 4 days after contract award including;
Evaluation methodology and sampling frame
Proposed team composition and competencies
Quantitative and qualitative protocols for data collection and analysis
Suggested improvements to evaluation scope
Revised evaluation timeline
The quantitative and qualitative questionnaire instruments, developed with input from the MC RAIN team, due one week after contract is awarded.
Evaluation tools should be standardized to allow for use on future programs and so that they are user friendly for staff.
A presentation of initial findings to the RAIN program senior management team, MC Uganda senior managers, USDA and partners upon completion of the field level assessment.
An electronic version of the final presentation prepared based upon the initial findings of the evaluation. A summary version of findings should be shared as a final deliverable - refer to the consultancy duration.
Electronic files of the clean (final) quantitative and qualitative data collected as a final deliverable.
One (1) electronic folder of all applications, modules, and scripts developed to organize, process and analyze the data as a final deliverable.
Draft and final evaluation reports as per specified format (see below).
Relevant documents to review include the Program Agreement, Bi-Annual Narrative Reports, Baseline and Midterm Assessment Report, sector specific internal assessment reports and all essential monitoring and evaluation tools and databases used by RAIN.
Evaluation Timeline
The evaluation will be conducted in the months of January - March 2016, for a duration not exceeding 45 working days, including field work, data analysis and report write up.
Date
Activity
No of days
January 11-15, 2016
- Program documents shared with consultant
- Preliminary documents review
- Evaluation Plan developed and submitted for review
- Data collection tools designed and shared for review
- Tools configured on android powered phones and tablets
05
January 18- 27, 2016
- Teams including enumerators in place and individual member description of work completed
- Training, pretest survey tools and actual data collection
- Revising tools and methodology as needed
06
January 28- February 11, 2016
- Primary data collection (qualitative and quantitative)
15
Feb 12 - 26, 2016
- Data analysis and report write-up
- Initial Draft due
09
March 2, 2016
- Workshop in Kitgum with key stakeholders to share initial findings and results - seek additional input and recommendations
01
March 9, 2016
- Revisions to draft based on comments from team and stakeholders
05
March 20, 2016
- Revisions from presentation incorporated and final report submitted to Mercy Corps
04
Reporting and Dissemination Requirements
The final evaluation report will not exceed 40 pages, not including attachments. The report shall be structured in accordance with the following guidelines:
- Cover Page (with a photo), List of Acronyms
- Table of Contents that identifies page numbers for the major content areas of the report.
- Executive Summary (3 pages) should be a clear and concise stand-alone document that gives readers the essential contents of the evaluation report, previewing the main points in order to enable readers to build a mental framework for organizing and understanding the detailed information within the report. It should highlight the major findings and recommendations as per evaluation objectives, including lessons learned and good practices.
- Methodology: It should describe the sampling methods including strengths and weaknesses of methods with potential to alter conclusions reached, team composition, schedule of activities undertaken, description of any or special statistical analysis undertaken, including justifications and software package used. The discussion of any random sampling used should include details on how the respondents were identified and invited to participate. The methodology section should also include a detailed description of data collection techniques used throughout the evaluation.
- Results: The results section should be structured based on the evaluation questions and objectives. It may for instance be helpful to organize the report against project objectives, while in some instances it may make more sense to organize the report and findings as per evaluation questions.
Synthesis, Recommendations and Lessons Learned: This is space for the evaluation team to reflect on the data and results in a way that logically leads to concrete recommendations for current and future project improvements, pulls out organization lessons learned, and generally comments on data and results. Everything presented in this section must be directly linked back to the information presented in the results section of the report. Ideally, items discussed here should not be completely new to the reader, but rather will refer to previous discussions. Recommendations that are not directly tied to Results can be included in an Evaluator Comments section for the report.
Annexes: These include data collection instruments in English and translation (if applicable); list of interviewees with numbers and types of interactions; SOW, qualitative protocols developed and used, photos, participant profiles or other special documentation needed. Datasets can be provided in electronic format and as an Annex.
Required Expertise
The selected consultant is expected to have strong expertise in program evaluation, specifically, evaluations of market-based, M4P (market facilitation) and agricultural development, as well as financial inclusion and services. The consultant must have experience in a variety of settings and working with a number of different people that include members of staff, government officials, local government extension officers, associations, private business actors and community members in rural and urban environments.
Successful applicants will have:
- Demonstrated experience conducting and managing all aspects of complex program evaluation
- Demonstrated understanding of market systems development/M4P approach and agricultural knowledge
- Experience in northern Uganda preferred
- Advanced academic qualification in finance, business administration, economics, or economic development
- Familiarity with the Uganda agricultural context and market actors
- Excellent analytical, research, writing and concise and compelling communication skills; Strong visual presentation skills preferred.
- Language skills: Professional capacity in English
Applicants must submit the following documentation: technical and financial proposal that defines, among others, understanding of the terms of reference, methodologies, and costing of planned activities, examples of similar assignments, curriculum vitae, and expected consultant fees on a per day basis and terms of payment.
Mercy Corps will examine all applications to ensure that they contain no amendments to the terms or any other irregularities and/or errors. To assist in the examination and selection process, Mercy Corps may, at its discretion, assemble and establish a Review Committee. Applications will be assessed according to the following criteria:
Technical Evaluation: The applications will first be evaluated on technical merits. The technical evaluation assesses the capacity of the applicant, based on its submitted technical documents, specifications, performance history, and references submitted. For this purpose, certificates and additional references may be requested and subsequently examined.
Financial/Cost Evaluation: The financial/cost evaluation is based on the cost of products and services presented in the application. The evaluation is intended to assess and confirm that applicants provide good value to Mercy Corps for the cost of all goods and/or services offered.
Other Evaluations: After ranking applications and applicants according to technical and financial criteria, Mercy Corps may take into account other variables, including, but not limited to record of past performance, integrity, and social responsibility.
Annex 1: Criteria to Ensure the Quality of the Evaluation Report[1]
- The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well-researched and well-organized effort to objectively evaluate what worked in the project, what did not and why.
- Evaluation reports shall address all evaluation questions included in the scope of work.
- The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, evaluation questions, evaluation team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed in writing by the technical officer.
- Evaluation methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.
- Evaluation findings will assess outcomes on males and females.
- Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).
- Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, hearsay or the compilation of people's opinions. Findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.
- Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.
- Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.
- Recommendations should be action-oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.
Annex 2. Key Evaluation Questions
1 To determine the outcomes and results of the program.
- To what extent has the program achieved its set objectives and targets
- How have the program activities affected the direct and indirect beneficiaries' food security
- To what extent has program promoted technologies and practices been adopted
- How have the program activities changed lives (improved access to education, improved food security, improved dietary diversity and health status of family members in targeted households, and others) of households in targeted communities
- Are there other unintended but important outcomes and results that have been realized in targeted communities as a result of program activities
- To what extent has the program improved the capacity of local businesses which have been used as vehicles for delivering goods and services to targeted households
- Do the stakeholders have a sense of ownership of the program What are their views on program implementation and progress
1 To determine the effectiveness of programmatic activities and alternative implementation approaches. 2 To determine the efficiency and relevance of the program 3
- What is the program status with respect to target outputs in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness What factors impede or facilitate the production of such outputs
- Does the monitoring and evaluation system appropriately address the program's objectives and indicator targets
- How effective was the technical assistance provided throughout the program To what degree was the TA adopted among beneficiaries
- How effective was the program in targeting vulnerable households using its developed selection criteria
- What aspects of the program were particularly ineffective
How efficient has the program been in attaining its goals and objectives What has been the average cost per beneficiary taking into account pass-on activities, training through TOTs, etc.
Which interventions are most critical and/or effective in achieving project objectives and intermediate results What lessons can be drawn from successful activities
How consistent are the program activities and outputs with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives
Are the activities and outputs of the program consistent with the intended impacts and effects
1 To evaluate the extent to which the program's cross-cutting themes have been addressed and integrated.
- How effective is the program at reaching women What could be done to improve women's participation
- What effect is the program having, if anything, on the livelihood of the women beneficiaries and their households
- How has the program affected the gender based relationships in targeted households
- Are beneficiaries adopting desired practices or behaviors Which practices have beneficiaries been more inclined to adopt, and why Are there certain groups within the population with lower rates of adoption and why
- What effect is the program having, if anything, on the capacity of households to mitigate environmental effects of scaled up production activities in their communities
- How can programs such as this one improve and increase its impact on these crosscutting activities or others on beneficiaries and their households
1 To examine the potential sustainability of established mechanisms and activities.
- What systems or activities have been put in place to ensure sustainability What mechanisms have been developed to maintain the infrastructures created or rehabilitated after the program end
- Are established market linkages, microenterprises likely to continue without program support What capacities have beneficiaries acquired, and how will they sustain relationships with the private sector (suppliers/distributors, buyers, distributors, producers)
- Are program activities and technical assistance related to adoption of better practices sustainable, i.e., are participants likely to continue receiving TA after the program ends Are businesses likely to continue operating and remain financially viable after the program ends Are pass-on activities going to continue after the program ends
- To what extent will targeted beneficiaries continue to access long-term positive benefits after the program comes to an end
- To what extent will other local or donor resources continue to be available to perform the activities the program now conducts that will require continuation after the end of the program
1 To identify key lessons learned and best practices for replication.
- What improvements can be made to the design to improve results
- What improvements can be made in the implementation of the program in order to improve results
- What lessons learned in commodity management system
- What are the main lessons that can be drawn from the program experience since its inception
- In particular, what have been the main lessons learned regarding targeting and working with vulnerable households
- What corrective actions are recommended regarding the design, implementation, reporting, monitoring and evaluation of the program
- What actions are recommended to follow up or reinforce initial benefits from the program
Annex 3. Financial Services Impact Assessment Scope of Work
Scope of Work
RAIN Program Financial Services Impact Study Terms of Reference- 2015
Mercy Corps Uganda
Program:
Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets (RAIN) Program
Donor:
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)
Location:
Uganda (Lamwo, Kitgum, Pader and Agago Districts in Acholi Sub Region)
Timeframe:
January - March 2016, for a duration of not exceeding 35 working days
Application Deadline:
January 15, 2016
Contact:
Deputy Program Director and Director of Programs
Background
Mercy Corps, an international relief and development agency that exists to alleviate suffering, poverty and oppression by helping people build secure, productive and just communities, has been running programs in Uganda since 2006. Mercy Corps seeks two experienced consultant to undertake the end of program evaluation of USDA Food for Progress (FFPr) funded Revitalizing Agricultural Incomes and New Markets (RAIN) program now in its final year of implementation. Since inception in October 2011, the program has experienced various changes, all aligned to better achievement of its goal of stimulating economic prosperity and food security in Northern Uganda by improving the performance of the agriculture sector. The program has three strategic objectives: these are Increasing agricultural productivity and profitability of small holder farmers; Improved agribusiness and trade performance in key input and output markets; and Expand access to rural financial services. RAIN is conducted under a Making Markets Work for the Poor (M4P) approach to achieve its goal and objectives.
The program seeks to reach 50,000 farmers, 140 agri-businesses in the input and output markets, 8 large companies, 500 VSLAs, 5 financial institutions, and 5 radio stations. The key commodities RAIN targeted include, but are not limited to, sesame, cassava, beans, rice, maize, sorghum and ground nuts.
Financial services is one of the key pillars of the RAIN program. The sector works to improve access to and usage of financial services for smallholder farmers (Objective #1) and agribusinesses (Objective #2). During program inception in 2012, Mercy Corps commissioned an external evaluation to assess the landscape of the financial services market in Acholi region. The study looked at coverage, demand side and supply side constraints of access to finance in target districts of Kitgum, Pader, Agago and Lamwo. In-house assessment/performance rating of VSLAs has been undertaken to gauge their level and inform interventions including linkages with financial institutions.
RAIN program works with a range of financial institutions with a focus building institutional capacity through trainings, support to improve systems and structures; equipping/logistics support and branch expansion; product development/modification; support outreach strategies in the form of consumer education and financial literacy; partial loan guarantee mechanisms; facilitating linkages; and market research and information sharing among others. The program established formal partnership and has been working with three financial institutions including a bank and two Saving and Credit Cooperatives (SACCOs) in the region. Value chain and supply chain financing are aspects that the program promoted through established network of business actors in the input and output sectors.
Mercy Corps Uganda is looking for a consultant to lead in depth study on the impact of RAIN program financial services sector. The main aim of this assessment is to assess the program's progress towards improved access to financial services and products for small holder farmers, VSLAs, and agribusinesses in the program target districts.
This study will be undertaken in close coordination and consultation with the lead consultant undertaking the RAIN program final evaluation happening the same period. (Note: separate scope of work and consultancy services is in place for the RAIN program final evaluation) The successful consultant will be required to conduct fieldwork from the months of January - March 2016 and quickly execute other tasks leading to final report and dissemination of findings.
Objectives of the assessment
1 Assess program attributable access to improved financial services by rural households and agribusinesses and its impact on household's income and business performance as well as unintended impacts. 2 Program attributable changes in the business behavior, attitudes, and operational efficiency of the targeted financial institutions most importantly SACCOs and any overall systemic changes for financial services including potential crowding in. 3 Assess the cost effectiveness (value for money) of the financial services sector under the program and assess the effectiveness, impact and lessons from specific models the program promoted.
Methodology
The study will cover Lamwo, Kitgum, Pader and Agago districts in Acholi sub region. The consultant will work closely with the RAIN program final evaluation consultant and the RAIN program team in redefining the study scope, tools development, identifying sources of information, defining data needs, and data collection using a MSD/systemic change lens. The study is expected to be a learning process with active involvement of relevant RAIN team members including financial services, M&E and sector leaders. The study will engage financial institutions (partnering with RAIN program), clients (VSLA groups, farmers and agribusinesses) and other relevant stakeholders.
The evaluation will employ both qualitative and quantitative methods. Review and analysis of secondary data from RAIN program and financial institutions will be complemented by a small scale beneficiary based survey in the program operational areas. Focus group discussions, key informant interviews with management of FIs, executive members of the board of SACCOs, District Commercial officers and private sector partner and interviews with financial institutions' staff and management. The consultant is expected to consolidate and present the proposed methodologies and tools to Mercy Corps team for validation and approval prior to field work.
In order to maximize efficiency in data collection and analysis processes, we propose that survey data be captured using smartphones and relayed through a web-based interface in granular form so as to cut time on data cleaning, synching effort. Mercy Corps Uganda is already using a similar method in some of its internal monitoring and evaluation activities.
Data analysis and result dissemination plan
Initial findings from both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis of the financial sector impact assessment will be presented in a half-day debrief workshop jointly with the RAIN final evaluation consultant. The workshop will be attended by district and local council leaders, donors and, other NGOs, Mercy Corps staff. Feedback from the workshop will guide the finalization of the second draft report that will be circulated to respective Technical support units of Mercy Corps. Feedback from this will culminate in the final report. The consultant will be responsible for sharing of findings, lessons learned with Mercy Corps, donor and government representatives. Hard and soft copies will be shared with USDA and Mercy Corps for internal utilization.
Existing Sources of Program Information
- Project documents
- Financial access study document
- Financial services other sectors results chains (theories of change) and strategies
- VSLA assessment reports
- RAIN baseline and mid-term evaluation reports
- Assessment data, case studies and reports
- Biannual reports
- Program detailed implementation plan
- M&E frameworks and monitoring database
- Reports/data from partner financial institutions
Specific Tasks
The consultant will do the following:
- Review and comment on the TOR using a MSD/systemic change lens.
- Compile and review background documents
- Conduct interviews with key Mercy Corps Uganda senior management team and field team to get better understanding of the country strategy in general and financial services sector under RAIN program in particular
- In close coordination with the RAIN program final evaluation consultant, lead inception meeting with the RAIN team to clarify theory of change for the financial services sector and jointly redefine the study scope including tools development, sources and types of information, plans for data collection and analysis, and develop clear work plan
- Analysis of existing program data and data from the financial institutions
- Data collection through FGDs, interviews and survey questionnaire
- Analysis and presentation of preliminary findings to the MC team in the field and Kampala
- Preparation and submission of draft and final study report in both hard and soft copies using agreed up on template to Mercy Corps
Key Deliverables and reporting
The consultant will provide the following
- Refined study plan
- Data collection tools
- Study report written in English and that encompasses background, methodology, findings, recommendations, and relevant annexes.
- Electronic file of the cleaned qualitative and quantitative data
Period and Place of Consultancy:
The assignment is planned expected to take 35 days and will be carried out in the period of January to March 2016. It will also involve meeting financial institutions and a range of business actors that are working with the program and located outside of the target districts. Time allocation for the study will be as follows: inception and design phase (13 days), field data collection analysis and preliminary findings presentation (14 days) and report writing (8 days).
Consultant reports to:
The consultant reports to the RAIN Program Chief of Party/Director of Programs and Deputy Program Director and works closely with the Senior Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Manager and Financial Services Specialist.
Consultant Profile
The successful consultant will have following qualifications.
- Demonstrated knowledge of rural financial services backed by experience in familiarity with Ugandan financial services market and agribusiness sector
- Demonstrated understanding of market systems development/M4P approach
- Advanced academic qualification in finance, business administration, economics, economic development
- Experience conducting similar studies
- Experience in program evaluation
- Familiarity with the study area including the local economy and existing financial service systems
- Excellent analytical, research, writing and communication skills; strong visual presentation skills preferred.
- Language skills: professional capacity in English
Applicants must submit the following documentation: technical and financial proposal that defines among others understanding of the terms of reference, methodologies, and costing of planned activities, examples of similar assignments, curriculum vitae, and expected consultant fees on a per day basis and terms of payment.
[1]USAID Evaluation Policy: http://transition.usaid.gov/evaluation/USAIDEvaluationPolicy.pdf
How to apply:Please follow this link to apply: http://www.aplitrak.com/?adid=aW50ZXJuc2hpcC4xNjEwOS4zODMwQG1lcmN5Y29ycHMuYXBsaXRyYWsuY29t