Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance and Hygiene Services to IDPs, Refugees and Host Communities in White Nile State – Final External Evaluation

(Only open for nationals)

Caritas Internationalis on behalf of the church leadership through Caritas Sudan launched a Sudan humanitarian appeal amongst its member network agencies to respond to the humanitarian situation in Sudan caused by the outbreak of the crisis in mid-April 2023. CAFOD a member of the CI network was chosen as the facilitating agency to support Caritas Sudan in implementing the response to complement previous and some of the ongoing response initiatives supported through CAFOD and other donors focusing on food and NFI distribution, nutrition and protection projects targeting the civilian affected population due to the crisis in the country.

The humanitarian response initiatives, including this project that is due for evaluation, are planned and implemented in close coordination with the relevant government ministry and departments, especially the social welfare department and Humanitarian Aid Commission (HAC), Cash Working Group (CWG) and WASH sector working group. The coordination is aimed at effective planning to avoid duplication and learning to inform future planning and taking immediate redress actions where necessary.

The Appeal response’s overall objective aimed to address the needs of the Crisis-affected IDPS, refugees, and vulnerable host communities in Kosti, Rabak, Guli and Church premises in Kosti and Rabak, through accessing Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA) and hygiene services to address the multi-dimensional needs of conflict-affected households including support through cash distribution for onward. The one-year response targeted hygiene interventions were implemented to help beneficiaries access funds for basic needs and assist their onward.

The project activities aimed at achieving the overall objective of the responses, and mitigating the risks of disease outbreaks at gathering points. The main activities of the project included the following.

• Coordination and engagement with relevant stakeholders at government, cluster group working levels and the local leadership.
• Identification of Financial Service Provider and signing contract,
• Beneficiary selection and verification,
• Cash Distribution in coordination with C&VWG, Church, local government,
• Hygiene and Dignity Kits Distribution in coordination with WASH cluster, local government, and Church
• Home-to-home visits,
• Post Distribution Monitoring,
• Endline Evaluation.

OBJECTIVES

The final evaluation will focus on the following key objectives:

• Assess the relevance, appropriateness, effectiveness, accountability and impact/sustainability of the programme;
• Assess the effectiveness of the leadership of Caritas Sudan in coordinating the CI Sudan Appeal 2023—Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance and Hygiene Services to IDPs, Refugees and Host Communities in White Nile State, Sudan, linking with the parts of the dioceses and the key stakeholders*;*
• Identify lessons learned, best practices and recommendations to inform future programme design.

KEY QUESTIONS

Relevance/appropriateness

• Was the programme design based on an impartial assessment of needs? Are needs assessments disaggregated by age, sex and disability? Do they include people’s needs, vulnerabilities and capacities?
• Did the assistance provided by Caritas Sudan meet the needs of the affected population? Were the persons most in need identified, selected, and supported by the programme?
• Which parts of the assistance were the most appropriate and why? Which were the least appropriate and why? Were activities aligned with the affected population’s needs and priorities?
• Were recommendations and learning from past reviews and evaluations applied to the response?

Effectiveness

• Was the response timely?
• What internal and external factors affected the speed of the response?
• Was the internal organizational and managerial structure of the project effective?
• Were there appropriate systems in place to monitor activities, outputs and outcomes of the programme? Did monitoring outcomes inform programme adjustments/revisions?
• Did the project activities lead towards the achievement of the expected results/indicators as set in the Results Framework?

Accountability

• To what extent has the affected population been involved in the design or implementation of the programme?
• Were appropriate systems of downwards accountability (participation, information sharing and feedback/complaints), put in place and used by project participants? Were project participants aware of the feedback/complaints mechanism?
• Were project participants and communities aware of the selection criteria?
• Were project participants and communities aware of the assistance they should receive?

Coordination

• How effective was Caritas Sudan coordinating internally?
• How effective was Caritas Sudan in coordinating the targeted localities and parts of the dioceses?
• How effective was Caritas Sudan’s coordination with external stakeholders such as other agencies, organisations, and the local and national government?
• What aspects of coordination could be improved in the future and how?

Impact/Sustainability

• Has the Caritas response strengthened local capacities?
• What are the intended and unintended, positive and negative effects of the project?
• What, if any, aspects of the programme will have a longer-term impact?

METHODOLOGY

Example:

The final evaluation will rely on two main evaluation stages (1) the design phase and (2) the field phase

Design phase

• The evaluator(s) will undertake a desk review of programme documentation including planning documents, project proposals, situation reports and quarterly reports;
• The evaluator(s) will also review other relevant documentation such as minutes of decision-making meetings, 3W mappings of the Caritas response, consolidated situation reports of the Caritas response (if applicable);
• The evaluator(s) will review other monitoring and reporting documents from secondary sources (i.e. Cash Working Group engagements, HAC, UNHCR reports).
• If appropriate, the evaluator(s) will obtain feedback from the CI HD on the most relevant sites to visit.

Field phase

• After the design phase, the evaluator(s) will conduct fieldwork to collect and analyse data to answer the evaluation questions;
• Data collection methods should be inclusive and utilise a range of methods, including focus group discussions and key informant interviews with key project stakeholders. The use of surveys and other remote data collection tools should also be explored by the evaluators to maximise data collection;
• The evaluator(s) should ensure a systematic triangulation of data sources and data collection methods and tools, and seek to validate data through regular exchanges with programme staff where appropriate.

EXPECTED OUTPUTS

The evaluator(s) should produce the following key deliverables:

• Draft Evaluation Report to be submitted to CAFOD, Caritas Sudan and the CI Humanitarian Department.

  Final Evaluation Report inclusive of:

• Executive Summary

• Background

• Introduction

• Context

• Description of Methodology

• Main findings

• Conclusions inclusive of best practices and lessons learned

• Recommendations.

USE OF THE EVALUATION RESULTS

The intended audience for the evaluation is Caritas Sudan key staff, including senior management, CI MOs who have supported the programme, the Caritas Internationalis Humanitarian Department and the Caritas Confederation. Evaluation findings will be shared with programme participants as appropriate.

REQUIRED COMPETENCIES

The competencies required from the External Evaluator are:

• Advanced degree in social sciences, political sciences, economics, development or related fields;

• Experience in leading evaluations, especially in the field of humanitarian response;

• Ability to use participatory approaches to evaluation;

• Experience in operational management of humanitarian/development programmes;

• Good knowledge of the local context;

• Good analytical skills;

• Excellent writing skills in a CI Confederation language (EN/FR/ES);

• Any other appropriate language skills; especially Arabic

• Understanding of the Catholic Church and Caritas structure and mission.

  CONSULTANT’S PROPOSAL

• Proposals should include:

• Proposed evaluation methodology (if different from above);

• Description of deliverables and a timeline;

• A financial proposal including the cost implication for other evaluators if any;

• CV(s) of evaluator(s).

  TIME FRAME

• Preparatory: TOR development, advertisement, contracting process of the evaluation firm, opening meeting with the evaluation firm to agree on the next steps – 15 days.

• Design: Desk reviews – 5 days.

• Field phase: Data Collection – 10 days.

• Reporting: Review of draft evaluation report with the team, submission of the final report, and presentation session – 5 days.

• Total number of days: 35 days.