Bangladesh: Consultancy - Final Evaluation on “Disability inclusive poverty graduation of extreme poor and poor households in Bangladesh” project.

1. About HI

Handicap International1 is an independent and impartial aid organisation working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. The organisation works alongside people with disabilities and vulnerable populations, taking action and bearing witness in order to respond to their essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights. HI promotes an inclusive approach by focusing on access to services “for all” whenever possible rather than developing specific actions for vulnerable groups including people with disabilities.

HI has been operating in Bangladesh since 1997 and the programme key focuses are on rehabilitation, disaster risk reduction, promoting disability rights, economic development and/or livelihood etc. HI, Bangladesh first piloted the disability-inclusive poverty graduation model during 2011-2014, funded by DFID/ SHIREE, and refined the model under DFID’s Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) between the year 2015-18. HI Bangladesh is going implement phase-3 of the disability-inclusive graduation model from April 2018 to March 2022. It is expecting that the findings from this evaluation will guide the implementation team to better define the operational strategy for next phase.

2. Project summary

The project will increase income of 4,360 poor/extreme poor HHs, having at least one person with disability, with a focus on reducing sub-national and target-group specific income disparities in achieving relevant SDG target. Direct beneficiaries are supported on a graduation pathway which will empower them to pull themselves out of poverty, with measurable impact during the project time-frame. The target groups of poor/extreme poor HHs, including people with disabilities will move to a higher income stratum, depending on their initial status, along with improving functional autonomy and social participation. Those in extreme poverty will increase income levels, moving above the national extreme poverty line of about $1/day, with reference also to the brac Graduation criteria (for more information about graduation criteria please visit http://tup.brac.net/targeting-ultra-poor ; in particular the document ‘Understanding the ultra poor graduation approach’). For those in moderate poverty, income will be increased, moving above the national poverty line of US$2 per day. The direct beneficiaries have received personalized social support, which includes access to livelihood, rehabilitation, social protection and psycho-social services. To ensure changes are envisaged at a sufficient scale and in a sustainable way, HI has engaged in collaborative partnership with mainstream development organizations to build on their existing networks, while deepening a territorial approach in Sitakund/Kurigram and using DPOs as key actors able to accompany people with disabilities through the graduation approach.

The project follows three modes of implementation, mirrored in the three outputs:

(1) Direct implementation in collaboration with DPOs;

(2) Mainstreaming disability into mainstream partners’ livelihood projects/activities;

(3) DPO capacity development and contributing to the sustainability of the action of the model;

The 36 months timeframe of the current project is linked to the duration of the graduation cycle for several waves of beneficiaries, as per interventions implemented in comparable geographic areas; output 1 will follow a direct implementation approach in Sitakund Upazila under Chittagong District and Kurigram Sadar Upazila under Kurigram District in collaboration with DPOs to address immediate needs, while further honing the technical expertise of HI in operationalizing the disability-livelihood linkage to be positioned to scale up this model using mainstream development organizations (output 2) and develop DPO capacity to guarantee the model’s sustainability (output 3). The intervention applies HI’s personalized social support approach to livelihoods, whereby people with disabilities are supported to

a) Identify their strengths, rights, skills and interests;

b) Define and prioritize their needs;

c) Formulate and implement household/business plans.

Two DPOs are acting as collaborative partners of HI in HI direct implementation area, shadowing HI staff to guide them towards sustaining project outputs in the future. The 16 Community Livelihood Workers (CLWs) are housed within HI offices in the respective implementing areas and are working closely with the community and beneficiaries’ households to be able to guide and monitor the beneficiaries frequently.

[1] As of January 24, 2018, the Handicap International global network has become Humanity & Inclusion.

Additional details on each implementation model:

i)Direct implementation in collaboration with DPOs in Sitakund and Kurigram: HI operates in 2 locations for implementing disability inclusive graduation model, respectively in Sitakund Upazila under Chittagong district and Kurigram Sadar Upazila (sub-district) of Kurigram district. Maintaining operational control with HI allows for a quality-focused approach, required to further hone the disability-inclusive graduation model piloted in Sitakund meaning effectiveness is higher. Building on a tried and tested theory of change, with strong evidence-based results, in geographic areas where HI has already a strong presence, reduces investment costs and increases value for money, including using livelihood asset procurement procedures that have been developed and refined over a 3-year period. Working with HI staff is higher cost than local NGO staff, however, technical disability staffs are not available within local NGOs and front-line workers are not sensitized to disability inclusive approaches. Focusing on building up the capacity of DPOs through mentoring, as actors best placed to liaise with people with disabilities is an effective approach. Although the cost per beneficiary is high for people with disabilities in terms of the levels of human resources required to follow a personalized approach, the output is maximized as it ensures people with disabilities achieve the same rate and level of income increase as others.

ii)Disability-inclusive livelihood through mainstream development organizations: Alternative scale ups considered to reach the same level of beneficiaries, including replicating the disability inclusive livelihood approach in further districts across Bangladesh, however there was more efficiency and effectiveness in building on existing mainstream development organization’s initiatives and providing technical support to integrate the approach. The current mainstreaming organizations are HELVETAS Swiss Intercooperation, Islamic Relief Bangladesh and Young Power in Social Action (YPSA). There has been collaboration with Concern Worldwide (CWW) and International Development Enterprise (iDE) in year 1 and 2. The partnership no longer continued in year 3 and this because of the CWW’s donor project ended, and HI discontinued the partnership with iDE as a result of mid-term evaluation recommendation as the iDE used to work with market system rather supporting direct beneficiaries. Working through mainstreaming organization is economic as only disability-specific staff are required (4 Disability/Rehabilitation Officers) and the intervention is based on existing structures and geographic foot-holds of the mainstreaming organization. Funding a mainstreaming organization to include disability is a unique entry point, as recent experiences working in consortium with mainstream organizations have shown a reluctance to go for real disability components within livelihood programming, due to the risk of increasing cost per beneficiary, which has reduced the effectiveness of disability programming within mainstream development organizations to date.

iii)Capacity development of DPOs: In terms of effectiveness, DPOs have a unique access to people with disabilities at community level and are the most effective advocates for their cause, in liaising with local actors. The input of this capacity development process will be maximized over time, shown by effectiveness of previous capacity development actions, in order to put a country-wide sustainability mechanism in place.

2.1 Project impact and outcome

Impact: Reduced poverty for poor rural and peri-urban people living in Bangladesh (contributing to SDG 1)

Indicators

Ø Proportion of rural and peri-urban population living below (a) the national poverty line and (b) the extreme poverty line

Ø Proportion of employed persons in Bangladesh (disaggregated by gender and formal/informal employment)

Outcome: People with disabilities and their family members living in poverty and extreme poverty are able to increase their income and graduate out of poverty in Kurigram Sadar, Sitakunda, districts within Rangpur/ Rajshahi division and other hard to reach districts in Bangladesh

Indicators:

Ø Number and percentage of households that demonstrate progress towards graduation from extreme poverty and moderate poverty (disaggregated by location)

Ø Number and percentage of households that demonstrate progress towards increasing income status.

Ø Change in practices of targeted mainstream development organizations based on disability inclusive dimensions including participation in decision-making, recognition of diversity, tailored approaches and removal of barriers,

Ø Level of achievement of capacity development milestones by Disabled Peoples organizations and the strength of their relationship with key external stakeholders

Ø Percentage of girls and women reporting an increase in their self-esteem compared to their self-assessed baselines

Ø Number and percentage of households that have at least 2 positive disaster coping strategy in place (disaggregated for female-headed households)

3. Evaluation Summary

Project name: Disability inclusive poverty graduation of extreme poor and poor households in Bangladesh

Project duration:** 36 months (April 2015 – March 2018)

Evaluation Type: Final Evaluation

Evaluation Purpose: To assess the project implemented by HI according to the defined criteria as well as providing recommendations for the follow-up project.

Methodology: The methodology will be proposed by the external consultant and it will be agreed by HI

Stakeholders :

· People with disabilities and their family members

· Disabled People Organization

· Department of Youth Development

· Department of Social Services

· Department of Women Affairs

· Agricultural Extension

· Department of Livestock Services

· Protibondi Seba O Sahejjo Kendro

· UCEP

· Technical Training Center (TTC)

Evaluation Start and end dates:

• Start date: 20^th February, 2018
• End date: 15^th March, 2018

4. Evaluation Purpose and Objectives

4.1 Evaluation purpose

The main purpose of evaluation is to assess the project implemented by HI according to the criteria defined here below, identifying good practices and providing recommendations for the follow-up project starting in April 2018.

4.2 Evaluation objectives and criteria

a.To assess the changes, effectiveness, relevance & efficiency of the project by:

Ø Evaluate the changes (impact, effects) and effectiveness, including against the indicators developed in the project log frame, particularly output, outcome and impact level indicators comparing with baseline status

Ø Measuring the relevance and efficiency of the intervention aligned with project objectives

b.To assess the capacities of projects’ relevant stakeholders for its’ sustainability (for the list of stakeholders please refer to section 3 of this ToR)

Ø Assess the level of cooperation the project established with relevant project stakeholders and partner and ensured their participation

Ø Identify the level of capacity of existing DPOs/SHG, government departments with their roles in the community to take the responsibilities in absence of HI

Ø Identify the level of inclusiveness and ownership of mainstream partners, i/NGOs, DPOs and relevant institutional stakeholders.

5. Specific evaluation questions by criteria

5.1 Relevance: Problems and Needs

The extent to which the objectives of the project are consistent with beneficiaries’ requirements, the country needs and the priorities of DPO and implementing organizations.

1/ The extent to which stated objectives correctly address the identified problems and social needs

2/ The extent to which objectives have been updated/changed in order to adapt to changes in the context

3/ The extent to which the project implemented the most appropriate strategies/approaches

• Choice of main Government and non-Government implementing partners/entities (includes Department of Youth Development, Department of Social Services, Department of Women Affairs, Agriculture Extension, Department of Livestock, Protibondi Seba o Shahejjo Kendro, TTC, UCEP, DPO, Islamic Relief International, HELVETAS Swiss Inter-cooperation and YPSA)

• Methods to identify/select potential beneficiaries;

• Actions taken to approach employers and sensitize them.

• Appropriateness of the Objectively Verifiable Indicators (OVIs) of achievement as in the logical framework

4/ Realism in the choice of quantity of inputs – financial, human and administrative resources (notably, was the allocated original budget relevant with regard to the project activities design and their implementation?)

5/ The extent to which the project respect the needs of women with disabilities and women headed households and mobilized relevant resources to empower them.

5.2 Effectiveness: Achievement of Purpose

The extent to which the project’s results are attained and the specific objectives achieved, or are expected to be achieved.

1/ The appropriateness of the Monitoring & Evaluation process and the mobilization of the resources required for its implementation to assess the project’s results; does the M&E system ensure participation of people with disabilities?

2/ To what extend the actual results match the performance targets set out initially (if not, highlight the possible explaining factors and recommendations to address gaps in the future would a subsequent phase be possible);

3/ The extent to which the target groups have access to the results/services (identify remaining barriers if any, gender related constrains), as apparent by key stakeholders, in particular persons with disabilities, vulnerable and risk people.

4/ How effective were project implementation strategies in realizing the objectives of increasing access to DPO and employment through:

• Effectiveness of identification and referral systems;

• Effectiveness of service delivery (e.g. counselling and information by service provider etc.)

5/ Effectiveness of capacity building activities for implementing partners (partner INGO/NGOs, and DPO, community livelihood workers, that is to say the extent to which the results/services are reaching the minimum quality (criteria to be suggested by the evaluator)

6/ Effectiveness of capacity building of people with disabilities and their control over the livelihood assets.

7/ Whether any shortcomings were due to failure to take into account cross-cutting or over-arching issues such as gender, disaster resilience, capacity of implementing organizations, etc.

5.3 Efficiency: Sound management and value for money

How well the various activities transformed the available resources into the intended results in terms of quantity, quality and timeliness. Comparison should be made against what was planned.

• Does the project have appropriate and efficient financial monitoring tools?

• To what extent the program has utilized its resources (e.g. time, money, human resources, implementing partners and government partners) efficiently?

• The extent to which the costs of the project have been justified by the benefits, whether or not expressed in monetary terms;

• The extent to which cooperation mechanisms were understood and actively supported by all stakeholders (inter-institutional structures such as DPO, partners and the key stakeholders, etc.)

The extent to which the partnership modalities facilitated/ constrained the implementation of the activities

5.4 Impact: Achievement of Wider Effects

The extent to which the objectives of the project have been achieved as intended, in particular, the project planned overall objective i.e. Reduced poverty for poor rural and peri-urban people living in Bangladesh (contributing to MDG 1)

• The appropriateness of the Monitoring & Evaluation process and the mobilization of the resources required for its implementation to assess the project’s impact;

• The extent people with disabilities have been economically empowered through successful employment (self or wage);

• Have the project initiatives helped the beneficiaries to choose the appropriate IGA;

• How effective are the referral linkages and networking established among the relevant stakeholder organizations involved in DPO, Making It Work (MIW) committee;

• Are there constraints limiting potential impacts of the project, and suggestions on how it could have been addressed/ could be addressed in a future project

• What are the impacts of the project (especially of its capacity-building component) on the targeted DPOs, mainstreaming partners;

• The extent to which the project effectively has used the Making it Work (MIW) methodology (For further information on MIW, please visit: www.makingitwork-crpd.org) at national and local level to advocate for inclusive livelihood activities.

5.5 Sustainability: Likely Continuation of Achieved Results

An assessment of whether the positive outcomes of the project and the flow of benefits are likely to continue after external funding and/ or non-funding support interventions (referral linkages, coordination) ends, on the basis of the following:

• The level of ownership of objectives and achievements by the project stakeholders, and likelihood for them to maintain the implementation of project activities;

• Methodology of forming risk fund group, ownership and autonomy of the members and the sustainability.

• Institutional capacity – the extent to which the project is embedded in local institutional structures, i.e., implementing partners, DPO;

• Technical sustainability – whether the technology, knowledge, process or service introduced or provided fits system, culture, traditions, skills or knowledge in this specific context; alternate technologies are being considered where possible; the degree to which the beneficiaries have been able to adapt to and maintain the technology, knowledge, process or services acquired without further assistance

• Financial sustainability – whether services provided are affordable for the beneficiaries or likely to remain affordable after the funding ends; whether there is a potential for funds to be generated to cover recurring costs once the project funding ends;

• Policy support – existence and changes in policies at the Government level;

• Accessibility - the extent to which persons with disabilities, vulnerable people and their family members have sustainable increased capacity to move extreme poor to poor.

• Does the project consider a well-developed sustainability strategy in the PCM and smooth exist of the project, in particular exit from Sitakund and hard to reach DPOs.

6. Evaluation Methodology

The details of the evaluation methodology will be proposed by the evaluator in the technical proposal, which will be finalized with HI team.

List of documents will make available before field mission, which are

a) Project proposal and budget

b) Interim reports

c) Mid-term evaluation report

d) Baseline and endline survey report

e) DPO capacity assessment and progress report

f) MIW documents

g) Other project reports, database, tools; requested by the evaluator

7. Authorities and Responsibility

7.1 Role of Evaluator (s)

Profile of Principal Investigator/Team leader/Consultants (Detailed CV to be submitted):

1. His/her specialization in statistics / Social Science / Economics/ Sociology / Development Studies /Livelihood Management)
2. He/she has proven experience in multi-sectored project evaluation or in household livelihood assessment, experience on DFID’s graduation model is a plus
3. He/she is willing to work in remote area with poor and extremely poor people, preferably in Bangladesh or the region; and
4. Preference will be given to his/her previous experience of working with vulnerable groups including people with disability and livelihood/graduation.

7.2 Evaluators’ General Tasks

1. Read background documentation and review secondary information in regards to evaluation

2. Develop evaluation plan and design evaluation methodologies and evaluation plan/schedule and share with HI team.

3. Develop quantitative & qualitative questionnaires, checklist/guide questionnaire in English incorporating appropriate questions for information items and include proxy indicators so that complex outcome indicators (e.g. socio-economic indicators) can be derived from. Ensure to have indicators disaggregated by gender and age specific and sharing with HI team for feedbacks.

4. Finalize the survey methodology, sample size, data collection techniques

5. Drafting report and share with the HI team members.

6. Participate in interim and final briefings

7. Finalize report after incorporating feedback and share with HI management for final verification before submitting the final report.

8. Submit the final report and all primary data, tables and databases based on which report have been produced.

7.3 HI’s role

1. Support organizing all logistics related to the mission
2. Organize all meeting with relevant stakeholders
3. Share all relevant documents and reports
4. Organize local transportation and its expenses (except local flight, which costs around €80)

7.3 Submission of Evaluation Proposal:

The evaluation proposal should contain two separate parts:

• Technical Proposal and
• Financial Proposal.

A copy of previous work on similar assignment is requested as well (this will be used by Hi only for assessing the capacity of the candidate and will not be shared with third parties).

The technical proposal should specify:

· Analysis of the ToR showing the consultants’ understanding of the subject to be evaluated;

· Proposed analytical and investigative methodology showing how the consultants intend to proceed;

· Qualification and experience of the consultant in socio-economic studies/evaluations;

· Career resumes of consultants containing the following items:

q Academic training and technical skills;

q Knowledge of the systems, mechanisms and instruments of cooperation interventions;

q Skills in the field of public policy evaluation;

q Knowledge of the country and region of the intervention and, if appropriate, of the local language;

The financial proposal should specify:

· Salary/honorarium of professional/experts and other support staffs including social costs (VAT, tax etc);

· Travel and accommodation costs.

· Please note that HI will not provide additional per diems.

· If the consultant prefers local translator form outside of HI team, it needs to be budgeted

Please send your application to jobs@hibd.org specifying the subject “GPAF Final Evaluation” by February 26, 2018

7.4 Mode of Payment

All payments should be in account pay Cheque and vat/tax should be deducted by at source.

HI may make payment instalments as follows: 30 percent advance after signing contact, 40 percent after draft summary and findings sharing and a final 30 percent after the receipt and acceptance of the Final Report.

VAT and Tax would be deducted as per Government rules.

8. Contact person

Rashidul Islam, Project Coordinator, HI Bangladesh Programme;

9. Confidentiality and copyright

All documents shared with the Consultant and with his team are confidential to HI Bangladesh and should not be used outside of HI Bangladesh without prior permission. Information received by the Consultant from HI Bangladesh and Project fields should be treated as confidential. The evaluation report will be owned by HI Bangladesh and disseminated to or shared with authorities, as the organization feels necessary. After the final submission of evaluation report, the consultant should be submitted all field level hard copy data, Soft copy and all provided documents during evaluation purposes. Therefore, all materials created by the evaluator under the TOR will become the intellectual and physical property of handicap International /

9. Principles and values

The evaluator should comply with HI’s ethical rules and protection policies, in particular the Child Protection (CP) and Protection against Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA); these policies will be the integral part of the final contract. The evaluation should also bear the image of HI and ‘do-no-harm’ to the beneficiaries and should maintain transparency and impartiality with project participants and stakeholders.

The evaluator should respect the core humanitarian principles to evaluate the project. S/he should ensure fullest participation of local actors and their views should reflect in the outcome.

The evaluator is obliged to follow HI security policy throughout the mission; an induction will be given immediate after arrival.

10. Time frame

The evaluation will be completed within a period of 25 calendar days. The schedule will comprise of three general phases:

· Finalizing the evaluation methodology and tools (the methodology will be finalized in consultation with HI team).

· Training of data collectors, data collection and entry and validation

· Synthesizing findings, recommendations and writing report phase, sharing draft & final.

11. Deliverables

• Evaluation Report (not exceeding 30 pages)

• Evaluation Report Annexes

• FGD records and

• survey tools.