Job: Konsulent til midtvejsevaluering af større fællesprojekt i Ghana

 

Strengthening the Disability movement in Ghana, Phase III

 

 

 

INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT

Project background information:

Strengthening the Disability movement in Ghana, Phase III is the last phase of a joint effort between the following Danish and Ghanaian disability organisations: Danish Association of the Blind (DAB), Danish Deaf Association (DDA), Danish Association of the Physically Disabled (DAPD), Landsforeningen LEV and Ghana Blind Union (GBU), Ghana national Association of the Deaf (GNAD), Ghana Society for the Physically Disabled (GSPD), Inclusion Ghana (IG), and Ghana Federation of Disability Organisations (GFD). The project has been implemented across all 10 regions in Ghana in 24 districts.

 

The project is financed by DANIDA through the Disabled Peoples Organisation Denmark (DPOD) and is the last Phase of a project that saw its inception in 2008. The inception phase of the project ran from 2008 to 2009 with a budget of 5.923.700 DKK, and the phase I and Phase two ran from 2012 to march 2014to and from April 2014 to September 2015 (including a No Cost Extension) with budgets of 20.355.610 DKK and 5.170.019 DKK respectively. This third phase started in December 2015 and Ends in April 2019. This phase has a budget of 19.964.607 DKK. Looking as it holistically the project has, at this time, run for close to 10 years with a total budget of over 50 million DKK.

Throughout the project implementation there has been a focus on Advocacy and organisational sustainability of the partner organisations. This third phase of the project has a specific focus on organisational sustainability and consolidation of results from previous phases. Each of the partner organisations in Ghana has separate activities they implement in ‘their’ districts, meaning that 3 districts have direct implementation by the partners in this phase. The project as a whole supports implementation of other activities of less intensive character in the 24 districts that will have been covered throughout the entire project period.

 

This phase of the project is addressing three main objectives, within advocacy, organisational development and financial sustainability:

1)       By the end of 2018, political will and capacity among Duty Bearers to provide efficient and transparent implementation of services to PWDs has been reinforced at National level and in 24 Districts, thereby improving the lives of PWDs.

2)       By the end of 2018, the Disability Movement has consolidated national and local capacities for the promotion of active membership and PWDs accessing their rights

3)       By the end of 2018, the Disability Movement is effectively implementing long-term strategies and finding new sources of income, ensuring financial sustainability at both local and national level.

 

The change logic behind the project is that the disability movement can impact the quality of life of PWDs (Objective 1) through organized advocacy work at the District level, supported by advocacy at the National level toward relevant National regulatory agencies and head offices.  This will be done by either working together as GFD District Committees (Outcome 1.1 and 1.2) or as Branches of the individual organizations (Outcome 1.3).  This advocacy work will be made effective through building the capacity (Objective 2) and the sustainability (Objective 3) of GFD and its members organizations. The idea is that as each organisation works individually – though in cooperation through the GFD member committees – on a local scale, while they join efforts to do larger scale advocacy on a national level.

This focus is chosen on the basis of the current situation in Ghana where despite relevant provisions in the Constitution of Ghana and other legal frameworks that grant equal rights of participation to every citizen, PWDs still face some amount of exclusion from politics, governance, and civil society activities outside the disability movement. Appointment of PWDs to high profile and leadership positions is also low. The participation of PWDs in the district level political administration and thus decision making is limited. In recent times however, the stigma associated with disability has gradually been minimised as a result of intense advocacy and awareness creation. This is evidenced by the appointment of Ghana’s first ever person with a visual impairment as a Minister of State. However, PWDs are still often perceived as unproductive and incapable of contributing in a positive way to society, and rather seen as constituting an economic burden on the family and the society. In many parts of the country, disabilities are commonly perceived as a curse or a result of witchcraft. Thus, PWDs are for the large majority still denied the right to participate fully and on equal grounds in society. The different barriers to participation relate to prejudice, perception, inferior education, lack of self-confidence and poverty.

Stakeholders:

The stakeholders for engagement by the project fall into two overall groups each comprising rights holders, duty bearers as well as collaborating partners:

Firstly, those who can facilitate disability favourable political decision-making and practice enabling increased and improved services for PWDs. At district level, the main duty bearers are FMCs, the DACF administrator, district chief executives and the district directors of Health and Education, supported by the state officials in the respective ministries. Also, PWD District Assembly members, district and national media and national bodies such as UoG, OISL, Disability Network etc., play a role in facilitating quantity and quality services. PWDs and their organisations play a vital role as rights bearers in organising beneficiaries for efficient service, enabling district officials, and monitoring/quality control. 

Secondly, the stakeholders who can contribute to the development of a strengthened disability movement, these are mainly collaborating NGOs, educational institutions, private companies and other strategic allies who can back advocacy efforts and provide training and other support, if and when a common interest can be identified and mobilized. They also include potential financial supporters such as international donors, corporate donors and community supporters. Among duty bearers, they include DAs who may choose to use DACF to support collective initiatives of local OPWDs. OPWDs leaders at district and national level play an essential role representing and formulating the PWD interest to these stakeholders. PWDs play an equally vital role as visibly active and contributing members of their OPWDs.

The project:

The project was developed in partnership between the above mentioned partner organisations, though the inclusion of IG and LEV only happened in the second phase of the project. The reason for this late inclusion is linked to the revision of the GFD constitution, so it was possible for organisations working for a group of people with disabilities to be members of GFD, where before it was only organisations that were driven by that same group of people with disabilities who could be members.

 

Key achievements of the project:

GFD committees have been set up and are working in the project districts. The project is covering 24 districts of which 3 (Pru, Kadjebi and Tain) are districts where there is direct implementation by the partners. The committees are working closely with the social welfare office, and are participating in the FMC meetings disbursing the District Assembly Common Fund (DACF). In Pru district, the GFD committee managed to ensure a log is kept over the disbursements, so it is possible to document who gets funding, when and how much.

Across the project districts the GFD committees and the partner members have worked to improve their work with the media. Specific radio stations have been engaged for the members to come on air and discuss issues related to PWDs and specific disabilities.

The Local Development Fund has been advertised, applications received and grants distributed across 10 districts nationally.

Most of the planned activities have commenced, but for many the progress has not been as speedy as desired. Especially those activities related to working with the district officials, as the election process was more extensive in timing than anticipated and many officers were not available up to two months before the election in December, and since then the new appointments have not been completed.

Some of the project districts have begun to implement the inclusion of the BAC/NBSSI to support PWDs.

Challenges leading to focus of the Mid term:

The LFA for this project is quite large and complicated, and it has proved difficult for the partners to gather data to support the indicators and formulate progress towards results.

It is difficult to establish if the challenges in reporting on the LFA comes from limited capacity within the organisations, or if it is related to the M&E system of the project in terms of the quality and alignment of the tools for data collection.

Each of the partner organisations have different levels of experiences, capacities and priority areas, which can make it difficult to work synchronised towards joint outputs and outcomes. This again affects the implementation, potentially the sustainability of the results and the reporting on these. 

In relation to the challenges with monitoring and possibly with implementation there are a number of challenges in terms of project management also. It seems difficult for the partners to implement the areas of the project that has a joint nature, as no organisation has an individual responsibility for these outputs. This again affects the implementation and the monitoring of progress. Further this makes it difficult to draw and implement decisions to further the project progress and report on joint results.

For these reasons the mid term will focus in the areas of: monitoring and evaluation, Project implementation, Organisational capacity and project management structure.

OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

The objective of this mid term evaluation is to establish a picture of the current status of the project, especially related to the sustainability of the organisations, of the results and methodologies applied, the alliances built and the ability of the organisations to work jointly to achieve results. The findings and recommendations arising from the evaluation will be used to draw lessons for the future implementation of the project and be the grounds for a possible revision of the intervention. This project is the last phase of a long intervention, and it is important that the evaluation creates a foundation for a revision that can support an appropriate close out of the project.

The results will be shared with the Danish administrator of the funds, for them to also learn and reapply some of the recommendations in new projects. Mainly it will inform the decisions to be made by the South and North Steering committees in the project governance structure, on further strategic choices to be made, to ensure the project achieves its intended objectives.

EXPECTED RESULTS

Scope of Work

The evaluation needs to have a holistic view towards understanding what processes in the project works well and where it is possible to revise and improve. Sustainability will be the driving criteria, looking at the organisations capacities. The themes of the evaluation can be divided under the two umbrellas of Project implementation and Project management structure with key thematic focuses on; the capacities in Monitoring and evaluation, organisational capacities in financial management and project implementation, as well as the district implementation modalities of the project and project structure management.  Each element has to be examined at local and national level.

Implementation

Monitoring and Evaluation

–          Evaluation of the project logic in terms of supporting results, ie. to what degree are outputs from Objective 2 and 3 contributing to progress on Objective 1 and the underlying outcomes?

–          Analyse the efficiency and effectiveness of the Monitoring System in place, including the LFA and supportive tools.

Evaluate the capacity of the monitoring system to capture project progress.

–          Analyse to what extend we are capturing the national impacts that the project can be estimated to have contributed towards – how do we improve on this?

Organisational capacity: implementation and financial

–          Analyse the status of each organisation and their organisational capacity level compared to effective implementation of the project. Which areas are working and which need more focus through project capacity building?

–          Evaluate the level of sustainability of the Ghanaian partners (organisationally, operationally (ability to implement and monitor), and financially). What has been done, what is still pending, what are key areas to focus on for the organisations to reach a level of sustainability by end of the project?

–          Comparison and analysis of the relevance of the models of advocacy for service delivery by the individual partner District Branches (outcome 1.3), and the advocacy for inclusion into DACF and NHIS being done jointly by GFD District Committees (Outcomes 1.1 and 1.2).

–          Analysis of the relevance and mutual supportiveness of the advocacy models at the national and district levels.

–          Are the strategic alliances created in the project the most relevant to achieve the desired results?

–          Evaluate the relevance and achievability of project objectives, and outcomes, especially focused on key indicators (suggested: I1, I4, I6, I8, I13 (and related agreed outputs); I14, I15, I17I19, I22 (and related agreed outputs); I23, I24, I27, I29, I31 (and related agreed outputs).

–           

Implementation modalities

–          Analyse efficiency of implementation models ie: Is District Implementation through direct implementation, Showcase, Mentor and mentored Districts working? Is the division between joint, GFD and individual responsibilities efficient? Are joint activities carried out in an efficient way? Which practises and strategies are being applied in each district model (direct implementation, Showcase, mentor and mentored), do they work effectively?

–          Evaluate the sustainability of the district capacities, looking at the levels in each of the district models (direct implementation, showcase, mentor and mentored). Ie. are the old districts able to move forward on their own – can we document some positive experiences in ‘old’ districts – how do we move forward so all the districts branches are sustainable after we end the project.

–          Evaluate the effectiveness of the Strategic alliances at National level. How much progress has been made and which types of alliances should the partners consider for effective implementation? Which efforts needs more focus? How well is the project working with national institutions such as the NBSSI and BAC? How can these efforts be sustained, or improved? To what level the cooperation with strategic alliances is able to be sustained after the project ends?

–          Is the LDF an efficient and effective way of building District level capacities?

–          Analyse to what extend the project is rendering results through its use of economic empowerment efforts  -LDF, DACF etc – incl cooperation with relevant partners. Is the focus on Economic empowerment an efficient and effective use of resources? Is it sustainable after project closure?

Project management structure

–          Analyse relevance of project management structure in relation to achieving the desired results in the context.

–          Analyse the efficiency of the structure of the project management. Especially focusing on efficiency of decision making, implementation methodologies, conduciveness to learning and experience sharing, cooperation on specific tasks, and involvement of individual DPO governance structures.

–          Analyse key lessons to be drawn from working in a joint effort; which areas can be improved? Are there areas where we could create more joint efforts, i.e in capacity development, organisational development efforts or fundraising to be more effective?

–          Evaluate the positive, or possibly negative, results that have come from working jointly on the project. Include elements that are not registered in the LFA and regular reporting efforts.

–          Evaluate to what extend the joint structure of this project will be sustainable after the project ends. Which efforts are likely to be sustained and which will efforts will be better sustained through another management form?

 

METHODOLOGY AND APPROACH

The basic principle of this mid term evaluation is the need for a bottom up approach, making use of a diversified tool box of qualitative and quantitative methodologies as appropriate. This evaluation is a formative evaluation from which the project will learn lessons to improve on performance of the remainder of its implementation thus the need for participatory approaches.

 

The evaluation will take place in selected project districts and include visits to the headquarters of the Partners, in Accra. The districts to be visited will be agreed between the project managers, the M&E officer and the evaluator. The districts of the field visits should be selected according to partner presence, district type (direct implementation, showcase, mentored or mentoring) and geography. Each district visit is expected to take two days where interactions will take place with project beneficiaries, GFD committee members, District assembly members, and district officials, and any other relevant stakeholder in the district.  

Desk study of key background documentation

An initial desk study of key project documents and other potentially relevant documents will guide the inception note formulation to be shared with the PMs and M&E officer. Key documents are listed in in the bibliography and include the project application, the Log frame, project reports from the partners and the status report to Disabled People’s Organisations Denmark (DPOD). A systematic review of progress towards the LFA will be fundamental in identifying gaps.

Field work and consultancy with partners

Based on the desk study, issues requiring the collection of information from project partners will be identified; questions will be prepared and shared with the Project Managers and the M&E officer. Following this a two week field work will be conducted, this will be arranged by the Project manager in the South in collaboration with the M&E Officer and the project partners. Methodologies for conducting interviews will be agreed between the evaluator and the Project Managers and the M&E officer. Based on this an interview guide will be developed by the evaluator and approved by the PMs and the M&E officer. The Project Managers and the M&E officer will travel with the evaluators during the field work.  In addition to the field work the evaluator will spend five days (split before and after the trip) with the project partners at their national offices and share the collected information so conclusions can be drawn jointly between project staff and the evaluator in addition to the conclusions and recommendations reached by the evaluator.

Draft report

The draft report will be prepared based on information from the desktop study and additional information gathered from the field visits. The report will focus on the accomplishment of set targets with emphasis on the outcome level; lessons learned; and recommendations for the future implementation. The draft report should be produced and circulated in good time ahead of the mid-term workshop to provide time for all SSC and NSC members to have time to read it and give comments ahead of the workshop. The deadline for submission of the draft report is 3^rd August 2017.

 

Preparation of workshop

The preparation of the mid-term workshop will take place in cooperation between the consultant and the project managers. The Project manager south will take care of the practical organisation of the workshop with assistance from project partners. The consultant will outline the programme and working methods to be applied during the workshop in cooperation with the project managers. The programme for the workshop, as well as applied working methods, should be aimed at involving project partners to the greatest extent possible, and with a view to the gathering of information and learning points from project partners. The consultant will also formulate questions or assignments for participants as preparation for the mid-term workshop. Following joint preparation of the workshop by the consultant and the project managers, the consultant will summarise the preparation of the workshop in a written note to be submitted to the project managers no later than 16^th August 2017.

The mid-term workshop

The evaluator will prepare and facilitate a two day workshop for all SSC and NSC members, the two project managers, the project staff and the M&E officer. The workshop will present the findings and recommendations, and facilitate a discussion of these, as well as comments for the evaluator to include in the final report.

The mid-term workshop should be participatory and aim at inviting project partners to come up with proposals and recommendations. Group work, practical exercises and other tools may be applied in order to create an environment for learning and mutual exchange. Certain aspects of the project may be chosen as priority themes for the workshop. Representatives of all project partners, project managers, M&E staff and the steering committees and the consultant will participate in the workshop.

Final report

The final report will take the comments shared ahead of the workshop as well as findings from the workshop into account and reflect comments from project partners to the preliminary findings of the draft report mentioned above.

Outputs and Technical standards of reporting:

Key outputs to deliver:

–          Inception note

–          Interview guide

–          Debrief presentation

–          Draft report

–          Workshop note

–          Final report

Written Report:

The evaluator will produce two reports: 1) a draft report for comments by the SSC and NSC before the workshop and 2) a final report including comments made in writing before the workshop and comments and additions discussed in the workshop. The report needs to be approved by the two steering committees before it can be seen as final.

The report should be written in English, not exceed 20 pages, and be presented with relevant annexes. It should present the findings related to the outlined focus areas above. Additional notes can be added describing the workshop methodologies, including the preparation process, implementation and review processes after the workshop. The note may contain the programme; exercises, recommendations and methods applied, but should not exceed 5 pages.

The report should be shared with the two Project managers who will share it with the two steering committees and coordinate the response from these.

Additional deliverables may be agreed upon by DAB and the consultant during the period of the assignment, depending on acceptance from both parties. All deliverables should be drafted in English, unless other language arrangements are agreed upon explicitly by both parties.

 

The consultant will consult DAB on the accessibility of document formats and relevant oral presentations. All written deliverables should be presented in MS Word format; deviations from this requirement must be approved by DAB. The evaluator will in consultancy with the project managers use graphics and tables as appropriate, but at all times keep accessibility of the documents in mind.

 

As much as key findings need to be presented the priority should be given towards recommendations for revising the project to respond to the findings and conclusions.

Report content

Introduction to the evaluation

Methodology

Key findings structured according to theme

Assessment of key indicators

Key lessons and conclusions: with reference to relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and sustainability.

Recommendations: structured according to themes but with reference to relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability. Including new approaches, change in activities, LFA or reallocation of resources

REQUIRED EXPERTISE

The evaluator holds the following qualifications and competencies:

Qualifications

–          A high level educational background in Social studies, Anthropology, or areas of similar orientation

–          A Professional background from working with NGOs, CSOs and grass roots membership organizations

–          Team leader experience

–          At least the team leader must have minimum 8 years Professional experience in executing project evaluations and similar learning activities

Competencies:

–       Good skills in working with learning in organisations and organisational development

–       Ability to work with a variety of participatory methodologies.

–       Good analytical skills

–       Ability to facilitate participatory processes and workshops.

–       Good writing skills.

PLANNING

The time table for the evaluation is planned as below –15/6-2017 to 30/8-2017:

Dates	Task	person	Guiding timeline.	Days of work for the consultant.
June	Intro meeting, Desk study and consultation with Partner organizations	Evaluator	Between 15th and 26thrd June.	7 days (½ day intro,  2½ days partner consultation, 4 days desk study)
June/july	Field work	Evaluator, PMN/S and M&E officer	Between 26th June to 14th July.	13 days
June/july	Consultation w project staff	Evaluator	Before 14th July.	2 days
July	Write report – share for comments	Evaluator	Share by August 1st	5 days
July/August	Give comments on report	NSC, SSC, PM’s and M&E officer	Send comments to evaluator by 11th August.
August	Prepare workshop	Evaluator	Before 18th August (share notes w PM’s by 16th for comments).	3 days
August	Facilitate workshop	Evaluator	21-22th august	2 days
August	Finalise report based on inputs	Evaluator	Submit by 30th August	3 days
				35 working days.

 

 

SERVICES TO BE DELIVERED

The project will facilitate accommodation and transport during the field work, project staff consultations and the workshop.

Application process

The evaluator – possibly a team of a Danish and a Ghanaian consultant – will send a proposal to [email protected] under the heading Mid-term evaluation. The proposal must contain a suggestion to the facilitation of the evaluation, a timeline and a budget as well as a CV documenting relevant experience. 

This must be received by the project manager no later than: 14 o’clock CEST on 22^nd May 2017

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Documents to be provided by the project managers:

–       Project application and relevant annexes (ex. Budget, LFA, Organisational structure, target groups, Monitoring and evaluation system)

–       Response letter to appraisal comments

–       Status report to DPOD including response

–       Latest quarterly reports from partners (incl financial, LFA and implementation plans).

 

Please state that you have seen the job advertisement on Globalnyt.