Background:
The IRC has worked in northern Uganda since 1998, implementing relief,
recovery and post-conflict development programs in response to the
devastation wrought by rebel group the Lord’s Resistance Army. The IRC
Uganda’s current programming focuses on meeting the unique needs of
adolescent girls, strengthening partnerships with the government, civil
society and the private sector, promoting accountability and
incorporating evidence-based approaches. The IRC has been implementing
economic recovery and development (ERD) programs in Uganda since 2005.
The project summary: In March 2010 the IRC received the 2nd phase of funding from the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) to implement a four-year the PEEP project in Kitgum, Lamwo, Lira and Alebtong districts. The 1st phase of funding from Sida (including a cost extension) lasted from March 2007 to February 2010. The table below provides a summary of the project.
The Project Summary Project Title: Post-conflict recovery and Economic Empowerment of returnees through Private sector development (PEEP) project Project Duration (By District): Kitgum & Lamwo district: 46 months (March 2010–December 2013) Lira & Alebtong district: 34 months (March 2010–December 2012) Direct Beneficiaries (By District): Kitgum & Lamwo district: 39,725 Lira & Alebtong district: 28,875 Direct Beneficiaries (By Intervention):
Agriculture Activities: 38,850
Saving & Loans Activities: 29,750 Total Beneficiaries 68,600 Total Project Budget: Equivalent of USD 3,098,740 Project Goal: To Improve the Economic Opportunities for 68,600 Returnees in Lamwo and Lira Districts, Northern Uganda Project Objectives: • First Objective: To increase the production of staple and marketable crops by 20% by 2012/2013 • Second Objective: To Increase Collective Marketing Committee (CMCs) Capture in the Market by 25%, by 2012/2013 • Third Objective: To Improve the Local Business Environment, in Lira and Kitgum districts by 2012/2013
Purpose of the evaluation: To inform IRC’s management about the overall project performance and provide evidence-based recommendations for sustainability and corrective measures to be undertaken during the remainder of the project implementation period.
Objectives of the evaluation: I. To assess the project achievements towards expected results set out in the logical framework, and provide evidence-based recommendations of the corrective measures to be undertaken during the remainder of the project implementation period in order to maximise the outcomes of the project. II. To assess the relevance, sustainability and scale up of the various models used by the IRC in the implementation of this project: specifically the cost-shared inputs provision, demonstration of improved technologies, collective marketing, VSLA+, and private sector development initiatives.
Key evaluation questions: I. To what extent has the IRC achieved the project’s expected results set out in the logical framework? a. What is IRC’s actual achievement against the established success indicators? How well has the project reached the intended beneficiaries especially women? b. Which elements of the project had the most impact on the beneficiaries and why? c. Which elements of the project had the least impact on the beneficiaries and why? d. How has project implementation approaches/modalities affected the achievement of project benchmarks? e. Assess the impacts of the different project end-dates (Lira Dec 2012 and Kitgum Dec 2013). II. How relevant, sustainable and replicable are the models used by the IRC in executing this project? a. Cost-shared approach to inputs provision b. Demonstrating improved technologies c. Collective marketing committees (CMCs) d. VSLA+ discussion series & microfinance linkages e. Private sector development including business forums III. What is the level of coherence of IRC’s project with existing development frameworks? a. How has IRC’s project contributed to Sida’s development priorities in Uganda?
b. How has IRC’s project contributed to the peace recovery and development (PRDP) priorities? c. How has IRC’s project contributed to the district development plans (DDP) priorities?
Reference materials: I. The project proposal, logical framework and budget,
II. The project reports submitted to the donor thus far, III. Baseline survey report, database and hard copies, IV. M&E tools, databases, and hard copies of M&E data, V. Key activity reports e.g. South Sudan market assessment,
VI. IRC Uganda Country Strategic Plan for 2011-2015, VII. Sida Uganda Country Cooperation Strategy for 2010-2014,
Proposed Methodology: The consultant is expected to provide a detailed evaluation methodology based on this TOR as well as the review materials provided by the IRC, but in general the IRC anticipates the evaluation to encompass review of project and related documents, focused group discussions with project participants, key informant interviews with project staff, key stakeholders (government officials, business people and local leaders), and household surveys as appropriate.
Expected deliverables: I. Technical Proposal: The technical proposal should include a clear description of the methodology to be used in the evaluation clearly showing how the various evaluation questions will be addressed. A realistic schedule of activities (evaluation work plan) should be also included in the technical proposal. The technical proposal should range between 3-5 pages maximum.
II. Financial Proposal: The financial proposal should include detailed description all costs of evaluation. The evaluation budget in USD should be presented in excel. III. Inception Report: Upon completing the document review, the consultant shall submit a short inception report summarizing initial impressions, completed tasks, anticipated challenges and changes to the proposed methodology. IV. Draft Evaluation Report: The consultant shall submit a draft evaluation report (not exceeding 20 pages) to the IRC, two days before the contract end date giving IRC two workings days to review and thereafter convene a feedback session with the consultant. V. Final Evaluation Report: The final evaluation report (not exceeding 20 pages) shall be submitted to the IRC within five working days after receiving feedback from the IRC. This is not an academic exercise, but rather action-oriented evaluation seeking practical solutions/ways of leveraging resources to reach a timely and successful outcome to the project. Recommendations should be backed by evidence from the evaluation.
The proposed period for the evaluation is October 31st through November 25th.
Required qualifications and experience: I. Masters degree in agricultural economics or its equivalent from a reputable institution.
II. Five to ten years of practical field experience in the execution or oversight or evaluation of agriculture and rural development programs preferably in developing economies. III. Recent assignments in northern Uganda is an added advantage IV. Demonstrated understanding of post conflict recovery and development programming environments. V. Practical experience with post conflict recovery and development programs is an added advantage.
VI. Clear understanding and appreciation of the link between economic program outcomes and household power dynamics particularly resource allocation and women empowerment issues!!! VII. Ability to analyse, and synthesise huge economic data to produce evidence-based recommendations.
VIII. Fluency in English language; written, spoken and reading.
Submit cover letter, financial proposal and CV to: http://tbe.taleo.net/NA2/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=IRC&cws=1&rid=7470
The project summary: In March 2010 the IRC received the 2nd phase of funding from the Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) to implement a four-year the PEEP project in Kitgum, Lamwo, Lira and Alebtong districts. The 1st phase of funding from Sida (including a cost extension) lasted from March 2007 to February 2010. The table below provides a summary of the project.
The Project Summary Project Title: Post-conflict recovery and Economic Empowerment of returnees through Private sector development (PEEP) project Project Duration (By District): Kitgum & Lamwo district: 46 months (March 2010–December 2013) Lira & Alebtong district: 34 months (March 2010–December 2012) Direct Beneficiaries (By District): Kitgum & Lamwo district: 39,725 Lira & Alebtong district: 28,875 Direct Beneficiaries (By Intervention):
Agriculture Activities: 38,850
Saving & Loans Activities: 29,750 Total Beneficiaries 68,600 Total Project Budget: Equivalent of USD 3,098,740 Project Goal: To Improve the Economic Opportunities for 68,600 Returnees in Lamwo and Lira Districts, Northern Uganda Project Objectives: • First Objective: To increase the production of staple and marketable crops by 20% by 2012/2013 • Second Objective: To Increase Collective Marketing Committee (CMCs) Capture in the Market by 25%, by 2012/2013 • Third Objective: To Improve the Local Business Environment, in Lira and Kitgum districts by 2012/2013
Purpose of the evaluation: To inform IRC’s management about the overall project performance and provide evidence-based recommendations for sustainability and corrective measures to be undertaken during the remainder of the project implementation period.
Objectives of the evaluation: I. To assess the project achievements towards expected results set out in the logical framework, and provide evidence-based recommendations of the corrective measures to be undertaken during the remainder of the project implementation period in order to maximise the outcomes of the project. II. To assess the relevance, sustainability and scale up of the various models used by the IRC in the implementation of this project: specifically the cost-shared inputs provision, demonstration of improved technologies, collective marketing, VSLA+, and private sector development initiatives.
Key evaluation questions: I. To what extent has the IRC achieved the project’s expected results set out in the logical framework? a. What is IRC’s actual achievement against the established success indicators? How well has the project reached the intended beneficiaries especially women? b. Which elements of the project had the most impact on the beneficiaries and why? c. Which elements of the project had the least impact on the beneficiaries and why? d. How has project implementation approaches/modalities affected the achievement of project benchmarks? e. Assess the impacts of the different project end-dates (Lira Dec 2012 and Kitgum Dec 2013). II. How relevant, sustainable and replicable are the models used by the IRC in executing this project? a. Cost-shared approach to inputs provision b. Demonstrating improved technologies c. Collective marketing committees (CMCs) d. VSLA+ discussion series & microfinance linkages e. Private sector development including business forums III. What is the level of coherence of IRC’s project with existing development frameworks? a. How has IRC’s project contributed to Sida’s development priorities in Uganda?
b. How has IRC’s project contributed to the peace recovery and development (PRDP) priorities? c. How has IRC’s project contributed to the district development plans (DDP) priorities?
Reference materials: I. The project proposal, logical framework and budget,
II. The project reports submitted to the donor thus far, III. Baseline survey report, database and hard copies, IV. M&E tools, databases, and hard copies of M&E data, V. Key activity reports e.g. South Sudan market assessment,
VI. IRC Uganda Country Strategic Plan for 2011-2015, VII. Sida Uganda Country Cooperation Strategy for 2010-2014,
Proposed Methodology: The consultant is expected to provide a detailed evaluation methodology based on this TOR as well as the review materials provided by the IRC, but in general the IRC anticipates the evaluation to encompass review of project and related documents, focused group discussions with project participants, key informant interviews with project staff, key stakeholders (government officials, business people and local leaders), and household surveys as appropriate.
Expected deliverables: I. Technical Proposal: The technical proposal should include a clear description of the methodology to be used in the evaluation clearly showing how the various evaluation questions will be addressed. A realistic schedule of activities (evaluation work plan) should be also included in the technical proposal. The technical proposal should range between 3-5 pages maximum.
II. Financial Proposal: The financial proposal should include detailed description all costs of evaluation. The evaluation budget in USD should be presented in excel. III. Inception Report: Upon completing the document review, the consultant shall submit a short inception report summarizing initial impressions, completed tasks, anticipated challenges and changes to the proposed methodology. IV. Draft Evaluation Report: The consultant shall submit a draft evaluation report (not exceeding 20 pages) to the IRC, two days before the contract end date giving IRC two workings days to review and thereafter convene a feedback session with the consultant. V. Final Evaluation Report: The final evaluation report (not exceeding 20 pages) shall be submitted to the IRC within five working days after receiving feedback from the IRC. This is not an academic exercise, but rather action-oriented evaluation seeking practical solutions/ways of leveraging resources to reach a timely and successful outcome to the project. Recommendations should be backed by evidence from the evaluation.
The proposed period for the evaluation is October 31st through November 25th.
Required qualifications and experience: I. Masters degree in agricultural economics or its equivalent from a reputable institution.
II. Five to ten years of practical field experience in the execution or oversight or evaluation of agriculture and rural development programs preferably in developing economies. III. Recent assignments in northern Uganda is an added advantage IV. Demonstrated understanding of post conflict recovery and development programming environments. V. Practical experience with post conflict recovery and development programs is an added advantage.
VI. Clear understanding and appreciation of the link between economic program outcomes and household power dynamics particularly resource allocation and women empowerment issues!!! VII. Ability to analyse, and synthesise huge economic data to produce evidence-based recommendations.
VIII. Fluency in English language; written, spoken and reading.
Submit cover letter, financial proposal and CV to: http://tbe.taleo.net/NA2/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=IRC&cws=1&rid=7470