Consultant - KGM Final Evaluation

1. Introduction/Background Information

Catholic Relief Services-USCCB is the official agency of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops for relief and development overseas. CRS supports programs in over 99 countries and works with local partners. CRS has been implementing development and emergency relief efforts in Kenya for the past forty years. Although CRS mission is rooted in the Catholic faith, our operations serve people based solely on need, regardless of their race, religion or ethnicity.

1.1.Project Description

The Diversification of Livelihoods for small scale coffee farmers Project is funded by the Keirug Green Mountains (KGM)Ltd, formerly known as Green Mountains Coffee Roasters (GMCR) Ltd. ,a private coffee producing company in the United States of America. The project is implemented in Kenya as well as Rwanda and Ethiopia with each country implementing different mechanisms, In Kenya, the project was implemented in Nyeri County, Mukurweini Sub county covering 5 locations namely Giathugu, Gikondi, Rutune, Githi and Muhito. These is because the sub county is considered as an under-developed area among the coffee growing zones of Nyeri County. Most of the coffee growers in this region are smallholder farmers with farm sizes ranging between 2 to 3 acres, that access about 27 cooperatives by 1447 registered farm families under the project. The societies delivered their coffee to about 4 coffee factories namely Kihuti, Kamuchunu, Kagunyu and Mweru across the county.

Due to an increasing population that relied mainly on agriculture, there was increased land fragmentation that led to lowered coffee production per household. The result of these was an increase in number of farmers that were faced with food insecurity due to poor performance of their crops and livestock as well as inadequate access to credit characterized with unemployment and under-employment.

For this reason CRS in partnership with Caritas-Nyeri implemented the Diversification of Livelihoods for Smallholder Coffee Farmers project to diversify the livelihoods of 4500 targeted small holder households with activities aimed at increasing their food security as well as an additional 3000 to access to low cost financial services (making a total of 4500).

Below is a simplified project’s results framework specific to Kenya’s project scope.

The project’s goal was to have livelihoods of vulnerable smallholder coffee growing households improved and had two Strategic Objectives as provided below:

· SO1: 1,500 vulnerable smallholder coffee growing households have increased their food security.

· SO2: 4500 vulnerable smallholder coffee growing households have increased their access to financial services.

1.2. Purpose and Objectives of Evaluation

The overall purpose of the end of project (EoP) evaluation is to determine whether the Diversification of Livelihoods for Smallholder Coffee Farmers project achieved its stated strategic objectives and contributed to the identified overall goal. It will also document key lessons learnt and draw recommendations for future similar programming.The evaluation shall be conducted and finalized by 15th March 2015.

1.2.1. Specific Objectives

· To determine the extent to which the project met its stated strategic objectives and Intermediate results (measure achievement of projects outcome indicators)

· To analyze cost and benefits of technical and managerial strategies used in implementing the project.

· To explore opportunities, challenges and innovations that were faced as a result of the project and document for future similar programming.

1. Evaluation Key Questions

Below are expected but not exhaustive key evaluation questions to be included? The consultant together with CRS staff shall refine and agree on these questions during the initial meeting.

2.1 Technical Component

1. Agriculture

· What is the likelihood of sustaining the increased agricultural production (e.g., Coffee, banana, beans) and/or value addition methods introduced during the program?

· Did farmers adopt modern farming practices and technologies as promoted by the project? If so which ones were most applicable to most farmers?

· Did demonstration plots established by the project, effectively improve farmers learning? Did they accurately address farmer’s needs? What challenges were identified in using these plots, and what could be done in future to improve their effectiveness?

· Did increased coffee production lead to increased household income? What can be done to further promote coffee production and increased profits?

· What WASH issues exist in the operation areas that project can integrate in future related programs.

1. Savings and Internal Lending Committees (SILC)
2. Were there changes in household income? If so how did it impact the household dynamics in a positive or negative way, particularly with regard to gender?
3. Are there ways that would have enhanced the effectiveness of income generating activities (IGAs) on household food security beyond what was done?
4. What were the challenges and successes in implementing the CRS SILC model?
5. Did SILC activities contribute directly to household food security, and how?
6. Did household assets improve as a result of SILC activities?
7. What was the trend in SILC groups’ attendance rate?

2.2 Program Quality and Cross Cutting areas Component

• Did the project build the partner’s technical and project management capacity?
• How does the achieved numbers of people compare to proposed targets? What were the key successes and challenges in achieving/not achieving targets?
• Does the project have a well-developed exit strategy? Does it clearly define the approaches, criteria for exiting, measurable benchmarks, timeline, actions steps, responsibilities of different stakeholders and staff, indicators to measure progress, and a mechanism to assess progress?
• What project-induced change needs to be sustained after the program ends? What threats exist that could cause the change to revert to previous situation or instigate other negative situations?
• What external organizations, services, structures or relationships are needed to support the change?
• Did the project develop or adapt a gender strategy? If so how well was the strategy implemented? If not what areas required gender integration?
• Have program interventions experienced observable negative impacts? If so, what are they and what is being done to mitigate these impacts?
• Does the project have a well-developed exit strategy?

2.3 Implementation and Processes Component

• Did the M&E system collect and process gender-sensitive-, sex- and age disaggregated data to track outputs and outcome level changes?
• Did the Indicator Performance Tracking Table (IPTT) have robust indicators to measure the results stated in the RF? Did the IPTT include gender-sensitive indicators appropriate to the RF? What is the balance of indicators? Did the program have too many indicators for each results stated in the RF? Were all indicators defined objectively, and are they all clear to both M&E and respective program sectoral technical staff?
• Were the indicator performance targets reasonable? Were they ambitious enough to make a difference to the program beneficiaries? Were the targets clearly defined as cumulative or not? Were they revised using the evaluation findings?

Performance Indicators to be measured

· % increase in number of months of food self-sufficiency in the year

· %increase in production of food crops per household above baseline

· % of targeted vulnerable coffee household adopting 2 or more improved agriculture techniques promoted by the project

· Increase of acreage per household planted with banana- and legume-coffee intercrop above baseline

· No. of demonstration gardens established

· # of goats provided

· Bucks distributed to Groups

· Doers to Farmers

· # of farmers who have received "pass on goat" by end of reporting period.

· Number of FAs certified and active as PSP by the end of the project

· % increase in individuals' productive assets by end of Year 2 and end of Year 5

· No. of individuals accessing low cost financial services

· No. of SILC groups having a functional committee and constitution in place

· At least 15% return on savings at reporting period

· No. of SILC groups entering a second cycle

· % of partners, FA and PSP’s that can name the 3 principles of SILC

· % of individuals using a SILC loan for an IGA during each cycle

· % of SILC groups achieving an 80% fund utilization rate as at reporting period

· % of active members accessing a loan as at reporting period

3.0 Evaluation Design and Methodology

The methodology of the evaluation shall take a purely quantitative approach. This shall be done using semi-structured questionnaires administered by trained enumerators to target beneficiaries as well as secondary literature reviews of project reports, data and other relevant documents. The questionnaires shall be designed and coded onto a mobile data collection application while data from the secondary literature review will be obtained from final approved project proposal, project progress reports (narrative and financial) to donors, partner project activity reports, monitoring reports (ITT and IPTT) as well as baseline and mid-term evaluation reports and annual farmer survey reports. The consultant can propose other documents deemed important and relevant for review and additional data collection methods to increase effectiveness of the evaluation. Data collected in the quantitative evaluation shall be triangulated by a follow up qualitative evaluation for objectivity and accuracy.

The evaluation will address issues and questions in relation to effectiveness of its strategies, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the project stated goals. Gender integration should be ensured throughout the evaluation process. Below are illustrative key questions evaluations in relation to the objective and purpose of the project. The final set of questions and articulated study design should be in the inception report submitted, reviewed and approved by CRS prior to undertaking the study.

4.0 Evaluation Team and Responsibilities

The evaluation will be conducted by an external consultant who will work closely with the evaluation team consisting; CRS Kenya’s Senior Project Officer, MEAL officer and Programs Quality and Strategic Initiatives (PQSI) Coordinator as well as Caritas project staff led by the project coordinator. The consultant will have the final responsibility of designing and conducting the evaluation. Below is a summary of Consultant’s responsibility and qualifications.

Baseline Consultant

Reports to CRS Snr. Program Officer - MEAL

Will plan and coordinate data collection, review data, analyze it and prepare a high quality reportKey responsibilities

· Review of project documents and secondary data on child sexual abuse/ exploitation

· Plan and coordinate training, field exercise, analysis, report writing and present preliminary findings to project team.

· Lead data collection using mobile data application.

· Verify, clean and analyze data collected.

· Incorporate the project team input on draft report into the final report.

· Submit final report in recommended formats.

· Lead and undertake any other task as may be discussed and agreed upon by the project team. Desired Qualifications

· Team Leader must have led at least two similar evaluations in the past one year

· A minimum educational qualification equivalent to a Master’s degree in environment, Agriculture, Entrepreneurship (Microfinance), Monitoring and Evaluation or a discipline related to one of the technical areas addressed by the project, from a recognized university.

· Demonstrated skills in research, monitoring and evaluation of Agriculture/livelihood ,Microfinance projects

· Proven experience in conducting quantitative and mixed methods evaluation studies.

· Demonstrate local knowledge of the area of study where the project is being implemented

· Be familiar with program related financing

· Excellent analytical and report writing skills

· Excellent written and spoken English and proficiency in Swahili

· Computer proficiency with good knowledge of MS office and statistical packages (SPSS,STATA)

· Experience conducting evaluation in Nyeri County will be an added advantage

The Consultant will be required to understand and adhere to CRS policy of vehicle movements; that will be provided by CRS staff/s accompanying the team.

5.0 Deliverables

This evaluation shall provide four main reports:

· Inception report: Outlining process to be undertaken in conducting evaluation including research instruments.

· SPSS syntax file, cleaned data set and process followed during data verification and cleaning

· Draft evaluation report to CRS staff and partner staff for review.

· PowerPoint presentation: (no more than 15 slides maximum) to be disseminated to key stakeholders on preliminary findings before the final evaluation report is completed

· The Final Report: Incorporating CRS and Caritas input

· Copies of all the completed data collection tools

6.0 Feedback and Use

Evaluation results will be used by key stakeholders (CRS, Caritas Nyeri, line government ministries, other Country programs, donor, etc.) for learning and improvement for future similar programming needs. Feedback from the evaluation will be shared with stakeholders through email on completion of quantitative report and through a dissemination meeting evaluation.

7.0 Evaluation Schedule

A final evaluation report for quantitative approach is expected not later than 15th March 2015 to inform the qualitative evaluation that shall follow. The consultant shall present an elaborate work plan for the study to be discussed and harmonized with that of the project team.

8.0 Key Working Relationships

• CRS: CRS Kenya‘s SPO- MEAL, SPO-Agriculture, PQSI Coordinator and Head of Programs.
• Caritas: Project coordinators, Project officers.

9.0 Submission

· Letter of expression of interest and demonstration of capability

· At least three previous clients and their contacts to act as references

· Both a technical proposal (how you propose to undertake the assignment, and a work plan) and a financial quotation (cost in Kenyan shillings)

· A copy of recent evaluation report

HOW TO APPLY:

Applicants are kindly requested to send their CV along with a cover letter, Technical and Financial proposal and other testimonials to be delivered to CRS Office by e-mail (see below) by Close of Business 20th January 2015.

Human Resources Manager

Catholic Relief Services – Kenya Program

E-mail: hr@ke.earo.crs.org

Please indicate the Reference Number (Ref.2015/C/02) on the ‘email subject. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted. Note: Catholic Relief Services (CRS) does not charge any fees from applicants for any recruitment. Further, CRS has not retained any agent in connection with this recruitment