Consultant - Urban Slums and Government Engagement Expert
People living in Urban Slums
TOR for Government engagement Learning Question Literature Review
1. BACKGROUND
There is increasing pressure on Comic Relief to convey what our funding has achieved. We want to know, and to be able to tell the public, that the projects we fund are bringing about changes in the lives of poor and disadvantaged people, i.e. what difference we are making. We want to do this both in terms of individual stories of change, and on a more systematic and aggregated basis. We want to be able to say who we have helped, how many have benefited, and in what kinds of ways. We want to understand the extent to which our programmes have brought about lasting changes in the lives of those directly benefiting, as well as those benefiting from changes in policy, legislation and practice.
But we are also committed to learning from the work that we fund, so we can understand not only what difference we have made, but how changes to people’s lives happen. For example we want to test out our assumptions about the key factors that create change for our target groups, and find out which approaches or methodologies work better than others in different contexts. We also want to know which types of local organisations are most effective in supporting change for different groups in a variety of contexts, and how relationships between, and inputs from, partner organisations and other stakeholders, including Comic Relief, help or hinder the delivery of change.
Alongside these broad learning questions above, we have developed specific learning questions for each programme to help us gain a more in-depth understanding of some of the assumptions underpinning our work with different groups in various contexts. These are detailed in individual programme strategies.
We aim to share what we learn through dedicated reports, ongoing learning meetings in the UK and overseas with grant holders and other donors, and through online learning environments. Above all we are committed to applying what we learn. For ourselves in order to improve our policies, strategies and processes, and our performance as a grant-maker; to help us develop new funding initiatives; and to support our advocacy and public education work, including influencing the practice of other donors. And for our grant holders and those who may apply to us, to help them understand how to deliver change more effectively.
2. COMIC RELIEF APPROACH TO LEARNING QUESTIONS
We aim to explore these programme specific learning questions though work with our grant holders, other funders, independent consultants and research institutions. For example grant holders can include funding for action research in relation to one or more learning questions at application stage. They will also be invited to be part of face to face or online communities of practice with other grant holders and researchers to share insights in relation to a particular learning question, based on their ongoing reflection process, and/or evaluations they have carried out. We may also commission independent research with research institutions or consultants. This could be as a solo piece of work or jointly with other funders; and could involve individual grant holders, or groups of grant holders. We will also work with the Comic Relief UK grants team and grant holders to explore issues that are relevant across both teams.
Each Comic Relief programme has identified 4-5 programme specific learning questions that we want to explore over the life of the current International grants strategy (2009-2012). Every year each programme will focus on 1 or 2 questions. Our approach to learning is in two phases. Phase I covers initial scoping, literature review and consultation/ validation of findings with key stakeholders. Phase II covers the implementation phase - this may vary depending on the outcomes of the scoping and literature review phase. Therefore we see the key components of our approach to learning questions as:
Phase I
• Scoping studies (generally carried out internally) will have be undertaken to gain an overview of both the operational and academic research available in relation to the learning question; the current areas of focus; who the key players in the field are, both practitioners and researchers; and what are the key findings, lessons learned and gaps for the literature review to focus on.
• Literature reviews (i.e. this TOR carried out by an external consultant) is then carried out to gain a deeper understanding of key areas for further investigation identified in the scoping studies. This will involve, for example, in-depth reviews of evaluations and research carried out by practitioners, looking at research and articles by academics, and talking to key informants about their experiences and perspectives on the selected areas of learning.
• The literature review report will be made publically available to grant holders and to other external stakeholders.
• UK based workshops will be held to bring grant holders, other practitioners, funders and academics together in order to discuss the findings, and consider possible next step to address the gaps or opportunities identified in the literature review report.
Phase II
As stated above the content of Phase II varies depending on the outcome of Phase I. However, it could include:
• Inviting cohorts of individual grant holders to investigate particular learning questions through systematic research, and ongoing staff reflection. Grant holders will be asked to provide evidence collected over the year in their end of year reports, and to explore the selected learning questions in their mid term and final evaluations.
• Facilitating links between research institutions and grant holders to enable more systematic documentation and research.
• Development of further programmatic work, to address gaps identified in Phase I, which could be funded by Comic Relief or jointly with other donors.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall aim of both the scoping study and the literature review is to explore the following learning question under the People Living in Urban Slums programme:
• What are the most effective ways of engaging with central and local government authorities opposed to informal settlements, and ensuring they become more accountable to slum dwellers in the long term?
Literature review aims and objectives
Aim: To provide an analysis of key findings from research and practice in relation to the learning questions, including key success factors and challenges in addressing the issue, and any gaps in current research and practice, and to provide recommendations for possible further action by Comic Relief, and implications for other funders, practitioners and researchers.
Objectives:
o Review the findings of the scoping study, i.e. the definitions of terms, the scope of research, areas of focus, identified gaps; undertake any further research needed on these areas, and highlight key findings.
o Using the framework and the key questions developed as a result of findings from the scoping study, identify key success factors and challenges in relation to the learning questions, in terms of e.g. different theories of change, approaches to work and methodologies; key actors who need to be engaged to create an enabling environment; most effective types of organisations in different contexts; most supportive relationships including both those along the aid chain, and peer collaborations; and effective indicators for measuring success etc.
o Explore the specific learning areas detailed below
o Highlight suggested further actions for Comic Relief, other funders, practitioners and researchers that are indicated by the literature review findings
o Provide a platform for discussion at a one day UK workshop between Comic Relief, other funders, practitioners and researchers to identify possible future actions in relation to the findings of the literature review
Key learning areas:
The right to adequate housing is a basic human right. Our definition of adequate housing is ‘housing that conforms to basic standards with regard to security of tenure, availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location, and cultural adequacy” (www.hrea.org). We believe that government responsibility to address this right goes beyond simply housing finance. “It is sometimes mistakenly thought that rights such as the right to housing simply require Governments to provide sufficient public funds towards this end and that the subsequent allocation of monetary resources is all that is needed for obligations surrounding this right to be satisfied. However, the right to housing and, indeed, all economic, social and cultural rights confer a much more lengthy and complex series of obligations on States.” (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 21 on The Human Right to Adequate Housing). Our learning question therefore focuses on the process of engagement between slum dwellers and local and central government to ensure that government becomes more accountable to slum dwellers in terms of the provision of adequate housing. We are particularly interested in how to engage effectively where governments are opposed to informal settlements. The literature review should respond to the learning question with a focus on Africa, but draw on relevant learning from other countries and contexts. Our key learning areas are therefore:
• What methodologies do slum dwellers and their representative organisations use to engage governments? How do they build from initial to more sustained engagement?
• Who usually engages, both from government and from within slum dwelling communities, e.g. slum dweller-led groups or organisations acting on their behalf? Which structures and approaches work best, and why?
• Are there differences between central and local government attitudes/actions, and the methods of engaging with them effectively?
• Which approaches and partnerships are the most effective in making governments more accountable to slum dwellers in the long term? What are the key success factors? Which work best in supportive and non-supportive policy (i.e. governments opposed to informal settlements) environments, and why? How can accountability to all, including the most vulnerable groups, be achieved?
• What support, if any, do slum dweller communities and/or their representative organisations need to support the engagement process and longer term accountability? And what are the most effective ways of providing this?
• What is the role of public/private funding, including links with the informal sector and social enterprise, in supporting improved engagement and accountability?
• How transferable are the approaches taken in Asia and Latin America to different African contexts?
4. SUGGESTED LITERATURE REVIEW METHODS
The methods to be used will be decided in discussion with the selected consultant, but some suggestions are:
• Obtain referrals to relevant implementing organisations and research institutions, academic journals and research articles, and programme evaluations and reports from the following:
o Existing Comic Relief grantholders (including use of the online forum, where available, for that programme)
o Other local and international organisations working on the issue
o Relevant academic researchers
o Other key informants (including those suggested by Comic Relief programme managers)
• Desk based review of research articles and reports, and programme evaluations and reports, including those from organisations funded under the Comic Relief People living in Urban Slums programme, and any Comic Relief commissioned impact studies or reviews
• Interviews with selected key informants and experts on the issue
• Review of relevant websites and academic journal databases
• Join relevant forums and review comment sections on articles or news websites to understand latest debates
• Further investigation of bibliographies of particularly relevant articles
5. KEY OUTPUTS
Literature review
1. A report detailing findings (maximum length 25-30 pages) to include:
• Introduction – purpose of the study, methods used and limitations
• Defining the question – setting out the framework being used in the literature review in relation to the issue addressed by the learning questions
• Scope of research to date – areas of focus and gaps in existing practice and/or research, key actors/institutions delivering and/or researching work in relation to the learning question
• Research findings - in relation to the learning questions, e.g. key success factors and challenges
• Conclusions and recommendations – Summary of findings, suggested further actions for Comic Relief, and implications for other funders, practitioners and researchers that are indicated by the research findings
• Appendix – List of articles and reports reviewed with filepaths where available, list of key individuals and institutions undertaking either operational or academic research on the issue addressed by the learning question, key informants interviewed
2. Consultant facilitated one day workshop in the UK with practitioners, researchers and funders, to share and get feedback on the Literature review findings and develop possible next steps.
6. TIMEFRAME
The literature review should ideally be undertaken in March 2011 with the final report submitted 15th April 2011. A budget and timetable will be negotiated with the successful organisation/person though we would expect the work to take no more than 15 working days for the literature review (there may be some flexibility to negotiate the above deadline). Please note that the workshop will be contracted separately.
7. CONSULTANT REQUIREMENTS
Consultants would need to have:
• Experience of lobbying and advocacy activities in an urban context and an understanding of how municipal authorities function in developing countries
• A proven track record of undertaking desk based research such as literature reviews
• Demonstrable analytical skills
• Professional integrity
• Excellent interpersonal skills & communication skills, both written and verbal
8. LITERATURE REVIEW DELIVERY TEAM
The selected consultant(s) or organisation will be supported by the following Comic Relief staff to carry out the literature review:
Project Manager: Stuart Craig (Programme Manager)
Project Team: Stefano D’Errico (International Evaluation and Learning Officer)
Isabel Newman (International Programme Assistant)
Beth Houghton (International Programme Volunteer)
9. NEXT STEPS
Comic Relief welcomes expressions of interest from independent consultants to these Terms of Reference, with an updated CV and a short written statement including:
• relevant experience of any similar work
• the consultant’s suggested approach
• an outline of costs & timescales
TOR for Government engagement Learning Question Literature Review
1. BACKGROUND
There is increasing pressure on Comic Relief to convey what our funding has achieved. We want to know, and to be able to tell the public, that the projects we fund are bringing about changes in the lives of poor and disadvantaged people, i.e. what difference we are making. We want to do this both in terms of individual stories of change, and on a more systematic and aggregated basis. We want to be able to say who we have helped, how many have benefited, and in what kinds of ways. We want to understand the extent to which our programmes have brought about lasting changes in the lives of those directly benefiting, as well as those benefiting from changes in policy, legislation and practice.
But we are also committed to learning from the work that we fund, so we can understand not only what difference we have made, but how changes to people’s lives happen. For example we want to test out our assumptions about the key factors that create change for our target groups, and find out which approaches or methodologies work better than others in different contexts. We also want to know which types of local organisations are most effective in supporting change for different groups in a variety of contexts, and how relationships between, and inputs from, partner organisations and other stakeholders, including Comic Relief, help or hinder the delivery of change.
Alongside these broad learning questions above, we have developed specific learning questions for each programme to help us gain a more in-depth understanding of some of the assumptions underpinning our work with different groups in various contexts. These are detailed in individual programme strategies.
We aim to share what we learn through dedicated reports, ongoing learning meetings in the UK and overseas with grant holders and other donors, and through online learning environments. Above all we are committed to applying what we learn. For ourselves in order to improve our policies, strategies and processes, and our performance as a grant-maker; to help us develop new funding initiatives; and to support our advocacy and public education work, including influencing the practice of other donors. And for our grant holders and those who may apply to us, to help them understand how to deliver change more effectively.
2. COMIC RELIEF APPROACH TO LEARNING QUESTIONS
We aim to explore these programme specific learning questions though work with our grant holders, other funders, independent consultants and research institutions. For example grant holders can include funding for action research in relation to one or more learning questions at application stage. They will also be invited to be part of face to face or online communities of practice with other grant holders and researchers to share insights in relation to a particular learning question, based on their ongoing reflection process, and/or evaluations they have carried out. We may also commission independent research with research institutions or consultants. This could be as a solo piece of work or jointly with other funders; and could involve individual grant holders, or groups of grant holders. We will also work with the Comic Relief UK grants team and grant holders to explore issues that are relevant across both teams.
Each Comic Relief programme has identified 4-5 programme specific learning questions that we want to explore over the life of the current International grants strategy (2009-2012). Every year each programme will focus on 1 or 2 questions. Our approach to learning is in two phases. Phase I covers initial scoping, literature review and consultation/ validation of findings with key stakeholders. Phase II covers the implementation phase - this may vary depending on the outcomes of the scoping and literature review phase. Therefore we see the key components of our approach to learning questions as:
Phase I
• Scoping studies (generally carried out internally) will have be undertaken to gain an overview of both the operational and academic research available in relation to the learning question; the current areas of focus; who the key players in the field are, both practitioners and researchers; and what are the key findings, lessons learned and gaps for the literature review to focus on.
• Literature reviews (i.e. this TOR carried out by an external consultant) is then carried out to gain a deeper understanding of key areas for further investigation identified in the scoping studies. This will involve, for example, in-depth reviews of evaluations and research carried out by practitioners, looking at research and articles by academics, and talking to key informants about their experiences and perspectives on the selected areas of learning.
• The literature review report will be made publically available to grant holders and to other external stakeholders.
• UK based workshops will be held to bring grant holders, other practitioners, funders and academics together in order to discuss the findings, and consider possible next step to address the gaps or opportunities identified in the literature review report.
Phase II
As stated above the content of Phase II varies depending on the outcome of Phase I. However, it could include:
• Inviting cohorts of individual grant holders to investigate particular learning questions through systematic research, and ongoing staff reflection. Grant holders will be asked to provide evidence collected over the year in their end of year reports, and to explore the selected learning questions in their mid term and final evaluations.
• Facilitating links between research institutions and grant holders to enable more systematic documentation and research.
• Development of further programmatic work, to address gaps identified in Phase I, which could be funded by Comic Relief or jointly with other donors.
3. LITERATURE REVIEW AIMS AND OBJECTIVES
The overall aim of both the scoping study and the literature review is to explore the following learning question under the People Living in Urban Slums programme:
• What are the most effective ways of engaging with central and local government authorities opposed to informal settlements, and ensuring they become more accountable to slum dwellers in the long term?
Literature review aims and objectives
Aim: To provide an analysis of key findings from research and practice in relation to the learning questions, including key success factors and challenges in addressing the issue, and any gaps in current research and practice, and to provide recommendations for possible further action by Comic Relief, and implications for other funders, practitioners and researchers.
Objectives:
o Review the findings of the scoping study, i.e. the definitions of terms, the scope of research, areas of focus, identified gaps; undertake any further research needed on these areas, and highlight key findings.
o Using the framework and the key questions developed as a result of findings from the scoping study, identify key success factors and challenges in relation to the learning questions, in terms of e.g. different theories of change, approaches to work and methodologies; key actors who need to be engaged to create an enabling environment; most effective types of organisations in different contexts; most supportive relationships including both those along the aid chain, and peer collaborations; and effective indicators for measuring success etc.
o Explore the specific learning areas detailed below
o Highlight suggested further actions for Comic Relief, other funders, practitioners and researchers that are indicated by the literature review findings
o Provide a platform for discussion at a one day UK workshop between Comic Relief, other funders, practitioners and researchers to identify possible future actions in relation to the findings of the literature review
Key learning areas:
The right to adequate housing is a basic human right. Our definition of adequate housing is ‘housing that conforms to basic standards with regard to security of tenure, availability of services, materials, facilities, and infrastructure, affordability, habitability, accessibility, location, and cultural adequacy” (www.hrea.org). We believe that government responsibility to address this right goes beyond simply housing finance. “It is sometimes mistakenly thought that rights such as the right to housing simply require Governments to provide sufficient public funds towards this end and that the subsequent allocation of monetary resources is all that is needed for obligations surrounding this right to be satisfied. However, the right to housing and, indeed, all economic, social and cultural rights confer a much more lengthy and complex series of obligations on States.” (United Nations Fact Sheet No. 21 on The Human Right to Adequate Housing). Our learning question therefore focuses on the process of engagement between slum dwellers and local and central government to ensure that government becomes more accountable to slum dwellers in terms of the provision of adequate housing. We are particularly interested in how to engage effectively where governments are opposed to informal settlements. The literature review should respond to the learning question with a focus on Africa, but draw on relevant learning from other countries and contexts. Our key learning areas are therefore:
• What methodologies do slum dwellers and their representative organisations use to engage governments? How do they build from initial to more sustained engagement?
• Who usually engages, both from government and from within slum dwelling communities, e.g. slum dweller-led groups or organisations acting on their behalf? Which structures and approaches work best, and why?
• Are there differences between central and local government attitudes/actions, and the methods of engaging with them effectively?
• Which approaches and partnerships are the most effective in making governments more accountable to slum dwellers in the long term? What are the key success factors? Which work best in supportive and non-supportive policy (i.e. governments opposed to informal settlements) environments, and why? How can accountability to all, including the most vulnerable groups, be achieved?
• What support, if any, do slum dweller communities and/or their representative organisations need to support the engagement process and longer term accountability? And what are the most effective ways of providing this?
• What is the role of public/private funding, including links with the informal sector and social enterprise, in supporting improved engagement and accountability?
• How transferable are the approaches taken in Asia and Latin America to different African contexts?
4. SUGGESTED LITERATURE REVIEW METHODS
The methods to be used will be decided in discussion with the selected consultant, but some suggestions are:
• Obtain referrals to relevant implementing organisations and research institutions, academic journals and research articles, and programme evaluations and reports from the following:
o Existing Comic Relief grantholders (including use of the online forum, where available, for that programme)
o Other local and international organisations working on the issue
o Relevant academic researchers
o Other key informants (including those suggested by Comic Relief programme managers)
• Desk based review of research articles and reports, and programme evaluations and reports, including those from organisations funded under the Comic Relief People living in Urban Slums programme, and any Comic Relief commissioned impact studies or reviews
• Interviews with selected key informants and experts on the issue
• Review of relevant websites and academic journal databases
• Join relevant forums and review comment sections on articles or news websites to understand latest debates
• Further investigation of bibliographies of particularly relevant articles
5. KEY OUTPUTS
Literature review
1. A report detailing findings (maximum length 25-30 pages) to include:
• Introduction – purpose of the study, methods used and limitations
• Defining the question – setting out the framework being used in the literature review in relation to the issue addressed by the learning questions
• Scope of research to date – areas of focus and gaps in existing practice and/or research, key actors/institutions delivering and/or researching work in relation to the learning question
• Research findings - in relation to the learning questions, e.g. key success factors and challenges
• Conclusions and recommendations – Summary of findings, suggested further actions for Comic Relief, and implications for other funders, practitioners and researchers that are indicated by the research findings
• Appendix – List of articles and reports reviewed with filepaths where available, list of key individuals and institutions undertaking either operational or academic research on the issue addressed by the learning question, key informants interviewed
2. Consultant facilitated one day workshop in the UK with practitioners, researchers and funders, to share and get feedback on the Literature review findings and develop possible next steps.
6. TIMEFRAME
The literature review should ideally be undertaken in March 2011 with the final report submitted 15th April 2011. A budget and timetable will be negotiated with the successful organisation/person though we would expect the work to take no more than 15 working days for the literature review (there may be some flexibility to negotiate the above deadline). Please note that the workshop will be contracted separately.
7. CONSULTANT REQUIREMENTS
Consultants would need to have:
• Experience of lobbying and advocacy activities in an urban context and an understanding of how municipal authorities function in developing countries
• A proven track record of undertaking desk based research such as literature reviews
• Demonstrable analytical skills
• Professional integrity
• Excellent interpersonal skills & communication skills, both written and verbal
8. LITERATURE REVIEW DELIVERY TEAM
The selected consultant(s) or organisation will be supported by the following Comic Relief staff to carry out the literature review:
Project Manager: Stuart Craig (Programme Manager)
Project Team: Stefano D’Errico (International Evaluation and Learning Officer)
Isabel Newman (International Programme Assistant)
Beth Houghton (International Programme Volunteer)
9. NEXT STEPS
Comic Relief welcomes expressions of interest from independent consultants to these Terms of Reference, with an updated CV and a short written statement including:
• relevant experience of any similar work
• the consultant’s suggested approach
• an outline of costs & timescales
How to apply
Send an email to Stefano D'Errico: S.DErrico@comicrelief.com or to Stuart Craig: S.Craig@comicrelief.com
Post a Comment