Consultant, Emergency Food Security/Cash-transfer Program in Haiti

Program to be Evaluated:	Kenbe-La (Hang in there) Giving choices to earthquake survivors outside of Port-au- Prince
Donor:	USAID – Food For Peace
Location:	Haiti (Central Plateau, Lower Artibonite)
Timeframe:	8/22 – 8/31 (2011): 4 full days working remotely 9/1 – 9/30 (2011): 30 full days working in Haiti 10/1 – 10-31 (2011): 6 full days working remotely
Application Deadline:	07 August 2011
Contact:	Jill Scantlan Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Intern Mercy Corps Haiti jscantlan@ht.mercycorps.org

Please provide a CV, Cover Letter and Daily Rate in US Dollars.

1) Program to be Evaluated:

Mercy Corps Haiti

Kenbe-La (Hang in there) Giving choices to earthquake survivors outside of Port-au-Prince

Funded by USAID – Food for Peace

Implemented between June 30^th, 2010 and September 30^th, 2011

2) Purpose of the Evaluation

This will be an end-of-program evaluation of Mercy Corps’ “Kenbe-La (Hang in There): Giving choices to earthquake survivors outside of Port-au-Prince” program in the Center and Lower Artibonite Departments of Haiti. Kenbe-La is a Local and Regional Procurement (LRP) program, funded by USAID Food for Peace, and focuses on meeting the urgent food security needs of 20,000 internally displaced households and host households in Artibonite and Central Plateau by providing vouchers redeemable in local markets for basic food commodities. The program distributes vouchers worth $50 per month over a period of 8 – 9 months to buy their choice of the following staple foods including rice, beans, oil and maize. They can purchase from local vendors, who must be formally registered with the government to participate. Mercy Corps also piloted an innovative mobile money program in collaboration with private phone and banking companies, which allows for people to easily transfer funds to vendors in a safe and fast manner.

The intention of the evaluation is to assess to what degree the program and methodology have been successful in achieving the established results and specific objectives; evaluate the efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of cash transfer programming; and compare the various cash transfer modalities (vouchers/m-money) implemented by Mercy Corps in the Center and Artibonite Departments of Haiti and within the objectives of USAID/FFP. Information gained will be used in order to establish better practice and help formulate new interventions. This evaluation is to serve as an opportunity for learning, growth and reflection for program staff and stakeholders. The evaluation should be participatory to maximize the learning opportunities of Mercy Corps in the review of program achievements, monitoring, logistics and strategic approaches.

More specifically, the evaluation should:

1) Determine the degree to which the program objectives and indicators as identified in the proposal were met. In other words, the principal objective of the evaluation is to determine the effectiveness and the fulfillment of contractual obligations as per Mercy Corps’ agreement with USAID/FFP.

2) Evaluate the efficiency of implementation in terms of approach chosen and resources available and used (targeting criteria; cash transfer value; vendor selection; delivery mechanisms; monitoring system), and compare the two modalities (vouchers and Mobile Money) and evaluate the appropriateness of the response.

3) Determine the impact of using cash transfers on the food security of the displaced and host families in the Center and Lower Artibonite Departments in Haiti.

4) Evaluate the wider impact of the response in terms of the direct beneficiaries, wider communities and markets, including as possible the ‘multiplier effect’.

5) Provide a clear document of the lessons learned with reference to the available program materials for both an internal audience and an external audience to include program stakeholders and donors.

6) Make recommendations to future programming in the region including possible economic recovery programming, focusing on the following areas: a) the ongoing food/livelihood insecurity situation in the Center & Artibonite Departments; b) response analysis in the Center & Artibonite Departments (including a review of context indicators, market conditions, response analysis and risk analysis); c) analysis of the conditions under which market-based, food voucher or cash transfer programming should be implemented again in order to have the intended effects.

3) Background:

In mid February 2010, the Government of Haiti estimated that the January 12 earthquake killed 230,000 people, and left an estimated 700,000 displaced within the Port-au-Prince area, and nearly 600,000 more displaced to other parts of the country (including over 250,000 estimated to have arrived in Center and Artibonite). Mercy Corps carried out assessments in January and February 2010, which demonstrated that the international community, in the face of massive needs in and around Port-au-Prince, had largely ignored the needs of the host communities, which lie further afield but were nonetheless being overwhelmed by this influx of displaced people arriving with no resources or means of support.

Without proper assistance, many of the displaced may return to Port au Prince, where resources and opportunities are severely limited, while host families will suffer from depleted resources after assisting the displaced in the time of need. Anecdotal evidence suggested IDP returns to Port au Prince were already underway, making immediate support in host communities urgent to create an incentive for IDPs to decide against returning to what are likely to be more difficult living conditions in the capital.

A multiagency emergency market mapping assessment of the bean sector noted that the sudden drop in consumer income due to the earthquake quickly led to a drop in credit availability for merchants within the bean market chain, and identified the risk that producers would, in response to decreased demand, reduce their production quantities for the May/June harvest.^[1] The assessment team recommended immediate interventions to support the recovery of food market chains. An assessment of host families in Bas Artibonite found that the majority of them have continued to rely on markets to obtain food after the earthquake, though many families are rationing consumption within the household to stretch limited resources.^[2] Only ten percent of potential beneficiaries surveyed reported having received food aid to date. Meanwhile, markets were functioning in both Artibonite and Central Plateau, though their viability was being stretched as small-business owners struggle in the face of sharply decreased purchasing power. Mercy Corps’ survey of retailers in the targeted areas found that most were able to receive replenishment stock within six days after placing an order, a timeframe consistent with before the earthquake, and can therefore meet increased demand without increasing prices.

Given these conditions, the use of a market-based voucher system was determined preferable to expanding direct in-kind food distribution. Vouchers would allow beneficiaries to access food through existing market actors, support the quick recovery of small businesses in the food market chain, and help spur local production by increasing the purchasing power of beneficiaries, in order to increase demand for locally produced goods. It also directly complemented the existing Mercy Corps USAID/OFDA-funded programming in Central Plateau, which assisted IDPs and host communities through cash-for-work opportunities and direct cash transfers for the most vulnerable host families. The design of the Kenbe-la program also specifically accounted for the coverage of food insecure populations by USAID/FFP-funded single-year and multi-year assistance programs already operating in the targeted areas.

Nine months also has the potential to create a pull factor and incentive for households to remain in Central Plateau which would reduce the stress on Port au Prince where conditions in displacement camps are overcrowded, insecure and where many camps risk flooding during hurricane season.

Mercy Corps targeted 20,000 beneficiary households (100,000 individuals) in two rural areas, lower Artibonite and Central Plateau, where high numbers of IDPs settled after the earthquake. The program also aimed to directly benefit 135 small business owners in local markets in the targeted areas.

The main project objectives can be seen below:

Objective 1: Increase household food security and incentive of IDPs to stay in host communities

Objective 2: Support the quick recovery of small businesses in the food market chain, contributing to local employment

Objective 3: Spur local production by increasing the purchasing power of beneficiaries, thus increasing demand for locally produced goods, and not disrupting market prices for locally produced food items

In order to meet the project objectives, Mercy Corps distributed vouchers, redeemable from local stores, for US$50 worth of grain, cooking oil and beans. Illustratively, this would allow a recipient to purchase 20 kg of rice, 4 kg of red beans and 1 gallon of oil every month. The quantity and value of vouchers was identical for all household units regardless of size and is based on Sphere standards for a family of five to purchase about 50 percent of monthly kilocalorie requirements.

The program also aimed to distribute vouchers once per month over a nine month period. Vouchers were to be disbursed weekly to households from various zones so that redemption is staggered to ensure that participating vendors are not overwhelmed. Recipient households were able to choose from among at least five participating vendors in their location, and a maximum of 25 merchants in larger, urban areas. This competition has ensured that affordable price points and quality levels have been maintained. Similarly, Mercy Corps sensitized the program with potential vendors through a series of open meetings in the three major population centers (Hinche, St. Marc and Mirebalais) and meetings in minor population centers along the Mirebalais and St. Marc corridor and the Mirebalais and Hinche corridor. Vendors were informed about the overall program, the role and responsibilities of the vendors, and Mercy Corp’s criteria for selecting participating vendors. Vendors were then asked to sign an MOU understanding they will be liable for all government obligations and to participate in Mercy Corps organized monitoring and evaluation (M&E) efforts. On a bi-weekly basis, merchants have redeemed the used vouchers with Unibank. This schedule has ensured that merchants have had adequate cash flow to maintain on-going, adequate inventory.

In lieu of using printed vouchers in the Lower Artibonite Department, Mercy Corps has launched the use of mobile money through a partnership with Mercy Corps Haiti’s Economic Recovery Program, Haitian telecommunication company, Voila, and the financial service provider, UNIBANK. Mercy Corps Haiti’s Economic Recovery Program has received funding from USAID’s Hi-Five program to provide technical support and develop programs, which experiment with the use of mobile money to bring financial services to the poor.

During the Kenbe-La beneficiary mobilization meetings, beneficiaries are explained the basic objectives of the program and then receive a Voila SIM card and telephone. Mercy Corps staff make an electronic transfer of credit on the Voila website to each of the beneficiary’s unique SIM number. The beneficiaries learn how to set up their secret code to their account and how to make financial transactions with Kenbe-La mobile money vendors through an electronic messaging of secret codes and purchase amounts. Once the credit has been transferred and the transaction has been confirmed via an electronic message, the food products are exchanged. The vendor then proceeds to UNIBANK to cash out the credit on his mobile money account. This has proven to be a very innovative and efficient approach to exchange of goods in the context of a humanitarian aid project. Mercy Corps provides phones and SIM cards to each beneficiary and vendor. This adds value to the overall service as well as to improve communication and monitoring. Mercy Corps’ approach aims to create minimal market disruptions while maximizing benefits at all levels of the value chain. FEWS NET and CNSA are monitoring market prices for staple commodities twice each week in major markets, including Hinche and Mirebelais in Central Plateau and St. Marc in Artibonite. Mercy Corps had requested that FEWSNET train its team regarding monitoring practices so Mercy Corps can monitor smaller markets in addition the major markets. This monitoring has provided an independent and early warning system should prices increase.

4) Existing Sources of Program Information

• Grant Agreement
• Baseline Survey Reports (Central Department and Artibonite)
• Quarterly donor reports
• Program organizational chart and position descriptions
• Program detailed implementation plan
• Program database including information on program beneficiaries, distributions/transactions monitoring, monthly household monitoring surveys, vendor’s surveys, complaints registries, etc.
• Program support folders that include forms used, documentation systems, and procedures
• Host Families and Shelter Working Group protocols and other relevant documents
• Market price data from FEWS NET (Famine Early Warning Systems Network, CNSA (National Coordination of Food Security), and data collected on smaller markets by Mercy Corps Haiti.

5) Evaluation Questions

i) To what degree were the program objectives and indicators as identified in the proposal met?

• How successful was the program in meeting its Strategic Objectives? What achievements were made toward meeting indicator targets, as compared to the baseline?
• What are the strengths and weaknesses of the program design and implementation, i.e. measured results and perceived outcomes vs the aims and targets of the Kenbe-La Program?

ii) Was the implementation in terms of approach chosen and resources available and used (targeting criteria; cash transfer value; vendor selection; delivery mechanisms; monitoring system) efficient and appropriate of the response? Was the mobile money modality more efficient than voucher systems?

• What were the advantages/disadvantages to the food voucher/mobile money approach chosen? Given local context - was the voucher/mobile money approach an appropriate modality for this intervention?
• What is the experience of the beneficiaries, including their preferences on modes of assistance delivery, i.e. did they prefer cash transfers via Mobile Money or vouchers, would they prefer to receive in kind?
• Was the time synchronization and coordination of the Kenbe-La program with other Mercy Corps interventions (CfW/Cash transfers, Market Fairs, Cholera Prevention) in the area appropriate to ensure highest possible impact?

iii) What has been the impact of using cash transfers on the food security of the displaced and host families in the Center and Artibonite Departments, Haiti? Have the food rations impacted displaced beneficiaries’ decision to stay in the project locations?

• Are families consuming, more, less or the same amount (and/or more nutritious mix) of food as prior to the earthquake?
• During the time of the program, have families obtained means to ensure their longer-term food security?

iv) What are the secondary market effects of using cash-based voucher/mobile money programming as a recovery modality, with specific reference to market and multiplier effects? Who are the main beneficiaries of these secondary impacts and what are the potentially positive and negative impacts are on the market of such an intervention?

• Are there any quantifiable secondary economic impacts that may be clearly attributed to the program? Have the markets been able to adequately respond to this rapid influx of cash?
• How have prices changed in general in local markets? Were prices influenced by the program’s restrictions (i.e. vendors’ knowledge that beneficiaries have one month to redeem their vouchers)?

v) What are the secondary effects of using cash based voucher and mobile money systems as a recovery modality on the community and in terms of choice and dignity of the beneficiary?

• Were there any negative impacts on the communities due to the voucher systems or other reasons attributed to the program (i.e beneficiary selection, ownership over purchased goods, targeting host versus residents families etc)
• Are there additional direct or indirect benefits from cash based voucher projects that are not currently being captured?
• Which improvements should be included for subsequent operations?

6) Evaluation Methods

This is an evaluation that will be led and facilitated by an external evaluation consultant. The consultant should define an appropriate methodology and analysis method to address the evaluation questions that may use the following tools:

• Facilitated workshop with key program staff to reflect on program implementation, challenges and successes;
• Field visits to the implementation areas;
• Interviews with key program stakeholders, including program technical advisors, private sector actors, community leaders, government officials and beneficiaries;
• Focus group discussions and interviews with field staff, sample beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries and with other stakeholders including private sector actors;
• Observations;
• Quantitative questionnaires for beneficiaries, non-beneficiaries and other stakeholders to serve as an End-Line Survey for which to compare to baseline results;
• Documentation review e.g. progress, monitoring reports, existing data and review of Mercy Corps’ relevant systems.

Data will be entered into a database for analysis by the Consultant and Haiti evaluation team members. Preliminary findings will be presented for discussion with the program leadership and other interested staff and stakeholders of Mercy Corps’ Haiti operations prior to the departure of the evaluator from Haiti to ensure the team feels ownership over the findings and can provide feedback. Resulting recommendations will be included in the evaluation report.

7) Team Composition and Participation

Mercy Corps is looking for an External Consultant with the following qualifications:

• At least a master’s degree in planning, monitoring and evaluation, economics or social sciences
• At least 8 years of documented experience in evaluation of emergency programs, including food security, cash transfer programs and/or market-based programming
• Knowledge of cash transfer and food security programs in post emergency
• Knowledge of cost benefits analysis for cash transfer programs
• Extensive experience in working with governments, USAID, local authorities, beneficiaries
• Demonstrated analytical, writing and computer skills
• Excellent knowledge of English and French and/or Haitian Creole

The evaluation team will consist of an External Consultant (Lead Evaluator with expertise in cash transfer programs, monitoring and evaluation systems and methodologies), 2) Danielle de Knocke van der Meulen (Mercy Corps Haiti Deputy Country Director), & 3) Martina Bennett (Mercy Corps Haiti Design, Monitoring & Evaluation Specialist). The evaluation team will also include 11 field staff members, and a translator.

8) Procedures: Schedule and Logistics

Deadline	Activity	Stakeholder
8/22/11 -8/30/11	Develop methodology and necessary data collection tools (i.e. survey and interview questionnaires; focus group, observation and/or informal interview protocols, etc.) and translate	Consultant, Martina, M&E Intern
8/22/11 – 8/30/11	Review core project/program documents	Consultant
8/31/11	Develop data encoding tools and analysis plan	Consultant
9/1/11	External Evaluator arrives in Haiti	Consultant
9/2/11	Facilitate orientation / meeting with organization’s field office leadership and key staff: clarify expectations and desired outcomes, review and confirm activity and logistics plan, etc. Retooling of methodology and data collection tools if necessary.	Consultant
9/3/11	Train Enumerators/Surveyors on data collection instruments (Endline Survey)	Consultant, Evaluation team
9/5/11 – 9/17/11	Implement Endline Survey (Enumerators continue with surveys for 12 days, led by M&E Officers)	Consultant, Evaluation team
9/5/11 – 9/17/11	Consultant spends 4 days in Mirebalais, 4 days in Hinche, and 4 days in Saint Marc doing focus groups and key informant interviews	Consultant
9/18/11 – 9/22/11	Consultant spends 3 days in Port-au-Prince conducting key informant interviews with other NGOs and MC staff	Consultant
9/23/11 – 9/28/11	Data Analysis and Preparation of Initial Findings	Consultant
9/29/11	Conduct debrief meeting with MC Staff, stakeholders/ partners to review preliminary evaluation findings and review first draft of evaluation report.	Consultant, Country Staff
9/30/11	External Evaluator departs Haiti	Consultant
10/01/11 – 10/15/11	Prepare draft evaluation report outlining evaluation process, program achievements, constraints, lessons learned, recommendations, next steps/ action plan and submit for comments	Consultant
10/31/11	Final Report due	Consultant

9) Reporting and Dissemination Requirements

The final evaluation report will not exceed 35 pages, including annexes. Copies of the report will be provided to the in-country management team (Danielle, Viorica and Martina), the headquarters program support team (Amy Hause), the headquarters DME support staff (Gretchen Shanks), the Economic Growth and Market Development Technical Unit (Diane Johnson), the Food and Nutrition Technical Support Unit (Penny Anderson), USAID/FFP, and the digital library/Clearspace. The summary will be translated locally for program staff and a summary will be prepared for other program stakeholders.

The final evaluation report shall be structured in accordance with the following guidelines:

• Cover Page w/ photo
• List of Acronyms
• Table of Contents which identifies page numbers for the major content areas of the report.
• Executive Summary (2 to 3 pages) should be a clear and concise stand-alone document that gives readers the essential contents of the evaluation report, previewing the main points in order to enable readers to build a mental framework for organizing and understanding the detailed information within the report. In addition, the Executive Summary helps readers determine the key results and recommendations. Thus, the Executive Summary should include: major lessons learned; maximum of two paragraphs describing the program, summary of targets and intended outcomes; areas of meaningful under or over achievement; and possibly a few lines describing the action plan developed to follow up on evaluation recommendations and how the evaluation report will be disseminated.
• Methodology: sampling method including strengths and weaknesses of method used, inclusion of stakeholders and staff, rough schedule of activities, description of any statistical analysis undertaken, including justification and software package used. The discussion of any random sampling used should include details on how the random respondents were identified and invited to participate. This section should also address constraints and limitations of the evaluation process and rigor. The methodology section should also include a detailed description of data collection techniques used throughout the evaluation.
• Results: Think about how best to organize this based on the evaluation questions. In some cases, it is helpful to organize the report against project objective, but in other cases it my make more sense to organize the report against evaluation questions.
• Synthesis, Recommendations and Lessons Learned: This is space for the evaluation team to think about the data and results, and make concrete recommendations for current or future project improvements/changes, pull out organization lessons learned, and generally comment on data and results. Everything presented in this section must be directly linked back to the information presented in the Results section of the report. Ideally, items discussed here will not be completely new to the reader, but rather will refer to previous discussions. Recommendations that are not directly tied to Results can be included in an Evaluator Comments section for the report.
• Annexes: data collection instruments in English and translation; list of stakeholder group with number and type of interactions; SOW, qualitative protocols developed and used, any data sets can be provided in electronic format, any required photos, participant profiles or other special documentation needed.

10) Follow Up

As laid out in the schedule in Section 8 of this SOW, Danielle, Amy and Martina will lead the program staff in the development of an action plan based on the findings and recommendations of the evaluation. Program staff participating in the evaluation will be responsible for presenting key findings and recommendations to the larger Mercy Corps staff and for summarizing results for informants and other stakeholders. Copies of all instruments and data used and gathered during this evaluation will be provided to Martina Bennett for use and dissemination among the Haiti team and to Gretchen Shanks for use and dissemination at headquarters.

accessed 04 May 2010.

[2] ACTED, Diagnostic des Besoins des Populations D’accueil et Deplacées Du Bas Artibonite, April 2010.