CALL FOR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST
Independent progress Review (IPR) OF GL-DFID
PROGRAMME PARTNERSHIP ARRANGEMENT
Gender Links seeks the services of an experienced evaluator to undertake an Independent Progress Review (IPR) of its three year Programme Partnership Arrangement (IPR) with DFID, currently nearing its half way mark. GL's first year PPA report can be accessed at http://www.genderlinks.org.za/page/sponsors (DFID PPA).
TIMEFRAMES AND SUBMISSION INFORMATION
The consultancy will cover a 30-day period from mid-August to the end of September. A format for the Expression of Interest (EOI), due by COB Friday 6 July 2012, is attached at Annex A.Short listed candidates should be prepared to make a presentation on Friday 13 July. Please take note of the accompanying documents required. Please note that late applications and/or applications that do not make use of the attached format will not be considered. EOI, references, CV's and samples of at least two previous evaluations should be sent to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please direct all queriesto Vivian Bakainganga on this E Mail address or phone 27 (0) 11 622 2877. GL will only contact short listed candidates for interviews. GL reserves the right not to appoint anyone if suitable candidates are not identified.
Gender Links is a Southern African NGO founded in March 2001 with offices in Johannesburg, Mauritius (Francophone base) and Botswana (headquarters of the Southern African Development Community) as well as seven other countries. The vision of the organisation is a region in which women and men are able to participate equally in all aspects of public and private life in accordance with the provisions of the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development. GL has four programme areas: the SADC Protocol on Gender and Development; media; governance and justice.
DFID provides significant funding to civil society organisations (CSOs) annually in line with its overall strategy to alleviate poverty and promote peace, stability and good governance. The Programme Partnership Arrangements (PPA) and Global Poverty Action Fund (GPAF) are two of DFID's principal funding mechanisms and will provide £480 million to approximately 230 CSOs between 2011 and 2013. The current political climate and results-based agenda demand a rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of funds disbursed to ensure that they are managed to provide value for money.
One of the key tools in the performance assessments of each agency is the Independent Progress Review (IPR) which will be commissioned by the individual grantees.
Coffey International Development is the Evaluation Manager for the PPA and GPAF and is responsible for assessing the performance of individual grantees and of the funding mechanisms as a whole. The Evaluation Strategy, which accompanies this call, lays out the approach and methodology to the Evaluation and should be read in full in preparation for the IPR.
In terms of grantee performance, the Evaluation is concerned with:
the extent to which grantee organisations are performing against their objectives ;
the extent to which grantee organisations and achievements align with DFID's theories of change (annex 2 and 3);
the impact of DFID's funding in terms of the additional benefits realised because of funding and its attributable contribution to organisational effectiveness and the results set out in grantees' logframes. The impact assessment will consider the value for money organisations derive from DFID funding.
Grantees will be assessed according to standard criteria based on the OECD DAC criteria : relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and results. Further definition of these criteria is provided in appendix 8.1.1. The criteria should be used to structure the IPR.
The purpose of the IPR is threefold:
To assess the extent to which comments provided as part of the Annual Review Process(es) have been acted upon by grantees;
To verify, and supplement where necessary, grantees' reporting through the Annual Review Process, changing lives case study and for PPA holders only, the additionality report; and
To independently evaluate the impact that DFID funding has had on organisations and projects and to assess the value for money of the funding. The IPR should answer the questions
What has happened because of DFID funding that wouldn't have otherwise happened? and To what extent does the use of funding represent good value for money?
ANNUAL REVIEW PROCESS ACTIONS
The IPR will have an important role in assessing the extent to which comments provided during the Annual Review Process (ARP) have been acted upon by grantees. Grantees are accountable to DFID for their use of the grants. The ARP is the process by which DFID hold grantees to account and ensures that they are working towards their stated objectives. The feedback provided during the ARP is DFID's principle management tool, and as such, it is extremely important that this feedback be acted upon by grantees.The IPR will provide an independent assessment on the extent to which feedback has been acted upon.
VERIFICATION OF GRANTEES REPORTING
Grantees will be assessed by the Evaluation Manager according to the criteria defined in Annex B. The IPR will contribute to this assessment by:
Verifying grantee reporting related to the evaluation criteria; and
Providing an independent assessment of the organisation or project in relation to the evaluation criteria.
Some relevant assessment questions are detailed below – these questions are guidelines only. The Independent Evaluator should use their discretion in obtaining the information relevant to the assessment criteria.
Representativeness: Do the planned interventions and outcomes (as expressed in the LogFrame) reflect the needs of the target population?
Targeting: To what degree do the planned interventions and outcomes reach the poorest and most marginalised? To what degree do these interventions maximise the impact on the poor and marginalised? Is the balance between these two targeting principles appropriate to the situation? (Note: in cases where the organisation or programme is not working directly with beneficiaries an assessment should be made of the implicit or explicit results chain that link the outcomes to changes for the beneficiary population)
Do the planned interventions, outcomes and targeting continue to be relevant to the needs of the target population? Does the targeting strategy continue to be appropriate?
To what extent are grantees able to evidence their cost effectiveness and as such demonstrate an understanding of their costs, the factors that drive them, the linkages to their performance and an ability to achieve efficiency gains?
Distinctive offering: What is the distinctive offering of the organization and how does it complement or add value to DFID's portfolio? Examples here might include:
The organization has distinctive expertise in a particular area of work;
The organization provides support and advice in this area and/or builds the capacity of DFID and others;
The project or programme fills a gap in DFID's portfolio, complementing existing work in country programmes, or offering a channel to provide support where DFID has no presence;
Linking together different levels of operation; and
Networking and bringing together other actors.
Learning and innovation
How has organisational culture promoted or impeded learning and innovation?
Assess the extent to which the organization has learned from its work and has incorporated the lessons into improved performance. Examples and case studies should be provided. A distinction should be made between two types of learning. Firstly, learning that improves the organization's capacity (for example improved capacity to monitor and evaluate). This learning is essentially organizational development for the grantee. Assess the degree to which this learning has demonstrably improved programming, in the intervention from which it arose and beyond. Secondly, learning that provides contextual knowledge, for example learning about the situation of a target population. This learning is largely specific to a particular context and will have little generalizability. Assess the degree to which this learning has demonstrably improved programming, in the intervention from which it arose.
Assess the extent to which the organization has produced generalizable learning that has been incorporated into its own practice and shared with others. Assess the degree to which this learning has demonstrably improved programming. Describe the strategy for communicating the learning and assess the extent to which others took up the learning in changed policy and practice. Examples and case studies should be provided. This type of learning overlaps with innovation.
Innovation is a special type of learning. It is distinguished from learning in general by novelty. Assess the extent to which grantees develop, test, and achieve the adoption by others of new knowledge, such as in techniques, approaches, and design of interventions. Describe the organization's strategy for communicating the innovation and the extent to which it was taken up by others. If it has not yet been taken up by others, provide evidence indicating the potential for replication and scale-up. Two levels of innovation should be distinguished. Firstly, incremental innovation. This is innovation that applies or develops existing knowledge in new ways. For example, it might involve the application of an existing method to a new context, or it might involve elaboration and improvement of an existing method. Secondly, radical innovation. This is innovation that produces entirely new knowledge. For example, it might involve the development and testing of a new method for vulnerability mapping.
Monitoring and evaluation. Assess the organization's monitoring and evaluation capacity, and in particular its ability to measure results (focusing on the quality of reported results and lessons learned rather than an assessment of M&E systems themselves). Indicate with clear examples of the trajectory of change. Identify and assess any impact assessment studies and clarify what part they play in the organization's monitoring and evaluation system.
Assess the extent to which an intervention or its results are likely to be sustainable. This should include an examination of the outcome of the uptake of learning and innovation by others. It should also include the nature of partnerships built with civil society, governmental and international organisations and their impact on sustainability. Elements of sustainability might include leveraging funds for continuation, securing policy adoption of an intervention or approach, or building capacity of southern actors to deliver a service or to monitor service delivery.
Results – please see also note on Impact at Annex C
Performance against the LogFrame: To what extent is the organization achieving (or progressing towards) the intended outcomes?
Changes in lives. Assess the information about what changes these outcomes are making in people's lives and how many people are affected.
Changes in civil society. To what extent are citizens doing things for themselves (for example community organizations managing and delivering services)? To what extent is civil society enabled to hold government to account?
Assess what conditions led to success and failure – external, internal combination of interventions.
To what extent does DFID funding achieve additionality, i.e. enable CSOs to achieve things they would have otherwise not been able to achieve? Assessment of additionality will be covered during the impact assessment as described below.
The methods to be used in the IPR include:
Document review - this will include the assessment of the funding related documents:
Organisations applications for funding
DFID's business case for funding (PPA only)
Organisation's MOU with DFID for funding
Updated versions of organisational (PPA) logframes / project logframes (GPAF)
Organisations' annual review reports and comments provided by DFID
Changing Lives case studies submitted
Additionality reports (PPA only)
The review should also consider other relevant organisational documents such as:
Organisational mission statement and strategy
Organisational monitoring & evaluation strategy
Impact studies undertaken by the CSO
Financial information / information on resources spent
Statement of experience
Information on synergies / collaboration with DFID country programmes, other actors etc
Published material (e.g. to demonstrate sharing of learning with others)
Additional documents as required and appropriate (e.g. information to assess changes in lives / changes in civil society)
Interviews and workshops with key stakeholders:
Interviews and workshops with management teams to determine how funding is allocated and used
Interviews with staff at grantee organisation involved in strategic aspects / delivery of work
Interviews with partners looking at e.g. uptake of learning and innovation, partnerships built with civil society, governmental and international organizations, building capacity of southern actors etc
Additional interlocutors as appropriate
The consultant or consulting firm commissioned to carry out the IPR and the PPA/GPAF Manager are jointly responsible for choosing the methods that are the most appropriate for the purpose of this evaluation. The consultant or consulting firm is also required to present a detailed statement of evaluation methods including the description of data collection instruments and procedures, information sources and procedures for analysing the data.
For complete information, go to:
Governance/Anti-Corruption Expert, MCC Tunisia - *Background:* Social Impact (SI) is a Washington, DC-area international development management consulting firm. We provide a full range of innovative p...
17 hours ago