Quantcast
Channel: ReliefWeb - Jobs
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 48138

Kenya: Evaluation of Building capacities of the newly devolved county governments and stakeholders for preparedness, assessment (KIRA 3), and timely response

$
0
0
Organization: RedR UK
Country: Kenya
Closing date: 14 Aug 2015

RedR and the work we do

Every year, hundreds of millions of people around the world are affected by natural disasters and conflict. RedR is an international disaster relief NGO which saves lives by giving aid workers the vital skills they need to do their jobs to the highest possible standard. We train thousands of people each year in everything from providing emergency shelter to staying safe in the field, from project management after emergencies to essential water and sanitation skills and more. And we provide experienced, professional aid workers from our pool of 1700 Members to support emergency response and longer-term humanitarian programs worldwide.

Background

RedR established an office in Nairobi, Kenya in October 2011 and has since developed its market-leading humanitarian training program to cover security, humanitarian practice, technical training, management and co-ordination, training more than 1000 aid workers in less than a year. RedR is now looking to build and extend the marketing of its Kenya-based courses both in Kenya and across the East Africa region to key target audiences across the humanitarian sector.

Location: Nairobi, with visits to the field

Terms of Reference (ToR)

1. Introduction and background information:

Kenya is currently in the process of devolving government to county levels and disaster management is the responsibility of the county structures. Therefore the capacity to respond effectively and efficiently to reduce the impact of disasters on the population is paramount. While there is recognition of the increasing vulnerability to disaster in Kenya, there is a general lack of knowledge, capacity and legislation to enable and ensure concerted action in addressing these risks. Legislation in respect of drought management and DRM is in process and there is an established structure for drought management in the ASALs, however there remains significant gaps in capacity at county government and community levels.

Furthermore, since the 2013 elections, these weaknesses are compounded by increasing inter-clan or ethnic conflict, and the challenges of a devolved disaster management structure. Disasters have historically been managed from Nairobi but now the expectation is for counties to manage disasters within their own county, from mitigation activities such as risk identification and reduction, through to planning and preparedness, and response as well as recovery in the event of a disaster occurring.

This project was a buildup of the work started in 2012 through the Kenya Inter-agency Rapid Assessment (KIRA) project which sought to “*Support the establishment of KIRA and broad understanding of rapid needs assessment methodology in Kenya”*. In Kenya, the Real Time Evaluation of the 2011 Horn of Africa drought identified that the lack of a rapid assessment mechanism was a major hindrance when it comes to quality responses on the onset of a disaster. A multi-agency team that comprised of the Kenyan Government, RedR UK, Assessment Capacities Project, Kenya Red Cross, UNOCHA East Africa and UNICEF KCO established the partnership based KIRA mechanism capable of conducting a multi-agency, multi-sectoral assessment of humanitarian needs on the onset of a disaster. From 2012 to date, over 700 humanitarian partners have been trained in more than 10 disaster prone counties. As a result the light-weight needs assessment mechanism has been used in 17 emergencies including the South Sudan Crisis in 2014 in Kakuma Refugee camp

Building capacity of county disaster structures on Disaster Risk Management is a gap that was highlighted in the Nov 2013 Government of Kenya & Humanitarian strategy framework meeting. Other priorities included supporting contingency and preparedness planning processes at county and national level by building capacity of county disaster management structure, developing a minimum package on preparedness and response with Government of Kenya and national first line responders and a harmonized approach on training for preparedness and response. To date; three ASAL counties have undergone the DRM training that seeks to increase the knowledge and skills of county executives who are responsible for managing risks, preparedness and response to disasters at the county level.

2. Project Objectives and Expected Results

Overall objective of the Evaluation:

As the ‘**Building capacities of the newly devolved county governments and stakeholders for preparedness, assessment (KIRA 3), and timely response to disasters in ASAL's in Kenya** grant has ended, RedR UK Sub Saharan Africa in partnership with UNICEF, ACAPS, UNOCHA, KRCS, NDOC and NDMA wishes to undertake an external evaluation of the project – focusing on achievements, successes, lessons learnt and best practices.

These will be assessed against the OECD-DAC criteria that are most relevant to the purpose of this evaluation.

Counties targeted: KIRA: Isiolo, Samburu, Marsabit, Turkana, West Pokot, Baringo, Mombasa

DRM: Isiolo, Samburu, West Pokot

Specific tasks:

Review the project against DAC criteria of relevance, efficiency, effectives, appropriateness, impact and sustainability through:

· Desk review of existing project documentation

· Consultation with key stakeholders, from GoK, UN agencies, donors, RedR UK,I/NGO, KRCS, both nationally and sub-nationally

· Document good practices and generate evidence-based lessons learnt and recommendations to strengthen on-going efforts

3. EVALUATION INPUTS

Relevance1. Did the project meet the DRR needs in the counties we trained?

  1. Has KIRA integrated into the national mechanisms in place to lead KIRA assessments providing technical support to priority county emergencies?
  2. How have the DRM county trainings strengthened the skills and capacities of key county government and stakeholders to advocate for and implement disaster preparedness and risk reduction?
  3. How will the acquired knowledge, good practices identified and compiled be disseminated between all stakeholders in DRR programs and public awareness raised on disaster risks and DRR?
  4. Did the training provide an opportunity to understand the need for disaster risk reduction policies/laws and budgetary allocations for preventive measures rather than response?
  5. Has the training strengthened existing DRR Coordination mechanisms or structure in your counties? How has this been enhanced/achieved?
  6. Will the information of hazard risk profiling and classification guide in identification/mapping of county specific Hazard Risks, Capacities and Vulnerabilities?
  7. Were the trainings targeted to the relevant participants? Efficiency/effective To what extent have the expected outputs and outcomes been realized through the initiative?

Did the training empower staff to engage on decisions at county level on DRR issues?

Did the training strengthen existing DRR platforms where there were nonexistent? Or contribute to the creation of some platforms?

Did the staff in the trained counties have the necessary skilled agency staff that was equipped and able to respond? Has the initiative delivered to the timeline?

Did the project factor in issues of program management including decision making processes in an inter-agency team and the effect on the program results?

What is the relationship between the quality of the trainings, and timeliness of program inputs? In addition, determine the timeliness of the outputs generated and whether the resources were spent efficiently

What have been the challenges, lessons learnt and best practices in implementing the DRM and KIRA initiative?

How was information on KIRA and DRM initiative shared with partners? Did the partners receive timely information on the KIRA and DRM on a regular basis?

Based on the activations of the KIRA mechanism to date, what are the recommendations for improvements within the mechanism?

Has the KIRA initiative improved the prioritization of the differential needs of men, women and other vulnerable groups?

Does the initiative improve accountability to communities? Impact What conclusions can be drawn in relation to the extent the initiative contributes to early decision making and information sharing during the first two weeks after a crisis?

How significantly has the project contributed to building support for greater DRM engagement at the county level?

What is the evidence of the project regarding national, county and sub-county engagement and ownership of the DRM Manual?

What is the scalability level of this intervention? Sustainability To what extent will the benefits of the initiative continue when donor funding may cease?

Are the co-hosts ready to sustain the initiative?

What are the major factors which can influence the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of this project?

What factors should be taken into consideration when planning the next phase of activities?

How can the beneficiaries of this intervention sustain the initiative?

The project was based upon the partnership between the UNICEF, REDR UK, ACAPS, KRCS, NDOC, NDMA, UNOCHA and other partners to support the establishment and of the KIRA mechanism and a standard DRM manual in Kenya.

4. Methodology

The following methodologies shall be used for the evaluation:

Evaluation Design

  • Both quantitative and qualitative methods may be used for the study,
  • The qualitative method will for example employ focus group discussions with target groups, employ interviewer administered structured questionnaires to stakeholders – government, NGO’s, INGO’s, CBO’s as well as in-depth interview of key informants and document review, both primary and secondary.
  • The consultant will use information both from primary and secondary sources which are directly related to the project.

Key Evaluation Questions
1.1. How far has the implementation and delivery of the project activities, especially the choice of target beneficiaries and organi zational modalities, facilitated the achievement of specific objectives?

1.2. To what extent has the project addressed the need for a coordinated rapid needs assessment mechanism and tool prior to commencement of project implementation?

1.3. What is the level of integration of the Information Management Platform to the co-host?

o How has digital data collection impacted on rapid assessment?

o What is the level of secondary information preparedness in the counties?

1.4. What is the level of sustainability for the project results?

1.5. What is the cost effectiveness of implementing capacity building events at the county level?

1.6. What are some of the lessons that have been learnt and best practices through the implementation of this project?

Study Area

The evaluation will be conducted in locations determined by the selected evaluator(s) in consultation with RedR UK.

Data collection and analysis

  • The evaluation should be participatory and focus on obtaining both qualitative and quantitative information.
  • Quantitative data obtained from RedR UK on key indicators to triangulate with baseline data.
  • Qualitative data obtained from FGDs, key informant interviews and structures questionnaires.
  • Project document review, individual interview of project implementing staff, government, UNICEF, KRCS, UNOCHA, NDMA, NDOC and other partners.

5. Responsibility of the consultant / deliverables

The Consultant is expected to undertake the following tasks:

  • Design and develop appropriate tools/mechanisms that will enable the analysis of the supplied information.
  • Analyze collected information and write up a report detailing findings using ECHO’S evaluation policy and templates.
  • Submit draft report for review
  • Present final report to RedR UK
  • Submit two copies of a final hardcopy report as well as soft copies in word and PDF formats
  • Preparation of a PowerPoint of the evaluation methodology and key findings, for further dissemination, and a delivery of that presentation to key project staff.

The evaluation process must be impartial, independent and must provide information that is credible and useful, enabling the incorporation of lessons learnt, and identify the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats to inform future decision-making process within KRCS, NDOC and donors.

6. Key outputs of the evaluation are

  • A report completed on 18th September 2015 reporting template (two final hardcopy report as well as soft copies in word and PDF formats);
  • A PowerPoint of the evaluation methodology and key findings;
  • Presentation of key findings to project team prior to drafting the evaluation report;
  • An evaluation report completed with recommendations

7. Required Qualification and Experience

The consultant should have the following qualifications and experience:

  • Relevant academic and professional background in humanitarian interventions in complex environments.
  • 8-10 years’ experience in disaster management with practical experience in conducting evaluations of humanitarian interventions in the ASAL regions of Kenya with preference given to significant DRR programming and needs assessment.
  • Technical research skills, including qualitative and quantitative approaches.
  • Fluency in both written and spoken English and Kiswahili.

How to apply:

All interested consultants are requested to write an expression of interest following the below EOI format ONLY by email to: hr.kenya@redr.org.ukby 14th Aug 2015 COB. Please include DRM Evaluation as the subject line.

The evaluation criteria are based on technical and financial responsiveness which also includes a valid license and tax registration.

The key technical evaluation criteria are:

  • Known reliability in delivery of timely and quality services
  • Relevant field/country experience
  • Relevant sector specific technical experience and qualifications
  • Relevant evaluation experience
  • Presentation and writing skills evident from the proposal
  • Demonstrated understanding of the work proposed in the TOR
  • Clarification of methodology
  • Cost/budget

9. Ownership of the deliverables

RedR UK shall have full ownership of the report, research, working papers and other results of the Consultant’s work under this assignment.

The Consultant shall not publish nor otherwise use any portion of the report without the written authorization of RedR UK.

The consultant shall waive any copyright to the work produced as a result of the contract.

10. Timeline

21 working days

In consultation with project staff, the consultant shall design the review work plan and develop the evaluation instruments including appropriate questionnaires.

The study is expected to apply participatory approaches along with quantitative and qualitative methodologies.

Format for the evaluation report:

The final report shall at least consist of the following sections:

a) Executive summary
b) Project description
c) Context of the evaluation
d) Evaluation methodology
e) Findings
f) Lessons learnt, best practices, and recommended actions for the review of primary users
g) Annex (es) as necessary

12. Logistics/Transport/Accommodation

RedR UK will facilitate meetings with stakeholders and support the consultant in conducting interviews and other activities.

RedR UK will also take care of the consultant’s accommodation while in the field.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 48138

Trending Articles


FLASHBACK WITH SIRASA FM AT GALGAMUWA 2022


Mp3 Download: Mdu - Mazola


Imitation gun was fired at motorist in Leicester road-rage incident


Ndebele names


MCKINNEY EMALINE “EMMA” OF WES...


Okra & Motia — The Workshop (Prod by Hammer)


Skint TV teen to be sentenced


Moondru Mudichu 19-09-2017 – Polimer tv Serial


YOSVANI JAMES Arrested by Miami-Dade County Corrections on Jan 10, 2017


Stories • Goddess Stepmom



<script src="https://jsc.adskeeper.com/r/s/rssing.com.1596347.js" async> </script>