Job Opportunity at Lutheran World Relief, Terms Of Reference For Mid Term Project Evaluation

Lutheran World Relief

 TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR MID-TERM PROJECT EVALUATION

PROJECT : PARETO NI PESA 

LOCATION : IRINGA REGION, TANZANIA

DATE: MAY—JULY 2021

I. Background and Context

Since 1945, Lutheran World Relief (LWR) has worked with vulnerable communities to end poverty, injustice and human suffering. LWR supports agriculture, climate change, and emergency response programming in 28 countries each year. LWR works in Tanzania with an emphasis on capacity strengthening of farmer organizations and long-term food security. Lutheran World Relief is implementing a project entitled “Pareto ni Pesa” (“Pyrethrum for money”) from January 2020 to September 2022. The project aims to strengthen market linkages and business relationships between smallholder pyrethrum farmers in the Iringa Region (Kilolo, Mufindi and Iringa Rural Districts). The project works across the value chain, focusing on crop production and post-harvest processing at the producer level and selling/buying at the processor level. The overall goal of the project is to improve livelihoods for smallholder farmers through increased incomes from pyrethrum activities. This objective will be achieved through the following two outcomes:

Outcome 1: Men and women pyrethrum farmers improve productivity and quality of pyrethrum through strong business partnership with private sector partner Pyrethrum Company of Tanzania (PCT).

Output 1.1: Targeted farmers collaborate in solidarity groups.

Output 1.2: Targeted farmers use best pyrethrum production and harvesting practices. 

Output 1.3: Targeted farmers access labor-saving and cost saving technology.

Output 1.4: Targeted farmers apply proper methods of drying pyrethrum flowers.

Output 1.5: Targeted farmers access high quality seeds.

Output 1.6: Targeted youth gain expertise in pyrethrum value chain.

Outcome 2: Targeted men and women pyrethrum farmers increase their income earned through partnership with PCT.

Output 2.1: Targeted farmers collectively market high quality flowers in batches traceable to small groups.

Output 2.2: Targeted farmers receive payments (mobile money) that reflect the pyrethrin content of their flowers' quality within the bulked sale. 

Outcome 3: Targeted farmer organizations provide sustainable services that benefit its members.

Output 3.1: Stronger farmer organizations.

LWR seeks to engage a firm knowledgeable and experienced in agriculture systems with an understanding of measuring agriculture programs to conduct a midterm evaluation for the Pareto ni Pesa project focused on its relevance, effectiveness, and efficiency. The evaluation will be completed from May through June 2021. 

II. Objective

The project has been implemented for three years (2020-2021). The purpose for this midterm evaluation is to assess the performance of the project to date and capture project achievements, challenges, best practices, as well as areas of improvement. The results of the evaluation will be used to inform the final year of the project as well as similar programming. NOTE: Midterm data for each indicator will be measured in the same manner as the baseline data collection. The objectives of the evaluation are: 

• To measure project data to determine to what extent targets are being reached. 
• To review the project against established evaluation criteria. 
• Provide recommendation on the area for improvement.

III. EVALUATION SCOPE 

The mid-term evaluation will address the following criteria and answer the associated questions. Disaggregation by appropriate comparison groups of data and analysis will be required, including but not limited to sex.

Buying Agents relevance/appropriateness 

How useful were Field Assistant and Buying Agents in delivering extension services throughout the farming life cycle (Pre-cultivation, crop cultivation & harvesting and post-harvest) and collective action to targeted farmers?

How effective was eProd in data collection and sharing of information? 

Is the continued use of Buying Agents in the implementation of the project recommended?

What is the recommended management structure for Buying Agents within a project?

Project Effectiveness 

• 
  
• To what extent is the project achieving the intended outcomes and outputs? NOTE: Mid-term evaluation data for each indicator will be measured in the same manner as the baseline data collection. Included should be the estimate of the total number of direct and indirect beneficiaries reached to date.
• To what extent have the project activities contributed to the overall goal?
• To what extent did the project increase productivity of pyrethrum in the targeted farmers?  
• To what extent is the Association able to generate income from collective action activities? How did they use that income?
• To what extent do targeted farmers value agricultural services that were provided, specifically extension services, and material and financial inputs? 
• What opportunities for collaboration have been utilized and how have these contributed to project effectiveness?
• Are project participants sufficiently involved in project implementation? 
• Do project participants have feedback for project implementers? 
• How did external constraints impact project effectiveness and how well did the project mitigate these? 
• Were synergies with other actors (local and international) involved in similar projects capitalised on? 
• How has the relationship been between the partners and local government authorities?
• What are recommended courses of action to take to improve project effectiveness in its final year?

Management Effectiveness

• To what extent has the project increased performance of targeted AMCOs?  
• How effective are the sustainable services provided by AMCOS to its members?
• How does AMCOS use strategic documents to mobilize resources?
• How does AMCOS used ICT data for decision making?
• Which of the interventions, approaches, and modalities/strategies have been most effective according to LWR and Ministry of Agriculture?
• Is there any substantial evidence on how project learnings were generated and applied to improve the delivery or effectiveness or efficiency of activities? 
• How did the different actors learn from these experiences?  
• What are the key lessons learned per objective? To what extent has the delivery of response activities contributed to effective, efficient, relevant and timely delivery of aid and enhanced impact for the project participants?  

Impact/sustainability 

• What are the key impacts of the project for the targeted organization and farmers? 
• To what extent will the targeted farmers be able to maintain key project interventions in the final year of the project and beyond?
• What were the unanticipated impacts of the project (positive or negative)? 

IV. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The evaluator will review available project data sources and design a methodology to collect both quantitative and qualitative data. The mid-term evaluation will be measured in the same manner as the baseline data collection. The consultant will develop the mid-term evaluation report and data collection tools. The desired sample size, sampling methodology, and data collection tools will also be a critical component of the design. Creative use of data collection, participatory data analysis, and presentation of findings that maximize the usefulness of the evaluation will be very important. The evaluator will work closely with the LWR Senior Program Manager to finalize the methodology, data collection tools, and the work plan before field work. The evaluator will define the methodology, inclusive of multimedia and participatory tools; however the methodology will likely include: 

Document review: Desk review of all relevant project documentation including project proposal, quarterly reports, baseline survey, M&E reports, and Project Design Workbook

Review project data sources and methodology for collecting both quantitative and qualitative data

Key informant interviews (KII): Potential key informants including MATIs, Ministry of Agriculture, National Council for Technical Education (NACTE) and LWR’s Senior Program Manager

Consultation with beneficiaries (surveys, focus group discussions, observation as appropriate)

V. EVALUATION DELIVERABLES

• All deliverables must be in English.
• Inception report/evaluation plan (using the following outline) 
• Evaluation objectives and matrix
• Evaluation methodology
• Limitations to the evaluation/study
• Ethical considerations
• Timeline and roles and responsibilities

Annex 1: Terms of Reference

Annex 2: Data collection instruments

Evaluation report (using the following outline; maximum 25 pages, excluding annexes) 

Executive summary 

Purpose of the evaluation 

• Sampling methodology (updated from the inception report to reflect any changes made during the study) 
• Findings and analysis (as defined in inception report) 

Conclusions

• Annexes, including (but not exclusively):
• Evaluation terms of reference
• Schedule of evaluation activities
• List of people and groups consulted
• Data collection tools
• Tabulated data

VI. IMPLEMENTATION ARRANGEMENTSARRANGEMENTS 

The duration of the consultancy will be from May through June 2021. LWR will orient the lead consultant on the scope of the work. The consultant will outline the methodology and develop tools for data collection and submit to LWR for approval. LWR will assign a person to accompany the consultants for field work. The assigned person will assist the consultants in making contact with key informants and arrange for meetings. The consultant will provide his/her own working space, associated resources and equipment. 

The main contact in planning and finalizing midterm evaluation methodology, data collection, analysis/interpretation and finalizing main deliverables will be LWR Tanzania's Senior Program Manager.

The timeline for the completion of the evaluation is very firm. Delays in submission of the deliverables that are not the fault of LWR will result in a reduction in the final payment to the consultant.




VII. EVALUATION TIMEFRAME

       May to June 2021

VIII. EVALUATOR QUALIFICATIONS AND APPLICATION PROCEDURES 

Qualification of the Consultant

The required qualifications of consultant(s)

• Graduate(s) or equivalent in fields of agronomy, agriculture economy, natural resource management, sociology, or organizational development. 
• At least ten years’ experience working with grassroots organizations related to rural agricultural development, with at least five years specifically on monitoring and evaluation.
• Demonstrated experience in social science research, including leading at least 3 high quality mid-term evaluations similar to this assignment.
• Excellent English writing skills and fluent in Swahili.
• Legally entitled to work in Tanzania.
• Interested consultants should include the following components in their application:
• Expression of interest (up to 3 pages) – outlining the summary of relevant previous experience, the approach in undertaking the evaluation and daily consultancy fee (inclusive of all office supplies, equipment, etc. and exclusive of reimbursable field travel expenses as listed above).
• Latest curriculum vitae (of consultant and any supporting team members)
• Two-page writing sample
• Contact information of three references for whom similar services were offered. 

Application procedure

Complete applications containing elements a) through d) should be submitted as attachments to an email to: tzprocurement@imaworldhealth.org CC: tzrecruitment@imaworldhealth.org 

The subject line should read: Mid-term evaluation. 

Deadline for the submission of bids is on Thursday May 25th 2021 by 5pm Tanzania time

Applicants who do not follow application instructions will be rejected. ONLY short listed candidates will be contacted for interview.