Trocaire End-of-Programme Evaluation of the Kenya Gender Based Violence (GBV) Prevention and Response Programme

TERMS OF REFERENCE (TOR)

End-of-Programme Evaluation of the Kenya Gender Based Violence (GBV) Prevention and Response Programme

PERIOD: Jan – Feb 2014 (Maximum 30 days)

Background Trócaire Kenya has been implementing a programme seeking to promote gender equality through Gender Based Violence prevention and response in Kenya since 2011. The programme brings together partners working to prevent and respond to GBV at different levels from the grassroots to national. It is informed by; • Findings of the previous programme phase of 2007-09 (PPD KEN06-03) • National Framework Towards Response and Prevention of GBV in Kenya December – 2009 • Government of Kenya, Strategic Plan 2008-2012, (Ministry of Gender, Children & Social Development) • Trócaire Gender Equality Policy and Strategy 2009-14 • Programme specific baseline of 2010 • Current phase 2011-2014 Programme Proposal Document (PPD)- KEN1001
• Mid-term review of 2012

The GBV Programme In line with the Trócaire Gender Equality Policy and Strategy 2009-14 and a programme specific baseline of 2010 this programme has been working via a programmatic and partnership approach. Six partner organisations and Trócaire have been working together with a goal of empowering communities, influencing policy and legislation and effecting positive change relating to gender-based violence and discrimination. The programme is adopting several strategies; • undertaking service delivery at the community level aimed at ensuring survivors of GBV have access to quality psychological, legal, medical and other support services including trauma counselling, treatment and compiling of evidence for prosecution of perpetrators in 22 health facilities;
• communities’ education and capacity strengthening to engage more fully in GBV prevention and response; • local and national advocacy work - demanding more effective government response measures, while implementing existing legislation and re- informing it via practice, and research

By February 2014, the programme aims to have reached 6000 girls and boys, 4000 service providers, 2000 traditional and religious leaders and 9000 survivors of GBV. Programme Long Term Outcome Women and girls live safer lives due to reduced prevalence of GBV and improved response services

Objectives of the Programme

a) To reduce acceptability and tolerance of all forms of GBV amongst targeted men, women, youth and leaders b) To improve the health and safety of GBV survivors due to a reduction in fear/stigma and greater access to justice c) To ensure women and girls have improved access to justice through strengthened implementation of GBV related laws and policies

Programme Outcomes from 2011 to 2012 a) Outcome 1: Women and girls benefit from reduced acceptability and tolerance of all forms of GBV amongst targeted men, women, youth and leaders b) Outcome 2: GBV survivors have improved health and safety due to a reduction in fear/stigma and greater access to justice c) Outcome 3: Women and girls have improved access to justice through strengthened implementation of GBV related laws and policies

After November 2012 midterm review these outcomes were reviewed/revised as follows a) Outcome 1: Women and girls are protected from GBV in targeted communities and schools b) Outcome 2: Survivors of violence have improved health and access to justice c) Outcome 3: Five partners have greater organisational capacity in M&E and grant and finance management to effectively implement programmes to reduce women's and girl’s vulnerability to GBV

Purpose of the Evaluation 

The end-of-programme evaluation is intended to assess the programme’s performance and achievements (outcome/impact) on GBV prevention and response over the period from March 2011- February 2014, illustrating change among select target groups to date, identifying best practices, deepening understanding of innovative approaches, and informing the programme design of the next phase 2014 – 2019. The value added role of Trócaire will also be assessed.

The evaluation will involve partners and an external consultant who will guide the process. The process shall provide an opportunity for partners to critically engage with each other in reviewing their work and learning from each other.

The end-of-programme evaluation report and findings will be used by Trócaire, partners and target groups in designing the next phase of the programme. The report will also be shared with relevant stakeholders especially women, men, boys and girls targeted by the programme, partner agencies, donors, CSOs and academic partners etc.

Scope and Focus of the Evaluation The end-of-programme evaluation will focus on the following key issues and guiding questions:

Has there been a tangible and direct change among women and girls, men and boys in terms of progress against the outcomes indicators :

Evaluation Questions
What difference has the project made to people’s lives (what, who, where, when)? • To what degree have project outcomes been achieved? Were there any unexpected outcomes? • Who has benefited (women, men, girls and boys) and in what ways? • Are those changes (outcomes) relevant to people’s needs? Are they likely to be sustainable in the long term? • Have there been changes to policies, practice and attitudes of decision and policy makers to benefit the project’s target groups? • To what extent has the project contributed to the achievement of broader national and international policies, conventions, targets etc in Kenya?

How has the project made this difference? Approaches used by the project and implementing organisations: • What have been the most effective methodologies and approaches the organisation used to bring about changes to people’s lives? What has worked and what has not? What lessons have been learned? Who have they been shared with? • In what ways, and how much? Women and girls (and their respective organisations) are substantively involved in delivering the programme and making decisions, rather than being beneficiaries. • The nature, scale and impact of partners networking, working in collaboration and forming linkages on a local, national and even international basis. • Have there been achievements on partners’ advocacy efforts for strengthened legislation and policy that addresses gender related discrimination? • Has the project been cost effective?

Approaches used by Comic Relief • How have Comic Relief’s grant making policies and processes (e.g. how Comic Relief define their programme strategies and outcomes, how comic relief assess applications) helped or hindered the delivery of lasting change?

Methodology and Approach It is expected that the end-of-programme evaluation will be participatory, use a combination of quantitative and qualitative approaches and that key target groups and stakeholders (including Comic Relief grants staff) will be meaningfully and fully involved in the evaluation. Among such techniques are: • Desk review of Kenya GBV programme documents • Field mission to consult partners, target groups and other stakeholders. Trócaire and partners will organize the visits and it is expected that the team will use an integrated quantitative and qualitative approach involving: questionnaires, direct observation, focus group discussions, key informant interviews and case studies so as to capture citizens’ voices as much as possible • Sampling: The consultant will identify the appropriate sampling techniques in consultation with Trócaire and partners. Gender disaggregation of the data will be incorporated in the sampling design

Areas of Coverage Through the partnership approach Trócaire works with 6 partners in selected areas of Kenya which should provide the samples for the review. These areas and target groups are as follows:

• Caritas Kenya (Diocese of Nakuru - Marigat parish and Ngong - Nairege Enkare parish). Caritas diocesan leadership, diocesan staffs, diocesan communities (men, women, boys girls)

• Coalition of Violence against Women -COVAW (Nakuru and Kisumu) Legal officers, paralegals, local community leaders, women and girls

• The Cradle (Larger Suba district) Girls and teachers in specific schools including safe horizon clubs, Paralegals, local leaders, provincial administrators, police, district level departments and officials (education, security, judicial, children, police)

• Girl Child Network – GCN (Imenti south district) Women groups, Girls in specific school and teachers, paralegals, police, women, village elders, local leadership and institutions both governmental and non-governmental

• Liverpool VCT care and treatment -LVCT (22 service delivery points including 3 Gender based violence recovery centres (GBVRC) centres at KNH, Nakuru and Nyeri. Selected sites and Service providers (police, CHW, government health workers and sites, psycho-socio-health counsellors, survivors of GBV, governmental institutions and departments

• Men for The Equality of Men and Women- MEW (Tigania and Maara Districts) Target Groups: Meru traditional structure, men & boys, women & girls, village elders, local leadership and institutions both governmental and non-governmental

Based on this categorisation, the key areas to provide review samples will be agreed from the following logistically: 1. Eastern – Meru and Embu counties 2. Nyanza – Kisumu, Homabay counties 3. Central – Kiambu and Nyeri counties 4. Rift Valley – Nakuru, Baringo and Narok counties 5. Nairobi - Nairobi county

Scope of Work 

The evaluation will assess all aspects of the work that has been delivered by the programme since 2011.

The consultant will be expected to undertake the following tasks: • Familiarize themselves with the GBV programme plans/framework etc • Participate in briefing and consultative meetings on the assignment
• Identify key sources of secondary information that can be used to supplement primary information gathered. Partners to provide available secondary data. • Determine with the partners the appropriate sample size, composition and locations where information will be collected. Sampling plan to be drafted by consultant and shared with the team for review and finalisation. • Develop the data collection tools in collaboration with Trócaire and the partners. • Train partners/Trócaire on the tools to be used in data collection • Conduct field work with all programme partners • Analyse the data • Draft the preliminary report for feedback from the wider evaluation group • Do the final analysis and report, setting out the key findings and recommendations.

Deliverables 

The following services and outputs are expected: • A detailed end-of-programme evaluation plan • Sampling plan • Detailed and comprehensive evaluation tools (quantitative and qualitative) to be used in data/ information collection. The tools should be discussed and agreed before utilization and thereafter be annexed to the report • Orientation/ training of partner staff participating in the evaluation • Debriefing session for management team • Comprehensive draft and final review reports, including data on the variables/indicators others identified by the consultancy • Soft copy of the data and data base of the primary data analyzed and used in the report

The Report 

The draft and final reports should be submitted in soft copy to Trócaire on an agreed date after completion of field work. The report should be clear and simply written, free of jargon.

The main body of the report should not exceed 30 pages and should include an executive summary and recommendations. Technical details should be confined to appendices, which should also include a list of informants and the evaluation team’s work schedule. Background information should only be included when it is directly relevant to the report’s analysis and conclusions.

The report’s authors should support their analysis of a project’s achievements with relevant data and state how this has been sourced. Recommendations should also include details as to how they might be implemented.

Logistics 

• Logistics: The consultant’s travel from base to the field and back after the end of the contract (including airport tax), food, and accommodation will be covered by Trócaire, being the lead agency • Professional fee: The team of consultant(s) will be paid depending on their qualification and agreed modalities with Trócaire • Tax and insurance: The consultants shall be responsible for their income tax and/or insurance during the assignment. Trócaire will deduct a 10% withholding tax from the consultant’s invoice and remit the tax to the Kenyan authorities.

A contract will be signed by the consultant (s) upon commencement of the review which will detail additional terms and conditions of service, aspects on inputs and deliverables.

Duration The end-of-programme evaluation is expected to be carried out within a period of 30 days spread between January - February 2014

Outline of the Proposal 

Prospective consultants are requested to submit technical and financial proposals using the following format: • Profile of the consultancy firm/consultant • Understanding and interpretation of the terms of reference • Approach and methodology • Work plan • Proposed budget in GBP or Kenya Shillings (exclusive of taxes) • Annexes - CVs of the key experts, copies of legal documents such as certificate of registration and PIN & VAT registration

Selection Criteria The evaluation will be carried out by an external consultant (s) and should demonstrate effectively the following core experience and competencies: • The external consultant(s) should have extensive experience in designing and leading on Gender Based Violence (GBV) related evaluations in the region especially in Kenya • Extensive knowledge and experience in applying participatory research techniques • Excellent command of English • Knowledge of partnership approaches • Evaluator(s) to submit an example (one) of evaluation completed when responding to the Terms of reference

Proposal Submission 

Kindly submit a proposal, personal CV, one relevant sample of previous work, work-plan and budget to pgichuki@trocaire.or.ke by 15th October 2013

Clarifications regarding this TOR can be obtained on request

Annex 1: 

Further Evaluation Questions What difference has the project made to people’s lives (what, who, where, when)? • Overall assessment of attitudes and behaviour change (where possible picking up longer-lasting change as opposed to short-term, post-training changes) • Number of women and girls benefitting from the implementation of new laws • What numbers of those that identified fear/stigma as a barrier approached any of the recognized forms of support • Changes in women’s economic empowerment as a result of training as a result of the provision of materials and training by GCN • Actual changes in the lives of women and girls affected by, or at the risk of, violence • Changes in the prevalence, support for and impact of types of gender-based violence • Differentiate between domestic or intimate partner violence and GBV carried out by those outside the home. • To what extent has the project contributed to the achievement of broader national and international policies, conventions, targets etc in Kenya? • To what extent has the achievement of the changes/ outcomes been influenced by external context and other factors?

How has the project made this difference? Approaches used by the project and implementing organisations: • What was the overall theory of change for this project? Has it been effective in bringing about lasting change? Were there any gaps? • How has the type of organisations funded (e.g. user-led, social enterprise, national or international NGO), both UK and local, helped or hindered the delivery of lasting change? • How have relationships between partners throughout the relationship chain (looking at UK organization-local partner(s)-target groups) helped or hindered the delivery of change /outcomes? • How effective have the project’s management, monitoring, learning and financial systems been? How have they helped or hindered the delivery of lasting change?

Approaches used by Comic Relief: • How has Comic Relief’s approach to grant management (e.g. individual work with grant holders, and learning activities with other funded organisations) helped or hindered the delivery of lasting change? • How has the way Comic Relief used its organisational assets helped or hindered the delivery of change (e.g. use of the media, access to decision makers)? • Are there any other ways in which Comic Relief has helped or hindered the delivery of change? Ends/

How to apply:

Kindly submit a proposal, personal CV, one relevant sample of previous work, work-plan and budget topgichuki@trocaire.or.ke by 15th October 2013