midterm evaluation of unicef program

Document Sample
midterm evaluation of unicef program Powered By Docstoc
					                Early Recovery Scaling-up of Rural Sanitation
                     in Flood-affected Districts (RuSFAD)



                         Mid Term Evaluation of Phase III


   1. About the Program:

UNICEF Pakistan and Plan International through its partner organizations launched a large
scale Rural Sanitation Programme in Flood Affected and high Polio risk Districts (RusFAD) to
mitigate the grave needs of people related to sanitation. The program has already completed
Phase I and II and now reached in the middle of Phase III. The primary objective of the
proposed program (Phase III) is to reach out 3.5 million people in seventeen flood affected
districts of Punjab, Sindh, Khyber Pakhtoonkhwa and Balochistan provinces and protect their
health from water, sanitation and hygiene related diseases and Polio eradication. The program
is specifically aiming at:

      Ensuring 100% safe management of excreta, attaining and sustaining the open
       defecation free status
      Promoting the use of safe, hygiene latrines and other sanitation facilities for men,
       women and children living in flood-affected areas
      Persuading improved hygiene behaviors and polio awareness through different means

Unicef singed a PCA with WaterAid in Pakistan (WAP) to monitor and evaluate the RuSFAD
program (both Phase II and III). WAP has developed a robust M&E and Knowledge
Management System for the program. With the support of 45 M&E professionals, on average
700 field monitoring visits are conducted by the M&E team every month. The field visit reports
are compiled on monthly basis and shared in a comprehensive report with Unicef, Plan and the
IPs.


   2. Purpose of the evaluation

The overall purpose of the mid-term evaluation is to assess the degree to which the programme
(Phase III) is achieving the objectives and results as outlined in the PCA. The evaluation will
particularly emphasize on evaluation criteria endorsed by UNICEF i.e. relevance, effectiveness,
efficiency, impact, and sustainably of the interventions and extract lessons/recommendations to
enhance the quality of remaining part of the programme.

Following are the major questions to be addressed in the evaluation:




                                               1
2.1. Relevance
     Are we doing right things? Have we selected right target locations in the Program?
     Are the objectives/results of the programme still valid?
     How effective and appropriate are the PATS and the tools adopted i.e. CLTS/SLTS
      in addressing the sanitation issues of the rural population?
     Is there any change needed in the programme design or implementation strategy so
      that the objectives/results of the programme could be achieved?

2.2. Effectiveness
     Are we doing things right?
     Are we ‘on the track’ in term of achieving the targets?
     What is the effectiveness of key interventions e.g. Triggering, Health and Hygiene
      Session, Demo Latrine, VSC, IEC material, Mass Media Campaign, CRP, Mason,
      Entrepreneurs, Sanitation Mart and Wetlands?
     Has this Program enhanced the capacity of the government line departments so far?
     Extent to which fixed point defection and latrine use has so far been promoted.
     How well does the program management, arrangements and coordination among
      Partners work?


2.3. Efficiency
     How far funding, staff, time and other resources contribute to or hinder the
      achievement of the results?
     How well does the financial, procurement and recruiting systems work?

2.4. Impact
     What is the level of change in Knowledge, Attitude and Practice related to health,
      hygiene and total sanitation?
     What is the level of change in prevalence of water-related diseases in the target
      areas?
     What is the Impact of ODF on socio-economic status of target communities?


2.5. Sustainability
     What are the prospects for the benefits of the Program being sustained after the
      interventions are over?
     What is the Sustainability status of ODF villages, Sanitation Marts, Entrepreneurs,
      Masons, Wetlands and household latrines etc. so far?
     How is the exit strategy defined, and how this will be managed at the end of Phase
      III?
     What is the role/level of engagement/ownership of government line departments in
      replication of the PATS model?
     What is the level capacity of government line departments to replicate the Program?



                                             2
2.6. Lessons learned
     Are there any significant changes in the implementation strategies? What are the
      reasons for these?
     How has the design of the RuSFAD Program been amended as a result of lessons
      learned during implementation?
     Any significant lessons which can’t be incorporated at this level but are important to
      be taken care of while designing similar program in future.


2.7. Recommendations:
Recommendations for improvements based on the evaluation findings will be extended. These
recommendations will be used by the stakeholders (UNICEF, Plan, WaterAid, Government and
IPs) to enhance the effectiveness of the programme and bring lasting changes related to total
sanitation in the target communities.


   3. Methodology:

The evaluation will be based on the following methodology:

   1. Desk review – reviewing existing M&E reports, SitReps, Progress reports and other
      Program reports.
   2. Meeting with relevant partners’ staff (WaterAid in Pakistan, Plan Pakistan, Unicef and
      IPs)
   3. Primary data collection from the target communities
   4. Collection of data on water-related diseases from health facilities in the targeted areas
      and generation of trends analysis of the diseases over the period of time.
   5. Observation in the field.


   6. Expected Deliverable:

The mid-term evaluation is expected to be completed within four weeks of its starting from the
10th of June 2011.
The Evaluator will produce present his/her draft findings to Unicef, WaterAid and Plan and
incorporate feedback in the draft report. The draft report will be shared back and then final
report will be produced consisting of the following:

   Final Report: The firm or individual(s) will produce/submit a report in hard and soft form (of
   no more than 30 pages plus annexes, in Microsoft Word). The report should include:
    Executive Summary
    Introduction/Background of the RuSFAD Program
    Evaluation methodology
    Findings from the evaluation in relation to the issues under serial number 2
    Summary of         recommendations/lessons (Specific,          simple and doable
      recommendations)

                                               3
   Annexes - Evaluation ToRs, Evaluation schedule, List of persons interviewed and sites
    visited, Documents consulted, Data collection tools and detailed analysis.

Presentation of evaluation findings and recommendations: The evaluator will present
the evaluation findings and the recommendation to a wider group of participants from
UNICEF, Plan, WAP, Government officials and IPs.


7. Role and Responsibilities:


   Evaluator(s):
       o Design methodology for the evaluation.
       o Design data collection instruments
       o Get feedback from WAP on the methodology and the instruments for the data
          collection
       o Lead data collection process (Primary and secondary data)
       o Arrange debriefing and share the initial findings
       o Produce final report and present the findings and recommendation to the wider
          group


8. Consultant(s) Expertise


   Post-graduate degree in Environment, Development Studies, and/or related field
   A solid and diversified experience in Water and Sanitation sector including
    experience in evaluation of WASH related Projects/programmes
   Proven experience of PATS and CLTS/SLTS
   Experience of assessing and analyzing water-related diseases data
   Experience in the use of participatory methodologies and developing gender
    sensitive evaluation methodologies;
   Working knowledge of Pakistan’s local languages will be prepared
   Excellent report writing skills
   Fully conversant with the principles and working methods of RuSFAD Program cycle
    management

9. Timeline

The evaluation will be completed within 20 days time from the inception of the
assignment.




                                          4

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:16
posted:7/23/2012
language:
pages:4