Terms of Reference
Evaluation of the Humanitarian Response in North Eastern Kenya
July 2011 to March 2012
The 2010/2011 drought was the worst experienced in the Horn of Africa since 1950.
Pastoralist areas in Somalia, Northern and Eastern Kenya, Southern and Eastern Ethiopia and
Djibouti experienced a reduction of more than 25 per cent below normal rainfall.
Consequently, harvests failed and livestock mortality soared, while food and water in affected
areas became extremely expensive. Food prices, especially maize, increased by 240 per cent
in Eastern Kenya, Eastern Ethiopia and Southern Somalia1. In May 2011, when estimated 3.75
million Kenyans were in need of food aid2, the Kenyan President, Mwai Kibaki, declared the
drought a national disaster. In July 2011, FEWS-Net characterized the food security of 3.23
million Kenyans, primarily in Turkana, Marsabit, Moyale, Wajir and Mandera districts Stressed
or in Crisis, while in Turkana and Mandera GAM rates of 37.4% and 32.6% 4respectively were
The drought, combined with the intensification of fighting between the Islamist Al Shabaab
and Transitional Federal Government in South/Central Somalia and the reduction in
assistance reaching affected Somalis led to the UN declaring famine conditions in parts of
South/Central Somalia and a mass exodus of Somalis into the Dadaab refugee camps. By
January 2012, the population in the camps around Dadaab had grown from approximately
280,000 to 463,000 people, of whom 259,745 (56.05%) are children. Although the Dadaab
camps had been a experiencing a steady trickle of refugees since they were opened in 1991,
in the June to August 2011 period, it was estimated that up to 1,000 people were arriving
daily. In July 2011, it was estimated that 41,334 new refugees had arrived, the highest
monthly rate in the camp’s 20-year history. The influx of such a large number of people over
a relatively short period time, many of whom had arrived malnourished and in poor physical
condition stretched the capacity of all agencies operational in the camps to effectively scale
up and deliver the necessary services and support.
The drought in Northern Kenya and refugee influx crisis triggered a scale up of humanitarian
action by the UN agencies, INGOs, local NGOs, the private sector, GoK and individuals. In
response to the drought, the Kenyan National Drought Management Authority (NDMA) was
established in November 2011, and it is anticipated will play a leading role in implementing
European Commission Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection: Horn of Africa Drought covering Kenya, Ethiopia,
Somalia and Djibouti
Government of Kenya (May 2011), ‘Government Declares Current Drought National Disaster’ 30th May 2011
FEWSNET, July 2011
As of 1 July, source: Kenya Nutrition Information Working Group, July Monthly update 2011
the Kenya Country Programme and Nairobi Strategy on Ending Drought Emergencies, which
was adopted at the Heads of State Summit on the Horn of Africa crisis in September 2011.
Historically, droughts in Kenya are followed by heavy rainfall and flooding and the situation in
October 2011 when the drought broke followed this pattern, with the October to December
2011 short rains bringing high rainfall in the coastal and north-eastern lowlands as well as the
central parts of the country, leading to flooding. As a result, more than 80,000 people in
Western Kenya, Nairobi, Mandera, Isiolo, Wajir and parts of the Coast were displaced, and
there were disease outbreaks, including Acute Watery Diarrhoea (AWD), cholera, malaria and
dengue fever. In the Dadaab camps alone, 364 cases of cholera were reported, while 10,000
people were affected by dengue fever in Mandera. Flooding also affected road access to
remote communities in Mandera and Wajir, making the transport of food assistance and staff
difficult, if not impossible in some areas. Food delivery and distributions to Dadaab were also
impeded as roads in Garissa and Hola, the key entry points, were completely cut-off.
In October 2011, agencies faced a further complication in the already complex operating
environment in Northeastern Kenya with the Government of Kenya’s decision to launch a
military operation against Al Shabaab militants in southern Somalia. In response, Al Shabaab
has launched a number of retaliatory attacks in the North Eastern Province, targeting
Kenyan’s living along the border and Somali refugees in Dadaab, as well as Government of
Kenya officials and humanitarian agencies. Since December 2011 alone, there have been
more than ten serious incidents involving grenades and improvised explosive devices (IED) in
the Dadaab camps, Garissa town, Wajir and Mandera, all of which have contributed to
reducing the humanitarian space available for NGOs to operate in. In addition to Al Shabaab
related insecurity in the Northeastern Province, there have been outbreaks of inter-
communal violence in Eastern Province, with 37 people reported dead and thousands
displaced in Moyale, near the Kenya-Ethiopia border, while in Isiolo, six herders were killed
and 1,700 people have been displaced. A key driver of this violence is cattle raiding, as
communities seek to re-build their herds by raiding neighbouring tribes, traveling as far afield
as the Ugandan, South Sudanese and Ethiopia and armed with modern automatic weapons.
The situation in northern Kenya is extremely complex, with increasing levels of insecurity, a
highly degraded natural resource and asset base, and a significant number of households who
have been left destitute by the drought. Recovery is not simply about replacing livestock but
more about ensuring that households that have ‘dropped out’ of pastoralism have the
support that they need to pursue other livelihood strategies. As a result, humanitarian
agencies will need to continue to provide immediate support to alleviate suffering, while
engaging in longer term programming that will build households’ resilience to drought. This
would include supporting households to diversify their livelihood options, thereby making
them less dependent on a single source of income, improve their access to and the quality of
basic services available, and stimulate sustainable economic development in Northern Kenya.
Save the Children in Kenya
There are currently four operational Save the Children members in Kenya: the UK, Canada,
Sweden and Finland implementing a range of food security, nutrition, health, child protection,
child rights governance and HIV/AIDS programmes either directly or in partnership with
Kenyan organziations. The current emergency response was a Save the Children International
response, managed by the UK office, who is the member with the largest operational reach in
in the country and whose ongoing operations are focused on Northeastern Kenya, including
the refugee camps in Dadaab.
Since Save the Children’s declared emergency response, which started in April 2011, a total of
740,703 people have been directly reached, which exceeds Save the Children targeted
beneficiary number of 700,000 beneficiaries. By sector, Save the Children has reached the
following beneficiaries since April 20115:
Child Protection: 40,052
NFI Distribution: 37,644
Blanket Supplementary Feeding: 121,558
A requirement of Save the Children International’s Rules & Principles for declared
emergencies is that an evaluation of humanitarian action is carried out. It is also a
requirement of the UK Disaster’s Emergencies Committee (DEC) that agencies carry out
evaluations for every third appeal. Save the Children’s current response in East Africa the
third appeal for the DEC and it is expected that this evaluation will meet both SC’s internal
policies regarding evaluating its emergency response, as well as the DEC’s requirement.
In preparing for the evaluation, SC wishes to contract an experienced consultant/firm to
undertake an evaluation as described in the following sections.
3. SCOPE AND FOCUS OF THE EVALUATION
3.1. Evaluation Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is measure of the effects of the post humanitarian emergency
intervention in Northern Kenya within the first 7 months, and to draw clear recommendations
for longer term programming.
Specifically, the evaluation will:
(i) measure the extent to which:
a. The projects within SC’s emergency response met their objectives,
b. The technical strength of the projects was ensured;
c. The response has been accountable to the needs of the affected population
(specifically looking at children and their care-givers),
and (ii) Recommend improvements for longer-term strategies, focusing on programme
quality, management, accountability to beneficiaries, and contribute to learning in a wider
sense within the agency/ies.
Save the Children SitRep, Kenya #35, March 19 , 2012
3.2 Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will be based on a set of key questions. These questions are intended to give a
more precise and accessible form to the evaluation criteria and to articulate the key issues,
thus optimising the focus and utility of the evaluation. The evaluation questions will be
further discussed and validated at the briefing phase and other questions may be added at
The evaluation will address, among other, the following questions:
1) Evaluation of overall response strategy: How adequately were the priorities set in terms of
sectors and geographical coverage? Did the operational strategy allow for the adjustment
of the priorities to reflect the evolving environment? Have relevant and appropriate
actions been developed in a timely way?
2) Targeting beneficiaries: How effectively were the response actions identified and did they
address the most urgent needs of the population? To what extent did the response
improve the situation for children in the targeted areas? How well did the response serve
the best interests of children? Was the right balance maintained between interventions in
urban and rural regions?
3) Implementation and Quality of the Aid: How timely and successful was SC in delivering
against planned objectives/indicators? Was the choice of partners been adequate? Were
implementers responsive, flexible and willing to participate in coordination structures?
4) External coordination: What was the role played by SC in the decision making process and
coordination of the humanitarian response with the local and international community?
Have the tools developed and distributed by SC (notes, situation reports, strategies,
frameworks etc) had the impact and influence intended? Taking into account SC’s role in
the international humanitarian community and the role of the national government, what
should be SC’s position in the remaining phases of the crisis?
5) SC internal coordination: What was the role played by SC in the decision making process
and coordination within the general response and with the Member States? To what
extent is SC assistance coordinated with and complementary to other SC programmes?
6) 2012-2015 Strategic planning: What would be the priority sectors and intervention
modalities? How can the coordination amongst the different pillars of SC response (Child
Protection, Nutrition, Health, HIV/AIDS, Education, Livelihoods) be improved?
7) Cross-cutting issues: How effectively have cross-cutting issues been addressed in SCs
response and more particularly accountability to beneficiaries (with a focus on children
and their best interest), DRR, protection, HIV/AIDS, disability and gender issues? Were
cross cutting issues effectively mainstreamed?
3.3. Evaluation Criteria
The standard OECD/DAC6 criteria (relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability and
impact, coverage, co-ordination, coherence and protection) will primarily be used for this
evaluation. Also, as SC is a signatory to the Sphere standards, the evaluation shall examine
our performance against these standards. SC performance is to be measured against the
DAC/ALNAP standard criteria and the SC HA Quality Standards in the table below:
DAC/ALNAP Criteria SC Quality Standards
i. Coherence (coordinated) International coordination mechanisms are established
The coordination/cooperation with partners (international
and local, intra- and inter-agency coordination) is
Coherence: taking into account the intra- strengthened
and inter-agency partnerships. The joint position on issues linked to the humanitarian
crisis is agreed among international/national partners
The response strategy (instruments chosen, mix of
bilateral and multilateral actions and means deployed) is
in line with international action
ii. Relevance/appropriateness The response strategy (instruments chosen, mix of
(targeted and rapid) bilateral and multilateral actions and means deployed) is
in line with local needs and priorities
Relevance/appropriateness: assessing The response strategy (instruments and means) has been
whether the decided and implemented timely
projects/programs/contributions are in The response strategy (instruments and means) has been
line with local needs and priorities, and targeted to those most in need of support
tailored accordingly. This issue is related The response strategy (instruments and means) address
to the tension between the need for cross-cutting issues such as gender, environment,
prepositioning/responsiveness and the HIV/AIDS and “Do-No Harm” strategy.
need to be context driven/culturally The response strategy (instruments and means) is in line
appropriate. with the context (geographic area, type of emergency and
historical, social, economic, political and cultural factors)
The response strategy (instruments and means) explicitly
identifies beneficiaries in number, type and allocation and
has realistic objectives
Changes in the context were monitored and the response
strategy (instruments and means) adjusted accordingly
The M&E and reporting systems ensure timely and
objective information with regard to the context, the
outputs and the overall performance
SDC ER policies, organisational structure, culture and M&E
systems favour change/willingness to innovate in
response to lessons learned
iii. Effectiveness of emergency Lives and suffering of persons of concern –refugees,
response (effective) displaced, homeless - are being saved and mitigated
Effectiveness: assessing the results Persons of concern – particularly children, children,
achieved considering the intra- and inter- women, older and disabled – are safe from acts of
agency violence, abuse and exploitation
coordination, and considering the Persons of concern have access to proper sanitation
tension between the prepositioning/ services
responsiveness and Persons of concern have sufficient and quality of food
the local needs and priorities. Persons of concern have access to primary curative and
preventive healthcare services as well as health
education, according to their age and physical conditions
Persons of concern have access to basic domestic and
Persons of concern have access to safe and drinkable
The contributions made (commodities distributed,
services provided) were of suitable quality
The M&E and reporting systems ensure timely and
objective information with regard to the context, the
outputs and the overall performance
Connectedness (modus operandi) The response strategy has led to strengthening the work
of national partners and local activity partners over the
Connectedness: ensuring that short-term longer term
Emergency Relief is carried out taking A strategy was outlined, and implemented, for turning
systemic, longer-term issues into from relief to reconstruction/rehabilitation and to
account. Assess how SC HA expertise development (LRRD)
shifts from one proceeding (modus
operandi) to another in changing
contexts and transition periods.
The evaluation will assess to what extent SC fulfills the quality standards7. The evaluation
findings for the response situation should be summarized along the following performance
Performance DAC/ALNAP Criteria Kenya HA Response
Performance i) Coherence (coordinated)
“Planned ii) Relevance/appropriatenes
Response” s (targeted and rapid)
Performance iii) Effectiveness of
Dimension: emergency response
iv) Connectedness (modus
The evaluation team will attribute a rating for each DAC/ALNAP criteria on the basis of the
quality standards and then calculate an overall crisis situations intervention quality rating.
Quality Ratings: HS = Highly Satisfactory; S = Satisfactory; U = Unsatisfactory; HU – Highly
When possible, the evaluation team will deliver the approximate number of the persons of concern reached by
Justification for overall ratings:
Summary of Strengths and supporting evidence Summary of Weaknesses and supporting
3.4. Evaluation methodology
The evaluation is to be undertaken as a mixed method approach, drawing as extensively as
possible on available quantitative8 and qualitative data combined with existing reviews and
other qualitative studies. Rigorous analysis of data should be employed to ensure that
findings are triangulated and adequate examination of causality is conducted, particularly
where SPHERE standards are being considered. This analysis should look into enablers and
barriers both internally and externally. Thus a literature review is essential for the initial,
which will include review of relevant literature and documented experience of SC and
relevant partners in the response of the Horn of Africa emergency situation. We expect that
the consultants will use multiple data collection methods and will validate their findings
through holding FGDs with beneficiaries, including children. In the evaluation proposal we will
expect to see a recommended sampling approach, and a sampling framework for quantitative
During the desk study the evaluation team will carry out a meta-analysis of all related surveys,
reviews, monitoring reports and available monitoring data (including output tracker), and
evaluations conducted during the response including but not limited to baseline assessments,
Real Time Evaluations (RTE), Operational Review among others. Care needs to be taken that
the methods and approach chosen effectively capture all the performance dimensions with
an emphasis on the DAC/ALNAP criteria9. All the weaknesses and strengths of the selected
methodologies need to be explained in the Inception Report and then in the final Report.
The context in which the SC implemented its activities strongly influences its performance and
local socio-political factors can support or hinder the achievement of results. Therefore, care
needs to be taken that the methods and approach chosen effectively capture all the
interrelations between the context and SC’s overall performance.
Moreover, as the linkages between the 3 Emergency Relief phases is an important issue for
achieving results in a crisis situation, the evaluation methodology needs to integrate relevant
methodologies and approaches, to address the linkages between the different phases, such as
the linkage between Immediate Response and Survival Assistance, and between Survival
Assistance and Early Recovery.
Save the Children has regularly collected quantitative data on the number of beneficiaries reached, as well as
amount of support distributed, including food, water, NFI and others.
Guidance for Evaluation Humanitarian Assistance in Complex Emergencies, DAC, OECD, 1999; Evaluating
humanitarian action using the OECD-DAC criteria, An ALNAP guide for humanitarian agencies, ALNAP, ODI,
London, March 2006
4. EVALUATION TEAM
4.1. Team composition
Save the Children expects that given the scope and the scale of the emergency response, this
evaluation may require a team of evaluators (this is an indicative number) with experience
both in the humanitarian field and its evaluation, and include at least one expert with direct
experience in Kenya and one expert with experience evaluating a large-scale humanitarian
response outside of the Horn of Africa. If possible, the team shall be gender balanced and
include at least one Kenyan national. These experts must agree to work in high-risk areas and
be willing to travel to project sites. Solid experience in evaluation’s technical sectors and the
geographic areas where the evaluation takes place is desired.
This composition can be translated as:
Team Leader with demonstrable prior experience of leading and conducting large
scale evaluation and research studies, developing synthesis reports and a good
understanding of the Humanitarian Sector and the Kenyan context.
National Consultant - A national with a clear understanding of the Kenyan
humanitarian, social and political context, partnership dynamics, capacity building,
Other team member(s) as to complete necessary skill sets in sectors (WASH, Health,
Child Protection, Shelter, Livelihoods), cross-cutting issues, etc.
4.2. Roles and Responsibilities
The consultants shall accomplish the following tasks as a basis for their reports:
carry out a (comparative) analysis of evaluation reports, related reports, reviews;
conduct interviews with officials, partners, other donors, beneficiaries;
undertake a field visits to Northeastern Kenya, security permitting;
assess the coordination mechanisms between SC and other actors;
identify and highlight obstacles and problems encountered by SC and other
stakeholders both during the implementation and the strategic aid coordination.
Develop data collection tools in consultation with SC and partner relevant staff
Design appropriate data analysis methods and implement those
Organise data as evidence and submit a data matrix to SC
Hold a briefing and review meeting on the initial findings, receive feedback from SC
and incorporate in the Draft 1.
Submit a Draft 1 report to SC for comments and feedback
Finalise the report and submit to SC.
SC MEAL Unit bears the responsibility for the management and the monitoring of the
evaluation, in consultation with relevant Technical Advisors in the Regional and London office.
SC MEAL Unit and in particular the SC MEAL Advisor should therefore always be kept
informed and consulted by the consultants and copied on all correspondence with other SC
The SC MEAL Advisor is the contact person for the consulting team and shall assist the team
during their mission in tasks such as providing documents and facilitating contacts. The travel
and accommodation arrangements, the organisation of meetings and facilitating the
obtainment of visas remain the sole responsibility of the consulting company.
SC MEAL Unit/Advisor will make available programme plans and other required
documentation as will and/shall be requested by the consultant. They will provide electronic
copies of assessments, RTEs, After Action Reviews and other relevant reports as available. SC
MEAL Advisor will be responsible to ensure that the draft reports are submitted to the
country and regional technical and HQ based relevant staff, as well as donors, for comments,
and comments are communicated to the consultant for integration.
The Consultant/s will be responsible for delivery of a report and executive summary and data
matrices giving key priority recommendations that SC should monitor and highlight areas for
further study or potential focus for another evaluation at a later date. The Consultant/s could
be called to facilitate some lessons learned with SC staff, other international and Kenyan
NGOs, Government of Kenya officials and beneficiaries.
The report must be confined to the specific objectives and questions of the TOR; however,
due to the need to focus on key recommendations, the report should not be more than 30
pages, including an executive summary with the main recommendations. These should be
based on evidence contained in the studies, prioritized and framed around specific sectors of
5. ACTIVITIES AND TIMEFRAME
The evaluation should take place in May 2012 for a period of 30 days with the report available
by the second week of June 2012.
ACTIVITY LOCATION/MEANS WHO START AND EXPECTED OUTPUT
Desk review UK/Nairobi Lead 7 - 10 May Familiarisation with
Evaluator programme, key staff
and external contacts
Training of (Takaba, Wajir, SC Staff, 14 - 17 May Children’s views inform
children/SC Dadaab, Mandera - Consultant evaluation findings
staff sites to be
confirmed by SC
Evaluation Nairobi – reading Evaluation 11 May Familiarisation with
team and one team Team, Lead (reading programme strategies
preparation meeting Evaluator and and achievements
Data SC field offices Evaluation 21 - 26 May Judgement on quality
collection (Takaba, Wajir, Team of SC emergency
Dadaab, Mandera) response as per TOR
Data analysis Nairobi Lead 28 - 30 May Evaluation Report
Evaluator and (all team)
Draft of 2 June
Draft of 2 June
Final internal 6 June
Final external 6 June
State the total budget of the evaluation. You can calculate your costs using the attached
spreadsheet as a template, making your own adjustments as needed.
farr\users\MGhorkhmazyan\MERI\Evaluations\SCUK guidance\Evaluation budgeting tempalte.xls
7. EXPECTED OUTPUTS
By the consultant/s:
Data matrices as evidence used for the evaluation
An Inception Report, max. 25 pages excluding appendices; a final Inception Report will
be produced after receiving comments from SC MEAL Advisor
A fit to print evaluation report in English containing findings, conclusions and
recommendations not exceeding 30 pages plus appendices and including an Executive
A summary (Abstract) according to DAC-Standards not exceeding 2 pages produced by
the evaluation team and edited by SC MEAL Unit.
An agreement at Completion Point including the response of the SC MEAL Unit and
the Senior Management Team
Management Response to the recommendations and, if essential, to the conclusions
of the evaluation.
Some lessons drawn by the SC MEAL Unit and the programme Emergencies staff
The dissemination of lessons learned (for example to ALNAP, DEC and other interested
The reports are an extremely important working tool for SC. The report is the primary output
of the consultants and once finalised the executive summary and/or the entire final report
will be placed in the public domain. The reports are to promote accountability and learning.
Its use is intended for SC, donors, operational and policy personnel, Humanitarian
beneficiaries, other humanitarian actors.
Following the approval of the final reports, SC MEAL Unit will proceed to the dissemination of
the results (conclusions and recommendations) of the evaluation and review. Therefore,
whenever applicable the consultants shall provide a dissemination plan.
The findings set out in the report are those of the author/s and will be made available on the
public domain once the draft has been validated and approved by SC. Any communication on
the findings will make it clear that the report reflects the opinions of the authors alone.
9. SPECIFICATION OF THE EVALUATOR/S
Key skills and abilities:
Selection will be made against the elements set out below and should be outlined in the
covering letter accompanying the application:
Previous experience in the evaluation of humanitarian programmes in complex
environments and the preparation of synthesis reports
A clear explication of his/her strategy to mitigate threats to data quality / integrity /
A sound understanding of the Kenyan context
A sound knowledge of the Humanitarian Accountability Partnership International
Benchmarks, IRCRC Code of Conduct and Humanitarian Principles, and Sphere
Clear written English
Previous experience of working in the region
Knowledge of Somali would be an advantage.
Interested parties should submit
Covering letter detailing how consultant meets the requirements set out above and
CVs for each member of the team (maximum of 3 pages)
Evaluation proposal including work plan and schedule
Three references with contact details of referees
Please note that proposals sent without the full set of documents and not submitted to all
three addresses below will not be considered further.
Email your CV, proposal and supporting documents by no later than April 30, 2012 to:
Further information: refer to the addresses above.