Hardship Level (not applicable for home-based)

B

Family

CONS International

2025-02-01

January 20, 2025

Requesting office:EHAGL Regional Bureau in Nairobi
Title of project: ENDLINE EVALUATION-UNHCR’s Strengthened Response to Non-Communicable Diseases (NCDs). 2022-2024: Tanzania and Burundi
Purpose of project: This consultancy will focus on conducting an endline evaluation of the project which is to assess, establish and document the overall impact, effectiveness, coherence, relevance, and sustainability of the project. The evaluation aims to provide understanding of the project outcomes and outputs as it reaches the end of its implementation period. The evaluation will also identify key learnings and recommendations to inform future programming and decision-making for similar interventions. This work will focus on between two country contexts in the East and Horn of Africa and Great Lakes region (Tanzania and Burundi). The consultant will lead in executing the endline evaluation of the NCD projects in both Tanzania and Burundi refugee camps and develop a report to be used by UNHCR and its partners including the donors.
Contract type: Individual Consultant
Proposed installment schedule:
20% on delivery of inception report (2 weeks after start of consultancy)
40% on delivery of draft endline report (8 weeks after start of consultancy)
40% on delivery of Final endline report (12 weeks after start of consultancy)
The consultancy is expected to last a total of 90 days over a maximum period of 3 calendar months.
Position Locations Tanzania/Burundi
Assignment home-based
Description of Assignment, Duties and Responsibilities of the Engaged Individual Contract Holder.
General Background of project or Assignment, Operational Context:
UNHCR aims to prevent NCD’s reduce morbidity and mortality from the most significant NCDs through improving the quality of care, ensuring the rational use of medicines, and strengthening the clinical and community-based management of NCDs amongst refugees. Despite underfunding, UNHCR has made progress in improving NCD care for people we serve through capacity building and advocacy.
In 2021, UNHCR designed and secured funding for a first-of-its-kind multi-country (Tanzania, Burundi, Sudan), multi-year (2022-2024) project with the ambitious goal to strengthen NCD prevention and control by supporting local NCD prevention and care services for up to one million people we serve and at least 500,000 host community members and by building the global capacity of UNHCR, Ministries of Health (MoH), and partners. The project is titled UNHCR’s Strengthened Response to Non- Communicable Diseases (NCDs). Integrated Health Services Across Settings of Acute and Protracted Humanitarian Crises in Eastern African Contexts, 2022-2024: Tanzania, Burundi, Sudan. (See Annex 1 – Logical Framework for the project targets and indicators).
Through the project, UNHCR aimed at supporting the provision of NCD prevention and care services (e.g., awareness-raising, medical consultations, NCD management support, provision of essential equipment and supplies, referrals, provision of food, and local health staff capacity building, training community health workers) in Tanzania, Burundi, and Sudan. These three countries are located within the EHAGL region. They represent diverse refugee contexts ranging from acute emergencies to protracted settings and camp or non-camp settings Data and lessons learned from the three countries will demonstrate the most effective approaches to preventing, diagnosing, and managing NCDs in various people we serve settings.
UNHCR fortified its global and institutional efforts to expand and sustain the integration of NCDs into health programming. Anchored within its Public Health Section in the Geneva HQ, UNHCR further developed and disseminated its successful “Global Capacity Building Project for NCDs”: since 2014 UNHCR has been working with an external partner focusing on capacity building of UNHCR and partner staff providing care for people we serve with NCDs. It leveraged and advanced activities and processes already in motion and resulted in a comprehensive global training package focused on primary health care-level NCD services in refugee settings. Institutionally, UNHCR ramped up its health information system and monitoring tools to improve the monitoring of NCD care via the Integrated Refugee Health Information System (iRHIS). The ability to collect, store, and analyze strategic health information will allow UNHCR to demonstrate the impact and critical need to address NCDs in refugee settings thus positively influencing the humanitarian response framework.
• Theory of Change
As an overall vision, the project aimed at contributing to improving the health and well-being of vulnerable refugees, IDPs, other persons of concern including returnees, and affected host populations, with reference to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3.4, in a number of refugee camps and host community settings across critical UNHCR country operations with large and unmet need for improved and expanded NCD care and prevention. The vision is anchored within the ideal transition towards “universal health coverage” with a focus on NCDs and is defined to support the attainment of SDG target 3.4, i.e., “to reduce by one third premature mortality from NCDs through prevention and treatment and promotion of mental health and well-being”. In concrete terms, the project vision is supported by interventions organized through two UNHCR workstreams.
• The first workstream is country-level oriented and relates to improving lives and on-the-ground conditions for the implementation of NCD services, direct provision of care, and substantial capacity building and health care delivery and improvement targets that recall the very operational nature and mandate of UNHCR. The overall and longer-term intended impact of this part of the project is a reduction in morbidity and mortality due to NCDs through improved access to quality preventative and curative care. The target for this project is that more than 95% of people in need have access to comprehensive preventative and curative NCD care.
• The second workstream is global and relates to further strengthening and integration of NCD care and prevention into existing UNHCR globally applicable guidance and systems, including health information systems and medicines and supplies management systems. This dimension concerns wider mobilization and prevention of NCD advocacy activities at different levels, whereby UNHCR would respond to the global call on all UN agencies to raise the profile and needs of NCD care in humanitarian settings, including refugee settings according to UNHCRs mandate.
• Endline Evaluation Rationale
The project undertook a baseline assessment to obtain data on NCD prevention, diagnosis and management in refugee settings. The baseline analyzed the systems in place for NCD care in Tanzania and Burundi and identified the key gaps in care. This endline evaluation will be used to measure the progress made by the project towards improving NCD prevention, diagnosis and management in refugee settings.
The endline evaluation will have multiple internal and external intended users and uses. UNHCR staff and partners will use the evaluation to refine project design, prioritize activities for the next implementation phase, and conduct project evaluations in the subsequent phases. UNHCR’s Public Health Section in Geneva will also use the evaluation results in its planned peer-reviewed article and conference paper on NCDs in refugee settings. UNHCR staff in all two countries, the regional bureau, and HQ will use the evaluation to advocate with
governments and other humanitarian actors. In addition, UNHCR will share the evaluation findings with the project’s funder, World Diabetes Foundation.
Stakeholders for interviews will include UNHCR HQ and regional Public Health Staff involved in the project and at country level: UNHCR Public Health and Programme management staff; Implementing partner/nongovernmental organization (NGO) management, public health and clinical staff, community health workforce, community members; MoH managers and clinical staff, as relevant. A detailed list of stakeholders will be provided for each country and HQ at the inception phase.
• Purpose
The main purpose of the evaluation is to assess, establish and document the overall impact, effectiveness, coherence, relevance, and sustainability of the project. It aims to provide understanding of the project outcomes and outputs as it reaches the end of its implementation period. The evaluation will also identify key learnings and recommendations to inform future programming and decision-making for similar interventions
• Scope
Indicative timing for the evaluation will be from February 2025 to April 2025, subject to contracting process and agreement on the detailed workplan.
The evaluation’s geographic scope covers Tanzania and Burundi for the activities outlined above in section 1.2 and the targeted areas and beneficiaries stated for each country including refugees and surrounding host community where relevant.
The programmatic scope of the evaluation refers primarily to country-level project interventions. The evaluation should also establish the progress made based on the country level interventions.
• Specific Objectives
The evaluation objectives are to:
i. Evaluate the project’s effectiveness, relevance, coherence, efficiency, sustainability, and impact with a primary focus on assessing the project’s expected results, objectives and overarching goal.
ii. Ensure accountability by evaluating whether resources invested have led to desired results.
iii. Compare end-line data with baseline data to understand the magnitude of change over time.
iv. Identify pivotal lessons and potential practices for organizational learning.
v. Assess challenges, and best practices and document outcomes of evidence best recommendations to inform future processes.
vi. Assess the presence of any overlaps during the implementation phase.
• Criteria and Key Evaluation Questions
The endline will employ the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria to assess relevance/ appropriateness of project; coherence; effectiveness; coverage; efficiency; impact; and sustainability.
ii. Were the project’s activities and objectives designed and implemented in a way that avoids future harm?
iii. To what extent did the community and stakeholders participate in the planning and implementation of project interventions?
iv. What tangible benefits or changes did the project bring to the target audience or community?
v. Did the project respond to the needs and priorities of the target groups?
vi. To what extent did people we work with (host and refugee girls, women, boys, and men) and partners participate?
vii. Is the selected target group relevant/significant? Have the right people been selected?
viii. Was the information relayed through the IEC materials relevant to the information needs of targeted beneficiaries? Which dissemination strategies were most appropriate for the targeted groups?
ix. How was capacity building on NCDs as well as mental health and psychosocial support tailored to meet the needs and capacities of the different service providers?
x. Were selection criteria and processes adequate in identifying health facilities for the interventions?
xi. How well did the project plan for and/or adapt strategies to address both anticipated and unexpected internal and external challenges and constraints? What lessons can be adapted for future similar interventions to improve project planning and management processes?
• Coherence
The evaluation will assess the compatibility of the project with other interventions. It will answer the following evaluation questions:
i. Did the project logic allow the achievement of the project’s objectives and results?
ii. How were the approaches used coherent?
iii. Did project activities overlap, and duplicate other similar interventions funded nationally and /or by other donors?
iv. Have diverse stakeholder perspectives been integrated coherently into the project design and implementation?
v. Is there consistency in how stakeholder feedback and input have been incorporated throughout the project lifecycle?
• Effectiveness
The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project achieved or is expected to achieve its objectives and its results including any differential results across groups or countries. It will answer the following evaluation questions:
i. To what extent did the project achieve its outputs, outcomes, and goals?
ii. What were the major factors enabling and/or hindering the achievement of the project’s desired outcomes? What internal and external factors affected (positively or negatively) the effectiveness of the project?
iii. To what extent were all relevant community members involved in and meaningfully participated in the project implementation?
iv. To what extent were health facilities and service providers able to use the skills they gained from capacity building initiatives? Did the capacity building initiatives help them deliver services more effectively and/or efficiently?
v. What lessons were learned during the project implementation, and how were they applied to improve effectiveness?
• Coverage
The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project reached the intended beneficiaries and the geographic areas targeted. It will answer the following evaluation questions:
i. Did the intervention cover all the geographic areas identified as priority areas for assistance?
ii. What portion of the intended beneficiary population was reached by the project?
iii. To what extent did the intervention cover the range of services or programs intended for the targeted population?
iv. What were the key challenges or barriers that affected the coverage of the intervention?
• Efficiency
The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project delivers or is likely to deliver results in an economic and timely way. It will answer the following evaluation questions:
i. What proportion of the project activities in the workplan have been delivered?
ii. Were the project funds spent in line with the action plan? Were the intervention activities implemented in a cost-effective manner? How were the resources allocated within the intervention?
iii. What was the relationship between the resources invested and the outcomes achieved?
iv. Were the intervention activities carried out in a timely manner, considering the urgency of the humanitarian situation?
v. How effectively were the operational processes managed, including procurement, logistics, and distribution aid?
vi. To what extent were innovative approaches or technology utilized to improve the efficiency of the intervention?
vii. How effectively did the actors collaborate and coordinate their efforts to avoid duplication and maximize efficiency?
viii. Were there any capacity gaps (possibly in the project team, other internal functions such as HR or Finance, or implementing partner organizations as appropriate)?
• Impact
The evaluation will assess the extent to which the project has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects. It will answer the following evaluation questions:
i. What are the positive and negative, intended, and unintended, changes produced by the project?
ii. What real difference has the intervention made to the people we work with?
iii. Did impact vary for different individuals (consider age, gender, diversity) in the target locations? If so, how and why? How well were the indicators and measurement methods able to discern changes in the protection situation for beneficiaries?
iv. Are the local communities and stakeholders healthier than before, and how did the project contribute to it?
v. How likely is it that any positive changes may be sustained in the short- and medium-term?
vi. What unplanned negative impacts did the intervention trigger (if any) and to what extent did the project team take timely measures to mitigate these?
• Project sustainability
The evaluation will assess the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue. It will answer the following evaluation questions:
i. To what extent did the planning and implementation of the interventions take longer-term and interconnected problems into account?
ii. Did the project plan and implement an adequate transition and exit strategy that ensures longer-term positive effects and reduces the risk of dependency?
iii. How effective are the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project?
iv. How well are the project’s outputs linked to more long-term focused objectives?
v. Are structures, resources, and processes in place to ensure that the benefits generated by the project are continued after the project is phased out?
vi. Do the partners benefiting from the intervention have adequate capacities (technical, financial, and managerial) for ensuring that the benefits are retained in the long term, and are they committed to do so?
vii. To what extent have target groups, and possibly other relevant interest groups and stakeholders, been involved in discussions about sustainability?
viii. What were/are the major factors that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project?
ix. What are the key factors/areas that will require additional support/attention to improve prospects of sustainability of the project outcomes and the potential for replication of this approach?
• Learning and Replicability
The evaluation will assess what worked well, lessons learned and potential for replicating successful approaches. It will answer the following evaluation questions.
i. What are some of the key lessons learned as a result of this project that can be shared and replicated?
ii. What are the recommendations for similar future interventions?
iii. What mechanisms have been established to capture, document, and share the lessons learned and best practices from the project within the community and other stakeholders?
iv. Can the knowledge and skills acquired through this project be easily replicated and used in similar contexts or other regions?
v. How have the project activities contributed to building the capacity and knowledge of the community members?
vi. What evidence exists to support the replicability of the project’s approach and outcomes in other settings?
10. Occupational Safety and Health Considerations
To view occupational safety and health considerations for specific duty stations, please visit this link: https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/travel
Specific Occupational Safety and Health Considerations to this assignment (if applicable):
11. Purpose and Scope of Assignment:
• Under the guidance of the survey technical team at the RB and PHS the consultant is responsible to coordinate the planning, implementation, data analysis and results reporting of the NCD endline assessment in the two countries.
• The consultant will consult and work closely with UNHCR partners involved in the assessment, including the NCD Department of the Ministry of Health
Deliverables
Consultancy deliverables for the endline evaluation include.
• Inception Report outlining the methodology and work plan, with confirmed country selection and costing scenarios (submitted in digital format 2 weeks after the start date).
• The consultant will report on regular basis to the survey technical committee which will include the UNHCR technical team/Public health officers in the CO (Burundi and Tanzania) as well as the RB and HQ who will have the overall responsibility of the survey.
• A One-Hour Presentation of Main Findings in the Draft Evaluation Report/ summarizing the key findings and recommendations to relevant stakeholders. Deliverable will ensure external quality assurance and funder approval prior to finalizing the report.
• A Final Evaluation Report of not more than 60 pages (excluding annexes and executive summary). A final assessment report including recommendations complying to UNHCR standards on actions to address the situation is to be submitted at the end of the Consultancy. Results of standardisation tests, details of data cleaning and plausibility checks should be presented in the final report.
• The final cleaned version of the data sets used/transcripts, recordings (All records) for the assessment is to be sent to the public health team at the UNHCR regional Bureau and copy to PH Section in UNHCR HQ ( Excel Format and CSV Format and a “Do File” of analyzed data, preferably in Stata
Required qualifications, languages(s) and work experience:
Degree required Advanced level degree in Public Health, Clinical degree, statistics, epidemiology, social science, or a related field.
The ideal consultant or team of consultants should possess the following qualifications:
• Advanced level degree in Public Health, clinical degree, statistics, epidemiology, social science, or a related field with at least 5 years of field experience conducting public health research in humanitarian/refugee settings.
• Proficiency in data analysis software (e.g., Excel, STATA, or R) and the ability to interpret large datasets for public health analysis.
• Experience: A proven track record in population surveys, including questionnaire design and implementation. Previous experience conducting NCD and public health related surveys, Previous experience working with refugee populations is an asset.
• Fluency in English is required, French language is desirable.
• Strong analytical skills with a demonstrated proficiency in statistical analysis
• Knowledge: An understanding of the country’s disease burden and priorities
• Communication: Excellent communication, interpersonal, and report writing skills
• Technical skills: Knowledge of data collection and analysis methods, including qualitative and quantitative.
• Other skills: Ability to work in a multi-disciplinary environment, multi-task, and produce accurate results under pressure.
• An awareness of and knowledge of the specific cultural sensitivity, traditional arrangements, local government structures and functions, and other related dynamics in the province.
Language
Required: English
Desirable: French
14. Monitoring and Progress Controls
(Measures put in place to ensure the quality of work the individual contract holder delivers, e.g. report requirements, periodicity, format, deadlines, performance indicators, milestone discussions, survey completed, data collected, workshop conducted, research documents produced specify etc.)

No. Deliverable Timeline Payment schedule
1. Inception Report 2 weeks after start date 20%
2. Country / stakeholder Briefs 4 weeks after start date
3. PowerPoint Presentation/draft report 8 weeks after start date 40%
5. The Final cleaned version of the data sets used/transcripts, recordings (All records) 12weeks after start date
6. Final evaluation report 12 weeks after start date 40%

Standard Job Description

Required Languages

,

,

Desired Languages

,

,

Additional Qualifications

Skills

Education

Certifications

Other information

This position doesn’t require a functional clearance

Home-Based

Yes

Level of Education: Bachelor Degree

Work Hours: 8

Experience in Months: No requirements