PLAN INTERNATIONAL RWANDA

Kacyiru Golden Plaza Building, 4th Floor, KG 546 ST

P.O, Box: 6211

Tel. (250) 78 8305392

Kigali-Rwanda 

CALL FOR PROPOSALS WITH REF# PLAN/FY24/08/001

Final Evaluation of a Multiannual 2021-2023 Protection Programme, implemented by Plan International in Uganda (UGA482) and Rwanda (RWA129), funded by the Belgian Federal Public Service Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Development Cooperation

“Building Resilience and Protection of Children, Adolescents and Youth living in Refugees Camps, Internally Displaced

Settlements and Vulnerable Communities”

1. ABOUT PLAN INTERNATIONAL 

Similar Jobs in Rwanda
Learn more about Plan International Rwanda
Plan International Rwanda jobs in Rwanda

We strive to advance children’s rights and equality for girls all over the world. As an independent development and humanitarian organisation, we work alongside children, young people, our supporters and partners to tackle the root causes of the challenges facing girls and all vulnerable children. We support children’s rights from birth until they reach adulthood and enable children to prepare for and respond to crises and adversity. We drive changes in practice and policy at local, national and global levels using our reach, experience and knowledge. For over 80 years we have been building powerful partnerships for children, and we are active in over 75 countries.

2. ABOUT COMMISSIONING OFFICE

Plan International has been operating in Rwanda since 2007 to change gender and social norms as well as policies that hold children back from reaching their potential.

Together with communities, we secure deep-rooted and long-lasting changes in children’s and young people’s lives, with a focus on equal power, freedom and representation for girls. 

We advance children’s rights in Rwanda by working in strategic partnerships, coalitions and networks with like-minded organisations. Our ambition is to support 2.2 million girls, 1 million boys and 400,000 young people to learn, lead, decide and thrive in an environment that respects their rights and empowers them with the knowledge and skills to make informed decisions about their lives.

We are present at national and local levels with a focus on the districts of Bugesera, Nyaruguru, and Gatisbo. We also work in 6 refugee camps across the country. 

Our programmes at national and local levels that affect children, especially girls, in both development and humanitarian settings. Our priorities include: (1) Early childhood development, (2) Child protection, (3) Sexual and reproductive health and rights, (4) Ending teenage pregnancy, as well as (5) improving communities’ resilience to disasters. 

3. PROJECT BACKGROUND

The programme’s principal objective is to contribute to building protective environments for refugee and IDP communities in which children and adolescents thrive, safe from all forms of violence, including SGBV, in communities affected by the humanitarian crises in Mali, Rwanda and Uganda.

Its specific objective is that Children and adolescents affected by the humanitarian crisis, in refugee and IDP settlements, and vulnerable host communities, thrive in a protective environment and receive quality age and gender responsive protection services.

The programme includes 4 Results:

1. Vulnerable children and adolescents, including UASC, are empowered to understand protection risks and behaviours, and have access to effective, safe, timely and agefriendly protection services;
2. Parents and caregivers respect children’s rights to protection and engage positive parenting skills to improve quality of care and reduce child neglect
3. Community members and leaders support and respect protective gender and social norms, adopt practices that support non-violent behaviour in communities and actively engage to protect children, adolescents and youth against neglect, violence, exploitation and abuse
4. Child protection service providers have the required capacity to manage and respond to cases of violence against children at the community level in cooperation with and with the support of civil society and community-based actor.

The programme’s indicators are the following:

The programme’s intended reach (as in submission to the donor) is:

4. EVALUATION FOCUS 

4.1. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION                                                     

The purpose of this Final Evaluation is twofold:

• To measure the programme’s indicators at the end of the intervention, and compare the current value with the ones measured throughout the programme’s duration;
• In line with Plan International standards and criteria of evaluation, to assess the programme’s effectiveness, relevance, coherence, efficiency, as well its gender responsiveness and inclusiveness.

The evaluation will highlight innovations and identify lessons learned. It will also provide important information and learning to inform possible replication and scaleup.  

4.2. EVALUATION CRITERIA

This Final Evaluation will include assessments of:

• Effectiveness: the extent to which, and the reasons behind, the achievement (or not) of the project or programme’s objectives, and whether these are leading to unintended (positive or negative) consequences for anybody involved or affected by the interventions.
• Relevance: the extent to which the interventions and their approaches were suited to the priorities and policies of the people and communities they were intended to benefit.
• Coherence: the compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector or institution.
• Efficiency: the extent to which financial resources were used economically and efficiently, potentially including cost-benefit ratios and alternative programming approaches
• Child rights, gender and inclusion: the extent to which the project or programme applied gender and inclusion sensitive approaches and explicitly aimed for results that improve the rights of children and young people and gender equality.

4.3. EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

The list of questions below, organized according to the chosen evaluation criteria, provides a good overview of Plan’s interests and expectations. It can however be further discussed during the inception phase with the evaluators to address evaluability and ensure similar understanding of the questions.

Effectiveness: to what extent and the reasons behind the achievement (or not) of the Program objectives, and whether these lead to unintended (positive or negative) consequences for anybody involved or affected by the programme. 

1. SO: Is the problem that the program intends to address alleviated?
2. Outcomes:
3. To what extent the expected outcomes of the program have been achieved? 
4. What have been the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the Program (including enabling factors, barriers and bottlenecks) o  o Is the target population affected by the program equitably? o Did the program’s services/activities have negative effects?

o Focus on PuP: To what extent was the PUP approach effective in promoting the desired outcomes among participating parents/caregivers, in terms of:  

• Improvements in knowledge and attitudes, and adoption of key parenting practices for young children’s wellbeing and development,
• Increasing levels of co-parenting and men’s engagement in the care of their young children, when men are co-habiting with their families,
• Improvements in coping strategies and abilities to manage stress,
• Increasing levels of mutual support and continuing connections,

3. Activities:
   • How effective were the program’s strategies and activities? o How appropriate were the processes compared with quality standards? o Were participants being reached as intended?
   • What were the key challenges to program implementation and how were they addressed?
   • How well was the program monitored and evaluated throughout its implementation?
   • Focus on PuP: What implementation features (of PuP) made this set of activities particularly effective and for whom?
4. Accountability:
   • How does the target population interact with the program?
   • What do they think of the services? How satisfied are they?

Relevance: To what extent were the program and its approaches suited to the priorities of the people and communities it intended to benefit?

• Are the program’s objectives appropriate to the problems that they were supposed to address? To what extent did the intervention address Program participants need and interests?  
• What were the strengths and weaknesses of the program design?
• Focus on PuP: To what extent was the PUP approach and curricula content relevant for the crisis-affected parents/caregivers targetted by this programme? Does the approach – and the content – meet their needs and priorities, and how feasible is it for parents/caregivers (in terms of ability to facilitate or participate)?

Coherence:

• How is the program articulated with interventions taking place in the same area?
• How were the different program models used in the framework of this programme articulated with one another?

Sustainability: the probability of continued long-term benefits to the target populations after the program has been completed. This might include the resource and capacity of beneficiaries to continue the intervention after phase out.

To what extent can interventions be expected to carry on after the program is completed? What changes resulting from the interventions implemented under PUP Programme are likely to be long lasting?

 To what extent can interventions be carried forward without Plan International Rwanda’s direct intervention? (by people in the Refuges settings)  

Efficiency:

• Were the program’s resources allocated effectively and efficiently to achieve its objectives? Could alternative activities have led to the same results by using fewer resources?
• Could the interventions have been more cost-effective according to the initial planned budget

(Better value for money)?   

• How is the project functioning from administrative, organizational, and/or personnel perspectives?
• Was the programme intervention delivered according to the implementation plan?
• Focus on PuP: What can be learned about the resourcing requirements (human, technical, financial) of the PUP approach from implementation to date?  

Gender, inclusion, and children rights:

• How effectively is the Program addressing/advancing children’s rights, equality for girls and inclusion? What are the remaining gaps?
• To what extent were the services/activities gender transformative?
• To what extent were the male caregivers involved in the program?
• How has the programme worked on gender norms related to parenting? To what extent has the approach been successful in transforming these norms towards a greater involvement of fathers and male caregivers as well as more equal parenting practices?
• Focus on PuP:

o To what extent were the PUP interventions designed to be gender-transformative and inclusive, rather than gender-aware only - as per criteria in the Gender Transformative Marker?   o How did the programme identify and address known gendered risks and unintended consequences of the PUP approach?

• CHILD RIGHTS, GENDER AND INCLUSION

In line with Plan International’s values and organisational ambition, this evaluation seeks to prioritise a focus on child rights, gender and inclusion and will try to understand the extent to which the programme applied gender and inclusion sensitive approaches and explicitly aimed for results that improve the rights of children and young people and gender equality.

The consultant will make use of Plan International methodology and tools to assess how gender transformative the intervention has been. The consultants will refer to the existing policy framework and to other reference documents and tools on the question of gender equality to build on their analysis.

• USERS OF THE EVALUATION

The users of this evaluation’s findings will be diverse:

• Plan International staff and offices – to understand to what and how the programme was successful in reaching its goals and feed into future projects and programmes’ design; - Project participants.
• Donors and other stakeholders.

7. METHODOLOGY

7.1. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

This evaluation will be conducted in:

• Rwanda: four DRC refugee camps where the programme is being implemented: Mugombwa camp in Gisagara district and Kigeme camp in Nyamagabe district both districts from Southern Province, Kiziba camp in Karongi district from Western Province as well as Nyabiheke camp in Gatsibo district from Eastern Province.

7.2. SAMPLE                                                                    

The evaluators will outline their intended sample strategy that includes a description of:

• Sample size (or expectations of the evaluator(s) in calculating it)
• Necessary respondent disaggregation (refer to Plan International’s Minimum Beneficiary Disaggregation)
• Number and type of locations
• Sampling approach

The applicants will consider that:

• Plan International requires data collected and analysed to be disaggregated systematically by gender and age group and as often as possible by disability, location, and other relevant disaggregation criteria;
• These requirements need to be discussed with the programme team ahead of the inception report and carefully considered when developing the sampling strategy;

The applicants will also duly consider the sampling strategy adopted for the purpose of the baseline study and in the framework of the different data collection exercises conducted for the benefit of the programme, document how they will align or differ with their own sampling strategy and explain why.

Template sampling table (to match both the donor’s requirements and Plan International standards for disaggregation):

Please consider the programme’s intended reach shared in Section 3.

7.3. PARTICIPANT SELECTION AND RECRUITMENT

The participants to this evaluation will include a number of programme’s staff as well as Country Office’s staff who have been closely involved.

The participants will also include a sample of each group of direct participants to the programme, including:

• Younger and older adolescents;
• Parents and caregivers;
• Members of the community-based Child Protection mechanisms;
• Service providers (protection, health, education, police and/or justice).

The final evaluation will in addition consult with a wider group of indirect participants to the programme, such as community members and leaders. 

The evaluator(s) are welcome to identify and suggest additional or excluded stakeholders that they feel are important to involve to ensure they get the information they need to answer the Evaluation Questions.

The inclusion and exclusion criteria will need to be discussed with the programme team and clearly explained for each data collection tool in the reports.

7.4. METHODS FOR DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS       

This final evaluation will require a mixed methods approach, including quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis. The evaluators will ensure to build their analysis on sufficiently diversified sources of information and triangulate their findings.

The evaluators will use the data collection tools that PI will provide them with, in order to align with the indicators specifications and ensure consistency between baseline study and endline study. They will also develop their own to complement the existing ones and address the evaluation questions specific to this final evaluation.

The evaluators will start with a systematic documentation review of programme documents, existing data sets, narrative and financial reports, field visit reports, partner organisations reports...

Other data collection methods will probably include:

• Survey with adolescents;
• Survey with parents/caregivers;
• Survey with community members and leaders;
• Survey, FGD or interview with child protection service providers;
• Focus group discussions or interviews with adolescents;
• Focus group discussions or interviews with parents and caregivers;
• Focus group discussions with members of community-based child protection mechanisms; - Interviews with key informants.

8. ETHICS AND CHILD PROTECTION

Plan International is committed to ensuring that the rights of those participating in data collection or analysis are respected and protected, in accordance with Ethical MERL Framework, our Global Policy on Safeguarding Children and Young People and the Data Sharing Protocol. 

The applicant evaluators should include details in their proposal on how they will ensure ethics and child protection in the data collection process. Specifically, the consultant(s) shall explain how appropriate, safe, non-discriminatory participation of all stakeholders will be ensured and how special attention will be paid to the needs of children and other vulnerable groups. The consultant(s) shall also explain how confidentiality and anonymity of participants will be guaranteed. 

The study process will consider ethical and child protection requirements. This will involve the completion – early on in the process - by the consultants together with Plan International staff of a risk analysis (Ethical M&E checklist and the Child Safeguarding Risk Assessment for MERL) and the set-up of mitigation measures. 

All staff working with children throughout the evaluation should, where possible, provide an expanded police certificate of good conduct and that no work will start without signature of

Plan International’s Child and Safeguarding Policy by the consultant(s).

Ethical considerations should be clearly outlined in the data collection tools and guidance provided to supervisors and enumerators. Enumerators must also be briefed and sign the Safeguarding of Children and Young People policy as well as the Code of Conduct. There should be informed, documented, and voluntary consent of the participant, and in addition, where the participants are under 18 years of age, the consent of their parent/guardian.  The consultants are requested to put in place measures to aid the ethical handling of data including appropriate collection, storage, processing, sharing, and deletion of data. They will receive for their information the PI’s policy regarding Document and Data Retention and Deletion.

9. KEY DELIVERABLES

Including: 

• an updated timeline;
• an evaluation matrix
• detailed methodology, including draft sampling methodology and size;
• draft data collection tools;
• ethical considerations;
• consent forms for any primary data collection;
• (draft) methods for data analysis;
• brief justification of the methods and techniques used (including relevant underlying values and assumptions/ theories) with a justification of the selections made (e.g., of persons interviewed). Word files are better adapted to allow exchanges on the content of the tools.

10. TIMELINES 

11. BUDGET                                       

The evaluation total budget should include: the VAT, the insurance and visa costs (if applicable), the translation costs (if applicable), the expenses related to travel and accommodation for participation in the meetings and related to other activities foreseen in the work plan will need to be covered by this budget.

The payment will be split into instalments around key milestones as opposed to one lump sum.

Below is an indicative payment schedule:

12. EXPECTED QUALIFICATIONS 

The evaluators are expected to demonstrate a:

• Postgraduate degree in Social Sciences, Economics, Sociology, Sexual Reproductive Health and Right, Gender studies and Civil Society strengthening or other related field from a recognized university;
• Proven experience in carrying out evaluations;
• Proficiency in qualitative and quantitative methods of data collection;
• Proven experience with data analysis;
• Proficiency in statistics;
• Thematic expertise in Child Protection, Protection from Violence and GBV;
• Experiences on Plan’s cross-cutting issues such as gender, inclusion as well as awareness on child protection and child rights issues;
• Fluency in English;
• Capacity of the Lead consultant to train adequately enumerators to ensure adapted behaviours and practices towards children interviewed and in addressing sensitive topics.

The evaluation team will include:

• Balance of gender across evaluators and enumerators;
• Enumerators with excellent interpersonal and communication skills, time management skills and a strong attention to detail;
• Trained enumerators in Safeguarding and psychological first aid or equivalent to make sure they are equipped to handle sensitive disclosure by the respondents;              

 13. CONTACTS 

Email: Tendersenquiry.Rwanda@plan-international.org

Tel: 0788305392

14. HOW TO APPLY

Interested applicants should provide a proposal covering the following aspects:

• Detailed response to the TOR summarized in one page
• Proposed methodology
• Ethics and child safeguarding approaches, including any identified risks and associated mitigation strategies
• Proposed timelines
• CVs of the team to conduct the consultancy
• Example of previous work supported by 3 good completion certificates from the recognized INGOs
• Detailed budget, including daily fee rates, expenses, taxes etc.
• Administrative documents (RDB & VAT Certificates and tax and RSSB Clearances)

Submission of proposals:

Interested Consultants should submit separate technical and financial proposals in sealed envelopes and should be clearly marked “ENDLINE STUDY EVALUATION FOR BUILDING RESILIENCE AND PROTECTION OF CHILDREN, ADOLESCENTS AND YOUTH LIVING IN REFUGEE CAMPS AND VULNERABLE COMMUNITIES PROJECT” by hand no later than 15^th August 2023 at 2:00pm

Done on 2^nd August 2023

Submissions should be addressed to:

The Chairperson -Tender Panel

Plan International Inc. Rwanda

Golden Plaza Building, Floor # 4, KG 456 St

P.O. Box 6211, Kigali, Rwanda.

15. ANNEXES

Annex 1: Checklist for Completeness 

Annex 2: Global Policy: Safeguarding Children and Young People

Annex 3: Full Report Structure 

Annex 4: Project Details 

Annex 5: Ethical MERL Framework