INADES-FORMATION KENYA Evaluation of the project ... Terms of Reference 2 | P a g e 1.1 Background of the evaluation Inades-Formation Kenya in partnership with Bread for the World

Evaluation Terms of Reference

1 | P a g e

INADES-FORMATION KENYA

Terms of Reference (TOR) for Project Evaluation

Evaluation of the project: Enhancing Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change :( ECO-

BACC) programme (Project Number: 20140306 G/KED-EK 23/2014)

The evaluation is commissioned by: Inades-Formation Kenya

1. INTRODUCTION

About Inades-Formation Kenya

Inades-Formation is a member based pan African organization working in the following ten (10)

African Countries; Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cameroon, Chad, Cote D’Ivoire, Rwanda, Tanzania,

Kenya, Togo and DR Congo. It was first started in Cote d’Ivoire on 1st January 1962 then it spread

to the other countries. Inades-Formation has evolved over the years from creating its foundation

and running training activities 1962 – 1971, followed by creation of Inades-Formation Association

1971-1980, then came the professionalization of INADES-Formation1980-1990, the period of

renaissance of Inades-Formation was from 1990 to 2000 and 2001-2004 was the period of

institutional reforms.

It was first introduced in Kenya in 1978 and registered as a company limited by guarantee. In

1993 it was registered as Non-Governmental Organization. Inades-Formation Kenya has a

mandate to work anywhere in Kenya in Social and Economic Development.

Inades-Formation Network since the year 2016 has new tagline “Serving the common good”. This

signifies Inades-Formation’s commitment to serve the common good by placing a very particular

emphasis on the free and responsible participation of the Citizens in the transformation of their

societies:

Inades-Formation Network is currently focusing on four thematic areas:

• Food Systems based on Family Farming

• Community Microfinance

• Inclusive Governance

• Climate Change


2 | P a g e

1.1 Background of the evaluation

Inades-Formation Kenya in partnership with Bread for the World (BftW) has been implementing

the project - Enhancing Community Based Adaptation to Climate Change :( ECO-BACC)

programme (Project Number: 20140306 G/KED-EK 23/2014). The project is a three-year project –

January 2015 – December 2017. The project is being funded by Bread for the World (BftW) -

Germany. This project is on climate change adaptation and has five components and is being

implemented by IFK in partnership with target communities as direct beneficiaries and other

stakeholders. The project components include; Natural Resource Management (NRM),

Agriculture and Livestock production (ALP), Community Advocacy, Solidarity Fund for

Development (SOFDEV), Agricultural Innovations. At the initiation of this project there were

specific objectives to be achieved at the end and it is therefore important for all stake holders in

the project to evaluate the performance of the project on those set objectives. This evaluation is

intended to determine the extent of achievement of the set objectives and inform decision making

on future interventions.

1. Purposes/objectives and users of evaluation

Inades-Formation Kenya is accountable to the donor who availed the fund for implementation

and the communities among other stakeholders on the deliverables agreed upon before the start

of the implementation. The purpose of this evaluation is therefore in line with the standard

practice of learning and accountability function of evaluations. This evaluation results will

therefore:

• Be important when considering the next phase of this project/programme

• Be a justifiable way of accounting for expenditures incurred to the donor, stakeholders

and tax payers

• Provide an opportunity to take a fresh look at the policies, procedures and strategies for

improved future engagement with the stakeholders.

• Help in improving on existing or developing new tools of intervention

The objectives of this evaluation just like other forms of evaluations will seek to:

1. To ascertain results (output, outcome, impact) and assess the effectiveness, efficiency and

relevance of a specific development intervention

2. To provide findings, conclusions and recommendations in respect to implementation

strategies as specified in the project document

3. To highlight lessons learned during the implementation period.


3 | P a g e

The evaluation is primarily intended for: implementing organization to help respond to the

identified existing gaps, the primary stakeholder (target community), and the donor to ascertain

the relevance to the set outcome and impact and to the secondary stakeholders (partners on the

ground for complementary roles

2. Task descriptions

2.1 Evaluation scope

The scope of the evaluation is clearly defined by specifying the project components covered, time

period, types of interventions and geographical coverage.

The project components covered in this program phase revolves around management and

utilization of natural resources, production and marketing of agricultural produce/ products with

a bias on fruits (mangoes and oranges), local chicken, establishment of functional market

linkages, adoption of innovative farming systems, accessibility to reliable and affordable

community managed financial services and advocacy on policy issues around agriculture and

natural resources management. The programme implementation is for a period of three years

starting from January 2015 and it is expected to end in December 2017. The type of intervention

was capacity building on:

Natural resources management

Small-Holder farmer marketing

Agricultural Innovations

Rural Savings-led Microfinance

Agriculture and livestock production

Community advocacy

These activities are being implemented in nine locations in three counties as follows:

County Locations

Machakos Mwala

Kyawango

Mbiuni

Kathama

Kalama

Kitui Kauma

Musengo

Kangondi

Makueni Ngaamba

Itumbule


4 | P a g e

2.2 Context of the programme and evaluation questions

The guidelines to describe the context and the evaluation questions are listed below and are

mentioned to provide a general basis for reflection. This list is not exhaustive. It is recommended

to develop and add specific questions if required. The contractor/evaluation team is invited to

comment the TOR before and during the kick off meeting in order to make things clear.

2.2.1 Programme/Project analysis

Description of the programme

This is a three-year project being implemented from January 1, 2015 until December 31, 2017. The

project has five components a follows:

2.2.1.1 Natural resource management (NRM)

Introduction

Natural resource management programme component prepares communities to appreciate and

understand the social, biological and physical aspects of solving problems associated with the

management of natural resources while maintaining the integrity of life-sustaining ecological

systems.

Project localization

Kathama & Kalama (Machakos county), Ngaamba & Itumbule (Makueni county), Kauma,

Musengo & Kangondi (Kitui county)

Target Beneficiaries

Direct beneficiaries- 1,200 (600 women, 400 men & 200 youths)

Indirect beneficiaries- 3000 women, 2000 men & 1000 youths (this is per one project; NRM)

project objective

Communities manage and utilize their locally available natural resources sustainably.

To contribute to sustainable management and utilization of locally available resources by

communities.

Success indicators.

• Adoption of at least one firewood powered energy saving technology by 600 HHs by Dec

2017.

• 600 HHs adopt at least 2 infiltration technologies for moisture retention

• Enhance skills and adoption of 3 Natural resource based enterprises by 600 individual

farmers

• 300 of the targeted participating HHs implement at least 1 water harvesting technology

•


5 | P a g e

2.2.1.2 Agriculture and Livestock Production (ALP)

Introduction

Agriculture and livestock production project is aimed at helping rural households cope with

climate change variability by improving on their food security and income. This is achieved

through promotion of better and improved farming methods to farmers living in dry lands.

Lower eastern part of Kenya where IFK is implementing most of its projects with the communities

is still characterized by erratic rainfall. This project promotes production of fruits, vegetables,

drought tolerant crops, indigenous chicken and dairy goats. Production of these crops and

livestock has been proved to be adaptable to the climate of Lower Eastern Kenya. Therefore,

farmers have guaranteed harvest when they engage in their farming.

Project Localization

Machakos county (Mwala, Kyawango, Mbiuni, Kathama), Kitui county (Musengo, Kauma and

Kangondi location) and in Makueni County (Ngaamba Location)

Target Beneficiaries

Direct beneficiaries: 1,800 (900 women, 600men, 300 youth)

Indirect beneficiaries 9,000(4,500 women, 3,000women 1,500 youth)

Project objective

Target communities improve agricultural and livestock production through better farming

methods, value addition and marketing.

Project Indicators

Establishment of at least 1 model chicken production centres in each two counties by

December 2017.

Establishment of at least two agro-processing units in two counties by Dec.

4 marketing centres and 5 commercial model enterprises are established and jointly run

by the target communities/farmer groups.

1800 farmers increase production of fruits, vegetables and drought tolerant crops through

acquisition of new skills

2.2.1.3 Small Holder Farmer Marketing

Small holder farmer marketing (SHFM) is aimed at unifying farmers through formation of

collective marketing groups/associations in order to tackle marketing challenges as a group.

Farmers in collaboration with IFK devise better strategies for marketing their produce so as to

realize higher returns. The project is currently working with 3 farmer marketing associations in

Machakos and Kitui counties i.e. Mbiuni, Mwala and Kauma.


6 | P a g e

Geographical area covered by the project: Machakos county (Mwala, Mbiuni, Kathama), Kitui

county (Musengo, Kauma and Kangondi location) and in Makueni County (Ngaamba Location)

Project Indicators

• 4 Marketing Centres/5 commercial enterprises are established

• Each association has a functional management structure and good leadership.

• 10% annual increase in household income from sale of chicken, fruits, and indigenous

products

2.2.1.4 Rural Finance

Introduction

Solidarity Fund for Development (SOFDEV) is a rural microfinance model designed to respond

to the financial need in rural settings. The model provides a platform for the rural communities

to mobilize their financial resources in form of members’ savings and redistribute as microcredits

for social and economic development activities. There are currently six such units in Eastern

Kenya i.e. Machakos County; Mwala, Mbiuni and Kathama, Kitui County; Kauma and Musengo,

Makueni County; Ngaamba

Project objective: Improved access to community owned and managed financial services.

Project indicators

At least 2,500 new members join the existing or new established units among them youth

and women by December 2017.

At least 25% increase in savings and loans by December 2017.

At least 30% increase in access to post- primary education, basic health-care, improved

housing and access to food with participating households, by December 2017.

2.2.1.5 Agricultural Innovations (AI)

Introduction

This component aims at building farmers resilience to climate change through promotion of

innovative farming approaches. Through this component, farmers have been trained on farming

methods which efficiently make use of available water resource and soil moisture for maximum

utilization by crop. The component has online learning portal where farmers can access

innovative farming approaches and demonstration learning centres where group members learn

how different skills and out scale on their farms.


7 | P a g e

Project objective

Farming communities adapt suitable agricultural innovations that are in line with challenges of

climate change.

Project indicators

Establishment of at least one farmer friendly resource centre by Dec. 2017.

Adoption of at least five new farming innovations by 75% of participating households by

Dec 2017.

Establishment of at least three farmer demonstration sited by Dec. 2017, and 60% of the

participating households around the 3 plots have adopted at least one improved

production method.

2.2.1.6 Community advocacy (COA) and increased political participation.

Introduction

The project is aimed at increasing knowledge and enhancing participation of target communities

in advocacy and decision making processes in aspects of climate change, and environmental

management that affect agriculture as their main source of livelihood

Project Goal

Communities participate in advocacy and decisions making processes on issues affecting

agriculture as their main source of livelihood

Specific objectives/results

• Increased farmers' awareness on environmental and agricultural policies.

• Indicator: 5,600 community members in the project area understand and appreciate

environmental and agricultural policies and their effects on their livelihood by 2017.

• Increased community's avenue, comprehension and cohesion to influence decision/policy

making processes on issues affecting their environment and livelihood.

• Indicator: through community advocacy/participation 3 key policies (natural resource

management seed security and water are fully implemented by Dec 2017.

• Development and enforcement of at least 4 guidelines of utilization of natural resources.

2.2.2 The target group

The target beneficiaries are organised into groups, individual community members. They are

mainly rural household (Family farmers) engaged mostly in small scale farming activities. The

groups are engaged in social welfare activities as well as income generating activities.

2.3 Approach

This evaluation will be expected to revisit issues and recommendations raised in the evaluation


8 | P a g e

of the previous phase of the BftW funded project (July 2011 – December 2014) done in the year

2015. The consultants will be required to review the same form the evaluation report as part of

their desk review before commencing the current evaluation activities.

2.4 Expectations on this evaluation

The Evaluation is supposed to bring out key issues relating to programme relevance,

effectiveness in addressing issues identified at inception, efficiency in delivering agreed up on

objectives, impact to the target group and sustainability beyond funding by asking and

responding to the following questions:

2.4.1 Relevance

i. Did we plan the right thing?

ii. Did we do the right thing?

iii. To what extent are the objectives, planned activities and planned outputs consistent

with the intended outcome and impact?

iv. Are there differences between the time when the programme/project was designed

and today?

v. To what extent are the objectives of the project/programme still valid?

2.4.2 Effectiveness

i. To what extent were the objectives achieved/are likely to be achieved?

ii. What are the short or intermediate-term medium term (intended or unintended)

outcome of the programme/project?

iii. To what extent could the selected target group be reached?

iv. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the

objectives?

2.4.3 Efficiency

i. Were activities cost-efficient?

ii. Were objectives achieved on time?

iii. Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to

alternatives?

2.4.4 Impact

i. What has happened as a result of the programme or project? (Intended and

unintended impacts, equal opportunities for women and men, improvement of

social and economic infrastructure, poverty reduction, cross sectoral impact or other

relevant cross-cutting issues).


9 | P a g e

ii. What real difference has the activity brought about for the beneficiaries? (What

would have happened without the activity?)

iii. How many people have been affected directly and indirectly?

2.4.5 Sustainability

i. To what extent will the positive impacts or changes of the programme/project (are

likely to) continue?

ii. What measures are implemented in order to support sustainability?

iii. To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project persist after donor funding

ceased?

iv. What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement

of sustainability of the programme or project?

3. Methodology

The successful consultant will be expended to submit a proposal covering and not limited to:

3.1 Suggested evaluation design

3.2 Methodology and standards

3.3 Profile of the evaluation team

Information and profile of the evaluation team.

3.4 Process, reporting and timetable of evaluation

3.4.1 Timetable and phases:

Timetable and phases are only examples to illustrate how an evaluation might be implemented.

No Duties and Responsibilities Days /Person Time-frame

1 Preparation: Kick-off, analysis of relevant documents,

development of evaluation design. Preparation of the

inception report.

2 Hand over inception report to principal.

Acceptance of inception report by principal within 10

days

3 Implementation of evaluation according to plan

(inception report)

3a Example, phase 1: Design of questionnaire and

conduction of a survey. Analysis of findings.

Preparation of field visit. (Details are lined out in the

inception report.)

3b Example phase 2: Field visit: Interviews at national or


10 | P a g e

regional level. Interviews with target group. (Details

are lined out in the inception report)

4 Work-shop: Feed-back of the preliminary findings at

project level.

5 Preparation of draft report.

6 Hand over draft report to principal

7 Feed-back on the draft report in a final workshop

(with contractor and other stakeholders)

8 Handover of final report and draft implementation

plan (s. annex) to principal

TOTAL

4. Reporting

4.1 Evaluation design/inception report

The inception report (approx. 10 – 15 pages) shall provide a feed-back on how the objectives,

questions and reports as described in the TOR can be achieved within the evaluation. Suggestions

can be made to supplement or restrict the TOR. These suggestions, especially when the

modifications concerning objectives of the evaluation and crucial questions, have to be approved

by the customer in written form as this is an alteration within the original contract.

For the inception report we suggest the following structure:

Key data of the evaluation: Name, number, duration of the project/programme to be evaluated,

title of the evaluation, principal of the evaluation (who commissioned the evaluation), contractor

of the evaluation, date of the report.

Feed-back/amendment to the TOR: Are all parts of the TOR clear to the evaluation team? Is the

focus of the evaluation clearly defined? Suggestions for amendments of the TOR are presented

(in a form so that the principal can accept or disagree).

Current status of the preparation: Composition of the evaluation team (qualifications, allocation

of tasks, who is team leader/coordinator?), estimated timetable and work days for the evaluation

team. Report about identified problems and risks.

Evaluation design and methodology: Report about the chosen qualitative and/or quantitative

methods and further steps on how to implement them in the evaluation (selection of samples,

strategies for analyses and collecting data, further specific evaluation questions, hypothesis on


11 | P a g e

outcomes and impacts, description of the planned contacts and visits with explanation). Measures

to be taken to get adequate information for gender analysis

Tools for data collection and data analysis (e.g. presentation of questionnaires

4.2 Final evaluation report

The final report shall be written in English (50 pages + annex) and has – as a minimum - to include

the following contents:

Key data of the evaluation: see above “inception report” in a)

i. Executive summary: a tightly drafted, to-the-point, free-standing document (about 5

pages), including the key issues of the evaluation, main analytical points, conclusions,

lessons learnt and recommendations.

ii. Introduction: purpose of the evaluation, evaluation scope and key questions. Short

description of the project / programme to be evaluated and relevant frame conditions

iii. Evaluation design/methodology

iv. Key results/findings*: with regard to the questions pointed out in the TOR/inception

report (including project/programme and context analysis), Assessment of the extent to

which issues of equity and gender are incorporated in the project/programme.

v. Conclusions* based on evidence and analysis

vi. Recommendations* regarding future steps/activities/follow-up – carefully targeted to the

appropriate audiences at all levels, relevant and feasible (if possible for each conclusion a

recommendation).

vii. Lessons learnt* (generalizations of conclusions applicable for wider use).

viii. Annexes (ToR) list of persons/organisations consulted, literature and documentation

consulted etc.).

ix. The inter-linkages between key results/findings, conclusions and

recommendations/lessons learnt have to be clear and transparent. This might be done by

tables (see annex 2) and/or by references in the text.

4.2.1 Draft implementation plan

This document presented by the evaluation team is to assist the contractor and other actors

receiving recommendation by the evaluation. The format is in annex 2 (implementation plan).

The evaluation team has to fill in the key data of the evaluation and the recommendations stating


12 | P a g e

the responsible person for implementation of the stated recommendations

4.2.2 7. Responsibilities and duties

Description of responsibilities and duties: Who has the overall management? (For example: EED?

Partner organisation? Who is conducting the evaluation? What are the responsibilities and duties

of the different actors (for ex. EED, partner organisation, evaluation team)?

4.3 Dissemination of evaluation results

i. What are the plans? For example:

Workshop on the results and lessons learnt of the evaluation

Dissemination of evaluation report to other organisations?

Publication of the summary or report (internet? magazine?)

4.4 Literature

Literature might be added as a first introduction for the evaluation team.

Annexes:

Annex 1: Definition of DAC Criteria an further (DAC-)Standards with regard to

evaluation methodology, process and reporting

Annex 2: Recommended table - overview of conclusions, recommendations and lessons

learnt

Annex 3: Implementation Plan

Annex 1:

Definitions of DAC Criteria and further (DAC-) Standards with regard to evaluation

methodology, process and reporting

I. Definitions of DAC Criteria

When evaluating programmes and projects it is useful to consider the following DAC Criteria, as

laid out in the DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance.

Sources:

OECD/DAC: Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance.

OECD: http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation


13 | P a g e

1. Relevance

The extent to which the aid activity is suited to the priorities and policies of the target group,

recipient and donor. In evaluating the relevance of a programme or a project, it is useful to

consider the following questions:

To what extent are the objectives of the programme still valid?

Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the overall goal and the

attainment of its objectives?

Are the activities and outputs of the programme consistent with the intended impacts and

effects?

2. Effectiveness

A measure of the extent to which an aid activity attains its objectives. In evaluating the

effectiveness of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following questions:

To what extent were the objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved?

What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?

3. Efficiency

Efficiency measures the outputs -- qualitative and quantitative -- in relation to the inputs. It is an

economic term which signifies that the aid uses the least costly resources possible in order to

achieve the desired results. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to

achieving the same outputs, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted. When

evaluating the efficiency of a programme or a project, it is useful to consider the following

questions:

Were activities cost-efficient?

Were objectives achieved on time?

Was the programme or project implemented in the most efficient way compared to

alternatives?

4. Impact

The positive and negative changes produced by a development intervention, directly or

indirectly, intended or unintended. This involves the main impacts and effects resulting from the

activity on the local social, economic, environmental and other development indicators. The

examination should be concerned with both intended and unintended results and must also

include the positive and negative impact of external factors, such as changes in terms of trade


14 | P a g e

and financial conditions. When evaluating the impact of a programme or a project, it is useful to

consider the following questions:

What has happened as a result of the programme or project?

What real difference has the activity made to the beneficiaries?

How many people have been affected?

5. Sustainability

Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of an activity are likely to

continue after donor funding has been withdrawn. Projects need to be environmentally as well

as financially sustainable. When evaluating the sustainability of a programme or a project, it is

useful to consider the following questions:

To what extent did the benefits of a programme or project continue after donor funding ceased?

What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of

sustainability of the programme or project?

II. Evaluation methodology

The following standards are a selection of DAC standards which should be considered in

appropriate form in EED (financed) evaluations.

Source:

OECD/DAC (2010): Quality Standards for Development Evaluation, DAC Guidelines and

Reference Series.

Explanation of the methodology used

The evaluation report describes and explains the evaluation method and process and discusses

validity and reliability. It acknowledges any constraints encountered and their impact on the

evaluation, including their impact on the independence of the evaluation. It details – with a focus

on gender analysis - the methods and techniques used for data and information collection and

processing. The choices are justified and limitations and shortcomings are explained.

Assessment of results

Methods for assessment of results are specified. Attribution and contributing/confounding

factors should be addressed. If indicators are used as a basis for results assessment these should

be SMART (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant and time bound).

Relevant stakeholders consulted

Relevant stakeholders are involved in the evaluation process to identify issues and provide input

for the evaluation. The evaluation report indicates the stakeholders consulted, the criteria for their

selection and describes stakeholders’ participation. If less than the full range of stakeholders was

consulted, the methods and reasons for selection of particular stakeholders are described.


15 | P a g e

Sampling

The evaluation report explains the procedure for the selection of samples. Limitations of the

evaluation sample are identified.

Evaluation team

The members of the evaluation team possess a mix of evaluative skills and thematic knowledge.

Gender balance is considered and the team includes professionals from the countries or regions

concerned.

Information sources

Transparency of information sources

The evaluation report describes the sources of information used (documentation, respondents,

literature etc.) in sufficient detail, so that the adequacy of the information can be assessed.

Complete lists of interviewees and documents consulted are included, to the extent that this does

not conflict with the privacy and confidentiality of participants.

Reliability and accuracy of information sources

The evaluation cross-validates and critically assesses the information sources used and the

validity of the data using a variety of methods and sources of information. Complete lists of

interviewees and other information sources consulted are included in the report, to the extent

that this does not conflict with the privacy and confidentiality of participants.

Independence

Independence of evaluators vis-à-vis stakeholders

The evaluation report indicates the degree of independence of the evaluators from the policy,

operations and management function of the commissioning agent, implementers and

beneficiaries. Possible conflicts of interest are addressed openly and honestly.

Free and open evaluation process

The evaluation team is able to work freely and without interference. It is assured of cooperation

and access to all relevant information. The evaluation report indicates any obstruction which may

have impacted on the process of evaluation.

Evaluation ethics

Evaluation conducted in a professional and ethical manner

The evaluation process shows sensitivity to ethnic groups, gender, beliefs, manners and customs

of all stakeholders and is undertaken with integrity and honesty. The rights and welfare of

participants in the evaluation are protected. Anonymity and confidentiality of individual

informants should be protected when requested and/or as required by law.

Acknowledgement of disagreements within the evaluation team


16 | P a g e

Evaluation team members should have the opportunity to dissociate themselves from particular

judgements and recommendations. Any unresolved differences of opinion within the team

should be acknowledged in the report.

Quality assurance

Incorporation of stakeholders’ comments

Stakeholders are given the opportunity to comment on findings, conclusions, recommendations

and lessons learned. The evaluation report reflects these comments and acknowledges any

substantive disagreements. In disputes about facts that can be verified, the evaluators should

investigate and change the draft where necessary. In the case of opinion or interpretation,

stakeholders` comments should be reproduced verbatim, such as in an annex, to the extent that

this does not conflict with the rights and welfare of participants.

Quality control

Quality control is exercised throughout the evaluation process. Depending on the evaluations

scope and complexity, quality control is carried out either internally or through an external body,

peer review, or reference group.

Relevance of the evaluation results

Formulation of evaluation findings

The evaluation findings are relevant to the object being evaluated and the purpose of the

evaluation. The results should follow clearly from the evaluation questions and analysis of data,

showing a clear line of evidence to support the conclusions. Any discrepancies between the

planned and actual implementation of the object being evaluated are explained.

Evaluation implemented within the allotted time and budget

The evaluation is conducted and results are made available in a timely manner in relation to the

purpose of the evaluation. Un-envisaged changes to timeframe and budget are explained in the

report. Any discrepancies between the planned and actual implementation and products of the

evaluation are explained.

Recommendations and lessons learned

Recommendations and lessons learned are relevant, targeted to the intended users and actionable

within the responsibilities of the users. Recommendations are actionable proposals and lessons

learned are generalizations of conclusions applicable for wider use.

Use of evaluation

Evaluation requires an explicit acknowledgement and response from management regarding

intended follow-up to the evaluation results. Management will ensure the systematic

dissemination, storage and management of the output from the evaluation to ensure easy

accessibility and to maximise the benefits of the evaluations findings.


17 | P a g e

Completeness

Answers to evaluation questions

The evaluation report answers all the questions and information needs detailed in the Terms of

Reference (TOR). Where this is not possible, reasons and explanations are provided.

Clarity of analysis

The analysis is structured with a logical flow. Data and information are presented, analysed and

interpreted systematically. Findings and conclusions are clearly identified and flow logically

from the analysis of the data and information. Underlying assumptions are made explicit and

taken into account.

Distinction between conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned

The evaluation presents conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned separately and with

a clear logical distinction between them. Conclusions are substantiated by findings and analysis.

Recommendations and lessons learned follow logically from the conclusions.

Clarity and representativeness of the summary

The evaluation report contains an executive summary. The summary provides an overview of

the report, highlighting the main conclusions, recommendations and lessons learned.

Annex 2: Recommended table - overview about conclusions, recommendations and lessons learnt

T

OR

(C

hap

ter)

Ev

alu

atio

n R

epo

rt

(Ch

apte

r)

Pri

ori

ty (

hig

h/l

ow

: 1-

3)

Conclusion

Recommendation

Rec. to

Recommendation 1:

Recommendation 2:

Recommendation 3:

Recommendation 4:

As the case may be, please add additional lines for recommendations

[Type here]

19 | P a g e

Annex 3: Implementation Plan: (Title of Evaluation)

Date:

Name of the project evaluated:

Evaluation is commissioned by

(person in charge, desk and organisation) :

Name(s) of the evaluator(s):

Date of Final Report:

Person in charge for monitoring of the implementation

plan:

Recommendations of the evaluation

Is the

recommendati

on accepted?

In case of “yes”: Please indicate sub-steps, mile stones or

indicators for the implementation of the

recommendation

In case of „partly “or „no “: Please indicate the reasons

why the recommendation cannot or only partly be

implemented. Where appropriate please present

alternative proposals with sub-steps.

until

(m/j)

Person/

institution

in charge

yes

par

tly

no

Recommendation 1:

Recommendation 2:

Recommendation 3:

Recommendation 4:

Recommendation 5:

[Type here]

20 | P a g e

Requirements for Applicants

1. Interested Consultants/Firms must be registered with the relevant authorities in Kenya and must have Tax compliance certificates

2. Consultants/firms applying for this assignment must prove that they have contacted similar assignments in the past

Applications details

Interested consultants should apply by sending technical and financial proposals as well as scanned copies of registration certificates and Tax

Compliance certificates to [email protected] and [email protected] by May 26, 2017. The Evaluation exercise should be

completed within the first two weeks of June 2017 and the final report submitted during the last week of June 2017 at the latest.

Recommendation 6:

Recommendation 7:

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Documents

INADES-FORMATION KENYA Evaluation of the project ... Terms of Reference 2 | P a g e 1.1 Background of the evaluation Inades-Formation Kenya in partnership with Bread for the World