Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Decentralized evaluation for evidence-based decision makingWFP Office of Evaluation
Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS)
Who is this Template for? This Template is for the development of a Terms of Reference (TOR) for a WFP decentralized evaluation. It should be used by staff commissioning or managing a decentralized evaluation, during the Planning and preparation phases of the evaluation process. In WFP, decentralized evaluations can be of Operations, Activities, Thematic Areas, Transfer Modalities or Pilot Activities.What is the purpose of this Template? This template provides a suggested structure and guidance on content for writing the Terms of Reference (TOR) for a decentralized evaluation. How should this Template be used? This template is used alongside the Quality Checklist for TOR to help ensure that all the elements of the TOR are adequately addressed. How is this Template structured? Within this Template: A box containing guidance is provided at the start of each section, where
necessary. These should be removed once the draft TOR is completed Text presented in italics provides guidance for the template user Text in standard format is suggested content for the TOR which can be edited
as appropriate Text in [square brackets] indicates that this part should be completed by the
user Reference to various elements of the guidance is underlinedOther key materials? Additional relevant guidance available on the intranet at the following address: The DEQAS Process Guide for Decentralized Evaluations, which sets out the
Phases of an evaluation and how to implement each one; Relevant Technical Notes, particularly those which relate directly to the type
of evaluation for which the TOR is being prepared Technical Note on Evaluation Norms and Standards (since UNEG standards
3.1-3.8 set out key elements that a well-designed TOR has to include).
Evaluation Terms of Reference Template
Version August 2016
Terms of ReferenceEVALUATION of
[Subject of evaluation] in [Geographical Area] from [Start Year] to [End Year]
WFP [Commissioning Team/Office]
Table of Contents
1. Introduction...............................................................................12. Reasons for the Evaluation........................................................1
2.1. Rationale........................................................................................................................12.2. Objectives......................................................................................................................22.3. Stakeholders and Users............................................................................................2
3. Context and subject of the Evaluation.......................................43.1. Context............................................................................................................................43.2. Subject of the evaluation.........................................................................................5
4. Evaluation Approach..................................................................54.1. Scope...............................................................................................................................54.2. Evaluation Criteria and Questions.......................................................................64.3. Data Availability..........................................................................................................64.4. Methodology.................................................................................................................74.5. Quality Assurance and Quality Assessment......................................................8
5. Phases and Deliverables.............................................................96. Organization of the Evaluation................................................11
6.1. Evaluation Conduct..................................................................................................116.2. Team composition and competencies................................................................116.3. Security Considerations.........................................................................................12
7. Roles and Responsibilities of Stakeholders.............................138. Communication and budget.....................................................15
8.1. Communication..........................................................................................................158.2. Budget...........................................................................................................................15
Annex 1 Map................................................................................16Annex 2 Evaluation Schedule......................................................17Annex 3 Membership of the internal evaluation committee and of the evaluation reference group.....................................................18Annex 4 Acronyms.......................................................................18Annex 5 Other technical annexes................................................18
The recommended page limit for the TOR is 15 pages (excluding annexes)
1. Introduction
Include: Purpose of the TOR Title of the evaluation subject (i.e. the Operation/activity/thematic
area/transfer modality/pilot activity being evaluated); Brief description of the subject of the evaluation Timing of evaluation (e.g. Mid-term, final, other)Length: maximum 1 page
1. These Terms of Reference (TOR) are for the evaluation of [evaluation subject] in [geographic area]. This evaluation is commissioned by [name of Commissioning Office] and will cover the period from [month/year] to [month/year].
2. These TOR were prepared by the [WFP commissioning team/office] based upon an initial document review and consultation with stakeholders and following a standard template. The purpose of the TOR is twofold. Firstly, it provides key information to the evaluation team and helps guide them throughout the evaluation process; and secondly, it provides key information to stakeholders about the proposed evaluation.
3. [Provide any additional information that is relevant to the evaluation]
2. Reasons for the EvaluationLength: maximum 2 pages
4. The reasons for the evaluation being commissioned are presented below.2.1. Rationale
Summarize why the evaluation is being conducted. Explain: Why the evaluation is needed at this time How the evaluation will be used by the WFP Commissioning Office and
key stakeholders The evaluation’s purpose for strategic planning, learning, and accountability
5. The evaluation is being commissioned for the following reasons:6. [Describe the reasons why the evaluation is needed at this time]7. The evaluation will have the following uses for the [WFP Commissioning
Office]:[Brief statement of how the evaluation will be used]
TOR template Version August 2016 1 | P a g e
2.2. Objectives
State clearly the objectives of evaluation (e.g. budget revision, new project design, etc.). This is distinct from the objectives of the evaluation subject, described in Section 3 below.
8. Evaluations in WFP serve the dual and mutually reinforcing objectives of accountability and learning. Accountability – The evaluation will assess and report on the performance
and results of the [evaluation subject]. Learning – The evaluation will determine the reasons why certain results
occurred or not to draw lessons, derive good practices and pointers for learning. It will provide evidence-based findings to inform operational and strategic decision-making. Findings will be actively disseminated and lessons will be incorporated into relevant lesson sharing systems
9. [Nuance the standard text above and clarify whether more weight is given to accountability or to learning and why]
10. [Include specific Commissioning Office or other WFP objectives for this evaluation]
2.3. Stakeholders and Users
Specify for whom the evaluation is being done and who are the intended users of the evaluation (see TN Stakeholder Analysis ). Include: Who are the main stakeholders in the intervention What the stakeholders’ interest and role will be in the evaluationAlso, indicate whether and how beneficiaries’ perspectives will be included in the evaluation process and report.Adapt Table 1 to include the relevant internal and external stakeholders who have an interest and/or involvement in the evaluation.
11. A number of stakeholders both inside and outside of WFP have interests in the results of the evaluation and some of these will be asked to play a role in the evaluation process. Table 1 below provides a preliminary stakeholder analysis, which should be deepened by the evaluation team as part of the Inception phase.
12. Accountability to affected populations, is tied to WFP’s commitments to include beneficiaries as key stakeholders in WFP’s work. As such, WFP is committed to ensuring gender equality and women’s empowerment in the evaluation process, with participation and consultation in the evaluation by women, men, boys and girls from different groups.
TOR template Version August 2016 2 | P a g e
Table 1: Preliminary Stakeholders’ analysis (Add/delete rows as appropriate)
Stakeholders Interest in the evaluation and likely uses of evaluation report to this stakeholder
INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Country Office (CO) [location]
Responsible for the country level planning and operations implementation, It has a direct stake in the evaluation and an interest in learning from experience to inform decision-making. It is also called upon to account internally as well as to its beneficiaries and partners for performance and results of its operation. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable]
Regional Bureau (RB) [location]
Responsible for both oversight of COs and technical guidance and support, the RB management has an interest in an independent/impartial account of the operational performance as well as in learning from the evaluation findings to apply this learning to other country offices. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable]
WFP HQ WFP has an interest in the lessons that emerge from evaluations, particularly as they relate to WFP strategies, policies, thematic areas, or delivery modality with wider relevance to WFP programming. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable]
Office of Evaluation (OEV)
OEV has a stake in ensuring that decentralized evaluations deliver quality, credible and useful evaluations respecting provisions for impartiality as well as roles and accountabilities of various decentralised evaluation stakeholders as identified in the evaluation policy. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable]
WFP Executive Board (EB)
The WFP governing body has an interest in being informed about the effectiveness of WFP operations. This evaluation will not be presented to the EB but its findings may feed into annual syntheses and into corporate learning processes. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable]
EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
Beneficiaries As the ultimate recipients of food assistance, beneficiaries have a stake in WFP determining whether its assistance is appropriate and effective. As such, the level of participation in the evaluation of women, men, boys and girls from different groups will be determined and their respective perspectives will be sought. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable]
Government The Government has a direct interest in knowing whether WFP activities in the country are aligned with its priorities, harmonised with the action of other partners and meet the expected results. Issues related to
TOR template Version August 2016 3 | P a g e
capacity development, handover and sustainability will be of particular interest. [If relevant, Various Ministries are partners in the design and implementation of WFP activities] [Add additional interest in the evaluation as applicable, for example if the subject of evaluation was designed and/or implemented jointly with some government institutions, such institutions will have a direct interest]
UN Country team
The UNCT’s harmonized action should contribute to the realisation of the government developmental objectives. It has therefore an interest in ensuring that WFP operation is effective in contributing to the UN concerted efforts. Various agencies are also direct partners of WFP at policy and activity level. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as relevant, for example if the subject of evaluation was designed and/or implemented jointly with some UN agencies, such agencies will have a direct interest]
NGOs [List specific NGOs, if relevant]
NGOs are WFP’s partners for the implementation of some activities while at the same time having their own interventions. The results of the evaluation might affect future implementation modalities, strategic orientations and partnerships. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as relevant]
Donors [List specific donors]
WFP operations are voluntarily funded by a number of donors. They have an interest in knowing whether their funds have been spent efficiently and if WFP’s work has been effective and contributed to their own strategies and programmes. [Add additional interest in the evaluation as relevant]
[Add as relevant, e.g. private sector]
13. The primary users of this evaluation will be: The [name of WFP Commissioning Office] and its partners in decision-
making, notably related to programme implementation and/or design, Country Strategy and partnerships [link to reasons and objectives of evaluation, above]
Given the core functions of the Regional Bureau (RB), the RB is expected to use the evaluation findings to provide strategic guidance, programme support, and oversight
WFP HQ may use evaluations for wider organizational learning and accountability
OEV may use the evaluation findings, as appropriate, to feed into evaluation syntheses as well as for annual reporting to the Executive Board.
[If applicable, add any other intended users and link them to the reasons and objectives of the evaluation, above]
TOR template Version August 2016 4 | P a g e
TOR template Version August 2016 5 | P a g e
3. Context and subject of the Evaluation
Length: maximum 2-3 pages
3.1. Context
Briefly present the context in which the subject of the evaluation takes place, focussing on relevant issues that the subject of the evaluation is seeking to address: Poverty, food security in relation to the subject of the evaluation Government policies and priorities in relation to food security/the
subject of the evaluation Humanitarian issues as they relate to food security and the subject of
the evaluation, including for example, migration patterns and host community/social tensions
Gender dimensions of the context, in relation to food security/the subject of the evaluation
Key external events which led to significant changes in WFP’s work Features of international assistance in the area: Long-standing
donors/agencies in the country, level of resources, humanitarian and development assistance etc.
Other WFP work in the area and related work of other humanitarian/development actors
14. [Brief overview of the context for the subject of the evaluation] 3.2. Subject of the evaluation
Provide sufficient information to understand the nature of the evaluation subject, including:
Title / type of the evaluation subject Geographic scope of the evaluation subject [insert and refer to Map in
Annex] Relevant dates: Approval date; start date; expected end date. If
evaluation spans across more than one operational period, indicate dates for all operations covered (esp relevant for impact evaluations)
Planned outputs (e.g. for an operation or activity, planned % of beneficiaries by activity/component disaggregated by gender; planned MT of food requirements by activity/component if applicable)
Planned outcomes in design Key activities Main partners (Government; NGO; Bilateral; Multilateral) Resources: Budget (allocated to and received for the subject of the
evaluation for monitoring the proportion of WFP’s work evaluated by year), % funded of total requirements; If subject funded from pooled funds, show resource allocated (this information is imperative for all DE TOR)
Other relevant preceding/ concurrent activities/ interventions/operations
Amendments to initial design (i.e. extension in time, programme increase, technical adjustments)
If existing, logic model or logical framework should be mentioned. If not
TOR template Version August 2016 6 | P a g e
available it should also be mentioned. Gender equality and women’s empowerment dimensions relevant to
subject of the evaluation and contextWFP project documents and amendments; Logic Model or Logical Framework’ funding information and budget revisions will be useful source material here; also any previous evaluations or reviews. Include any relevant Maps (Annexes).
15. [Provide a short description of the subject of the evaluation]. 16. [Include in the TOR annexes any relevant documentation, such as the
logical framework and other available information.]
4. Evaluation ApproachLength: maximum 2 -3 pages
4.1. ScopeDescribe what the evaluation will and will not cover
Time frame: start and cut off dates Geographic boundaries, if any Components: e.g. whether all or part of an operation, activity or
thematic area; whether the whole of a pilot project or transfer modality
17. [Description of the scope of the evaluation. If applicable, specify and justify any limitation to the scope in terms of timeframe, geographical or programmatic areas covered.]
4.2. Evaluation Criteria and Questions
Include international evaluation criteria as appropriate to the subject of the evaluation, and list evaluation questions which address these criteria, plus any other questions, as appropriate. Normally all 5 standard evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability should be used. In case one of them is not considered appropriate than it can be disregarded provided the TOR justify why. See TN Evaluation Criteria and Questions. Gender equality and women’s empowerment are mainstreamed throughout the evaluation questions and sub-questions with consideration of how the perspectives of men, women, boys and girls will be sought in the evaluation process. Data requires disaggregation by gender. See TN on Gender in Evaluations.
18. Evaluation Criteria The evaluation will apply the international evaluation criteria of [Using the guidance provided in the technical note on evaluation criteria and questions, select from: Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability, Coverage, Coherence, and Connectedness].1 Gender Equality should be mainstreamed throughout.
1 For more detail see: http://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/daccriteriaforevaluatingdevelopmentassistance.htm and http://www.alnap.org/what-we-do/evaluation/eha TOR template Version August 2016 7 | P a g e
[Briefly explain why certain criteria have been selected or not, example if evaluation will not assess impact, why is that so?]
19. Evaluation Questions Allied to the evaluation criteria, the evaluation will address the following key questions, which will be further developed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. Collectively, the questions aim at highlighting the key lessons and performance of the [subject of evaluation], which could inform future strategic and operational decisions.
20. [Identify key criteria and questions, adapted from Table 2 below] Table 2: Criteria and evaluation questions
Criteria Evaluation QuestionsRelevance/Appropriateness(the latter for humanitarian evaluations)EffectivenessEfficiencyImpact Sustainability or Connectedness (the latter for humanitarian evaluations)Coverage (for humanitarian evaluations) Coherence (for humanitarian evaluations)
4.3. Data Availability Identify the main sources of information available to the evaluation team (e.g. Standard Project Reports, previous evaluations, monitoring data, surveys, etc.) and whether these are mainly qualitative or quantitative. Clarify if there are any data against the corporate indicators (which ones) or if the CO has developed more specific indicators that have been populated regularly indicates which are these. Also identify relevant non-WFP data sources e.g. government data, surveys, information from other UN agencies, implementing partners etc.
List any gaps in the data openly, so that the evaluation team are aware of challenges to evaluability and can develop strategies to help mitigate these. Examples include: limited or unreliable datasets absence of baseline data data only available in local languages high staff turnover meaning limited institutional memoryAssess usability of the subject of the evaluation’s Logic Model or Logical Framework if available. Assess availability of: baseline data, quantifiable indicators, measurable objectives clear targets, output and outcome data (monitoring) documentation of assumptions made and testing of these over time
TOR template Version August 2016 8 | P a g e
Assess evaluability of impact (where relevant). Determine, to the extent possible, the reliability of data available.Indicate the implications that the limitation to evaluability has on the evaluation and how the evaluation will address these limitations.
21. [Describe the main sources of information available to the evaluation team and any limitations in data availability.]
22. Concerning the quality of data and information, the evaluation team should:a. assess data availability and reliability as part of the inception phase expanding
on the information provided in section 4.3. This assessment will inform the data collection
b. systematically check accuracy, consistency and validity of collected data and information and acknowledge any limitations/caveats in drawing conclusions using the data.
4.4. Methodology
Describe in broad terms the anticipated methods for the evaluation. These will be further developed by the Evaluation Team during the Inception Phase of the evaluation. Specify mechanisms for independence and impartiality (see TN on Independence and Impartiality ) Specify a mixed method approach, and the use of both qualitative and quantitative methods and literature review, as appropriate (see TN on Methodology ). Specify any risks to the methodology, such as lack of availability of key data, difficulties in gaining access to beneficiariesSpecify a gender-responsive evaluation methodology, methods and tools, and data analysis techniques, as appropriate (see TN on Gender in Evaluation)Be clear that the Evaluation team will need to expand on the methodology presented in the TOR, and develop an Evaluation Matrix as part of this (see TN on Evaluation Matrix).
23. The methodology will be designed by the evaluation team during the inception phase. It should: Employ the relevant evaluation criteria above [Insert evaluation
criteria here] Demonstrate impartiality and lack of biases by relying on a cross-
section of information sources (stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, etc.) The selection of field visit sites will also need to demonstrate impartiality.
Using mixed methods (quantitative, qualitative, participatory etc.) to ensure triangulation of information through a variety of means.
TOR template Version August 2016 9 | P a g e
Apply an evaluation matrix geared towards addressing the key evaluation questions taking into account the data availability challenges, the budget and timing constraints;
Ensure through the use of mixed methods that women, girls, men and boys from different stakeholders groups participate and that their different voices are heard and used;
Mainstream gender equality and women’s empowerment, as above; [include any additional methodological requirements which may be
applicable to this evaluation]24. The following mechanisms for independence and impartiality will be
employed [list mechanisms, such as use of an Evaluation Committee and an Evaluation Reference Group, referring to the Technical Note on Independence and Impartiality for guidance]
25. The following potential risks to the methodology have been identified [list limitations and where applicable proposed means of mitigating them]
4.5. Quality Assurance and Quality AssessmentWFP’s DEQAS defines the quality standards expected from decentralized evaluations. Specify its use at different stages of the evaluation process, to ensure the satisfactory quality standards of the evaluation including its process and products. External review of evaluation products may also be applied where appropriate.
26. WFP’s Decentralized Evaluation Quality Assurance System (DEQAS) defines the quality standards expected from this evaluation and sets out processes with in-built steps for Quality Assurance, Templates for evaluation products and Checklists for their review. DEQAS is closely aligned to the WFP’s evaluation quality assurance system (EQAS) and is based on the UNEG norms and standards and good practice of the international evaluation community and aims to ensure that the evaluation process and products conform to best practice.
27. DEQAS will be systematically applied to this evaluation. The WFP Evaluation Manager will be responsible for ensuring that the evaluation progresses as per the DEQAS Process Guide and for conducting a rigorous quality control of the evaluation products ahead of their finalization.
28. WFP has developed a set of Quality Assurance Checklists for its decentralized evaluations. This includes Checklists for feedback on quality for each of the evaluation products. The relevant Checklist will be applied at each stage, to ensure the quality of the evaluation process and outputs.
29. To enhance the quality and credibility of this evaluation, an outsourced quality support (QS) service directly managed by WFP’s Office of Evaluation in Headquarter provides review of the draft inception and evaluation report (in addition to the same provided on draft TOR), and provide:
TOR template Version August 2016 10 | P a g e
a. systematic feedback from an evaluation perspective, on the quality of the draft inception and evaluation report;
b. recommendations on how to improve the quality of the final inception/evaluation report
30. The evaluation manager will review the feedback and recommendations from QS and share with the team leader, who is expected to use them to finalise the inception/ evaluation report. To ensure transparency and credibility of the process in line with the UNEG norms and standards[1][1], a rationale should be provided for any recommendations that the team does not take into account when finalising the report.
31. This quality assurance process as outline above does not interfere with the views and independence of the evaluation team, but ensures the report provides the necessary evidence in a clear and convincing way and draws its conclusions on that basis.
32. The evaluation team will be required to ensure the quality of data (validity, consistency and accuracy) throughout the analytical and reporting phases. The evaluation team should be assured of the accessibility of all relevant documentation within the provisions of the directive on disclosure of information. This is available in WFP’s Directive (#CP2010/001 ) on Information Disclosure.
33. [Indicate any additional intended measures to assure the quality of the process and product, and thus increase the credibility and impartiality of the evaluation]
34. All final evaluation reports will be subjected to a post hoc quality assessment by an independent entity through a process that is managed by OEV. The overall rating category of the reports will be made public alongside the evaluation reports.
5. Phases and Deliverables
Indicate the key phases of the evaluation process and an indicative time frame, including milestones/deadlines. These include: Planning – carried out by the WFP Commissioning Office Preparation- carried out by the Evaluation Manager. It includes the
preparation of the TOR, selection of the evaluation team, and contracting of the evaluation company.
Inception- concludes with an inception report detailing how the team intends to conduct the evaluation with an emphasis on methodological and planning aspects. Deliverable: Inception Report
Data collection and analysis - includes data collection activities, which may include field work. Deliverable: aide-memoire or debriefing PPT
Reporting- the evaluation team will analyse the data collected during the desk
[1][1] UNEG 2016 Norms and Standards states Norm #7 states “that transparency is an essential element that establishes trust and builds confidence, enhances stakeholder ownership and increases public accountability”TOR template Version August 2016 11 | P a g e
review and field work, conduct additional consultations with stakeholders as required. Deliverable: Evaluation Report
Dissemination and follow-up-The evaluation report is shared with relevant stakeholders and users of the evaluation. The WFP Commissioning Office management respond to the evaluation recommendations by providing actions that will be taken to address each recommendation and estimated timelines for taking those actions.
Highlight deliverables, written following DEQAS Process Guide and WFP templates, for each stage, with associated deadlines. Length: 2-3 pages
35. The evaluation will proceed through the following phases. The deliverables and deadlines for each phase are as follows:
TOR template Version August 2016 12 | P a g e
Figure 1: Summary Process Map [Example, revise if appropriate]
36. [List evaluation phases and the timeline for these phases if known at this point and product(s) to be delivered by what form (word, PowerPoint, video etc.]
37. [Ensure that key responsibilities for each deliverable specified].38. [Insert and refer to an evaluation schedule in Annex 2 (See evaluation
timeline template)]
6. Organization of the EvaluationSet out how the evaluation is expected to be organized, in terms of its conduct, the composition and competencies expected from the evaluation team, and any relevant security considerations.
Length: 1-2 pages
6.1. Evaluation Conduct39. The evaluation team will conduct the evaluation under the direction of
its team leader and in close communication with [the WFP evaluation manager]. The team will be hired following agreement with WFP on its composition.
40. The evaluation team will not have been involved in the design or implementation of the subject of evaluation or have any other conflicts of interest. Further, they will act impartially and respect the code of conduct of the evaluation profession.
41. [Refer to an evaluation schedule in Annex 2 (See evaluation timeline template)]
6.2. Team composition and competencies42. The evaluation team is expected to include [specify number or range]
members, including the team leader and [specify whether a mix of national and international evaluator(s) will be required]. To the extent possible, the evaluation will be conducted by a gender-balanced, geographically and culturally diverse team with appropriate skills to assess gender dimensions of the subject as specified in the scope, approach and methodology sections of the ToR. At least one team member should have WFP experience.
TOR template Version August 2016 13 | P a g e
1. Prepare 2. Inception
Inception Report
3.Collect data
Aide memoire / debriefing PPT
4. Analyze data and Report
Evaluation Report
5.Disseminate and follow-
up
43. The team will be multi-disciplinary and include members who together include an appropriate balance of expertise and practical knowledge in the following areas: [Specify key competencies here]. [Specify key competencies here]. [Specify key competencies here]. Gender expertise / good knowledge of gender issues All team members should have strong analytical and communication
skills, evaluation experience and familiarity with [country and/or region].
[Specify oral and written language requirements depending on local language and the expected language of the evaluation report].
44. The Team leader will have technical expertise in one of the technical areas listed above as well as expertise in designing methodology and data collection tools and demonstrated experience in leading similar evaluations. She/he will also have leadership, analytical and communication skills, including a track record of excellent [language] writing and presentation skills.
45. Her/his primary responsibilities will be: i) defining the evaluation approach and methodology; ii) guiding and managing the team; iii) leading the evaluation mission and representing the evaluation team; iv) drafting and revising, as required, the inception report, the end of field work (i.e. exit) debriefing presentation and evaluation report in line with DEQAS.
46. The team members will bring together a complementary combination of the technical expertise required and have a track record of written work on similar assignments.
47. Team members will: i) contribute to the methodology in their area of expertise based on a document review; ii) conduct field work; iii) participate in team meetings and meetings with stakeholders; iv) contribute to the drafting and revision of the evaluation products in their technical area(s).
6.3. Security ConsiderationsSecurity considerations will vary depending upon the nature of the context and the nature of the contracting arrangements with WFP. Include/delete the following standard text provided in the below bullet points as relevant depending on whether the team will be hired through a service provider or as individual consultants.
48. Security clearance where required is to be obtained from [the designated duty station.] As an ‘independent supplier’ of evaluation services to WFP, the evaluation
company is responsible for ensuring the security of all persons contracted, including adequate arrangements for evacuation for medical or situational
TOR template Version August 2016 14 | P a g e
reasons. The consultants contracted by the evaluation company do not fall under the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel.
Consultants hired independently are covered by the UN Department of Safety & Security (UNDSS) system for UN personnel which cover WFP staff and consultants contracted directly by WFP. Independent consultants must obtain UNDSS security clearance for travelling to be obtained from designated duty station and complete the UN system’s Basic and Advance Security in the Field courses in advance, print out their certificates and take them with them.2
49. However, to avoid any security incidents, the Evaluation Manager is requested to ensure that: The WFP CO registers the team members with the Security Officer on
arrival in country and arranges a security briefing for them to gain an understanding of the security situation on the ground.
The team members observe applicable UN security rules and regulations – e.g. curfews etc.
50. [List any specific security considerations, if known, for the team here]
7. Roles and Responsibilities of StakeholdersDescribe the roles and responsibilities of key stakeholders in the evaluation here, including: WFP Commissioning Office (Specific programme/thematic area team; M&E
staff; senior management etc.) WFP country office [if evaluation is being commissioned by RB or HQ division] Evaluation Committee Evaluation Reference Group WFP Regional Bureau (when not the Commissioning Office) WFP Headquarters Office of Evaluation National government stakeholders (relevant Ministries, departments, units) Partner UN agencies Implementing partnersDescribe the roles and responsibilities (amending standard text as needed), and reporting mechanisms including who is responsible for managing the evaluation throughout and signing off on the evaluation products. Indicate how stakeholders will provide feedback on draft reports and how this feedback will be presented to the evaluation team.
Further information on roles and accountabilities available in DEQAS Process Guide. Identify which stakeholders will participate in the Evaluation Committee (EC) and in the Evaluation Reference Group (ERG), usually comprising members from relevant WFP thematic and strategic areas at different levels. The EC/ERG provides input into the evaluation process and comments on the evaluation
2 Field Courses: Basic https://dss.un.org/bsitf/; Advanced http://dss.un.org/asitf TOR template Version August 2016 15 | P a g e
products. It is a key mechanism for independence and impartiality [See TN on internal evaluation committee and TN Evaluation Reference Group ]. This section should be maximum 1 page
51. The [WFP Commissioning Office]: a-The [name of WFP Commissioning Office] Management (Director or
Deputy Director) will take responsibility to:o Assign an Evaluation Manager for the evaluation: [Name, title].o Compose the internal evaluation committee and the evaluation
reference group (see below).o Approve the final Tor, inception and evaluation reports.o Ensure the independence and impartiality of the evaluation at all stages,
including establishment of an Evaluation Committee and of a Reference Group (see below and TN on Independence and Impartiality).
o Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation design and the evaluation subject, its performance and results with the Evaluation Manager and the evaluation team
o Organise and participate in two separate debriefings, one internal and one with external stakeholders
o Oversee dissemination and follow-up processes, including the preparation of a Management Response to the evaluation recommendations
b-Evaluation Manager:o Manages the evaluation process through all phases including drafting
this TORo Ensure quality assurance mechanisms are operational o Consolidate and share comments on draft TOR, inception and
evaluation reports with the evaluation teamo Ensures expected use of quality assurance mechanisms (checklists,
quality support o Ensure that the team has access to all documentation and information
necessary to the evaluation; facilitate the team’s contacts with local stakeholders; set up meetings, field visits; provide logistic support during the fieldwork; and arrange for interpretation, if required.
o Organise security briefings for the evaluation team and provide any materials as required
c-An internal Evaluation Committee has been formed as part of ensuring the independence and impartiality of the evaluation [specify membership and key roles and responsibilities, including providing input to evaluation process and commenting on evaluation products and refer to annex 3 where list of members is available].
52. An evaluation reference group has been formed, as appropriate, with representation from [state the membership of the ERG depending on the key internal and external stakeholders for the evaluation and refer to annex 3 where list of members is available] and will review the evaluation products as further safeguard against bias and influence.
TOR template Version August 2016 16 | P a g e
53. [if commissioning office is the RB or HQ division, state briefly what the envisaged responsibilities of affected country office(s) will be]
54. The Regional Bureau (When not the Commissioning Office), RB management will take responsibility to: Assign a focal point for the evaluation. [Name, title] will be the focal
point for this evaluation Participate in discussions with the evaluation team on the evaluation
design and on the evaluation subject as relevant. Provide comments on the draft TOR, Inception and Evaluation reports Support the Management Response to the evaluation and track the
implementation of the recommendations. 55. Relevant WFP Headquarters divisions will take responsibility to:
Discuss WFP strategies, policies or systems in their area of responsibility and subject of evaluation.
Comment on the evaluation TOR and draft report. 56. Other Stakeholders (Government, NGOs, UN agencies) will [add
the specific roles and responsibilities, if any, of other stakeholders]57. The Office of Evaluation (OEV). OEV will advise the Evaluation
Manager and provide support to the evaluation process where appropriate. It is responsible to provide access to independent quality support mechanisms reviewing draft inception and evaluation reports from an evaluation perspective. It also ensure a help desk function upon request from the Regional Bureaus.
58. [Add brief description of the roles and responsibilities of any other relevant stakeholders such as national Government partners, UN agencies, NGO partners, and reporting mechanisms for the evaluation]
8. Communication and budget
8.1. Communication
International standards require that the findings of the evaluation are published for the purpose of transparency with internal and external stakeholders. The Communication and Learning Plan (see Template) describes the channels for distribution and the timeline for the products that will be disseminated (e.g. Inception Report, Evaluation Report). It makes clear the respective roles and responsibilities of the Evaluation Team and Commissioning Office.If relevant, describe arrangements for editing and translation here. Length:1 page
59. To ensure a smooth and efficient process and enhance the learning from this evaluation, the evaluation team should place emphasis on transparent and open communication with key stakeholders. These will be
TOR template Version August 2016 17 | P a g e
achieved by ensuring a clear agreement on channels and frequency of communication with and between key stakeholders. [specify roles and responsibilities for communication]
60. As part of the international standards for evaluation, WFP requires that all evaluations are made publicly available. Following the approval of the final evaluation report, [describe the Communication and Learning plan and any requirements for translation of evaluation products. Specify any additional communication-related products].
8.2. Budget
The proposed budget will be based on one of the following three options:
a) Hire of individual consultants through Human Resources (HR) action, in which case budget will be determined by "HR regulations on consultancy rates"
b) Use of Long Term Agreement (sometimes called service level agreement’, with the budget arranged through pre-agreed rates
c) Tender through procurement procedures, in which case the budget will be proposed by the applicant
See RN Forms of Contracting. A Budget Template is also available.
61. Budget: For the purpose of this evaluation, the budget will: [indicate which of the three options will be used and thus guide the
budget] [indicate any budgetary guidelines/limitations depending on the
contracting options selected] [indicate how travel/subsistence/other direct expenses should be
accounted for in the proposed budget] [clarify whether the budget includes any special communication-related
provisions e.g. workshops]Please send any queries to [name, title], at [email, phone number]
TOR template Version August 2016 18 | P a g e
Annex 1 Map
62.
TOR template Version August 2016 19 | P a g e
Annex 2 Evaluation Schedule
Phases, Deliverables and Timeline Key DatesPhase 1 - Preparation Desk review, first draft of TOR and quality assurance
Circulation of TOR and review to (list key stakeholders) Preparatory mission (Evaluation manager and team leader)Identification and recruitment of evaluation teamFinal TOR
Phase 2 - Inception Briefing core team Review documents and draft inception report including
methodology. Submit draft inception report to (list key
stakeholder) Quality assurance and feedback Revise inception report Submit revised inception report to (list key
stakeholder)Sharing of inception report with stakeholders for information
Phase 3 – Data collection and analysis Briefing
Field workDebriefing Aide memoire/In-country Debriefing
Phase 4 - Reporting Draft evaluation report Submit Draft evaluation report to (list key
stakeholder) Quality feedback Revise evaluation report Submit revised evaluation report to (list key
stakeholder) Share evaluation report with stakeholders (working
level) Consolidate comments Revise evaluation report Submit final evaluation report to (list key
stakeholder)Phase 5 Dissemination and follow-up
TOR template Version August 2016 20 | P a g e
Annex 3 Membership of the internal evaluation committee and of the evaluation reference group
Annex 4 Acronyms
Annex 5 Other technical annexes
TOR template Version August 2016 21 | P a g e
