Consultancy to Conduct and Independent End-line Evaluation Terms of Reference Addressing Drivers of Conflict in Uganda Project At Saferworld

1. Introduction

Saferworld is an independent international conflict prevention and peacebuilding organisation. Saferworld has been in Uganda since 2001 working with civil society, international organisations and governments to encourage and support effective policies and practices through advocacy, research and policy development and through supporting the actions of others. Our work is focused on building a just and peaceful world, in which everyone enjoys the rights and freedom to live and thrive with dignity, free from fear and insecurity. We work in solidarity with communities, civil society and partners to prevent and transform violent conflict, advocate for peace and social justice, and build safer lives.

2. Project approach and outcomes

The “Addressing drivers of conflict in Uganda” is a three-year (1 December 2020 to 31 December 2023) project funded by Swedish International Development Agency (Sida) and implemented by Saferworld Uganda programme in consortium with Transcultural Psychosocial Organisation (TPO). The project aimed at contributing to more peaceful, secure and resilient communities in Uganda by supporting communities, formal and informal authorities, and civil society to work together towards building peace and resolving conflicts, including those caused by natural resource competition; the possibility of conflicts arising from an influx of refugees; inadequate transitional justice processes; and volatile and flawed electoral procedures.

The project was implemented in 28 sub counties in 14 districts of Karenga, Amudat, Nakapiripirit, Moroto, Nwoya, Amuru, Adjumani, Lamwo, Kikuube, Buliisa, Kasese, Yumbe, Obongi and Terego, across four regions of Karamoja, West Nile, Northern and Western. The project approach consisted of implementation at multiple levels, (community, district and national levels) to enable change in communities and influence of local and national actors to adopt effective conflict and gender sensitive approaches to address drivers of conflict and to maximise prospects for peace. The project was delivered in partnership with Gulu Women Empowerment for Development and Globalisation (GWEDG), Karamoja Development Forum (KDF), MAYANK Anti-Corruption Coalition (MACCO), and Rwenzori Information Centre and Networks (RICNET).

The project supported diverse local organisations and community groups to lead peacebuilding and psychosocial responses at community-level; facilitated processes and platforms for civil society actors to build solidarity around peace, security and justice issues; and linked them to subnational and national-level advocacy efforts with relevant institutions. Additionally, the project mainstreamed conflict sensitivity by understanding the context; and together with other actors, avoided entrenching conflict dynamics while maximising opportunities to promote peace.

Gender and conflict sensitivity was an integral part of the project design and approach – interventions focused on promoting the equal rights, responsibilities, opportunities, visibility, empowerment, and participation of women and men; taking into account the different conflict and peace experiences, roles, responsibilities, interests, and needs of different genders and how these are shaped by and interact with other systems of power and identities for example; age, ethnicity, disability and status.

The project aspired to achieve the following outcomes:

1. Communities (including women, youth, refugees, hosts and other marginalised groups) at risk of- and/or affected by, conflict in at least 14 districts identify, prioritise, analyse, monitor and take coordinated action to respond to local conflict issues and their root causes, through existing and/or new community peacebuilding structures.
2. Formal and informal authorities responsible for building peace, security, justice and psychosocial healing at local, district and national levels, consult more with communities on identified conflict issues, support community peacebuilding structures in responding to conflict issues, and incorporate community concerns (including issues affecting marginalised groups) into their related responses.
3. CSOs work together to influence relevant peace, security and justice processes and decision-making at district/regional and national levels, including donors and private sector, connecting them to communities’ concerns and priorities; and to incorporate conflict sensitive practices into their activities and program
4. The project theory of change (TOC) was rooted on essential conditions for peace which states that: people play an active role in preventing and transforming conflict and building peace; People with influence use their power to promote inclusive, just and equitable societies; People have access to fair and effective paths to address the grievances and inequalities that drive conflict; and peace in the society begins with peace in the mind of individuals and communities. The TOC is stated as follows:

IF Saferworld and partners

1. Provide programme participants and wider community members with psychosocial support and spaces for community healing; and give community groups, including women, youth, refugees, hosts and other marginalised groups, the tools and skills to a) analyse local conflict issues and causes of insecurity and to find ways to address them collectively; b) communicate and advocate constructively with relevant formal and informal local authorities;
2. Help communities and community action/peacebuilding groups to work together within and across divisions of identity, politics and power to address local conflict issues and causes of insecurity, and find ways to address them collectively;
3. Involve local councils and other relevant formal and informal authorities in discussing and implementing solutions to conflict issues and causes of insecurity identified by communities; b) include them in local level trainings with community peacebuilding/action groups (where conflict-sensitive) and direct trainings (including on conflict and gender sensitivity and conflict resolution and analysis); c) provide them with evidence on community concerns and priorities, and local level success stories in addressing community peace, security and justice issues;
4. Provide relevant knowledge and information resources, such as programming approaches and models for peacebuilding, ideas for activities, in widely disseminated and accessible products; b) support a coordination platform for civil society organisations (CSOs) to exchange ideas, best practice and enable peer learning; and c) support peacebuilding ideas – with a strong focus on advocacy – that emerge from the members network through a small grant facility;

THEN

1. Communities at risk of and/or affected by conflict will be able to identify, prioritise, analyse, monitor and take coordinated action to respond to local conflict issues and their root cases; we will see improvements in relationships and a reduction in tensions along these lines of division;
2. We will see relevant formal and informal authorities consulting more with communities; cooperating with community peacebuilding/action groups on identified conflict issues; and incorporating community concerns into their related responses.
3. We will see CSOs incorporating conflict-sensitive practices into their activities and programmes; and working together to influence relevant peace, security and justice processes and decision-making at district, regional and national levels – including advocating donors and private sector actors – connecting them to communities’ concerns and priorities.

BECAUSE

• Communities will have the confidence and necessary coping mechanisms and support to proactively participate in promoting peace in their localities; and communities will be able to direct their needs and demands to the right actors in a constructive way, and will gain the knowledge and tools be able to play a constructive role in supporting service delivery, building peace and preventing conflict in their localities;
• Communication channels that they have designed and implemented will have a greater change of long-term success, and people will see in practice the role they can play in resolving community level conflicts and disputes. Communities will also be more aware of conflict and power divides at local, sub-national and national levels and their impacts.
• Authorities will see their status and image among community members improve as they continue to be a reference point for security and justice provision; representatives of local councils and other relevant authorities will gain personal experience of this approach working in practice; and will recognise that it is more effective to provide services in an accountable and transparent way which promotes community cohesion.
• When CSOs come together and talk through peacebuilding ideas and approaches, they will be able to share practical examples of actions that their peers are implementing; and they will be given the confidence in their own actions through peer support. They will also be able to develop a sense of shared abilities and potential for joint advocacy.

1. Evaluation purpose

The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the impact of “Addressing drivers of conflict project”. This includes assessing the impact, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, relevance and sustainability of project outcomes, approaches, models, and strategies. The evaluation will follow the OECD criteria for evaluation to document best practices, lessons learned as well as challenges that arose from project implementation.

1. Objectives of the evaluation
2. To assess the extent to which the project has contributed towards more peaceful, secure and resilient communities in the targeted communities against the set objectives/outcomes – using among other tools a gender and conflict sensitive lens, considering how gender norms driving conflict were integrated in project interventions.
3. To identify and document intended outcomes, unintended outcomes, best practices, lessons learned as well as challenges experienced during project implementation.
4. To assess efficiency, effectiveness, relevance and appropriateness of models, strategies and project approaches under peacebuilding and Mental Health Psychosocial Support Services (MHPSS) applied towards attainment of project outcomes
5. Provide actionable recommendations for Saferworld and partners’ future work on integrating MHPSS and peacebuilding, as well as wider national and international advocacy messaging around this issue.

The end-line evaluation will assess the impact of the project per outcome area. This end-line will seek to answer the following questions:

Impact

• To what extent did the project contribute towards more peaceful, secure and resilient communities in the targeted communities and at national level? How did the project interventions benefit women and men and marginalised communities?
• To what extent did the project achieve the intended outcomes? What were the external factors that influenced the project outcomes? To what extent can changes be attributed to the project?
• Identify good practices and lessons learned related to the project operational contexts, actors engaged, and approaches used in implementation.
• What gender norms that drive conflict did the project interventions address to enhance and promote peace in communities.

Effectiveness

• To what extent did the intervention achieve its objectives, and results, including any differential results across groups?
• To what extent were the project strategies and approaches (including Outcome Harvesting, advocacy, MHPSS, peacebuilding, research) effective towards achieving the project goals?
• To what extent did the project’s approach in ensuring gender and conflict sensitivity at every stage successful at identifying and mitigating conflict risks?
• How were men and women and other marginalised groups involved in implementation of the project?
• To what extent were crosscutting themes like gender, disability, successfully integrated throughout the project cycle?
• To what extent did considered assumptions hold or not hold (what worked and what did not work?)

Efficiency

• To what extent did the intervention deliver results in an economic and timely way?
• Assess the extent to which the project was able to adapt and manage risk throughout implementation to respond to the changes in the context.
• To what extent were the strategies in terms of personnel, funds and time efficient.
• Assess the extent to which the project and the institution were prepared to respond to emerging crises or opportunities in critical stages of conflict prevention

Relevance

• To what extent did the intervention design and objectives respond and adapt to the context? Did the project respond to the needs of target communities?
• Assess the relevance and validity of the Theory of Change (ToC) and its assumptions (and the evidence on which these were based). To what extent were the assumptions rooted in the context, and adapted over time?
• Were the approaches employed by the project culturally and locally relevant?
• How do the achievements align with national objectives and priorities?
• How did the project align with global peacebuilding practices at Sida strategy level

Equity

• How were women, youth, PWDs and other marginalised people equitably involved in project implementation?
• Were the strategies used in project implementation able to address identified community needs and disparities in ways that are responsive to the context?
• How did the project approaches and methodologies support equitable distribution of resources across different communities?

Sustainability

• To what extent did the intervention net benefits continue, or are likely to continue?
• What models/interventions will be maintained by local partners?
• To what extent did the project complement work among different entities, especially with other peace building actors, and what factors hindered and/or facilitated this complementarity.
• To what extent did the project’s overall partnership approach contribute to sustainability beyond the project life.
• To what extent can good practices and lessons learned during the project be replicated and sustained beyond the project life?

5. Methodology

The evaluation will use qualitative methods of data collection to assess the impact of the project. In addition to other MEL approaches, the consultant will integrate Saferworld’s approach of Outcome Harvesting (OH) to better understand what changes have taken place as a result of project interventions.

The evaluator will inter alia use the following methodologies.:

• Desk reviews: The consultant will review a range of project internal and documentation. These will include project proposal, log frames, budget, partner reports, assessment reports, semi-annual and annual progress reports, activity reports, implementation plans and risk matrix, M&E data including OH reports and forms, and other relevant secondary data that will support the evaluation.
• Focus Group Discussions (FGDs): Focus group discussions will be conducted with community members including women, men, youth, refugees, and other vulnerable groups in a conflict and gender sensitive manner. The respondents will be sampled from (but not limited to) Community Action Groups (CAGs), Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT) groups and small-scale artisanal miners’ groups in the target regions where the project was implemented.
• Key Informant Interviews (KII): Interviews will be held with Saferworld staff, regional partner staff, CSO platform leaders, government officials, district officials, parliamentary forums, funding partners, SDG16+, community representatives and leaders, sub county leaders and other relevant stakeholders that the project worked with. This will require travel to project locations and scheduling appointments with relevant ministries at national level to conduct the interviews.
• Outcome Harvesting (OH): Throughout project implementation Saferworld and partners gather evidence of relevant outcomes through a participatory process known as outcome harvesting (OH). As part of this assignment, the consultant will systematically review evidence collected through OH, and collect complementary primary data through KIIs and FGDs that will enable them to further substantiate the harvested outcomes.

6. Ethical considerations

Saferworld is committed to ensuring that the rights of those participating in data collection or analysis are respected and protected, in accordance with our Global Safeguarding Policy and procedure Safeguarding-Policy.pdf whose purpose is to protect people especially women, children, and other adults at risk from potential harm that may be caused by and due to contact with Saferworld’s work and that of its partners.

All applicants should include details in their proposal on how they will ensure ethics and Safeguarding 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, women and other vulnerable groups. The consultant(s) shall also explain how confidentiality and anonymity of participants where necessary will be guaranteed. During the inception phase, the consultant and Saferworld MERL team will complete Child protection and Safeguarding Risk Assessment for to assess the level of risks to potential participants.

1. Expected outputs and deliverables

The consultant will be expected to:

• Submit an inception report within 5 days after an inception meeting with Saferworld. The inception report should contain detailed evaluation questions, detailed description of the methodology, draft data collection tools, sampling technique, sample size and a detailed end-line evaluation matrix and a schedule for the evaluation exercise.
• Prepare and submit draft evaluation report.
• Hold regional 1-day validation meeting with Saferworld, Sida, partners and key stakeholders
• Submit a high-quality final report based on an agreed template with clear recommendations to Saferworld and consortium partners and Sida. All reporting will be in English.
• Prepare one pager on project achievements and lessons learned. The Evaluator must also develop a stand-alone document (not more than one page) to outline the main project results at the outcome level as well as key programmatic lessons learned
• Submit data files including any quantitative data sets (raw and refined products), transcripts of qualitative data and others all materials used during the evaluation including recordings, in an accessible format.

1. Timeframe for the evaluation

The end-line evaluation will be conducted across the 14 districts of project implementation between February 26th to April 15 2024. This period includes time spent reviewing the draft report and providing feedback to the Consultant. Billable days must not exceed 30 working days. The final report must be submitted by April 15th 2024.

S/No

Activity description

Time allocated

Deliverables

1.Initial briefing meeting with Saferworld + Embassy 0.5 days

• Inception report
• Methodology and tools for data collection for assessment against the agreed key evaluation questions

2.Desk review of existing project documents including proposal document, donor and partner reports, project proposals, partners review and feedback reports, partnership reflection meeting notes, Saferworld strategic document, Saferworld existing resources on gender-sensitive conflict analysis and/or conflict- and gender-sensitive approach and etc. 4-days

3. Interviews with Saferworld Uganda, TPO Uganda country office staff, representatives from Sida: this includes Programme/project Managers, Grant Manager, MEL adviser and selected partner staff .2-days

.First draft Evaluation report

4. Field data collection in selected regions: interviews and focus group discussions (FGD) with Saferworld and partners staff, CSOs and women and youth groups representatives and other relevant stakeholders. 5-days.

5. Field data collection with other key stakeholders: interviews and focus group discussions (FDG) with Government officials, District Officials, CSOs and women and youth groups representatives and other relevant stakeholders. 4-days

6. Analyse and interpret data to develop a comprehensive end of project evaluation report that includes impact, lesson learned and proposed practical recommendations- 10-days

7. Validation workshop: facilitate validation meeting to share key findings and insights from the draft evaluation report with Saferworld and partner staff. 1 day

8. Incorporate Sida, Saferworld, and partner feedback (both written and from the validation workshop); and submit revised end of project evaluation report. 2-days

• Revised evaluation report

9. Share key findings and insights from the end of project evaluation with relevant Saferworld and partner staff through consultations, including a validation and a feedback meeting and reflection session. 0.5 days

• Final evaluation report
• PowerPoint presentation
• Annexes

1. Governance and management of the assignment

The assignment will be managed by Saferworld Uganda RMEL Adviser who will work hand in hand with program Managers, Advisers, UK programme and research team.

An evaluation team will be formed for the evaluation and the roles and responsibilities for each team is as follows**:**

• A team leader – An external independent evaluator, who has strong leadership skills, experience, with strong analysis, writing skills and adequate expertise will lead the evaluation team, providing guidance and direction to achieve the purpose, objectives of this evaluation; write evaluation report; and present the evaluation results.
• Saferworld staff (from the project, RMEL) – as sub-team members to provide logistics, inputs and organise the validation workshop.

Roles and responsibilities of Saferworld

• Hold an inception meeting with consultant
• Provide relevant documents to support the exercise
• Provide a list of people to be interviewed
• Mobilise partners, CSOs, relevant stakeholders for interviews
• Provide technical reviews to the reports produced
• Conduct regular reviews with the consultant and provide feedback
• Manage all logistical arrangements

Role and responsibility of the evaluator(s)

• Develop, test and update all data collection tools and instruments
• Work collaboratively with Saferworld staff and partners during the exercise
• Responsible for data collection, analysis and reporting
• Responsible for overall quality of evaluation outputs

1. Profile of consultant/s

The consultant is expected to meet the following specifications:

• Strong demonstrated experience and knowledge of quantitative and qualitative research methods and qualitative data analysis methods.
• Demonstrated experience in conducting research in the field of study
• Evidence of availability of appropriate qualifications, manpower and skills among key staff earmarked for deployment on the assignment.
• Good knowledge and proven experience in research design, implementation of studies and data analysis is required.
• Expertise in designing and executing high quality documentation and knowledge sharing initiatives commensurate with the best in the land rights and natural resources management.
• Ability to provide evidence of producing high quality reports in English, and working within tight timeframes.
• Practical knowledge of the OECD/DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance.
• Evidence of official registration as a consultancy firm or individual consultant (submit evidence of registration if applying as a firm).
• Master’s degree in International Development, Sociology, Social Sciences, Socio-economics or any other relevant academic qualification or an equivalent 15 years’ experience with a bachelor’s degree. A minimum of five (5 years of progressive experience of undertaking similar consultancies.
• An excellent understanding of the peace building and MHPSS related policy context in Uganda.
• Excellent knowledge of rights-based approaches in development, as well as issues related to land governance in Uganda.
• Excellent knowledge and understanding of the intersection between gender, conflict sensitivity, MPSS and peacebuilding.
• Sound knowledge of the conflict context in Uganda and the geographical scope of the study.
• Knowledge of Saferworld’s approaches, especially Outcome Harvesting will be an added advantage.

How to apply

1. Application process

Eligible consultants should submit their proposal (both technical and financial) including current CV. The proposal should briefly describe how the consultant intends to undertake this assignment and possible sources of information/data. Applicants should also explain how their professional experience matches the skills and qualifications listed.

Proposal needs to include:

• Suitability for the consultancy (maximum 1 page)
• Technical proposal including an outline of the proposed methodology, including consultant’s understanding of the assignment, and a proposed report format (maximum 8 pages)
• Financial proposal for the evaluation detailing all costs related to the evaluation including daily rates for key staff, and related travel expenses. Rates should be in Uganda Shillings and inclusive of VAT. The consultant will be subjected to withholding Tax as per the Laws of Uganda.
• CV(s) or company profile, including contact details for two references
• A sample of previous work relevant to the assignment (in English)
• Indicative evaluation schedule

All proposals must be submitted in soft copy to jobs@saferworld.org.uk with subject line “Consultant- Addressing Drivers of Conflict End-line Evaluation” by the 1st of March2024 at 5 p.m. (EAT)