Education:
Advanced university degree in Economics, Business Administration, Social Development, or related field.
Experience:
At least 5 years of relevant experience in development work;
Proven experience in social and evaluation research with a minimum of 2 years previous working experience;
Experience must primarily relate to management of national level M&E frameworks and/or strategic plans involving multiple stakeholders;
Experience in key expert positions in at least 2 international projects of similar scope; or has previously conducted evaluation of projects for any UN agency; or has performed Project Management of international projects with UN programs;
Full computer literacy.
The evaluation team will consist of two independent evaluators (one international and one national). The national consultant will be responsible for facilitating the evaluation process in terms of providing in-depth analysis of the national context, its challenges and opportunities.
Evaluation Ethics:
The report should conform to UNDP evaluation standards and therefore UNDP will be responsible for quality assurance. To ensure the credibility and integrity of the evaluation process and following United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Ethical Guidelines, the Consultant will be required to commit to the Code of Conduct for Evaluation), specifically to the following obligations:
Independence: Evaluators shall ensure that independence of judgement is maintained and that evaluation findings and recommendations are independently presented.
Impartiality: Evaluators shall operate in an impartial and unbiased manner and give a balanced presentation of strengths and weaknesses of the policy, program, project or organizational unit being evaluated.
Conflict of Interest: Evaluators are required to disclose in writing any past experience, which may give rise to a potential conflict of interest, and to deal honestly in resolving any conflict of interest which may arise.
Honesty and Integrity: Evaluators shall show honesty and integrity in their own behavior, negotiating honestly the evaluation costs, tasks, limitations, scope of results likely to be obtained, while accurately presenting their procedures, data and findings and highlighting any limitations or uncertainties of interpretation within the evaluation.
Competence: Evaluators shall accurately represent their level of skills and knowledge and work only within the limits of their professional training and abilities in evaluation, declining assignments for which they do not have the skills and experience to complete successfully.
Accountability: Evaluators are accountable for the completion of the agreed evaluation deliverables within the time frame and budget agreed, while operating in a cost effective manner.
Obligations to Participants: Evaluators shall respect and protect the rights and welfare of human subjects and communities, in accordance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights conventions. Evaluators shall respect differences in culture, local customs, religious beliefs and practices, personal interaction, gender roles, disability, age and ethnicity, while using evaluation instruments appropriate to the cultural setting. Evaluators shall ensure prospective participants are treated as autonomous agents, free to choose whether to participate in the evaluation, while ensuring that the relatively powerless are represented.
Confidentiality: Evaluators shall respect people’s right to provide information in confidence and make participants aware of the scope and limits of confidentiality, while ensuring that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source.
Avoidance of Harm: Evaluators shall act to minimize risks and harms to, and burdens on, those participating in the evaluation, without compromising the integrity of the evaluation findings.
Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability: Evaluators have an obligation to ensure that evaluation reports and presentations are accurate, complete and reliable. Evaluators shall explicitly justify judgements, findings and conclusions and show their underlying rationale, so that stakeholders are in a position to assess them.
Time Frame and Cost:
The consultants will draft the report in accordance with UNDP standards and procedures.
The consultants will design the detailed evaluation scope and methodology (including the methods for data collection and analysis) for the report;
Conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the evaluation described above) for the report;
Draft related parts of the evaluation reports; International consultant to finalize the whole evaluation report.
The submission of the report at the end of the six-week period will signify the end of the consultancy.
Applicants are asked to submit their financial proposal within their CV (as a single document).
The evaluation will be undertaken over a period of six weeks commencing 14 August in accordance with the below key activities and timeframes:
Hold initial joint meeting with UNDP and SCPD 15 August
Conduct desk review and preparation of inception report (detailed scope and methodology of the evaluation) From 14 August onwards
Conduct wide consultations with implementing partners & national stakeholders (interviews, focus groups, etc.) From 19 August onwards
Submit Initial Draft Report to UNDP Kuwait for review 19 September
Debrief SCPD and UNDP Kuwait 23 September
Conduct stakeholder meeting and review of Draft Report (for quality assurance) and preparation of Final Draft Report 26 September
Submit Draft Report to UNDP Kuwait 1 October
Present Draft Report to key stakeholders 6 October
Submit Final Report to UNDP Kuwait 10 October
Objectives:
The evaluation will conclude how effectively UNDP Kuwait CP contributed to the national development priorities as reflected in the CPD and CPAP, the evaluation will assess the four programme areas (democratic governance, human and social development energy and environment and private sector development) looking at specific projects implemented in the period 2008 to 2013. It is important to note that due to time constraints the evaluation will have to be targeted and hence the focus will be on the most significant projects (in terms of funding, innovation and/or expected results) in these areas of work.
Specifically, the evaluation will include an assessment and analysis of:
Programme and project design, including adequacy of the situational analysis and indicators for achievement of outputs and outcomes as well as a review of the design of CPD/CPAP and their relevance to Kuwait’s development needs.
The relevance of intended outcomes to national needs and priorities, and to the UNDP mandate.
The effectiveness of the programmes and projects in the governance and social development areas in contributing to the national development objectives; how they contributed to outcome level change. An assessment and analysis of the outcomes: whether results have been achieved in part or full as was intended, outlining the reasons for any shortfall in its and whether any unintended results have occurred.
Factors within and beyond UNDP’s control that influenced performance and success of the project (including the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) in contributing to the realization of the outcome.
The degree of readiness of the Country Office, in terms of office staffing and capacity, to meet the challenges of the CPD and CPAP.
Whether UNDP's interventions can be credibly linked to achievement of the outcome, including the key outputs and assistance provided, both soft and hard as well as how the support influenced institutional strengthening.
Whether UNDP’s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective including the range and quality of partnerships and collaboration developed with government, civil society, donors, the private sector and whether these have contributed to improved project delivery;the degree of stakeholder and partner involvement in the various processes related to the outcomes; and how can synergies be built with other projects within the UNDP Country Programme and those of other development partners (donors).
Whether the implemented activities contribute to capacity building.
NEX/DEX implementation modality, assessing programme management under current NEX modality and propose the optimal business process for service delivery.
Assess the prospects for sustainability and the quality and practicality of exit strategies.
Further, the evaluation will:
Develop follow-up actions necessary for improvement of UNDP’s activities in the sector; and
Provide strategic recommendations for the next programmatic cycle i.e. 2015- 2019.
Evaluation Questions:
The CPD/CPAP achievements will be assessed by evaluating and analyzing the following key areas:
Relevance of the CPAP (2009-2013 revised and extended to 2014) towards Government priorities as stated in the National mid-range development plan. The following questions could be considered:
Based on current projects being executed, how the CPD/CPAP contributed to the achievement of declared national priorities stated in the national development documents?
To what extent the UNDP recognized and effectively responded to urgent and emerging priorities which were not originally stated in the CPAP?
To what extent UNDP effectively contributed to capacity building of its counterparts?
Were stated outcomes or outputs achieved?
What progress toward the outcomes has been made?
What factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving intended outcomes?
To what extent has UNDP outputs and assistance contributed to outcomes?
Has the UNDP partnership strategy been appropriate and effective?
How effective is the UNDP business process?
What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness?
How effectively implemented were the cross cutting-issues in the current program?
What is the strategic positioning and programme relevance of the UNDP programmes?
How effective was resource mobilization?
Methodology:
The proposed mechanism of this evaluation will be undertaken by two consultants for a six-week period. Throughout the process the consultants will liaise with the GSSCPD and UNDP Kuwait on the analysis/findings and will obtain their feedback on the strategies identified for the future CPD/CPAP. The consultant should conduct a desk review of the CPD/CPAP and its supporting documents which include the following:
Previous CPAP 2002-08
Current CPAP 2009-12 + RRF
Kuwait Government Mid-Range Development Plan 2009/2010 - 2012/13, including the Vision 2035 statement (dated June 2009).
UNDP Results Oriented Annual Report 2012
Country Programme Document (CPD) for the period 2008-2012 (extended to 2014)
Recommendations on the post-2015 development agenda of the relevant thematic groups
Evaluation of the Second Country Cooperation 2006
Evaluation of the Role of UNDP in Net Contributor Countries
The involvement of key national stakeholders and partners (including the GSSCPD, MOSAL, Ministry of Awqaf, KISR and civil society) in the planning and management of the evaluation. This is critical for producing a complete and objective evaluation that will provide an important guide for the next programme cycle.
The consultants will follow the time frame and content specified above. The consultants will meet with national stakeholders, the GSSCPD and UNDP. An initial joint-meeting and an end-of-mission debrief are to be held with GSSCPD and UNDP to outline the process and highlight key issues to be taken into consideration with the consultants during the evaluation process.
The consultants will engage at the technical level with GSSCPD and UNDP programme staff to obtain information or clarifications when required. This will guide the consultants to produce an evaluation report that covers strategic CPD/CPAP programmes and projects.
The consultants will jointly design the evaluation methodology; conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the evaluation described above). The consultants will draft related parts of the evaluation report and will finalise the document through incorporating suggestions received on an initial draft related to his/her assigned sections.
The evaluation will provide quantitative and qualitative data through the use of the following methods:
Desk study and review of all relevant project documentation including project documents, annual work-plans, project progress reports, annual project reports, reports of the project steering committee;
In depth interviews to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured methodology;
Focus Group discussion with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders;
Interviews with relevant key informants; and
Observations (field visits).
The findings are expected to provide valuable insights and summary of the performance of the projects regarding the National Development Plan and inform the formulation of the new CPD and CPAP. The expected product is an evaluation report that provides findings, lessons learned and recommendations from the following:
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of progress made towards the intended outcomes
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of relevant outputs;
A rating on the relevance of the outcomes;
Assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and
Possible partnerships for resource mobilization.
It should include but not be limited to the following;
Lessons learned concerning best and/or less than ideal practices in producing outputs and achieving the outcome;
Strategies and recommendations for exit or continued UNDP assistance towards the achievement of the outcome; and
Programme performance including a rating on effectiveness, progress and success of key results
Findings and recommendations Lessons learned and good practices.
Expected Outputs:
The inception report outlining the scope and methodology of the evaluation (taking account of the key activities set out in the table below); and
The final report of the evaluation.
Application Deadline : 06-Aug-13
Apply Online
Advanced university degree in Economics, Business Administration, Social Development, or related field.
Experience:
At least 5 years of relevant experience in development work;
Proven experience in social and evaluation research with a minimum of 2 years previous working experience;
Experience must primarily relate to management of national level M&E frameworks and/or strategic plans involving multiple stakeholders;
Experience in key expert positions in at least 2 international projects of similar scope; or has previously conducted evaluation of projects for any UN agency; or has performed Project Management of international projects with UN programs;
Full computer literacy.
The evaluation team will consist of two independent evaluators (one international and one national). The national consultant will be responsible for facilitating the evaluation process in terms of providing in-depth analysis of the national context, its challenges and opportunities.
Evaluation Ethics:
The report should conform to UNDP evaluation standards and therefore UNDP will be responsible for quality assurance. To ensure the credibility and integrity of the evaluation process and following United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Ethical Guidelines, the Consultant will be required to commit to the Code of Conduct for Evaluation), specifically to the following obligations:
Independence: Evaluators shall ensure that independence of judgement is maintained and that evaluation findings and recommendations are independently presented.
Impartiality: Evaluators shall operate in an impartial and unbiased manner and give a balanced presentation of strengths and weaknesses of the policy, program, project or organizational unit being evaluated.
Conflict of Interest: Evaluators are required to disclose in writing any past experience, which may give rise to a potential conflict of interest, and to deal honestly in resolving any conflict of interest which may arise.
Honesty and Integrity: Evaluators shall show honesty and integrity in their own behavior, negotiating honestly the evaluation costs, tasks, limitations, scope of results likely to be obtained, while accurately presenting their procedures, data and findings and highlighting any limitations or uncertainties of interpretation within the evaluation.
Competence: Evaluators shall accurately represent their level of skills and knowledge and work only within the limits of their professional training and abilities in evaluation, declining assignments for which they do not have the skills and experience to complete successfully.
Accountability: Evaluators are accountable for the completion of the agreed evaluation deliverables within the time frame and budget agreed, while operating in a cost effective manner.
Obligations to Participants: Evaluators shall respect and protect the rights and welfare of human subjects and communities, in accordance with the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights and other human rights conventions. Evaluators shall respect differences in culture, local customs, religious beliefs and practices, personal interaction, gender roles, disability, age and ethnicity, while using evaluation instruments appropriate to the cultural setting. Evaluators shall ensure prospective participants are treated as autonomous agents, free to choose whether to participate in the evaluation, while ensuring that the relatively powerless are represented.
Confidentiality: Evaluators shall respect people’s right to provide information in confidence and make participants aware of the scope and limits of confidentiality, while ensuring that sensitive information cannot be traced to its source.
Avoidance of Harm: Evaluators shall act to minimize risks and harms to, and burdens on, those participating in the evaluation, without compromising the integrity of the evaluation findings.
Accuracy, Completeness and Reliability: Evaluators have an obligation to ensure that evaluation reports and presentations are accurate, complete and reliable. Evaluators shall explicitly justify judgements, findings and conclusions and show their underlying rationale, so that stakeholders are in a position to assess them.
Time Frame and Cost:
The consultants will draft the report in accordance with UNDP standards and procedures.
The consultants will design the detailed evaluation scope and methodology (including the methods for data collection and analysis) for the report;
Conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the evaluation described above) for the report;
Draft related parts of the evaluation reports; International consultant to finalize the whole evaluation report.
The submission of the report at the end of the six-week period will signify the end of the consultancy.
Applicants are asked to submit their financial proposal within their CV (as a single document).
The evaluation will be undertaken over a period of six weeks commencing 14 August in accordance with the below key activities and timeframes:
Hold initial joint meeting with UNDP and SCPD 15 August
Conduct desk review and preparation of inception report (detailed scope and methodology of the evaluation) From 14 August onwards
Conduct wide consultations with implementing partners & national stakeholders (interviews, focus groups, etc.) From 19 August onwards
Submit Initial Draft Report to UNDP Kuwait for review 19 September
Debrief SCPD and UNDP Kuwait 23 September
Conduct stakeholder meeting and review of Draft Report (for quality assurance) and preparation of Final Draft Report 26 September
Submit Draft Report to UNDP Kuwait 1 October
Present Draft Report to key stakeholders 6 October
Submit Final Report to UNDP Kuwait 10 October
Objectives:
The evaluation will conclude how effectively UNDP Kuwait CP contributed to the national development priorities as reflected in the CPD and CPAP, the evaluation will assess the four programme areas (democratic governance, human and social development energy and environment and private sector development) looking at specific projects implemented in the period 2008 to 2013. It is important to note that due to time constraints the evaluation will have to be targeted and hence the focus will be on the most significant projects (in terms of funding, innovation and/or expected results) in these areas of work.
Specifically, the evaluation will include an assessment and analysis of:
Programme and project design, including adequacy of the situational analysis and indicators for achievement of outputs and outcomes as well as a review of the design of CPD/CPAP and their relevance to Kuwait’s development needs.
The relevance of intended outcomes to national needs and priorities, and to the UNDP mandate.
The effectiveness of the programmes and projects in the governance and social development areas in contributing to the national development objectives; how they contributed to outcome level change. An assessment and analysis of the outcomes: whether results have been achieved in part or full as was intended, outlining the reasons for any shortfall in its and whether any unintended results have occurred.
Factors within and beyond UNDP’s control that influenced performance and success of the project (including the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats) in contributing to the realization of the outcome.
The degree of readiness of the Country Office, in terms of office staffing and capacity, to meet the challenges of the CPD and CPAP.
Whether UNDP's interventions can be credibly linked to achievement of the outcome, including the key outputs and assistance provided, both soft and hard as well as how the support influenced institutional strengthening.
Whether UNDP’s partnership strategy has been appropriate and effective including the range and quality of partnerships and collaboration developed with government, civil society, donors, the private sector and whether these have contributed to improved project delivery;the degree of stakeholder and partner involvement in the various processes related to the outcomes; and how can synergies be built with other projects within the UNDP Country Programme and those of other development partners (donors).
Whether the implemented activities contribute to capacity building.
NEX/DEX implementation modality, assessing programme management under current NEX modality and propose the optimal business process for service delivery.
Assess the prospects for sustainability and the quality and practicality of exit strategies.
Further, the evaluation will:
Develop follow-up actions necessary for improvement of UNDP’s activities in the sector; and
Provide strategic recommendations for the next programmatic cycle i.e. 2015- 2019.
Evaluation Questions:
The CPD/CPAP achievements will be assessed by evaluating and analyzing the following key areas:
Relevance of the CPAP (2009-2013 revised and extended to 2014) towards Government priorities as stated in the National mid-range development plan. The following questions could be considered:
Based on current projects being executed, how the CPD/CPAP contributed to the achievement of declared national priorities stated in the national development documents?
To what extent the UNDP recognized and effectively responded to urgent and emerging priorities which were not originally stated in the CPAP?
To what extent UNDP effectively contributed to capacity building of its counterparts?
Were stated outcomes or outputs achieved?
What progress toward the outcomes has been made?
What factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving intended outcomes?
To what extent has UNDP outputs and assistance contributed to outcomes?
Has the UNDP partnership strategy been appropriate and effective?
How effective is the UNDP business process?
What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness?
How effectively implemented were the cross cutting-issues in the current program?
What is the strategic positioning and programme relevance of the UNDP programmes?
How effective was resource mobilization?
Methodology:
The proposed mechanism of this evaluation will be undertaken by two consultants for a six-week period. Throughout the process the consultants will liaise with the GSSCPD and UNDP Kuwait on the analysis/findings and will obtain their feedback on the strategies identified for the future CPD/CPAP. The consultant should conduct a desk review of the CPD/CPAP and its supporting documents which include the following:
Previous CPAP 2002-08
Current CPAP 2009-12 + RRF
Kuwait Government Mid-Range Development Plan 2009/2010 - 2012/13, including the Vision 2035 statement (dated June 2009).
UNDP Results Oriented Annual Report 2012
Country Programme Document (CPD) for the period 2008-2012 (extended to 2014)
Recommendations on the post-2015 development agenda of the relevant thematic groups
Evaluation of the Second Country Cooperation 2006
Evaluation of the Role of UNDP in Net Contributor Countries
The involvement of key national stakeholders and partners (including the GSSCPD, MOSAL, Ministry of Awqaf, KISR and civil society) in the planning and management of the evaluation. This is critical for producing a complete and objective evaluation that will provide an important guide for the next programme cycle.
The consultants will follow the time frame and content specified above. The consultants will meet with national stakeholders, the GSSCPD and UNDP. An initial joint-meeting and an end-of-mission debrief are to be held with GSSCPD and UNDP to outline the process and highlight key issues to be taken into consideration with the consultants during the evaluation process.
The consultants will engage at the technical level with GSSCPD and UNDP programme staff to obtain information or clarifications when required. This will guide the consultants to produce an evaluation report that covers strategic CPD/CPAP programmes and projects.
The consultants will jointly design the evaluation methodology; conduct an analysis of the outcome, outputs and partnership strategy (as per the scope of the evaluation described above). The consultants will draft related parts of the evaluation report and will finalise the document through incorporating suggestions received on an initial draft related to his/her assigned sections.
The evaluation will provide quantitative and qualitative data through the use of the following methods:
Desk study and review of all relevant project documentation including project documents, annual work-plans, project progress reports, annual project reports, reports of the project steering committee;
In depth interviews to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured methodology;
Focus Group discussion with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders;
Interviews with relevant key informants; and
Observations (field visits).
The findings are expected to provide valuable insights and summary of the performance of the projects regarding the National Development Plan and inform the formulation of the new CPD and CPAP. The expected product is an evaluation report that provides findings, lessons learned and recommendations from the following:
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of progress made towards the intended outcomes
Qualitative and quantitative assessment of relevant outputs;
A rating on the relevance of the outcomes;
Assessment of strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats; and
Possible partnerships for resource mobilization.
It should include but not be limited to the following;
Lessons learned concerning best and/or less than ideal practices in producing outputs and achieving the outcome;
Strategies and recommendations for exit or continued UNDP assistance towards the achievement of the outcome; and
Programme performance including a rating on effectiveness, progress and success of key results
Findings and recommendations Lessons learned and good practices.
Expected Outputs:
The inception report outlining the scope and methodology of the evaluation (taking account of the key activities set out in the table below); and
The final report of the evaluation.
Application Deadline : 06-Aug-13
Apply Online
No comments:
Post a Comment