individual consultant procurement notice€¦ · knowledge of ms office package (ms word, advanced...

INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT PROCUREMENT NOTICE

Date: 25 September 2013

Proposal should be submitted by email at [email protected], copied to

[email protected], no later than Friday 18 October 2013.

Any request for clarification must be sent in writing using standard electronic communication to Nthabeleng Motsomi-Moshoeshoe (Regional M&E Officer) to: [email protected] who will respond in writing with the required explanation to each individual query.

1. BACKGROUND

HIV and AIDS are serious threats in many countries and present significant challenges for prison and public health authorities and national governments. The levels of HIV infection among prison populations worldwide are much higher than in the general population. Because most prisoners are in prison for only a short period of time before they re-enter their communities, it is acknowledged that prisoners and prison staff are part of the broader community and that the health threat of HIV within and outside prisons are linked. Nonetheless, prisons, prisoners and prison staff are often neglected in efforts intended to tackle the epidemic. UNODC’s Regional Office for Southern Africa is running a regional programme titled HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support in Prisons Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa which covers

Country: South Africa

Description of the assignment: Independent mid-term evaluation of the UNODC

project: XSS V02: HIV and AIDS Prevention, Treatment,

Care and Support in Prison Settings in Sub-Saharan

Africa

Project name: HIV and AIDS Prevention, Treatment, Care and

Support in Prison Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa

Period of assignment /services (if applicable): 45 days (within 4 calendar months) commencing on

the day of acceptance and signature of the contract.

mailto:[email protected]



Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, with the objectives to prevent new HIV infections specifically related to incarceration in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This project, XSS V02, builds on the experience gained, lessons learned, and good practices and efforts undertaken in the field of HIV in prisons in Southern Africa over the last years from a predecessor project (XAS J72) where foundations were laid and advocacy at the highest level was undertaken. With the overall objective of preventing new HIV infections specifically related to incarceration in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, this project aims to further develop and increase the sustainability of responses, as well as initiating a service delivery approach to HIV in prisons in benefiting countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lessons learned and sharing of good practices between countries happens through direct duplication of activity implementation and ongoing provision of technical support and assistance. XSS V02 was launched in March 2011 and was implemented along with the predecessor project (XAS J72, operationally completed in March 2012), covering seven (7) countries: Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), and Zambia. However, the project received additional funding expanding the coverage to three (3) more countries in 2013 (Angola, Lesotho and Zimbabwe). To date, there have been significant achievements made through both projects. The national project steering committees have been established and continue to meet regularly to guide the implementation of project activities. Multi-sectoral Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on HIV/AIDS prevention and care in prison settings were also established and are functioning to provide technical advice to the project implementation. In line with this objective, this assignment aims at supporting efforts to review the national curricula of prison training institutions with regards to the inclusion of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases in the health component of the curricula in the 10 benefiting countries; namely, Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The findings will be presented in one full regional report and disseminated on a country basis to relevant stakeholders within the national correctional services. The objective of the review and ensuing dissemination is to revise and strengthen national training curricula for an effective gender sensitive, human rights and evidence based response to HIV & AIDS, TB and STIs in prison settings in all target countries.

2. SCOPE OF WORK, RESPONSIBILITIES AND DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ANALYTICAL

WORK

The role of the evaluator will be to contribute to answering the evaluation questions, in particular

questions raised in Section 3 of the ToRs relating to efficiency, effectiveness, project design and

implementation, project finances, lessons learned and sustainability as well challenges and

recommendations.

The Evaluator will carry out the following duties:

1. Drafting of the inception report; 2. Reviewing relevant project documentation; 3. Contributing to the development of evaluation tools (both qualitative and quantitative as may

be deemed necessary); 4. Collecting all necessary data by

a. Carrying out site visits to selected UNODC field countries; b. Assessing plans and the documentation materials that are available in PMU and filed

offices; c. Carrying out semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders in selected

countries. 5. Communicating the preliminary findings with the PMU when, as well as regular progress update. 6. Develop the draft final report; and incorporation of inputs from CLP and UNODC HQ as well as

IEU comments/inputs For detailed information, please refer to ToR for mid-term evaluation of project XSS V02 (Annex 2).

3. REQUIREMENTS FOR EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS

A successful candidate must meet the following criteria:

I. Academic Qualifications:

Advanced university degree in social sciences, medicine or public health, with specialized training in evaluations of programmes.

Other

II. Years of experience:

At least 3-5 years’ working experience in field related to HIV field.

At least 3 years of experience in evaluating HIV programmes.

Previous work in prison & closed settings, working with Most At Risk Population (MARPs) an Vulnerable populations will be an added advantage.

III. Competencies:

Ability to function independently and as a member of the team

Good domain and understanding of the context of health issues in prisons of SADC region, including WHO and UN standards, regulations and work around legislation on health, are desired.

Knowledge of national policies and strategies and plans on HIV & AIDS and TB is essential.

Good domain and understanding of regional (SADC) and international regulations and standards on HIV & TB prevention, care, treatment and support in prison settings are required.

Strong knowledge of analytical, qualitative and quantitative research skills and knowledge, including research methodologies, data collection and analysis and the ability to draft reports at a professional level, are desired.

Strong knowledge of statistical Skills, including knowledge of Statistical Packages.

Languages and Computer Skills

Proficiency in written and spoken English, including the ability to draft reports at a professional level, is required.

Proficiency in written and spoken Portuguese is of advantage to the candidate.

Knowledge of MS Office package (MS Word, advanced MS Excel and MS Access) will be required.

4. DOCUMENTS TO BE INCLUDED WHEN SUBMITTING THE PROPOSALS.

Qualified and interested individual consultants must submit the following documents for their expression of interest: 1. Technical Proposal 2. Financial Proposal - should relate to activities in the Technical Proposal. All Financial Proposals must be expressed in terms of a lump sum amount, broken down into four (4) key deliverable milestones, as indicated below. 3. Cover letter 4. Curriculum vitae (IN ENGLISH) 5. Completed P11 form 5. FINANCIAL PROPOSAL

Lump sum contracts The consultant will receive remuneration in accordance to his/her/its qualification and in line with UN financial and procurement rules and regulations. Remuneration will be released in three separate instalments subsequent to appointment of a successful candidate:

The first installment, amounting to 20% of the total cost of the contract will be released upon signature of the contract and UNODC receipt and approval by IEU of the inception proposal and workplan;

The second installment amounting to 30% of the total cost of the contract will be released following UNODC receipt and approval by the Project Manager of a progress report;

Another instalment amounting to 30% of the total cost of the contract will be released following UNODC receipt and approval by the Project Manager of a draft Mid-term Evaluation report;

A final instalment amounting to 20% of the total cost of the contract will be released upon receipt and UNODC approval by the Project Manager of a final assignment report and the endorsement of the report by IEU (mid-term evaluation report with all comments incorporated, and an assignment closure report) and presentation to the HIV Unit at ROSAF.

Travel: When travelling to sampled benefitting countries for data collection, UNODC will arrange all necessary travel (by air and surface mode) for the evaluator and will provide Daily Subsistence Allowance in line with UN national rates for accommodation and meals.

6. EVALUATION

Individual consultants will be evaluated based on a cumulative analysis: Offers will be evaluated using the combined scoring method. The Technical Proposal is weighted 70% of the assessment and the Financial Proposal 30%.

Criteria Weight Max. Points

Technical 70% 70

Experience in Programmes Evaluation . 25% 25

Experience in evaluation of most at risk populations. Experience in prison settings will be an added advantage.

20% 20

Working experience in the field of HIV/AIDS/TB/Communicable Diseases programming.

15% 15

Experience & Skills in analytical Report writing.

10% 5

Financial 30% 30

Total 100% 100

ANNEX

ANNEX 1- TERMS OF REFERENCES (TOR) FOR THE MID-TERM EVALUATION OF PROJECT XSSV02 ANNEX 2- EVALUATOR TERMS OF REFERENCES (TOR) ANNEX 3- INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS

MAKING THE WORLD SAFER FROM DRUGS, CRIME AND TERRORISM UNODC Southern Africa

1059 Schoeman Street, 2nd Floor | P.O. Box 12673, Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa

Tel: +27 12 432 0820 | Fax: +27 12 342 2356 Email: [email protected] | Web: http://www.unodc.org/southernafrica

Southern Africa

ANNEX: 2 - TERMS OF REFERENCE – INDIVIDUAL CONSULTANT

Post Title Independent mid-term evaluation of the UNODC project: XSS V02: HIV and AIDS Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support in Prison Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa

Country of Assignment Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzanian (including Zanzibar), Zambia and Zimbabwe

Duty Station Pretoria, South Africa

Duration 22 October to 10 December 2013

Supervision Regional Programme Coordinator

Quality Assurance Regional Service Centre

BACKGROUND

HIV and AIDS are serious threats in many countries and present significant challenges for prison and public health authorities and national governments. The levels of HIV infection among prison populations worldwide are much higher than in the general population. Because most prisoners are in prison for only a short period of time before they re-enter their communities, it is acknowledged that prisoners and prison staff are part of the broader community and that the health threat of HIV within and outside prisons are linked. Nonetheless, prisons, prisoners and prison staff are often neglected in efforts intended to tackle the epidemic. UNODC’s Regional Office for Southern Africa is running a regional programme titled HIV Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support in Prisons Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa which covers Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe, with the objectives to prevent new HIV infections specifically related to incarceration in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. This project, XSS V02, builds on the experience gained, lessons learned, and good practices and efforts undertaken in the field of HIV in prisons in Southern Africa over the last years from a predecessor project (XAS J72) where foundations were laid and advocacy at the highest level was undertaken. With the overall objective of preventing new HIV infections specifically related to incarceration in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, this project aims to further develop and increase the sustainability of responses, as well as initiating a service delivery approach to HIV in prisons in benefiting countries in Sub-Saharan Africa. Lessons learned and sharing of good practices between countries happens through direct duplication of activity implementation and ongoing provision of technical support and assistance. XSS V02 was launched in March 2011 and was implemented along with the predecessor project (XAS J72, operationally completed in March 2012), covering seven (7) countries: Ethiopia, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), and Zambia. However, the project received additional funding expanding the coverage to three (3) more countries in 2013 (Angola, Lesotho and Zimbabwe). To date, there have been significant achievements made through both


1059 Francis Baard Street, 2nd Floor | P.O. Box 12673, Hatfield 0028, Pretoria, South Africa


projects. The national project steering committees have been established and continue to meet regularly to guide the implementation of project activities. Multi-Sectoral Technical Working Groups (TWGs) on HIV/AIDS prevention and care in prison settings were also established and are functioning to provide technical advice to the project implementation. In line with this objective, this assignment aims at supporting efforts to review the national curricula of prison training institutions with regards to the inclusion of HIV/AIDS and other communicable diseases in the health component of the curricula in the 10 benefiting countries; namely, Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania, Zambia and Zimbabwe. The findings will be presented in one full regional report and disseminated on a country basis to relevant stakeholders within the national correctional services. The objective of the review and ensuing dissemination is to revise and strengthen national training curricula for an effective gender sensitive, human rights and evidence based response to HIV & AIDS, TB and STIs in prison settings in all target countries.

INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT

The consultant will work under the direct supervision of the UNODC Regional Programme Coordinator, based in ROSAF, Pretoria and will work closely with the Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Officer. The consultant will liaise closely with the National Project Coordinators in the seven countries and HIV (Prison Health focal persons) in countries where UNODC does not have Offices. The Regional Project Coordinator will review and approve all reports, prior to submission to IEU.

PURPOSE OF THE CONTRACT

In line with the overall purpose of the Mid Term Evaluation as fully elaborated in the Terms of Reference, the Independent Evaluator will be expected to:

To assess progress towards achievement of results, relevance of results achieved and appropriateness of approaches, assess sustainability of results achieved; and

To identify and analyze lessons learned on both substantive and programme management issues, specifically broader learning for UNODC’s approach and make recommendations for the remaining term of the programme for the achievement of the results at the output, outcomes levels.

The Independent Evaluator will carry out duties as elaborated in the scope of work below.

SCOPE OF WORK

The role of the evaluator will be to contribute to answering the evaluation questions, in particular questions raised in Section 3 of the ToRs relating to efficiency, effectiveness, project design and implementation, project finances, lessons learned and sustainability as well challenges and recommendations. The Evaluator will carry out the following duties:

1. Drafting of the inception report;




2. Reviewing relevant project documentation; 3. Contributing to the development of evaluation tools (both qualitative and quantitative as

may be deemed necessary); 4. Collecting all necessary data by

a. Carrying out site visits to selected UNODC field countries; b. Assessing plans and the documentation materials that are available in PMU and filed

offices; c. Carrying out semi-structured interviews and focus groups with stakeholders in

selected countries. 5. Communicating the preliminary findings with the PMU when, as well as regular progress

update. 6. Development of the draft final report; and incorporation of inputs from CLP and UNODC HQ

as well as IEU comments/inputs

DURATION OF ASSIGNMENT

During this period, the following deliverables are expected to be produced within the stipulated/ estimated deadlines.

Tasks Deadlines Location Deliverables

Desk review of project document, reports and other relevant documents, including documents related to the AHPPN.

30 October 2013 Duty Station

Draft inception report with detailed evaluation plan and methodology prepared; including draft evaluation tools (interview sheets; questionnaires)

Mission to the selected benefiting countries: meetings and interviews with identified stakeholders, identified beneficiaries and collaborative partners; debriefing with the HAU-ROSAF and presentation of preliminary findings

15 November 2013

Sampled benefitting countries Duty Station PMU - ROSAF

Data from major stakeholders collected; Progress report of the evaluation field missions and preliminary findings

Data analysis and preparation of draft report 25 November 2013 Duty Station

Evaluation draft report with findings, lessons learned and results submitted to UNODC and CLPs for review

Receiving feedback on draft report, incorporating comments Finalisation of the evaluation report, presentation to HAU-ROSAF and exit meeting

10 December 2013 Duty Station PMU - ROSAF

Evaluation report refined Final evaluation report submitted to UNODC




DELIVERABLES

Inception proposal and workplan;

Progress report on the field visits to selected field offices and interviews conducted with selected stakeholders;

Draft Mid-Term Evaluation Report.

FINAL Mid-Term Evaluation Report

FINANCIAL

The consultant will receive remuneration in accordance to his/her/its qualification and in line with UN financial and procurement rules and regulations. Remuneration will be released in four separate instalments subsequent to appointment of a successful candidate. The first instalment, amounting to 20% of the total cost of the contract, will be released upon signature of the contract and UNODC receipt and approval by IEU of the inception proposal and workplan. The second instalment, amounting to 30% of the total cost of the contract, will be released following UNODC receipt and approval by the Project Manager of a progress report. A third instalment, amounting to 30% of the total cost of the contract, will be released following UNODC receipt and approval by the Project Manager of a draft Mid-term Evaluation report. A final instalment, amounting to 20% of the total cost of the contract, will be released upon UNODC receipt and approval by the Project Manager of the final assessment of the report and the endorsement of the assessment by IEU (mid-term evaluation report with all comments incorporated, and an assignment closure report) and presentation to the HIV Unit at ROSAF. Travel: When travelling to sampled benefitting countries for data collection, UNODC will arrange all necessary travel (by air and surface mode) for the evaluator and will provide Daily Subsistence Allowance in line with UN national rates for accommodation and meals.

QUALIFICATIONS, SKILLS, ATTRIBUTES AND EXPERIENCES

A successful candidate must meet the following criteria: Academic Qualifications

Advanced university degree in social sciences, medicine or public health, with specialized training in evaluations of programmes.

Working Experience

At least 3-5 years’ working experience in field related to HIV field.

At least 3 years of experience in evaluating HIV programmes.

Previous work in prison & closed settings, working with Most At Risk Population (MARPs) an Vulnerable populations will be an added advantage.

Competencies, Skills and Attributes:




Ability to function independently and as a member of the team

Good domain and understanding of the context of health issues in prisons of SADC region, including WHO and UN standards, regulations and work around legislation on health, are desired.

Knowledge of national policies and strategies and plans on HIV & AIDS and TB is essential.

Good domain and understanding of regional (SADC) and international regulations and standards on HIV & TB prevention, care, treatment and support in prison settings are required.

Strong knowledge of analytical, qualitative and quantitative research skills and knowledge, including research methodologies, data collection and analysis and the ability to draft reports at a professional level, are desired.

Strong knowledge of statistical Skills, including knowledge of Statistical Packages. Languages and Computer Skills

Proficiency in written and spoken English, including the ability to draft reports at a professional level, is required.

Proficiency in written and spoken Portuguese is of advantage to the candidate. Knowledge of MS Office package (MS Word, advanced MS Excel and MS Access) will be

required.

ENQUIRIES

Any further information regarding this assignment can be obtained by contacting Nthabeleng Motsomi-Moshoeshoe on: [email protected]

SUBMISSION OF APPLICATIONS

Qualified and interested individual consultants are invited to submit:

Cover letters and detailed CV’S,

Technical proposal,

Financial proposal

P11 Form

to: [email protected] (cc: [email protected]) not later than COB 11 October 2013.

Correspondence will be limited to shortlisted candidates only. Qualified women are encouraged to apply.

UNODC reserves the right NOT to fill this position







Southern Africa

Southern Africa

Annex 1 : Mid-term independent project evaluation Terms of Reference

Of UNODC project XSS V02 – HIV prevention, treatment and care in Prison Settings in Sub-

Saharan Africa

Project Number XSS V02

Project Title HIV and AIDS Prevention, Treatment, Care and Support in Prison Settings in Sub-Saharan Africa

Approved duration 1 March 2011 – 31 December 2015

Location Angola, Ethiopia, Lesotho, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Swaziland, Tanzania (including Zanzibar), Zambia, Zimbabwe.

Linkages to Regional Programme

This project contributes to Outcome 2: Countries of the Southern African region provide comprehensive HIV/AIDS programmes and services of Pillar III: Improving Drug Abuse Prevention, Treatment and Care, and HIV Prevention, Treatment and Care for People Who Use Drugs, including Injecting Drug Users and in Prison Settings) of the Regional Programme for Southern Africa 2013 - 2016.

Linkages to Thematic Programme

Sub-programme 5: Health and livelihoods (combating drugs and HIV).

5(b): Individuals living in prison settings being less vulnerable to drug use and HIV/AIDS.

Executing Agency/ Office UNODC – ROSAF

Partner Organisations: Southern African Development Community (SADC) UNAIDS RST.

Total Approved Budget USD 12,286,453

Donors Swedish Development Agency, ONE UN Fund Malawi, World Health Organisation, Global Health Communication, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Pretoria

Project Manager/Coordinator Ehab Salah

Type of Evaluation (mid tern or final) Mid Term Evaluation

Time period covered by the evaluation 01 March 2011 to 31 July 2013

Geographical Coverage of the evaluation

Selected Countries in Sub-Saharan Africa: eight (8) Southern African

Countries and two (2) Eastern African countries

Core Learning Partners (entities) SIDA, Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Pretoria, Countries Project Steering Committees and AHPPN steering Committee.

2

1. Background

HIV and AIDS are serious threats in many countries and present significant challenges for

prison and public health authorities and national governments. The levels of HIV infection

among prison populations worldwide are much higher than in the general population.

Because most prisoners are in prison for only a short period of time before they re-enter

their communities, it is acknowledged that prisoners and prison staff are part of the

broader community and that the health threat of HIV within and outside prisons are

linked. Nonetheless, prisons, prisoners and prison staff are often neglected in efforts

intended to tackle the epidemic.

Project XSS V02, builds on the experience, lessons learned, best practices and efforts

invested in the field of HIV in prisons in Southern Africa over the last years; through a

predecessor project implemented between 2007 and 2012 (XAS J72) where foundations

were laid and advocacy at the highest level was undertaken in four Southern African

Countries, namely Namibia, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zambia.

With the overall objective of preventing new HIV infections specifically related to

incarceration in selected countries in Sub-Saharan Africa, this project aims to a further

development and sustainability of responses, as well as initiating a service delivery

approach to HIV in prisons in 10 benefiting countries both in the Southern and Eastern

African regions. Lesson learning and best practices sharing from the predecessor project

were expanded to three more countries, namely; Ethiopia, Malawi, and Tanzania through

direct duplication of good practice and ongoing provision of technical support and

assistance. A further revision of this project was undertaken towards end of 2012, to

expand the scope of the project by adding three more outcomes focusing on service delivery,

as well as its reach, therefore incorporating three more countries in Southern Africa,

namely Angola, Lesotho and Zimbabwe, making the total number of benefitting countries,

10 with limited activities implemented in South Africa.

The abovementioned project revisions were based on the results of existing partnerships in

the region and are in line with current national AIDS strategies in targeted countries, thus

aiming to complement and enforce existing efforts to fight HIV in the region with greater

focus and efforts directed towards challenges, gaps and opportunity for action in prison

settings. This project focuses on three broad levels of impact:

Policy level: Address structural issues such as prison rules and regulations,

overcrowding, monitoring and improving general conditions in

the institutions.

Prison management: Operationalize national policies for the specific institutions.

Service provision level: Awareness-raising, capacity building and service delivery activities

among prison staff and other service providers.

With the overall budget of over 12 Million USD, the overarching goal of the project is to

establish a favourable environment in Sub-Saharan member states to better implement

HIV/AIDS prevention and care activities in prisons through addressing normative policy,

capacity building and programmatic aspects of national HIV/AIDS prevention activities.

3

2. Disbursement history

Overall Budget (1 .03.11 – 31.12.15)

Total Approved Budget (1 .03.11 – 31.12.15)

Expenditure (1 .03.11 – 31.07.13)

Expenditure in % (1 .03.11 – 31.07.13)

12,286,453 12,286,453 4,198,678 34.17%

3. Purpose of the Evaluation

Mid-term evaluation is foreseen in the project document signed by the ten Governments

and UNODC. It is initiated by UNODC Regional Office for Southern Africa and it is agreed

with UNODC Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU), the HIV and AIDS Unit (HAU) and the

two major donors, namely the Swedish International Development Agency (SIDA) and

Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Pretoria.

The mid-term evaluation was planned for and budgeted under project XSS V02 and it is

undertaken with the aim to learn from the project implementation so that lessons can be

drawn to be the basis for instituting improvements to further project planning, design,

management and future programming. The purpose of evaluation is to measure progress

towards achievement of the expected outcomes and to assess the measures that the project

has put in place in order to create positive impact in the future.

It is expected that the recommendations of this evaluation will provide insight on the

extent to which the project is addressing Member States’ needs in line with recent

principles on Aid Effectiveness.

Results of this evaluation will be useful to a number of stakeholders, including the Member

States themselves, as it will paint a picture of the current status of HIV programming in

prisons. The project management team will be able to use the results of the evaluation to

improve project planning and management. Similarly, all donors will benefit from the

evaluation results, which will enhance their accountability for results achieved as a result

of their contributions will enable them to report against their own strategic frameworks.

4. Evaluation Scope

The mid-term evaluation should cover implementation period from 01 March 2011, to July

31, 2013. The unit of analysis for this evaluation is the entire project. The geographical

scope of the evaluation is eight (8) Southern African Countries and two (2) Eastern African

countries benefiting from the programme. However, emphasis should be placed on three of

the 10 benefitting countries, wherein, there are other programmes implemented alongside

the XSS V02 project. These are Malawi (ONE UN funded component), Mozambique (CDC

funded component) and Zambia (SLU component). Of utmost importance will be to

evaluate the synergistic effect of implementing this project with various institutional

arrangements for project implementation and the level of coordination between relevant

stakeholders. Furthermore, greater emphasis of the evaluation will specifically focus on

the African HIV in Prisons Partnership Network (AHPPN).

4

While the main emphasis should be on measuring progress made towards attainment of the

objectives and sustainability, the evaluation should also cover the project concept, design

and implementation progress.

The mid-term evaluation will critically assess issues pertaining to the relevance,

performance (based on indicators identified in the logical framework) and success of the

project including the sustainability of results. The evaluation will also focus on certain

tangible aspects of the project, including improvement in prisons infrastructure and

developed national and international guidelines. It is also expected that the evaluation will

result in the formulation of recommendations and identification of lessons learned.

5. Evaluation Criteria and Key Evaluation Questions

The Evaluation will examine the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of

operational activities and results achieved by the project to-date, by showing how the

component(s) processes and outcomes have contributed (or have the potential to contribute)

to the achievement of project goals and objectives. It will also examine to which extent the

project addresses the identified needs to ensure sufficient focus on specific issues related to

HIV and AIDS in prison settings, and to which extent the project objectives are still

relevant. The evaluation will also assess what is the value of the project in relation to other

priority needs and efforts, and to which extent the problem that the project intended to

address is still a major problem. Evaluation questions should be responded to in line with

the Guidelines for evaluation reports and template for evaluation reports at UNODC

(Annex 1).

Project Outcomes (Results)

Specifically the evaluation will assess, quantitatively and qualitatively, progress made

towards achievement of the planned results and expected outcomes, in particular:

o awareness raising and sensitisation through advocacy efforts carried out

throughout project implementation, including the establishment of the

AHPPN, the AHPPN steering committee and the AHPPN website platform;

o knowledge management and other strategic information resources

established, with particular emphasis to the standardisation, systematic,

quality and usability of such information; the achievements and impact in

terms of outputs and their contribution to outcomes as defined in the project

document;

o capacity building of governmental and non-governmental organizations to

better address HIV/AIDS in prison settings. This includes assessment of

project’s contribution to human and institutional capacity building;

o reviews and amendment of national HIV/AIDS policies, strategies and action

plans, including enabling legal and political environment for implementation

of those policies;

o coverage of HIV prevention, treatment, care and support services for

prisoners and prison staff, including improvement of health infrastructure to

deliver those services.

Project Design

5

The evaluation will assess quantitatively and qualitatively, the extent to which the overall

project design was and remains valid. In particular:

o Assess how the programme aligns to national and regional priorities and plans

as well as progress towards attaining the project’s regional and country

objectives as described in project document;

o Assess the value of regional programming, i.e. implementing the programme as a

regional program rather than a country or bilateral programme and to what

extent the project has contributed to the establishment of regional initiatives for

sustainable management of HIV and AIDS in prisons;

o Assess the methodology of the overall project structure and potential for

replication of good practice, sharing experiences and lessons learned;

o Assess the appropriateness of the design and structure of the AHPPN as a

regional coordinating body of HIV in prisons issues.

Project Management and Administration – including partnerships and cooperations

The MTE will assess quantitatively and qualitatively the extent to which project

management has been effective, efficient and responsive. This includes the oversight role by

major donors (SIDA and Embassy of the Kingdom of the Netherlands in Pretoria); the

project execution role of UNODC, the host ministries (Min. of Justice/Home

Affairs/Interiors/safety and Security & Correctional Services) and the project focal points;

and the role of both project coordinating mechanism structures-namely Project Steering

Committees (PSC) and the Technical Working Groups, including the AHPPN steering

committee. Also the evaluation will seek to describe the extent to which partnerships have

been sought and established (including synergies created with other UN agencies to deliver

as one).

This will also review the clarity of roles and responsibilities of the various institutional

arrangements for project implementation and the level of coordination between relevant

stakeholders.

Project Implementation

The Evaluation will assess quantitatively and qualitatively the extent to which project

implementation has been effective, efficient and responsive, and in particular will review

the following:

o project management structure and implementation arrangements at all levels, in

order to provide an opinion on its efficiency and cost effectiveness;

o assess the use of logical framework as a management tool during

implementation, including the time frames of implementation;

o assess the quality and relevance of project reporting;

o the mechanisms for information dissemination of project implementation;

o risk management by identifying any problems or constraints which may impact,

or are impacting on the successful delivery of the project, whether they have

been, or are being appropriately dealt with and if they are likely to be repeated

in future phases;

6

o describe the project’s adaptive management processes – how have project

activities changed in response to new conditions, and have the changes been

appropriate;

o review any partnership arrangements with other donors and comment on their

strengths and weaknesses, as well as collaboration between governments,

intergovernmental and NGOs, national level involvement and perceptions and

the involvement of other stakeholders;

o assess the extent to which programme design, implementation and monitoring

have taken the following cross cutting issues into consideration: Gender, Human

rights, Equity, Institutional strengthening and Innovation or added value to

national development.

Project Finances

The evaluation will analyze the project finance elements including:

o The appropriateness of and efficiency of disbursements and actual spending;

o by providing an overview of actual spending versus budget expectations;

o Assessing how the project has materialized/leveraged co-financing for various

components;

o Budget procedures including the review of subsequent adjustments to accommodate

audit recommendations; and any changes to fund allocations as a result of budget

revisions providing an opinion on the appropriateness and relevance of such

revisions.

Lessons learned

The Evaluation will also highlight lessons learned, good practices and areas for

improvement in addressing issues relating to relevance, performance and success. In

describing eventual lessons learned, an explicit distinction should be made between those

lessons applicable only to this project, and lessons that may be of value more broadly,

including to other, similar projects in the UNODC pipeline and portfolio.

This section should also describe the main lessons that may have emerged in terms of:

o country ownership;

o regional cooperation and inter-governmental cooperation;

o stakeholder participation;

o adaptive management processes;

o efforts to secure sustainability; and

o role of M&E in project implementation.

Sustainability of results and benefits

An assessment of sustainability of results and benefits will consider whether the initiated

activities and results are likely to continue after donor funding ends: How do the

beneficiaries accept the project, to which extent are they willing to continue, and in which

ways are the host institutions developing the capacity and motivation to administer it? To

which extent can the activities become self-sustaining financially?

7

General challenges, problems and constraints

General challenges, problems and constraints encountered during implementation will be

highlighted and mainstreamed in the framework of questions listed under section 5.

6. Evaluation Methodology

The mid-term evaluation should include but not necessarily limited to the following

methods:

desk review of relevant documents (Annex 3)

individual and/or group interviews/ conference calls with members of the Project

Steering Committees (main governmental stakeholders and civil society),

representatives of the counterparts and implementing partners;

conference calls/interviews with representatives of the project beneficiaries;

meeting with representatives of UNAIDS joint teams and other co-sponsors who co-

implemented the project in the benefiting countries;

field visits to selected services developed/supported under the project;

conference calls with representatives from the UNODC HIV and AIDS Unit; and

questionnaires and any other data collection tools.

The evaluation consultant should present a detailed statement of proposed evaluation

methods in the technical proposal. The evaluator has to take into account the Guidelines for

evaluation reports and template for evaluation reports at UNODC (Annex 1).

7. Timeframe and Deliverables

Expected engagement: Estimated commencement of this assignment is envisaged to be

during October 2013. Briefing of the evaluator by the HIV Unit, UNODC ROSAF (Regional

Programme Coordinator and M&E Officer) and the HR/Procurement unit will take place

immediately after contract signature to discuss the ToRs and logistical arrangements, as

well as relevant UN rules and regulations.


Desk review of project

document, reports and

other relevant documents,

including documents

related to the AHPPN.

30 October

2013 Duty Station

Draft inception report

with detailed evaluation

plan and methodology

prepared; including

draft evaluation tools

(interview sheets;

questionnaires)

8


Mission to the selected

benefiting countries:

meetings and interviews

with identified

stakeholders, identified

beneficiaries and

collaborative partners;

debriefing with the HAU-

ROSAF and presentation of

preliminary findings

15 November

2013

Sampled

benefitting

countries

Duty Station

PMU -

ROSAF

Data from major

stakeholders collected;

Progress report of the

evaluation field

missions and

preliminary findings

Data analysis and

preparation of draft report

25 November

2013 Duty Station

Evaluation draft report

with findings, lessons

learned and results

submitted to UNODC

and CLPs for review

Receiving feedback on draft

report, incorporating

comments

Finalisation of the

evaluation report,

presentation to HAU-

ROSAF and exit meeting

10 December

2013

Duty Station

PMU -

ROSAF

Evaluation report

refined

Final evaluation report

submitted to UNODC

8. Competencies and skills required for an evaluator

Evaluation should be conducted by an independent expert without prior involvement in the

project. The evaluator will not act as representative of any party and should remain

independent and impartial throughout the evaluation as guided in the Guidelines for

evaluation reports and template for evaluation reports at UNODC to be found on the

Independent Evaluation Unit Website1. (Annex 1)

This evaluation will be conducted by one evaluation expert contracted by UNODC, who will

report directly to the Regional Programme Coordinator and will work closely with the

Regional M&E Officer for HIV in prisons project. The evaluator must not have been

involved in the design and or implementation, supervision and coordination of/or have

benefitted from the project under evaluation.

The evaluator shall be a specialist in programme evaluation, with relevant qualifications

and extensive experience of large multi donor funded programmes evaluation and concrete

understanding of logical framework and Results Based Management. Registration and/or

affiliation to recognised evaluation associations (e.g. AfrEA) is required.

1 http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/evaluation/index.html

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/evaluation/index.html

9

The evaluator will also be expected to demonstrate expertise and experience in the field of

HIV and AIDS programme management. Experience in prison settings programming will

be an advantage. Extensive health measurement skills, in particular, epidemiology are

required, as well as project financing and financial management.

Also, the evaluator will be required demonstrate extensive report writing skills, with

previous experience in compiling evaluation reports. Samples of previously developed

reports will be required prior to engagement. Although the evaluator should be free to

discuss all matters relevant to this assignment with the authorities concerned, he/she is not

authorized to make any commitment on behalf of UNODC.

The report will contain the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the mid-term

evaluation as well as a recording of the lessons learned during project implementation. It

shall be discussed with UNODC and shared with the major donors and, to the extent

possible, with other parties involved in the project.

While considering the comments provided on the draft, the evaluator would use his/her

independent judgment in preparing the final report. The report should be produced in line

with the IEU guidelines, and the main body of the report should not exceed 25-30 pages,

annexes excluded. The report should be developed with respect to the standard UNODC

IEU Evaluation Report template, which will be provided to the Evaluator (Annex 5), and

must be fully used to develop the report. The final report should be professionally edited

and free of any language grammatical and spelling errors.

Annexes to the evaluation report should be kept to an absolute minimum. Only those

annexes that serve to demonstrate or clarify an issue related to a major finding should be

included. Existing documents should be referenced but not necessarily annexed.

The required qualifications, experiences and responsibilities for the desired evaluator will

be specified in the annexed job description (Annex 2).

10

9. Management of the Evaluation Process

The evaluation should be planned and conduced in close consultation with the PMU at

UNODC ROSAF. The evaluation tools and methodology must be agreed with UNODC

ROSAF. The PMU will provide the necessary substantive support, including appropriately

pre-approved travel arrangements, organisation of meetings and submission of all

documents for desk review.

Management Arrangements

The independent evaluation will be carried out following UNODC’s evaluation policy and

UNEG Norms and Standards.

The Independent Evaluation Unit

The Independent Evaluation Unit (IEU) guides the process of this evaluation and endorses

the TORs. IEU will comment and approve the inception report, and endorse the final

evaluation report following the assessment by the Project Manager. IEU further supports

the process of issuing a management response, if needed, and participates in disseminating

the final report to stakeholders within and outside of UNODC.

Project Manager

The Project Manager is responsible for the provision of desk review materials to the

evaluation team, reviewing the evaluation methodology, liaising with and involving the

Core Learning Partners during the key stages of the evaluation, as well as reviewing and

approving the draft report, assessing the final report and developing an implementation

plan for the evaluation recommendations.

The Project Manager will further be in charge of providing logistical support to the

evaluator, including arranging the field missions of the evaluator. The evaluator will liaise

with the UNODC Regional/Field Offices as appropriate for all field missions.

Core Learning Partners

Members of the Core Learning Partnership (CLP) are selected by the project managers in

consultation with IEU. Members of the CLP are selected from the key stakeholder groups,

including UNODC management, mentors, beneficiaries, partner organizations and donor

Member States. The CLPs are asked to comment on the key steps of the evaluation and act

as facilitators with respect to the dissemination and application of the results and other

follow-up action.

11

10. Payment Modalities

The evaluator will be issued and individual consultancy contract and paid in accordance to

his/her qualifications and in line with UNODC financial and procurement rules and

regulations. The contract is a legally binding document in which the consultant agrees to

complete the deliverables by the set deadlines.

Remuneration will be released in four separate instalments subsequent to appointment of a

successful candidate. The first instalment, amounting to 20% of the total cost of the

contract, will be released upon signature of the contract and UNODC receipt and approval

by IEU of the inception report and workplan. The second instalment, amounting to 30% of

the total cost of the contract, will be released following UNODC receipt and approval by the

Project Manager of a progress report. A third instalment, amounting to 30% of the total cost

of the contract, will be released following UNODC receipt and approval by the Project

Manager of a draft Mid-term Evaluation report. A final instalment, amounting to 20% of

the total cost of the contract, will be released upon UNODC receipt and approval by the

Project Manager of the final assessment of the report and the endorsement of the

assessment by IEU. (FINAL mid-term evaluation report with all comments incorporated, and an assignment closure report) and presentation to the HIV and AIDS Unit at ROSAF.

Travel:

When travelling to sampled benefitting countries for data collection, UNODC will arrange

all necessary travel (by air and surface mode) for the evaluator and will provide Daily

Subsistence Allowance in line with UN national rates for accommodation and meals.

12

List of background documents for the desk review

The documents include, but are not limited to:

XSS V02 Project Document;

UNODC Strategic Framework;

HIV prevention, treatment and care in prisons and other closed settings: a

comprehensive package of interventions;

SADC Minimum Standards for HIV and AIDS, TB, Hepatitis B & C, and Sexually

Transmitted Infections Prevention, treatment, Care and Support in Prisons in the

SADC Region;

XSS V02 Project Progress Reports and Donor Annual Reports;

Draft Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for HIV and other Communicable

diseases in Prisons settings;

XAS J72 Mid-Term (April 2010) and Final Evaluation (March 2011) Reports;

Results strategy for Sweden’s international development cooperation in Zambia

2013–2017

An integrated approach to HIV and AIDS in Prisons - UNODC training package for

Prison Settings.

The Joint SADC-UNODC Regional Programme on Promoting the Rule of Law and

Security in Southern Africa

Promoting the Rule of Law and Human Security in Eastern Africa: Regional

Programmes 2009 - 2012

13

List of CLP Members (names and titles)

AHPPN STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Member Full Names Country Designation

1. Mr. Mambewu Shumba Zimbabwe National AIDS Commission AHPPN Vice Chairperson

2. Dr. Johnson Byabashaija Uganda Commissioner General of Prisons; Uganda Prisons Service

3. Dr. Innocent Gahima Barinda Rwanda Prisons Health Coordinator, Rwanda National Prisons Service

4. Mr. Med Kaggwa Uganda

Co-Opted Member: Uganda Human Rights Commission and Special Rapporteur on Prisons and Conditions of Detention in Africa

5. Dr. Limpho Maile Lesotho

Director - Stakeholders' Coordination and Technical Support, National AIDS Commission (NAC)

6. Mr. Sagar Motah Mauritius

Chief Hospital Officer and HIV Focal Point - Mauritius Prison Service

7. Mr. Lukas Muntingh South Africa Project Coordinator Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative

8. Dr. Henry Emmanuel Ndindi Malawi Chief Medical Officer - Malawi Prisons Service

9. Mr. David Sinombe Namibia

HIV and AIDS Focal Person, Ministry of Safety and Security - Namibia Prisons Service

10. Ms. Regina Ombam Kenya

Head Strategy Development; National AIDS Control Council (NACC)

12. Mr. Francis Selorm Hagbe Ghana AIDS Control Programme Coordinator; Ghana Prison Service

13 Dr. Badou Roger N’Guessan Côte d’Ivoire

Head of Drug Abuse Treatment and Epidemiological Studies in the Interministerial Committee for Drug Control, Côte d’Ivoire

14. Mr Brian Tkachuk Canada

Co-Opted Member: International Prison Expert & Founder of the AHPPN

SIDA

15. Karolina Kvarnare Zambia

First Secretary - Regional Advisor, HIV&AIDS

Regional HIV&AIDS Team for Africa, Embassy of Sweden Lusaka.

EMBASSY OF THE KINGDOM OF NETHERLANDS IN SOUTH AFRICA

19. Ronald Goldberg South Africa Regional Coordinator - HIV Programmes

of 7

Guidelines for Evaluation Reports

CONTENTS

A standard evaluation report starts with a cover page, a table of contents, a list of abbreviations and acronyms, an executive summary and a matrix of findings, evidence and recommendations.

The evaluation report should further contain the following main chapters: I. Introduction (which should include a country map and pictures), II. Evaluation findings (clearly supported by evidence), III. Conclusions, IV. Recommendations and V. Lessons learned.

The main body of the report should not exceed 25-30 pages, annexes excluded. Annexes should be kept to an absolute minimum (no longer than 15 pages). Only those annexes that serve to demonstrate or clarify an issue related to a major finding should be included.

Information should only be included in the report if it significantly affects the analysis and serves to clarify issues. Rather than repeating, references should be made to annexes or other parts of the report. Sources of information used should be referenced in a consistent manner.

Although the structure of the report may be adapted to the particular circumstances of an evaluation exercise (for example, several projects may be covered by a joint report or additional evaluation criteria may be included), the main headings should be retained, while sub-headings may be added, as necessary.

FORMAT

Please note: The attached template report must be used. Write your text on top of the text laid out in the Word file to adopt the correct format and style, i.e. A4 format,Adobe Garamond Pro for body text and page numbers and Myriad Pro for figures, tables and other graphical elements.

Pages as well as paragraphs should be numbered consecutively using Roman numerals from the page following the cover page until the end of the matrix and Arabic numerals from the Introduction chapter until the end of the document, including the annexes, with the numbers appearing in the middle at the bottom of the pages. Paragraphs should not be numbered. For footnotes, use the correct format of the Template report.

Spell-check as well as grammar check should further be undertaken before the report is submitted. The attached document on UN spelling should be consulted.

The report should be submitted in electronic format in Word in black and white.

Should the report be type-set and printed, standard Word-style tables as well as the original Excel files for all "figures" and tables that employ a table format must be submitted along with the report.

of 7

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The section should consist of a concise executive summary of no more than four pages that includes:

a) An introduction and the background: short description of the project evaluated including its objectives;

b) The major findings of the evaluation;

c) The main conclusions;

d) The major recommendations, i.e. there should be a clear illustration of how the recommendations build upon the conclusions, which in turn build upon the findings.

e) The major lessons learned.

The executive summary should not be a repetition of the text of the report but it should be drafted in a crisp and clear manner with the objective to convey the key and most important information about the evaluation to a wide array of readers.

Evaluation reports written in a language other than English should be accompanied by an English translation of the executive summary prepared by a competent translator and cleared by the Independent Evaluation Unit.

SUMMARY MATRIX OF FINDINGS, EVIDENCE AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

The summary matrix should not include all the findings and recommendations emerging from the evaluation but only the most significant ones. They should be relevant, actionable and be directed to a specific group of stakeholders. The recommendations should be grouped under two categories, namely "Key recommendations" and "Important recommendations", in the summary matrix.

Findings1: problems and issues identified

Evidence (sources that substantiate findings)

Recommendations2

Key recommendations

Important recommendations

1 A finding uses evidence from data collection to allow for a factual statement. 2 Recommendations are proposals aimed at enhancing the effectiveness, quality, or efficiency of a project/programme; at redesigning the objectives; and/or at the reallocation of resources. For accuracy and credibility, recommendations should be the logical implications of the findings and conclusions.

of 7

I. INTRODUCTION

Background and context

This sub-section should include:

a) The overall concept and design of the project and include an assessment of its strategy, the planned time and resources and the clarity, logic and coherence of the project document.

b) The purpose (objective) and scope (coverage) of the evaluation.

c) The composition of the evaluation team.

Evaluation methodology

This is a statement of the methods used to obtain and collect the data, as well as the approach and methods used to analyze the data. This sub-section is important, as it provides the basis for the credibility of the evaluation results. Reference should be made to the annex encompassing evaluation tools.

The evaluation methodology should support the purpose of the evaluation and should stand and be sufficient to answer the evaluation questions posed in the TOR by creating the conditions for internal of external validity of the study. The evaluation report should contain a logical sequence; evidence –assessment: assessment-findings-findings/conclusion recommendations.

Reference must be made to the desk review, identification of stakeholders, sampling strategy and triangulation.

Limitations to the evaluation

The report should highlight major constraints that had an impact on the evaluation process, i.e., limited field missions due to security constraints, limited budget, limited time and unavailability of some major stakeholders for interviews. This section should further include how these limitations were overcome.

I. EVALUATION FINDINGS

This section is the most important since it covers the analysis of information and articulates the findings of the evaluation. It is the longest and most detailed section of the report and it should be based on facts. The other sections of the report draw on and make references to it.

A finding uses evidence from several sources to allow for a factual statement.

Design

This sub-section addresses the design of a project by measuring:

a) Appropriate participatory needs assessment and context analysis.

of 7

b) The logical framework approach, with measurable expected objectives, outcomes and outputs, performance indicators (including gender equality and human rights if appropriate), targets, risks, mitigation measures and assumptions.

Relevance

This part should address the relevance of the project in meeting the needs, in solving the problems identified and in contributing to relevant national and international programmes and policies. Relevance is the extent to which the objectives of a project are continuously consistent with recipients’ needs, UNODC mandate and overarching strategies and policies.

Efficiency

Efficiency is a measure of how resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted into outputs.

The report should indicate the extent to which the planned outputs have been delivered and how they contributed to the attainment of the objectives, as well as show how the outputs have been delivered within the planned time frame and with the resources available to the project.

This part of the report should also address how the outputs have been implemented, noting any constraints. In particular, it should examine the following:

a) The appropriateness of overall institutional and management arrangements and the impact that these had on the implementation and delivery of the outputs;

b) The kind of backstopping received from the relevant units and sections at UNODC headquarters or the relevant field office;

c) Whether and how the outputs were monitored during implementation.

Partnerships and cooperation

This part of the report should examine the coordination and collaboration arrangements that have been made with partners and stakeholders.

Partnerships and cooperation is a measure of the level and quality of UNODC’s cooperation with external partners and stakeholders, e.g. donors, NGOs, Governments, other UN agencies etc., through:

a) The extent to which the right partnerships have been identified

b) The extent to which partnerships have been sought and established, and synergies been created in the delivery of assistance.

c) The extent to which there was effective coordination among partners.

d) The extent to which partnerships’ responsibilities were fully and effectively discharged.

e) The extent to which partnerships’ inputs were of quality and provided in a timely manner.

of 7

f) The extent to which the project contributes to the One UN, UNDAF, and other UN system-wide coordination mechanisms, e.g. participation in UN Country Team, and the extent to which UNODC’s participation in UN activities influence its performance.

Effectiveness

Effectiveness is the extent to which a project achieves its objectives and outcomes. The report should show whether and how the objectives and outcomes have been achieved.

When objectives and outcomes have been fully met, the report should show how these are contributing to the attainment of the results contained in the UNODC strategy and the relevant UNODC thematic, regional and country strategic frameworks.

When some of the objectives and outcomes have not been attained, the report should show what progress has been made towards achieving them and how they contribute to the attainment of the results contained in the UNODC strategy and the relevant UNODC thematic, regional and country strategic frameworks.

The report should cover the objectives and the outcomes of the project and demonstrate the short and medium-term effects that the project is likely to achieve or have already achieved, e.g. whether the project has made a difference; how it has made a difference, etc.

The report should further highlight major constraints and problems that have impacted the implementation and delivery of the project. The aim is to learn from these constraints and avoid them in the future, or find solutions to improve performance.

Impact

This sub-section should try to capture the contribution of the intervention under evaluation to positive and negative, primary and secondary long-term economic, environmental, social change(s) produced or likely to be produced by a project, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended, after the project was implemented. Reference must further be made to the methodology

Sustainability

Sustainability is concerned with measuring whether the benefits of a project are likely to continue after its completion. This sub-section should describe the probability of continued long-term benefits and the resilience over time of the net effects of the intervention.

Human Rights and Gender

This section should address the programming principles required by a human rights based approach of the interventions and should identify and analyze the inequalities, discriminatory practices and unjust power relations within the limits of UNODC’s mandate. Evaluating Human Rights and Gender requires paying attention to which groups benefit and which groups contribute to the intervention under review. Groups need to be disaggregated by relevant criteria: disadvantaged and advantaged groups depending on their gender or status

of 7

Innovation (optional)

This sub-section should deal with the extent to which: (i) a project deviates from its planned activities and outputs to initiate efficient and effective innovative practices; (ii) UNODC introduces new practices (methods, procedures, or devices), pilots them and supports their dissemination.

II. CONCLUSIONS

The report must draw overall conclusions based on the evaluation findings. Conclusions should add value to the findings and draw on data collection and analyses undertaken, through a transparent chain of arguments.

Conclusions point out the factors of success and failure of the evaluated project, with special attention paid to the intended and unintended results and impacts, and more generally to any other strength or weakness.

There must be a clear link between the findings, the conclusions and the recommendations.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

This part of the report should provide clear, useful, time-bound and actionable recommendations aimed at enhancing the project performance and improving the sustainability of results.

The report should clearly present recommendations that are aimed, for example, at improving project design, delivery and overall management or at changing policy.

The recommendations should clearly build upon the conclusions, which in turn build upon the findings.

Each recommendation should clearly indicate the action to be undertaken or the decision to be made, as well as the body to which the recommendation is addressed.

IV. LESSONS LEARNED

Lessons learnt are “Generalizations based on evaluation experiences with projects, programs, or policies that abstract from the specific circumstances to broader situations. Frequently, lessons highlight strengths or weaknesses in preparation, design, and implementation that affect performance, outcome, and impact”. Lessons learned are a key component of any knowledge management system and they are important for continuously improving the performance of organizations like UNODC. Sometimes these lessons will be derived from success and sometimes they will be derived from areas where there is room for improvement. The purpose of a lesson learnt is to see what works and what does not. Lessons can be success stories that should be repeated or they can be areas in which change towards improvement is to

of 7

take place. They can offer advice on how to improve processes (how things were done) or products (outputs). The evaluation report should focus on the most important lessons, especially those with wider applicability and those that have the following characteristics: The lessons learned from a specific project should highlight the strengths and weaknesses in preparation, design and implementation that affect performance, outcomes and impact. They are also applicable to other projects and programmes, as well as policies, and have the potential to improve future actions.

Lessons learned should be based on findings and evidences presented in the report. Lessons learned should neither be written as recommendations, nor as an observation or description.

individual consultant procurement notice€¦ · knowledge of ms office package (ms word, advanced...

Documents