BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
Concern seeks to address the root causes of poverty by engaging in long term development work and response to emergency situations. Concern jointly with its local partners Kisumu Medical and Education Trust (KMET) in Kisumu, and Pastoralist Integrated Programme (PISP) in Marsabit and the County Government of Kisumu, County Government of Marsabit have been implementing a project aimed at “Enabling Devolved Governance through Inclusive and Systematic Citizen Participation.” The project proposed a model for effective citizen participation in planning and decision making at county and sub county levels, using the concept of Community Conversations, a social transformative approach that galvanizes communities to address the underlying causes of underdevelopment and vulnerability.

Key Result Areas
Result 1: County Policy and legislation respects citizen participation
Result 2: Conditions created to promote citizen participation
Result 3: County government is accountable for fulfilling pro poor service delivery

Key Activities
1) Provision of Technical assistance for county governments of Marsabit and Kisumu to develop law/policy on public participation
2) Train and mentor ward administrators to use CC as platform for systematic citizen engagement.
3) Increased citizen knowledge and understanding of the processes to access their rights
4) Provide technical assistance to the county government to develop integrity& feedback framework

CONSULTANCY OBJECTIVES
The evaluation is intended to contribute to an improvement of policies, processes and methods; make recommendations on whether the project approach should be replicated and continued.

METHODOLOGY AND TECHNICAL APPROACH
The final evaluators will lead a participatory evaluation to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability of the project using the DAC criteria for evaluation.
The following are the main activities to be undertaken:
1) Review project documents and resources to understand the project; Desk study and review of all relevant project documents including project progress and annual project reports, among others.
2) In depth interviews with key stakeholders
3) Draft tools (Focus Group Discussion and Key Informant Interview guides) for evaluation
4) Train final evaluation team members on objectives and process of the evaluation including evaluation tools
5) Focus Group Discussions with project beneficiaries and other stakeholders
6) Observation: Randomly visit selected Community Conversation (CC) groups in the two pilot wards
7) Lead the team in person to complete the collection, analysis, and synthesis of supplemental information regarding the project performance
8) Interpret both quantitative and qualitative results and draw conclusions, lessons learned, and recommendations regarding project outcome
The final evaluators and the evaluation team will use existing data collected or compiled during the life of the project, as well as additional data collected during the evaluation to answer the following questions that focus specifically on the project:
Relevance: This refers the extent to which project objectives were consistent and suited with the priorities and policies of the target group.
1) To what extent was the project, as designed and implemented, suited to context and needs at the beneficiary, local, and national levels?
2) Were the objectives of the project in line with the needs and priorities for democratic development, given the context?
3) Should another project strategy have been preferred rather than the one implemented to better reflect those needs, priorities, and context? Why?
4) Were risks appropriately identified by the projects? How appropriate are/were the strategies developed to deal with identified risks? Was the project overly risk-averse?
Effectiveness: This refers to the extent to which the project achieved its objectives and outcomes
1) To what extent was the project, as implemented, able to achieve its objectives and outcomes?
2) To what extent was the project implemented as envisaged by the project document? If not, why not?
3) What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
Efficiency: This refers to the extent to which processes and strategizes used to operationalize the approach were cost efficient and timely and whether the approach is feasible for replication and scaling up by other stakeholders.
1) How did local partner/county government involvement influence project implementation? To what extent did local partner participation add to the success of the project?
2) Was the investment in the CC strategy to promote community participation an efficient use of project resources and do the results warrant further consideration by the county government?
3) What is the potential for scale-up and replication by other stakeholders (including government)? What modifications would be required and what are the key processes should be maintained and invested in?
4) Were the resources and inputs used in cost-effective manner?
Impact: This refers to the positive and negative changes produced by the project approach (directly or indirectly; intended or unintended)
1) To what extent has the project put in place processes and procedures supporting the role of county governments and civil society in contributing to democratization, or to direct promotion of democracy?
2) To what extent has/have the realization of the project objective(s) and project outcomes had an impact on the specific problem the project aimed to address?
3) Have the targeted beneficiaries experienced tangible impacts? Which were positive; which were negative?
4) To what extent has the project caused changes and effects, positive and negative, foreseen and unforeseen, on democratization?
Sustainability: This refers to what extent is it likely that the gains achieved under this project will be sustained and what resources are required to foster an environment that will promote sustaining these achievements?
1) To what extent has the project established processes and systems that are likely to support continued impact?
2) Are the involved parties willing and able to continue the project activities on their own (where applicable)?
3) To what extent do stakeholders and beneficiaries feel the gains of the project will be sustained once the project concludes and how?
Stakeholder participation is fundamental to this review given the community aspect of the project. The Consultant is therefore expected to conduct a participatory review providing for meaningful involvement by project partners, beneficiaries and other interested parties. Stakeholder participation should form the foundation of the review, design and planning; information collection; the development of findings; reporting; and results dissemination.
The consultant will serve as the evaluation team leader. Final members of the evaluation team will be agreed upon in consultation with the consultants and Concern, and at minimum will include: Concern Kenya’s Senior Manager – Governance and Advocacy, representatives from the County Department of Administration, Local Partners and Community Representatives. The team leaders will involve the project team in the evaluation and the team will be expected to assist with the FGDs and all other work related to the evaluation. Team members, their affiliations, and disclosure of conflicts of interest must be listed in an annex to the evaluation report. The consultant will coordinate closely with the Concern team regarding tool finalization, evaluation methodology, timeline and draft report finalization.

DELIVERABLES/OUTPUTS
a) Review Work plan: The consultant will submit an initial draft work plan to Concern. Concern will provide comments upon which the consultant will finalize the work plan
b) Revised tools for the field work
c) Lead an in-country debriefing meeting with key stakeholders (County teams, Partners and Concern Senior Management Team). The consultant will present the findings both at the county and Nairobi office level. The presentation of results is to be linked to the review issues aforementioned, with a flow of logic development derived from the information collected.
d) Draft and final report: The Consultant will prepare a report that describes the review methodology and puts forward the evaluator’s findings and recommendations and how best the approach can be scaled up to other counties in future. Upon completion of the fieldwork, the consultant will submit a draft report for review to Concern. The consultant will then provide a final review report upon receipt of the comments. The final report must be in line with the structure outlined below:
i. Executive Summary
ii. Evaluation Purpose and Evaluation Questions
iii. Project background
iv. Evaluation Methods and Limitations
v. Findings
vi. Conclusions
vii. Recommendations
viii. References
ix. Annexes

TIMELINES AND LOCATION
The Consultant will be required to travel frequently to both Marsabit and Kisumu. The task is expected to take twenty (20) days as follows.
Activity
Indicative Number of Days**
1. Briefing the Evaluator
1
1. Development of evaluation work plan and Inception Report
2
1. Development of (FGD guides, KII guides) for evaluation and share with Project team for feedback
3
1. Finalise Evaluation tools
1
1. Train final evaluation team members on objectives and process of the evaluation including evaluation tools
1
1. Data Collection in Kisumu: the Evaluator collects data deploying various data collection methods agreed upon in the Inception Report .Concern and KMET will facilitate access to information and provide necessary logistics/ organisational support.
3
1. Data Collection in Marsabit: the Evaluator collects data deploying various data collection methods agreed upon in the Inception Report. Concern and County will facilitate access to information and provide necessary logistics/ organisational support
4
1. Evaluator shares the zero-draft of the evaluation report
1
1. Validation of zero draft by the Project Team and relevant stakeholders.
1
1. Incorporation of the feedback from the project team and relevant stakeholders by the Evaluator
2
1. Evaluator produces a final report based on the final feedback from PMC and stakeholders, in time for incorporation of the findings into the Project Annual Report.
1
TOTAL
20

WORKING CONDITIONS
The Consultant will report to the Concern Worldwide office in Marsabit and the KMET office in Kisumu. All logistical and field support including travel arrangements from Nairobi to Marsabit and/or Kisumu and from Marsabit and/or Kisumu to Nairobi will be coordinated by and costs borne by Concern Kenya. Concern will cover costs of accommodation and meals while in Marsabit and Kisumu for the assignment. Transport. meals and accommodation will not be provided while in Nairobi.
The Consultant will liaise with the Senior Manager Governance and Advocacy and overall with the Programmes Director. The consultant will use their own computers for the assignment.

RENUMERATION/TERMS OF PAYMENT
The consultant must submit a financial proposal. Agreed rates will be based on prevailing market competitive rates and value for money. Payment will be subject to Kenyan Tax Laws. Payment will be upon satisfactory completion of the assignment against an agreed output/deliverables payment schedule.

CONSULTANT’S PROFILE
a) Degree in Law, Political Science, Sociology, Social Sciences or any other relevant field
b) Vast knowledge on devolved governance, the Constitution of Kenya 2010 and provisions of the key devolution laws on structure and functions of devolved governments, public finance, county planning, citizen participation, leadership and integrity. Prior experience leading evaluation of governance projects
c) Strong understanding of communities and their interaction with government
d) Team player and willingness to lead the evaluation with Concern’s Governance Team
1. Excellent analytical, planning, organizational, interpersonal, report writing and editorial skills.
2. Proficient in the use of computers and relevant applications or software(s). Strong data management and analytical skills are essential.
3. Fluency in English and Kiswahili. Fluency in the local language is an added advantage.

HOW TO APPLY:
Interested candidates who meet the above requirements must submit the following;
• A technical proposal including the proposed methodology, work schedule and earliest date of availability to undertake assignment (maximum six (6) pages)
• A financial proposal quoted in Kenya Shillings (Kes) for the whole assignment
• Cover letter and CV (Demonstration of Capability) If quoting for an organization attach the CV of the Lead Consultant and any other personnel to be involved in the assignment
• A list of previous work done (Work Completion Certificates can be attached) including telephone and email contacts of three (3) referees who can validate technical expertise

All submissions must be sent, addressed to the HR Coordinator, Concern Worldwide, Nairobi, to the following email addresses: nairobi.hr@concern.net and quotes.kenya@concern.net with the subject of the email as ‘Evaluation of Enabling Devolved Governance through Inclusive and Systematic Citizen Participation Project’ by Wednesday, 22nd November 2017.
Concern has a Code of Conduct and a Programme Participant Protection Policy to ensure the maximum protection of programme participants from abuse and exploitation.
CONCERN WORLDWIDE IS AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER