CALL FOR PROPOSALS
Evaluation of the Ministerial Commitment on comprehensive sexuality education and sexual and reproductive health services for adolescents and young people in Eastern and Southern African (ESA)
1.
Background and Context:
A commitment for positive health
outcomes for all young people in East and Southern Africa was endorsed and
affirmed in 2013 by Ministers of Education and Health from 20 ESA countries.
Together they agreed to work collaboratively towards a vision of young Africans
who are global citizens of the future, who are educated, healthy, resilient,
socially responsible, informed decision-makers, and have capacity to contribute
to their community, country, and region. The countries that affirmed the
commitment are Angola, Botswana, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo,
Ethiopia, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritius, Mozambique, Namibia,
Rwanda, Seychelles, South Africa, South Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, United
Republic of Tanzania, Zambia, Zimbabwe[1].
The ESA Commitment, as it is
known, is a response to the circumstances of the region’s adolescents and young
people aged 10 to 24 years and numbering around 199 million. They face many
sexual and reproductive health (SRH) challenges, including early and unintended
pregnancy, HIV and sexually transmitted infections (STIs), gender-based
violence (GBV) and child marriage, discrimination and low access to quality
friendly health services – all of which can undermine education opportunities,
especially for girls, and affect future health and opportunities.
The ESA Commitment has time-bound
targets agreed upon by member states which paved the way for actions to scale
up delivery of sexuality education and related health services; supported joint
action around developing programmes and sharing information; integration of
services and reinforced linkages and referrals between schools and health
services; and fostered an overall approach which facilitates access and equity
and strengthens national responses to HIV and adolescent sexual and
reproductive health and rights (ASRHR).
The ESA Commitment process was
co-led by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV and AIDS (UNAIDS), the
United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) and other UN partners, as well as the
East African Community (EAC), Southern African Development Community (SADC),
Civil Society Organizations (CSOs), and religious and youth leaders. To drive
the ESA Commitment at regional level, a High Level Group (HLG) was created,
composed of regional leaders in education, sexual and reproductive health and
rights (SRHR), HIV prevention, and development. Assisting the HLG is a
Technical Coordinating Group (TCG), whose key task is to provide technical,
administrative, and financial support to the ESA Commitment process. Having
developed a Regional Accountability Framework (RAF) that breaks down the ESA
Commitment targets into several processes and outcome indicators, the TCG has
been instrumental in tracking progress through a harmonized monitoring and
evaluation (M&E) system.
2.
Purpose and scope of the Evaluation
After six years of implementation,
an evaluation of the
Commitment is needed to assess the effectiveness of the Commitment in achieving
targets and improving outcomes for young people. The overall
objective of the evaluation is to assess the results, take stock of progress
and generate knowledge and evidence from the ESA Commitment implementation
experience in 20 member countries and their respective Ministries of Health and
Education. The overall purpose of the evaluation is to assess the processes and
achievements made through the ESA Commitment efforts in order to draw lessons
that will inform the rationale for the extension of the ESA Commitment to 2030
to align with Agenda 2030. The
evaluation is intended to be forward looking and will provide information on
the nature, extent and where possible, the effect of the ESA Commitment to the
sexual and reproductive health and rights of adolescents and young people in
East and Southern Africa, while also forming a baseline for a possible
extension of the commitment beyond 2020.
The evaluation will cover the
entire implementation period from 2013 to 2020. It will assess the progress
made in the specific areas of the ESA Commitment Accountability Framework,
review the achievements or lack thereof in meeting the targets set for 2015 and
2020 and assess the efficacy of the multi-sectoral mechanisms employed to
realize the Commitment. While the evaluation will cover the experiences of each
member country, in-depth study will be conducted in ten purposefully selected
countries from East Africa and Southern Africa and best practices will be
documented and disseminated.
Specific objectives of the
evaluation include the following:
1. Relevance
The evaluation should assess the
design and focus of the ESA Commitment Accountability Framework and review the
extent to which the objectives of the Commitment are consistent with the needs
and priorities of adolescents and young people, the implementation partners,
and key stakeholders within the member states. Questions to be answered here
include, but not limited to the following:
- How has the
ESA Commitment influenced the development of national ASRHR policy, strategy
and plans?
- How has the
ESA Commitment influenced national priorities aiming at fulfilling adolescent
and young people sexual and reproductive health rights?
- To what
extent has the target group been involved in the ESA commitment coordination
processes in the country? Have the target populations/primary beneficiaries
been reached? Why or why not?
- To what
extent are the interests, voices and priorities of adolescents and young people
taken into consideration in planning and implementation of the interventions?
- Has a
participatory/coordination methodology been applied as a means to achieve a
larger degree of ownership by the countries?
- How do
stakeholders and target groups perceive the ESA Commitment and contributions
made toward improving the sexual reproductive health and rights of adolescents
and young people? What is the perceived value going forward?
- To what
extent are issues of rights to Sexual and Reproductive Health (SRH) and HIV
prevention for young key populations, particularly LGBTI considered?
- Did the
implementation of the ESA Commitments benefit from the support of the partners?
If yes, who are the key stakeholders?
2. Effectiveness
The evaluation will assess how the
ESA commitment ‘operationalization’ processes that were put in place at
regional and national level have been effective in coordinating the achievement
of the commitment in the different countries. Questions to be answered include
the following:
- To what
extent did the Technical Coordinating Group mechanism contribute in meeting
results?
- What results
were achieved (quality and extent)? How were the results achieved? How do they
respond to the targets set in the accountability framework?
- What factors
contributed to effective achievement of results, across the different country
contexts?
- How effective
has the Accountability Framework been in responding to the needs of the
beneficiaries?
- What
challenges were faced during implementation of the commitment and how can they
be used to improve future plans in accessing services to the target group?
- What are the
future intervention strategies and issues?
- Are there any
examples of unintended results (positive or negative) from project
implementation?
3. Efficiency
The evaluation will assess the efficiency
of ESA Commitment implementation in terms of how country investments in the
areas of the commitment have converted to results. Questions to be answered
include the following:
- Have
countries budgeted for the realization of the targets set by the accountability
framework? If so, to what extent is the investment justified by its actual
results so far?
- To what
extent have countries been able to coordinate all the relevant initiatives
under the umbrella of the ESA Commitment?
- What is the
added benefit of a regional commitment / HLG/ TGC to achieving targets of the
Commitment?
- Have the
interventions been brought to scale for optimal impact?
- Are the
national coordination mechanisms multi-sectoral in nature and do they include
planning and fiscal Ministries such as Finance and Economic Planning?
- What
challenges if any have been experienced in project implementation?
4. Sustainability
The evaluation should also examine
the sustainability of national interventions designed to achieve the ESA
Commitment’s targets. Questions to be answered include the following:
- What is the
likelihood of continuation and sustainability of the key interventions
undertaken by countries and partners to achieve the ESA Commitment targets
beyond the year 2020?
- What are the
strategies put in place at the national level to sustain the implementation of
key interventions beyond 2020?
- Are the
results achieved under the umbrella of the ESA Commitment sustainable at
national level?
- What was the
degree of involvement of private sector/civil society organizations in the
implementation of ESA commitment as they are major service providers in health
and education sectors?
- Are the ESA
Commitment interventions/targets integrated into and prioritized in the
national development strategies and UN Sustainable Development Cooperation
Framework at the Country level?
- What are the
opportunities for sharing and exchanging of best practices for replication and
scale up within the countries in the ESA regions?
5. Emerging
issues
The evaluation should not only
look into the results achieved against the accountability framework but will
also generate the necessary information for a possible extension including
emerging issues relevant to the core of the commitment and not yet included.
Questions to be answered include the following:
- If you had to
recommend for the extension of the ESA Commitment beyond the year 2020, what
are key areas of work that you would like to include? Why?
- Please give
us a list of three (3) main areas of work that need to be included in the ESA
commitment to ensure the full realization of adolescents’ sexual and
reproductive health and the principle of leaving no one behind?
- Are there
good practices/lessons learned that have emerged from the synergies and
complementarities among the participating countries in form of South-South
Cooperation?
3.
Methodology for Evaluation
A mixed-methods approach is
desired for this evaluation. It is expected that the evaluation will gather
both quantitative and qualitative data on the ten commitments, the nine targets
of the commitment and the individual elements of the Accountability Framework.
As such, the evaluation is expected to use a combination of methods, including
but not limited to the following:
- Desk study
and review of all relevant documentation including the ESA Commitment
documents, annual work-plans, annual progress reports, mid-term review report,
reports of the High Level Group and the Technical Coordinating Group
- Desk study
and review of relevant secondary data, including Demographic and Health Surveys
(DHS), Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys (MICS) and other population surveys
and studies, for all ESA Commitment member states
- In depth
interviews to gather primary data from key stakeholders using a structured
methodology and interviews with relevant key informants
- Focus Group
discussions with beneficiaries and other stakeholders[2].
A
Results-Based Management approach will be applied considering not only progress
toward the targets set, but quality and the logic of the commitment, as well as
its consequences. The approach would allow us to analyze why intended results
have or have not been achieved. It will help to identify gaps and bottlenecks
and enable assessment of specific causal contributions of outputs to outcomes, examine
the implementation process and explore unintended results. The results-based
approach will also ensure the measurement of relevance of the action and
ownership of the programme and it will offer recommendations for improvement.
4.
Guiding Principles for the Evaluation
It is requested that the
evaluation be conducted within the prescripts of the following four broad sets
of evaluation standards as guiding principles for the consultancy, namely: propriety standards, feasibility standards,
accuracy standards and utility standards:
The propriety standards are ethical standards meant to ensure that
evaluations are conducted with due regard for the rights and welfare of
affected people. The most basic of the propriety standards is that evaluations
should never violate or endanger human rights. Evaluators should respect human
dignity and worth in their interaction with all persons encountered during the
evaluation and do all in their power to ensure that they are not wronged.
• The feasibility standards are intended to ensure that evaluations are
realistic and efficient. To satisfy these requirements, an evaluation must be
based on practical procedures, not unduly disrupting normal activities, and be
planned and conducted in such a way that the co-operation of key stakeholders
can be obtained. They should also be efficient.
• The accuracy standards are meant to ensure that the information
produced by evaluations is factually correct, free of bias, and appropriate to
the evaluation issues at hand.
• The utility standards, finally, are meant to ensure that evaluations
serve the information needs of their intended users: to be useful, evaluations
must be responsive to the interests, perspectives and values of stakeholders.
A human rights-based approach should be
employed to bring into focus not only the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency
and sustainability of activities carried out but also the processes of project
implementation. Particular attention should be given to the principles of
inclusion, participation, equality and non-discrimination, and accountability
as addressed in project activities.
5.
Duration of the Evaluation / Timeframe
Activities
|
Deliverables
|
Timeframe (days)
|
Preparation
|
|
Briefing
with Technical
Coordinating Group
| Minutes of meeting | 1-2August 2020 |
Review
all relevant data sources and prepare an inception report to be submitted to
the TCG
The
inception report will detail:
methodology;availability of data sources, by commitment areas and Countries;schedule of activities and timeline per country;draft data collection tools;a data analysis matrix which links the questions in the data
collection tools to the outcome areas/indicators/questions.
| Draft inception report including tools available for comments |
8
|
Submit
the final Inception report and quality assurance plan with all comments
integrated
| Final inception report available |
5
|
Data
Collection
|
|
Literature
review of available documents, survey
reports and published studies on adolescents and young people relevant to the
scope of this assignment
|
|
15
|
Qualitative
and quantitative data collection fieldwork, including data capture and
processing (Virtually)
|
|
50
|
Data
Analysis and Reporting
|
|
Analyze
data collected and prepare draft report
| Draft evaluation report available for review by TCG and stakeholders |
16
|
Integrate
comments from TCG and stakeholders in draft report and share draft
|
|
4
|
Presentation
of the draft report. Comments made by the key stakeholders will inform the
final report
|
|
1
|
Produce
final evaluation report incorporating all comments received and a final
PowerPoint presentation summarizing the report.
|
|
5
|
Total
of days and estimated timeframe
|
|
105
(From July to December 2020)
|
6.
Expected Deliverables
Deliverable
1: An
inception report which contains the objectives and scope, description of
methodology/methodological approach, data collection tools, data analysis
methods, key informants/agencies, review questions, performance criteria, work
plan and reporting requirements including ethical approval requirements and
tools for submission. It should include a clear matrix relating all these
aspects and a desk review with a list of the documents consulted as well as a
quality assurance plan.
Deliverable
2: Draft
report to be shared with key stakeholders for comments whose structure
follows Introduction, Methodology, Analysis, Key challenges/Opportunities,
Lessons Learned, Key Recommendations, Conclusions and Annexes.
Deliverable
3: Presentation
of the draft report: develop and present a PowerPoint presentation showing
preliminary findings, lessons learned and recommendations to the ESA
Commitment’s key stakeholders. Comments made by the key stakeholders will
inform the draft report.
Deliverable
4: Final
evaluation report incorporating all comments received and a final
PowerPoint Presentation summarizing the report.
Deliverable 5: Master
presentation of the findings and recommendations.
7.
Required expertise and qualification
The team of consultants should have the following
profile(s).
Team leader
- At least a PhD degree or equivalent level in one of
the following fields: Public health, Demography, Development Studies, Health
Economics, Social Sciences, or other related studies;
- International experience of 10 to 15 years is
required and past experience in working with the UN, EAC or SADC is an added
advantage;
- Experience working in East and Southern Africa;
- Past experience as a team leader in a related
assignment(s) and production of a quality evaluation report;
- Proven experience in adolescent and young people
sexual and reproductive health and rights;
- Previous experience in similar assignments and
inter-sectoral collaboration will have an added advantage;
- Proven experience and skills in developing policy,
strategic documents and conducting complex evaluation at regional and national
levels will be an asset;
- Experience and understanding of UN programming
processes;
- Excellent report writing, communication, interviewing
and computer skills.
The Team leader will be required to submit one sample of previous
similar work produced and 3 references or proof of satisfactory completion from
the previous employers or contractors.
Team member Consultants
- Master’s Degree in Population, Demography,
Statistics, Public Health, Development Studies or other related studies;
- At least 7 year of relevant experience;
- Proven experience in conducting reviews and
evaluations involving adolescents and young peoples’ sexual and reproductive
health and rights;
- Experience and skills in using evidence-based,
knowledge base creation and ability to develop systems for improved
performance;
- Proven experience in Programme evaluations and
assessments;
- Evidence of an analytical work in the subject matter;
- Excellent report writing, communication, interviewing
and computer skills.
All interested consultants/firms are requested
to submit an application:
- Explaining their competencies to meet the
requirements of the assignment;
- Explaining, in detail, the proposed methodology to be
used in carrying out the assignment, including sampling strategy (not just
sample size but also urban, rural, age, sex disaggregation, etc.);
- Providing the expected duration of the assignment and
dates of availability; roles and competencies of core team members;
- Providing a detailed professional budget in USD (Indicate daily professional rates and days);
- Attaching brief technical bio data of core team
members;
- Providing evidence of similar work undertaken
recently (Not more than 5 years) and references.
8.
Management Arrangement
The Evaluation Team will report to
the Technical Coordinating Group under the leadership of SADC and EAC. M&E
Advisors from the participating UN agencies will provide technical guidance on
the evaluation and ensure independence of the evaluation process, and that
policy is followed. UNESCO,
UNFPA, UNAIDS, WHO, UNDP and UNICEF will manage the evaluation and
provide logistical support under the overall guidance of SADC Secretariat and
the East Africa Community.
Important:
Upon recruitment of the successful
Consultant, deliverables will be broken down based on each agency’s financial
contribution. The Consultant will then enter into bilateral contractual
agreements with each individual agency.
[1] Rwanda
did not officially endorse the commitment. However, they have been active
members of the initiative also regularly reporting on progress
[2] The methodology may vary according to country
specific context, especially in light of COVID-19. For instance, FGDs may not be
happening due to lockdown measures in some countries. Therefore, alternatives
will have to be looked into.