The consultant reports to:

(“Manager”)

Kevin Sudi – Programme Manager, CBM Global Kenya

Description of consultancy

Final Evaluation of the “Reducing Child Malnutrition in Tharaka Nithi, Kenya” project.

1. Background and rationale

CBM Global Disability Inclusion is a dual mandate and partnership-based organisation working alongside people with disabilities in the world’s poorest places to fight poverty and exclusion and transform lives. Driven by Christian values, we seek out and work with the most marginalised in society, irrespective of race, gender, age or religion, recognising the equal worth of every individual. Drawing on over 100 years’ experience and world-leading expertise in disability-inclusive community development and humanitarian action, inclusive eye health and community mental health, CBM Global works with partners to break the cycle of poverty and disability, treat and prevent conditions that lead to disability and build inclusive communities.

CBM Global Vision: An inclusive world in which all people with disabilities enjoy their human rights and achieve their full potential.

CBM Global Mission: Fighting to end the cycle of poverty and disability.

CBM Global works to implement development and humanitarian projects in partnership with organisations of persons with disabilities in the areas of community based inclusive development, humanitarian action, inclusive eye health & neglected tropical diseases and community mental health. We work in over 20 countries, investing in long-term, authentic partnership with the Disability Movement and maximising our impact through a coordinated mix of inclusive community-based programmes, local to global advocacy and delivering disability inclusion technical assistance to other organisations.

About the Project

CBM Global Disability Inclusion (CBM Global) and Diocese of Meru – SPARK (DOM SPARK) have been implementing a nutrition project for children Under Five years in Tharaka Nithi County. The project is implemented in Tharaka North and Tharaka South sub counties, and covers Gathangacini, Gacheuni, Marimanti, Chiakariga and Gatanga Wards. The project which aims to improve child health and nutrition outcomes started in June 2022 and will run until Dec 2024.

The two targeted sub counties in Tharaka Nithi are semi-arid and dependent on small scale agriculture. They cover an estimated combined area of 1,569 square kilometres (km2) with a population of 133,595 people of the total Tharaka Nithi County population of 393,1777 (KNBS National Census, 2019). ​With a total of 109,850 households, the average household size was 3.6. According to the 2019 census, most of the population is young and only 53% of the population was employed. The 2019 Census did not cover children under 5 years of age in terms of disability disaggregation, but the WHO World Report on Disability estimates that about 15% of the world’s population lives with some form of disability. The project anticipated that a significant numbers of children and mothers with disabilities would be in the target group.

Classified as an ASAL region, the area is susceptible to the negative effects of climate change. At the inception of the project, the regions had experienced almost 4 years of low rainfall, resulting in failed crops, lack of access to water for domestic and agricultural use, rendering households food insecure.

In ASAL counties, the main root causes to the poor nutrition situation include food insecurity, conflict, poor infrastructure, weak market integration, poverty, harsh climatic conditions, and weak social services. Additionally, low levels of community resilience to chronic shocks associated with droughts/food insecurity; floods; disease epidemics; and limited access to quality health and nutrition services, means ASAL counties are facing severe challenges around child malnutrition. Findings of a recent Maternal, Infant and Young Child Nutrition (MIYCN)5 Knowledge, Attitudes, Practices, and Barriers (KAPB) surveys show that across the target areas, more than 80% of children aged 6-23 months did not receive the minimum acceptable diet (MAD) they need to survive, grow and develop. The main factors associated with poor maternal and complementary feeding include: high food prices; limited access to nutritious foods; poor economic status (poverty); prolonged drought; lack of clean and safe water; large family sizes; poor knowledge and social/cultural practices. Other contributing factors include common illnesses such as diarrhoea; poor water and hygiene practices.

The main objective of the project was to reduce malnutrition among girls and boys aged 0-5 years in Marimanti, Chiakariga and Gatunga wards in Tharaka Nithi North and South Sub Counties.

The project has 3 expected results;

1. Improved nutritional status for children aged 0-5
2. Strengthened livelihoods for mothers with children aged 0-5
3. Communities empowered to advocate for better nutrition

Poverty continues to exacerbate inequalities, most starkly seen in the arid and semi-arid areas (ASAL), which includes Tharaka Nithi County, the location of this project. A 2017 UNICEF report revealed that Tharaka Nithi County had a child poverty rate of 57%, much higher than neighbouring county Meru (37%) or Nairobi (7%) 4.

2. Purpose

The purpose of this consultancy is to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the progress in project implementation, measured against planned results set forth in the project design documents in accordance with budget allocation, as well as the initial and potential impacts of the project. The review will also address underlying causes and issues contributing to targets not adequately achieved.

The evaluation will generate key lessons in livelihoods and economic empowerment, malnutrition and disability, and Climate change adaptation themes. The evaluation must provide evidence-based information that is credible, reliable and useful. The review team is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach ensuring close engagement with government ministries, county and sub county health departments/units, implementing partners, project team, and other key stakeholders.

At a minimum the evaluation will explore:

1. The overall performance of the project with reference to its respective strategy, objectives and quantitative and qualitative indicators defined by the project documents and the implementation arrangements.
2. The coordination both internally, between CBM Global and DOM SPARK, and externally with the County government and within the health system.
3. The inclusiveness and accessibility of the response for persons with disabilities.
4. How, and to what extent, the response ensures accountability to affected people, in particular (but not exclusively) regarding the strengthening of local capacity, the avoidance of negative effects and the effectiveness of communication, participation and feedback.
5. Draw lessons, derive good practices, and formulate recommendations, generating evidence to inform operational and strategic decision-making in nutrition programming and advocacy.

3. Scope

The evaluation will cover all components and activities within the Nutrition Project over the project period (June 2022 to December 2024). It will cover project documents including design documents, activity, narrative and financial reports, and all documentation captured during the project, among other project documents. In this regard, the successful consultant/s will be required to assess the project results, review the methodological approaches, and capture the lessons learned. Additionally, the evaluation should explore the strengths and weaknesses of the project and highlight the factors influencing the effective and efficient (as well as ineffective and inefficient) implementation of project activities and their contribution towards the realization of the project objectives and overall goal. Also, the evaluation should determine what other results (positive and negative, intentional, and unintentional) can be identified in the project. Based on the assessment, the evaluation should draw conclusions regarding the outcomes and overall goal of the project, as well as identify good practices, and formulate recommendations for similar future projects.

The anticipated scope of work includes, but is not limited to:

• A review of the project design, scope and priorities, including an analysis of the of objectives, project components, implementation, and project’s achievement against expected results defined in the project documents.
• Project management (technical capacity and management experience of the implementing partners and implementation approaches/strategies) in achieving the expected results.
• The types and role of different partnerships activated to deliver the project objectives, and capacities built across these partnerships.
• A review of cross-cutting issues e.g. disability inclusion, gender equality and social inclusion, safeguarding of children and adults-at-risk.
• Assessment of the extent to which monitoring, evaluation, accountability and learning through M&E framework was activated to support the project. This will include looking at the relevance of the key performance indicators, tools used in data collection, data collection and utilization etc.
• Project risks and considerations in relation to the project approach or delivery of project activities, taking into consideration safeguarding, safety and security
• Partnership, participation and stakeholder engagement including roles and responsibilities, capacity in relation to engagement in design and delivery of the project, and the level of participation of stakeholders in the achievement of the desired outcome, as well as the effectiveness of such participation.
• Assessment of the early potential impact of project interventions. Possible gaps/ weakness in the current project design and possible interventions and measures that could be continued to support the partners in the future.
• Recommendations for future direction, strategies and areas of project focus as per the findings.
• General lessons learned and best practices that can be considered in the planning and design of future institutional strengthening interventions for the government and partners.

Key Evaluation Questions will include:

1) Effectiveness.

1. To what extent did the project achieve its overall objectives?
   1. How appropriate was the management process in supporting the delivery of the project’s expected results?
   2. To what extent did the Project’s M&E mechanism contribute to meeting project results?
   3. How effective were the strategies and tools used in the implementation of the project?
   4. To what extent have planned targets, objectives, and activities been delivered? In case of targets, objectives and activities were not successfully implemented, what is the reason?
   5. How effectively did the project involve persons with disabilities? How inclusive was the project in terms of benefiting persons with disabilities in all areas of service?
   6. Were the community mobilization efforts adequate and inclusive at the project level?
   7. What factors may be limiting the achievement of intended results?
   8. How effective has the project been in creating changed behaviour with regards to disability, the inclusion of people with disabilities, and disability-inclusive approach at the family, community, and sector level?

2) Coherence

1. To what extent does the project support or undermine other interventions ((particularly policies)?
   1. Does the project have synergies and interlinkages with other CBM Global-implemented projects?

3) Relevance

1. Was the project relevant to the identified needs of the target beneficiaries and the context?
   1. Were the project inputs and strategy (including its assumptions and theory of change) realistic, appropriate, and adequate to achieve the results
   2. To what extent do achieved results (project goal, outcomes, and outputs) continue to be relevant to the needs of persons in the project implementation area?
   3. How far have the project approaches and activities been appropriate to the local context?
   4. How are working relationships, communication and coordination between stakeholders organized? Have the projects’ design and implementation considered other sectoral interventions in the area?
   5. What are the unique views of the target group (mothers, and in particular mothers of children with disabilities) on the projects and what was the extent of their involvement in their implementation?
   6. Were the project objectives consistent with the beneficiary’s needs and the government’s priorities?
   7. How well was the project aligned with the county/national government’s policies and strategies?
   8. Does the project complement other donor-funded and government initiatives?

4) Efficiency of Project Implementation

1. Was the process of achieving results efficient? Specifically, did the actual or expected results (outputs and outcomes) justify the costs incurred? Were the resources effectively utilised?
   1. What factors contributed to implementation efficiency?
   2. Did project activities overlap and duplicate other similar interventions (funded nationally and /or by other donors? Are there more efficient ways and means of delivering more and better results (outputs and outcomes) with the available inputs?
   3. Could a different approach have produced better results?
   4. What mechanisms were put in place to ensure active participation of partners, project stakeholders particularly people with disabilities throughout the project cycle?
   5. How efficient were the management and accountability structures of the project?
   6. How did the project financial management processes and procedures affect project implementation?
   7. What are the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats of the project implementation process?
   8. Was there an existing learning process such as reflection, internal review used sufficiently to keep the project plan updated?

5) Sustainability

1. To what extent are the full range of benefits of the project likely to be sustained after the completion of this project?
2. How effective are the exit strategies, and approaches to phase out assistance provided by the project including contributing factors and constraints?
3. What are the key factors that will require attention to improve the prospects of sustainability of Project outcomes and the potential for replication of the approach?
4. How were capacities strengthened at the individual and organizational levels (including contributing factors and constraints)?
5. Assess ownership of the project by major stakeholders and user communities?
6. Did the implementation process give adequate room for inclusive, effective and meaningful participation of stakeholders?
7. How do you rate the Quality of implemented project results?
8. What actions need to be taken to increase the likelihood of the project results being sustainable.

6) Impact

1. To what degree has the project made progress toward the outcomes in the project result framework?
2. What changes have taken place to improve the quality of life of children at risk of malnutrition?
3. Assess any anticipated and unanticipated impact of the project to Children under 5 years of age, their households, and the community?
4. Assess the major strengths and limitations of the project and draw lessons and recommendations for future programming and sharing with stakeholders.
5. What internal and external factors affect the project’s achievement of intended results? What are the unintended consequences because of the project activities?
6. To what degree has the project made progress towards increasing the resilience of the mothers towards facing the next drought/adverse event?

7) Learning and Replicability

1. What are some of the key lessons learned because of this project that can be shared and replicated?
2. What are the recommendations for similar/future interventions for CBM Global, DOM-SPARKKenya, the County Government, and any other sector players interested in similar work?

4. Timeframe and duration

This consultancy is anticipated to cover between 14-20 days, starting in October 2024 and end by early November 2024 when the final report should be shared. It will include an inception meeting, visits to the project sites, visit to the implementing partner DOM SPARK, and to CBM Global Kenya Office, a validation meeting to present the draft findings, before submission of the final report and relevant attachments. A dissemination session with CBM Global, DOM SPARK and the Tharaka Nithi Sub-County Health Management Team (SCHMT) will be required.

5. Expected Deliverables

The following are the expected deliverables from the consultant (each subject to approval by the consultancy manager.

1. An Inception Report with a detailed evaluation plan (max 4 days after signing of contract)
2. Fieldwork Preparation & deployment of field team, data collection and analysis (max. within 10 days after commencing fieldwork.
3. Submission of first draft report & corresponding presentation of emerging key findings to stakeholders (within a week of completing fieldwork)
4. Presentation of the key findings and recommendations in a workshop to validate the draft report
5. Submission of 2nd Draft Report incorporating input from first presentation for validation (within a week after 1st presentation)
6. Submission of the final report in CBM Global templates (PDF, Word and PPT packages) – templates to be provided by approving manager.
7. An easy-read version of the report for community sharing.

In addition, the report should have the following annexes:

1. Evaluation consultant’s short CV
   1. Terms of Reference of the evaluation
   2. List of persons/organizations consulted
   3. List of literature/documentation
   4. Evaluation work plan executed
   5. Findings synthesis table with performance rating
   6. Questionnaires

6. Place/ location of service delivered

This is an evaluation to be carried out in Kenya, with largely remote work, but with meetings in Nairobi, and field travels to Meru (limited), and Tharaka Nithi Counties.

7. Required Expert Profile

Key qualifications required to perform this consultancy include:

1. A minimum of a post-graduate University degree in Development Studies, Social Sciences, M&E, Disability Inclusion, Health Sciences, or equivalent.
2. Demonstrated track record of carrying out similar type of evaluations.
3. Experience in participatory methodologies of research, gathering and synthesizing different perspectives, and packaging research outputs for diverse stakeholders.
4. Work experience in at least one of the three counties.
5. Fluent in English and Kiswahili.
6. Teams demonstrating Inclusiveness 7 diversity will be preferred.

8. Fees & Payment schedule

CBM Global will pay the consultancy fee according to the schedule below:

• 40% Upon submission and acceptance of an Inception report
• 30% Upon submission and validation of a Draft Report
• 30% Upon submission and acceptance of the final report.

All deliverables have to be approved by the CBM Global Programme Manager.

NOTE: All expenses related to the assignment, that are not consultancy fees, shall be borne by the organization, and will be paid to the consultant upon presentation of related receipts and related reconciliation documents, but should be factored in the financial proposal and budget presented.