World Vision

Hiring Consultant (Evaluation of Host Community Related Interventions)

World Vision

Job Description

  Cox’s Bazar District was classified as Integrated Food Security Phase Classification (IPC) 3[1]. The rapid FDMN influx disproportionally impacted Ukhiya and Teknaf Upazila, where the majority of new FDMN arrival settled. The population of these two Upazilas nearly tripled with FDMNs outnumbering host community. The crisis had been worsening due to the twin phenomenon of rising food prices and falling wages. About 7% of host community households were highly vulnerable[2]. Female headed household with large household size (>5 members), presence of chronic illness, disabled person, many children (+5 children), high dependency ratio are main characteristic of vulnerable household in the host community2. The livelihood opportunities were declining as a result of FDMN influx2. More than 65% of host community households had single source of income or none2. About 40% of host community households used consumption-based coping strategy to deal with food shortage2. 44% of host community households, who were in contracted debts from, are incurring debt for food purchase and 21% for health expenditure2. 7% households had security concerns for tension between FDMN and host community whereas 9% in FDMN community2. 71.9% of households had acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS) meaning they were food secure while 26.1% of participants’ households scored in the borderline and 0.9% in poor category[3]. 47.6% of household of host community with improved Dietary Diversity Score (HDDS), it is the proportion household with above the average number of food group (out of 12 food group) intake3. 10.8% of host community households were reported moderate/severe hunger3. In this circumstances, EFSP selected 5229 vulnerable households as program participants, few (41) households were in August-September 2020 newly incorporated due to drop out, death and migration. Participants were participated all Cash for Work (CFW) (4789 participants households) or get unconditional cash (440 PHHs), Nutrition and Health sensitization, IGA/Livelihood, S4T and Men-care interventions. The local Government Institutions representative i.e. Union and Upazila parishad members, Department of Agriculture Extension, Department of Livestock, Department of Health, Department of Cooperatives of Bangladesh Government were actively participated in program implementation process.

Evaluation area

Description of Intervention to be Evaluated

Interventions in the host communities covered 24-months (including 2 months of start-up and 1 month of close-out) to address the short-term food security crisis and medium-term livelihood recovery needs of 5,229 most vulnerable (Households) HHs (26,145 individuals). Target HHs have been drawn from five unions (Ukhiya: Jalia Palong, Raja Palong, Palong Khali; Teknaf: Baharchhara, Nhilla) with priority given to villages adjacent to refugee settlements. Among the most vulnerable, the program has prioritized HHs:- 1) with children under five, 2) with pregnant or lactating mothers, 3) headed by a female, 4) with female adolescents, 5) headed by a child, and/or 6) with a chronically ill member or person with a disability. However, for the two Cash Transfer modalities (Cash for Work and unconditional cash transfers), the criteria for participant selection is set as mentioned below.

Ø Cash for Work (CFW) participants: Vulnerable HHs (female headed or male headed) with able bodied members who can participate in the work, have a single source of income which is under the minimum income rate, have a chronically ill member, a person living with disability or children under the age of five.

Ø Unconditional cash transfers: HHs with no able-bodied member to participate in CFW activities but meet all selection criteria for CFW stipulated above, HHs with pregnant women headed households, Persons living with disability, elderly, chronically ill adult, children headed households, landless living in houses that is 809.2 square meters or less, income irregularities and single source of income, permanent residents in a village (at least one year).

Using the agreed selection criteria above, WV pre-selected eligible participants from the member list provided by the village leaders. WV carried out out a wealth ranking assessment where facilitators visited pre-selected HHs and confirmed the participant type per HH using a scaled questionnaire. The scaled questionnaire weighed from 0 to 10. The total scores determined which HHs and how many members in each of those HHs could receive what type of assistance (conditional or unconditional). The final selected lists were displayed to communities to get feedback. During the selection of CFW participants, deliberate sensitizations were done to encourage participation of women. Furthermore, women were encouraged to take up leadership role in some of the CFW groups depending on the type of CFW activity they have been engage in.

Assistance to 90 percent of target participants in host communities have been provided in the form of conditional cash, in order to rehabilitate community assets critical to food security and nutrition outcomes via CFW. Participants of CFW were required to work minimum of 6Hrs/Day for 16 days a month to stay eligible. These 9 months were intentionally scheduled to not compete with productive times such as rice harvest or planting season, when target HHs could earn income doing seasonal labor or tend to their own fields. Given what is feasible under current social norms and local customs, approximately 30 percent of CFW workers were women and 70 percent men. Men with pregnant Lactating Women (PLW) or Under Five (U5) children in the HH were enrolled in MenCare groups to reinforce the importance of making nutritious, diverse foods available to women and children. Further more, sensitization were carried out by program staff at the onset on what type of CFW activities were done, why and provide detailed explanations to women participants on how they could participate without compromising their safety. Safety guidelines were put up in public places and demonstrations of safety rules performed before activities were carried out. Also, women were assigned to undertake lighter parts of CFW activities. Needless to mention women weren’t involved in physically demanding CFW activities like road paving, digging and carrying sand bags. Due to additional household obligations and family responsibilities, the work resumption and closing time for women were flexible.

The remaining 10 percent of host community HHs received unconditional assistance for 9 months to address their food security needs despite their heightened vulnerability which makes them unable to participate in CFW (e.g. HHs comprised only of pregnant women, persons living with disability, elderly, HHs with members with no income at all, chronically ill adult, or children). As the transfers are in cash, they were unrestricted, however it is expected that HHs spend most of their cash on food as this was a pressing need in the targeted host communities. All unconditional cash for host community HHs have been transferred to the female in the HH.

WV acknowledges that cash transfers can create localized conflict if not programmed and implemented well. With its commitment to abide to the “Do No Harm” principle, WV has been working through local community structures and enhance local capacities to identify and select most deserving and vulnerable households through sessions involving the whole community. WV staff, partners, local leadership as well as communities have been informed that WV assistance does not discriminate but only targets most vulnerable households deserving of support. WV together with local structures or communities have been conduct a rigorous verification exercise to ensure that inclusion and exclusion errors are minimized.

The program targeted some of the most vulnerable HHs and tried to meet urgent needs target groups. WV, while providing basic food security support, have been simultaneously addressing other social dynamics such as women’s mobility restrictions and income generating restrictions by engaging males in the same communities through building awareness on GBV prevention, benefits of women engaging in Income Generating Activities (IGAs) to boost HH income and importance of nutrition for mothers and infants among others. Income Generating Activities (IGAs) introduced those that can be done within their shelter premises, i.e., sack gardening or knitting which allowed them to contribute to their HH income without compromising their safety or violating their cultural norms. However, WV used ‘complimentary activities’ engage women in community activities, become agents of change and share decision making responsibilities at their HHs through mobilization and education of the male counterparts of the targeted host communities.

Through its complimentary approaches, WV supported some activities that promote positive norms and behaviors that promote Sexual and Gender based Violence (SGBV) prevention WV targeted all 5,229 Program participants for HHs home gardening and input vouchers to purchase home gardening tools and certified seeds for nutritious food production. The voucher method was selected to enable the Program to inject funds into the local markets and encourage more supply of appropriate farming equipment to meet the demands of the community. In a bid to promote vegetable growing among these 5,229 host community HHs, the program has been provided farm incentives in the form of assorted vegetable seeds enough to grow for two seasons for both home consumption and sale.

4,706 of the HHs received Financial Literacy training and business plan development for income generating activities (IGA), along with multi-purpose cash transfers to start or enhance IGAs, either as individuals or in a group approach. Upon receiving basic trainings on IGA/Enterprise development, through ToT approach, IGA participants provided training on continuous coaching and mentorship to fellow targeted participants on business selection, planning and management tailored to specific selected business guided by a Business Development plan. This has been reinforced by technical field staff from both WV and government extension staff.

Finally, the program incorporated community resilience building related activities, such as savings groups (using WV’s VSLA model, Savings for Transformation (S4T)) to create the self-help approach amongst the community members. WV provided training to 4,706 selected members to help them define the S4T groups purpose, select members to serve as officials/leaders, and set terms for savings and loans, including interest rates, repayment schedules and penalties for late payments or missed meetings. WV provided training on a system to collect savings and make loans and record transactions. Each group had to elect a chairperson, secretary, treasurer, and two money-counters who form its executive committee. WV have been observing meetings and supporting the executive committee as needed to ensure that procedures and systems are working well.

Evaluation purpose and specific objectives

The purpose of the end line survey is to evaluate the impact, effectiveness and achievements of the host communities interventions in relation to the goal, objectives, results, and targets. In line with all thematic/areas covered at baseline level, the end line evaluation will focus mainly in answering evaluation questions which seeks to assess if the Program goal and objectives were achieved as planned in the targeted host communities. It further explores the challenges, success and missed opportunities of the implementation strategy employed. ** The evaluation will also draw on lessons learnt among key Program process and approaches; in summary the following are criterion and related questions to be addressed:


· To what extent have the activity’s interventions adhered to planned implementation - schedules, participant targeting, resource transfer composition and quantities, inputs and service delivery, and outputs - and achieved intended goals, purposes, and outcomes? Ø Did interventions reach the appropriate target groups and individuals? Are interventions appropriate and effective for the target group based on the nature of their vulnerabilities? Ø How effective was the targeting approach in achieving the Program goal? Ø What factors promoted or inhibited adherence to plans and targets? How were problems and challenges managed? What lessons were learned?

Effectiveness and efficiency of interventions and intervention implementation:

· To what extent did the activity consider gender equity, protection, age, physical and emotional challenges of the participants, and risks to participation in various interventions in Program Design and implementation? Furthermore Ø How has management adapted the Program design or implementation based on monitoring information and feedback from the target population? Ø What lessons were learned regarding program design and implementation? Ø What was the level of efficiency with regards to cost-per-Program participant, timely delivery of the goods or services, and adjusting the transfer amount based on price and need changes?

Unintended consequences and lessons learned:

· What changes—expected and unexpected, positive, and negative—did targeted participants, community members and other stakeholders associate with the activity’s interventions? Ø What factors appear to facilitate or inhibit these changes? Ø Which interventions appear to be influential to activity outcomes? Ø How do these changes correspond to those hypothesized by the activity’s Log frame?

Linkages, layering, and exit strategies:

· To what extent did the Program took advantage of other USG and non-USG investments in the same space to facilitate linkages with complementary services, layering with earlier investments, and implementing an exit strategy/ies to minimize the dependency on external support? Ø To what extent did the Program align and integrate with host government social protection strategy/policy/service delivery?

Evaluation Design and Methodology

Both quantitative and qualitative methods will be employed for this end-line evaluation. The quantitative survey will help to establish the end-line values and compare against baseline values for the outcomes of the Program. The qualitative survey will provide information to get a deeper perspective on the motivations, incentives, and socio-cultural constraints to achieving the desired behaviors and outcomes.

The evaluation design and methodology should address both baseline and evaluation impact attributes of the Program at targeted communities. The probability proportion to size (PPS) is recommended for sampling as the intervention covers different geographical areas. The household quantitative survey questionnaire used for the baseline is recommended to be used for the end line survey however it is expected from the external consultant to expand and clarify how each evaluation question will be captured through the quantitative and qualitative methods.

Sampling frame

Households, community members, community leaders and stakeholders (government and non-government), Program implementation committee (PIC), lead mothers’ group, IGA group, S4T group, Men-care group.

Quantitative Sampling formulae and size

The formula below is proposed to determine the sample of households to be interviewed for the quantitative survey Where, · ninitial = minimum required initial sample size (before adjusting finite population correction).

· p = an estimate of the true (but unknown) population (Program participant) proportion at baseline=50%[4] (0.50).

· Z = critical value for from normal probability distribution (Z-score corresponding to the 95% of confidence level) [Z = 1.645 at 95% confidence level].

· MOE = margin of error (acceptable percentage error) = 0.05 (5%).

· d = Design effect[5] , two-stage PPS cluster sampling procedure is proposed and in that case design effect might be close to two [d = 2].

· Nf = non-response factor [1.06] (assumes there will be 6% non-response rate).

The consultant will calculate the sample size based on the baseline values for indicators in order to measure the 10 percent point change for the totals but also considering the Covid-19 limitations to ensure the optimal possible representative sample for end line survey.

Qualitative methodology:

The end-line evaluation recommends a mixed methodology approach (quantitative and qualitative) as well as a literature review on existing condition and unconditional interventions.

The successful consultant must design the overall qualitative study approach considering a variety of primary Data Collection methods, including semi-structured in-depth interviews, pictures, focus group discussions, Key informant interview and observations.

Rationale of the qualitative evaluation and issues to be addressed

We will use qualitative data collection to support and delve deeper into key quantitative findings. Focus group discussions and key informant interviews with program participants and key stakeholders are expected to be collected using the qualitative data. In this effort, the consultant will carefully consider sampling strategy to ensure that the follow-up qualitative data broadly reflect the different sub-populations of interest. The broad goal of the qualitative study will be gathering in-depth information, perspectives, and to identify underlying drivers related to project’s success and practices. specifically, the objectives of the qualitative component are: · To understand the perceptions, attitudes, and practice of host community about lifesaving/priority behaviours and practices in areas such as health, hygiene, sanitation, maternal and new-born care, nutrition, and education; · To understand the underlying drivers of and barriers to desired practices on hygiene, sanitation, nutrition, and coping strategies for host community.

· To understand the perception on community assets, which are critical to food security and nutrition, rehabilitated in host communities · To learn how social cohesion reinforced between the Rohingya refugees and the host community

Limitation should be considered

· Mandatory social/physical distancing and lockdown in the COVID-19 situation should be considered for precise and concise evaluation design and methodology.

· Economic crisis due to COVID-19 may also deviate the expected result.

· The evaluation areas are mostly hilly and difficult to reach for its remoteness. The participants households are also scattered. And it is also special zone regarding administrative consideration of Bangladesh government due to influx of Forcibly Displaced Myanmar Nationals (FDMN).

Literature Review

EFSP Logical Framework, Baseline Report, IPTT, PIRS, MEAL Plan, Annual Result report, PDM reports, Lesson learn Reports, Barrier Analysis report

Deliverables and Reporting Requirements

The following major tasks/deliverables should be presented by the consultant;
  1. Inception report – The report includes initial feasible work plan and proposal for the evaluation survey outlining the evaluation methodology, survey tools, process of data collection and analysis, as well as final set of data-collection tools for all indicators in the log frame. The quality assurance protocols to minimize the bias and errors as well as outlining the limitations to the survey considering the COVID- 19 situation should be part of the proposal. A clear matrix Mapping in details the data collection and analysis for each of the indicators need to be developed and be part of the inception report.
  2. Survey findings; Presentation on the main findings of the evaluation to field level staff as well as management and stakeholders such as community representatives and local authorities. This is to be done a week after the finalization of data collection.
  3. Draft report shared with World Vision and stakeholders for comments and feedback, done two weeks after the presentation of findings to stakeholders.
  4. Final report including data set, the final report should be presented to World Vision in electronic format – both MS Word and PDF formats – together with quantitative dataset and consolidated qualitative data, two weeks after presentation feedback from WV. The final report should be no longer than 30 pages, inclusive of annexes, and other supporting documents.
The report should contain (but not be limited to) the following sections: ü Executive Summary presenting the major findings and recommendations.

ü A short description of the design and methodology used.

ü Limitations.

ü A short description of the evaluation context and process including its constraints and challenges.

ü Detailed findings based on the study, including annexes of all the evaluation data/information from all communities, pictures, case studies and any quotations.

ü Analysis of the findings (following the key questions outlined in the ToR).

ü Program Accountability, focusing on the existing accountability system, barriers to existing systems suggested means of overcoming barriers to information provision, participation, consultation and providing and receiving feedback.

ü Lessons learnt; conclusions and recommendations for the EFSP.

Quality assurance protocols

The evaluation report should represent a thoughtful, well researched and well-organized effort to objectively benchmark outcome and address evaluation questions. The evaluation report shall address all questions included in the scope of work.

ü The evaluation report should include the scope of work as an annex. All modifications to the scope of work, whether in technical requirements, consulting team composition, methodology or timeline need to be agreed upon in writing by the technical officer ü The evaluation design and methodology shall be explained in detail and all tools used in conducting the evaluation such as questionnaires, checklists and focus group discussion guides will be included in an Annex in the final report.

ü Evaluation findings will assess outcomes and impact on men, women and youth where possible.

ü Limitations to the evaluation shall be disclosed in the report, with particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (selection bias, recall bias, unobservable differences between comparator groups, etc.).

ü Evaluation findings should be presented as analyzed facts, evidence and data and not based on anecdotes, findings should be specific, concise and supported by strong quantitative or qualitative evidence.’ ü Sources of information need to be properly identified and listed in an annex.

ü Recommendations need to be supported by a specific set of findings.

ü Recommendations should be action oriented, practical and specific, with defined responsibility for the action.

ü The report shall be written in simple and good English and professionally edited for various stakeholders.

ü The evaluation must also follow open data policy guidelines, and evaluation report must be 508 compliant as per USAID guidelines

Consultant/ consulting team Composition

The consultant/consulting team should demonstrate expertise in conducting multisector assessments in humanitarian settings covering key sectors such as food security & livelihood, WASH, protection, Health and Protection, with demonstrated experience in research, design and management of quantitative and qualitative research methods. The consultant must show in-depth analytical skills on report compilation and presenting findings in a manner simple and clear to understand. The team leader should have a solid background on food security and livelihoods, value addition programing and nutrition, with previous experience in conducting studies of similar nature.

Team leader/consultant qualification must have; ü A post-graduate degree (program evaluation, statistics, anthropology, applied research, organizational development, sociology and/or organizational change) ü Proven knowledge in carrying out evaluations using mixed approach in data gathering in different contexts for humanitarian intervention particularly USAID/ESFP Programs ü Knowledgeable in using different designs for baseline and evaluations ü Knowledge and experience in developing and understanding conceptual frameworks Responsibilities of the evaluation consultant/team leader ü Lead and organize the overall evaluation process ü Ensure a thorough review and analysis of Program and secondary data ü Carry out sample determination and selection ü Provide direction on evaluation methods, tool contents and quality ü Work closely with WV staff and stakeholder’s validation of results collected ü Design specific questions within the evaluation tools to capture lessons and best practices Team member qualifications: ü Knowledgeable with both quantitative of qualitative research especially for food security ü Extensive practical experience in one of the following areas (with all areas needing to be covered by the collective team) in food security, WASH, Child Health, nutrition, agriculture and economic development.

ü A graduate degree related to one or more of the Program’s technical sectors.

Team member responsibilities: ü Lead the collection and analysis of primary and secondary data related to his/her field(s) of expertise ü Compile precise findings for sharing with stakeholders ü Have working knowledge on different Programs

Scheduling and logistics

World Vision pay the consultant full amount of the task (technical) expenses, including other costs related to the survey logistics. The EFSP MEAL team will provide all the support to assist the consultant to carry out the study without any major hassles. The evaluation should be carried out within the 01 May 2021 to 05 July 2021 as shown below; Key deliverables


Recruit consultant/finalize contract 30 April 2021 Submission of Inception Report, proposed methodology and tools 06 May 2021 Finalize evaluation design, schedule and training of enumerators (2 days training and field test of evaluation tools) 20 May 2021 Data Collection, Entry and Analysis 03 June 2021 Presentation of key findings to WV/ EFSP stakeholders 06 June 2021 Draft report writing, submission and presentation 13 June 2021 Presentation of key findings to stakeholders (Staff, Union, Upazila and District level) 20 June 2021 Refining and submission of Final Report & Brief 5 July 2021 11.0 Application process

All applications should be sent to by the ………… with Consultancy Assignment to Conduct Evaluation of EFSP Host Community interventions on the subject line. The selection committee will review all applications as they arrive. All applicants must meet the minimum requirements described above, and those unable to meet these requirements will not be considered.

Each application package should include the following: ü A one-page application letter of expression of interest ü Company profile, providing financial solvency, recent audit report ü Detailed Technical-narrative proposal with clearly outlined methodology, approach and techniques, and tools to be employed for the evaluation (as outlined above in respective sections) ü Detailed comprehensive budget catering for the evaluation cost, where the financial component will be scored according to clarity and close budget estimates to the tasks identified ü WVB will not cater for any other costs-solely the responsibility of the firm to give full work costs in the budget.

ü A sample of at least 2 recently written report of similar assignments.

ü Updated CV of the consultant/team members for the survey team including relevant work experience and qualifications.

ü Contact details for three references.

Applications not including all of the above information will not be reviewed. WVB is an equal opportunity employer.

Successful candidate will not be paid in advance, however first payment of 40% will be affected after the completion of the data collection process. The consultant is required to provide quality report to WV Bangladesh which must be signed off by both WVB and the donor, failure of which the consultant WVB will deduct 30% of remaining amount to address quality issue of the report submitted. Timelines highlighted above must be adhered to with all the seriousness it deserves, as penalty of 5% will be effected on each day of the delay.

[1] IPC Chronic Food Insecurity Situation in 10 districts of Bangladesh - December 2015-2018/20 [2] Refugee influx emergency Vulnerability Assessment (REVA) Cox’s Bazar, Bangladesh April 2020 [3] Baseline survey for EFSP, March 2020 [4] P attains maximum sample size when it is 50%, recommended when any prior estimate is not available.

[5]The loss of effectiveness by the use of cluster sampling, instead of simple random sampling, is the design effect. The design effect is basically the ratio of the actual variance, under the sampling method actually used, to the variance computed under the assumption of simple random sampling.
Apply Now