EUCOOKIELAW_BANNER_TITLE

Mar 172017
 

Organization: People in Need
Country: Democratic Republic of the Congo
Closing date: 31 May 2017

Background

People in Need (PIN) has been implementing projects in the DRC (South Kivu) since 2009 with a specific focus on access to and quality of primary health care and primary education, safe drinking water, assisting undernourished children, enforcing civil protection, human rights and access to justice.

On September 18, 2015, PIN DRC and its local partner ICJP (Initiative Congolaise pour la Justice et la Paix) began implementing the pilot project: Give Justice a Chance! The project strives to improve access to justice for citizens while strengthening the formal judicial system in Kalehe territory in South Kivu province in Eastern Congo. The project’s activities are being coordinated by PIN’s offices in Minova and Bukavu and its partner organization in Bunyakiri.

The overall objective of the action is to enhance access of Congolese citizens to the strengthened civilian justice system in Kalehe territory, South Kivu, DRC.

The specific objective of the project is to reduce information, geographic and institutional barriers of Kalehe citizens to access justice.

The project has 4 expected results:

  • Result 1: Enhanced knowledge on human rights and basic judicial procedures of 52 650 women and men in Kalehe territory;
  • Result 2: Improved physical access to justice for the Kalehe citizens through 9 mobile courts;
  • Result 3: Improved financial access to justice for at least 2,250 citizens of Kalehe territory is piloted by organizing “saving groups”
  • Result 4:.The capacities of 115 justice officials, police and traditional authorities are reinforced

Objective and Scope of the Evaluation

Overall Objective:

  • To evaluate whether the project achieved the expected results as specified below with regard to relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability
  • To draw lessons and recommendations that will enhance future programming of PIN and its partners in the justice sector in the DRC.

Scope:

The evaluation will assess all components of the project in all areas of intervention (Zone de Sante Minova and Bunyakiri) and judge their performance based on the above-mentioned criteria. Differences in achieving the results in ZS Minova and ZS Bunyakiri should be analysed in detail, given their significantly different contexts and different implementing partners.

The evaluation study will look at the entire period of the implementation of the project from September 2015 to July 2017.

Key evaluation questions

In line with the OECD DAC criteria, the final evaluation will focus on the following core questions:

Relevance

  • To what extent did the project respond to the real needs of the target population under each of the four results?
  • To what extent did the project take into account the policies and actual functioning of the existing justice system in DRC?

Effectiveness

  • To what extent did the project achieve each of its four stated aims (results)?
  • What are the major internal and external factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of project results and objectives?
  • Which factors account for any differentiation in achievement of project results in ZS Minova and ZS Bunyakiri?

Mobile Courts Methodology

  • Were mobile courts implemented in accordance with plans in proposal? If not, which barriers were significant?
  • Which types of cases were addressed in the largest numbers by the mobile courts?
  • Were mobile courts decisive (or not) in enabling people to access formal justice who otherwise would not have done so?
  • Did the mobile courts complete their pedagogical objective by offering explanation about how justice works and by providing image of accessible institution?

Saving Group methodology

  • To what extent did the newly created saving groups enable members to bring cases to trial?
  • Which factors explain differentiation between more and less successful saving groups?
  • What differentiation was there in opportunity to access justice for women compared to men?

Care group methodology

  • Was participation in care groups sustained throughout the project?
  • Did the information provided lead to a real increase in the knowledge of beneficiaries (citizens of Kalehe territory) about universal human rights, Congolese law, and basic judicial procedures in the country?
  • To what extent were different population groups (gender, education, resources, age) able to access the care groups?

Judicial authorities:

  • To what extent has the project achieved an improvement in the capacity of the targeted judicial administrations to provide justice to people in Kalehe territory?
  • Which factors account for the achievement or non-achievement of such improvements to capacity?

Traditional leaders:

  • To what extent do traditional leaders understand and accept their own role in the formal judicial system in the targeted areas?

Efficiency

  • Were the project costs as anticipated? What caused any significant differences between expected and incurred costs?
  • Was the project implemented on time? Which aspects of the design and implementation of the project caused any delays in the project?
  • Which factors influenced differentiation in the efficiency of the intervention under different results and in different locations? (e.g. partnership with ICJP, choice of the project implementation areas)?

Impact

  • Has the provision of capacity-building of judicial authorities and traditional authorities had an impact on the quality of the services they provide to the population, i.e. can we see increased efficiency and professionalism in delivering their tasks?
  • To what extent has the project impacted the willingness of the beneficiaries to seek formal instead of traditional justice?
  • Are local populations satisfied by the usefulness and fairness of the judicial process provided by the mobile courts, and have mobile courts increased the willingness of local populations to use the formal judicial system?
  • What are the unintended positive or negative impacts of the project under each result?
  • Are the project’s achievements likely to be sustained after project completion? (e.g. continuation of: care groups, saving groups, mobile courts, high-capacity judicial service provision)?

Sustainability

  • Which are the main factors, internal and external to the project, which will positively or negatively influence its sustainability?

Methodology

The evaluation will be conducted via qualitative data collection methods: document review, key informant interviews, focus group discussions and direct observations.

The methodological approach will be outlined by the evaluator in the proposal – indicating expected coverage in locations and interview numbers – and designed in detail in the inception report.

(a) Document Review

  1. Project proposal, baseline and endline and quarterly reports, midterm Evaluation, relevant UN/agencies reports addressing the justice sector in Eastern DRC
  2. Project M&E system documents

(b) Field Research

  1. Key informant interviews with PIN project staff, as well as justice officials, traditional authorities, paralegal volunteers, members of care groups, saving group members
  2. Focus group discussions with project beneficiaries (identified distinctly for each result), separately capturing the perspectives of different demographic groups (e.g. male/female, older/younger)

Expected Deliverables

(a) Inception Report containing proposed methodology incl. sampling, tools, work schedule

(b) Validation Presentation introducing initial findings

(c) Draft Report allowing for feedback from PIN, within two weeks from the end of field assignment

(d) Final Report incorporating feedback from PIN, within a week from PIN’s response to the Draft Report

The Consultant will prepare an evaluation work-plan/inception report and a final evaluation report that will describe the evaluation and include evaluator’s findings and recommendations.

DELIVERABLE

CONTENT

RESPONSIBILITIESInception Report**Evaluator provides clarifications on methodology (incl. list of documents to be reviewed, sampling, tools, work schedule)

Evaluator submits to PIN electronically to : jana.vyhnalkova@peopleinneed.czValidation PresentationInitial FindingsEvaluator needs to carry out a validation session for PIN and PIN’s partners**Draft of the Final Report**Full report (max 5 pages of executive summary, maximum of 20 pages of main chapters excluding annexes and forefront pagesEvaluator sends the draft of the final report to: jana.vyhnalkova@peopleinneed.czFinal ReportRevised reportEvaluator sends the draft of the final report to: jana.vyhnalkova@peopleinneed.cz

These deliverables are to be:

  • Prepared in English
  • Submitted to PIN electronically via e-mail (jana.vyhnalkova@peopleinneed.cz )

Evaluation Report

Desired structure of the evaluation report:

  • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: Summary of the evaluation, with particular emphasis on the main findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations (Bilingual French and English).
  • INTRODUCTION: Description of the evaluated intervention, its logic, history, organisation and stakeholders. Presentation of the evaluation’s purpose and questions.
  • METHODOLOGY: Description of the sampling strategy and methods used for data collection; description of the limitations.
  • FINDINGS: Factual evidence relevant to the questions asked by the evaluation and interpretations of such evidence (answered evaluation questions).
  • CONCLUSIONS: Assessments of intervention results and performance against given evaluation criteria and standards of performance.
    • Problems and needs (Relevance)
    • Achievement of purpose (Effectiveness)
    • Sound management and value for money (Efficiency)
    • (Likely) Achievement of wider effects (Impact)
    • Likely continuation of achieved results (Sustainability)
  • LESSONS LEARNED: General conclusions with a potential for wider application and use (at least 5 pages of the document)
  • RECOMMENDATIONS: Specific and actionable proposals regarding improvements of the project or management addressed to the client of the evaluation or other intended users.
  • ANNEXES: Terms of Reference, Logframe, references, etc.

The following costs will be covered by PIN:

v accommodation at PIN guesthouse and travel expenses (including insurance and health preparation) to/from DRC, Entry visa, passport registration

v costs of carrying out of the evaluation in the field (data collectors, field transport, field accommodation, office supplies)

Qualification requirements

  1. Minimum of 2 years of experience in conducting studies, collecting data and producing quality baseline/midterm/end line study reports, preferably for international non-governmental organizations or multilateral agencies (mandatory)
  2. At least a Master’s degree in Social Science, Political Sciences, Statistics or related field (mandatory)
  3. Sectoral expertise and experience in civil justice system related projects, experience in evaluating community sensitization (preferred, not mandatory)
  4. Experience working in the Great Lakes region or other conflict or post-conflict environments, with preference given to Great Lakes-specific experience (preferred, not mandatory)
  5. Good knowledge of DRC and preferably South Kivu where the project is being implemented (preferred, not mandatory)
  6. Experience of effective interaction with local non-government organizations, government departments, and population (preferred, not mandatory)
  7. Excellent spoken and written communication skills in French and English (mandatory)
  8. Evidence of similar work in the recent past (mandatory)

Payment modalities and specifications

Milestones

20%Following the signing of the Contract on Evaluation Services

30%After the 1st draft of the final evaluation report has been submitted and approved by PIN

50%After the final version of the final evaluation report has been submitted and approved by PIN

  • PIN reserves the right to deduct up to 0.5% of the total contract price for each day’s delay in meeting the deliverables specified. This deduction shall be applied to the last payment of 50% of the contract price.

PIN will require specific and by data supported answers to each of the agreed evaluation questions or strong justification why the data could not be obtained. Justification of data unavailability must be communicated by the evaluator without delay as soon as it becomes apparent and approved by PIN. Failure to do so can result in decreasing the consultant’s remuneration.

How to apply:

Applicants are requested to send their applications by email to jana.vyhnalkova@peopleinneed.cz, stating “Justice evaluation_DRC” in the subject field. The application deadline is 15 April 2017

Applicants are requested to submit:

1) CV demonstrating previous experience in relation to the evaluation (references related to evaluations/monitoring/data collection/analysis will be welcome);

2) brief evaluation proposal including methodology, indicative timeplan and budget (incl. all taxes, total sum and daily rate, in USD);

3) up to 3 examples of previous relevant work (evaluation reports related to similar projects).

PIN applies a transparent selection process that will take into account competencies and experience of the applicants as well as their financial offers.

cliquez ici pour les détails et appliquer

OFFRES SIMILAIRES (NOUVEAU)

ENTRETIEN D'EMBAUCHE
Questions Typiques
What Would The Person Who Likes You Least In The World Say About You? Highlight an aspect of your personality that could initially seem negative, but is ultimately a positive. An example? Impatience. Used incorrectly this can be bad in a workplace. But stressing timeliness and always driving home deadlines can build your esteem as a leader. And that'??s a great thing to show off in an interview.
Questions à poser
What can you tell me about your new products or plans for growth? This question should be customized for your particular needs. Do your homework on the employer’s site beforehand and mention a new product or service it’s launching to demonstrate your research and interest. The answer to the question will give you a good idea of where the employer is headed.