ToR: Final Evaluation of the EU-Funded Action “Civil Society United Against GBV in Kisii and Nyamira Counties”

Background

The International Solidarity Foundation (ISF) is a Finnish development organization, founded in 1970. ISF mission is to support development that strengthens democracy, equality, and human rights globally and challenge people to build a more equitable world. ISF envisions a world where women and girls are empowered to build their own future, their self-determination is fully realised, and the right to bodily integrity respected. ISF aims to be a trusted partner in empowering women and girls in East Africa.

The goal of ISF’s 2022 – 2025 programme was to strengthen the bodily integrity and livelihood resilience of women and girls in Kenya, Somaliland, and Ethiopia. The programme had five expected outcomes:

• Judicial and moral duty bearers take action to mitigate violence against
  women and girls
• Women and girls collectively claim their rights
• Women’s sphere of influence has expanded
• Women benefit from services and networks that support
  livelihood reform
• Improved capacity of farm systems to mitigate and adapt to
  climate change

As part of this programme, the EU-funded action “Civil Society United Against GBV in Kisii and Nyamira Counties” has been supporting three projects in Kenya’s Kisii and Nyamira counties between 2023 and 2026. Two of the projects have been implemented by ISF’s local civil society organisation (CSO) partners, the Centre for Community Mobilization and Empowerment (CECOME) and Manga Health Education Africa Resource Team (Manga HEART). These projects have focused on the prevention of gender-based violence (GBV), particularly female genital mutilation (FGM) and intimate partner violence (IPV), in Nyamira and Kisii counties respectively. The third project, Financial Support for Third Parties (FSTP), has been implemented by ISF. Through organisational capacity strengthening training and small grants for local activists and civil society actors, the project has aimed to strengthen grassroots movements working to end GBV and support advocacy for the rights and inclusion of affected communities.

Purpose and scope of the evaluation

The final evaluation has two main purposes. First, in line with the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, the evaluation will assess the following:

• Relevance: Is the intervention addressing the right priorities and needs?
• Coherence: How well does the intervention complement and align with
  other initiatives and stakeholders?
• Effectiveness: Is the intervention achieving its intended objectives?
• Efficiency: How well are resources being used to achieve results?
• Impact: What changes has the intervention contributed to?
• Sustainability: Are the benefits and results likely to continue beyond the
  project period?

Beyond the OECD-DAC criteria, the evaluation seeks to assess the added value of the action and generate evidence and learning to inform future GBV prevention programming by ISF, Manga HEART, and CECOME. This includes understanding how and to what extent the project approaches contributed to change at the community level, identifying factors that supported or constrained behavioral change related to GBV, and assessing how well the interventions responded to the needs, priorities, and lived realities of communities. The evaluation will also examine whether the most relevant stakeholders and community influencers were effectively engaged and how their involvement contributed to project outcomes. In addition, the evaluation will explore the added value of the FSTP approach in strengthening grassroots actors, movements, and advocacy efforts, and assess what forms of support are most effective in enhancing their sustainability, influence, and capacity to contribute to long-term change. The findings should provide actionable recommendations to inform future programme design, partnerships, and support mechanisms for both community-based organizations and grassroots movements.

The following key questions will guide the project evaluation:

Relevance

• To what extent did the action’s objectives, activities, and achieved results (outputs, outcomes, and overall goal) respond to the needs, priorities, and lived realities of the target communities and beneficiaries?
• To what extent were the project’s objectives, strategies, and activities appropriate to the local context and the drivers of GBV?
• How effectively did the action adapt to changes in the operating environment and emerging community needs?
• To what extent were the needs and perspectives of people with disabilities (PwD) and other marginalized or vulnerable groups taken into account in the design, implementation, and outcomes of the action?

Coherence

• To what extent was the action aligned with relevant national policies, legal frameworks, and international commitments related to GBV prevention and gender equality?
• To what extent did the action complement and create synergies with other initiatives implemented by government institutions, civil society organizations, community groups, and development partners?
• To what extent did the action add value while avoiding duplication of efforts?

Effectiveness

• To what extent have the expected results (as identified in the monitoring plan) been achieved?
• Which factors have facilitated/hindered the achievement of the expected results?
• Could a different approach (strategies and tools) produce better results?
• To what extent was the action aligned with relevant national policies, legal frameworks, and international commitments related to GBV prevention and gender equality?
• To what extent did the action complement and create synergies with other initiatives implemented by government institutions, civil society organizations, community groups, and development partners?
• To what extent did the action add value while avoiding duplication of efforts?

Efficiency

• To what extent were the intended outputs, outcomes, and overall objective achieved?
• Which factors facilitated or hindered the achievement of results?
• To what extent were the project approaches and implementation strategies effective in achieving the desired changes?
• What lessons can be drawn regarding approaches that were particularly effective or ineffective?

Impact

• To what extent has the action contributed to reducing GBV and strengthening GBV prevention efforts in the target areas?
• What changes, intended or unintended, positive or negative, can be observed among individuals, communities, institutions, and grassroots movements as a result of the action?
• To what extent did the action contribute to strengthening community capacity, advocacy efforts, and collective action related to GBV prevention?
• Which contextual factors supported or limited the achievement of broader impacts?
• What lessons can inform future GBV programming and movement
  strengthening initiatives?

Sustainability

• To what extent have local communities, organizations, community groups, activists, and institutions developed the capacity and ownership required to sustain the results?
• What factors are likely to support or undermine the sustainability of outcomes and impacts?
• What strategies and investments would strengthen the sustainability of future interventions?

Leaning and Added Value

• To what extent did the projects enable meaningful participation and ownership across diverse groups within the community, including women, girls, PwD and other marginalized groups, and how did this influence the relevance, acceptance, and effectiveness of the
  interventions?
• To what extent was the identification, analysis, and engagement of key community stakeholders, power holders, influencers, and decision makers sufficient to support the achievement of project objectives?
• How have cultural norms, power relations, gender dynamics, and generational differences shaped opportunities for behavioral and social change related to GBV? To what extent have external factors, such as poverty, economic pressures, climate-related challenges, and broader societal trends, been considered in project implementation and affected project outcomes?
• What added value did the FSTP mechanism provide to grassroots activists, community groups, and civil society actors?
• To what extent did FSTP contribute to strengthening the organizational capacity, sustainability, leadership, agency, and resilience of grassroots actors?
• What new networks, partnerships, platforms, and relationships were established or strengthened through the action, and how have these contributed to advocacy, collective action, and influence on decision making processes?
• What forms of support, including funding, organizational capacity strengthening, mentorship, networking, and accompaniment, were most valuable in enabling grassroots actors to sustain and expand their work?
• To what extent did the collaboration between ISF, Manga HEART, and CECOME contribute to the achievement of project objectives? What lessons can be drawn to strengthen future partnership models, coordination, learning, and joint programming?

Methodology of the evaluation

The evaluation should primarily employ qualitative methods to generate an in-depth understanding of project processes, results, and learning. Quantitative monitoring data obtained from ISF should be utilized where available and relevant, particularly to assess trends related to awareness, attitudes, and behavioural change. The methodology should include several complementary methods, for example:

• Desk review of all relevant project documentation, including project documents, annual work plans, quarterly and annual reports, monitoring data, attitude, behavior, and awareness change tracking data, project steering committee reports, and any other relevant documentation produced during the implementation period.
• Key informant interviews (KIIs) with relevant stakeholders to gather in depth qualitative data on project implementation, outcomes, lessons learned, sustainability, and the broader context influencing project results.
• Focus group discussions (FGDs) with project participants, rights holders, community members, and other relevant stakeholders.
• Ethnographically informed fieldwork and observation, including observation of project activities and community engagement, as well as relevant community, school, stakeholder, and civil society meetings where feasible, to better understand the social norms, power dynamics, cultural practices, relationships, and contextual factors that influence GBV prevention efforts and behavioral change.
• Participatory methods to facilitate reflection and analysis by rights holders, community members, and stakeholders. These may include, but are not limited to, visual exercises, community mapping, stakeholder mapping, participatory ranking exercises, outcome harvesting, Most Significant Change (MSC) stories, and observation of relevant community dialogues, school-based activities, meetings, or other project related settings where appropriate.
• Participatory analysis and validation of findings, ensuring that rights holders, community representatives, implementing partners, and other key stakeholders are involved in reflecting on and interpreting findings. This should strengthen the relevance, ownership, and utilization of the evaluation results.
• The consultant is encouraged to propose additional methods where these are considered appropriate for addressing the evaluation questions and generating meaningful learning for future programming.

The stakeholders that should be consulted within this consultancy shall include but not be restricted to:

• ISF programme and project staff.
• Representatives of CECOME and Manga HEART.
• FSTP grantees and representatives of grassroots organizations supported the action.
• Project participants, rights holders, and community members, including women, men, girls, boys, and youth.
• Teachers and school representatives.
• Duty bearers engaged in projects such as medical and health professionals, community leaders, elders, religious leaders, and other relevant influential actors.
• Representatives of local and county government institutions.
• Representatives of relevant civil society organizations, networks, and advocacy groups.
• Other stakeholders identified during the inception phase of the evaluation.

Timing, duration and expected deliverables of the evaluation

The evaluation is expected to start on 1st of September for an estimated duration of max 30 working days. This will include:

• desk review and submission of inception report
• field visit(s) and data collection
• data analysis and evaluation report writing
• workshop to validate initial evaluation findings
• submission of the final report

Based on the project documentation, the consultant shall submit an inception report to ISF no later than 8th of September. The inception report serves as an agreement between parties on how the evaluation will be conducted, covering the following items:

• Detailed methodology, including data collection tools (e.g. FGD and KII
  questions), suggested target groups and ethical considerations
• Detailed schedule of the evaluation activities incl. travelling (timeline)
• Detailed budget

The first draft of the evaluation report should be sent for comments to ISF no later than 23rd of October. The final evaluation report, which incorporates the ISF comments and suggestions made to the draft report, should be submitted to ISF no later than 30th of October.

Qualifications of consultant

The profile of the individual consultants needs to meet the qualification requirements below:

• University degree in development studies, social sciences, humanitarian action, anthropology, gender studies, or another relevant field.
• Extensive (minimum 7 years) professional experience in relevant fields, preferably related to gender equality, women’s rights, and GBV.
• Strong understanding of GBV, particularly FGM, and experience evaluating, researching, or implementing related interventions. More than 5 years of experience in research, evaluations, and/or project development, management, and review.
• Experience working with international organizations and local civil society organizations.
• Demonstrated understanding of the Kenyan context. Familiarity with the Gusii context, culture, and social dynamics is an advantage.
• Strong qualitative research and analytical skills. Experience with participating, community-based, and ethnographic methods is an advantage.
• Ability to utilize and analyze quantitative data where relevant.
• Fluency in English.
• While not mandatory, it is strongly preferred that at least one member of the evaluation team has Kiswahili and/or Gusii language skills or that adequate interpretation and translation arrangements are in place.
• Evidence of high-quality outputs from previous assignments.
• Strong report writing, facilitation, and presentation skills.
• Availability and commitment to complete the assignment within the agreed timeframe.

How to apply and selection process

Requested information:

• Qualification of the consultant/s (CV/s).
• A draft consultancy plan (1–2 pages), including
  • brief description of the proposed data collection and analysis methods
  • team composition including how the team will ensure continuity between data collection, analysis, and reporting (which team members will participate in the different phases).
  • proposed duration of the consultancy (number of working days).
• A financial proposal indicating consultancy fees, including daily rates, local transportation and accommodation (ISF will only cover all reasonable fieldwork-related costs)

ISF will choose the consultant according to three main criteria: a) the professional capacity of the consultant/s, b) the quality of the tender, c) the cost of the tender.

The selection of the consultant will be done by ISF. Only the selected candidate will be notified of the results of the selection process.

The tender must be submitted by the 2nd of August to isfkenya@isf.fi