Consultancy Services Needed for Inclusive Education Policy Project End Term Evaluation

Evaluation Purpose

The purpose for this evaluation is to assess the performance of the project and capture project achievements, lessons learnt, challenges and best practices to inform future similar programming. The overall learning focus will help the stakeholders reflect on progress and assess aspects of effectiveness on inclusive education especially for learners with physical, hearing, visual, intellectual and psychosocial disabilities in the 5 pilot primary schools in Machakos County

1. Evaluation Type: End-term evaluation
2. Commissioning organization/contact person : CBM Kenya Country Office
3. Evaluation Team members (if known): TBC
4. Primary Methodology: Participatory, qualitative and quantitative
5. Proposed Evaluation Duration: 23 Days calendar days
6. Anticipated Evaluation Report Release Date: 8th October 2021
7. Recipient of Final Evaluation Report: CBM Kenya Country Office

Partner Organization(s): Agency for Disability and Development in Africa (ADDA)

Project start and end date: 1^st July 2019 to 30^th June 2021

Background of Project

Overview

Christoffel Blindenmission (CBM) Kenya Country office has overseen implementation of the Inclusive Education Policy Project (IEPP), a pilot project implemented in Machakos County by Agency for Disability and Development in Africa (ADDA) since July 2019 to June 2021. The project targeted 100 learners with disability integrated in 5 model schools, upgrading of 2 Education Assessment and Resource Centers (EARCs), training of 100 teachers on inclusive education and enhancing 8 learning model institutions.

The overall objective of this pilot project is to contribute to inclusive and equitable education for sustainable development in Kenya. The Kenya Sector Policy for Learner and Trainees with Disabilities 2018 emphasizes inclusive education and is aligned with SDG 4 (education) and UNCRPD Article 24 which aim to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning for all.

ADDA worked jointly with CBM Kenya Country Office; the Ministry of Education – specifically the Directorate of Special Needs Education and Basic Primary Education; County Government, key education sector stakeholders, EARCs, teachers, care givers, learners with disabilities, communities and Civil Society Organizations to implement the project.

Project Objectives

The overall objective of this project is: To contribute to inclusive and equitable education for sustainable development in Kenya.

Specific Objectives

5 models of inclusive education piloted with 100 leaners with disabilities in Machakos County;

• 8 model learning institutions enhanced;
• 2 model EARCs upgraded to identify, assess and place learners and trainees with disabilities;
• Lessons and experiences of implementing inclusive education produced.

Scope of Evaluation

Purpose of the end line evaluation

The purpose for this evaluation is to assess the performance of the project and capture project achievements, innovations, new knowledge gained, lessons learnt, challenges and best practices to inform future similar programming.

The evaluation will be based on three objectives:

Objective 1: Evaluate to what extent project activities have been effective in contributing to inclusive and equitable education in relation to project design and in Covid19 context among the target population.

Objective 2: Establish the extent to which collaboration between ADDA and key stakeholders added value to model schools, beneficiaries and stakeholders.

Objective 3: Describe key innovations, new knowledge gained, lessons learned, challenges, best practices and recommendations to inform future similar programming.

Start of the Evaluation

The date of signature of CBM Kenya Country Office on the contract is the official starting date of the evaluation. The Evaluator should contact partner as soon as possible to prepare the evaluation and to agree a date to start the fieldwork but not before the evaluation has been formally announced by CBM Kenya Country Office and the evaluator notified of the same.

Procedures for the Planning and Conduct of the Evaluation

The evaluator must include a description in their proposal on how they plan to conduct and control the evaluation, but an appreciation of mixed methodologies with both qualitative and quantitative analyses, and data collection techniques including Key Informant Interviews, Questionnaires, Focus Groups, and desk top reviews.

Complementary Letter

The evaluator may at any time during the evaluation process draw up a complementary letter if he/she considers that CBM Kenya Country Office should be informed about facts and issues that are or may be urgent or of particular interest and importance to CBM Kenya Country Office.

This letter shall solely be addressed to CBM Kenya Country Office.

Reporting schedule

The execution of assignment, debriefing, submission of draft and final evaluation reports shall be completed in the following stages;

• Contract signing and inception meeting
• Inception Report submitted to CBM Kenya Country Office
• Detailed work plan and evaluation tools.
• Data collection tools for Field Work shared with CBM Kenya Country Office
• 1st Draft evaluation report submitted to CBM Kenya Country Office
• Feedback Received and Incorporated by Evaluation Team
• Revised Draft evaluation report submitted to CBM Kenya Country Office
• Final Evaluation report submitted to CBM Kenya Country Office.

Target Audience and Intended Use

The target audience will comprise of Ministry of Education – specifically the Directorate of Special Needs Education and Basic Primary Education; County Government, key education sector stakeholders, Organizations of Persons with Disability and their networks, EARCs, teachers, parents/care givers and their peer groups, learners with and without disabilities, communities and CBM staff.

Evaluation Criteria

Relevance and quality of design:

• To what extent were the objectives of the project valid in relation to fulfilling the gaps identified in the Inclusive Education Policy Project?
• Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the overall goal, attainment of its objectives, targets and intended change?

Effectiveness:

• To what extent were the objectives achieved?
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?
• Have assumptions affected the project; has there been a risk-management in place from the beginning and how effective has this been?
• Assess the quality of the project planning documentation (situation and stakeholder assessment, time frame and milestones, personnel planning).
• Working relationships and communication between stakeholders.
• Mechanisms set up to ensure smooth implementation of the project including participation of persons with disability.
• How was information generated and used?
• New knowledge to improve access to and quality of inclusive education including policy change.
• Innovations used during project implementation and their effectiveness.

Efficiency or cost-effectiveness (of planning and of implementation):

• How much did the project cost to implement? Was this justified? Were activities cost effective?
• Were funds spent appropriate, and objectives achieved on time?
• Was the project or program implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
• How far was the strategy of the project appropriate in filling the gaps identified by Inclusive Education Policy Education?
• Were existing learning processes such as reflection, internal review used sufficiently to keep project plan updated?

Impact – Contribution to change:

• What changes have been brought about as a result of the project in achieving Government priorities?
• What difference has the project made to the children as target beneficiaries, and individual households?
• How many people have benefitted? It is important to use disaggregated data for gender, age, type of disability, type of learning materials provided and type of support provided to EARCs and other actors?
• What are the positive changes that had not been anticipated or expected of the project?
• Were there also negative effects and consequences of the project?
• Is there any plan to replicate the model of this project or share best practices to influence programming in education sector?
• How is change evidenced within the institution, individual and community?
• How was the Inclusive Education project strategy implemented during the program period?
• Has the project played any role in building the capacity of the partners in?

Sustainability:

• How did the partner organization ensure that the beneficiaries needs are still being addressed after the project ends?
• Did the project influence sustainability of the Partners?
• How have the partner organizations ensured that the beneficiaries’ needs are still being addressed after the project ends?
• What are the challenges identified after the funding ended and how are the partner organizations adapting to them?
• Which specific results of the project will remain and continue to exist even after the project ends?

Gender

• Did the project put in place mechanism for boys and girls as beneficiaries proportionately?
• How did ADDA reflect gender sensitivity in its programming? (Balance/equality issue appear in the partner organization’s documents such as its constitution and bylaws)
• Did Gender issues affect uptake of services?
• In case Gender issues affected uptake of services what interventions were put in place to bring about equity?

Child Safeguarding

• Does ADDA have and implement its own policy that safeguards children? Does it train/ induct staff on it?
• How did the project help in making the partner/work environment child friendly and safe?

Inclusion

• How was inclusion accounted for and incorporated in the project design and implementation (please relate to CBMs DID principle)?
• Does the partner implement any policies supporting inclusion?

Methodology

The Evaluator should obtain a preliminary understanding of the engagement context by reading the following documents:

• CBM Standard Contract signed by CBM and the partner
• The original Proposal and other related supporting documents
• The ADDA Project Progress Reports
• The ADDA Narrative Reports

The consultant will develop the methodology as well as the various tools that will be used in data collection and present the same on the inception report.

The evaluation team will conduct key informant interviews with all relevant stakeholders identified in collaboration with CBM and evaluators’ own mapping. This will include respective CBM KCO financial and program staff, MA project officer, Regional adviser, and government officials, among others.

The evaluation team will source additional information through desk review of existing project planning, implementation and reporting documents and other relevant sector literature.

The evaluation team is expected to review the partner’s data management system and the use of the data related to overall project management/implementation. The evaluation team should also correlate its field findings with the data available as documented by the partner organization.

The evaluation field work should be conducted in a participatory manner to foster learning among those involved in the evaluation process. See also discussions under “Determine the target audience of the evaluation”

Limitations

• The evaluator will inform CBM as soon as possible about any limitations in the scope of work he/she may find prior to or during the program evaluation.
• The availability of government officials to be interviewed.

Evaluation Team and Management Responsibilities

Commissioning responsibility: The CBM Kenya Country Office is responsible for commissioning the evaluation.

Evaluation Team

• The evaluation team should comprise of people with Technical skills in Education sector and a strong background in public health.
• Strong prior experience in conducting program evaluation, Experience in designing and managing, implementing successful programs is required to provide well thought judgment to the evaluated project.
• Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings.
• Proven ability to ensure the effective implementation of and compliance with CBMs code of conduct, including principles of transparency and accountability.

Management of the evaluation and logistics

The CBM Kenya Country Office shall:

• Coordination with the partner ensuring adequate support to the process
• Reviewing the draft final report to ensure correctness of terms, standard procedures and the likes cited in the report.
• Providing documents available at CBM’s CO relevant to the project

The Project Partner shall be responsible for:

• Ensuring that data is available for checking by evaluation team.
• Organizing interviews with stakeholders, ensuring their presence
• Providing access to all documents and project staff members required by the evaluation team.

Expected Results (deliverables)

The Evaluation Team is expected to submit the following to CBM in line with agreed timelines:

1. An inception report
2. A detailed work plan including Task/activity, Location, Number of Days per activity and deliverables per set of activities.
3. A draft evaluation report to CBM Country office Kenya using CBM’s evaluation report template;
4. A presentation of the draft findings to be presented to CBM KCO prior to final report writing
5. Final Report with all relevant attachments (data collection protocols/consent forms as needed, data sets analyzed).

The report shall be presented in the standard evaluation report format of CBM.

Language: The report shall be presented in English with an executive summary in the same language.

Duration

The evaluation is envisioned to take a maximum duration of 23 days. An inception meeting will be planned to review the proposed work plan, methodology and data collection tools prior to commencement of the fieldwork.

Costs

Give an indicative budget for the evaluation and how funds and payments will be managed. Detail payment milestones according to delivery of specific