Job: 2 NATIONAL CONSULTANTS - PROJECT EXTERNAL EVALUATIONJobs in U.S.A, Jobs in Europe, Jobs in Africa, Jobs in Asia

Location :

UNDP/NIBP, Kabul, AFGHANISTAN

Application Deadline :

24-Nov-13

Type of Contract :

Individual Contract

Post Level :

National Consultant

Languages Required :

English

Duration of Initial Contract :

38 working days

Background

UNDP Afghanistan is supporting the Government to find innovative solutions to its development challenges based on the on-going Country Programme Document approved by the Executive Board for the period 2010 – 2013. Key priority areas for UNDP assistance are in strengthening democratic governance, crisis prevention and recovery and reducing poverty. UNDP is strengthening the institutional capacities of key national government and sub-national authorities which aim to enhance human security, human development, peace and stability in Afghanistan.

Building robust government institutions for effective and efficient governance and a professional and responsive civil service with the overall aim of improving service delivery to Afghan people is one of the top priorities of the Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRA). In the Afghanistan National Development Strategy (ANDS), Capacity Development (CD) has been identified as a cross-cutting issue and the improvement of public sector capacity in particular as the key challenge to development in Afghanistan. It has been recognized that unless adequate capacities are built, technical and financial support will remain underutilized to the detriment of the development process.

NIBP project is in line with and complimented the NPP3 overarching objective: 'Strengthen the institutional, organizational, administrative and individual capacities of the Government at both central and local levels to enable more efficient and effective service delivery, economic growth, justice, stabilization and security.'

In addition, NIPB has directly contributed to the United Nations Development Assistance Framework (UNDAF) and Country Programme Document (CPD) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Both documents underline the need to develop the capacity of the Government at all levels – environmental, institutional and individual, especially at the provincial.

The National Institution Building Project (NIBP), to be implemented over four years (2010-2013), provides a comprehensive package of CD support required by the government at the national and sub-national levels. The primary objectives of the project is to enhance capacity within the ministries at all three levels, namely institutional, organizational and individual, which would ultimately result in improved service delivery through an efficient, organized and trained civil service. The visible impact would be better budget utilization, rationalized organization structures and well-trained civil servants.

The results of NIBP are achieved primarily through provision of services of Capacity Development Advisors (CDAs) in select government entities at national and sub-national level to provide coaching and advisory services for institutional strengthening, organizational reforms and skills development. At the sub-national level, the focus of CD under the project is to enhance the planning, implementation and monitoring capacity within the provincial departments of ministries/agencies.

The overall development objective of the NIBP is 'to strengthen national institutional capacity and to create an efficient and capable public sector workforce through the development of institutions and civil service at the national and sub-national levels, the establishment of accountability mechanisms and effective utilization of resources for better service delivery'. This will be achieved through following two outputs:

Output_1: organizational capacity in specified areas within selected government entities strengthened.

Output_2: organizational Capacity of IARCSC to build on an efficient and effective Civil Service Supported.

Output_3: Project management

Public administration in Afghanistan suffers from systemic problems of fragmented structures, lack of skilled professionals, recruitment and performance management as well as little delegation to provincial departments. While most government services are delivered at provincial and district levels, powers and responsibilities of sub-national administration are determined by the centre. Expenditures at provincial and local levels are made through national programmes carried out by provincial arms of central ministries. The Government of Islamic Republic of Afghanistan (GIRA) has taken several steps towards strengthening sub-national governance and local administration in Afghanistan. CD at sub-national level in Afghanistan faces myriad challenges, which include factors such as institutional weaknesses, lack of talent pool and poor human capacities.

The overall goal of the government is to improve delivery of public services. However, wide disparities exist across Afghanistan at sub-national level in terms of capacity to deliver public services. Building capacity in terms of transfer of knowledge and skills at sub-national level in Afghanistan has largely suffered from the gap in demand and supply.

Duties and Responsibilities

1. Evaluation purpose

The current NIBP phase will conclude on 31 December 2013. UNDP Afghanistan in collaboration with the GIRA, donors and other stakeholders are working to develop the second phase of the NIBP project. Therefore, this evaluation will not only focus how the project achieved its intended objective, but also this should be a looking forward evaluation to furnish strategic recommendations to be incorporated into the new phase of this project. In general, this evaluation will be conducted to measure qualitatively and quantitatively the project progress and will attempt to measure impact in terms of whether and how the CD support to different institutions, organizations and individuals resulted in the expected and needed impact at the enabling environment level, organizational level and individual level and whether and how the project is developing the public administration reform (PAR) management and coordination capacity of the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission (IARCSC). The evaluation also aims at understanding the relevance of the project and its design. The result of the evaluation will be incorporated into the policies, strategies and plans of the project, and inform the future interventions of UNDP in the capacity building and national institutions building area.

2. Evaluation scope and objectives

The scope of the evaluation shall have the following objectives:

Note: The national consultants will assist the international experts in achieving the following objectives.

To examine to what extent the project has achieved the intended outputs and in what specific areas the project excelled or failed in progress toward intended outputs.
To indicate whether or not intended project impacts and outcomes are being met and/or, for specific outcomes, whether satisfactory progress was made.
To analyse underlying factors that are influencing project impacts and outputs.
To identify and analyse barriers and constraints that have delayed implementation, including challenges emanating from internal and external sources.
To identify a list of 'lessons learned' and make recommendations for corrections, including in relation to i) the specific CD services provided by the project (are they appropriate for the client and do they respond to the demands and felt needs of the client?); and ii) the sourcing of capacity (what is the general experience and are steps be taken to source capacity from institutions and networks beyond those considered under the project?).
To analyse how appropriate and effective was the organizational structure of the project
To analyse how effective, relevant and efficient was the advisory assistance provided to each government institutions and ministries through international and national advisors, particularly the Indian component, and make recommendations for the sustainability and further improvement of this advisory mechanism.
To analyse how effective, relevant and efficient were the CD trainings' design, Implementation, and their impact, and make recommendations for further improvement and relevancy.
To analyse how effective, appropriate, transparent, and efficient was the arrangement made between the GDPDM and NIBP on the implementation of some the activities, particularly LoA arrangements.
What is the extent to which the project's design, implementation and monitoring took into the consideration the gender equality and women's empowerment and make specific recommendations to incorporate gender equality into all future intervention to ensure sustainability?
Was the design and implementation of the activities responsive to the needs of civil service commission and was directly contributing to PAR and NPP3?
How did NIPB contribute toward capacity development in general and how did it contribute in achieving the outcomes set out in the UNDAF, CPD, CPAP and NPP3.
Extract the lessons learned and best practices that can be considered in the planning and design of future support activities for government and recommendations for future direction and areas of focus for the next phase of project.
To state whether or not targets are being achieved and whether current and planned outputs can be sustained, including determination of measures needed to ensure continued sustainability of results in the future.
To recommend future interventions.

3. Evaluation questions

Evaluation questions include:

Are the intended outputs being achieved and contributed in achieving the outcomes set out in CPD, UNDAF and NPP3?
To what extent has NIBP output/outcomes resulted in actual changes on the ground?
What internal or external factors have contributed to achieving or not achieving the intended results?
Has NIBP met the real institution building objective as stated in the document?
Is the project design and intended outputs/outcomes still consistent with the national priorities and in synergy with other similar interventions by other donors?
What factors contributed to effectiveness or ineffectiveness of NIBP?
One of NIBP output / outcome was to build capacity of the IARCSC to take over the implementation of the project, has NIBP achieved this?
Has NIBP had a balanced approach to respond to CD needs at all three levels – environmental, institutional and individual?
Has NIBP met sub-national commitments?
What are additional recommendations to improve service delivery within respected ministries and departments?
What should be the UNDP approach in similar interventions in the future?

4. Methodology

The Evaluation Team will be composed of two international and two national consultants not involved with the formulation, appraisal, approval and/or implementation of daily management of the project. The consultants will be selected by the UNDP/NIBP evaluation support team.

The mission will comprise of two international experts including one international recognized capacity development (Team Leader), and one public administration reform (PAR) experts with expertise in civil service reforms. These two international experts will be supported and assisted by two national experts in specified areas.

An Evaluation Inception Report is required, but a decision about the specific design and methods for the evaluation will emerge from consultations among the programme unit, the evaluators, and key stakeholders about what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives and answer the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and extant data.

Key stakeholders are:

Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission
The Government of Japan
The Swedish Development Corporation
The Italian Government
The Indian Government
Korea International Corporation Agency (KOICA)

Ministries in which NIBP is engaged at the national level include:

Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation & Livestock;
Ministry of Education;
Ministry of Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled;
Central Statistic Organization
Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation;
Ministry of Rural Rehabilitation and Development
Ministry of Economy
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Ministry of commerce and Industries
Ministry of Cultural Affairs
Ministry of Information Communication and Technology
Ministry of Public Health

Subnational partnerships are occurring Ministry of Agriculture, Irrigation & Livestock in the provinces of Bamyan, Herat, and Mazar e sharif; and in Labor, Social Affairs, Martyrs and Disabled in the province of Herat. NIBP's subnational presence with the Independent Administrative Reform and Civil Service Commission is in Jalalabad and Mazar e sharif.

5. Evaluation team composition and required competencies

The evaluation team will be composed of two international and two national consultants not involved with the formulation, appraisal, approval and/or implementation of daily management of the project. The team will be selected by an UNDP Evaluation Support Team which will provide the logistical support during the evaluation. Note: IARCSC will be part of this selection process as observers to ensure that IARCSC needs are met.

The consultants are expected to be highly qualified in capacity development and governance. The consultants shall have minimum Masters level education from a accredited and recognized university in the field of international development, political science, public administration, public policy or governance, and at least 7 years' experience in capacity development, institution building and / or governance. At least one other should preferably be an evaluation specialist and be experienced in using the specific evaluation methodologies that will be employed for that evaluation. The evaluation team should also possess a broad knowledge and understanding of the major economic and social development issues and problems in Afghanistan. Background or familiarity with conflict and post conflict situations may also be required, both for the conduct of the exercise itself, and for understanding the particular context of the evaluation.

6. Evaluation ethics

Evaluations in UNDP will be conducted in accordance with the principles outlined in the UNEG ‘Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation.' Evaluations should be carried out in a participatory and ethical manner and the welfare of the stakeholders should be given due respect and consideration (human rights, dignity and fairness). Evaluations must be gender and culturally sensitive and respect the confidentiality, protection of source and dignity of those interviewed.

Evaluation procedures should be conducted in a realistic, diplomatic, cost-conscious and cost-effective manner; must be accurate and well-documented and deploy transparent methods that provide valid and reliable information. Evaluation team members should have an opportunity to disassociate themselves from particular judgments and recommendations. Any unresolved differences of opinion within the team should be acknowledged in the report.

Evaluations should be conducted in a complete and balanced manner so that the different perspectives are addressed and analyzed. Key findings must be substantiated through triangulation. Any conflict of interest should be addressed openly and honestly so that is does not undermine the evaluation outcome. Evaluators should discuss, in a contextually appropriate way, those values, assumptions, theories, methods, results, and analyses that significantly affect the interpretation of the evaluative findings. These statements apply to all aspects of the evaluation, from its initial conceptualization to the eventual use of findings.

The rights and well-being of individuals should not be affected negatively in planning and carrying out an evaluation. This needs to be communicated to all persons involved in an evaluation, and its foreseeable consequences for the evaluation discussed.

7. Implementation arrangements

The mission is expected to take a total of 37 working days. 4 days desk review. 20 days field mission to conduct the evaluation in Kabul and to provinces deemed integral to the evaluation, however it is subject to flight availability, security risk management and subsequent travel restrictions. 5 day to produce the Draft Report and 4 days for finalizing the report.

Logistical support, security clearance, and travel arrangements will be made by the evaluation support team. Office space and necessary equipment will be provided in the NIBP office in UNOCA on Jalalabad Road.

8. Time-frame for the evaluation process

The evaluation will take place on 1^st November2013 for 38 working days.

4 days Desk Review and Inception Report/Work Plan
3 Days approved plan
20 days (maximum) in-country, including travels to field offices
includes in-country travel time to provinces which may take upwards of a day one-way
includes days where security risks may inhibit or restrict travel
5 working days on the first draft of the Final Evaluation Report
1 day incorporation of inputs
4 working days on the finalization of the Report

Evaluation Matrix

Activity

Number of days for the Evaluation Team

Dates for the Activity

By Whom

Desk Review