Country: Thailand
Closing date: 31 Jul 2016
TERMS OF REFERENCE
Myanmar-Thailand Regional Programme
Physical Rehabilitation Project
End of project External Evaluation
1.Background
1.1 About Handicap international
Handicap International is an independent and impartial international aid organisation working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. Working alongside people with disabilities and other vulnerable groups, our action and testimony are focused on responding to their essential needs, improving their living conditions and promoting respect for their dignity and their fundamental rights. HI is currently implementing projects in more than 50 countries worldwide, including Thailand.
1.2 Context in which the project takes place
Thailand has a long-standing history in receiving refugees from neighbouring countries even though Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention or its 1967 Protocol and does not have a formal national asylum framework. Myanmar refugees have been hosted on the Thai-Myanmar border for over three decades. Currently, about 105,000 refugees live in nine temporary shelters/ camps.
Camp management is controlled by the Thai authorities, namely staff of the Ministry of the Interior, in collaboration with locally appointed Refugee Committees. The European Commission (EC) and the USA are the largest donors supporting actions that address the needs of refugees in the camps. The Committee for the Coordination of Services to Displaced Persons in Thailand (CCSDPT), comprising nineteen NGO members, is a coordinating body that meets on a bi-monthly basis.
Prolonged stay in temporary shelters with limited higher education, livelihood and other opportunities all contribute to a difficult social environment with protection concerns such as substance abuse, youth offending, early pregnancy/marriage, unsafe abortions, domestic and other forms of SGBV and exploitation. Refugees with disabilities specifically lack access to quality and adapted services related to physical rehabilitation and assistive devices including prosthetics. There are also refugees with sensory and learning disabilities who need specialized care. The option to refer refugees to Thai health rehabilitation associations and service providers is limited. Moreover, due to their physical difficulties, lack of mobility or marginalization, refugees with disabilities often remain excluded from mainstreamed humanitarian services including general information and protection measures in the temporary shelters. Any reduction of support could further compromise the protection environment of already very vulnerable refugees. Food, non-food items, shelter, medical assistance, education, water and sanitation and other services continue to be provided by NGOs within the CCSDPT Framework authorized by the Royal Thai Government, with UNHCR focusing on promoting an acceptable protection environment and filling certain gaps where possible.
Since early 2012, ceasefires signed between the Government of the Union of Myanmar (GOUM) and the main non-state armed groups have led to a decrease in security incidents in south-east Myanmar. On 15 October 2015, eight ethnic armed groups signed a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement, which created a platform for further dialogue between key stakeholders and led to the general elections of 8 November 2015. Although conditions are not conducive for UNHCR to promote voluntary repatriation, it is possible that voluntary repatriation will be facilitated in 2016. UNHCR is developing an Operations Plan for Voluntary Repatriation in consultation with all concerned stakeholders and relevant authorities. Facilitation of voluntary return will only start when persons of concern express a wish to return and services in place are to help secure a dignified return.
1.3 HI and Physical Rehabilitation in Thailand
HI’s started working in Thailand in 1984 and first focused its actions on the delivery of mobility and assistive devices to Thai and Burmese landmine victims, most of whom needed lower limb prostheses. Since 1998, the scope of project broadened and the project promoted provision of physical rehabilitation services to persons with disabilities and facilitating persons with disabilities access to health, education and economic activities within the temporary shelters. HI Thai site has been significantly evolving through the years and following the past economics and political opening in Burma. HI has thus expanded its projects in terms of thematic of intervention, geographical areas and number of contracts.
Thailand mission was under regional responsibility of Cambodia, but in line with internal reorganization of our structure, Thailand mission shifted under Myanmar responsibility in January 2016. This strengthened the coordination between HI activities in Myanmar and in Thailand around refugees’ return and put Myanmar/Thailand regional program in a better position to offer adequate follow-up services to people with disabilities and their families when they decide to resettle back to Myanmar. Merging process between the two entities is still running and should be finalized for the end of 2016.
The on-going activities of Thailand Mission have 3 strategic pillars: physical rehabilitation, social inclusion and Mine Risk Education.
§ Physical rehabilitation: Physiotherapy and Occupational therapy based services and prosthesis and assistive technology provision implemented across 5 camps;
§ Disability and Social Inclusion: Inclusion of disability into mainstream livelihood, vocational training and protection services, set up of Self Help Groups and physical accessibility (across 5 camps)
§ Mine Risk Education: targeted towards the overall community, but focusing on high risk group defined as males aged between 15 to 35 years; implemented across 9 camps (across all 9 camps)
As from July 2016, regional project “Growing together” supporting children with disabilities and their parents and family members, will be in Thailand implemented in 5 temporary shelters across Thai-Myanmar border.
Hl’s operational strategy is based on the twin track approach. One track emphasizes the realization of the specific needs of people with disabilities through specialized services such as rehabilitation and inclusion of disability into existing mainstream services (food, housing, sanitation, general health, education and livelihood). The other track promotes empowerment of persons with disabilities through its client cantered approach making sure people with disabilities participate in planning, monitoring and evaluation of rehabilitation service provision.
This strategy is consistent with the European Union’s policy statement ‘Guidance Note on Disability and Development 2004’. The operational strategy of HI also directly contributes to the UNHCR’s “Executive Committee Conclusion of Refugees with Disabilities and other Persons with Disabilities protected and assisted by UNHCR No. 110 (LXI) – 2010”, which recognizes the marginalization and exclusion of refugees with disabilities and recommends that they should receive appropriate protection, assistance and should have barrier free access to information.
1.4 The project to be evaluated
Project name
Attaining functional autonomy, improving quality of life and living with dignity, Myanmar Refugees with Disabilities
Exact localisation
Three camps namely Mae La, Umpiem, and Nu Po and surrounding villages situated along the Myanmar-Thailand Border in western province of Tak, Thailand.
Start date
January 1, 2013 – September 30, 2016
Length of the project
45 months
Local partners
· Mae Sot General Hospital
· Phrae Hospital
· Sirindhorn Medical National Rehabilitation Centre (SNMRC)
· Sirindhorn School of Prosthetics and Orthotics (SSPO)
Target groups (Beneficiaries)
· 3,150 People with impairments/disabilities and their family member/care givers (including 300 children with disabilities and 900 landmines survivors)
· 120 refugee health workers from Premiere Urgence Aide Medicale Internationale (PUAMI) and American Refugee Committee (ARC)
· 34 HI Refugee rehab/AT team
· 54 section leaders as well as 60 social affairs and health committee members from camps.
Global budget
777,169 euro
Initial budget of the project has been revised for two times, in 2014 and at the end of 2015, which resulted with the extension of the duration of the project from initial 36 to 45 months. Also, overall budget increased from 571,561 Euros to 777,169 euro. Objectives of the project, expected results, targeted beneficiaries and indicators remain the same.
The project aims to assist one of the most marginalized and vulnerable group of refugees namely adults and children with impairments and/or disabilities and their family members/caregivers. Rehabilitation in this population is seen as a sustainable, essential and integral part of the primary healthcare framework. It is recognized as a responsive and effective public policy because it serves to increase participation and access to education, return to work, and participation in home life. This enables people with disabilities to contribute to family and community development in a dignified way. Better articulated and systematic rehabilitation services within the primary healthcare frameworks of the three camps will ensure that duplication of work is minimised thereby reducing inefficiency and enhancing effectiveness of service provision. This will be achieved through collaborative work in early screening of childhood disabilities, early identification of people with impairments and/or disabilities, prevention of secondary medical complications, as well as appropriate referrals and cross referrals among health agencies, mainstream service providers and HI rehabilitation services.
The project’s primary goal is to improve the economic, health, education, and social status of Burmese refugees and displaced persons in and around the Thai/Burmese border refugee camps, in particular persons with disabilities. The initial Logical Framework is attached as Annex 1.
1.5 Justification for calling upon a Consultant/External Evaluator
As this project is ending in September 2016, a final external evaluation must be conducted to support in measuring the achievement of the indicators, outputs and effects of the intervention; support the adjustment of the project approaches and interventions according to the needs of the population and provide recommendations towards the sustainability and long term effectiveness of the project activities.
The evaluation has a key role to play in the process of developing and ensuring the good quality of rehabilitation services provided in the Burmese Border camps in Thailand. By analysing the actions implemented, their outcomes and the objectives reached over three years in the three refugee camps and then measuring the gains, it will enable HI to make more relevant decisions about the approaches to adapt and the actions to implement in the future.
2.SCOPE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
2.1. Objective of the evaluation
The objective of the evaluation is threefold:
· To identify outcomes/impacts of Rehabilitation project intervention for all target beneficiary groups:
a) People with all types of disabilities/impairments (with a particular focus on children with intellectual disabilities and lower limb amputees (caused by landmine accident or other), including women & children with disabilities, accessing services provided at five rehabilitation centres and at community level in the three target camps (i.e. Mae La, Umpiem& Nupo camps);
b) The family member/caregivers of people with disabilities living in the three target camps (Mae La, Umpiem& Nupo) as well as the surrounding villages;
c) Refugee health workers from Premiere Urgence Aide Medicale Internationale (PU-AMI) and American Refugee Committee (ARC);
d) HI camp-based rehab/assistive technology staff.
· To evaluate the effectiveness of the initial methodology & sustainability of the project design within the physical rehabilitation service internally; by strengthening processes and pathways with health stakeholders externally; and by assessing the way resources have been mobilized and the extent to which these resources were adapted appropriately to the context.
· As part of knowledge management, identify success stories based on the evaluation process and individual cases studies and lessons learned and make recommendations which can be shared with stakeholders and wider HI MyTh Program.
2.2. Expected results of the assignment
· An assessment of the overall project results is carried out taking into account the context, the proposal and the monitoring and evaluation framework of the project.
· Strengths and weaknesses of the project’s methodology and implementation process are identified and analysed, with a view to increase impact and sustainability in the other province of intervention.
· Practical recommendations are formulated regarding the process used by the project to support intervention and follow-up on referrals.
The evaluation will cover all of the project's components at camp level.
2.3. Evaluation questions
The consultants will articulate their analysis around a set of evaluation questions. Some questions are listed below. These questions are not exhaustive and will be reviewed by the consultants at the beginning of the inception report stage and planning. The following criteria should be looked into, though other criteria can be suggested by the evaluator:
Relevance
· Did the project answer to the needs of the target population?
· Was the project design appropriate to the specific context?
· Are the mechanism and approaches developed in coherence with existing plans and policies of HI?
· Was the training provided appropriate to the context and needs of the target groups?
· Are the educational materials provided appropriate and relevant to the needs of the target groups (including educational materials provided to people accessing a rehabilitation program, refugee camp based staff and health workers)?
Effectiveness
· To what extent did the project achieve the expected results?
· How did the team adjust the project and its methodologies to the constraints faced during the implementation phase to achieve the expected results?
· More specifically, is the current system for provision of rehabilitative services in the camps effectively meeting the needs of people with disabilities and considered best practice (within context constraints)?
· Were the methodologies and tools appropriate to meet the project’s objective?
· Were the project’s activities designed and implemented addressing the needs of both men and women on an equal basis as well as the needs of all people with disabilities in the camps?
· Did any major failure take place during project implementation and, if yes, why did it occur?
Capacities
· Did the organization of the project serve the capacity building aims of the project with all target groups?
· Have the training and awareness raising sessions been delivered effectively using quality training /facilitation methods and materials?
· Was the focus on training and development of skills specifically for refugee health workers effective? Did it meet the overall aim of improving identification and early management of impairment and streamlining referral mechanisms?
· Was the training provided to caregivers/family members of people with disabilities useful (from both the perspective of the client and the caregiver)? What do the caregivers remember about the training?
Efficiency
· Was the project team profile and organization efficient for implementing the project in the area covered?
· Were there any barriers to the efficient implementation of the key activities?
· Did the strategy and approach chosen enable the achievement of the results in a cost effective manner?
Change
· To what extent can it be said that the effects/ impacts are attributable to project interventions? Are there other external factors which have played a role in the effects/ impacts during the project period?
· For those effects/ impacts which are attributed to the project, what have been the processes, component or qualities of the project intervention which have led to the change?
· What modification/reorientation should be made in areas of intervention and activities to better achieve the expected the effects/ impacts? The evaluator should consider both the short term and the longer term directions for future strategy.
· Did the project have any negative impact or is likely to have in future?
Sustainability
· Is the collaboration with four Thai medical rehabilitation institutions contributing toward the capacity development initiative for refugee rehabilitation and AT team members?
· Is it aligned with the quality of rehabilitation services following Thai standards?
· Is the training of refugees preparing them as a skilled workforce for those willing to repatriate to Myanmar?
· Are the results achieved of short term, mid-term or long term sustainability? Describe how you see them having future positive influence on project’s partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries.
· Do project stakeholders have sufficient capacities and commitment to continue using the project tools?
· Is there any barrier to sustainability? Propose recommendations to address them.
The evaluator should also identify, if or where they exist, any examples of good practices, which HI, as a key global player in rehabilitation in developing countries, can disseminate more widely both within the HI MyTh Program and wider. These may include tools, publications, lessons learned, training materials, management practices etc. The evaluator should explain why this is considered good practice and make suggestions on their wider applicability.
3.METHODOLOGY
The exact methodology should be proposed by the consultants in their applications.
The evaluation should take the opinions of the different actors and beneficiaries into account and compare their views and perceptions of the progress made by the programme.
The methodology should include but not be limited to the following:
Desk phase
· The consultant (or team of experts) will review existing project documents, projects curriculum (methods, teaching materials, monthly statistics of delivered services, technical missions reports and individual goal plans). On this basis, the consultant will refine the evaluation questions, propose a detailed methodology emphasizing participation of the project beneficiaries and stakeholders as well as define a detailed working plan including the list of stakeholders to meet during field phase. These elements will be combined in an inception report.
· HI team will validate the inception report.
Field phase
· Briefing with Head of Mission – Thailand, Reporting and Monitoring Manager, Project Manager, Technical Advisor.
· Interviews at head office in Mae Sot and in the field with a selection of personnel having supervised and implemented the project.
· Interviews in the 3 camps with a selection of stakeholders associated with the project.
· “Focus groups discussions” and individual interviews with the end beneficiaries.
· Observation of project activities in process including rehabilitation services, prosthesis/assistive device provision and possibly stakeholder training.
· Case studies outcomes.
· Preliminary report writing on findings, analysis and recommendations.
· Submission for initial comments and feedback from HI Mae Sot team.
· Presentation of findings to the project team and the partners with the aim of clarifying details & issues and soliciting further input and feedback.
· Updating & revision of preliminary report.
· Submission of final evaluation report to HI.
The evaluator will make a detailed methodological proposal in accordance with the time and the budget available.
At the end of the field mission, the evaluator will present the initial results and recommendations to the national team for discussion. On the basis of these discussions, the evaluator will draft a summary report of 5 pages maximum, excluding appendices, within five working days and send it to the Mae Sot team.
The HI teams will provide any feedback on this report within five working days.
The evaluator will submit a final report of 50-page maximum.
4.DELIVERABLES
· Produce an inception report in English, including all proposed tools, to be introduced at the end of the desk phase. The inception report will have to be validated prior launching the field phase.
· Organize a restitution presentation/workshop to HI including an analysis of the project’s achievements against the planned indicators and a set of recommendations addressing each of the project’s components. During this workshop, the consultant will also provide detailed explanation of the methodological assessment tools used. A PowerPoint presentation will be produced by the consultant.
· A Preliminary report incorporating the feedback from the debriefing workshop.
· A final report in English. The final report will include relevant comments from HI on the draft report. The final report should be divided into the following sections:
Executive summary of the evaluation findings
Introduction to the context
Evaluation methodology, including selection and sampling methods, and mention any constraints and challenges encountered, and strategies used to overcome them.
Detailed key findings and conclusions related to the main objectives
Recommendations
Annexes – all data collection tools,
List of persons met during the evaluation process and salient points of the meetings
The report will be introduced in soft copy and 3 hard copies.
Within the report confidentiality will be respected when representing personal information. Photos used will have HI permission form completed, any inclusion of pictures of children will have the statement within the document…. “All names & information about the location of children and family privacy in conformity with HI Child Protection Policy”
NB: For reasons of confidentiality, the evaluation report remains the intellectual property of HI exclusively.
5.BUDGET
Maximum budget available for the assignment is 13,000 Euros.
6.TIMELINE
The evaluation mission should not start before September 12, 2016. The final deadline for the submission of the final evaluation report is October 31st the latest including HI validation. The evaluation mission will be planned in accordance with the project team (HI and partners) and dependent on activities planned for the proposed timeframe.
7.PROFILE OF THE CONSULTANT
The evaluation will be carried out by an expert or a team of experts.
If a team of experts is selected, the evaluation will be put under the responsibility of one team leader chosen among the team of experts. This person will ensure all communication with HI Cambodia office and will be the sole responsible for managing the organization of the evaluation.
The team leader who will endorse responsibility of this assignment should have the following skills, experience and knowledge:
· Extensive experience, not less than 5 years, in program development/design, program management & implementation, monitoring & evaluation.
· Experience or assignments in project impact evaluation and participatory approaches in data gathering.
The team of experts (including the team leader) should combine the following skills, experience and knowledge:
· Background in disability, or other vulnerable or marginalized groups, preferably with a working knowledge on civil society organization.
· Experience in conducting participatory (qualitative and quantitative) evaluation techniques
· Experience working with Thailand actors, stakeholders preferably with actors assigned to temporary shelters along Thai-Burma border.
· Experience and/or knowledge in refugee contexts.
· Excellent spoken and written English.
The team will comprise national or country based experts or international consultants.
If only one expert is selected, s/he should have all the skills, experience and knowledge stated above.
8.FORMALITIES
Proposals from interested consultants should include:
· Proposed evaluation design and methodology based on project needs outlined by this ToR;
· Financial plan for the evaluation. All costs related to the evaluation without exceptions should be figured into the financial plan of the consultant, including consultancy fees, domestic and international travel, visa, accommodation, and per diem;
· Proposed activities and timetable (considering that contextual limitations will later be communicated by project team);
· Curriculum vitae detailing the evaluator’s preparedness, experience & expertise in project evaluation and disability work; reference of previous evaluation assignment done or sample of evaluation work accomplished;
· 3 References of which 2 should be from a previous evaluation experience;
· Registration certificate (copy);
· List of relevant Documents requested for the contractual process in case of selection (Passport, insurance, fiscal registration…).
The applicant must integrate all expenses related to the study which should include flights, logistics, organization of workshops etc. These should be integrated within the financial application.
Evaluation of the expression of interest will be made through a selection committee only if complete application is received. Criteria to select the best application will be based on quality of the methodology, human resources dedicated to the study, realistic work plan, previous experiences, demonstrated expertise of the applicant, and competitive financial proposition.
The deadline for submission of proposals is July 31, 2016 at midnight.
Proposals should be submitted to the following emails:
Only short-listed candidates will be notified. Selected applicants may be invited for a (phone/skype) interview.
HI reserves the right to contact the consultants for further information before the final selection of the evaluation team.
“Handicap International is committed to protect the rights of the children and opposes to all forms of child exploitation and child abuse. HI contractors must commit to protect children against exploitation and abuse”.
How to apply:
The deadline for submission of proposals is July 31, 2016 at midnight.
Proposals should be submitted to the following emails: