Expression Of Interest : External Evaluation for MenCare+ Programme


RutgersWPF Indonesia is an organisation working on sexual reproductive health and
rights (SRHR) and sexual gender based violence (SGBV)
. We have a longstanding expertise in this field and work together with
organisations in many other countries. RutgersWPF Indonesia consists of a
dynamic team of 20 staff members. RutgersWPF Indonesia works together with many
partner organizations in promoting SRHR and working on prevention of SGBV.
 
Terms of Reference EXTERNAL EVALUATION FOR MENCARE PROGRAMME 

1.     Introduction MenCare+
Programme

ContextImproving SRHR of girls and women is seriously
hindered by prevailing social cultural notions of masculinities in the
respective countries, Indonesia, Rwanda, South Africa and Brazil, reinforced by
various conservative religions. Girls and women suffer from poor SRHR outcomes,
feminization of Hiv/Aids, and domestic violence. Engaging boys and (young) men
is as crucial as strategic for improving SRHR for all, reduction of domestic
violence and more equal relationships. Becoming a father is a ‘life-event’ and
offering an exceptional opportunity to get through to young men with a new
perspective on manhood. When fathers become more caring, domestic violence goes
down, SRHR of women improves, and children develop better. This allows a unique
and global tipping point in the equality between men and women to become a
reality. If fathers start caring, everyone will be a winner: men, women, and
children.
 Overall Objective of Mencare+ The central objective of the
MenCare Programme is to address harmful social and cultural norms and
behaviours that negatively impact SRHR and MCH outcomes by engaging young and
adult men as caregiving partners.
 Programme objectives include:

  • Addressing male norms and
    behaviours that influence SRHR outcomes;
  • Engagement of  (young) men in stopping domestic
    violence as a major impediment to SRHR;
  • Engagement of young men
    via caregiving and as fathers as an effective way to promote better MCH

    outcomes as well as men’s support for women’s contraceptive use;

  • Creating an enabling
    environment for engaging men in SRHR and MCH and to stop domestic
    violence.

 Result AreasThe result areas covered by

the programme:

·   Result Area 1: Young men and caregivers are better informed and
better able to make healthier   choices regarding their sexuality, relationships,
maternal health, and caregiving
·   Result Area 2: Increasing young men’s/couples access to
contraceptives, including male and female condoms, to promote good health
·   Result Area 3: Public and private clinics provide better sexual and
reproductive healthcare services, including domestic violence services, which
more people are using
·    Result Area 4: Greater respect for the sexual and reproductive health
rights of people to whom these rights are denied

 Contribution to SRHR
Objectives
Combined the outcome
indicators under the 4 result areas all work towards positively influencing the
SRH status of women and men, specifically addressing prevailing norms of
masculinity and inadequate SRH information and services. Removing these
obstacles will ultimately have an impact on reducing maternal mortality, teenage
pregnancy
and domestic violence.
 Young and adult men will
transform them from a potential cultural bottleneck into involved  partners for implementing SRHR. The
experiences in four countries in three continents will lead to evidence based
key indicators to stimulate this approach in other regions and countries.
 Main Programme Activities:

  • Increasing young
    men’s/caregivers knowledge allowing them to make informed / healthier
    choices regarding their sexuality, relationship and care-giving by
    awareness training to public and private stakeholders.
  • Increasing young
    men’s/couples access to contraceptives, including male and female condoms
    to promote good health by identifying needs of target group and match with
    actual supply, providing community action plans for improvement. 
  • Public and private
    clinics provide better sexual and reproductive healthcare services,
    including domestic violence services, which more people are using because
    of the involvement in awareness training, feedback of target group and
    needs assessment.
  • Greater respect for the sexual and
    reproductive health rights of people to whom these rights are denied.

 Target GroupsThe Programme work in four
result areas, and target 1) young and un-partnered/unmarried aged; 2) men and
couples who are expecting the birth of a child aged; 3) health providers and
counsellors; and 4) men who are at risk of using violence against an intimate
partner.
 Key group:
M
en ages
15-35 who are either young fathers, or unmarried but at the age at which they
are internalizing messages about SRHR. These groups are divided into separate
interventions for:

1.   

Younger,
unmarried men
– group education and community campaigns with a
focus on fatherhood and maternal health, and training of health sector workers
to reach them, making use of Programme H. 
Roughly ages 15-21.
2.   Married and parenting men
– these will be reached with couple-based group education during the pre-natal
period via the public health sector, and the MenCare campaign.

 Programme Partners The MenCare+ Programme is
implemented with partner organisations in the four provinces in East Java, DI
Yogyakarta, Jakarta and Lampung.
 

2.     Objective of
Evaluation

Rationale for the Evaluation: As the Mencare+ programme will come to an end by
December 2015, the Mencare+ Programme  in
Indonesia calls for an external, independent evaluation to provide the partners
with an objective view on the progress of the programme.
Furthermore in order to be accountable to the Dutch
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Rutgers WPF Indonesia would like to assess to what
extent the intervention has reached its objectives, as laid down in the
proposal and assess whether there is still a need for the activities supported.
A publication on the main findings will be shared with
the international SRHR field, the Dutch development sector and the Ministry of
Foreign Affairs.
Objectives of this evaluation
are to:

  1. Analyse the programmes achievements against the set objectives of
    the MenCare+ programme
  2. Understand what
    processes have led to these results, including the enabling and hampering
    factors, as well as the cooperation between the partners in the Mencare+
    programme
  3. Propose feasible
    recommendations to inform future programme design.

 Evaluation Criteria:The
evaluation will generate evidence on the programmes intervention approach and
performance through the standard OECD-DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, efficiency,
effectiveness and impact as well as sustainability.
  

3.     Tasks to be Performed

The evaluation team will conduct a qualitative and
quantitative assessment of the programme implementation through desk review of
relevant documentation, interviews with key stakeholders, and visits to
selected programme  sites in Indonesia.
Exact tasks to be undertaken by the evaluator will be determined in close
consultation with RutgersWPF Indonesia.
Guiding
Evaluation questions
Guiding
evaluation questions are outlined below, and must be further detailed by the
evaluator team.

Relevance (alignment/harmonisation and current situation):

1.   Assess the
extent to which the programme strategy, activities, and expected outcomes and
outputs are justified and were relevant to beneficiaries’ assessed needs,
country’s policies and donor’s priorities. Has this context changed since the
start of the programme? To what extent have MenCare+ activities corresponded to
the overall aims and objectives of the programme?
2.  To what
extent is the programme appreciated by the government of Indonesia? Are other
NGO’s working on the same issues?
3.   To what
extent are the modules and toolkits developed used and are valuable to address
the situation in the programme locations?
4.   To what
extent has the design (and redesign) of the programme influenced the
achievement of results? To what extent was the design logic, i.e do outputs
lead to outcomes? How could any gaps in design logic be addressed in a future
programme
5.   After three
years of implementation, what are the gaps identified in the overall design,
approach, and strategies of the programme? How should these gaps be addressed?
To what extent do these gaps call for further programme action?

 Efficiency

and Effectiveness

1.  To what
extent were programme resources (funds, expertise, time, etc.) were optimally
used and converted into intended results. Was working in the MenCare+
programme  relevant, effective, and
efficient for partner organisations, in terms of their capacity?
2.  To what
extent have the programmes expected outputs and outcomes been achieved in so
far not assessed by the Outcome Measurement. Factors contributing to or
detracting from the achievement of the programme desired results and objectives
should also be included in the assessment.
3.   To
which extent have the dissemination activities reached relevant stakeholders?

 Impact and Sustainability

1.  Impacts (or
progress to impact): analysing any positive or negative, primary and secondary
long-term effects produced by the program, directly or indirectly, intended or
unintended.
2.  To what
extent has the  programme promoted and
achieved sustainability of initiatives?
3.  Although the
Mencare approach is only in its third year of implementation in Indonesia, what
is the potential impact resulting from the achievement of outputs in the years
to come, if the implementation will be continued?
4.  What sort of
modalities or strategies should the partners in the Mencare programme have in
order to deliver the best results under the partnership with the Government of
Indonesia, effectively and efficiently?

 

4.     Tangible outputs

The
team of consultants should work on the following deliverables:
a. Inception report: The
consultants are requested to develop an inception report, including tools,
methodology and a schedule of field activities.
b.  Draft evaluation report (max
50 Pages)
c.  One Feedback workshop for all
partners 

 d.   Final
evaluation report and all data gathered during the consultancy
 

 

5.     Methodology

The evaluator will
make use of existing monitoring and evaluation documentation and results of the
outcome measurement to answer the leading questions of this evaluation, adding
value to current reports by a critical assessment and cross-analysis of
secondary data, which can be strengthened by additional data collection. The
research team will focus its’ field studies on remaining questions that need
further and more in-depth research, and to verify the existing documentation in
a selected number of countries.  In general the methodology to conduct this external evaluation consists
of the following:

  1. Desk research:

 Prior to conducting desk study the evaluator will draw up a list of
documents relevant to the programme with Rutgers WPF staff. This list includes
but is not limited tot:

•     
Existing programme documentation and
literature

•     
Baseline study

•     
Outcome measurement 2015

•     
Monitoring reports

•     
Training curricula and workshop reports

•     
Bi annual and annual reports

•     
Government policy documents,
•     
Review of statistics
related to SRHR and SGBV

     2.    Interviews with relevant resource persons and partner
organizations
 •     A tentative list of resource persons will be provided later and needs to
be discussed and approved at a later stage.
•  Extensive in depth interviews will be held with the management and staff
of the four implementing partner organizations.
•    An interview guideline will be developed
for use during the in depth interviews with the suggested resource persons and
organizations. The interview guideline will contain all relevant questions.tf

3.     Focus Group Discussions (FGD’s) •   FGD’s need to be organized with relevant
key persons to crosscheck between the data and the facts and to obtain relevant
data on the programme. FGD guides need to be developed prior to the FGD’s
4.    Analysis and Draft and final report •  The evaluator will subsequently review
documents, reconstruct the log frame, draw up an evaluation matrix, collect
additional data, conduct interviews and FGD’s, analyze the obtained data and
compile a draft report (max 50 pages).
Taking into account remarks and comments from Rutgers WPF the evaluator
will prepare a final report within 14 days after receiving input to the draft
report. 

Applicants
are requested to propose an evaluation approach, taking into account the
following criteria:Add 1.
The applicant is welcomed to include additional research methodologies to the
desk study in the proposal.Add 2.
The applicant is requested to propose the methodological design for the field
studies.  After selection of the
applicants, the proposals will be developed into country specific ToRs in
collaboration with the consultant, the country alliance and the Alliance
Evaluation Core Group.Add 3.
There is a preference for a mixed methodology approach, and participative
and/or innovative approaches and meaningful youth participation are
welcomed.  

6.    
Required Expertise of the consultants team/Specifications

The Alliance will contract an evaluation team with a

lead consultant to the following selection criteria: ·     Masters’ degree in social sciences and advanced skills
in Research Methodologies; Quantitative and qualitative skills, and analysis of
secondary data.
·     At least 5 years experiences in the development sector
with a primary focus on SRHR.
o  
Knowledge of (adolescent) Sexual Reproductive Health
and Rights, Gender Based Violence and preferably, Male Involvement
·     Proven evaluation skills in SRHR programs, Gender
Based Violence and Male Involvement
·     Experiences in leading an evaluation team·  Ability to work independently, demonstrating
initiatives and responding appropriately to  constructive feedback 
·    Is experienced in sharing and discussing evaluation
findings with clients, in-country partners and beneficiaries and will do so in
an appropriate way

The lead
researcher should not have had any professional relationship with either the
MenCare+ program for the past three years.
 

7.     Work plan and timeline

Indicative timeline:·        
Deadline for proposals: December 7th 
·        
Start of the assignment: December 20th 
·        
First draft report: January 20th 2016
·        
Response partners: February 20th 2016
·        
Second draft report: February 29th 2016
·        
Response alliances: March 20th 2016
·        
Submit final report: April 30th (2016)
The
evaluation proposal that will be selected will demonstrate an appropriate
balance between quality and costs of the evaluation.
 

8.  
How to apply

Please
express your interest in a max. 4 page outline (addressing research
methodologies in relation to evaluation questions, data gathering and analysis,
composition of research team and your motivation) explaining how you would
approach this assignment.

Please
include in the annexes:

  • CV, including relevant experience(s) and personal
    profile(s) of co-evaluators (if any)
  • Number of days you would spend on the assignment,
  • Daily fee and total budget (exclude workshop
    budget)
  • Availability from
    December (2015) – April (2016)
  • Two recent studies
    conducted by the lead researcher on this assignment

 
Interested
consultants, or organizations can submit their EOI by e-mail to : [email protected],

indicating
the title of this assignment (EOI External Evaluation for MenCare+)

and
deadline at 5.00 pm (Jakarta time), December 7 2015

0068337
Visit Today : 183
This Month : 2229
Hits Today : 935
Total Hits : 221404
Who's Online : 2
Visit Us On FacebookVisit Us On TwitterVisit Us On YoutubeVisit Us On Instagram