The Ugandan Jobline

Consultancy Title:    Terms of Reference (ToR) – End line Evaluation for Torture Prevention and Accountability Project (TPAP)

Organisation: African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (ACTV)

Duty Station:  Kampala, Uganda

 

Background

The Torture Prevention and Accountability Project started in 2018 in order to contribute towards addressing violence, torture, impunity, and transitional justice under the DGF areas of intervention. The project aimed at empowering local communities to advocate against torture; advocate for the implementation of the PPTA and its regulations; provide holistic rehabilitation for torture survivors in Uganda and strengthen the institutional capacity of African Centre for Treatment and Rehabilitation of Torture Victims (ACTV) to deliver on her mandate. It was expected that the project would contribute towards increased access to justice by survivors of torture, strengthened capacity of criminal justice institutions and key actors to address torture, enhanced capacity of the coalition against torture to advocate against torture, increased awareness among local communities on torture and rehabilitation of torture survivors.

The project was a national project but focused its interventions in the districts Kampala, Mukono, Wakiso Mubende, the Rwenzori region comprising of the districts of Kabarole, Kasese, Bundibugyo, Ntoroko, and Northern Uganda in the districts of Gulu, Amur, Kitgum, Pader, Lira and Apac. These were districts in which torture was most prevalent including being in the vicinity of both the ACTV-Kampala and ACTV-Gulu centres.

The project specific objectives were:

• To empower local communities, state and non-state actors to advocate against torture
• To advocate for the implementation of PPTA and its regulations
• To provide holistic rehabilitation for torture survivors in Uganda by utilising the ACTV Medical reports for them to access justice

 

The project out puts were:

• Access to justice by torture survivors improved
• Enhanced mechanisms for torture prevention and accountability in Uganda
• Collaboration and networking among Coalition Against Torture (CAT) members on torture strengthened
• Increased awareness among local communities on torture
• Strengthened partnerships with national, regional and international organizations advocating against torture

2.1 Holistic services accessed by torture survivors

 

Purpose of the end line evaluation

The purpose for this evaluation is to assess the performance of the project and capture project achievements, challenges and best practices to inform future similar programming. The evaluation will also identify key lessons learned, and flexibility of the project to adapt and respond to the changes during the implementation period

The end line evaluation will have four objectives:

• Evaluate to what extent the project delivered on effectiveness, efficiency, relevancy, impact and sustainability as per the OECD DAC criteria of evaluation
• Assess degree of empowerment of local communities, state and non-state actors in advocating against torture
• Assess the implementation of PPTA and its regulations
• Identify key project achievements, lessons learned/best practices, challenges and draw recommendations for future ACTV programming

 

The evaluation questions are further detailed below per evaluation objectives.

Objective 1: Evaluate to what extent the project has delivered effective, efficient, relevant and timely activities to beneficiaries as set in the project log frame.

1. Effectiveness:

• To what extent have the planned objectives in the log frame of the project, been reached, per indicator, disaggregated by gender and age
• To what extent have the project activities contributed to the overall goal? Was the project effective in Torture Prevention and Accountability
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement of the objectives of the project? o What opportunities for collaboration have been, utilized and how have these contributed to increased effectiveness? or otherwise?

1. Efficiency:

• How efficient was the delivery of project, not only in terms of expenditure, but also in terms of implementation of activities?
• What would have been opportunities within project to reach more beneficiaries with the available budget or to reduce costs while reaching at least the same number of beneficiaries without compromising quality?
• What choices were, made in terms of collaboration and non-collaboration during project design?
• Were, alterations made to the project design in terms of collaboration during the implementation phase based on the reality on the ground?
• What were the outcomes of these choices for effective and efficient program implementation?
• Relevance/Impact:
• implemented improved their lives? Are there any stories of change?
• How has the collaboration and networking among Coalition Against Torture (CAT) members contributed to Torture Prevention and Accountability
• To what extent was project able to adapt and provide appropriate response to context changes and emerging needs, and the priorities of beneficiaries?

1. Sustainability

• Will the changes caused by this project continue beyond the life of the project?
• What, mechanisms have ACTV and partners put in place to sustain the key project Outputs and Outcomes?
• How has the project worked with local partners/structures to increase their capacity in a sustainable way?
• What motivations /mechanisms exist for the CAT network to continue playing these roles?
• What are the risks facing sustainability of project Outputs and Outcomes?
• Sustainability
• To what extent, did the project interventions contributed to build long-term community capacity in rehabilitation of Survivors of Torture (SOTs) and other forms of violence?

1. Quality:

• The end line evaluation should assess the overall quality of the implementation. It is important to include beneficiaries’ opinion on the quality of the services received.
• Did the quality of activities, delivered by project meet the needs and expectations of the beneficiaries? What do beneficiaries feel could be improved in Contribution to improving local community capacity in rehabilitation of Survivors of Torture (SOTs) and other forms of violence
• To what extent, was the project participatory in all the project cycle?

Objective 2: Assess how empowered of local communities, state and non-state actors are in advocating against torture

Learning:

• Which of the interventions, approaches, and modalities/strategies have been most effective in empowering the different stakeholders in advocating against torture
• Is there any substantial evidence on how project learning, were generated and applied to improve the delivery or effectiveness or efficiency of activities?
• Who benefited from shared learning experiences (e.g. quarterly, joint field visits, workshops provision on best approaches and methodology)
• How did the different actors learn from these experiences?

Objective 3: Assess the implementation of PPTA and its regulations

Objective 4: Identify and assess key lessons learned, challenges and draw recommendations for future ACTV programming

• The end line evaluation should at least include one lesson learned and recommendation per evaluation category, i.e. effectiveness, efficiency, relevance etc.
• What are the key lessons learned per objective? To what extent has the delivery of response activities contributed to effective, efficient, relevant and timely delivery of aid and enhanced impact for the survivors of torture and other forms of violence?

 

Methodology

The methodology will, be developed by the consultant, as well as all relevant tools and presented in the inception report. The four evaluation objectives mentioned above should, be assessed, including all research questions under each objective.

• The data collection should include the use of a number of approaches to gain a deeper understanding of the outcomes of the project, including:
• Desk review of background documents (project document, project monitoring data, progress reports, field visit reports etc.
• Key informant interviews (e.g. criminal justice actors (police, prisons, DPP, Judiciary, UPDF), CAT members, ACTV project staff members, i.e. Head of Program (HOP) and some technical staff Substantial anecdotal evidence on the effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability of the project
• Focus group discussions (e.g. Survivors of Torture (SOTs), community members, Local authorities etc. The FGD will serve as input for the narrative anecdotal evidence.
• Next to the data collection method, an appropriate and strategic sampling method should be selected e.g. snowball sampling, purposeful random sampling or mixed purposeful sampling methods

 

Deliverables

The consultant is, expected to lead, accomplish and submit the following deliverables within the agreed timeframe and budget:

An inception report, which will serve as an agreement between parties on how the evaluation will be, conducted. Items to address:

• Understanding of the issues and questions raised in the ToR
• Data sources; how to assess the questions in the ToR
• Research methodology, including suggested sample and size
• Schedule of activities and traveling (timeline)
• Detailed budget

■ Raw data in any of the following statistical packages (STATA, SPSS, cSPro) and also transcribed qualitative scripts

A max 35-page draft and final evaluation report (in MS Office and PDF for final), excluding annexes and in English

The report should be in the format indicated above, to be submitted to ACTV. It is preferable to illustrate the results by appropriate graphs, visuals, tables and/or a dashboard with an accompanied explanatory text. The report should consist of:

1. Executive Summary in bullets (max. 2 pages)
2. Introduction
3. Methodology, including sampling and limitations
4. Analysis and findings of the evaluation. The analysis should be done according to the objectives:

• evaluation objective 1
• evaluation objective 2
• evaluation objective 3
• evaluation objective 4

1. Address concerns, lessons learned and comments from ACTV
2. Stories of change and quotes from respondents
3. Conclusions for each of the end line evaluation objectives
4. Recommendations for future projects
5. Annexes:

• Relevant maps and photographs of the evaluation areas where necessary
• Bibliography of consulted secondary sources
• Finalized data collection tools

List of interviewees with accompanying informed consent forms

 

Indicative timescales

The data collection phase in the field is to be, confirmed between the consultant and ACTV, but ideally would start on the 23^rd August 2022, with the final report deadline to ACTV by 30^th September 2022

 

Qualifications and experience

Required

• At least Master’s degree in Social Sciences, Law, Human Rights, Public Health, Monitoring and Evaluation or a related field
• At least 7 years’ experience in working with humanitarian sectoral programs
• Demonstrated experience with quantitative and qualitative research and statistical data analysis Experience of evaluating rehabilitation programs
• Proven record of communicating with survivors of torture and other forms of violence

 

How to Apply:

Along with their CV interested candidates should submit:

• A technical proposal explaining, their comprehension of the, ToR, and how they would approach this assignment, summarising, the methodologies, and approaches they, plan to use, including a timeline.
• Two samples of similar previous assignments
• Their availability
• A financial proposal outlining their expected fees and costs

 

All interested candidates/firms should submit a technical and financial proposal and two samples of similar previous assignments. Applications should be, submitted to actv@actvuganda.org or ceo@actvuganda.org

 

Deadline: 19^th August 2022.

 

For more of the latest jobs, please visit https://www.theugandanjobline.com or find us on our facebook page https://www.facebook.com/UgandanJobline

Related Jobs