End of Project Evaluation – HUM Project

1**.Background of the Project**
DanChurchAid (DCA) has implemented the 2-year HUM Frame project 1010447-12, which aimed to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable refugees and host communities through sustainable livelihoods, financial inclusion and humanitarian responses. The project focused on climate-resilient agriculture, financial inclusion, business development, and youth entrepreneurship, particularly in the Kakuma Refugee Camp and Kalobeyei settlement areas and neighboring host community areas. The overall objective was to empower refugees and host communities economically and socially by equipping them with the necessary skills, knowledge, and financial tools to adapt to climate change, improve household food security, and foster sustainable livelihoods.
Key interventions included:
Agroecological-based livelihoods that includes climate smart vegetable, aloe vera, poultry production, and Insect farming (Black Soldier Fly & Cricket farming)
•Financial inclusion through Village Savings and Loans Associations (VSLAs) and digitization of financial systems.
•Business development services, innovative business grants and youth entrepreneurship support through the Youth Enterprise Fund.
•Multipurpose cash transfers to the most vulnerable households affected by drought and climate-related shocks.
The overall Objectives of the HUM Frame project was to strengthen the resilience of vulnerable refugees and host community through support to sustainable livelihoods and appropriate humanitarian response. The project had three specific objectives, namely:
i.Vulnerable Refugees and host community members are economically empowered through sustainable livelihoods to live dignified lives.
ii.Improved financial inclusion for refugees and host communities.
iii.Enhanced systematic programming, that enhances attainment of Core Humanitarian Standards (CHS) commitments.
2.0 Purpose of Evaluation

DCA intends to carry out an end of project evaluation under the HUM frame project. The purpose of the evaluation is to establish the extent to which targets set in the project have been achieved by assessing the key aspects pertaining to the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) /Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria of effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, relevance, impact, and sustainability. Specifically, the evaluation has the following three objectives:
i.Objective 1: Evaluate to what extent the project has been delivered, especially in contributing to the set objectives and achievement of outcomes as outlined in the project’s results framework.
ii.Objective 2: To what extent did the project achieve its intended outcomes in a cost-effective manner, ensuring that resources were efficiently utilized to maximize impact for project participants, while balancing the quality of outputs and long-term sustainability.
iii.Objective 3: To assess and document key lessons learnt from project implementation using outcome harvesting, guiding the design of future projects.
Specific Questions.
Effectiveness:
Evaluate the extent to which the project achieved its intended outcomes, particularly,
•Evaluate the extent to which the project achieved its intended outcomes particularly.
•The effectiveness of agroecological-based livelihoods and poultry farming in improving household food security and income.
•The success of financial inclusion initiatives, including VSLAs, e-vouchers for agricultural inputs, and multipurpose cash transfers.
•The impact of youth entrepreneurship support (business development services, mentorship, and access to loans via the Youth Enterprise Fund).
Key Questions:
•How effective were the interventions in improving household resilience and economic empowerment?
•Did the project participants adopt climate-resilient practices, and how did this affect food security and household income?
•How did financial inclusion initiatives contribute to improved economic outcomes for households?
•How successful have youth enterprises been in accessing loans and growing their businesses? How does access to loans impact the growth and sustainability of youth enterprises in terms of revenue, employment, and business expansion over a defined period? Assess the efficiency of the project in utilizing resources to achieve its outcomes.
•The efficiency of the e-voucher system in improving input acquisition for agricultural activities and enhancing linkage between selected agro-dealers and project participants.
•The cost-effectiveness of supporting youth enterprises through the Youth Enterprise Fund and other business development services.
•The timeliness and appropriateness of multipurpose cash transfers in response to the drought.
Key Questions:
•How efficiently were project resources used to achieve the desired outcomes?
•Could the same outcomes have been achieved with fewer resources or alternative strategies?
•How timely and efficient were the interventions in addressing the immediate and long-term needs of project participants?
Sustainability
Evaluate the sustainability of the project outcomes, particularly:
•The long-term sustainability of the VSLA model and its digitization in promoting financial inclusion.
•The potential for youth-led enterprises to continue growing and accessing larger financial opportunities beyond the project period.
•The sustainability of climate-resilient agriculture practices adopted by project participants.
Key Questions:
•Will the benefits of the project continue after the project ends?
•Are the financial inclusion models, such as VSLAs and youth loans, likely to sustain or scale up in the future?
•How likely are the climate-resilient agricultural practices to continue improving food security and livelihoods in the region?
Relevance
•Assess the relevance of the project interventions to the needs of the target population:
•How well did the project address the specific needs of refugees and host communities in terms of livelihoods, financial inclusion, and youth empowerment?
•Key Questions:
•Were the project interventions aligned with the priorities of the project participants and the socio-economic context of Kakuma and Kalobeyei?
•How did the interventions respond to the changing needs, particularly in the context of climate change and economic challenges?
Impact
•Assess the overall impact of the project on the target population:
•The impact of the project on household food security, income levels, and entrepreneurial culture.
•The contribution of the project to gender equality, particularly through the empowerment of youth and women in decision-making and financial inclusion.
Key Questions:
•What were the most significant changes resulting from the project?
•How has the project impacted the economic and social standing of women and youth in the target communities?
•What are the key lessons learned?
•What improvements have been proposed to improve project impact?
Value for Money/Listen Learn Act (LLA)
Key Questions:
•To what extent is the programme making use of Framework Contracts to reduce cost / increase value?
•To what extent are support teams involved in programming?
•To what extent has the programme been implemented according to the planned timeframe?
•To what extent is the ratio project activity / support costs reasonable over time depending on context?
•To what extent have affected communities been included in planning?
•Are accountability mechanisms in place and feeding into project design?
•To what extent is the programme reaching the most vulnerable (including in hard-to-reach areas)?
3.0 Scope of Work and Methodology.
The End of Project evaluation will be carried out in accordance with DCA’s Evaluation Norms and Standards of Evaluation and Ethical Standards as well as OECD/DAC evaluation principles and guidelines and in full compliance with the DAC Evaluation Quality Standards (206).
The evaluation will adopt a mixed-methods approach, combining qualitative and quantitative data collection. The evaluation will involve:
•Desk review of project documents, reports, and relevant secondary data.
•Field visits to the Kakuma and Kalobeyei areas to conduct Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), and household surveys.
•Stakeholder consultations with project participants, local authorities, financial institutions (e.g., SMEP), and DCA staff.
Data disaggregation by gender, age, community disaggregation (Refugee &Host) and location will be a key component to ensure comprehensive insights into project outcomes across different demographic groups.
4.0. Implementation Timelines Activity Deliverables Time Allocated

Activity Deliverables Time Allocated
Evaluation design, methodology and detailed work plan Inception report 3 days
Inception Meeting Initial briefing
Documents review and stakeholder consultations Desk review report 4 days
Field Visits Draft report 7 days
Data analysis, debriefing, and presentation of draft Evaluation Report 13 days
Validation Workshop Draft final Report 1 day
Finalization of Evaluation report, and submit to DCA Final Report 2 day

5.0 Expected Deliverables
The following deliverables are expected.
i.Inception Report: A detailed plan outlining the methodology, data collection tools, and work plan for the evaluation.
ii.Draft Evaluation Report: A comprehensive analysis of the findings with recommendations.
iii.Final Evaluation Report: A concise, actionable report (not more than 35 pages) incorporating feedback from DCA and stakeholders. The report should include user-friendly visuals, such as graphs comparing key metrics, case studies, and success stories.
The final report should follow the format of 1-3-25. In addition, the following deliverables are expected at various stages of the assignment:
•An inception meeting report which details what the consultancy team will do, and what research methodologies they will use. All data collection tools must be annexed. (Template to be agreed with DCA).
•Qualitative and quantitative data collection plan.
•A PowerPoint presentation of draft findings to DCA team for discussion and feedback.
•Presentation of the draft evaluation report to project stakeholders for validation.
•A Concise evaluation report of not more than 35 pages, including user-friendly graphs comparing midline data against baseline data for key metrics.
•Clean quantitative datasets in excel format with a data dictionary and data cleaning log.
•Worked quantitative dataset in Excel format showing analysis and graphs.
•Clean, transcribed qualitative datasets.
6.0. Required expertise and qualifications
The Evaluator must have the following expertise and qualifications:
•Lead consultant with at least a master’s degree in social sciences, project management, development studies, or related fields.
•At least 10 years of experience in evaluating development programs, particularly in livelihoods, financial inclusion, and climate-resilient agriculture.
•Demonstrated expertise in designing qualitative studies, in-depth knowledge about qualitative sampling, and experienced in using interview and interactive tools to generate qualitative information and analysis for knowledge management.
•Technical expertise and field experience in applying Collaborate, Learn, Adapt (CLA) or other program learning and adaptive management principles in international development programming.
•Demonstrated capabilities of translating knowledge and evidence from research and M&E into programmatic and policy decisions.
•Experience conducting independent research and analysis on food security, resilience, financial inclusion, market linkages or related topics in refugee and ASAL contexts preferred.
•At least 7 years of experience working in refugee contexts and ASAL areas in Kenya.
•Strong expertise in quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis.
•Demonstrated knowledge of outcome harvesting and OECD/DAC evaluation criteria is an added advantage.