1. PROJECT AND ORGANIZATIONAL OVERVIEW
1.1 Background information
DFID provides significant funding to civil society organizations (CSOs) annually in line with its overall strategy to alleviate poverty and promote peace, stability and good governance. The current political climate and results-based agenda demand a rigorous assessment of the effectiveness of funds disbursed to ensure that they are managed to provide value for money. DFID has funded a 30-months project in Bellevue La Montagne and Kenscoff, Haiti within its Global Poverty Alleviation Fund (GPAF). The grant has been awarded to Food for the Hungry UK (the grantee) and the implementing partner, Food for the Hungry Haiti.
1.2 Introduction
Founded in 1971, Food for the Hungry (FH) is a Christian international organization that seeks to end ALL forms of human poverty by going into the hard places and closely walking with the world’s most vulnerable people. It operates relief and development programs in 18 countries with a focus on maternal and child health, HIV/AIDS prevention and treatment, agriculture production, marketing and natural resource management; child education; clean water, hygiene and sanitation, and micro-enterprise development. FH takes a behavior-centered model for all of its development programming in order to influence norms and behaviors and create an enabling environment for results within all of these sectors.
Food for the Hungry Haiti (FHH) became operational in 2007 when it assumed responsibility for the Foundation of Compassionate American Samaritans’ activities. Following the earthquake in January 2010, FH and partners Project Concern International and AmeriCares rapidly responded to the needs of communities impacted by the disaster. On February 1, USAID/OFDA awarded FHH a grant to expand and strengthen the ongoing joint response to address immediate and continuing needs of affected communities in the following sectors: Health, Logistics Support, Relief Commodities (NFI distribution), Protection, Shelter and Settlements, and WASH. In October 2010, cholera quickly spread throughout Haiti and FHH and its partners responded, focusing on prevention activities. In late 2010, FHH began to implement recovery and development projects to respond to the long-term needs of the communities in west (Kenscoff and Bellevue la montagne) and central plateau department (Belladere).

1.3 Project context
The rural mountain areas of Bellevue la montagne and Kenscoff perform poorly compared to the rest of Haiti for majority of development indicators, including Maternal and Child Health (MCH). The treacherous terrain and eroded roads in Bellevue la montagne and Kenscoff renders some section of these communities inaccessible especially during rainy and hurricane season. Residents have to walk for more than 6 hours on foot and horse back to access the nearest hospital and only 29% of the population in Bellevue la montagne and 10% in Kenscoff have access to health services. The common childhood illnesses among children under five (U5) in Bellevue la montagne and Kenscoff are diarrhea, malaria, acute respiratory infections and malnutrition. The low level of latrine usage, which stands at 21.7% in Bellevue la montagne and 8.6% in Kenscoff, is a significant contributor to the high incidence of diarrhoea among children U5. Chronic malnutrition stands at 15% in BLM and 17% in Kenscoff with an additional 6% of children in Bellevue la montagne and 8% in Kenscoff suffering from severe malnutrition. It is estimated that only 15% of children in BLM and 8% in Kenscoff are fully vaccinated. Traditional cultural practices are among factors leading to the elevated maternal mortality rate and U5 mortality rate in Bellevue la montagne and Kenscoff. Only 24.3% of women in these rural communities give birth with a skilled birth attendant present and majorities have no postpartum check-up at all. Women often prefer local matrons to professionally trained midwives because the practice of home childbirth has been passed down through generations. With morbidity so high, this project has tried to address the need for both improved prevention and treatment of common, yet often fatal, childhood diseases at community level to reduce the burden of care on families and to ensure availability of resources when medical attention is required.
The MCH project seeks to improve nutrition, hygiene and health- seeking behaviors among pregnant women and caregivers of children under five in Bellevue La Montagne and Kenscoff, Haiti, thereby contributing to a reduction in the high maternal and under-five mortality rates in these communities.
Project Outputs
• Community Health Workers (CHWs) and Care Group Volunteers (CGVs) are better trained and equipped to promote positive MCH-seeking behavior at community level.
• Caregivers of children under-five and pregnant women have improved awareness and knowledge about appropriate MCH-seeking behavior.
• Target households benefit from additional training and support for improved nutrition, hygiene and sanitation.
2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION
The independent final evaluation reports that are submitted by grantees will be used to inform the Fund Manager’s understanding of the grantee’s performance at the project level and will also be used to inform the Evaluation Manager’s assessment of performance at the UK Aid Direct fund level.
The independent final evaluation report needs to be a substantial document that (a) answers all the elements of theTerms of Reference (ToR); (b) provides findings and conclusions that are based on robust and transparent evidence; and (c) where necessary supplements the grantee’s own data with independent research.
Further, FHH also look forward to learn from this project and use evidences to make adjustments to country strategy and be guided in future programming.
3. OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
The evaluation has explicit objectives that are explained below:
1. To independently verify (and supplement where necessary), grantees’ record of achievement as reported through its Annual Reports and defined in the project logframe;
2. To assess the extent to which the project was good value for money, which includes considering:
o How well the project met its objectives;
o How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency in relation to delivery of its outcome;
o What has happened because of DFID funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened; and
o How well the project aligns with DFID’s goals of supporting the delivery of the MDGs (now SDGs).
3. We also wish to:
• To assess project progress as measured through key indicators against the baseline and determine gap closures in key behaviour’s being promoted by the project.
• Identify and document lessons learned and include recommendations for any new similar project going forward.
4. EVALUATION FRAMEWORK AND METHODOLOGY
FH Haiti wishes to hire a consultant who is expected to lead and coordinate this evaluation in close collaboration with FH staff involved in the implementation of the project. The consultant will be expected to adopt a “Learning Process Approach” that integrates both blue print and participatory methodology for this evaluation, using deductive as well as inductive data collection techniques. The evaluation methodology must conform to a sound study design and impeccable sampling techniques. Where appropriate sample size estimation should clearly indicate confidence interval and level of significance. The detailed evaluation questions and suggested methods are described in the table below:
Key Question
Key Question Measurement Method Source of data Relevance • To what extent did FH support achievement towards the MDGs, specifically off-track MDGs? • To what extent did the project target and reach the poor and marginalised? • To what extent did the project mainstream gender equality in the design and delivery of activities (and or other relevant excluded groups)? • How well did the project respond to the needs of target beneficiaries, including how these needs evolved over time? • To what extent was the project aligned to the government of Haiti’s strategy for Maternal, Child Health and Nutrition Program. • To what level is the project aligned to FH (Child Focused Community Development) CFCT Program model? • To what extent did the project mainstream gender equality in the design and delivery of activities (and or other relevant excluded groups)? Analysis and Reflections Data collected during the evaluation Effectiveness • What have been the milestones achieved against the baseline? • To what extent are the results that are reported a fair and accurate record of achievement? • To what extent has the project delivered results that are value for money? To include but not limited to: o How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency in relation to delivery of its outcome; o What has happened because of DFID funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened; and • To what extent has the project used learning to improve delivery? • What are the key drivers and barriers affecting the delivery of results for the project? Reports, household survey Document review Cost benefit analysis Mothers with children 0-59 months Project records Project recortds Efficiency • To what extent did FH deliver results on time and on budget against agreed plans? • To what extent did the project understand cost drivers and manage these in relation to performance requirements? Financial Analysis Financial Reports Sustainability • To what extent has the project leveraged additional resources (financial and in-kind) from other sources? • What effect has this had on the scale, delivery or sustainability of activities? • To what extent is there evidence that the benefits delivered by the project will be sustained after the project ends? Document Review, Key Informant Interviews Project Staff Impact • To what extent and how has the project built the capacity of civil society? • How many people are receiving support from the project that otherwise would not have received support? • To what extent and how has the project affected people in ways that were not originally intended? • To what extent have changes occurred through the project's direct influence over caregivers/pregnant women behaviours Analysis and Reflections Outcome mapping Data collected during the evaluation 5. Timeframe
FH proposes January 2 – February 28, 2017 as the dates for the final evaluation. The draft report should be available from February 17th and final report by February 28th. Details can be negotiated based on the availability of the selected consultant.
Reporting
Evaluation reports should not be longer than 40 pages long (excluding potential annexes) and should follow guidelines provided in the UK Aid Direct Final Independent Evaluation FAQs.

6. Consultants’ Qualifications
FH seeks to engage the services of an experienced Firm or individuals to undertake the specified tasks thereof.
The consultants must possess the following:
• A minimum of seven years’ experience in program/project evaluation in an international development context.
• Experience of results-based monitoring and evaluation;
• Ability to design and plan the evaluation approaches and research methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research methods. Skills and expertise in design, planning and conducting impact evaluation using experimental or quasi-experimental techniques;
• Knowledge in maternal and child health and nutrition programming
• Ability to manage a potentially complex evaluation and research process, including interpreting baseline data and conducting a final evaluation;
• Ability to manage data and information and handling large datasets for monitoring and evaluation purposes;

7. Deliverables and timeframe
The final evaluation report needs to be a substantial document that (a) answers all the elements of the Terms of Reference (ToR); (b) provides findings and conclusions that are based on robust and transparent evidence; and (c) where necessary supplements the grantee’s own data with independent research.
To ensure consistency across evaluation reports, the following structure should be used for reporting:
Executive Summary

Introduction
• Purpose of the evaluation
• Organisation context
• Logic and assumptions of the evaluation
• Overview of UK Aid Direct funded activities
Evaluation Methodology
• Evaluation plan
• Strengths and weaknesses of selected design and research methods
• Summary of problems and issues encountered
Findings
• Overall Results
• Assessment of accuracy of reported results
• Relevance
• Effectiveness
• Efficiency
• Sustainability
• Impact
Conclusions
• Summary of achievements against evaluation questions
• Summary of achievements against rationale for GPAF funding
• Overall impact and value for money of GPAF funded activities
Lessons learnt (where relevant)
• Project level - management, design, implementation
• Policy level
• Sector level
• UK Aid Direct management
Recommendations
Annexes (such as)
• Independent final evaluation terms of reference
• Evaluation research schedule
• Evaluation framework
• Data collection tools
• List of people consulted
• List of supporting documentary information
• Details of the evaluation team
• Grantee management response to report findings and recommendations

The consultant should submit the “Expression of Interest” detailing understanding of this term of reference and a proposal for conducting this evaluation. Additionally, consultant should provide a proof of past experience and recent assignments and submit a CV of key personnel who will be involved in this assignment