Impact Study of the Integrated Project Destined to Strengthen the Resilience of Rural... Tender

Procurement Summary

Country : USA

Summary : Impact Study of the Integrated Project Destined to Strengthen the Resilience of Rural Communities in Kita and Timbuktu Circles

Deadline : 09 Jun 2019

Other Information

Notice Type : Tender

TOT Ref.No.: 33522265

Document Ref. No. : ML-BM-02647

Competition : ICB

Financier : Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (SIDA)

Purchaser Ownership : -

Tender Value : Refer Document

Purchaser's Detail

Purchaser : ACTION AGAINST HUNGER
One Whitehall Street 2nd Floor New York, NY 10004 Phone: +1 (212) 967-7800
USA
Email :coordination.logistique@ml.acfspain.org

Tender Details

Tenders are invited for Impact Study of the Integrated Project Destined to Strengthen the Resilience of Rural Communities in Kita and Timbuktu Circles in Mali.


1.1. Key dates

Starting date 11 June 2019

Forecasted end date 11 August 2019

1.2. Work language

To carry out the study French and Local languages Langue du rapport French and « executive summary » in English

1.3. Steering Committee for the study

This study will be carried out by an external entity under the management and coordination of Action Against Hunger in Mali and in a close coordination with the Headquarters in Spain and United Kingdom. The steering committee will be set up in order to:

? Launch and oversee the study, ensuring that all the required information, documents and data are collected and collated.

? Validate the methodology and timeframe of the study.

? Support the logistics for the study to ensure that it is undertaken within the required time (transportation, accommodation)

? Review the reports produced throughout the evaluation period

? Organize workshops for disseminating the main results and highlights emerging from the study to different stakeholders.

? Validate and sign off the final version of the reports.

Action Against Hunger, represented by a Steering Committee, will be responsible for overall management of this assignment and will ensure that the selected organization is facilitated through provision of logistics and access to relevant documentation. This will ensure that the study is delivered within the required time, allocated budget and according to requirements of this ToR.

2. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

Objectives of the study

The purpose of this study is to draw the main lessons from the implementation of the project and to formulate practical recommendations highlighting good practices that can be replicated.

The logic to be followed by this study is shown on the following diagram:


The main objectives of the study and a list of non-exhaustive questions to be answered by the study are as follows (for more information you can go to annex 2): Whenever relevant, the following objectives and questions will be responded and explored following a gender approach, caring also for socially excluded groups and/or people.

1) Analyze the evolution of the situation of beneficiary households during the project period compared to their previous situation. (RESULTS ANALYSIS)

o 1.a.1) Are there observable changes in the socio-economic conditions of beneficiary households?

o Analyze the evolution or not of the socio-economic situation of households during the project period, compared to their pre-project situation; our objective is to know if they have changed socio-economic status (very poor / mediocre / average / rich), stagnant or deteriorating (emphasis on the impact of the interventions on the barriers identified during the study of the NCA)

o 1.a.2) Has the food security of beneficiary households improved?
o 1.a.3) Is the perception of beneficiary households positive about the achievement of output 2
and 3?
o 1.a.4) The nutritional situation of beneficiaries has improved?
o 1.a.5) Were the processes implemented by the project effective, efficient and relevant (based
on DAC criteria : Relevance, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability 1
)?
o 1.a.6) The resilience of beneficiary households has improved? (With the PRAM tool used at the
beginning of the project to measure the resilience level of households)
o 1.a.7) Is the improvement of the resilience of beneficiary households sustainable?
2) Characterize external and positive (activating) and negative (inhibitory) factors that influenced
household trajectory during the project period (SOCIAL RESEARCH)
- 2.b.1) What are the observable changes in terms of the living conditions of the beneficiaries?
- 2.b.2) What mechanisms have allowed the situation of beneficiary households to evolve during
the program? (Influence of the intervention on the barriers identified by the Link NCA study)
- 2.b.3) What are the changes perceived by communities (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) in
the behaviour of beneficiary households produced by the project?
- 2.b.4) What are the techniques implemented by the beneficiary community to improve its
resilience?
- 2.b.5) What factors have improved the socio-economic situation of beneficiary households?
- 2.b.6) What are the factors of improvement of the socio-economic situation which imply an
improvement of the food and nutritional security of the beneficiaries?
- 2.b.7) What is the beneficiaries' perception of the cross-cutting aspects of the project?
- 2.b.8) What are the limitations of the processes implemented in the project compared to the
project's theory of change?
3) Compare the evolution of the situation of beneficiary households during the project period
compared to non-beneficiaries OR compare the evolution of the situation of beneficiary
households between themselves according to activities packages of the project (to be further
defined by the study methodology) (IMPACT ANALYSIS)
- 3.a.1.1) Has the socio-economic situation of beneficiary households of the project improved
more than that of non-beneficiary households?
- 3.a.2.1) How much of this socio-economic improvement can be attributed to the project?
- 3.a.3.1) Has the food security of beneficiary households improved compared to other nonbeneficiary households?
- 3.a.4.1) How much of the improvement in food security can be attributed to the project?
- 3.a.5.1) Does the community (beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries) perceive changes in the
behaviour produced by the project with regard to outputs 2 and 3?
- 3.a.6.1) Has the nutritional status (nutritional security) of the beneficiaries improved compared
to that of the non-beneficiaries?
- 3.a.7.1) How much of this nutritional improvement (nutritional security) can be attributed to
the project?
- 3.a.8.1) Has the resilience of the beneficiaries improved compared to that of the non
beneficiaries?
- 3.a.9.1) How much have the different response to emergencies in Timbuktu and Taoudénit
regions have impacted the resilience level of the beneficiaries of the project? Also compared to
non-beneficiary population in the same regions?
OR

- 3.a.1.2) Has the socio-economic situation of beneficiary households of specific activities
packages of the project improved more than that other beneficiary households of other specific
activities packages?
- 3.a.2.2) How much of this socio-economic improvement can be attributed to one or other
activities package of the project?
- 3.a.3.2) Has the food security of beneficiary households improved differently between
beneficiary households of different activities packages?
- 3.a.4.2) How much of the improvement in food security can be attributed to one or other
activities package of the project?
- 3.a.5.2) Does the community (beneficiaries from one or other activities packages) perceive
changes in the behaviour produced by the project with regard to outputs 2 and 3?
- 3.a.6.2) Has the nutritional status (nutritional security) of the beneficiaries improved differently
between beneficiary households of different activities packages?
- 3.a.7.2) How much of this nutritional improvement (nutritional security) can be attributed to
one or other activities packages of the project?
- 3.a.8.2) Has the resilience of the beneficiaries improved differently between beneficiary
households of different activities packages?
- 3.a.9.2) Are the different response to emergencies in Timbuktu and Taoudénit regions have
impacted the resilience level of the beneficiaries of the project? Also compared between
beneficiary households of different activities packages?
4) Feasibility study of the reproduction of this type of initiative in the circles of Kita and Timbuktu
- Analyze as well the viability / sustainability (OECD DAC criteria) of the project : Relevance,
Effectiveness, Efficiency, Impact, Sustainability.
5) Recommendations and proposed theory of change for future resilience programs in these
areas, and possible Phase 2 of the project, with identified, clear and concrete programmatic lines
taking into account the Nexus approach.
To do this, a methodology will be developed, taking into account the following activities:
1) Confirm the theory of change of the project and/or elaborate another framework that
represents the impact pathways sought by the project.
2) Check the consistency and relevance of data collected to date around this theory of change
(baseline, participatory surveys, CAP surveys, surveillance system, PRAM, etc.).
3) Reinforce the systemic approach by creating a logic model with the components of the
structure, processes and results. This logic model will help create the analytical model that
responds to the project's theory of change. The theory of change needs to be reviewed to
reflect the program's activities and the mechanisms of change chosen by beneficiaries to
produce changes in their lives.

Documents

 Tender Notice