USAID Liberia Civil Society Activity (CSA)

Scope of Work

Task Title: Mid-Term Evaluation

Project Name: Civil Society Activity (CSA)

Project Timeframe: November 5, 2021 – November 4, 2026

Location: Bong, Grand Bassa, Lofa, Margibi, Montserrado, Nimba, and Grand Cape Mount.

Timeframe: August – September 2024

Level of effort: Twenty-six (26) working days.

1. ACTIVITY BACKGROUND:

The Liberia Civil Society Activity (CSA) aims to strengthen Liberian Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) to more effectively engage their constituents (citizens), contribute to decision-making processes, and oversee government actions. The purpose of the activity is to strengthen Liberians’ ability to advocate for policy reforms, policy implementation, and service delivery through multi-stakeholder coalitions that build feedback loops among government, CSOs, and its citizens. CSA will build on lessons learned from USAID’s Liberia Accountability and Voice Initiative (CSA), LEGIT, and the Media Activity implemented by DAI.

1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE MID-TERM EVALUATION:

The primary purpose of the Mid-Term Evaluation is to assess the performance of the project from November 5, 2021, to June 30, 2024, and offer formative recommendations for improving processes in the upcoming phase, including the extent to which the project activities have contributed to the below objectives:

Objective 1: Linkages between CSOs with shared priorities strengthened to increase their impact.

Objective 2: Civil society’s ability to serve as a conduit for information between constituents and officials enhanced.

Objective 3: Supported CSOs’ financial and organizational sustainability enhanced. Objective 4: On-going capacity development services available on the local market.

III. MID-TERM EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

The Mid-Term Evaluation will be conducted by an external evaluator, and it will use a participatory approach in which the evaluator will work closely with CSA project staff including partners and stakeholders. The Mid-Term Evaluation will use a mixed methods approach of both quantitative and qualitative methods involving in-depth interviews, focus group discussions, and site visits with beneficiaries and key informants (i.e. students, teachers, community members, local government officials, etc.).

The evaluation process is conceived in terms of its social-political setting. The firm/consultants are expected to be astute with their written presentation as this involves the lives of many whose welfare could be affected either positively or negatively. The team will ensure that relevant partners and stakeholders actively participate to ensure high quality, credibility, and effectiveness of the exercise.

In line with this statement of work, the firm/consultant will take the primary responsibility for the design of the survey and evaluation methodology. This will comprise the process of determining the

appropriate sampling methodology, and sample size, as well as the site selection, development of the evaluation tool(s), and scheduling a detailed timetable for information collection, analysis, and reporting. Collection methods must include a combination of primary sources from interviewing beneficiaries (i.e. students, teachers, etc.), partners and stakeholders (i.e. local government authorities), general observations, and gathering information from secondary sources including the project’s monitoring and reporting system.

1. EVALUATION QUESTIONS

The overall objective of the Mid-Term Evaluation is to assess the results that the project has achieved during implementation. The key evaluation questions whose answers should be provided as deliverables to the evaluation report are the following:

1. Impact
2. To what extent was community vulnerability reduced and conflict-mitigated? b. To what extent was community participation promoted?
3. To what extent was inter-stakeholder cooperation facilitated?
4. Outcomes:
5. To what extent has CSA achieved the proposed intermediate targets/goals? b. What challenges and lessons learned were identified during implementation? c. What was the quality of output and how could it be improved?
6. To what extent was learning incorporated into improved activity processes? e. What notable achievements/outcomes were realized during the first phase? f. To what extent were strategies sufficiently adaptive to the changing context? 3. Relevance:
7. Did interventions target the most vulnerable communities in target areas?
8. Did CSA fill gaps in assistance provided by other actors?
9. To what extent did activities align with community development priorities?
10. Effectiveness:
11. How responsive was CSA to the evolving political context?
12. How inclusive was CSA regarding gender and marginalized groups?
13. How useful was CSO policy analysis to USAID and stakeholders?
14. Efficiency:
15. Were resources allocated appropriately to achieve desired outputs?
16. To what extent did activities rely on local vendors to source materials?
17. Did the online database enable effective tracking and management?
18. Sustainability:
19. How well did CSA leverage existing community development mechanisms?
20. To what extent did communities demonstrate ownership over interventions? c. To what extent did local government actors adopt/scale-up initiatives?
21. To what extent did CSOs and Private sector companies engaged?

The evaluation is expected to provide best practices, lessons learned, success stories, areas of improvement, and recommendations for the project, plus future programs. Lessons learned should be clearly linked to the findings and include guidance for future use in similar contexts or sectors.

1. DELIVERABLES AND REPORTING REQUIREMENTS

The firm/consultant should complete a draft of the work plan and send it to CSA for review, feedback, and approval. The work plan will include:

1) The anticipated schedule and logistical arrangements; and

2) A list of the members of the external evaluators by roles and responsibilities. Once approved and contract signed the firm/consultant will submit their evaluation design which will include: i. A detailed evaluation design matrix that links the Evaluation Questions in the SOW to data sources, methods, and the data analysis plan.

1. Draft questionnaires and other data collection instruments or their main features. iii. The list of potential interviewees and sites to be visited and proposed selection criteria and/or sampling plan (must include calculations and a justification of sample size, plans as to how the sampling frame will be developed, and the sampling methodology); iv. Known limitations to the evaluation design; and
2. A dissemination plan.

The draft evaluation report should be consistent with the guidance provided in Section

X: Report Format. The report will address each of the questions identified in the SOW and any other issues the team considers to having a bearing on the objectives of the evaluation. The submission date for the draft evaluation report will be determined in the evaluation work plan. Once the initial draft evaluation report is submitted, CSA will send comments and feedback to the firm/consultant after five business days of receiving the draft report. The firm/consultant will then be asked to submit a revised final draft report after three days. CSA will review and send comments on this final draft report within 10 business days of its submission. The external evaluator will be asked to take no more than three business days to respond/incorporate the final comments from CSA and submit the final report. All project data and records (detailed work plan, evaluation interview tools for FGD and Key informant interviews, database(s), draft evaluation report, final report) will be submitted to CSA in full and should be in electronic form in an easily readable format, organized and documented for use by those not fully familiar with the intervention or evaluation. Before submitting the narrative report draft, CSA will request the external evaluator to submit the quantitative results after analysis to review, recommend additions/modifications to the qualitative data collection tools, and include the outcome indicator results in reporting.

KEY DELIVERABLES:

• Work Plan
• Final Mid-Term Evaluation Report
• Final Evaluation Tools
• All datasets (raw and cleaned)

the firm/consultant must hand over all collected data to CSA after reporting. The consultant must delete/shred any data on their devices/premises once the reports are finalized to ensure compliance with the data protection policy.

• Evaluation Findings Presentation to CSA

1. COMPOSITION OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATOR

The external evaluator will be composed of a team leader responsible for leading the exercise and enumerators. The team leader is expected to have strong technical expertise relating to the goal of CSA. The team leader is also expected to have strong evaluation experience in evaluation design, management, and implementation; experience in crosscutting program priorities, such as gender equality and women’s empowerment; and experience in the cultural and political context of the targeted areas, in particular. Additionally, the team will be required to follow USAID data protection policies and guidelines and will take a “do no harm” approach in the evaluation process. All team members will be required to provide a signed statement attesting to a lack of conflict of interest or describing any existing conflict of interest.

1. EVALUATION SCHEDULE

The team should send the final report no later than September 16, 2024.

Proposed Activities Responsible Anticipated time Person(s) (Days/dates)

(1 day)

(2 days)

(4 days) (2 days)

(2 days) (10 days)

(5 days)

(5 days) (3 days)

(2 days) (3 days) (2 days)

Submit Final Report to CSA with all data and records

VII. REPORT FORMAT

Team Leader o/a September 16, 2024,

The Evaluation Report will be written using the following outline:

Cover Page

The title page will include the USAID logo, project name, names and titles of firm/consultant(s), and the date and name of the document. A photograph of a field visit can be included. List of Acronyms

All acronyms should be identified at the beginning of the report.

Executive Summary

The executive summary synthesis should be two to three pages in length and will include: the purpose, background of the project being evaluated, main evaluation questions, methods, findings, conclusions, and recommendations and lessons learned.

Table of Contents

The table of contents should outline each major topic section, annexes, figures, tables, etc. Body of the evaluation

The body of the evaluation report will include the following in sequential order: a. Introduction and background

The introduction and background will include at least: the purpose and background of the project (including project rationale), the project’s goals and objectives, implementation methods, and the evaluation’s purpose.

1. Evaluation Methodology

The methodology will include at a minimum: a description of information/data collection, sites/beneficiaries’ selection processes, sampling plan and calculation, and limitations (in particular attention to the limitations associated with the evaluation methodology (e.g., selection bias, recall bias, etc.).

1. Analysis, Findings, and Discussion

This is where the findings are clearly stated and discussed in detail. The summary of the evaluation, areas of improvement, best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations are based on this section of the document. Graphs and tables are encouraged, however, d. Supplementary Issues and Questions (if applicable)

This section will address in sequence the supplementary issues and questions in the evaluation tool(s), if applicable.

1. Conclusions and Recommendations

This section presents the main conclusions based on this study evaluation. It should outline the improvement areas, best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations for CSA, the project staff, and collaborating partners for the project and future programming. This section must have a logical connection to the findings and any recommendations made should have clear and actionable guidance.

Annexes:

The annexes must include the evaluation SoW; itinerary for the evaluation visit; all questionnaire and interview guides and checklists; and any success stories

Additional appendices such as signed disclosure of conflict-of-interest forms for all the team members and summary information about external evaluator members, including qualifications, experience, and role on the team should be included as a separate annex.

Ethical Principles

The firm/consultant and evaluation team should duly consider the standard research and evaluation ethical principles (USAID & DAI ethical principles).

Distribution of the Evaluation Document

The ultimate responsibility for gathering and disseminating information lies within CSA. Therefore, the firm/consultant is expected to return to CSA all the data and other information that were used as the basis of the team’s final inferences.

The evaluation report is not considered final until it is presented to CSA, discussed with the consultant openly, a clear understanding of all conclusions, and any differing views are reached between the firm/consultant and CSA as reflected in the final document.

CSA reserves the right to use or not use the document as produced by the firm/consultant, notwithstanding the editing process after the first draft is presented by the consultant.

HOW TO APPLY: If you are interested, please send the following to CSA no later than August 9, 2024, to email address: LiberiaCSA@dai.com with the title (“CSA Mid-Term Evaluation”) in the subject line

• Company profile, business registration and license (if applicable)
• Detailed CVs – outlining all previous professional experience of evaluator(s)
• A cover letter that explains 1) why you are interested in the CSA program and the task of Mid Term Evaluation, and 2) why you are best suited for this role and past performance. • Name of five professional references.

USAID CSA values diversity and inclusion and strongly encourages women and persons from marginalized groups to apply.