SOMALIA EMERGENCY FOOD SECURITY PROGRAM:
Despite the many gains achieved in the past five years, Somalia remains a fragile country with a high risk of humanitarian crisis. Cyclical climatic impacts, armed conflict, clan violence, widespread human rights violations, and political instability and insecurity persist in the country. Vulnerability levels remain critical due to ongoing drought, continued insecurity, and extremely low levels of socio-economic development, resulting in limited ability of households to absorb recurrent shocks.
In response to these difficult conditions, Save the Children is implementing a multisectoral drought-response program funded by the USAID Office of Food for Peace (FFP) and the Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). FFP funding goes towards cash transfers for food for 13,410 households with 80,460 direct beneficiaries, while OFDA funding contributes to health, nutrition, water and sanitation, livestock, and child protection programming for 94,026 direct beneficiaries. Activities are implemented across several regions in Somaliland, Puntland, and South Central Somalia.
Although funding for the program comes from two different donors with different reporting structures and timelines, Save the Children Somalia is implementing activities in a coordinated way to maximize the impact for households.
Objectives of the Study
The objectives of the final evaluation are to measure the extent to which the program improved key food security indicators, to identify Save the Children Somalia’s successes and challenges in implementing a multi-
sectoral, multi-donor program, and to develop recommendations for similar programs in the future. The findings are intended to be used by Save the Children Somalia, other Save the Children country offices, and donors to improve planning, design, and implementation of multisectoral programming.
Specific research questions will include:
To what extent did the program achieve its food security indicator targets?
To what extent did Save the Children Somalia’s targeting process result in households and communities participating in activities from more than one sector?
a. How participatory was the targeting process? To what extent did targeting include a wide range of stakeholders from multiple sectors and multiple administrative levels (district, field-level, etc.)?
b. To what extend did the targeting approach used by Save the Children (as applied to both geographic and HH targeting) reach the most vulnerable and needy groups? To what extent did the approach limit exclusion and inclusion errors?
c. How timely was the targeting process?
d. How well was this process documented? To what extent was the program implemented with fidelity to this documentation?
e. How well did the program coordinate the geographic targeting of communities to avoid duplication with other organizations or other Save the Children programs? How well did the
program coordinate the household level targeting of services such as cash, IYCF, NFIs, animal fodder, etc.?
a. To what extent did coordination across sectors save staff time, transportation costs, and beneficiary time?
a. Which grouping of activities or services was most effective in improving food security outcomes?
b. The primary food security outcome indicators of interest include Food Consumption Score (FCS), Household Hunger Scale (HHS), reduced coping strategy index (rCSI), and minimum adequate diet (MAD). Other indicators may be added.
To what extent has the program taken into consideration the experience of the beneficiaries in receiving services offered? Has the time and efforts (travel, inconvenience, scheduling etc…) required to access program intervention been minimized and judged reasonable by the people we serve?
To what extent is Save the Children programming coordinated with programming from other organizations covering the same population (including for thematic areas not covered by the SC response)? Is there duplication of aid in households or communities? Are there gaps in coverage that could be eliminated/mitigated through improved coordination?
To what extent was the donor reporting process coordinated to minimize duplication of efforts?
What are the key recommendations for implementers to replicate and/or improve on Save the Children
Somalia’s implementation of this multisectoral, multidonor program?
The methodology for the study should include quantitative and qualitative methods.
The quantitative component must align with the methodology used for the baseline study. The baseline study was conducted using a one-stage design with systematic selection of participants, and the final sample size was 1,567 households. These same households will be interviewed for the final evaluation; Save the Children will provide the consultant with the list of households and their location. The data collection tool from the baseline study must be used, but the consultant will need to add several questions around the FFP/OFDA overlap to allow for further analysis of the correlation between FFP/OFDA overlap and indicator achievements. The consultant must conduct a test of difference for all key indicators (i.e. FCS, HHS, and rCSI) to detect change(s). The full indicator list is included as Annex 3.
The qualitative component should include focus group discussions and key informant interviews with beneficiaries and Save the Children Somalia staff, as well as a secondary literature review. The consultant should ensure the qualitative sampling approach includes men and women of all ages. The consultant will be expected to propose a detailed methodology as part of the application.
Draft research protocol, for SCUS review, which includes sampling approach, data collection plan, data analysis plan, timelines, and logistics. [See Annex I for an illustrative outline for the research protocol]
Final research protocol
Draft data collection tools, including written informed consent language, for review by SCUS and submission to the SCUS Ethics Review Committee
Final data collection tools (in English and all translations)
Enumerator training materials
Raw datasets, transcripts, and field notes
Summary table of results, for review by SCUS
List of sites visited with types and numbers of informants at each
Presentation to SC staff in Somalia on initial findings
Draft final evaluation report, for review by SCUS
Draft external-facing case study on integration findings
Final report, including a two-page executive summary
Final external-facing case study on integration findings
Executive summary, approximately 2 pages in length
Final presentation to Save the Children
Pertinent Permissions, Approvals, Insurance, and Other Required Permits
The consultant will be responsible for obtaining all necessary permissions, approvals, insurance, and other required permits and for adhering to national and local formalities. The consultant is responsible for ensuring that research team members have the necessary certifications to conduct human subject research, and all research staff must follow Save the Children’s child safeguarding policies.
The consultancy will be awarded in March 2019. Data collection will take place in May 2019, and the final deliverables will be provided by the end of June 2019.
Save the Children will retain the rights, title, and interest to all data collected and reports produced through this research. Any work product resulting from this research must credit Save the Children, any other participating partners, and USAID.
Every member of the research team must adhere to Save the Children’s ethical guidelines and child safeguarding policy. The research protocol, data collection tools, and informed consent language must be submitted to Save the Children’s Ethics Review Committee (ERC) for approval before data collection begins. Approval by the ERC can take up to 7 working days, so the contractor should build this into their timeline.
Every member of the research team must also adhere to ethical guidelines as outlined in the American Evaluation Association’s Guiding Principles for Evaluators. A summary of these guidelines is provided below.
• Systematic inquiry: Researchers conduct systematic, data-based inquiries.
• Competence: The research team possesses the education, abilities, skills, and experience appropriate to undertake the tasks proposed in the evaluation. Researchers practice within the limits of their professional training and competence, and decline to conduct research that fall substantially outside those limits. The research team collectively demonstrates cultural competence.
• Integrity/honesty: Researchers display honesty and integrity in their own behavior, and attempt to ensure the honesty and integrity of the entire research process.
• Respect for people: Researchers respect the security, dignity, and self-worth of respondents, activity participants, clients, and other evaluation stakeholders. Researchers regard informed consent for participation in evaluation and inform participants and clients about the scope and limits of confidentiality.
• Responsibilities for general and public welfare: Researchers articulate and take into account the diversity of general and public interests and values that may be related to the research.
Detailed TOR can be requested through email on:[email protected]