External Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Evaluator at RedAid Nigeria

RedAid Nigeria is a young local non-governmental organization, founded In 2018. which shares Its vision with DAHW Deutsche Lepra- und Tuberkulosehilfee. V. (in English: German Leprosy and Tuberculosis Association), a non-governmental organization based in Wurzburg, Germany, for a world In which no one Is deprived of his/her fundamental human rights due to leprosy, tuberculosis and other poverty-related conditions and the disabling consequences they bring. Since Its foundation the organisation successfully implements projects with the funds raised from local and international donors, Institutions and foundations.

We are recruiting to fill the position below:

Job Title: External Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Evaluator

Location: Enugu, Nigeria

Project Goal

• The overall goal of the project is to contribute to the improved health of Nigerians by reducing the burden of Leprosy, other NTDs and Tuberculosis in collaboration with the government of Nigeria and other partners.

Outcome objectives are as follows:

• To reduce diagnostic and treatment delays in detected Leprosy and BU cases through an integrated approach
• To provide integrated morbidity management of selected endemic skin-NTDs in 11 states by 2023 in collaboration with NTBLCP, NTDs Division, and other partners
• To reduce the burden of TB by bridging the gaps in the national TB response in selected LGAs by 2023 in collaboration with NTBLCP and other partners
• To improve the Programmatic Management of the National Program
• Improve Portfolio diversification of RAN.

Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation

• The project “Innovatively Improving Disease Control in Southern Nigeria” applies an integrated NTD management and ´Filling the gaps in TB control´ approach. This integrated NTD approach focuses on early case finding and morbidity management of NTDs (including leprosy, Buruli ulcer, and lymphatic filariasis). The end-term evaluation will focus on three broad areas:

Performance Assessment:

• To assess the project’s performance and achievements vis-à-vis the project’s objectives and to conduct an impact assessment on the various sub-national level beneficiaries. This assessment will also include an analysis of the capacity of the management structures of RAN and target communities to implement the project activities as well as the monitoring and evaluation system.
• The relevance as well as the prospects of sustainability and transferability of the adopted approaches will also be assessed.

Lessons Learned:

• To generate lessons learned from the implementation of the project’s activities and the outcomes achieved that may be useful for similar projects in the future. Based on the findings and conclusions from the assessment of the project’s achievements, the review will identify lessons learned.

Recommendations:

• To develop specific recommendations for major stakeholder groups (RAN, STBLCP, LGTBLCP, Patients and community members) based on key findings and conclusions of the evaluation.  An action plan for key stakeholder groups shall be developed to promote sustainability and long-term impact on the beneficiary communities.
• Overall, the final evaluation document could serve dual purposes by being utilized for promotional efforts, showcasing the project’s impact, and sharing successful practices across RAN and DAHW’s national, regional, and global media outlets. It stands as a crucial tool for RAN to gain insights into what worked and what didn’t within the project, facilitating informed strategic thinking and planning for the next funding cycle and possibly the country’s proposal. Additionally, it serves as a means of accountability.

Scope of work

• The evaluation will cover the entire project period, namely from January 2021 to December 2023, and assess performance in terms of the following criteria

Effectiveness: Achieved objectives and results of the project

• To what extent were the project objectives achieved?
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives? (Internal and external, operational and programmatic, components of the project, etc)
• Are there any best practices identifiable?

Impact: The positive and negative changes produced by the project, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended. It should also cover the positive and negative impact of external factors:

• What has happened as a result of the project?
• What real difference/changes has the activity made to the lives of the target group?
• How many people have been affected?
• How do the beneficiaries see the impact themselves and how do they describe the changes?

Relevance: The extent to which the RAN project is suited to the priorities and policies of the NTBLCP, funder (DAHW) and beneficiaries:

• To what extent are the objectives of the project still) valid?
• Are the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the overall goal and attainment of its objectives, intended impacts and effects?
• To what extent is the log frame of the project still relevant?
• In line with global priorities, how participatory and inclusive is the project in practice?
• Were the adopted approaches of the project appropriate and relevant to the local needs and context?

Coherence: The extent to which other interventions support or undermine the project, and vice versa:

• What are the synergies and interlinkages between this and other projects of RAN?
• To what extent does RAN collaborate with other partners, NTBLCP and DAHW to ensure better coordination of activities for a more synergistic impact? What is the extent of collaboration?

Technical capacity: The quality of the internal organizational and managerial structure of the project in relation to the fulfillment of project objectives, the human resources employed, and the overall management of the project’s resources:

• Does the project have adequate capacity (in terms of number and technical capacity) at HQ, state and LGA levels for the actualization of the objectives?
• Are there relevant areas for capacity building identified?
• To what extent does or could the project improve local/regional/national technical capacities?
• What requirements must be met (local/needs context) so that the technical capacities are transferable to the national/local health care services?

Sustainability: To assess whether the benefits of the project are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn:

• To what extent can the benefits of the project continue after the project is finished?
• What were the major factors that influenced the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project? Check for:
  • Availability and implementation of sustainability strategies
  • Availability of policies or regulatory framework that further the objectives
  • Identification and involvement of champions, leveraging on local and community structures
  • Stakeholders’ buy-in
  • Ownership of achievements and objectives by the stakeholders/beneficiaries/service users

Methodology

• The evaluation is expected to be a participatory constructive dialogue with all the actors involved, ensuring inclusive and participatory methodologies, and consideration for diversity, including gender and different types of diseases, impairments and accessibility concerns.
• A combination of different quantitative and qualitative methods is recommended, such as quality analysis of primary and secondary information, desk review, face-to-face interviews, focus group discussions (FGDs), observations, field visits and meetings with various stakeholders to get feedback on the project. The answers have to be analyzed and evaluated according to indicators defined with regard to the main question.
• It is important to make the meeting with people as participatory as possible and to ensure the participation of primary stakeholders including their voices. For this purpose, documentation of impact stories and/or quotes will be necessary.       
• Where applicable, it is expected that the evaluator outlines the intended sampling strategy and sample size in the inception report.
• The primary sources of data will include RAN staff and partners, sub-national staff, volunteers and patients. For secondary data, the evaluator will be provided with project reports including all relevant quantitative and qualitative information (Project proposal, Log Frame, annual reports, and activity reports). The evaluator could also consider other external secondary data sources when / if necessary. All data collection methods should be age and gender appropriate.

Procedure and expected steps:

• An initial briefing with RAN staff at HQ
• Development of an evaluation matrix based on the briefing to bring refinements and specificity to the terms of reference
• Desk review (reading through all the relevant information about the project)
• Development of schedule and field mission to Nigeria
• Submission of final evaluation report and learning paper ideally within two weeks of receiving comments on the drafts.

Outputs and deliverables:
The evaluator is expected to provide the following documents in English:

• An inception report outlining the objectives and key questions, methodology, data collection methods and tools per stakeholder, sampling consideration if any, sources of information for each of the questions and a work schedule.
• Final evaluation report not exceeding 40 pages (excluding annexures), an executive summary of a maximum of 2 pages, and specific recommendations for potential follow-up of actions with accompanying reasoning.
• Lessons learned: A learning paper for dissemination (e.g., a 2-page document in bullet points) on lessons learned and good practices taken from the project.

Expected profile of the evaluator/evaluation team:
The evaluation may be carried out by an individual evaluator or a team of evaluators with the following qualifications:

• Relevant professional qualification.
• Proven working experience with NGOs or INGO and/or the Government in the relevant sectors.
• Experience in the evaluation of similar projects or programs, qualitative/quantitative analysis and participatory evaluation methods.
• Experience in conducting/analyzing outcomes mapping, evaluations/outcomes harvesting assessments (Desirable)
• Proficiency in written and spoken English. Knowledge of the local language is an added value.
• Good communication skills (oral and written), intercultural competence as well as sensitivity in dealing with the target population (e.g. gender and disability sensitivity).
• Willingness to travel within the project areas
• Willingness to adhere to RAN’s safeguarding and related policies.

Ethics:

• RAN is committed to ensuring that the rights of those participating in data collection or analysis are respected and protected, in line with our Safeguarding Policy. All applicants should include details in their proposal on how they will ensure ethics in the data collection process.
• Specifically, the evaluator shall explain how appropriate, safe, and non-discriminatory participation of all stakeholders will be ensured and how special attention will be paid to the needs of children and other vulnerable groups.
• The evaluator shall also explain how the confidentiality and anonymity of participants will be guaranteed.

Tentative Timetable:
The following is the suggested timeline:

• 5 days for preparatory work;
• 7 days for field visits and
• 14 days for report writing.
• The total duration for the complete evaluation and report writing shall not exceed 30 calendar days.
• The evaluators are responsible for timely delivery of the outputs.

Application Closing Date
1st March, 2024.

Method of Application
Interested and qualified candidates should send their CVs and financial bids to: [email protected] using "External Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) Evaluator" as the subject of the email.
Or
The candidates should send their Applications in sealed envelopes to:
RedAid Nigeria,
56 Nza Street Independence Layout,
Enugu State.