1. Background
1.1 Introduction
The Delivering as One UN builds on the existing reform agenda set by UN member states, which asked the UN development system to accelerate its efforts to increase coherence and effectiveness of its operations in the field. Specifically, the General Assembly’s Triennial comprehensive policy review (TCPR) of operational activities for development of the UN system, contained in General Assembly Resolutions 59/250 (2004) and 62/208 (2007), provides guidance to make the role and contribution of the UN system more coherent, effective and relevant at the country level.
Building on the TCPR (2004), the UN Secretary General in 2006 tasked a High Level Panel on UN System wide coherence, composed of eminent world leaders and practitioners, to examine ways to strengthen the UN’s ability to respond to the development challenges of the 21st century. The HLP looked at what it would take to make the UN system more effective and coherent, especially at the country level, to respond to global development, environment and humanitarian challenges. It recommended that national sovereignty and national ownership of development must remain the bedrock of effective development. It was highlighted that the UN need to focus on where it is best able to provide leadership, and withdraw from areas where it does not, and to deliver results in response to country programme needs. The HLP also recommended greater effectiveness and accountability through better and more harmonized business practices.
Following the launch of the HLP Report in November 2006, the Governments of eight countries – Albania, Cape Verde, Mozambique, Pakistan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uruguay and Viet Nam – expressed interest to become “One UN” pilots. Following the request made by the Prime Minister of Albania in December 2006, Albania was selected in January 2007 as one of the countries around the world to pilot the ‘One UN’. The pilot countries agreed to work towards a common UN presence in the country while capitalizing on the strengths and comparative advantages of the different members of the UN family and looking at common elements, such as ‘One UN Programme’, ‘One Budgetary Framework’, ‘One Leader and ‘One Office.’
The resolutions 59/250 (2004) and 62/208 (2007), emphasize that programme countries should have access to and benefit from the full range of mandates and resources of the UN development system. National governments should determine which resident and non-resident UN organizations could best respond to the specific needs and priorities of the individual country, including, in the case of non-resident agencies, through hosting arrangements with resident organizations and the use of advanced information and communication technology, including knowledge management.
To ensure that there is no potential for, or perception of, a conflict of interest, UNDP established an institutional firewall between the management of its programmatic role and the management of the RC system.
Availability assessments conducted in 2007/08 by United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) suggested that country level-evaluations be conducted to assess the progress made against the strategic intent of DAO, record achievements, identify areas for improvement and remaining challenges and most importantly, distil lessons that could inform decision-making processes at the national and intergovernmental levels.
The United Nations General Assembly has emphasized the need for an independent evaluation of lessons learned from DAO efforts, for consideration by Member States, without prejudice to a future intergovernmental decision. However, by the middle of 2009 a date for an independent evaluation had not yet been set by the General Assembly. It has been agreed between the UN and Government of Albania ( GoA ) to carry out a process evaluation in early 2010. Similar evaluation will also be carried out in six other pilot countries. The UNEG was requested by the pilot countries to develop a draft Terms of Reference for such an evaluation. The Framework Terms of Reference (FTOR) was then to be adapted by each pilot country to fit its particular context. This Terms of Reference has been developed based on the FTOR.
The governments of the participating countries could, if they wish, make these country evaluations available to the United Nations General Assembly for information.
1.2 Delivering as One UN in Albania
The Delivering as One UN Programme in Albania was signed 24 October 2007 and 14 funds and agencies are participating namely: the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF), the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS), the United Nations Volunteers (UNV), the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM), the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the International Labour Organization (ILO), the UN Environment Programme (UNEP), the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), the World Health Organization (WHO) International Fund for Agriculture and Development (IFAD) and the United Nations Industrial Development Organization (UNIDO). Being a pre-EU Accession country, the UN’s role is small but significant with strategic support to the country.
The goal of the Delivering as One UN Albania is to enhance development results and impact by bringing together the comparative advantages of the UN system within a single programme in support of national priorities and operate with unity in purpose, coherence in management and efficiency in operations. The UN system’s normative and operational roles, neutral positioning, convening power, policy expertise and technical capacity is brought to bear in supporting Albania’s national development and European Accession goals while complementing the assistance provided by other multilateral and bilateral development partners. The ultimate aim of the UN in Albania is to contribute to making a difference in the lives of Albanians.
In all five programme priority areas (Governance, Participation, Quality Basic Services, Regional Development and Environment), the core principles of gender equality and development of national capacity and social inclusive strategies are upheld and incorporated throughout the implementation of the programme. The UN’s role in advocating for the national application of international norms, standards and actions on human rights and global issues imply a shift towards intensified efforts in policy advisory services.
New Joint programmes developed under the One UN framework has the potential of bringing better development results through a holistic and concerted assistance. The seven Joint Programmes; i) Culture and Development, ii) Youth Employment and Migration, iii) Gender Equality, iv) Economic Governance, v) Roma and Minority Rights, vi) Sustainable Environment and vii) Child Health and Nutrition allow for rationalization of the division of labour among agencies under one management and coordination structure. Each Joint Programme has a lead UN agency which brings together the expertise of other agencies.
2. Purpose and Use
This country-level evaluation intends to inform decision makers on how to enhance the role and contribution of the United Nations development system in support of national policies and strategies for the achievement of national development results. It will assess the progress made against the strategic intent of DAO in Albania, record achievements, identify areas for improvement and remaining challenges and distil lessons to inform decision-making processes at the country level to feed into the second cycle of Delivering as One UN/UNDAF in Albania (2012-2016) for which the planning will start in 2010. The primary audience is the Government of Albania and the United Nations in Albania . Wider audience is other interested parties such as donors, implementing partners, UN Headquarters and other pilot countries and self starters.
The country-level evaluation will be used by the Government of Albania in ascertaining the effectiveness of the DAO initiative in bringing to the country’s benefit the whole potential of the UN development system. The evaluation will be used by the UN to enhance its internal and external processes, tools, mechanisms and DaO governance structure to better reach national and internationally agreed development goals. The findings can be used to capture lessons learned for institutionalization of the pilot experience for the UN system. The findings of the evaluation can further be used to inform decision making at intergovernmental levels and other member states can use the evaluations to learn from the pilot experiences.
3. Scope
The pilot initiative needs to be considered first and foremost in its national context. The evaluation will focus therefore on how the Delivering as One UN initiatives addresses and respond to the national development priorities, plans and strategies. When assessing that response, the evaluation will analyze the implementation of the Delivering as One approach expressed in the four Ones, namely —One Leader, One Programme, One Budgetary Framework, and, One harmonized set of Business practices including how the UN has spoken with One Voice, under the following process outcomes.
1. Delivering as One UN programme reflect national priorities and UN agency comparative advantages
2. UN demonstrates significant benefits through increased joint programming and programmes by end of 2010
3. Increased efficiency through harmonized business practices demonstrated by end of 2010
4. One UN Budgetary framework and coherence fund lead to increased predictability of funding with funds allocated to national priorities identified by the Joint Executive Committee (JEC)
The evaluation will be commissioned by the Government of Albania and the United Nations. The evaluation will assess the benefits of change in the way UN Agencies conduct their business and work processes under Delivering as One UN. It will focus on the internal dynamics of the Delivering as One implementing organizations, policy instruments, service delivery mechanisms, management practices, and the linkages among these, initiated and conducted within the DAO process since its inception. The evaluation will also illustrate programme achievements, where relevant, as a result of changes and new processes. This will include illustrating programme results (outputs and intermediary results) as needed to make evidence based conclusions on the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness and sustainability of the Delivering as One UN. The evaluation will look into whether crosscutting issues were considered in the process of joint programming and in free-standing programmes.
The period under evaluation should cover initiatives implemented from 2007 up to end of 2009. The emphasis of the evaluation is on how the UN’s own internal procedures and processes and those relating to external partners have changed through the DaO in support of better achievement of development results. The evaluators will also consider the external factors affecting the progress of the reform efforts such as the extent of un-earmarked multi-year funding by donors and that feasibility of changes at country level is dictated by HQ rules and regulations and the wider issues of UN reform.
While the ultimate objective is to improve the UN’s contribution to achieving national development goals it is not yet possible to determine the impact of the programme of the Delivering as One UN since implementation only commenced in late 2007.
4. Evaluation Questions
The evaluation will assess the relevance (the responsiveness to the needs and priorities of the country), effectiveness (the implementation of better processes and production of development outputs, and when possible the assessment of progress towards development outcomes), efficiency (the reduction of transaction costs for the country), and finally, the sustainability of the DAO initiatives (the probability of long term benefits of continuing the approach over time).
These criteria guide the identification and selection of the evaluation issues and questions, which are specific to the country. The evaluation issues and questions defined in this TOR will be further elaborated on by the evaluators during the inception phase.
The Delivering as One UN Process indicator framework provides specific indicators, targets baselines and means of verification against which the UN country team effort should be evaluated. The evaluation criteria below should be assessed with regard to the contribution of the four Ones, One Leader, One Programme, One Budgetary Framework, and, One harmonized set of Business practices including how the UN has spoken with One Voice and the changes attributed to the pilot.
Relevance
1. To what extent does the One UN Programme reflect an increased prioritization in response to national priorities in areas where UN has demonstrable advisory expertise and comparative advantage, including increased support towards meeting international standards?
2. To what extent does the DaO fit within the Government efforts of harmonizing external assistance and the Paris declaration?
3. Does the One UN Programme reflect an increased focus around coordinated strategic UN approaches in support of EU accession?
4. Do the DaO and its operational processes and mechanisms add value and if so is there a potential for replication
Effectiveness
1. To what extent has the strategic intent, planned reform outputs, goal and purpose of the DaO been adhered to? What are the intangible gains?
2. To what extent has the DaO improved synergies, effectiveness and coherence of UN support and reduced duplication and fragmentation in Agency programming, management and administration? How effective are the Joint Programmes in supporting the achievement of the programme objectives?
3. To what extent has Gender and cross-cutting issues been upheld and incorporated in the programme? To what extent has the DaO process affected resourcing of these cross-cutting issues?
4. To what extent has the UN’s role in advocating for the national application of international norms, standards and actions on human rights and global issues implied intensified efforts in policy advisory services?
5. What are the reasons for achievement or non-achievement of objectives of the Four Ones? To what extent has support and mutual accountability among national and international partners, UN Headquarters and Regional Directors Team been fulfilled?
6. To what extent has coherence fund been allocated based on national priorities and past performance of UN agencies?
Efficiency
1. To what extent has the UN through DaO operated with unity in purpose, coherence in management and efficiency in operations for better development impact?
2. Has the DaO led to reduced transaction costs in pre-identified areas[1] and in improved efficiency in the management of resources?
3. To what extent have new tools and mechanisms been developed and used (including One Budgetary framework, fund allocation criteria, One UN Annual work plan, working principles, One UN reporting) and how have they affected business processes? What were the enabling and hindering factors?
4. To what extent do partners perceive the UN as operating differently under the DaO? What do partners consider as main advantages?
Sustainability
1. Is the DaO consistent with partners’ priorities and effective demand? Is it supported by the Government and national institutions?
2. To what extent has the DaO affected government leadership and ownership of the UN’s work in the country?
3. Is the governance structure of the DaO appropriate and characterized by effective management and organization (GMC, JEC, IMWG, PWG, UNRC, UNCT)?[2]
In addition to these overarching questions, more detailed questions relating to effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability for the Ones are outlined in Annex A
Some issues cannot easily be included into an evaluation matrix, although they should be explored during the evaluation, for example the overall national context. Among others, the following questions could be canvassed to identify possible common elements favoring or not the DAO process:
· What were the national political drivers for the country to become a DAO pilot?
· What was the UNCT environment and experience of collaborative work at the time of launching the process?
· What was the UN Head Quarters environment on UN reform and support provided to the pilots?
· To what extent did the DaO enjoy predictable, multi-year and un-earmarked funding?
· Does the One UN M&E system support effectively the planning, monitoring, reporting and evaluation of the One Programme?
· Have there been missed opportunities for the DAO process so far and if so, which?
5. Institutional Arrangements for the evaluation
The following section outlines the evaluation management responsibilities as well as those of a Quality Assurance Panel and the evaluation team. The structure for the management of the evaluation is as follows:
5.1 Quality Assurance Panel
A Quality Assurance Panel will be established at UN Headquarters to enhance the quality of the country led evaluation in Albania and the other pilots and to increase the credibility of the country-led evaluations by providing independent, technically sound evaluation advice. The external advisory panel will include individuals knowledgeable about development in the country and international evaluation.
The external advisory panel will support evaluation managers address the complex methodological challenges by providing timely methodological feedback and review all deliverables of the evaluation, including terms of reference, inception reports, and draft and final evaluation reports. When reviewing the draft evaluation report, the advisory panel should address among other things, whether the evaluations followed the terms of reference, the methodology was adequately described, there is a good use of evidence, the reports are well written and the messages are clear and, whether there is a logical flow between findings, conclusions and recommendations.
The Quality Assurance Panel will ensure consistency across the evaluations and generate the additional benefit of promoting learning between the countries. The UNEG will set up and bear the cost of the external advisory panel and assist the evaluations to reach international quality standards.
5.2 Evaluation Management Group
The Evaluation Management Group (EMG), chaired by the Government, will provide oversight and guidance to the evaluation process, safe guard the independence of the evaluation and ensure that the final product complies with the highest standards in evaluation Its membership consists of two Government representatives (Director for Strategic Department and Donor Coordination and the General Secretary of Minister of Foreign Affairs), one UN Representative (Chair of Regional Director’s Team, Europe and CIS) and one donor. The criteria for selection was 1) members should not have a real or perceived conflict of interest by being directly in charge of implementing the DAO programme. 2) Significant knowledge about the Delivering as One UN reform goals to allow efficient guidance as well as knowledge about aid-effectiveness to frame the effort in the wider context.
The EMG will meet in person or virtually at key points during the evaluation process. Among others it will include the following activities: (i) endorse the country specific evaluation Terms of Reference (TOR), (ii) endorse the selection of an evaluation team, and (iii) Review/ endorse key deliverables (iv) liaise if need be with the external advisory panel to quality assure the results of the evaluation. The EMG will have a Secretariat to support them to manage the evaluation.
The EMG will submit the evaluation report to the Government and to the UNCT for them to prepare their management response.
5.3 Secretariat
The Secretariat will coordinate the evaluation process. It will prepare advertisement to invite potential evaluators, assess/identify an evaluation team for consideration by EMG, liaising with the External Quality Assurance Panel as and when required. The Secretariat will liaise with key partners and other stakeholders when preparing for the evaluation, however once the evaluators are selected the evaluators will coordinate the interaction with stakeholders and evaluands. Under the guidance of the Chair of the EMG, the responsibilities of the Secretariat include:
a. Supporting the implementation of the activities planned by the EMG.
b. Acting as liaison and focal point between the EMG and the UN Country Team, independent evaluation team, the Quality Assurance Panel, the reference group in initial stage and EMG Secretariats in other pilot programme countries.
c. Managing the consultant recruitment process of the independent evaluation team.
d. Facilitating the work of the independent evaluation team by ensuring that all relevant contacts and information are available.
e. Make any adjustments to the TOR following the inception report of the evaluators
f. Oversee stakeholder workshops in consultation with the EMG
g. Performing other duties as required
Members of the Secretariat include: one Government representative appointed by Minister of State and members from the UN M&E group. If EMG so decides, the Secretariat may include external expertise.
The Secretariat will ensure open and transparent documentation of actions by Secretariat.
5.4 Stakeholders
There are a range of country-level and external stakeholders with an interest in the Delivering as One including UN agencies and staff (resident, non-resident, regional directors teams, HQ), implementing partners including the Government of Albania and non-government organizations, and development partners who are providing funds to the One UN Coherence Fund.
The stakeholders include the parties engaged in the implementation of the DAO approach whose contribution is being evaluated. This includes national implementing agencies such as line ministries, sub-national and local government institutions, and from the UN (UNCT, the five Programme Working Groups of the One UN Programme Pillars, Operations Management Team, Communications team). It further involves the contribution of the Development Operations Coordination Office (DOCO). The stakeholders being evaluated will be asked to make available information regarding the UN programmes, projects and activities in the country. This will also include information from DOCO.
In addition to supporting the evaluation team in making all necessary information available, the UNCT will provide comments on key steps in the evaluation process, that is on draft TOR, inception report, draft report and will have the right to correct any factual error in final draft report. The direct costs of the evaluations will be covered by the RCO and UNCT.
The UNCT and management will prepare a management response to the evaluation elucidating on the way in which the recommendations will be addressed. Specific attention will be given to the use of evaluation results and respective responsibilities for Government partners, UNCT, Operations Management Team, Programme Working Groups and Communication team.
5.5 Reference Group
The EMG will identify a reference group through the Secretariat. The reference group will be a consultative body and can serve as a sounding board on the evaluation. The reference group will consist of stakeholders such as civil society organizations, media, members of parliament, academia and, international partners working in the country. The core group will be tasked with reviewing the stakeholder report from the consultation workshop.
6. Evaluation Team
The evaluation team members should be seasoned development experts and evaluators with a proven track record of conducting evaluations in a professional manner. The team will be comprised of one international evaluation expert (Team Leader), one international and one national expert who, as a team, have solid understanding of the national context ,UN work processes, systems, rules and regulations as well as knowledge about Government institutions. Substantive knowledge/experience of sustainable development such as governance, social sector development, environment is desirable. Knowledge about the UN reform initiative is an advantage.
The evaluations should be carried out by independent consultants. To avoid conflicts of interest and undue pressure, the members of an evaluation team must not have been directly responsible for the policy-setting, design, or overall management of the subject of evaluation, nor expect to be included in programming implementation in the near future.
The evaluation team is responsible for conducting the evaluation. This entails among other responsibilities designing the evaluation according to the specific terms of reference; gathering data from different sources of information; analyzing and systematizing the information; identifying patterns and causal linkages that explain current performance; drafting evaluation reports at different stages (inception, drafts, final); responding to comments and factual corrections from stakeholders and incorporating them, as appropriate, in subsequent versions; addressing comments by the external advisory panel; and making briefs and presentations ensuring the evaluation findings conclusions and recommendations are communicated in a coherent, clear and understandable manner once the report is completed. All reports shall be written in English. The Evaluation team is responsible for editing and quality control and the final report should be presented in a way that directly enables publication. The evaluators will once recruited interact with the stakeholders and arrange for stakeholder workshops in consultation with the EMG including, among other things: drafting the Agenda, identifying materials for consultation and distribution and coordinating with participants. The evaluators will draft the stakeholder report.
The evaluators will be selected through a competitive selection process. The consultants need to have a proven track record of objective and impartial assessment with the capacity to provide constructive feedback to both, the national government and the UN. The Candidates will be rated and ranked according to agreed criteria.
A tender has been issued to identify a team of individuals with proven track record to produce quality results. UNDP will contract on behalf of the Secretariat. The evaluators will report to EMG through the Secretariat, which will make preliminary assessment of the deliverables and submit to EMG for decisions.
6.1 Qualifications and Responsibilities
The evaluation team will be comprised of two international evaluation professionals and one national evaluation professional who, as a team, have a solid understanding of the national context, UN reform initiatives and a proven track record of conducting evaluations in a professional manner. Individuals part of regional evaluation association networks such as Ipen ( Eastern Europe ) are encouraged to apply. Full competency in English (written and spoken) is required. The evaluation team is expected to be fully self-sufficient in terms of IT/office equipment, stationary, communication, office space, accommodation, transport and other logistics.
Specifically, the team members’ qualifications are expected to be as outlined below.
osition 3 – National consultant (maximum 35 working days)
National consultant should have the following qualifications:
· Master’s degree in international development, public administration, evaluation or related field or equivalent experience.
· A minimum of seven to ten years of professional experience, specifically in the area of monitoring and evaluation of international development initiatives and development organizations.
· A track record of conducting various types of evaluations, including process, outcome and impact evaluations in Albania and/or the region.
· Experience as being part of team in complex evaluations desirable
· Experience in sustainable development such as governance, social sector development, environment desirable
· Experience in M&E of cross-cutting issues such as human rights, gender and culture.
· Knowledge and/or experience of the UN System highly desirable and the UN Reform process an advantage.
· In-depth understanding of the development context in Albania .
· Excellent communication, interview and facilitation skills.
· Excellent report writing skills.
· Ability to deliver quality results within strict deadlines.
The national consultant works as an integral part of the evaluation team and carry out functions as per the division of task made by the team leader. The national consultant is expected to focus on the evaluation questions as outlined in section 4 and annex 1 with specific regard to operational and programmatic areas of development interventions from a national perspective (e.g alignment with national priorities, harmonization of management and implementation structures, national applications and effective demand and government leadership)
6.2 Application requirements
Qualified individuals, such as but not limited to, from regional or global evaluation associations and networks are encouraged to apply. Individuals are welcome to submit an application together as a team for the separate positions advertised by filling in an application form for each applicant for the respective position and indicate their proposed team members under the Resume and Motivation section. UNDP however, reserves the right to match and decide on the team composition.
The application should be accompanied by CV including an introduction letter. The applicant shall duly fill the on-line format for application as per the advertisement. In doing so, the applicant shall ensure to indicate three references and give a comprehensive description of previous assignments relevant for the position under “Resume and Motivation section” and reference to relevant work sample from previous assignment. The applicant may provide on-line link to any publications/reports the applicant has produced.
The applicants should indicate the rate of their daily fee.
6.3 Evaluation methods
During the Inception phase, the evaluation team will formulate in detail the methodology for the evaluation under the guidance from the Team Leader. The country evaluation will be informed by the key methodological principles below:
· The evaluation is formative and forward looking and will focus on the process aspects of the DAO initiative while illustrating programme results (outputs and intermediary results) as needed to make evidence based conclusions
· The evaluations will adopt a highly consultative, iterative and transparent approach with stakeholders;
· Triangulation of information and data across groups of stakeholders and individuals will be the key method to validate evidence, throughout the whole evaluation process;
· The evaluations will strictly adhere to the UNEG Norms & Standards.
· The evaluators will judge performance and results against a clearly defined counterfactual of how the UNCT might have operated in the absence of the DaO pilot.
· The evaluators will judge performance and results against a clearly defined counterfactual of reform flexibility at country level given that feasibility of changes at country level is dictated by HQ rules and regulations and the wider issues of UN reform
The evaluation will use a wide range of methods and tools, fine-tuned to the national context and to the evaluation questions. They will preferably include some or all of the following, among others:
· Evaluation matrix relating evaluation issues and questions to evaluation criteria, indicators, sources of information and methods of data collection (inception phase);
· Mapping exercise of the main focus areas of the DAO work (inception phase)
· Desk review of reference documents (inception and data collection phase);
· Individual and group interviews with the members of the reference group including (but not limited to) representatives from Government, Donors, UN Agencies, UN Resident Coordinator’s Office, UN M&E Working Group, Programme Working Groups (PWGs), One UN Coherence Fund Administrative Agent, etc (both during inception and data collection phase);
· Checklists or semi-structured interview protocols for each type of interview;
· Establishment of historical causality: a time-line and narrative about the milestone events in the DAO process at country and international level (inception and data collection phase);
· Field observation and interviews with stakeholders at community level, if appropriate and relevant (data collection phase);
· Thematic studies on specific areas of focus of the DAO process, as relevant and appropriate (data collection phase);
· Debriefing session with the reference group.
The evaluation team will if necessary, reconstruct baseline information
6.4 Expected deliverables
The evaluation team is expected to produce the following deliverables:
1. An inception report outlining the evaluation team’s understanding of the issues under evaluation including an evaluation framework and a detailed work plan;
2. A presentation with preliminary findings to be shared in a national stakeholder meeting; A short (four to six page) summary of key findings should be prepared for stakeholder consultations on the preliminary report.
3. A first draft report for circulation and identification of factual corrections from stakeholders; a second draft report for circulation among the external advisory panel for quality assurance and a final evaluation report and presentation.
4. The basic table of content for the final evaluation reports should include minimally i) an executive summary, ii) introduction and rationale, iii) evaluation methodology, iv) country context, v) findings, vi) conclusions, lessons and recommendations, and vii) annexes.
5. A five page final summary report of evaluation findings
6. A communications and dissemination strategy for evaluation findings
7. An edited and publication ready final report in English
6.5 Phases and timeframe
Being a pre-EU Accession country, the UN’s role is small but significant and the UN is therefore looking for a quality and cost-effective evaluation which will generate important findings and recommendations.
The country level evaluation will be conducted during a period of four months to give ample response time on draft deliverables and hence ensuring a participatory approach with partners. The evaluators are expected to be recruited and start work in January 2010. It is expected that a home based desk review is carried out, followed by an in-country inception and data collection mission during which the report writing is initiated. Additional time will be given for home based report writing. Following the completion of draft report, a second in country mission for data validation and any additional data collection is expected followed by presentation of findings. The evaluators are required to complete at least the following phases:
· Desk review, two weeks after receiving contract. (About one week, home based)
· Inception report: The first deliverable of the evaluation team is an inception report. The inception report lays out the evaluation team’s understanding of the issues to be addressed in the evaluation, the information available and the methods for data collection. It spells out the evaluation framework and a detailed work plan. This will be completed about four weeks after receiving the contract. (Inception mission, about one week)
· Any fine tuning of country specific TORs following the inception report:
· Data collection: The evaluation team will collect data through various means, including desk review, semi-structured interviews, focus group, surveys or field visits. (About two weeks in country)
· Stakeholder meeting on preliminary findings: After the data collection is finalized a stakeholder meeting should be organized to present and validate preliminary findings. Participants of the stakeholder meeting should include but not be limited to the people interviewed and other relevant stakeholders in the country. This is expected to take place in March 2010. (About 0.5 to one week in country)
· Draft report: Two weeks after the stakeholder meeting the evaluation team should present the first draft report to the EMG.
· Review of draft report: The EMG sends the report for factual correction to the UNCT and to national government. After receiving eventual factual corrections it sends a second draft report to the external advisory board for quality assurance process. This should be ready by mid April 2010. (About 0.5 to one week home based)
· Final report: The evaluation team finishes the report after receiving factual corrections from government and UNCT and comments from the external advisory panel by May 2010 to allow the results to be used a scheduled inter-governmental consultation in Vietnam . (About 0.5 week home based)
· Publication of report: After the report is received from the evaluation team, the EMG will send the report to print and make it available on public websites by June 2010
7. Limitations of the evaluation
The absence of clear quantification and benchmarks for transaction costs in the UN system will affect the possibility of assessing progress on this aspect. Other particular country-specific limitations might emerge and should be recorded in final evaluation reports.
8. Financial arrangements
The cost of the evaluation will be borne by The Office of the UN Resident Coordinator and contributions from participating UN agencies.
9. Key Background Documents
Key documents outlined below will be made available to the Evaluation Team
1. Delivering as One UN Programme Document (original and amended June 2009)
2. Delivering as One M&E Framework (December 2008);
3. UNEG Evaluability Study (Conducted February 2008)
4. Interim One UN progress report June 2008
5. 2008 Annual One Programme Reports;
6. 2007 and 2008 Stocktaking Reports;
7. Joint Programme documents (Gender Equality, Culture and Development, Youth Employment and Migration, Sustainble Environment, Roma and Minority Rights, Economic Governance, Child Health and Nutrition)
8. Annual One UN work plan 2008, 2009 and Joint Programme Work plans, meeting minutes, mid-year and annual reviews (2008, 2009) and reports;
9. Memorandum of Understanding and Standard Administrative Arrangement for One UN Coherence Fund
10. One UN Budgetary Framework (original and updated versions) and agency sheets
11. Fund allocation criteria
12. Joint Executive Committee minutes 2007, 2008, 2009
13. Working principles for UN Team
14. Business simplification and harmonization plan for Operation Management Team 2008-2010, Work plan, minutes
15. Communications work plan, minutes and reports
16. Dalberg Capacity Assessment
Additional existing information will be made available to evaluators as requested such as project reports and any studies undertaken.
The One Programme document 2007-2010 can be downloaded from;
HYPERLINK "http://www.undp.org.al/elib.php?elib,933" http://www.undp.org.al/elib.php?elib,933
|
