Spark recrute un(e) consultant Retour vers les opportunités

Programme Evaluation – Local Employment in Africa for Development (LEAD)

Terms of Reference – LEAD Programme Evaluation

Programme Information:

Programme Background:

In 2014, 16.405 Somali and 16.000 Tunisian migrants relocated to Europe. Especially young people consider migrating (60% in Somalia and 44% in Tunisia) by growing youth unemployment and lack of job prospects. Hundreds of thousands of migrants pass through or are stranded in Libya, which is a safe haven for human traffickers and a transit country.

The interventions of the programme support entrepreneurship and help create sustainable jobs. Thus it creates prospects for young people in their own country. By doing so in Tunisia and Somalia, the programme helps to remove a major driver of irregular economic migration and/or potential radicalization. In Libya, we stimulate the local economy so that in the future the country can again become a major employer, also for Tunisians and Somalis. Activities focus on training young people, especially since this group is more inclined to consider irregular migration and have the best potential to be entrepreneurs. Particular attention is given to young women. Although relatively they migrate less than men, they are more vulnerable to abuse migration and human trafficking.

Increases in women’s income also causes diminishing migratory pressures because family income increases and therefore the men are less likely to leave.

Besides (youth) unemployment, these countries also suffer from internal radical Islamic conflicts. In Somalia, especially in the south, Al Shabab poses a threat to the country’s security. This restlessness causes many IDPs to move to the more stable regions of Puntland and Somaliland. This internal migration leads to additional pressure on the labour market these regions. The Alliance will also carry out activities in the south – thus also reducing the flow from the south northwards – but focuses on the more stable areas where unemployment is higher and jobs are more efficient.

Libya is torn by a highly polarized conflict, in which two governments have claimed power. The real power is in the hands of local militias. Islamic groups (including IS) are expanding their influence. Because of the security situation, SPARK has implemented activities in cities where activities can be implemented such as Tripoli and Benghazi. Additionally,

SPARK also  coordinates some of the Libya activities from Tunisia.

Tunisia is the largest exporter of Jihadists in the MENA Region: An estimated 5500 Tunisians have gone to Syria/Iraq and training camps in Libya. The country is plagued by attacks by radical Islamic movements. Activities are conducted in Le Kef in the northwest (identified by the embassy for priority) and in the region of Kairouan, due to the combination of high unemployment and increased presence of (potential) Jihadists.

Programme Strategic Objectives:

The LEAD programme focuses on the following two strategic objectives:

• The creation of sustainable youth employment in growth sectors with special attention to young women, by assisting existing – (70%) and new entrepreneurs (30%) with coaching & training and facilitating SMEs access to finance and markets;

• To promote entrepreneurship among young people by integrating entrepreneurship education in secondary and higher (vocational) education;

Programme Implementation:

The programme is implemented by the SPARK Tunis and Hargeisa office and local partner organisations in each of the programme countries. The local partner organisations are amongst others entrepreneurship development organisations.

The activities are aimed at young people in Tunisia, Libya and Somalia between 15 and 35 years old, with an emphasis on people between 15 and 24 years old (+ 65%) and women (40%). Young males are the highest risk group when it comes to irregular economic migration. The increase of income for young women also diminishes migratory pressures because family income increases and thus decreases the incentive of men to leave..

Objectives of the Programme Evaluation:

The objectives of this Programme Evaluation are to evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact[1] of each separate activity of the programme, to identify lessons learned from the programme’s implementation and to formulate recommendations for future programming. More specifically, this Programme Evaluation aims at answering the following evaluation-questions[2]:

[1] OECD/DAC Criteria for evaluating development assistance

[2] The questions listed below are guiding questions which should be made more specific/explicit. Addressing how these guiding questions will be dealt with during the evaluation is something which the consultant is expected to address in the inception report.

Assessment per Programme Activity:

Objective One:

1. Supporting Entrepreneurs (new and existing) with a special focus on female entrepreneurs
2. Create and expand entrepreneurship centres
3. Improve the services of local financial institutions and make them gender sensitive
4. Facilitate access to finance for existing and new businesses by means of guarantee funds
5. Facilitate local SMEs in the value chain of multinational corporations and large local companies
6. Promote successful young entrepreneurs (especially young women) in the media

Objective Two:

1. Introduce or improve entrepreneurship courses in curricula of institutions of secondary and higher (vocational) education
2. Introduce or improve training programmes in higher (vocational) education;
3. Organise summer modules in entrepreneurship in higher (vocational) education institutions
4. Global Entrepreneurship Week events organised

Relevance:

• Did the intervention solve an existing problem (lack of youth employment in growth sectors specifically for young women actually one of employability, or are there other  things (i.e. cultural barriers, cost, work permit issues, etc.) that are keeping youth (especially women) out of a job?
• Are female entrepreneurs more vulnerable (compared to men) in fragile contexts (compared to non-fragile context) and how did the programme address these vulnerabilities?
• How relevant was the programme to the needs of its target group? And if not, how should that inform the future design of the program?
• How relevant was the programme to the reduction of irregular economic migration and radicalization?
• How relevant was the programme in the three different programme countries?

Efficiency:

• How efficient was the programme’s management structure?
• Were activities cost-efficient?
• How efficient were the programme’s partners’ reporting scheme?
• How efficient were the ICT systems of the programme?
• What factors influenced the time-efficiency of the programme?

• How do the local circumstances and context influence the programme’s efficiency?
• How does Programme Efficiency in fragile countries differ from Programme efficiency in non-fragile countries?
• What determines Programme efficiency in fragile and non-fragile countries and how can this be utilized to increase the efficiency of this Programme?

Effectiveness:

• Was a gender balance and inclusiveness achieved in the programme?
• How effective were the ICT systems of the programme?
• How effective was the Access to Finance component of the programme?
• What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of objectives?
• To what extent did the programme contribute to the reduction of irregular economic migration and radicalization of young people in Libya, Somalia and Tunisia?

• To what extent did the programme (technically) prepare and motivate youth (especially women) to remain in their countries of origin and not resort to irregular migration or radicalization in the three programme countries?
• How effective were the local partners of the programme in implementing their activities?
• How do the local circumstances and context influence the programme’s effectiveness?
• How does Programme effectiveness in fragile countries differ from Programme effectiveness in non-fragile countries?
• What determines Programme effectiveness in fragile and non-fragile countries and how can this be utilized to increase the effectiveness of this Programme?

Sustainability:

• Did the local partner organisations take ownership of their activities, outputs and outcomes?
• To what extent did the programme increase the capacity of its local partner organisations?
• To what extent did the programme build synergies with other relevant local initiatives and organisations?
• To what extent did the entrepreneurship activities offered to beneficiaries through the programme promote sustainable employment for them?
• To what extent did the Business and market opportunities identified conducted for the programme ensure youth (especially women) become employed in the growth sectors within the three programme countries?

Impact:

• To what extent did the create or enhance upon the entrepreneurship culture among the targeted demographic in the three programme countries?
• To what extent did the programme Entrepreneur activities scale existing MSMEs and lead to job creation?
• To what extent did the programme activities reduce migratory and radicalisation tendencies amongst targeted youth?
• Is there any unintended (positive and/or negative) impact in the areas of the programme (Libya (Benghazi, Tripoli), Tunisia (KEF, Kairouan) and Somalia (Somaliland & Puntland and Mogadishu))?

• To what extent did the programme activities have an impact on employability, employment, income or other higher-order things like consumption, net assets, savings.

Lessons Learned:

• What are the best practices, as per the programme’s implementation, in supporting and creating MSMEs in the programme’s target countries?
• What are the best practices, as per the programme’s implementation, in reinforcing educational institutions in the programme’s target countries?
• What lessons learned can be drawn in terms of the how the programme was developed?
• What lessons learned can be drawn in terms of the management of the programme?
• What lessons learned can be drawn in terms of monitoring and evaluation of the programme (focusing specifically on the digital reporting (IATI, Googlesheets)?
• What lessons learned can be drawn in terms of local partner organisation management?
• What lessons learned can be drawn in terms of the local partner organisations’ reporting scheme?

Recommendations:

• How can the several Programme Activities be improved regarding to the mentioned evaluation questions?
• How can the programme’s management structure be improved?
• How can the partners reporting scheme be improved?
• How can the programme’s monitoring and evaluation systems be improved?
• How can learning from data be mainstreamed within the programme?

Time Schedule of the Final Programme Evaluation:

The evaluation is expected to begin in February 2019 and end March 2019 and will include preparation, evaluation design, field assessment in the programme’s areas, report writing and presentation of findings and lessons learned and recommendations to SPARK, local partner organizations and donors.

Additionally, the evaluation will be conducted within a 4 week period which includes reporting.

Tasks of the Final Programme Evaluation:

For this Final Programme Evaluation, the following tasks will be conducted:

• Meetings (physically and online) with SPARK Programme Staff and Monitoring & Evaluation staff
• Desktop review of existing LEAD documentation
• Development of evaluation inception report, including workplan and time line of evaluation activities
• Focus group discussions and/or interviews with LEAD beneficiaries
• Interviews with LEAD local partners’ staff
• Interview with NLMFA staff
• Analysis of gathered data through desktop review, focus group discussions and interviews
• Presentation of preliminary findings (before leaving the field) to SPARK LEAD and Monitoring & Evaluation staff
• Development of draft evaluation report and submission to SPARK LEAD and Monitoring & Evaluation staff
• Processing of feedback on draft report from SPARK LEAD and Monitoring & Evaluation staff

• Finalisation of evaluation report and submission to SPARK LEAD and Monitoring & Evaluation staff
• Presentation and validation of key findings of the evaluation in a one-day workshop organised by LEAD staff

Deliverables:

The consultant(s) conducting this evaluation will produce the following deliverables for this evaluation:

1. Inception report (that includes Methodology and Evaluation matrix, Work plan and detailed timeline) which will be approved by the Programme Management.
2. Presentation of preliminary findings before leaving the field to SPARK LEAD and Monitoring & Evaluation staff
3. Draft and final report, which will have the following structure[1]:

• Executive summary
• Introduction
• Methodology

[1] SPARK will provide the template for the Final Programme Evaluation Report. Additionally, the report should be maximum 40 pages, excluding the annexes.

1. Analysis and findings per activity
2. Conclusions of findings, lessons learned and recommendations per activity
3. Annexes: Relevant maps and photographs of the evaluation areas, desktop review references, data collection tools, list of interviewees and anonymized participants in focus group discussions and raw data in an agreed upon format
4. Presentation and validation of key findings per activity of the evaluation to the (one day) workshop organised by LEAD staff

The final evaluation report will be written in English, in PDF and Word format and will be published on the SPARK website.

Payment Scheme for the Final Programme Evaluation:

The payments for the Final Programme Evaluation will be done through the receipt of invoices and upon deliverables approved by the SPARK LEAD and Monitoring & Evaluation staff, according to the following scheme:

Expertise required for the Final Programme Evaluation:

The evaluator(s) should be (a team of) experienced and independent consultant(s), freelance or from a consultancy organisation, with at least the following expertise:

• Advanced university degree in International Development, Social Sciences, Higher Education or any other related field
• A minimum of 7 years of professional experience with conducting programme/project evaluations
• Demonstrated experience in private sector development and/or higher education development in the MENA region
• Previous professional experience conducting research/evaluations in North and East Africa will be considered an advantage
• Advanced communication, analytical and reporting skills
• Fluent in English and French (both reading and writing)
• Fluency in Arabic will be considered an advantage
• Ability to travel to Tunisia, Libya and Somalia

About SPARK:

SPARK develops higher education and entrepreneurship to empower young, ambitious people to lead their fragile and conflict-affected societies into prosperity. SPARK is a dynamic and growing, international not-for-profit development organisation with 100+ staff members, in more than 14 offices around the world. SPARK supports refugees in the Middle-East by providing them with scholarships in universities and higher education institutions in the region. SPARK also supports young entrepreneurs in fragile states, to start or grow their own businesses.