Evaluation Consultant ( Nutrition)

1.     Background

UNOPS is the Fund Manager for the multi-donor Livelihood and Food Security Trust Fund (LIFT), which was established in 2009 to address food insecurity and income poverty in Myanmar. LIFT’s donors are Australia, Denmark, the European Union, France, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States of America. From the private sector, the Mitsubishi Corporation is a donor.

The overall goal of LIFT is to sustainably reduce the number of people living in poverty and hunger in Myanmar. LIFT’s purpose is to improve the incomes and nutrition status of poor rural people by promoting resilient livelihoods and food security. Its designated outcomes are improvements in income, resilience, nutrition, and pro-poor policy developments.

LIFT works with implementing partners (IPs), such as international NGOs, national NGOs, United Nations agencies, international organisations, academic and research institutions and the Government of Myanmar. LIFT is currently funding projects at the Union level and in the Ayeyarwady Delta, the Dry Zone, Myanmar’s Uplands and Rakhine State.

So far, LIFT has reached over 3.6 million people, or roughly 10  per cent of Myanmar's rural population, and is active in just under half of the country's townships. The Fund is expected to continue operations until the end of 2018.

For more details, please go to www.lift-fund.org

1.2 Evaluations of projects supported by LIFT

LIFT supports projects that are implemented by implementing partners (IPs) according to a grant agreement. Since October 2014, according to LIFT operational guidelines, all LIFT-supported projects (except some few cases) are subject to a mid-term evaluation and a final evaluation managed by the LIFT Fund Management Office. Mid-term reviews (MTR) are managed in collaboration with implementing partners and should assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the project, as well as  particular technical issues specific to the project, and include recommendations for improving the project in its remaining tenure.

1.3  Background of the project to be reviewed

The Learning, Evidence generation and Advocy for Catalyzing Policy (LEGACY) project is implemented by Save the Children (implementing partner), in partnership with Myanmar Nurses and Midwives Association (MNMA) and Innovation for Poverty (IPA). Another critical partner in this project is Pact Global Microfinance (PGMF) who delivers the cash to the beneficiaries every month. The project targets at improving nutrition outcomes in mothers and children of the Dry Zone region of Myanmar via Maternal and Child Cash Transfer (MCCT) program. The National Strategic Plan for Social Protection (NSPSP) is approved by the President’s Office in Nov 2014 and the Ministry of Social Welfare, Relief and Resettlement (MSWRR)  launched it in December 2014. One of the interventions of the eight flagship programs is the universal MCCT program. The project’s focal counterparts are township health department, Department of Social Welfare (DSW) and General Administration Department (GAD).

The project started on 1st January 2016 and will end on 31st December 2018. The project is now in the middle term of its implementation period.

Project purpose:                              

LEGACY interventions aim to improve nutrition of women and children in  critical window of the first 1,000 days, from conception until 24 months. They also advocate for policies whereby women and children are protected by universal maternity cash transfers to ensure good nutrition and improve access to health services during this critical period of time.

Purpose Level Objectives

1: Improved nutrition of women and children in the first 1,000 days

2: Women and children are protected by universal maternity cash transfers to ensure good nutrition

Project Output:

Output 1: Pregnant women, mothers & the wider community have improved knowledge on nutrition, Infant and Young Child Feeding Practices (IYCF), ANC/PNC, WaSH & health seeking during the First 1,000 Days

Output 2. Pregnant women, mothers are using the cash transfers to improve the nutritional intake for themselves and their young children during the First 1,000 Days.

Output 3: SC & IPA advocate to the Government of the Union of Myanmar for the adoption of a national nutrition-sensitive cash transfer programme

The project facilitates the delivery of cash transfers to pregnant women through the first 1,000 days by supporting MNMA, village health committees and health cadres to identify and register eligible women, and deliver Social Behavior Change Communication (SBCC) on key behaviors related to nutrition, hygiene and health seeking. The project also tests two cash delivery modalities i. e. cash delivery through Microfinance institution (PGMF) and cash delivery through the Ministry of Health and Sports (MOHS) structure at the township level (midwives) to determine the most feasible system, and determine the value added of SBCC delivery on nutrition outcomes.

In addition to the MCCT programme, LEGACY conducts a formative research- randomized control trial (RCT) to build a coherent case for best practice in both maternity cash transfer and SBCC delivery modalities in Myanmar. The RCT is also to show the impact of the MCCT-Cash + intensive SBCC messaging vs cash only + light SBCC messaging. 

2.          Objectives of the Mid-Term Review

The MTR will evaluate the progress of the project to date, particularly in terms of the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability, as well as review its overall approach and specific methodologies. It will summarize findings, lessons and recommendations that  will contribute to project improvement.

2.1    Address specific technical questions on the following project components:

1. Impact of program models on stunting and adoption of key behaviours:  Impact of comprehensive SBCC plus a cash transfer versus limited (light) SBCC plus cash transfer provided to pregnant women for the first 1000 days on the adoption of key behaviours and reduction of stunting rates
2. Impact of advocacy efforts: The extent to which advocacy efforts have thus far effected government policy changes at local/regional and national levels.
3. Sustainability of the intervention: The feasibility and potential of a local NGO (MNMA) and township health cadres (at all levels) to carry out nutrition internventions beyond the life of the project
4. Efficiency of the cash transfer modality: The efficiency of the cash transfer as a process (including MIS/technology) as well as the efficiencies of each model i.e, through a microfinance institution – PGMF and through the MOHS and MNMA and evaluate which model is most appropriate to the situation         

2.2    Distill lessons  and good practices, as well as  identify barriers to effective implementation, in order to provide meaningful and feasible recommendations for improving the project in its remaining time.

These lessons and good practices should aim to be of value for the implementing partner and LIFT but also may to other similar projects and stakeholders.  Thematic areas to consider for learning that are of particular interest to LIFT and implementing partners and may be relevant to this review are: nutrition and gender. Generic lessons should be avoided in favour of rich and context specific learning.

3.       Midterm Review Questions and Issues of Concern

This section provides more detail on additional topics and issues that are particularly  important to LIFT   and its partners.

Early on in the consultancy, the Consultant will work closely with LIFT and the implementing partners to  further refine these questions, from which the Consultant will then develop the appropriate methodology and data collection instruments.

3.1 Address the LIFT-level evaluation questions concerning the project’s overall approach and its components where appropriate: Relevance: 

• How relevant are the project’s overall purpose and objectives to the needs of Myanmar?
• How relevant are the project’s overall approach and components to the Myanmar socio-political context and for achieving the project’s objectives?

• To what extent has the project achieved its expected outputs and outcomes on the basis of the project  MEAL plan?
• To what extent has the project contributed to the achievement of the LIFT logframe, particularly to increasing incomes, improving the nutrional status of women and children, and improving pro-poor policy?
• What have been the positive and negative unintended and unexpected consequences of the project?

• To what extent has the project been implemented on budget and on time?
• To what extent is the project delivering or posed to deliver value for money, as defined by costs versus major benefits ?

• To what extent has the project established a viable business model for private sector provision of services and products?
• Are there issues or concerns regarding the economic, social and environmental sustainability of the project?

• To what extent has the project considered gendered differences in the needs, constraints and opportunities of beneficiaries?
• To what extent have women participated equally in the project?
• To what extent have men and women benefitted equally from the project?

3.2 Address specific technical questions of each project component, focusing on (some of these questions may overlap with the questions listed above):

• What are the major findings of the baseline survey? Have the findings of the baseline survey been used for revising/adapting indicators and targets of the measurement framework?
• How has IPA been tracking the RCT subjects to see the impact of intensive SBCC plus cash and light SBCC plus cash? Are there any major findings that say otherwise from the project rationale as of now?
• To what extent does the migration (both internal and external) affect the impact of the program? How does the program deal with it?
• What are the quality and relevance of SBCC strategy, educational materials, messaging to promote key behaviours and engagement of key influencers?

• What/how many policy advocacy efforts have been done by the project to influence the policy change of the government?
• To what extent have the levels of engagement, commitment and action within the government on the modality and progress made to increase engagement been made?
• How accurately does the advocacy tool measure policy engagement and commitment and movement toward policy change?
• What are the roles of township and regional level DSW and DOH in the policy advocacy and influencing the policy change?
• To what extent has the evidence generated from the project been recognized and used by key development stakeholders?
• What are the government’s future plans with regards to MCCT and nutrition? How has this project influenced these plans?

• What are the major constraints of MNMA staff and health staff to effectively implement the SBCC activities at different levels? How these constraints can be overcome?
• What are the roles of village health committee, midwives, auxiliary midwives and volunteers in SBCC implemention, cash distribution and their participation and collaboration? Is the program effectively engaging them in the program?
• To what extent could the program build up the capacity of local NGO and township health cadres?
• How effective is the delivery of SBCC through MNMA and township health cadres in increasing beneficiaries’ knowledge, stimulating community dialogue, promoting essential attitude changes, creating demand for information and services?
• What have been the most effective mechanisms at community level for transferring knowledge about best practices related to health and nutrition so far?
• What is the level of engagement by the community members in nutrition and health-related activieis? To what extent have the men and other family members participated in the SBCC component?
• Are Mother to Mother Support Groups a functional and relevant mechanism for social and behaviour change communication? How do the community and government perceive the model? What is working well and what could be improved? Are mothers regularly attending the sessions? What role do CHVs or government health staff play?

• Which delivery model is most efficient at the time of the evaluation and why?
  • What are the constraints the PGMF staffs and midviwes/auxiliary midwives face for the cash delivery? How these constraints can be overcome?
  • How do the different actors involved in the cash delivery see their roles?
  • To what extent does the MIS/technology support the intervention?

1. Preliminary review of the project documentation: project proposal, logframe, baseline report, annual and semi-annual reports, FMO field visit reports and meeting/workshop reports
2. Review of programmatic experience and evidence of  nutrition and maternal child cash transfer programs, especially the effectiveness of cash delivery mechanism to enhance the nutritional status of mothers and children and the effectiveness of SBCC messaging for improved nutrition
3. Consultation with LIFT FMO Dry Zone team and if necessary the M&E Team, the Knowledge Management Analyst and the Financial Inclusion/Private Sector Engagement Team
4. Consultation with  SC and its implementing partners ( MNMA and IPA) and with PGMF
5. Consultation with relevant Government officials and other key stakeholders
6. Drafting of the inception report, which includes:    

-methodology and work plan -key issues within the limited scope of field work (as agreed with LIFT & SC)
-confirmation of the arrangements and methods for interviews and consultations for Focus Group Discussions (FGD) and Key Informant Interviews (KII)

 Approach and Methodology 

Although to be determined by the Consultant, suggested data sources and collection methods include:

- Review of existing project documentation (project proposal, the baseline report, annual and semi-annual reports, and FMO’s field visit reports and other relevant project documents), the LIFT Strategy (2014-2018), and other relevant documented experiences on the linkage of Maternal and Child Cash Transfer programs and increased nutrition of pregnant women, lactating mothers and children and how the universal MCCT programs could protect the mothers and children.

- Conduct consultations with relevant project stakeholders and partners (government, civil society and the private sector)

LIFT will provide facilitators to support the Consultant (in the logistics and arrangements for research and consultations, and respond to the consultant ‘questions on the interpretation of interviewees’ responses and on written and spoken information.  To demonstrate objectivity and the credibility of the review, the consultant will clearly demarcate between sources of information, comment, opinion and interpretation.

 Scope of the Evaluation and Timing

The Consultant will work for 24 days, partially working from home for the desk review and report writing and in Myanmar for the research work (Yangon, and in field locations of the project). 

This is planned for the last two weeks of August and the first week of September 2017. Field work will be followed by consultations, debriefing and writing in preparation for a presentation in Yangon. A single draft final report must be submitted within seven calendar days after the debriefing presentation in Yangon. A single final report must be submitted within seven calendar days after written feedback from LIFT.

 Deliverables

The following documents / events will be required at the suggested times:

1. Design workshop with key stakeholders, to clarify midterm review’s objectives and major questions and to review logistics
2. Refined midterm review objectives, major questions, sampling strategy, data collection instruments (i.e., FGD and KII topic guides), and work plan.
3. Debriefing workshop with SC, IPA, MNMA, PGMF and LIFT to discuss the findings, lessons, and proposed recommendations (two  days after completing the field trip)
4. A single Draft Final Report as per an agreed table of contents (up to seven days after the briefing presentation
5. A single Final Report (up to seven days after receiving final written feedback from LIFT)

Education

• A Master’s Degree in Nutrition, Publich Health and any subject relevant to the TOR is required. 
• Additional two years of similar experience with a relevant Bachelor’s Degree is considered as equivalent.

Experience

• Minimum seven years of experience in project implementation, evaluation and/or research on subjects relevant to the ToR is required.
• Demonstrated technical knowledge and experience in maternal and child nutrition and formative research in general is  required.
• Experience in nutrition and Maternal and Child Cash Transfer(MCCT)programming is highly preferred.
• Proven understanding of  the socio-economic and political situation in Myanmar is desirable.
• A sound understanding of livelihoods and food security issues in South-East Asia and/or Myanmar would be an asset.

Language Requirement

• Fluency in both written and spoken English is required.

Functional Competencies

• Professionalism – Ability to conduct independent research and analysis, identify issues, analyze options and recommend solutions. Ability to work systematically, accurately and under pressure.
• Planning and organizing - Ability to establish priorities and to plan, coordinate and monitor own work plan in relation to other stakeholders and actors in the evaluations.
• Result-oriented - Ability to focus on the result for clients and concerned related parties, and respond positively to feedback.
• Client orientation - Ability to identify clients' needs and appropriate solutions; ability to establish and maintain productive partnerships with clients and related parties.
• Analytical skills – Strong skills in methodology and analysis.
• Communication - Proven ability to present and write English in a clear and concise manner, and adaptable to participants with other languages.
• Self-reliance: Ability to act independently with a minimum of supervision.
• Technological awareness - Excellent computer skills and ability to use software tools to present data clearly and concisely.

• Please note that the closing date is midnight Copenhagen time
• Applications received after the closing date will not be considered.
• Only those candidates that are short-listed for interviews will be notified.
• Qualified female candidates are strongly encouraged to apply.
• For staff positions only, UNOPS reserves the right to appoint a candidate at a lower level than the advertised level of the post
• The incumbent is responsible to abide by security policies, administrative instructions, plans and procedures of the UN Security Management System and that of UNOPS.  

It is the policy of UNOPS to conduct background checks on all potential recruits/interns. Recruitment/internship in UNOPS is contingent on the results of such checks.

Other considerations

UNOPS supports the successful implementation of its partners’ peacebuilding, humanitarian and development projects around the world. Our mission is to serve people in need by expanding the ability of the United Nations, governments and other partners to manage projects, infrastructure and procurement in a sustainable and efficient manner.

Working in some of the world’s most challenging environments, our vision is to advance sustainable implementation practices, always satisfying or surpassing our partners’ expectations.

With over 7,000 personnel spread across 80 countries, UNOPS offers its partners the logistical, technical and management knowledge they need, wherever they need it.

A flexible structure and global reach means that we can quickly respond to our partners' needs, while offering the benefits of economies of scale.