The Oslo Center was established in 2006 as an independent, non-partisan, non-governmental organization. The main areas of work have been peace, democracy and human rights, and through the years the mission of the Center has increasingly focused on democracy assistance.

Purpose of the evaluation

The evaluation is oriented toward assessing the Project’s achievements and learning toward future programming. Therefore, it shall, firstly, target the Project’s implementation dynamics and the level of achievement of its objectives. It shall help the Oslo Center to understand the results of the Project and help the donor to understand the results of their funding. Secondly, it shall gather lessons learned, challenges faced, and best practices and use such insight to generate recommendations that can help the Oslo Center design and undertake similar initiatives in the future.

Objectives of the evaluation

The objectives of the evaluation are as follows:

• To assess the extent to which the Project has been relevant, effective, efficient, and has contributed to the achievement of the impact, and the outcome level results in relation to the project components.
• Identify the results, impact, and successes of the project.
• Identify key lessons learned and recommendations, strengths and weaknesses of the Project based on evidence, to improve relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of Project results, and document knowledge basis from the design and implementation to inform similar future initiatives.

Evaluation questions

• Below is a list of preliminary evaluation questions ordered by evaluation criteria. This list of questions may be adjusted, reduced, and/or further refined by the Evaluator during the inception phase of the evaluation process. However, all criteria should be tackled by the evaluation.

Relevance

• Overarching question(s)
• Has the Project been relevant to Kenya’s political and policy context in which it was implemented?
• Did this Project design and methodology address the problem statement identified in the proposal document?

Effectiveness

• Overarching question(s)
• To what extent has the Project achieved its overall goal?
• To what extent has the Project achieved the two expected outcomes?
• To what extent have the planned objectives in the log frame of the project, been reached, per indicator, disaggregated by gender and age?

Efficiency

• Overarching question(s)
• Were, the activities timely implemented in comparison to Project planning?
• Have the Project activities been considered to be cost-efficient while not comprising the quality?
• What were the outcomes of these choices for effective and efficient Project implementation?

Sustainability

• Overarching question(s)
• What is the likelihood of the Project’s results being sustained in the future by the target groups?
• Which elements of the Project are more or less sustainable? How has the Project been able to address this?

Learning

• Overarching question(s)
• What are the key lessons learned per objective?
• To what extent has the delivery of response activities contributed to effective, efficient, relevant, and timely delivery of aid and enhanced impact for the beneficiaries?
• What are the best practices from the Project that need to be sustained in future programming?

Results and Impact

• Overarching question(s)
• What are the direct and indirect results and impact of the Project?
• What are the impacts of the Project?
• What are the successes of the Project that can be presented to the donor?

Methods

• The Project’s results chain was defined in a logical framework during the design phase. The Project team therefore tracked instances of progress for each of the two outcomes and the associated progress markers.
• The Evaluator shall consider the descriptions of progress as one of the key sources of evidence.
• Other methods to be used include quantitative and qualitative interviews (including with the Project team).
• Deliverables and timeline
• Appropriate validated draft data collection tools (e.g., methodological guidelines, group interview questions)
• Evaluation report (in English), also including:
• An executive summary

Introduction

• Methodology, including sampling and limitations.
• Analysis and findings of the evaluation. The analysis should be done according to the evaluation objectives.
• Challenges, bottlenecks of the Project, and proposed redress.
• Stories of change and quotes from respondents – Stories of the target groups
• Conclusions for each of the end-line evaluation objectives.
• Key results, outcomes, and impact of the Project.
• Recommendations and implementation strategy for future projects
• Annexes
• Deliverable Indicative deadline
• Evaluation tools Three days after the start of the evaluation process
• Draft evaluation report 15 days after the start of the evaluation process
• Final evaluation report 5 days after the start of the evaluation process

Qualifications

The Evaluator – as a whole – must fulfil the following criteria:

• Degree in Monitoring and Evaluation, Social Sciences, or any other relevant field.
• A proven and strong track record of conducting Project evaluations in the field of democracy is required.
• Proven experience in conducting end-of-project evaluation in the field of democracy and governance.
• Strong understanding of the Kenya’s legal frameworks and policies especially around youth development.
• Experience working with political party officials, elected representatives, government officials and complex political processes in Kenya.
• Demonstrable previous experience in collecting project results using outcome outcome-harvesting approach.
• Strong analytical and report-writing abilities.
• Team player and willing to work with Project staff, Youth, Political party officials, elected representatives, and government officials to discuss the administrative and technical pieces of the evaluation.
• Fluency in English, and Kiswahili a plus.
• Submission of the application
• Along with their resume interested candidates should submit :-
• A technical proposal explaining their comprehension of the ToR and how they would approach this assignment, summarizing the methodologies, and approaches they plan to use, including a timeline.
• Their availability to undertake the assignment.
• A financial proposal outlining their expected fees, including the field logistics costs.