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 program’s achievements and learning toward future programming. Therefore, it shall, firstly, target the Program’s implementation dynamics and the level of achievement of its objectives. It shall help the Oslo Center to understand the results of the program 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 program has been relevant, effective, efficient, and has contributed to the achievement of the impact, and the outcome level results in relation to the four programmatic components.
• Identify the results, impact, and successes of the program and how the results will define the next programming.
• Identify key lessons learned and recommendations, strengths and weaknesses of the program based on evidence, to improve relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of Program results, and also document knowledge basis from the program 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 Program been relevant to Kenya’s political and policy context in which it was implemented?
• Did this Program design and methodology address the problem statement identified in the proposal document?

Effectiveness

• Overarching question(s)
• To what extent has the Program achieved its overall goal?
• To what extent has the Program 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 program planning?
• Have the program activities been considered to be cost-efficient while not comprising the quality?
• What were the outcomes of these choices for effective and efficient program implementation?

Sustainability

• Overarching question(s)
• What is the likelihood of the Program’s results being sustained in the future by the target groups?
• Which elements of the Program are more or less sustainable? How has the Program 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 program 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 program?
• What are the impacts of the program?
• What are the successes of the program that can be presented to the donor?

Methods

• The Program’s results chain was defined in a logical framework during the design phase. The logical framework included the two outcomes, which were broken down using Outcome Mapping. The Program 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. It is expected that the evaluation will use Outcome Harvesting to identify key results of the program and measure to what extent has the program contributed to the overall objective.
• Other methods to be used include quantitative and qualitative interviews (including with the Program 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 program 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 program.
• Recommendations and its implementation strategy for future projects
• Annexes
• Deliverable Indicative deadline
• Evaluation tools three days after start of evaluation process
• Draft evaluation report 20 days after start of evaluation process
• Final evaluation report 25 days after start of evaluation process
• Presentation of evaluation report at the Oslo Center level at the donor level. days after submission of the final evaluation report

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 Program evaluations in the field of democracy is required.
• Proven experience in conducting end-of-program evaluation in the field of democracy and governance.
• Strong understanding of Kenya’s political party legal frameworks and policies.
• Experience working with political party officials, elected representatives, government officials and complex political processes in Kenya.
• Strong analytical and report-writing abilities.
• Team player and willing to work with program staff, 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.