ThaiNGO

ToR for Mid-term Evaluation

 1.         Executive Summary

Background to the Project

On January 1^st 2017, ADRA and ACTED started a 24 months EU-funded project which is the second phase of the Vocational Training to prepare Refugees for Return Project that aims to develop the employability skills and livelihood opportunities for at least 3,150 Myanmar refugees residing in camps along the Thailand-Myanmar border through 225 hours of technical vocational training and life skill development. Technical vocational skill development is offered in line with Myanmar labour market needs (5 advanced courses have been designed to meet Myanmar labour market demand needs) so that refugees upon their safe and voluntary return from the camps in Thailand can be easily absorbed by the Myanmar labour market. The project is implemented within the context of preparedness for return.

Although Thailand has not ratified the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the country currently hosts approximately 99,952[1] refugees from Myanmar in nine government administered camps along the Thai-Myanmar border. The first refugees arrived in Thailand in 1984 and over the following 30 years, a large number of Myanmar refugees fled to Thailand at different moments, and under different circumstances.  These refugees and asylum-seekers are mainly ethnic Karen and Karenni though many of the more recent arrivals originate from other parts of Myanmar. The situation of refugees from Myanmar in camps in Thailand is one of the most protracted in the world. The Thai government does not allow these refugees to move outside the camps or to seek local integration in the surrounding Thai communities; those found outside the camps are subject to arrest and deportation. The prolonged encampment of the refugees from Myanmar and the policies of the Royal Thai Government (RTG) have resulted in most of the refugee population having no occupation or employable skills. Furthermore, it has led to significant protection and security concerns and has had a profound psychosocial impact on the refugees. The refugees have become increasingly dependent on humanitarian assistance to provide food, water, shelter, health, education and other relief items. Feelings of frustration, borne from the inability of refugees to realize their full human potential, together with the restrictive nature of the camps, has led to increasing incidences of rape, domestic violence, and other sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV), alcohol, drug and substance abuse, and serious psychosocial problems. There is limited psychosocial support offered within the camps to combat these issues.

Positive political progress in Myanmar has continued throughout 2015, including the signing of a Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (NCA) on 15 October between the Government of the Union of Myanmar (GoUM) and eight Ethnic Armed Groups (EAGs), including the Karen National Union (KNU), and the successful election of the National League for Democracy (NLD) on 8 November. These events have laid the foundations for substantive political dialogue aimed at achieving sustainable peace within the country and hence pave the way for potential large-scale voluntary repatriation of refugees.

The changes in Myanmar have led to the development of the CCSDPT-UNHCR Voluntary Repatriation Operation plan (Draft November 2015), which emphasizes the need for long-term livelihood objectives in preparedness efforts. Relatedly, the CCSDPT-UNHCR Strategic Roadmap for Voluntary Repatriation 2015-2017 (Update January 2016) indicates that an essential component of sustainable reintegration is access to livelihoods. Underpinning both is the CCSDPT-UNHCR Framework for Durable Solutions 2013-2015, which calls for the continued pursuit of strategies that promote self-reliance and empowerment. Vocational training (VT) as implemented by this intervention is an integral part to achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and a reasonable livelihood in a wide variety of contexts (i.e. the three options for durable solutions: return, integration or resettlement).

Project Activities

1.1. Revise and develop vocational training curricula towards at least five higher level curricula improving relevance and employment value;

1.2. Provide regular capacity training (ToT) to camp-based VT trainers in line with OVEC, DTVE and NESD advanced course standards;

1.3. Adapt and maintain vocational training facilities and equipment to accommodate advanced courses.

1.4. Provide between 180 and 200 hours of integrated higher- level VT courses including life skills such as career guidance and employability courses to 3,150 camp residents;

1.5. Provide 300 VT graduates with internship opportunities of 4-8 weeks in Thailand and/or Myanmar.

2.1.  Develop  a  livelihood  exit  strategy  in  collaboration  with CCSDPT LWG, UNHCR and cross-border operating livelihood CBOs across all 9 refugee camps;

2.2. Assess training needs and design and conduct capacity building sessions for cross-border operating livelihood CBOs;

2.3. Assist 176 camp-based staff to develop work profile based on standardized template;

2.4. Conduct information sessions to 7,600 camp residents on return to Myanmar/integration to Thailand.

3.1. Network with Thai and Myanmar private sector, VT stakeholders and civil society actors;

3.2. Network with camp-based information sharing centres for disseminating labour market

information;

3.3. Facilitate three exchanges between Thai and Myanmar VT colleges in border areas to build capacities for replication of short course VT models in Myanmar

3.4. Support for Thai host communities by providing VT services to them with the support of Thai VT colleges and VT students from the camps.

Key Project Stakeholders

ACTED - is a co-applicant for this action with a project support unit based in Mae Hong Son. ACTED is directly in charge of implementing activities under result 1-3 in Site 1 and 2 camps.

ADRA Thailand - is entity co-applicant of ADRA Germany with its project office located in Mae Sot, and two sub offices, one in Kanchanaburi and one in Mae Sariang. ADRA Thailand is directly in charge of implementing activities under result 1-3 in in Mae La, Umpiem, Nupo, Mae La Oon, Mae Ra Ma Luang, Tham Hin and Ban Don Yang.

The Karen Refugee Council – VT (KRC-VT) and the Karenni Education Department VT and Non Formal Education (KnED-VTNFE) are the officially mandated institutions to oversee, manage, implement and monitor VT in the seven Karen camps and two Karenni camps respectively.  KRC-VT and KnED-VTNFE unit provide technical management and oversight of vocational training program in nine camps.

Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) under the Thai Ministry of Education is responsible for management of technical and vocational education in Thailand in order to produce manpower at various levels – semi-skilled workers, skilled workers, technical workers and technology workers.  The consortium has signed a framework of cooperation with OVEC and OVEC facilitates linkages and contacts between the consortium and relevant Thai vocational training institutes in order to develop VT course curricula for a refugee camp context, provide Training of Trainers (ToT) to camp based VT trainers, certify courses and provide certificates to refugees graduating from VT courses.

Thai Vocational Colleges: Industrial College, Kanchanaburi Polytechnic College, and Ratchaburi Polytechnic College Nawamintrachine Mae Hong Son Industrial and Community Education College, Mae Sariang Community are local vocational colleges, under the Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC).  They are responsible for providing the technical and vocational education to produce and develop the skillful labours for their local provincial labor market. These colleges train the camp-based vocational trainers on an annual basis, provide technical monitoring of the VT courses and issues graduates with a certificate.

Department of Technical Vocational Education (DTVE) under the Ministry of Science and Technology (MoST), Government of the Union of Myanmar, is responsible for the production of technicians, skilled and semi-skilled tradesmen in Myanmar. ACTED cooperates with DTVE on developing linkages between Thai and Myanmar VT colleges in the border areas and on the acceptance of VT certificates issued by Thai TVET authorities to refugees in the camps in Myanmar once they return.

Key Components of the Mid-Term Evaluation

The main objective of this evaluation is to provide the consortium and the European Union (EU) with a review of the status, relevance and performance of the project as compared to the project document, make suggestions of potential adjustments to the project so that it meets intended results and objectives. The evaluation results are envisaged to identify and describe the lessons learned, through measurements of the changes in the set indicators, summarize the experiences gained, technically and managerially, and recommend the approaches and methodologies for their further dissemination.

To achieve the above objective the Mid-Term Evaluation needs to provide an assessment of the project progress towards attaining its objectives and results using logical framework matrix and indicators and shall follow the criteria of the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) as following:

1. Relevance: The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it is supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operates. It should include an assessment of the quality of project preparation and design – i.e. the logic and completeness of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the project design.

The following questions should be answered:

• Are the project interventions (methodologies and activities) relevant to achieve the project objectives?
• Are the project interventions (methodologies and activities) relevant to the areas targeted?
• Is the project adequately adjusting to changing situations or contexts?

1. Efficiency: The fact that the project results have been achieved at reasonable cost, i.e. how well inputs/means have been converted into activities, in terms of quality, quantity and time, and the quality of the results achieved so far. This requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same results, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

The following questions should be answered:

• Is the project managed efficiently, in terms of human capital, staff, financial and other resources versus the results?
• Is the consortium’s implementation structures appropriate?
• Are beneficiaries sufficiently involved in the project implementation? Is there feedback from beneficiaries to project implementers?
• What are the external constraints to achieving better efficiency and how well are they mitigated?
• Were synergies capitalised on with other actors (local and international) involved in similar projects?
• What evidence is there (if any) that learning (M&E), from this project or previous projects, were incorporated into the project’s implementation strategies?
• How has the relationship been between the partners and local government authorities?

1. Effectiveness: An assessment of the contribution made by results to achievement of the project purpose, and how assumptions have affected project achievements. This should include specific assessment of the benefits accruing to target groups.

The following questions should be answered:

• To what extent is the project achieving its specific objective “To establish sustainable livelihood strategies which achieve a measure of self-sufficiency and preparedness for a future outside of the camps, through integrated technical vocational training and life skills and networking with a variety of livelihood stakeholders”?
• Are the expected results in the following sub-components being realised:
  • The integrated technical vocational skills of camp residents are
  • Inclusive and gender sensitive coordination and planning towards preparedness for return is
  • Cross-border networks between refugee CBOs, host communities, TVET actors, and private sector are

1. Impact: The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider policy or sector objectives (as summarized in the project’s overall objective). In particular, the evaluation of impact should address the following key elements:

• Policy level impact;
• Social level impact;
• Economic level impact;
• Technical level impact.

The following questions should be answered:

• Is the project ultimately contributing to the overall objective stated at the outset? i.e. “To continue with the provision of basic services in the nine camps and in the hosting communities in Thailand, while preparing Myanmar refugees for a possible return process”
• What are, if any, the innovative and successful approaches that are of relevance to other actors active in the Vocational Training and Non-Formal Education sector in Thailand and Myanmar?
• What, if any, are the unintended impacts of the project intervention, both positive and negative?
• What are the external constraints to achieving better effectiveness and how well are they mitigated?

1. Sustainability: An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to continue to flow after external funding has ended, and with particular reference to the following factors:

• Financial sustainability;
• Institutional sustainability;
• Policy level sustainability.

The following questions should be answered:

• To what extent are the risk mitigation and sustainability plans in the project proposal, in addition to unforeseen risks, addressed during project implementation? How realistic were these?
• What evidence is there to suggest the project’s interventions and/or results will be sustained after the project end?
• What are the possibilities for replication and extension of the project’s outcomes? Identify and describe the main lessons learned from the project performance.

Methodology of the Mid-Term Evaluation

The evaluation will be based on the findings and factual statements identified from review of relevant documents including the project document, interim report to the donor, quarterly progress report, in addition to the technical reports produced by the project and the different promotional materials.  A list of the above reports will be shared with the evaluator before the beginning of the mission. The mission will also undertake field visits and interview the stakeholders including the target beneficiaries, government officials, etc. Participation of stakeholders in the evaluation should be maintained at all the times, reflecting opinions, expectations and vision about the contribution of the project towards the achievement of its objectives. In particular, the following stakeholders should be visited and interviewed:

• ADRA’s Project Team including Program Director, Project Manager and Program Coordinator for a detailed overview about the project progress, successes and challenges encountered;
• Karen Refugee Committee (KRC) and Camp Committee (CC) about general camp context, preparedness for return, livelihood programming for refugees, general coordination and communication with ADRA, relevance of VT courses;

• Office of the Vocational Education Commission (OVEC) about cooperation with ACTED and ADRA, partnership with Department of Technical Vocational Education (DTVE) under the Framework of Cooperation, and suggestions for future cooperation with the consortium and DTVE.

• Mae Sariang Community Industrial College about cooperation with ADRA, partnership with Hpa-an GTHS in Myanmar, training and monitoring of camp-based trainers and trainees, general coordination and communication with ADRA;

• ACTED Project Team including Country Representative, Project Manager and M & E Officer for a detailed overview about the project progress, successes and challenges encountered;

• Nawamintrachine Mae Hong Son Industrial and Community Education College about cooperation with ACTED, partnership with the Loikaw college in Myanmar, training and monitoring of camp-based trainers and trainees, general coordination and communication with ACTED;
• Karenni Refugee Committee (KnRC) and Camp Committee (CC) about general camp context, preparedness for return, livelihood programming for refugees, general coordination and communication with ACTED, relevance of VT courses;
• Karenni Education Department (KnED-WTNFE) about program coordination, support to KnED-VTNFE, relevance of VT courses, quality of training, challenges;
• Camp-based VT and life skill trainers about perception of the project, relevance of the courses, quality of training (ToT, refresher, monitoring by VTCs), quality of supervision by the consortium staff, challenges;
• Graduate students: quality of the teaching (VT and life skill), how VT courses and life skill training is relevant to their lives, current utilization of the skills – income generation, perspectives on durable solutions;
• Camp Leaders: coordination and communication with ADRA and ACTED, perception about the project and how it contributes to livelihoods and their preparedness for return to Myanmar, challenges for livelihood programs

Products expected from the evaluation

The evaluator shall provide the consortium with a comprehensive draft report for review and comments. The report should be preceded by an executive summary. The report shall include:                                                                                       

• Purpose of the evaluation and the methodology.
• The main findings: project relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact of project activities, sustainability with recommendations for improvement.
• Lessons learned: Assessment of attainment of indicators, operational and developmental lessons.
• Conclusions and recommendations.
• Annexes: TOR, Itinerary, List of people met, List of documents reviewed.

Timeframe and duration of the evaluation

A total of 18 payable working days are planned for this evaluation:

• 1 day desk review
• 2 days designing the interview questionnaires
• 6 days field assessment (visiting the camps and interview stakeholders including international and domestic travel)
• 2 data entry and analysis
• 4 days writing of the draft report
• 3 days revision and finalizing the report

A field itinerary is suggested as the following but can be discussed and adjusted before the contract is awarded:

Day 1: Travel to Mae Hong Son

Day 2: Visit Camp 1 in Mae Hong Son and meet relevant stakeholders

Day 3: Meet MHS VTC and travel to Mae Sariang

Day 4: Visit one camp in Mae Sariang and meet stakeholders

Day 5: Travel to Mae Sot and visit Mae La Camp and meet stakeholders

Day 6: Meet ADRA Thailand project team and then fly back to Bangkok

Background of the consultant undertake the evaluation

• At least 10 years’ experience in development field, particularly in livelihoods and technical and vocational skill sector
• Experience in working with refugee communities would be beneficial
• Experience in conducting similar scale evaluations
• Concrete experience in providing written reports

Submission of application

Applications should be submitted no later than 8 of March 2018.

Applications in the English language, including i) a resume of not more than 3 pages; ii) a cover letter; iii) detailed budget to carry out this evaluation iv) contact details of 2 references should be submitted by email to linda@adrathailand.org and cc to emily@adrathailand.org

Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

[1] MOI/UNHCR verified population, October 2017.