External Consultant/Firm for Endline Assessment and Final Evaluation

AI summary

ZOA Nigeria seeks an external consultant or firm to conduct the endline assessment and final evaluation of the integrated emergency food security, WASH and nutrition project in Bama and Monguno LGAs, Borno State. The assignment covers the full implementation period from January 2023 to December 2026 and focuses on accountability, learning, and strategic decision-making for future programming. This is a contract engagement supporting evidence-based humanitarian and resilience work in North-East Nigeria.

• Contract consultancy for endline assessment and final evaluation
• Focus on food security, WASH, nutrition and resilience programming
• Covers Bama and Monguno LGAs in Borno State, Nigeria
• Project period assessed runs from January 2023 to December 2026
• Evaluation serves accountability, learning and strategic decision-making

Original source description

Job Title: External Consultant / Firm to Conduct the Endline Assessment and Final Evaluation of the “Scaling Up Integrated Emergency Food Security, WASH and Nutrition in North-East Nigeria” Location: Bama LGA, Monguno LGA, Borno Employment Type: Contract Project Reference: Scaling Up Integrated Emergency Food Security, WASH and Nutrition in North-East Nigeria. Background ZOA Nigeria, with financial support from Mission East, has been implementing the project “Scaling Up Integrated Emergency Food Security, WASH and Nutrition in North-East Nigeria” from January 2023 to December 2025, followed by a 1-year extension now expected to end in December 2026. The intervention was designed to address acute humanitarian needs among Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs), returnees, and vulnerable host communities affected by the prolonged humanitarian crisis in Borno State. The project was implemented primarily in Bama and Monguno LGAs, with emergency Shelter/NFI support activities also implemented in Muna IDP Camp in MMC. The project responds to the combined effects of: Protracted armed conflict Recurrent displacement Food insecurity Loss of livelihoods Poor sanitation and limited access to safe water Increased climate-related vulnerabilities Poor nutrition outcomes among women and children The project adopted an integrated humanitarian and resilience-building approach comprising four interrelated outcomes: Outcome 1 Most vulnerable IDPs and conflict-affected communities are provided with essential subsistence support to meet urgent needs and avoid negative coping mechanisms. Outcome 2 Most vulnerable IDPs and conflict-affected communities have access to diverse and nutritious food and sustainable livelihood opportunities, allowing them to meet medium-term needs and avoid negative coping mechanisms Outcome 3 IDPs and conflict-affected communities have improved access to Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene services. Outcome 4 Local partners and local government at LGA level develop capacity for principled action, and project-affiliated CBOs and community gatekeepers in Monguno and Bama increase involvement in human rights defense . Major interventions implemented include: Emergency wet feeding for new arrivals Multi-purpose cash assistance Distribution of emergency NFI kits Kitchen gardening and nutrition-sensitive agriculture Village Savings and Loan Associations Vocational and livelihood support Rehabilitation and construction of WASH infrastructure Hygiene promotion and social behaviour change communication Capacity strengthening of GISCOR and community-based structures Gender, accountability, and protection are mainstreaming The project targeted more than 61,000 individuals across the implementation period and aimed to contribute to improved humanitarian outcomes, resilience, and community capacities. Evaluation Purpose The end-of-project evaluation seeks to provide an independent assessment of the project’s performance, results, and overall contribution toward improving food security, nutrition, WASH access, resilience, and local capacity development among conflict-affected populations in Borno State. The evaluation will cover the entire implementation period from January 2023 to December 2026. The evaluation has three primary purposes Accountability: Assess achievement of intended results and accountability to the affected population, Mission East, ZOA Nigeria, local communities, and other stakeholders. Learning: Identify achievements, challenges, good practices, innovations, lessons learned and factors influencing project performance. Strategic Decision Making: Generate evidence and recommendations for future humanitarian, resilience, nexus and localization programming in North-East Nigeria. Evaluation Objectives and Users Evaluation Objectives: The evaluation shall: Objective 1: Measure Achievement of Results Assess progress against project objectives, outcomes, outputs, and indicators contained in the Results Framework. Objective 2: Assess Relevance Determine the extent to which interventions responded to the priority needs of IDPs, returnees, and vulnerable host communities. Objective 3: Assess Effectiveness Determine whether planned outputs and outcomes were achieved and identify enabling and constraining factors. Objective 4: Assess Efficiency Assess how efficient resources, systems, partnerships, and implementation approaches were utilized to achieve intended results. Objective 5: Assess Coherence Determine how well the project aligned and complemented relevant humanitarian and development interventions, sectoral strategies, government priorities, and the broader humanitarian response in North-East Nigeria, while identifying synergies, coordination mechanisms, and areas of complementarity with ZOA, Mission East, government, and other humanitarian actors. Objective 6: Assess Impact Examine positive and negative, intended and unintended changes resulting from project interventions. Objective 7: Assess Sustainability Evaluate the likelihood that project benefits: will continue beyond project completion and identify factors that support or hinder sustainability. Assess the sustainability of: WASH infrastructure. Cash transfer outcomes, including investments in productive assets, livelihoods, savings, housing, and other longer-term benefits: resulting from cash assistance. Community structures. VSLA groups. Kitchen gardens. Livelihood enterprises. Capacity development outcomes among local partners, LGA-level institutions (LEMA), community gatekeepers, and community volunteer structures. Behaviour change outcomes among targeted households, caregivers, community volunteers, and community structures, including sustained improvements in: Hygiene practices and handwashing behaviour Maternal, Infant and Young Child Feeding (MIYCF) practices Household dietary diversity Utilization and maintenance of WASH facilities Participation in community-led initiatives and protection mechanisms Objective 8: Assess Cross-Cutting Priorities Examine integration of: Gender equality Disability inclusion Protection mainstreaming Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Climate adaptation Localization Equitable distribution of project support between IDP and host-community households Conflict sensitivity & do no harm Objective 9: Generate Learning Document lessons learned, best practices, and recommendations for future programming. Primary Users: Mission East ZOA Nigeria GISCOR Community structures Local government authorities Humanitarian clusters and sector partners Evaluation Criteria and Key Questions The evaluation shall apply the OECD-DAC criteria. Relevance: To what extent were interventions and modalities responsive to community priorities? Were targeting approaches appropriate? Did interventions remain relevant throughout implementation? Were interventions inclusive of women, people with disabilities and vulnerable households? Coherence: How well did project activities complement sectoral strategies and humanitarian response plans? How effectively was coordination undertaken with humanitarian and development actors and government structures? Effectiveness: To what extent were planned outputs and outcomes achieved? Which interventions produced the strongest results? What factors facilitated or hindered performance? Efficiency: Were resources used economically? How efficient and effective were the modalities choice compared to other modalities (cash, in-kind/goods, service delivery)? Was implementation timely and cost-effective? To what extent did partner coordination mechanisms, roles and responsibilities, communication processes, and management systems contribute to efficient and effective project implementation? Impact: What changes occurred in: Food security status of target households? The use of negative coping mechanisms employed by households to meet their food and basic needs? Household resilience? Nutrition practices, including dietary diversity? Livelihood capacities? Capacities of community structures, local partners, and local authorities as a result of the project? What unintended outcomes emerged? Sustainability: Are benefits: likely to continue after project completion? What mechanisms support sustainability? How sustainable are: VSLA groups? Kitchen Gardens? WASH facilities? Community volunteer structures? Capacity development investments? Gender, Inclusion and Protection: How effectively were women engaged? Were vulnerable groups equitably reached? Were safeguarding and protection concerns adequately addressed? Localization: To what extent did the project strengthen GISCOR and community structures, including local authorities (e.g., LEMA)? How sustainable are local capacities developed through the project? Peace Nexus: To what extent has the project contributed to social cohesion and peaceful coexistence among IDPs, returnees, and host communities? To what extent has the project contributed to peace, or inadvertently contributed to tensions or conflict between different groups? How equitable was the distribution of assistance between IDP, returnee, and host-community households, and how was this perceived by community members? To what extent did community structures, local leaders, peace committees, CBOs, and community gatekeepers contribute to conflict prevention, dispute resolution, and social cohesion? Hygiene behavior: What drives adoption of positive hygiene practices? Which communication channels are most effective for reaching IDP, returnee, and host community members? Methodology Evaluation Design and Endline Assessment Approach: The consultant will conduct a comprehensive Endline Assessment and Final Project Evaluation using a mixed-methods approach that combines quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The endline assessment will generate final measurements for all applicable outcome and output indicators contained within the project Result Framework and assess the extent to which the project achieved its intended objectives. The evaluation will cover the entire implementation period from January 2023 to December 2026 and will assess the project’s performance against the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of: Relevance Coherence Effectiveness Efficiency Impact Sustainability The endline assessment shall compare endline findings with available baseline, monitoring, post-distribution monitoring (PDM), project reports, and routine monitoring data to determine progress, outcomes, and project contributions toward improved food security, nutrition, livelihoods, WASH services, resilience, and local capacity strengthening. The evaluator shall apply a participatory and utilization-focused evaluation approach that ensures the perspectives of beneficiaries, community leaders, local authorities, implementing partners, and project staff are adequately captured. Specific Objectives of the Endline Assessment The endline assessment shall generate endline values for project indicators and provide evidence to assess the evaluation objectives and key questions outlined in Sections 4 and 5. Specifically, the assessment shall: Generate final values for all applicable project indicators. Assess progress towards project outcomes and intended results. Examine performance against OECD-DAC evaluation criteria. Assess cross-cutting priorities, localization, conflict sensitivity, and Peace Nexus dimensions. Generate lessons learned and recommendations for future programming. Evaluation Framework: The evaluation will use a theory-of-change-based evaluation approach linking project inputs, activities, outputs, outcomes, and intended impacts. The evaluator shall assess whether the project’s theory of change was achieved and determine the pathways through which project interventions contributed to observed results. Particular emphasis shall be placed on understanding the interrelationship between: Emergency food assistance Cash transfers Nutrition interventions WASH interventions Livelihood interventions Community resilience initiatives Partner capacity strengthening Data Collection Methods: The consultant shall utilize multiple data collection methods to ensure robust triangulation of findings. Desk Review: The evaluation shall commence with a detailed review of project documentation. Documents to be reviewed include: Proposal Document and Contract Results Framework Baseline Assessment Reports RedRose monitoring data/reports PDM Reports Market Assessment Reports KAP Survey Reports Training Reports Beneficiary Databases Progress Reports Financial Reports Accountability/FCRM Reports Capacity Assessment Reports Partner Monitoring Reports Previous Evaluations The desk review will support: Refinement of evaluation questions Development of tools Sample design Indicator verification methodology Quantitative Household Survey (Endline Survey): The evaluator shall independently design, manage, and implement the endline household survey, including sampling, data collection supervision, quality assurance, data analysis, and reporting. Project staff may facilitate access to communities and provide beneficiary lists or relevant project documents but shall not influence respondent selection, data collection findings, analysis, or the conclusions of the evaluation. The results of the endline household survey will be used to determine and report the final values of project indicators. The survey shall measure: Food Security: Food Consumption Score (FCS) Reduced Coping Strategy Index (r-CSI) Household food access Basic Needs and Cash Assistance: Cash utilization patterns Priority needs met through MPCA Household expenditure patterns related to food and non-food basic needs Nutrition: Household dietary diversity M-IYCF knowledge and practices Child feeding practices PLW dietary diversity Livelihoods; Kitchen garden utilization Household vegetable consumption Business performance of the IGAs distributed to the project participants Income diversification VSLA participation WASH: Hygiene practices Handwashing behavior Water access and utilization Sanitation utilization Capacity Strengthening: Community volunteer and project committee capacities. Local partner, SEMA/LEMA, CCCM, and LGA government capacities Capacities of Local Peace Committees and community leaders for social cohesion and conflict resolution. Community knowledge, attitudes, and practices related to protection, GBV prevention, women’s empowerment, and civic engagement. The evaluation shall use electronic data collection platforms such as Kobo Collect or SurveyCTO Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) Semi-structured KIIs shall be conducted with key stakeholders including: ZOA Staff: Country Management Programme Managers Technical Leads MEAL Personnel Partner Organizations: GISCOR management GISCOR field staff Government Stakeholders: LGA/SEMA authorities WASH departments Agriculture departments Health authorities Financial Service Providers: Cash vendors/money agents Humanitarian Actors: WASH Sector Food Security Sector Camp Coordination actors Community Structures: Community leaders Local Peace Committees Religious leaders Volunteer promoters Water management committees Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) FGDs shall be conducted separately to ensure meaningful participation and inclusion. Groups shall include: Adult men Adult women Female-headed households Adolescent girls Youth groups Persons with disabilities IDPs and host community members PLWs VSLA participants Kitchen garden beneficiaries Community volunteers FGDs will explore perceptions of: Relevance Effectiveness Impact Sustainability Gender and inclusion Accountability Direct Observation: The evaluator shall conduct direct field observations to verify the condition, functionality, and utilization of project-supported assets. This shall include: WASH Infrastructure: Boreholes Water points Latrines Handwashing stations Livelihood Assets: Kitchen gardens Business kits Demonstration plots Community Structures: VSLA groups Hygiene promotion groups Community committees including Local Peace Committees and WASHCOMs and community volunteers Observation checklists shall be developed and used. Most Significant Change (MSC) Stories The evaluator shall collect and document at least 10–15 Most Significant Change Stories from beneficiaries across intervention sectors and population groups. Stories should capture the changes that beneficiaries consider most significant as a result of the project and explain why these changes are important to them. Where relevant, stories may highlight changes related to: Food security and access to basic needs; Utilization and outcomes of cash assistance (including investments in livelihoods, housing, savings, education, health, or other priority household needs); Nutrition and dietary practices; Women’s empowerment and leadership; Resilience and coping capacity; Livelihood recovery and economic wellbeing; Social inclusion and participation; Social cohesion, conflict mitigation, and peaceful coexistence; Capacity strengthening of community volunteers, community structures, local partners, and government actors; Protection, rights awareness, and access to services. MSC stories should provide qualitative evidence of the project’s impact on household wellbeing. Sampling Strategy: The evaluator shall develop a statistically sound sampling strategy and provide justification for the selected sample size. The sampling methodology should achieve: 95% confidence level 5% margin of error where feasible Adequate representation across intervention areas Sampling shall ensure adequate representation by: Location Gender Age Disability status Displacement status (IDPs, returnees, and host-community households) Intervention type The final sample design must be approved by ZOA before commencement of fieldwork. Enumerator Recruitment and Training: The evaluator shall recruit qualified enumerators with experience: in humanitarian assessments and familiarity with local languages. Enumerators shall be trained on: Evaluation objectives Questionnaire administration Ethical considerations Informed consent procedures Safeguarding and PSEA Disability-sensitive approaches Electronic data collection A pilot test shall be conducted before the start of actual data collection. Data Quality Assurance : The evaluator shall establish a comprehensive data quality assurance system including: Tool pre-testing Daily field supervision Spot checks Back checks Data validation Real-time dashboard monitoring Verification of GPS coordinates Data cleaning protocols The evaluator shall submit a Data Quality Assurance Plan as part of the inception report. Data Analysis: The evaluator shall analyze quantitative and qualitative data using internationally accepted methods. Quantitative Analysis Analysis shall include: Descriptive statistics Cross-tabulations Comparative analysis against baseline values Trend analysis Indicator computation Where feasible, significance testing shall be conducted to assess observed changes over time. Software may include: SPSS STATA R Excel Power BI Qualitative Analysis: FGD and KII transcripts shall be coded and analyzed through thematic analysis. Key themes shall be mapped against: OECD-DAC criteria Project outcomes Cross-cutting themes Cross-Cutting Analysis Throughout the evaluation, findings shall be analyzed through the lenses of: Gender Equality Disability Inclusion Protection Mainstreaming Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Climate Adaptation Localization Conflict Sensitivity Particular attention shall be paid to the experiences of women, persons with disabilities, adolescent girls, elderly persons, and female-headed households. Validation and Dissemination: Following completion of the analysis, the evaluator shall facilitate a validation workshop with ZOA, GISCOR, SEMA, relevant government stakeholders, and selected community representatives. The workshop will: Present preliminary findings. Validate results and interpretations. Obtain sta