Humanitarian Multi-Sectorial Rapid Response Mechanism

TERMS OF REFERENCE

For theFinal IndependentExternal Evaluation of Action Against Hungerproject

‘HUMANITARIAN MULTI-SECTORIAL RAPID RESPONSE MECHANISM

YOBE AND BORNO STATE, NIGERIA

ProjectandEvaluationSummary Table

Project Name / Humanitarian multi-Sectoralemergency response
ContractNumber / AID-OFDA-G-14-00128
Sector / Multi-Sector -
Health
Nutrition
Water, Sanitation & Hygiene
Logistic Support and Relief Commodities
Agriculture and Food Security
Economic Recovery and Market SystemsHealth
ImplementingPartners(if
applicable) / NA
Location(country/ies,
region/s) / YobeandBornoStates,Nigeria
ProjectDuration / 14 months (Sep. 1, 2016 – Oct. 31, 2017)
Starting Date / September 1,2016
Ending Date / October 31,2017(originally plannedAugust 31,2017)
ProjectLanguage / English
Donor & Contribution/s / OFDA: 12,300,000.42USD
Mission administering the
Project / Action AgainstHungerNigeria
Responsible ACFHQ / Action AgainstHungerUSA
Evaluation Type / IndependentFinalProjectEvaluation
Evaluation Dates / 12/08/2016-30/09/2016

ListofAcronyms

ALNAP: / Active Learning Network for Accountability andPerformanceinHumanitarianAction
ANC: / Antenatal Care
AOG: / Armed Opposition Group
BoQ: / Bill ofQuantities
BOSADP: / BornoStateAgriculturalDevelopmentProgram
CV: / CommunityVolunteers
CMAM: / Community Management of Acute Malnutrition
COB: / Community Based Organizations
DAC: / Development Assistance Committee
DTM: / DisplacementTrackingMatrix
EDC: / Entrepreneurship Development Centre
ELA: / Evaluation, LearningandAccountability
FMoH: / Federal Ministry of Health
FSL: / FoodSecurity and Livelihood
HF: / Health Facilities
HQ / Headquarters
IDP: / InternallyDisplacedPersons
IGA: / Incomegeneratingactivities
IMNCI / Integrated Management of Neonatal and childhood illness
IOM: / InternationalOrganizationforMigration
IYCF: / Infantandyoungchildfeeding
LGA: / LocalGovernment Area
LLITN: / LongLastingInsecticideTreatedNets
MMC: / Maiduguri Metropolitan Council
MUAC: / Mid-UpperArmCircumference
NCE: / NoCostExtension
NEMA: / National EmergencyManagementAgency
NFI: / Non Food Items
OECD: / Organizationfor EconomicCo-operation andDevelopment
OFDA / Office of U.S. Foreign Disaster Assistance
OTP: / Outpatient Therapeutic Program
PDM: / PostDistribution Monitoring
PPS / Probability Proportionate to Size
RUWASSA / Rural Water SupplyandSanitationAgency
SAM: / SevereAcuteMalnutrition
SEMA: / StateEmergencyManagementAgency
SMOH / StateMinistryof Health
TOR: / Termsof Reference
USA: / United States of America
USAID: / United State Agency for International Development
VIP / Ventilated Improved Pit
WASH: / Water, Sanitation and Hygiene
WUC: / WaterUserCommittee

1. PROJECTBACKGROUND

1.1.Map of ProjectArea

1.2.Rationale for theProject

The past eight years of violence between the Nigerian armed forces and armed opposition groups (AOG) in north east Nigeria have caused mass displacement and drained state and community resources. At its peak, 2.2 million individuals were displaced by the conflict.At the time the project to be reviewed was designed,958,549 returnees from within and outside Nigeria were recorded to have returned to their homes (HNO, 2016 and IOM DTM Round XII, Oct. 2016). Previously inaccessible areas in northeastern Borno and southeastern Yobe are now opening, revealing populations in dire need of humanitarian support and near-famine conditions. According to the 2017 Humanitarian Response Plan, 8.5 million individuals are in need of humanitarian assistance in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe. This ishigher than the 7.0 million individuals identified in 2016. Of these, 6.9 million are in need of health care, 3.4 million require nutritional support, 5.1 million individuals in need of food security, 2.3 million are in need of emergency shelter and NFIs, and 3.6 million have WASH needs, critical given the endemic nature of cholera outbreaks in the northeast, common during the rainy season which extends from May – October. According to the September 2016 Humanitarian Dashboard indicated that less than half of the targeted population had been reached and gaps were still very significant, including in accessible areas such as MMC and Jere. Needs were expected to be greater in then-newly accessible or still inaccessible areas such as Bade, Gujba, Gulani, Nangere and Tarmuwa in Yobe and Magumeri, Monguno Nganzai and Kukawa in Borno.

Due to the high level of needs identified at the time, Action Against Hunger proposed to scale up its current USAID/OFDA-supported humanitarian response in Yobe and Borno states to deliver a full package consisting of Health,Economic recovery and market systems, Agriculture and food security and nutrition, along with water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) and non-food items (NFIs) support. In areas already targeted by Action Against Hunger and other actors, including Bade, Gujba, Gulani, Nangere and Tarmuwa in Yobe state and MMC, Jere, Konduga, Kukawa, Magumeri, Ngazai and Monguno in Borno state, Action Against Hunger proposed to complement its activities or the activities of a partner to ensure integrated Health, Nutrition, FSL and WASH support is delivered to vulnerable communities in an integrated manner. The health activities of the response are meant to strengthen primary health care and reproductive services and the treatment of communicable diseases though the provision of inputs along with training for health workers. The capacity of health workers to identify and link to the high level of psychosocial mental health needs are also to be improved through training. These activities are complemented by training delivered to community volunteers to improve health, hygiene, nutritional awareness and psychosocial mental health support in the implementing areas. Action Against Hunger planned to support nutritional services at the health facilities through training and promotion of Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF) practices and support for Community-based Management of Acute Malnutrition (CMAM). WASH activities are expected to improve access to safe water and adequate sanitation facilities at the same health facilities/sites and in their surrounding communities through construction and rehabilitation of boreholes and latrines, along with hygiene promotion. Non-food items, such as hygiene kits, were also to be provided for the immediate non-food item needs of vulnerable households in the affected areas and enable the recipients to adopt improved hygiene practices.

Action Against Hunger aims to provide integrated assistance to the target populations in these LGAs by coordinating this proposed response with other projects, including FFP-funded food assistance. To expand coverage and to build local capacity, Action Against Hunger identified a local organization, the Herwa Community Development Initiative that can support community mobilization. Additionally, Action Against Hunger coordinates with UN agencies, other humanitarian partners, Nigerian government agencies (such as NEMA, SEMA, SMOH, BOSEPA and State and LGA officials) and community and traditional leaders to deliver comprehensive support to the most vulnerable, crisis-affected populations in Borno and Yobe.

1.3.ProjectObjectives

The generalobjective of the intervention is to provide life-saving assistance to affected populations in Borno and Yobe states in Northeast Nigeria to improve the resiliency of target communities against shocks from the emergency and for recovery through integrated health, nutrition, WASH, logistics, agricultural and food security and economic recovery interventions.

Specificobjectives:

• Improve access and quality of primary health care services in target area
• Strengthen the capacity of health facilities to provide quality CMAM intervention and enhance adoption of Infant and Young Child Feeding (IYCF)
• Improve potable water access, appropriate sanitation facilities and hygiene practices for target populations
• Improve access of displaced persons and host communities to culturally appropriate non-food items (NFIs)
• Improved food security of targeted populations through integration of agricultural initiatives
• Improved recovery of targeted beneficiaries through integration livelihood activities

Please see the detailed geographical areas covered is in Figure 1 above and the number of IDPstargeted in Annex I. A detailed list of results and activities can be found in the project logframe in the Annex II.The management set up for the project involves Action Against Hunger US, in charge of the technical support, the Country Office in Abuja, in charge of the donorreporting,thetechnicaland overallcoordinationand theFieldOfficesinYobeandBorno,incharge ofthefieldcoordinationandtheimplementation.Action against Hunger has three Field Offices (Maiduguri and Monguno in Borno state and Damaturu in Yobe state) in the locations of the project intervention. Each base is headed by the Field Coordinator.The overall management of the project is under the Multisectoral Program Manager based in Maiduguri, Borno state. The project presently has both national and international staff implementing it in these locations

1.4.Project CurrentStatus

Theprojectsis on the verge of completing its planned activities intheselected communities though there could underspending due to slow progress especially on Health and Nutrition,alongwithPost DistributionMonitoring (PDM)andregularprogram monitoringactivities.There is currently limitedimpediment to program implementation due tosecurity, and many previously inaccessible LGAs targeted for the project are now opened for humanitarian services to be provided to vulnerable populations.Theonly pointof delayexperiencedforthe intervention is as a result of prolonged time taken to recruit a Nutrition Program Manager to oversee the nutrition aspect of the intervention in Borno.Most of the planned outputs are expected to be met before the project closeout time though there is possibility of NCE as a result of underspending in Health and Nutrition.

2. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OFTHEEVALUATION

2.1.Rationalefor theEvaluation

Thisevaluationis conductedas anexerciseofaccountability towards thedonor andthebeneficiaries atits final implementationstage. It aims to provide useful insights for programme learning and accountability especially in light of the transitioning process from full scale emergency operations to rehabilitation/reconstruction and resettlement

2.2.Objectivesof the Evaluation

Theoverarchingpurposeoftheevaluationistoassesstheoverallperformanceoftheprojectand to determineifithasachieveditsintended outputsand outcomesin thedifferentsectorsclearly explainingwhy or whynotthroughanintegratedanalysis of theentireresultchain(inputs,activities, outputsoutcomes andLikelihood ofImpact)andcontextualfactors. The evaluation will use a multi sector approach to determine the efficacy of project based on the DAC criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, relevance, sustainability and impact)as shown below.

2.3.Usersof the Evaluation

Directusers:Action Against Hungerfieldteams,TechnicalandSeniorManagementTeams,Action Against HungerTechnicalAdvisors/ Director intheHQ(NY),Ministryof Agriculture, NEMA,SEMA, S&FMOH, RUWASA.

Indirectusers:ELAteamAction Against Hunger-UK,Action Against HungerInternationalNetwork,OFDAandotherdonors,federal,regional andlocalgovernments, ministries,UNagenciesand GlobalClusters,NGOsand NGOConsortiumsas well ashumanitarianlearningplatforms(suchasALNAP).

2.4.Use of the Evaluation

The evaluation will be used for Learning,improvementandaccountability. Lessonslearnt (from all sector sof the project),identifiedgoodpracticesandrecommendationsareexpectedtobetakenonboardin designing any other intervention.The evaluation findings and results will inform knowledge management base of Action Against Hunger and will ensure best practices are adopted and applied within all the sectors. Feedback from the evaluation will be used to improve quality of our programs, modification and revision of design based on the lessons learnt. This gains will be utilized across AAH International network.

3. EVALUATIONSCOPE

3.1.Elementscoveredbytheevaluation

Theevaluationwillfocus ontheentireprojectfundedbyOFDA,includingall itstechnicalareas. Nevertheless,assomeoftheproject’sobjectivesareless oftenimplemented withinAction Against Hunger(e.g.shelterand diseaseawarenesslinkedtoWASH) the evaluation will adopt a multi sectoral approach and establish linkages and interconnectedness within the sectors. The evaluation will also establish

Lessons learnt during the implementation of the project and adopt best practices which can be used to improve the quality and design of future interventions.

The geographical scope of the evaluation will coverthe projectsites in both Yobe and Borno state. However, simple random sampling of some LGAs and communities/wards will be done in to maximize on the time allocated for the evaluation.

3.2.Cross-cuttingissues

Throughouttheevaluationprocess,genderconcernsshouldbeaddressedinlinewiththeAction Against HungerGenderPolicy.Alldatashouldbedisaggregatedbysexandageanddifferent needsofwomen,men,boysand girlsshouldbeconsideredthroughouttheevaluationprocess.

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

AsperAction Against HungerEvaluationPolicyandGuidelines 2015,Action Against HungeradherestotheOrganisationforEconomicCo- operationandDevelopment(OECD)DevelopmentAssistance Committee (DAC) criteriaevaluation approach for evaluatingits projects.

In particular, Action Against Hunger uses the following adapted criteria: Design, Relevance/Appropriateness, Coherence, Coverage, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Sustainability and Likelihood of Impact[1]. Action Against Hunger also promotes a systematic analysis of the monitoring system in place within the aforementioned criteria.

Evaluationquestionshave been developedtohelptheevaluatorassesstheprojectagainstthese criteria(refertoAnnexIII). Theevaluator mayadapttheevaluationcriteriaand questions,butany fundamentalchangesshouldbeagreedbetweentheevaluation managerandtheevaluatorandreflected intheinceptionreport.

Allindependentevaluations carried out in Action Against Hungerareexpected touseDACcriteriaindataanalysisandreporting.In particular,theevaluatormustcompletetheDACcriteriaratingtable(refertoAnnexIV)andincludeit as partof thefinal evaluationreport.

5. EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Thisisa one-groupdesign evaluation, examininga singleproject, withoutincludinganycomparison withpeople thatdid notparticipatein theproject.In the event that the endline survey report is available, the evaluationisalsoexpectedtodiscuss changes achieved“beforeandafter[2]” the projecthas beeninoperation. The set of indicators defined in the logical framework will be used to measure the project performance. Information on Incidence and prevalence of high-morbidity rates, Case fatality rates for diarrhea and Rates of admission, default, death, cure, relapse, non-response, transfer and length of stay will be collected using SMART methodology

Outlinedbelowisthesuggestedmethodologicalapproachfortheevaluatortocollectquantitativeand qualitativedataandthechronologicalstepsoftheevaluationprocess.Theevaluatorwilltotheextent possibledevelopdatagatheringinstrumentsand methodswhich allowcollectingsexandage disaggregateddata.Theinstrumentsneedtomakeprovisionforthetriangulation ofdatawhere possible. A mix of qualitative and quantitative tools will be developed for the purpose of this evaluation. The tools to be used should include:

Household questionnaire

Focus group discussion

Key informant interviews

Direct observations

5.1.EvaluationBriefing

Priortotheevaluation takingplace,theevaluatorisexpectedtoparticipatean evaluation technical briefingwith theEvaluation ManagerAction Against Hunger-UK, the M&E focal person for the Nigerian Mission and M&E Advisor in the NY headquarters. Briefings bytelephonemustbeagreed inadvance.

5.2.Desk review

Theevaluatorwillundertakea deskreviewofprojectmaterials, includingtheprojectdocumentsand proposals,progressreports, logframe,Monitoring and evaluation plan among other public outputs oftheproject(suchaspublications,communicationmaterials, videos,recordingetc.),resultsofanyinternalplanningprocessandrelevantmaterialsfromsecondary sources(AnnexV).

5.3.Sampling

Theevaluatorshouldclearlystatethesamplingapproachinterms ofsitesand beneficiaries.Asno accessorsecurityissuesareexpected tohinderrepresentativenessof theentirepopulation (amount ofpeopleserved), simple randomsamplingissuggestedbased onbeneficiaries’projectlists, community distribution sites, or health facility sites and mobile clinics, water points .As mentionedintheevaluationscopesection,theaimisfortheevaluationtobe statistically representative ofallsites targeted by the program.In casea differentsamplingapproachisproposedortime/accessconstraintscomeup,forthesamplingofsites, priorityshouldbegiventobothsitesin BornoandYobe state based on the numbers of activities implemented and beneficiaries served.Thecriteriaforthe selectionshould involve community leaders, volunteers and direct beneficiaries. The samplingapproach should be adjustedandfurtherdetailed bytheevaluator intheinceptionreport.

5.4.InceptionReport

Attheendofthedeskreviewperiodandbeforethefieldmission,theevaluatorwillprepareabriefinceptionreportbased on theformatprovided.ThereportwillbewritteninEnglishandwillinclude the followingsections:

KeyelementsoftheTermsofReference(TORs)todemonstratethattheevaluatorwilladhere to the TORs;

-Themethodologicalapproachtotheevaluationincludeanevaluationmatrixinannexto specifyhowthe evaluatorwillcollectdata toanswertheevaluationquestions, pointingout the limitationstothemethodologyifanyandthe choiceof sitesperfieldvisit;

-The datacollectiontools; Adetailedevaluationworkplan; and

-StatementofadherencetoAction Against HungerEvaluationPolicy andoutlinetheevaluationreportformat.

Theinceptionreportwill bediscussedandapprovedbytheEvaluation ManagerinAAH-UK and the Nigerian Mission M&E unitandsharedwith other relevant stakeholders.

5.5 Field Mission

Primarydata collectiontechniques

Aspartoftheevaluation,theevaluator willinterviewkeyprojectstakeholders(expatriate/national projectstaff,local/nationalrepresentatives,localauthorities,humanitarian agencies,ordonor representatives)asper the list inAnnex VI.The evaluator will use the mostsuitableformatfor these interviewsasdetailedintheinceptionreport.The evaluatorisalsoexpectedto collectinformation directlyfrombeneficiaries.Towards enrichingtriangulation,,The evaluatorwill alsoconductFocus GroupDiscussionswithrelevantstakeholder(suchas beneficiaries,non-beneficiaries,WASH committees, Health facility staff, Community volunteers, Cash vendors among other groups who will be identified during planning stage),keyinformants interviews(traditional leaders and community volunteers, etc.) and household surveys.

Fieldvisits

Theevaluatorwillvisittheprojectsitesandthefacilitiesprovidedtothebeneficiaries(ifany)accordingtoselectmethods described inthe inceptionreport.

Secondarydatacollectiontechniques:Deskreview

Theevaluatorwillfurtherreviewcomplementarydocumentsandcollectprojectmonitoringdataor ofanyotherrelevantstatisticaldataavailable.DatafromKAPSurveys,PDMs,Cash transfer andsurveillances willbeanalyzed.

Debriefingandstakeholders workshop

Theevaluatorshallfacilitatealearningworkshopboth in the field and in the national office topresentpreliminaryfindingsofthe evaluationtotheproject andkey stakeholders(including Local,Nationalactorsandimplementing partnersactors);togatherfeedbackonthefindingsandbuildconsensusonrecommendations;to developaction-orientedworkshopstatementsonlessonslearnedandproposedimprovementsfor the future.

5.6 Evaluation Report

Theevaluationreportshallfollowthefollowingformatandbewritten inEnglish:

CoverPage;

SummaryTabletofollowtemplateprovided

Table of Contents

Listof acronyms

Executive Summary must be a standalone summary, describing the intervention, main findingsoftheevaluation,andconclusionsandrecommendations.Thiswillbenomorethan2pagesinlength

BackgroundInformation

Methodologydescribethemethodologyused,provideevidenceoftriangulationofdataand presentslimitationstothemethodology

Findingsincludesoverallassessmentoftheprojectagainsttheevaluationcriteria,responds totheevaluationquestions,allfindingsarebackedupbyevidence, cross-cuttingissuesare mainstreamed and;unintended andunexpected outcomesarealsodiscussed

Conclusionsareformulatedbysynthesizingthemainfindingsintostatementsofmeritand worth,judgmentsarefair,impartial, andconsistentwith thefindings

LessonsLearntandGoodPracticespresentlessonsthatcanbeappliedelsewhereto improve projectperformance, outcome, orimpactand;identifygoodpractices:successfulpractices fromthoselessonswhich areworthyofreplication;furtherdevelopon onespecificgood practicetobeshowcased inthetemplateprovidedinAnnex VII

Recommendationsshouldbeasrealistic, operational andpragmaticaspossible; thatis, they shouldtakecarefulaccountofthecircumstancescurrentlyprevailingin thecontext ofthe action,andoftheresourcesavailabletoimplementitlocally.Theyshouldfollowlogically fromconclusions,lessonslearned, Monitoring and accountability frameworkandgoodpractices.Thereport mustspecifywhoneeds to takewhat actionandwhen. Recommendations needtobepresented byorderofpriority

Annexesshouldbelistedandnumberedandmustincludethefollowing:Goodpractice template(annexVII),EvaluationCriteriaRatingTable(annexIV),listofdocumentsforthedesk review(annexV),listofpersonsinterviewed(annexVI),datacollectioninstrument,evaluation TORs

Thewhole report shallnot belonger than30pages, 50pagesincludingannexes.Thedraftreport shouldbesubmittednolaterthan10calendardaysafterdeparturefromthefield.Thefinalreport willbesubmittednolaterthantheenddateoftheconsultancycontract.The reports and annexeswill beacceptedin theEnglish Language only.

5.7Debriefing with Evaluation ManagerAction Against Hunger-UK

TheevaluatorshouldprovideadebriefingtotheEvaluation ManagerinAction Against Hunger-UKtodiscussanyissuesrelatedtothe quality oftheevaluationreport.

5.8Debriefing withAction Against HungerNigeria Mission and NY HQ

TheevaluatorshouldprovideadebriefingwiththerelevantAction Against HungerHQonher/hisdraftevaluationreport,andonthemainfindings,conclusionsandrecommendationsoftheevaluation.Relevantcomments shouldbeincorporatedin thefinal report.

6. KEYDELIVERABLES

Thefollowingarethe evaluationoutputs the evaluatorwilldelivertotheEvaluation Manager inAction Against Hunger-UK:

Outputs / Deadlines
InceptionReport / 04/10/2017
Stakeholdersworkshop / 23/10/2017
Presentation of preliminaryfindings / 24/10/2017[3]
DraftEvaluationReport / 31/10/2017
Final EvaluationReport / 10/11/2017

All outputs mustbesubmittedinEnglishand in WordDocumentformat.

Thequalityoftheinceptionreportandtheevaluationreportwill beassessedby theEvaluation manager inAction Against Hunger-UK.Theevaluatoris expected to followtheformat,structureandlengthasdefinedundersection5.4and5.6above.

7. MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS ANDWORKPLAN

Theseevaluation TORshavebeendevelopedina participatory manner,bytheELAinAction Against Hunger-UKbased oninputsfromrelevantstakeholders.

TheevaluatorwilldirectlyreporttotheEvaluation ManagerinAction Against Hunger-UK.Theevaluatorwill submitalltheevaluation outputsdirectlyand onlytotheEvaluation Manager inAction Against Hunger-UK.TheEvaluation ManagerinAction Against Hunger-UKwilldoaqualitycheck(ensure requiredelementsarethere)anddecidewhetherthereportisreadyforsharing.Themanagerwillforward a copy to key stakeholders for comments onfactual issues andfor clarifications. The Evaluation managerwill consolidatethecommentsandsendthesetotheevaluatorbythedateagreedbetween theEvaluation manager and theevaluatororassoonasthecommentsarereceivedfromstakeholders.Theevaluatorwillconsider allcommentstofinalizereportandwillsubmitittotheEvaluation manager whowillthenofficiallyforwardtorelevant stakeholders.

OncetheevaluationiscompletedtheEvaluation managerwillpreparethemanagementresponsefollow-up formto trackimplementationof therecommendations outlined intheevaluationreport. A review of the follow-upprocesswillbeundertaken six monthsafterthepublicationoftheevaluationreport.

7.1 Tentative Workplan

NOTE:Consultantsareexpectedtowork6daysaweek(eitherSundays/Fridaysorwhateverdaythe fieldoffice hasoffwillnotbe paid)duringtheirconsultancycontract.

Activities / Evaluator
Working
Days / Dates / Day
Lastdatefor ToR Validation / 31/08/2017 / Thurs
RecruitmentLaunched (Publication) / 9 / 01/09/2017–
09/09/2017 / Fri-Sat
Selection/Referencerequest / 4 / 10/09/2017–
13/09/2017 / Sun-Weds
Contractual Arrangements / 2 / 28/09/2017-
29/09/2017 / Thu - Fri
EvaluationbriefingwithEvaluation managerAction Against Hunger-UK / 0.25 / 02/10/2017 / Mon
Briefingswith HQ / 0.25 / 02/10/2017 / Mon
Desk review, preparation of field work and
prepare InceptionReport / 2.5 / 02/10/2017-
04/10/2017 / Mon - Weds
InceptionReportValidation / Min.1 / 05/10/2017-
06/10/2017 / Thurs- Fri
Travel to thefield / 1 / 07/10/2017 / Sat
Incountryinterviewswith projectstaff / 1 / 09/10/2017 / Mon
Incountryinterviewswithotherstakeholders
(OFDA,Ministries,NEMA, etc) / 1 / 10/10/2017 / Tues
Fieldwork,collectionandanalysisofsecondary
data &meetingwith stakeholders (Yobe & Borno) / 12 / 11/10/2017-
22/10/2017 / Mon- Sat
StakeholdersWorkshopincountry / 1 / 23/10/2017 / Mon
Presentation of preliminaryfindings / 0.5 / 24/10/2017 / Tue
De-briefingwith OFDA (if available) / 0.5 / 24/10/2017 / Tue
Travelback from thefield / 1 / 25/10/2017 / Wed
EvaluationdebriefingwithEvaluation manager-UK / 0.25 / 26/10/2017 / Thurs
EvaluationdebriefingwithHQ / 0.25 / 26/10/2017 / Thurs
Draft Report / 5 / 26/10/2017 –
31/10/2017 / Fri - Tue
AAH-UK:Qualitycheckandinitial reviewbyEvaluation manager,
circulatedraftreport tokeystakeholders, consolidatecommentsofstakeholdersandsend to evaluator / 7 / 01/11/2017-
07/11/2017 / Wed-Tue
Final report on the basis of stakeholders,
Mission,HQ, andAAH-UKcomments / 3 / 08/11/2017 -
10/11/2017 / Wed-Fri
Total: / 29.5

7.2Profile oftheevaluator