Updated Parliamentary Support Programme Mid Term Evaluation TORs 6 May 2022

Parliament of Zimbabwe

Job Description

I.              Position Information

Job Code Title:      Mid Term Evaluation for the Parliamentary Support Programme (PSP)

Supervisor:             Parliament Programmes Coordinator and Head of UNDP Governance Unit

Level:                     Consultancy Team (Governance Specialist and M&E Specialist)

Duration:                15 days

Duty Station:         Harare

II.             Organisational Context

The Constitution of Zimbabwe expanded the power of Parliament in line with the doctrine of the Separation of Powers, between the Judiciary, the Executive and Parliament. Section 119 of the Constitution confers Parliament with the power to protect the Constitution and promote democratic governance in Zimbabwe. In this regard, the Parliament is the supreme oversight, legislative and representative body in Zimbabwe. However, the high turnover of Parliamentarians during elections cycles has continued to create huge capacity gaps within Parliament. These capacity gaps coupled with limited resources has limited the capacity of the Parliament to effectively execute its constitutional mandates. This has resulted in a demand-driven need to enhance the capacity of Parliamentarians so that they become effective in the execution of their roles. 

The Parliament Support Programme (PSP) was designed in response to Zimbabwe’s development priorities outlined in the Zimbabwe United Nations Development Framework (ZUNDAF) 2012-2015, the Transitional Stabilization Program (TSP) 2018-2020, the Constitution of Zimbabwe, and the Parliament of Zimbabwe Institutional Strategic Plans 2014-2018 and 2019-2023. The PSP has the ultimate goal to innovatively support the Parliament of Zimbabwe mainly in undertaking its legislative, oversight and representational roles and ensure that constitutional provisions are operationalized with emphasis on protecting human rights and promoting transparency, accountability and democratic governance. This programme is supported by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the European Union (EU). Currently, the PSP is in the 4th cycle and it is being implemented drawing lessons from the previous Parliamentary Support Programmes, particularly from the 3rd cycle of 2014-2019.

The overall objective of the programme, is to enable the Parliament of Zimbabwe (POZ) to perform its core functions for improved legislation, participation, representation and accountability. The specific outcomes of the project are articulated as follows: –

Outcome 1: Improved good governance and economic development through timely passing of good laws.

Outcome 2: Strengthened Parliamentary oversight in protecting rights of citizens and fostering responsive and accountable governance. 

Outcome 3: Strengthened Administration of Parliament in Results Based Project Management.

III.           Evaluation Purpose, Scope and Objective.

The Parliament Support Programme provides the overall programme framework for strengthening Parliament’s legislative, representative and oversight functions in Zimbabwe. The 4th cycle of the programme is now in the mid-level of its implementation and this necessitates a need to conduct a mid-term evaluation of the programme to assess and review the progress of the project against the set outcomes, outputs and targets. In particular, the evaluation seeks to ascertain appropriate measures for refocusing the programme strategies, highlight areas of strength and opportunities for achieving the desired results and lessons learnt. The evaluation will also identify the possible challenges, gaps and areas that need to be strengthened.

This mid-term evaluation will be conducted in line with the provisions of the Parliamentary Support Programme (PSP) project document, which mandates Parliament to engage a consultant to evaluate the project and ensure its alignment to Parliament’s Strategic Plan (2018-2023). This review will provide an opportunity for the PSP to integrate any emerging and contemporary issues that are relevant, which might have been left out at the design stage. Thus, the project seeks to hire a consultancy team to complement programme management and coordination expertise.

OBJECTIVES OF THE MID-TERM EVALUATION

The objectives of this mid-evaluation are to:

1. Assess the progress that has been made so far against the Results Resources Framework, as well as progress made per outcome for the specific indicators. In this regard, this Mid-Term Review will determine whether the project outputs are on track, are in line with the original theory of change, and the project strategy and most importantly whether the stated project outcomes will be achieved within the life of the project.
2. Map the operational, technical and programmatic gaps, challenges and areas that need improvement;
3. Proffer recommendations to scale up project delivery moving forward, and adjust/improve programming effectiveness and efficiency for optimal results achievement.
4. Recommend concrete actions for strengthening and sustaining gender equality results of the programme.
5. Make recommendation on sustainability
6. Make recommendation on communication

SCOPE OF WORK

The mid-term review will also assess the design of the project, assumptions made at project inception and the development process. In this regard, the review will place emphasis on:

1. The extent to which the project results have been achieved, partnerships established, capacities built, and cross cutting issues such as gender equality and climate change have been addressed.
2. Whether the project implementation strategy has been optimum and recommend areas for improvement and learning.
3. Further, the review will investigate the specific activities relating to each of the project objectives/outcomes listed above, including training and technical support through co-located team members.
4. The extent to which gender equality issues have been addressed, integrated, implemented and monitored in the programme.
5. Programme accountability in as far as communication and visibility is concerned.

Key Evaluation Components

Evaluation Components

Relevance and Strategic Positioning

·       To what extent is the PSP project supporting the Parliament of Zimbabwe to achieve its goals set in the Institutional Strategy (2018 -2023)

·       To what extent has been the method of delivery been appropriate to the development context?

·       Has the project been influential in national debates on governance and service delivery and, has it influenced legal reforms, human rights protection and peace and reconciliation efforts?

·       To what extent has the project influenced the relevance of law making, Parliamentary oversight and people representation in Zimbabwe.

Process

·       How was the project conceived and designed? What was the role of each development partner design/modification/implementation? To what extent was it participatory and done through consultations?

·       Was there a conflict analysis, involving input from a wide range of stakeholders? Was there a geographic mapping of high needs areas and a prioritizing of peacebuilding needs? How would/did that have helped?

·       When additional funds were received in the course of the implementation, what was the role of contributing partners in designing, modifying, and implementing project activities?

·       Are there special components built in for women, youth & children and for any particular hotspot areas?

·       Was there a capacity assessment (including HACT assessments) of any of the program relevant institutions (not only at national level but local and especially in high‐ risk areas)

·       Is there a Project LPAC at which efficiency, effectiveness, sustainability, value for money, gender dimensions were discussed and addressed?

·       Is there a results framework developed with SMART indicators? Is it relevant and did it help?

·       To what extent is Parliament and the development Partners working together towards common strategic objectives?

·       What is the process for compiling project reports and work plans, and their quality?

·       How effective is the project Board in providing technical oversight?

·       How well does the monitoring system function? Was baseline data collected/available/used in measuring achievements?

·       How did the programme evolve due to changing context- in view of COVID-19? What programme adaptations were made and what were the effects to the programmes’ results?

Effectiveness

·        What evidence is there that the support is contributing towards improvement in Parliament capacity, including institutional strengthening?   

·       How effective has Parliament been in partnering with Civil Society to promote good governance in Zimbabwe under the project?

·        Has the project utilised innovative approaches, techniques and best practices in its peacebuilding and governance programming?

·       Is the PSP project perceived by its stakeholders as a strong advocate for improving governance, peacebuilding effectiveness and integrity in Zimbabwe?

·       Considering the technical capacity and institutional arrangements between Parliament and Development Partners. How well suited are they in ensuring the project promotes democratic governance and in the country?

·       What contributing factors and impediments enhance or impede the project to perform?

·       As a supplement to project and other reports, implementing partners and stakeholders will be queried, as appropriate: What was achieved/not achieved and what factors were involved per activity?

·       Are the main beneficiaries being reached and to what extent?

·       If objectives are yet to be adequately attained, what were the key challenges?

Efficiency

·       How timely were: recruitments of staff and consultants? Procurements of goods and services? Project technical committee meetings held, and decisions implemented? Oversight meetings held and decisions implemented?

·       Were there delays in expenditures? If so, what are the reasons and how could can they be possibly fixed? Have they been fixed?

·       Were there delays in implementation? How could those delays have been better handled?

·       Were systems put in place to ensure accountability and mitigate against mismanagement and/or corruption?

·       To what extent did project outputs result from the economic use of resources? In what ways could resources have been better utilized?

·       Did coordination and oversight mechanisms work sufficiently? How to improve?

Sustainability

·       What is the likelihood that PSP interventions are sustainable?

·       What mechanisms have been set in place by Parliament and its Development Partners to support the government of Zimbabwe to sustain improvements made through these interventions?

·       What changes should be made in the current set of partnerships to promote long term sustainability?

Partnership Strategy

·       Has the partnership strategy been appropriate and effective?

·       Are there current or potential complementarities or

overlaps with existing national partners’ programmes?

·       How have partnerships affected the progress towards achieving the outputs?

·       Has the project worked effectively with other international delivery partners to deliver on good governance initiatives?

·       How effective has Parliament been in partnering with civil society?

Human Rights

·       To what extent is the project contributing towards the promotion of human rights particularly marginalised groups?

Gender Equality

·       To what extent has gender been addressed in the design, implementation and monitoring of the project? Is the gender marker data assigned to the project representative of reality?

·       To what extent is the PSP project promoting positive changes in gender equality? Are there any unintended effects?

Cross Cutting Issues

·       To what extent are poverty, environmental issues, gender disability and human right issues being addressed?

·       Are they being mainstreamed in all relevant outcomes?

Lessons Learned

·       What key lessons have been learnt so far?

·       How can the MTR inform the repositioning and refocus of the PSP project going forward?

·       How can this project be done better in terms of design and implementation?

Recommendations

·       What are the key recommendations?

·       Are there intermediate outcomes/aspects which can be considered as success?

Methodology

The evaluation should be based on an analysis of primary and secondary data collected from various sources, including project quarterly reports, minutes of project board meetings, interviews with key informants and focus group discussions (FGDs) with project beneficiaries.

The methodology should include;

      i.         Desk review of project document, modification documents, work plans, project implementation reports, monitoring and institutional level lessons learned report, curricula developed, peace message products and other relevant documentation from project personnel, partners etc.

     ii.         Key informant interviews and additional document and data collection through:

   iii.         Semi-structured individual and group interviews with internal partners,

   iv.         Semi-structured, in-person interviews with institutional partners and external stakeholders including experts and key informants, government counterparts, locally/non‐ locally based donor representatives, other programmes relevant UN or non‐ UN projects which interacted, NGO partners, Eminent Persons Group, direct beneficiaries, indirect beneficiaries and other relevant stakeholders.

     v.         Focus group discussion at relevant levels and in diverse geographic areas including representatives of CSOs and INGOs, and beneficiaries.

   vi.         Field visits and direct observations in two locations outside of the capital to ensure geographic diversity, relevance and diversity of stakeholders representing a range of government and civil society implementing partners, and beneficiaries.

Evaluation Product (Deliverables)

The evaluation shall be completed by at most 15 days from the date of contracting.

The key evaluation products the Consultants will be accountable for producing shall include:

1.     Inception report demonstrating the consultants understanding of the assignment, proposed methodology, expected results and work plan.

2.     Submission of hard and electronic copies of materials, data collected/ analysed and other evaluation documents.

3.     Draft Mid-term Evaluation Report in line with the agreed outline

4.     Submit final Report after reviews, incorporating suggested comments

5.     Workshop to present initial findings to all relevant stakeholders.

CONSULTANTS REQUIRED COMPETENCIES

The Consultancy team will undertake the following tasks:

·       Consult with the Project management team on the scope of work, methodology and possible case studies to be selected.

·       Draft the inception report outlining the assessment methodology as well as the work plan;

·       Draw on output from lessons learnt exercises conducted by implementing partners to inform the end of term evaluation;

·       Develop the research questions and interview questionnaires based on the agreed evaluation plan and methodology;

·       Organize multi-stakeholder consultations, bilateral meetings with individual stakeholders, and field trips to generate evidence that will be analysed and used for writing the draft report;

·       Submit to the Parliament of Zimbabwe a final and approved evaluation report, including a 2‐ 3-page executive summary, with evidence-based conclusions, lessons learned and key recommendations for future reference.

·       The final report will also include the following annexes: The Terms of Reference for the evaluation as well as methodology and list of questions used during the interviews and a list of key informants.

IV.           Institutional Arrangements

The consultancy team should comprise of two (2) experts demonstrating the following specific qualifications and skills:

1.Governance Specialist (Team Leader)

·       Advanced degree (minimum a Master’s Degree) in International Development, Public Policy, Political Science, Development Studies, Social Science or relevant field

·       8 years of experience of related work in the design, implementation, review or management of democratic governance programmes in Zimbabwe, 5 of which are at the Senior Management level.

·       Understanding of Parliamentary procedures and practices with verifiable experience of working with Parliament is an added advantage.

·       Experience in evaluating projects of a similar type and scope;

·       Strong writing and analytical skills.

2.Monitoring and Evaluation Specialist (Team Member)

• Advanced degree (minimum a Master’s Degree) in Economics, Monitoring and Evaluation, Social Sciences or relevant field.
• 8 years of experience in project management related work, 5 of which are at the Senior Management level and in a multilateral institution.
• Demonstrated experience of project completion report or post evaluation of projects/programmes preparation, especially experience in reviewing Governance Programmes.
• Strong knowledge of key programme design principles for example theory of change, results-based management and reporting.
• Experience in the design, review and management of Parliamentary Development Programmes will be an added advantage.
• Strong writing and analytical skills.

REPORTING ARRANGEMENTS

The consultancy team will be reporting to and be supervised by the Parliamentary Programmes Coordinator of the Parliament of Zimbabwe and Head of the UNDP Governance Unit.

ACTIVITIES DAYS AND PAYMENT SCHEDULE:

CONSULTANTS AND CLIENT’S OBLIGATIONS

The Consultants will be responsible for communications, printing of relevant material, production of the final report and other incidentals.