DRAFT TERMS OF REFERENCE
1.0 GENERAL BACKGROUND
When UNCDF negotiated with donors a secured three-year funding scenario, it was agreed that the Fund would be subjected to an external evaluation at the end of the three years (1999) to allow donors to determine whether the Fund could deliver on its new policy directions. These new policy directions outlined clearly UNCDF's future directions and tied its core mandate more strategically to its cumulated experience and its inherent comparative advantages of scale and flexibility.
In 1996, the Fund commissioned a capacity assessment whose main task was to evaluate the Fund's capacities and ability to implement the policy paper. The report of the capacity assessment which was published in July 1996 will also serve as a quasi baseline for the 1999 evaluation. It incorporated a series of reviews and discussions between UNCDF, the capacity assessment team and the donors.
With the 1999 deadline coming closer, UNCDF is now implementing an internal review on each of its three core products: eco-development, local development funds, and micro-finance. This review was part of the three-year agreement with the donors.
The following terms of reference will address local development funds (LDFs) only.
2.0 LOCAL DEVELOPMENT FUNDS (LDFs)
The concept of local development funds has been first enshrined in the 1995 UNCDF policy paper and further elaborated in the a 1996 UNCDF working paper. LDFs can be best described as demand-driven financing facilities to channel financial and technical assistance to local governments mostly in rural areas of LDFs to enable them to: (a) assume primary responsibility for local development and poverty alleviation programmes and (b) associate a wide range of organized elements of local civil society with the planning, financing and management of such programmes. LDF programmes are explicitly conceived as policy experiments in the field of local governance since they link the achievement of local development and poverty alleviation goals to the implementation of government decentralization and people's participation policies. The programme also focuses on the potential role of local governments in the process of development and are meant to set up pilot working models of decentralized governance systems based on the following three key elements:
- devolution of responsibilities and resources for capital spending to local authorities
- simultaneous adoption of local participatory planning procedures and local-local dialogue among multiple actors in local space; LDF resources are the catalyst for people's participation and innovative local institutional arrangements for the provision of local services.
- transfer of ownership of local development initiatives to local authorities and community groups, which would then assume owner responsibility for the management of project implementation.
Taking into account the above parameters, the purpose of the LDF policy experiments is to demonstrate that these three dimensions of local governance have a critical and direct positive effect on sustainable local development and poverty alleviation.
3.0 PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE REVIEW
The main purpose of this internal review is to assess whether concerning LDFs, the Fund has been moving towards the goals and the new policy directions as set out in the Policy Paper. Given the fact that the capacity assessment will be taken as a quasi-baseline for the 1999 evaluation of UNCDF, the review will follow closely the recommendations of the capacity assessment in terms of product development, capacity development and institutional development (CAT report, p. 45).
The scope of the review will be two-fold:
- Assess the concept, implementation and effect of UNCDF's local development fund approach
- Address processes, in particular UNCDF's ability to adapt to changing conditions, show flexibility and redirect project activities accordingly, as well as its ability to implement the objectives of the policy paper through particular approaches; and
Based on above, the internal review will consider a combination of product and process oriented issues. The consultants are asked to undertake the following tasks:
4.0 ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE REVIEW
4.1 Concept of Local Development Funds
- Clarity, evolution, expectations, assumptions;
- Difference with other donor projects addressing similar issues;
- Concept ownership and dissemination;
- Perceptions regarding the approach by staff in headquarters, country offices and projects;
- Perceptions regarding the approach by other in-country donors and partners;
4.2 Design Issues
- Validity of the concept and goals of local development funds
- Modalities for the formulation of LDF projects
- Design of institutional mechanisms
- Spread and Phasing
- Allocation of Funds
- Scope of technical assistance
- Participation
- Scope of projects funded through LDF
- Sustainability and self-reliance
- Scaling-up strategies
- Design of M&E in project documents
- Ability to change project design during implementation if required
- Recommendations on how to address and, if necessary, improve project design
4.3 Complexity
- Length of the formulation process
- Design complexity and implementation complexity: how are the projects addressing this issue and have there been lessons-learned?
- Number of partners and agencies - resulting consequences for the projects
- Best practices and/or recommendations on how to address complexity of LDF projects
4.4 Implementation Issues
- Management
- Ownership of the project at country/local level
- Degree of involvement of government agencies and executing/coordination agencies
- Manageability
- Best practices and or recommendations on how to address manageability
- Coordination and Synergy
- Describe the prevalence and usefulness of coordination mechanisms, both within and between LDF projects (of UNCDF, UNDP, and other donors/government):
information sharing mechanisms
- Level of synergy with UNDP at the country level? Level of complementarity with UNDP programming and programming cycle? Role of UNDP vis-à-vis downstream-upstream dialogue?
- Is there agreement on both concept and practical implications among other donors, governement institutions etc. Are other donors undertaking similar programmes? Assess degree of influence of UNCDF's concept if possible
- Describe best practices and/or recommendations to improve both synergy and validity
- Processes and Approaches
- Merits of processes and approaches, especially regarding to participatory planning, participatory techniques, institutional intermediation, key informant and stakeholder workshops
- Capacity of UNCDF to recognize and to adapt to changing conditions, show flexibility and redirect project activities
- Quality of the selection process of local partners and committees at various levels
- Best practices and/or recommendations on how to address processes and approaches
4.5 Monitoring & Evaluation Systems
- Review and evaluate current M&E systems
- Use and validation of output monitoring, benchmarks, key performance indicators, policy questions
- Assess how methods for learning from experience are passed onto operations
- Best practices and/or recommendations on how to address M&E implementation
4.6 Staff Capacity (optional - main staff capacity review will be undertaken as self-assessment by staff)
- To what extent has the concept of LDFs been internalized by staff (UNCDF HQ, country office and project staff)?
- What are current (and future) training gaps for all three groups?
- Has UNCDF managed to build new professional capacities, and if so, in what field, at what level, in what manner?
- What type of training activities have been implemented and how successful have they been?
- What type of competences have been added to staff (both CDF and project) and what has been the impact of such additional technical competence
4.7 Capacity of local counterparts
- Assess the capacity of local counterparts
- What type of training has been provided and how successful has it been?
- What type of training would be optimal?
- What has been the role of local counterparts (elected, non-elected, decentralized technical ministries, community management groups, etc.)
- Describe best practices and/or recommendations on how to address capacity-building of local counterparts
4.8 Delivery
- Assess current delivery of LDF projects by year and item
- Assess the delivery/outputs respond to the model.
4.9 Impact
- While it may be too early to assess impact to its fullest potential, what has been the impact todate or tendencies towards:
- increased government capacity (administrative, financial management, fiscal resources)
- improved local governance through community participation in local decisions and improved accountability of local officials
- positive impact on rural development outcomes, specifically in expanded and improved service delivery, and local economic development
- reaching and including underrepresented, disadvantaged or marginalized groups, with special emphasis on women
- Best practices and/or recommendations for achieving/maximizing impact of LDFs
5.0 REVIEW METHODOLOGY
- a desk review will be undertaken to review the LDF literature and documentation produced by UNCDF headquarters: 1995 policy paper, 1996 LDF policy working paper, proceedings from the "Symposium on Local Development Funds", Entebbe, Uganda 13-15 January 1997, video on the Entebbe workshop, "Adaptive LDFs Issues in the Analysis and design of LDF programmes; LDF design case studies of Malawi, Palestine, Uganda, Vietnam, Tanzania (all 1995), technical review reports, mission reports, etc.
- likewise, the team will review literature and documentation produced by projects through (a) a review of project files and (b) a review and discussion of such documentation in the countries visited
- interview UNCDF staff, UNDP Management Development and Governance Programme (MDGD) consultants involved in the design of LDFs, other donors and NGOs involved in similar programmes, etc.
- The evaluation will be both headquarters and field oriented.
- For the field review, two representative projects have been selected for field visit:
MLW/93/C01 - District Development Fund (Malawi)
UGA/95/C01 District Development Fund (Uganda)
- In the field, the team will commence with a desk review of all literature and documentation available in-country
- The team will visit the selected projects, meet with project staff, government counterparts, beneficiaries, UNDP office staff, other donors in the country/region, academic institutions that have been involved with CDF and/or in the same area.
- At the end of the field visit the team will meet (workshop format) with project staff and select benficiaries to discuss validity of findings
- For projects/countries not visited, the team may wish to develop a questionnaire addressing the above issues. This questionnaire (this could be prepared during or prior the team's first meeting in New York and be sent to the respective countries by UNCDF).
6.0. REPORTING
The team will collaborate on a joint. The review report should address all issues under item 4 of these terms of reference. For items that could not be addressed/assessed, the report should provide a short comment why this could not be addressed.
The main report should at least contain the following:
- I Executive Summary (maximum of four pages)
- Introduction to the concept of LDFs
- Brief history of the development of the UNCDF LDF approach
- Evaluation methodology
- Review of items 4.1 - 4.11
- Overall Findings
- Overall Implications and Recommendations: immediate follow-up and medium (five year) follow-up
- Lessons-Learned
Annex: Results of country project reviews
7.0. ORGANIZATION, COMPOSITION AND DURATION OF THE EVALUATION
The mission will take place during the month of November 1997 for the duration of approximately six weeks, including travel time. The composition of the team should include the following:
- expert on local governance issues
- political scientist with experience in Africa
INDICATIVE IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE
TIME FRAME
DURATION
EVENT
RESPONSIBLE PARTY
DAY 1
1 day
Travel to New York
Evaluation Team; PPEU
Day 2 - 5
4 days
Team meets to discuss methodology, desk review, staff interviews and team organization
Team; PPEU, R.S.
Day 5/6
1 day
Return to home base
Team
Day 7 - 9
3 days
Desk review at home base
Day 10-11
2 days
Travel to Uganda
2 team members per country
Day 12 - 14
3 days
Desk review, staff and partner interviews
Team, Doug Porter, Maria Svensson
Day 15
1 day
Travel to Malawi
Team
Day 16-17
2 days
Desk review, staff and partner interviews
Team
Day 18
1 day
Travel to district
Team, Programme Officer
Day 19 - 20
2 days
Meetings with project staff and local counterparts
Team
Day 21 - 23
3 days
Visit of LDF funded projects; meetings with community members;
Team
Day 24
1 day
Debriefing and Wrap-up with project staff
Team
Day 25 -26
2 days
Travel to New York
Team
Day 27 - 30
4 days
Report writing and wrap-up discussions
Team
Day 31 - 33
3 days
Debriefing Workshop to UNCDF staff, final team wrap-up
Team
Day 34
1 day
Return to home base
Team
Day 35 - 39
5 days
Preparation of final report at home base
Team
c:\eval\1997bTOR