Briefing with DFAT project team on the project and review expectations 2 hrs – TL 2 hours – GE ISL 21 Nov All team members DFAT Post to arrange. Briefing with Trocaire, Islamabad on the purpose, scope and schedule of the evaluation 4 hrs – TL 4 hrs – GE ISL 21 Nov All team members DFAT Post to arrange. Briefing with other local implementing partners in Islamabad on the purpose, scope and schedule of the evaluation 4 hrs – TL 4 hrs – GE 22 Nov All team members DFAT Post to arrange. and KP Operations – Post and Team to determine duration/schedule/dates. 7.5 days – TL 7.5 days - GE Hyderabad / Peshawar 22 - 30 Nov (Sunday rest day) DFAT Post to assist. Post/Trocaire to advise most suitable locations. Analysis and preparation of presentation / aide memoire; Brief DFAT Post/Desk and implementing partnerson preliminary findings and recommendations 2 days – TL 2 days – GE ISL 1-2 Dec All team members DFAT Post & CBR to participate Total TL – 11.5 days GE – 11.5 days Following in-country evaluation Follow up data collection (if necessary) GE – 3 days TBD at DFAT debrief Analysis and drafting of the evaluation report (plus finalisation of Aide Memoire document if necessary) 5 days - TL 2 days - GE Virtual by 22 Dec 16 TL, GE DFAT to consider draft and provide comments 3 days CBR and ISL By 20 Jan 17 Desk and Post Finalise Report 1.5 days - TL Virtual By 3 Feb 17 TL Attend DFAT debrief 2 hours - TL Jan/Feb 17 TL Attend learning activities as required 0.5 days – TL Canberra From Feb 17 TL Total TL – 8 days GE – 5 days Maximum time TL – 26 days GE – 21 days Deliverables The Team Leader is responsible for the following deliverables: An evaluation plan that confirms the process of evaluation and includes key evaluation questions and methodology (and which meets the requirements set out in Standard 5 of the DFAT M&E Standards); An Aide Memoire outlining the preliminary findings and indicative recommendations of the independent evaluation; A debrief session for DFAT and Trocaire at the end of the in-country visit.
Annexes: TOR, Evaluation Plan, Schedule of Visit, List of Organisations and People met, Aide Memoire, Summary Responses to Review Questions, 2-3 vignettes/case studies, list of references/documents consulted, list of laws passed in Sindh and KP. Interpretation of Questions for the Various Stakeholder Groups Questions: Relevant to: Expressed As: How effective is the program in achieving its expected outputs and term outcomes as outlined in the design? All Stakeholders AHC Service Providers, Community Members, Advocacy Partners, Implementing Partners What is your assessment of how the different components of the program are progressing? Which parts are progressing well? Which components are more challenging? Please describe how this program has assisted you. Do you have any recommendations to improve the support provided by the program? What factors are influencing progress and why? AHC Staff, Service Providers, Advocacy Partners, Implementing Partners What specific factors have affected the program’s progress and performance to date? Are there any key lessons emerging from the project so far? To what extent are the different components aligning to achieve program-level outcomes/results as stated in the program results framework? AHC Staff, Government Partners Implementing Partners, Advocacy Partners Program Documentation Trocaire What are the key successes/results of the program thus far? How effectively is the program working in partnership with local police and the judiciary? Service Providers – Police, Bar Council, pro-bono lawyers Implementing Partners Trocaire Can you describe the work you are undertaking specifically with the police & judiciary and how this is progressing? Is the Theory of Change sound? What adjustments, if any, are recommended? Implementing Partners, National Advocacy Partners, Project Documentation AHC Staff Trocaire Have there been any unintended consequences of the project (positive or negative)? Do you have any recommendations for the program approach – is it working well or are there any additional aspects that should be added or strengthened? Would you recommend modifying the approach for greater impact? How efficient and effective are governance and management arrangements? AHC Staff, Implementing Partners Does your current management arrangement with Trocaire work well? How it be improved? Are engagement and coordination arrangements with partners and government appropriate at provincial, district and national level? Service Providers, Advocacy Partners, Implementing Partners How do you keep in touch with government and partners at the national, provincial and district level? Is the program sufficiently harmonised (at a policy and AHC Staff, Advocacy Partners, Implementing Partners Can you explain how this program complements EVAW work in Pakistan, and the
Annex I – Budget Allocation and Expenditure – Pakistan GBV Program ORGANISATION Trocaire PROJECT TITLE Challenging GBV COUNTRY Pakistan FUNDING AGENCY AUS Government Agreement Ref .No 70340 Project Period June 2014-May 2018 Budget Lines Total Budget for 2 Years (June2014-May,2016) AUS $ % Budget Allocation for Objectives Against Total Budget Total Expenditure up to 31 May 2016 AUS $ % Expense Allocation for Objectives against Total Expenditure Programme Management & Support Cost Trócaire Staff Cost 202,421 6% 198,403 7% Trócaire Staff Benefits 37,283 1% 40,227 1% Trócaire Partner Personnel Costs 802,938 23% 739,538 26% Office 27,340 1% 30,320 1% Travel Cost 8,793 0.3% 7,036 0.2%
Equipment's & Supplies 31,403 1% 31,508 1% Recruitment & Training 12,036 0.3% 10,463 0.4% Program Activities Cost Programme Outcome 1: GBV survivors are accessing quality support services from partners 714,743 21% 662,635 23% Programme Outcome 2: Women, Men and Youth in target areas have reduced tolerance of GBV and are taking action to prevent and respond to GBV 655,484 19% 529,521 18% Programme Outcome 3: Strengthened GBV related laws and policies in place and being implemented 202,243 6% 105,321 4% Programme Outcome 4: Partners have improved capacity on programme implementation and Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) 346,468 10% 278,703 10% Trócaire-Programme Planning & Monitoring & Evaluation 83,707 2% 43,317 1% Contingency Cost 113,840 3% - 0.0% 7% Organisational Admin Cost 218,740 6% 218,740 8% Total Budget 3,457,439 100% 2,895,733 100% Note: Organizational cost in this working comes to 6 percent which is of total budget however 7 percent organizational cost is 7 percent of program activities and program management and support cost excluding contingency cost.