- Who We Are
- What we do
- Ex- Kamaiya
- Get Involved
- Stay Informed
- BASE Programmes
- BASE Policies
Terms Of Reference
1.1 Background Information
Backward Society Education (BASE) has been implementing DFID funded project titled Nepal Ex-Kamaiya Education and Poverty Alleviation Project (NEKEPA) Since January 2013. This project has been envisioned and implemented by BASE in partnership with World Vision Advocacy Forum (WVAF). The project is intervened in mid and far- western district namely Dang, Banke, Bardiya, Kailali and Kanchanpur of Nepal.
1.2 Project Description (Aim of the Project)
The project supports over 186,000 of Nepal’s ex-kamaiya community (freed bonded laborers). In 2000, following peaceful civil society protests, the Government of Nepal abolished the kamaiya system but the ex-kamaiyas are extremely poor, without land or livelihoods. Almost 15% have not received their rehabilitation packages because most are unaware of their entitlements and because bureaucracy, inefficiency and corruption obstruct accessing them. Un- and under employment is high, with 69% experiencing income/food insecurity for at least nine months/year. Evidence suggests that 11% of children are out-of-school and likely to be in child labour.
The project aims to support ex-kamaiyas to gain their entitlements, to mobilize them for savings and credit, and to provide vocational training. The ex-kamaiyas will increase their incomes and gain productive employment; children (with a focus on girls) will be supported to attend school and complete primary education.
NEKEPA was designed by a group of staff from both BASE and WVAF, in close consultation with intended beneficiaries. The design was influenced by recent research undertaken by BASE into the educational, health, employment and living standards of ex-Kamaiya communities (NEP Baseline Survey Report, 2011). In the context of helping Nepal meet MDGs 1, 2 and 3, the team recognised the contribution that NEP was already making towards MDGs 2 and 3, and considered ways in which these could be improved through integrating livelihoods, leadership training and holding duty bearers to account, thus forging a convergence of activities. Initial project concepts were shared with a small group of ex-Kamaiya leaders through BASE’s grassroots network of members living in the target areas.
DfID Nepal’s Country Plan aims to create new jobs in Nepal, of which two-thirds will be for women; make government services more transparent and accountable, particularly by supporting civil society organizations to advocate for this; and improve educational services. The NEKEPA project supports all these strategic aims. In the context of Nepal, the GoN School Sector Reform Plan 2009-15 places emphasis on access for out of school populations and guaranteed learning for all. The GoN Three Year Interim Plan similarly supports further efforts to meet MDGs 1, 2 and 3, and emphasises the need for employment generation; it cites rural Mid-Western Nepal as the area of Nepal most requiring attention. The NEKEPA project aligns with all these plans.
1.3 Purpose of the independent final evaluation
The main purpose of the independent final evaluation is to:
1.4 Key objectives of the evaluation
The evaluation has two explicit objectives that are explained below:
1 To independently verify (and supplement where necessary), grantees’ record of achievement as reported through its Annual Reports and defined in the project log frame;
2 To assess the extent to which the project was good value for money, which includes considering:
1.5 Verification of reporting
The first task of the final evaluation is to verify grantee achievement. The record of achievement will be presented in past Annual Reports and progress against the project logframe. This exercise could include verifying information that was collected by the grantee for reporting purposes and possibly supplementing this data will additional information collected through primary and secondary research.
Verifying the results from the project log frame will begin to capture what the project has achieved. However, there will be other activities and results that occur outside of the logframe that may require examination in order to respond to the different evaluation questions. Verifying reporting will also necessarily include a review of the data and systems that were used to populate results.
1.6 Assessment of value for money
Each final evaluation should assess the extent to which the delivery and results of the project are good value for money. Value for money can be defined in different ways, but at minimum the evaluation report should include an assessment against:
The NEKEPA project offers excellent value for money in three ways:
1.7 Evaluation questions
To ensure comparability across the final evaluation reports, the evaluator(s) should respond to the questions below. Projects are welcome to include additional questions based on their own learning needs, however this is not required. Please note that the attention given to each evaluation question may vary depending on the objectives of certain projects and the availability of data, so the independent evaluator(s) should use his/her discretion in the level of effort used to respond to these questions.
All evaluators are encouraged to structure their research questions according to the OECD-DAC criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact.
How well the project applied value for money principles of effectiveness, economy, efficiency in relation to delivery of its outcome;
What has happened because of DFID funding that wouldn’t have otherwise happened; and
To what extent has the project used learning to improve delivery?
To what extent has the project leveraged additional resources (financial and in-kind) from other sources? What effect has this had on the scale, delivery or sustainability of activities?
INDEPENDENT FINAL EVALUATION – GUIDANCE FOR GPAF GRANTEES
1.8 Time frame
The report should be presented to BASE in hard copy and electronic formats by 15 jan 2015.
Develop a mixed methodology framework and questionnaire for data collection (e.g. semi-structured interviews, focus group discussions, etc.) for approval by project partners. DFID will consider Bond’s evidence principles when reviewing candidates’ approach papers and we would like proposed methodologies to meet the principles as far as possible
Project documentation may include:
Other documentation may include:
Point of contact throughout the evaluation will be Roshu Raj Chaudhary, Programme Coordinator-NEKEPA.
Beneficiaries: Support your findings with examples and recommendations.
Impact: Support your findings with examples and recommendations.
Unintended consequences: Support your findings with examples and recommendations.
Programme management: identifying effective methods
Value for money
What has the project management done to buy and use inputs at a value-for-money price? What did the organization do to drive down unit costs but maintain quality?
How did the project ensure that resources (inputs) were used efficiently to maximize results?
Do you consider the project has been effective in bringing about the anticipated changes for beneficiaries and target groups?
To what extent have the project’s services been made available to/reached all the people that they are intended to?
Gender and social Inclusion
To what extent have the project’s services been made available to reach all the people?
Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning
Capacity building/Empowerment and Advocacy
Challenges and enablers
Summarize in bullet points the main challenges faced by the project as well as things that helped it along the way.
Sustainability and scaling up
Summarize five to ten key recommendations to aid future programming by DFID.
1.11 Specification of the Consultant
Essential selection criteria include:
Desirable selection criteria include:
Essential selection criteria include:
Desirable selection criteria include:
We are exceptionally contented on the remarkable progress during the implementation of programs in2015 with the landmark achievements beside the some of the natural challenges such as devastated earth quick and flood in Nepal. Having the sole vision of “Creation of exploitation free society” read more>>
Tharus are one of the indigenous people of Nepal. Before 1983, most of the Tharu boys and girls were working for landlords instead of schooling; for repaying back their parents' loan. Tharus were discriminated by so called high caste, to the attempts of social, economic, and political exploitation, this is why Tharus had been gradually migrated from Dang to Banke, Bardiya, Kailali, Kanchanpur and India. In January 1985, Backward Society Educatioin (BASE) was founded as a pioneering movement (Charpate Club) read more>>
Address: Tulsipur Municipality, Ward No.- 6, Dang
Phone: +977-82-520055, 520312, 522821