I. BACKGROUND
Catholic Relief Services
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) is the international relief and development agency of the Catholic community in the United States. CRS supports more than 100 million people in more than 100 countries in five continents. CRS works with local partners to promote human development by responding to major emergencies, fighting disease and poverty, and nurturing peaceful and just societies; and serve Catholics in the United States as they live their faith in solidarity with their brothers and sisters around the world. CRS’ World Headquarters is located in Baltimore, MD.
CRS, with funding provided by the United States Department of Labor (USDOL) seeks to reduce child labor and improve labor rights and working conditions in agriculture, including in the sugar sector, in Haiti through a comprehensive set of interventions that engages government, civil society, and the private sector in the protection of children and workers. Through integrated service centers, CRS will provide direct support services to project beneficiaries in the form of education, livelihoods, labor rights information, and referrals to government and NGO services to thousands of children and households engaged in child labor or exploitive working conditions. CRS will also strengthen the capacity of key governmental institutions to monitor and enforce labor laws and will support select partner businesses to implement social compliance systems, including in production supply chains. All of these measures will help vulnerable households to attain sustainable livelihoods free of child labor and exploitation. CRS will work closely with the Government of Haiti (GoH) to ensure that this program is well coordinated with national-level initiatives and supported by multiple ministries in a cross-sectorial approach.
U.S. Department of Labor
The Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor, and Human Trafficking (OCFT) is an office within the Bureau of International Labor Affairs (ILAB), an agency of the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL). OCFT activities include research on international child labor; supporting U.S. government policy on international child labor; administering and overseeing cooperative agreements with organizations working to eliminate child labor around the world; and raising awareness about child labor issues.
Since 1995, the U.S. Congress has appropriated over $900 million to USDOL for efforts to combat exploitive child labor internationally. This funding has been used to support technical cooperation projects to combat exploitive child labor in more than 90 countries around the world. Technical cooperation projects funded by USDOL range from targeted action programs in specific sectors of work to more comprehensive programs that support national efforts to eliminate child labor. USDOL-funded child labor elimination projects generally seek to achieve five major goals:

1. Reducing exploitative child labor, especially the worst forms through the provision of direct educational services and by addressing root causes of child labor, including innovative strategies to promote sustainable livelihoods of target households;
2. Strengthening policies on child labor, education, and sustainable livelihoods, and the capacity of national institutions to combat child labor, address its root causes, and promote formal, non-formal and vocational education opportunities to provide children with alternatives to child labor;
3. Raising awareness of exploitative child labor and its root causes, and the importance of education for all children and mobilizing a wide array of actors to improve and expand education infrastructures;
4. Supporting research, evaluation, and the collection of reliable data on child labor, its root causes, and effective strategies, including educational and vocational alternatives, microfinance and other income generating activities to improve household income; and
5. Ensuring the long-term sustainability of these efforts.

USDOL-funded child labor elimination projects are designed to ensure that children in areas with a high incidence of child labor are withdrawn and integrated into educational settings, and that they persist in their education once enrolled. In parallel, the program seeks to avert at-risk children from leaving school and entering child labor. The projects are based on the notion that the elimination of exploitative child labor depends, to a large extent, on improving access to, quality of, and relevance of education. Without improving educational quality and relevance, children withdrawn/prevented from child labor may not have viable alternatives and could resort to other forms of hazardous work.
In FY2010, Congress provided new authority to ILAB to expand activities related to income generating activities, including microfinance, to help projects expand income generation and address poverty more effectively. The addition of this livelihood focus is based on the premise that if adult family members have sustainable livelihoods, they will be less likely to have their dependent children work and more likely to keep them to school.
The approach of USDOL child labor elimination projects – decreasing the prevalence of exploitive child labor through increased access to education and improving the livelihoods of vulnerable families – is intended to nurture the development, health, safety, and enhanced future employability of children engaged in or at-risk of entering exploitive labor.

Project Context
In 2017, 13 million (8.8%) children are engaged in child labor in Latin America and the Caribbean. Agriculture remains by far the most important sector where child laborers can be found (98 million, or 59%), but the problems are not negligible in services (54 million) and industry (12 million) – mostly in the informal economy. In Haiti, the child labor situation overall is serious: an estimated 21% of Haitian children work in sectors such as domestic service, agriculture, including in small farms, and street work. The use of restaveks – unpaid child domestic servants living and working away from home – is a widespread phenomenon in Haiti. These children lack all access to basic rights and services, creating a generation of disenfranchised and vulnerable youth.
Catholic Relief Services (CRS) conducted a rapid assessment of select communes in the North and North-East Department in April 2015 to further assess the prevalence of child labor in those areas, particularly in the sugar cane sector. CRS’ findings in this rapid assessment indicated that 45.6% of sampled children in the North Department are engaged in work, mostly in the agriculture sector. In addition, 33.3% of children working from those sampled were engaged in work on a sugarcane plantation at one level or another (clearing the land, carrying sugarcane, processing sugarcane at the distillery, etc.). Findings from the North-East Department indicate that sugar cane is not a major source of economic activity in the region, however, 41.41% of sampled children were engaged in some kind of work.
The Let’s Work for Our Rights (LWR) Project targets the North, North East departments and the border areas between Haiti and the Dominican Republic where child labor is very significant. For example, child labor is prevalent particularly in the North department where there are significant producers of sugarcane which rely on smallholder family farms and out-grower schemes. In that region of Haiti, sugarcane is one of the main sectors where children work. They participate at different level in the value chain, not only working in the fields but also participating in the transformation process to the selling in the local street markets. In addition, children working in the sugarcane value chain carry heavy loads and are exposed to alcohol consumption.
During the CMEP 1 workshop, LWR partners identified five major problems which contribute to the prevalence of child labor in Haiti: low economic capacity of households; targeted children are not in school; lack of professional skills among youth 15-18 years of age; limited household access to social protection and legal services; and insufficient protection of child and worker rights by government, private sector and civil society.

Project Specific Information
In September 2013, the U.S. Department of Labor (USDOL) Office of Child Labor, Forced Labor and Human Trafficking (OCFT) awarded a cooperative agreement to the Catholic Relief Services to implement a project entitled “Let’s Work for Our Rights” (LWR). It was originally conceived to be implemented in the Dominican Republic, but due to a series of events the decision was taken in September 2015 to move the project to Haiti. Activities were reformulated accordingly and the project was officially launched in June 2016, with a new end date of March 2019.
The project seeks to reduce child labor and improve labor rights and working conditions in Haitian agriculture, including in sugarcane producing areas and in production supply chains, in three regions: The North and North-East departments and the borders areas with the Dominican Republic. The project addresses the following factors leading to child labor and violation of workers’ rights: poor school attendance; low household income; absence of social protection services; lack of youth employment opportunities; absence of policies and programs addressing child labor issues at local and national level; and lack of awareness on child labor and workers’ rights issues in the communities. LWR activities are designed to help curb those factors.
The project uses an area-based approach with services provided through a consortium of five local partners including JURIMEDIA, Association of Volunteers International Service (AVSI), Collectif de Lutte Contre l’Exclusion Sociale (CLES), Haiti SURVIE and Services Jésuites aux Migrants (SJM). Each partner has considerable on-the-ground experience in each of the targeted areas. The area-based approach ensures that all forms of child labor and labor rights violations in the targeted geographic areas of the project are addressed in the life of the program. Building off the successful Workers’ Right Center (WRC) model used by CRS in Central America and the Dominican Republic (DR), the project creates community-based hubs that provide awareness raising, legal services, social protection referrals, livelihoods and education interventions to beneficiary households and children. Community-based case managers employed by the project’s partners and working in the WRCs identify households and provide ongoing monitoring.
Below is a summary of the project’s intermediate and supporting objectives:


AREA 1 : EDUCATION
IO 1: School attendance among beneficiary children increased
IO 1.1 Financial obstacles to school attendance reduced
IO 1.2 Increased access to school transition mechanisms adapted to the needs of beneficiary children
IO 1.3 Improved school infrastructure (safety and hygiene)
IO 1.4 Active school committees support children’s education
IO 1.5 Increased teacher knowledge of the needs of the project’s beneficiary children
AREA 2 : LIVELIHOODS
IO 2: Income increased in beneficiary households
IO 2.1 Increased production by beneficiary households of agricultural and alternative products
IO 2.1.1 Improved technical skills among producers in both agricultural and alternative income generating activities
IO 2.1.2 Increased access to micro-finance
IO 2.1.3 Increased access to inputs
IO 2.2 Improved linkages among producers, buyers, consumers and input vendors
IO 2.3 Improved information available on markets and sales channels for agricultural and alternative products
AREA 3 : YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
IO 3: Increased decent and productive work opportunities among beneficiary youth 15-18 years old
IO 3.1 Increased knowledge among beneficiary youth of skills required for work
IO 3.2 Increased market-based adaptation of vocational training for beneficiary youth
AREA 4 : SOCIAL PROTECTION
IO 4: Beneficiary households receive social protection services and information on workers’ rights
IO 4.1 Increased capacity of the Workers’ Rights Centers to provide support services to beneficiary households
IO 4.2 Increased understanding among beneficiary households of available social protection services and the need for legal documentation
IO 4.3 Improved attitude within target communities regarding child labor
IO 4.3.1 Improved dissemination of awareness raising message on negative aspects of child labor
IO 4.3.2 Adoption of an awareness raising message on child labor that resonates with the target population
AREA 5: GOVERNMENT, PRIVATE SECTOR AND CIVIL SOCIETY CAPACITY
IO 5: Increased government, private sector and civil society prioritization of protection of child and worker rights
IO 5.1 Strengthened capacity to protect child and worker rights within state agencies (MAST, IBESR, BPM, local government)
IO 5.2 Increased commitment to social compliance within target companies
IO 5.3 Increased involvement by civil society in advocacy to protect the rights of children and workers

The project has also conducted a midterm evaluation in January 2018 in order to review project progress toward achieving intended outcomes, identify any lessons learned and good practices, and recommend ways to improve delivery and enhance project impact and sustainability in the time remaining for project implementation. Several recommended actions from this evaluation were incorporated into the project implementation strategy to the extent possible in order to enhance project impact despite a challenging operational context.

I. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

Evaluation Purpose
The main purposes of the final evaluation are:
1. Determine whether the project’s Theory of Change (ToC) was appropriately formulated and whether there are any external factors that affected project outcomes in a positive and/or challenging way;
2. Assess the relevance and effectiveness of all project interventions, including its effects on the lives of beneficiaries;
3. Assess the efficiency of project interventions and use of resources;
4. Document lessons learned, good or promising practices, and models of intervention that will serve to inform future child labor projects and policies in Haiti and in other implementation countries in the region; and
5. Assess the sustainability of the interventions implemented by the project.

The evaluation should assess whether the project’s interventions and activities achieved the overall goals of the project, and the reasons why this has or has not happened, including an assessment of the factors driving the project results. The evaluation should also document lessons learned, potential good practices, and models of intervention that will serve to inform future similar projects and policies in Haiti and similar environments elsewhere, as appropriate.
The scope of the final evaluation includes a review and assessment of all activities carried out under the USDOL Cooperative Agreement with CRS. All activities that have been implemented from project launch through the time of evaluation fieldwork should be considered.


Evaluation Questions

Specifically, the final evaluation has to address the following research questions:

Project Design
1. The Haiti project developed a Theory of Change (TOC). Does the TOC still appear to be valid and accurate after three years of project implementation?
2. To what extent did the assumptions in the project logical framework hold true?
3. Are there obstacles or major factors (internal to the project or external) that limited the achievement of project goal or other major cause that were not taken into consideration in the project design and implementation?

Relevance and Effectiveness
4. Did the project achieve its output and outcome indicator targets as planned? What successes and challenges have they experienced in doing so, and how did they overcome challenges?
5. Overall, were interventions relevant to the operational context?
6. Overall, to what extent have the project interventions contributed to address the prevalence of child labor and workers right issues in targeted communes?

a. To what extent have the educational services been successful in allowing beneficiary children to attend and stay in school? What adjustments were made, if any, from what was planned in the project document?
b. To what extent have PwoKonTraM livelihoods interventions (Agricultural and nonagricultural services, MUSO) been successful in improving the income of beneficiary households? Do the Households feel confident about their capacity to assume school expenditures for their children in the absence of the project’s support?
c. To what extent have PwoKonTraM’s youth assistance activities (vocational training, life skills, entrepreneurship, starter kits) been effective in allowing youths to obtain decent work opportunities? Are youth more knowledgeable about workers’ rights and OSHs work conditions because of their participation in the project?
7. To what extent has the project been effective in implementing its social compliance and government capacity building services?
8. To what extent have the awareness raising campaigns influenced households’ attitudes towards child labor?
Efficiency
9. To what extent were the interventions efficiently implemented? How might the project interventions be improved for similar projects?

Lessons Learned and Sustainability
10. How will the key project models and benefits be sustained/ continued once the project ends?
11. How has the project built capacity at the local level and engaged stakeholders to be agents of change around child labor?
12. Has the project been successful in working with communities based organizations and any communities’ structures to raise awareness and conduct advocacy actions to address child labor and workers’ rights issues? What factors were crucial for the success or failure with regards to this project objective?
13. How has the project increased government entities’ (such as MAST, BPM, IBESR) capacity to combat child labor and protect workers’ rights? What are the main obstacles and what have been the successes to build on?


Intended Users
The evaluation will provide OCFT, the grantee, other project stakeholders, and stakeholders working to combat child labor more broadly, an assessment of the project’s experience in implementation, particularly its effects on project beneficiaries and an understanding of the factors explaining the project’s results. The evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations should focus on documenting lessons learned and promising practices from which future projects can glean when developing their strategies, as well as identifying steps the project can take to maximize sustainability during the remaining months of implementation.
The evaluation report will be published on the USDOL website, so the report should be written as a standalone document, providing the necessary background information for readers who are unfamiliar with the details of the project.

II. GEOGRAPHICAL AREA

The evaluator will provide a reliable site sampling approach that best represents the project’s different reality. The selection of project sites to be visited should consider the following criteria:
• Coverage of all five interventions types: household livelihood support, education, vocational training & employment services, social protection interventions (mainly legal support) and Awareness Raising;
• Inclusion of all three project implementation zones: North, Northeast, and border areas with the DR,
• Coverage of geographic areas where all five national implementing partners work: AVSI (Cap Haitien & surrounding areas), CLES (areas near Port Liberté), Haiti Survie (Port Liberté and surrounding areas), and Jurimedia (areas near Cap Haitien and border areas with the DR).
• Inclusion of two department capitals where government partners have offices.
• Consider sites where the project experienced successes and others that encountered challenges, as well as a good cross section of sites across targeted Child Labor sectors.

List of project targeted areas
Department Communes
North Cap haïtien
Limbe
Limonade
Grande Riviere du Nord
Milot- Quartier morin

North East
Ouanaminthe
Trou du Nord
Fort Liberté
Ferrier
Caracol
Mont organisé

Border Areas Ganthier
Belladere
Anse à pitre


III. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Approach
This study approach will be qualitative and participatory. Qualitative information will be obtained through field visits, interviews and focus groups as appropriate. It is expected that all categories of project beneficiaries, including children, youth, Households, government entities, project staff and any other necessary key informants will be contacted as part of the study participants list. A desk review can be made to the extent possible to support certain assertions and provide appropriate information on local context. In addition, quantitative data will be drawn from the CMEP and project reports to the extent that it is available and incorporated in the analysis. The evaluator should utilize the project’s interim implementation evaluation as an input.
While this study approach will be conducted by an independent contractor, assistance will be provided to the contractor to support the process of data collection that include the provision of the list of project beneficiaries, contacting key participants and field accompaniment as appropriate.
Project staff and implementing partners will generally only be present in meetings with stakeholders, communities, and beneficiaries to provide introductions. The following additional principles will be applied during the evaluation process:
1. Methods of data collection and stakeholder perspectives will be triangulated for as many as possible of the evaluation questions.
2. Gender and cultural sensitivity will be integrated in the evaluation approach.
3. Consultations will incorporate a degree of flexibility to maintain a sense of ownership of the stakeholders and beneficiaries, allowing additional questions to be posed that are not included in the TOR, whilst ensuring that key information requirements are met.
4. As far as possible, a consistent approach will be followed in each project site, with adjustments made for the different actors involved, activities conducted, and the progress of implementation in each locality.

Data Collection Methodology
The methods to collect information should include projects documents review, desk review and interviews (key informants’ interviews or/and Focus group discussions as appropriate). These are described in more detail below.
Document Review
• Pre-field visit preparation includes extensive review of relevant documents
• During fieldwork, documentation will be verified and additional documents may be collected
• Documents may include:
- CMEP documents and data,
- Baseline and endline survey reports,
- Project document and revisions,
- Cooperative Agreement,
- Technical Progress and Status Reports,
- Project Results Frameworks and Monitoring Plans,
- Work plans,
- Correspondence related to Technical Progress Reports,
- Management Procedures and Guidelines,
- Research or other reports undertaken (baseline studies, etc.), and
- Project files (including school records) as appropriate.

2. Question Matrix
Before beginning fieldwork, the evaluator will create a question matrix, which outlines the source of data from where the evaluator plans to collect information for each TOR question. This will help the evaluator to allocate time in the field, ensure all possible avenues for data triangulation, and to clearly note how evaluation findings are to be derived. The Contractor will share the question matrix with USDOL.

3. Interviews with stakeholders
The evaluator will interview as many LWR stakeholders as possible including the implementers, direct and indirect beneficiaries, community leaders, donors, and government officials. It is anticipated that meetings will be held with:
• OCFT staff responsible for this evaluation and project prior to the commencement of the field work,
• US Embassy representative, if relevant,
• CRS Country Representative and HQ support staff,
• CRS LWR program managers,
• CRS implementing partner personnel, including program managers as well as child labor monitors involved in assessing whether children have been effectively prevented or withdrawn from child labor situations,
• Government authorities in Cap Haitien and Port Liberté (Ministry of Social Affaires (MAST), Institute for Social welfares (IBESR), Bureau for the Protection of Minors (BPM), Mayor's office)
• Other international and national NGOs and multilateral agencies working in the area with which the project has collaborated,
• School teachers and directors and other education personnel involved in LWR education services,
• Relevant livelihood service providers,
• Project direct beneficiaries (children withdrawn and prevented and members of their households receiving livelihood support),
• Community members in areas where awareness-raising activities occurred.


Data Analysis Processes and Methods
The contractor will capture preliminary findings, conclusions, and recommendations in an Excel-based matrix that categorizes analysis by evaluation question. The matrix will organize findings by key themes that arise from the interviews. The matrix should: a) ensures that the contractor prepares a systematic and thorough response to each evaluation question, b) identifies gaps where additional clarification or analysis may be necessary, and c) serves as the basis for developing the study report. Analytical triangulation approaches will be used as part of the Evaluation team’s development of findings and conclusions. Triangulation will enable the contractor to cross-verify and cross-validate the findings that emerge from various data sources. The ET will use several data analysis methods to identify key finding from the collected data, as well as to draw conclusions. The analysis methods will include, among other factors, gender analysis.

Limitations
Evaluation fieldwork will last nearly three weeks, from November 12-30 Because she will not have enough time to visit all project sites, the evaluator will make efforts to ensure that she is visiting a representative sample of sites, including some that have performed well and some that have experienced challenges.
Various types of bias –response, selection, and gender may affect the validity of evaluation data. The evaluator will be make efforts to mitigate these by:

• Ensuring that implementing partner staff is not present during interviews. When possible, selecting neutral meeting places (other than project office) for KII and FGDs;
• Randomly selecting FGD participants from lists provided by CRS and its implementing partners and taking opportunities to interview KII in addition to those proposed by LWR managers;
• Considering possible gender preconceptions might come into play during this evaluation, and reviewing how to minimize these during data collection and analysis.

This is not a formal impact assessment. Findings for the evaluation will be based on information collected from background documents and in interviews with stakeholders, project staff, and beneficiaries. The accuracy of the evaluation findings will be determined by the integrity of information provided to the evaluator from these sources.

IV. STUDY DELIVERABLES

CRS expects the Contractor to generate the following products during this study for the Project Let’s Work for Our Rights:
1. Approved work plan and schedule.
2. Approved research protocol including methodology, sampling techniques including participant recruitment and selection, research instruments, training plan for facilitators as appropriate, consent forms for key informants, parental or guardian permission and assent for children.
3. An electronic copy of the draft report in both English and French which must include, but is not limited to the following sections:
a. Table of contents
b. List of acronyms
c. Executive Summary (no more than five pages providing an overview of the evaluation, summary of main findings/lessons learned/good practices, and key recommendations);
d. Evaluation Objectives and Methodology
e. Evaluation Questions
i. Answers to each of the evaluation questions, with supporting evidence included
f. Findings, Recommendations and Conclusions
1. Findings – the facts, with supporting evidence
2. Conclusions – interpretation of the facts, including criteria for judgments
3. Key Recommendations - critical for successfully meeting project objectives – judgments on what changes need to be made for future programming.
4. Lessons Learned and Best Practices
ii. Annexes - including list of project indicators (See Annex II); documents reviewed; interviews/meetings/site visits; stakeholder workshop agenda and participants; TOR; etc..

4. Two printed copies and an electronic copy of the final report in English and French, which takes into consideration input, feedback and comments on the draft report.

The total length of the report should be approximately 30 pages for the main report, excluding the executive summary and annexes.
The first draft of the report will be circulated to OCFT and key stakeholders individually for their review. Comments from stakeholders will be consolidated and incorporated into the final reports as appropriate, and the evaluator will provide a response to OCFT, in the form of a comment matrix, as to why any comments might not have been incorporated.
While the substantive content of the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the report shall be determined by the evaluator, the report is subject to final approval by ILAB/OCFT in terms of whether or not the report meets the conditions of the TOR.


V. HUMAN SUBJECT STUDY REQUIREMENTS

The evaluation mission will observe utmost confidentiality related to sensitive information and feedback elicited during the individual and group interviews. The training for facilitators (if any) should include a thematic on the protection of human subjects during research, and proposals for the study should include a plan for the protection of human subjects. Adult and youths’ interviews should include clear explanation of study’s objectives, potential risks of participation, be non-invasive and all answers must be kept confidential.
Participants should not be paid for participation in the study. Participation in the research should be voluntary and confidential. Efforts will be made to include parents’ and children’s voices and beneficiary participation generally, using child-sensitive approaches to interviewing children following the ILO-IPEC guidelines on research with children on the worst forms of child labor (http://www.ilo.org/ipecinfo/product/viewProduct.do?productId=3026) and UNICEF Principles for Ethical Reporting on Children (http://www.unicef.org/media/media_tools_guidelines.html).
Consent and assent forms must be used, and the contents of consent/assent forms should be explained verbally before the start of the interview. A printed copy must be available. If participant is a child (aged 15-17 years old), he/she should not be interviewed without guardian’s permission. The contractor will explain to participants, in particular to children and Youth, in simple language, the general purpose of the research, the contents of the interview, and the interviewing process, in order to obtain consent before proceeding with the interview.

VI. SCHEDULE
The evaluation’s estimated schedule is described in in Annex I. The Contractor should propose the timing to achieve the following deliverables:

Stage Deliverable
Initial Activities • Work plan and schedule
• Research protocol (methodology and data analysis plan and reporting)
• Final data collection instruments (interview guide and others) and a plan to identify and select project sites and participants
Data Collection • Data collection plan
• Daily Progress Reports
• Final data collection report
Information proccessing and reporting • Qualitative information: full audios, transcriptions and analysis matrix.
• List of reliable sources consulted (included in biography)
• Final Report

I. CONSULTANT REQUIRED QUALIFICATIONS

The Contractor or firm should fulfill the following conditions:
• Must have at minimum a Master’s degree in Social sciences, political science, Sociology. community development, economics, or relevant social sciences or humanities fields.
• Have at a minimum previous working experiences in the North, North East regions and preferably have undertaken research in youth development areas.
• Should have been registered with the appropriate ministry for a minimum of 2 years.
• Should have experiences in designing and implementing rigorous qualitative research during the last two years.


The contractor staff:

The team will consist of the main contractor who will be responsible for developing the methodology in consultation with CRS and USDOL; directly conducting interviews (or assisted by strong facilitators) and coordinating data collection processes; analysis of the evaluation material gathered; submitting the initial findings of the study to stakeholders ( CRS, USDOL and implementing partners) one week following the data collection phase and preparing the final report and responding to stakeholder feedback. As appropriate, an interpreter fluent in necessary languages will travel with the evaluator.
As appropriate, members of the project staff may support the team in mobilizing study participants. Those persons will not be involved in the interviews.

I. APPLICATION INFORMATION

Interested Contractor should send a technical and financial proposal, describing the consultant’s relevant experience and capacity to undertake the study. The proposed budget and technical proposal must be submitted in a sealed envelope indicating as Subject: CRS Final Evaluation in the North, North-East Departments and the border areas to the office of Catholic Relief Services, #1, Delmas 81, Port-au-Prince, Haiti and by email to: christelle.clerveaux@crs.org.

The offer must include:
• Technical and financial offer, including the total amount offered in USD.
• The budget should detail the human resources, material costs, travel expenses and fees.
• Include the resumé of key personnel
• Proposed methodology and work plan to be developed, including schedule, sampling approach including type of participants to be interviewed, number of interviews or FDG per category of participants, method to access participants and a description of category of questions for each category of participants.
• Overall methodological research design, including, training plan for supporting staff.
• Data collection plan
• Data analysis approach
• Template of consent forms for key informants, Parental Permission Forms for parents and guardian, and Assent Forms for any children under 18, plan for protection of human subjects
• Pledge to grant full exclusivity to CRS and commit not to work for any other NGO/institution during the same period of time for the same services.

Christelle Clerveaux

I. EVALUATION CRITERIA



The offer will be evaluated based on the quality and cost of the proposal, considering the following criteria:



Evaluation criteria Score

Previous experience in undertaking qualitative research and experience in conducting research in the North, North East departments 20

Qualification of Contractor 30

Proposed methodology and work plan 30

Budget proposal 20

Total 100



II. PAYMENT SCHEDULE



Payments will be made upon the following schedule unless otherwise negotiated with CRS:



Deliverables Payment

Preparatory Activities • Work plan and schedule

• Research protocol (methodology and data analysis plan and reporting)

• Final data collection instruments (interview guide and any necessary instruments) and a plan to identify and select participants 20%

Data collection, processing and analysis • Draft of final report and supported files (transcriptions, full audio and analysis matrix) 40%

Reporting • Final study Report and presentation 40%



 

ANNEX I: TIMETABLE



The tentative timetable is as follows. Actual dates may be adjusted as needs arise.



Task 2018-2019 Date(s)

CRS sends Draft TOR with list of evaluation questions to USDOL 20/7/18

USDOL provides feedback on TOR and the evaluation questions 3/8/18

CRS sends revised TOR 10/8/18

TOR finalized 17/8/18

CRS conducts procurement process 7/9/18

CRS selects an evaluator and sends USDOL their CV 14/9/18

USDOL approves evaluator selection 24/9/18

Evaluator signs contract 28/9/18

CRS sends suggested itinerary and list of interviewees to USDOL and the evaluator for feedback 10/10/18

Evaluator sends methodology and data collection matrix 19/10/18

Finalize the itinerary and list of interviewees 24/10/18

Evaluator interviews USDOL by phone 29/10/18

Evaluator interviews Project Director, Project Manager, M&E Officer, and other CRS staff by phone 5/11/18

Fieldwork in Haiti 12/11/18-30/11/18

Stakeholder Meeting in Haiti 12/11/18

Evaluator sends draft report simultaneously to CRS and USDOL for comment 28/12/18

USDOL and CRS provide comments 18/1/19

Evaluator sends revised report 25/1/19

USDOL approves final report or sends further comments 1/2/19

CRS sends final, copy edited and formatted report to USDOL 8/2/19







 

ANNEX II: OVERVIEW OF PROJECT PROGRESS TABLE



Objectives Indicators Targets and Results

Project Objective: Reduced incidence of Child Labor in the project’s 12 target communes POH.1 % of beneficiary HH with at least one child engaged in child labor Target

Actual

POH.2 % of beneficiary HH with at least one child engaged in hazardous child labor Target

Actual

POC.1 % of beneficiary children engaged in child labor Target

Actual

POC.2 % of beneficiary children working in hazardous child labor Target

Actual

IO1: School Attendance among beneficiary children increased POC.4 # and % of beneficiary children who regularly (75%) attended any form of education during the past six months Target

Actual

POH.4 # and % of beneficiary households with all children of compulsory school age attending school regularly (75%) Target

Actual

E1 # of children engaged in or at high risk of entering child labor provided education or vocational training services Target

Actual

E1.1 # of children trafficked or in commercial sexual exploitation, or at high-risk of being trafficked or entering commercial sexual exploitation, provided education or vocational services Target

Actual

E2 # of children engaged in or at high-risk of entering child labor provided formal education services Target

Actual

E3 # of children engaged in or at high-risk of entering child labor provided non-formal education services Target

Actual

E4 # of children engaged in or at high-risk of entering child labor provided vocational services Target

Actual

IO1.1 Financial obstacles to school attendance reduced # and % of beneficiary children covered by project-funded subsidies to cover school fees and standard supplies Target

Actual

# and % of beneficiary households with children covered by subsidy/financial support from the project Target

Actual

IO1.2 Increased access to school transition mechanisms adapted to the needs of beneficiary children # of mechanisms set up in communities to facilitate transition of beneficiary children from the informal to the formal education system Target

Actual

# and % of beneficiary children who move from the informal to the formal education system Target

Actual

IO1.3 Improved school infrastructure (safety and hygiene) # and % of targeted schools benefitting from project support for basic infrastructure Target

Actual

IO1.4 Active school councils support children’s education # of active school councils regularly engaged in school activities Target

Actual

IO1.5 Increased teacher knowledge of the needs of the project’s beneficiary children Number of teachers who demonstrate increased knowledge of classroom management and referral services available at Workers’ Rights Centers Target

Actual

IO2: Incomes in beneficiary HH increased % of beneficiary households having increased their income by at least 10% from project start to finish Target

Actual

L1 # of beneficiary households that have received a livelihoods service Target

Actual

L2 # of adults provided with employment services Target

Actual

L3 # of children provided with employment services Target

Actual

L4 # of individuals provided with economic strengthening services Target

Actual

L5 # of individuals provided with services other than employment and economic strengthening Target

Actual

IO2.1 Increased production by beneficiary households of agricultural and alternative products % of beneficiary households having increased production by at least 10% Target

Actual

# of beneficiary households that have engaged in at least one alternative income generating activity Target

Actual

IO2.1.1 Improved technical skills among producers in both agricultural and alternative income generating activities # and % of producers who applied techniques learned during training in their production activities Target

Actual

IO2.1.2 Increased access to micro-finance # of beneficiary households participating for the first time or reintegrating a MUSO group Target

Actual

# of partnerships established with Micro-Finance Institutions Target

Actual

IO2.1.3 Increased access to inputs Number of households that receive inputs through project support Target

Actual

IO2.2 Improved linkages among producers, buyers and consumers # of households that join a cooperative and/or producers’ association Target

Actual

# of producers participating in sales events Target

Actual

IO2.3 Improved information available on markets and sales channels for agricultural and alternative products Number of stakeholders (Chambers of Commerce, producers, etc.) who receive the project study on potential markets, sales channels and CL/labor rights awareness Target

Actual

IO3: Increased decent work opportunities among beneficiary youth 15-18 years of age # and % of beneficiary youth 15-18 years old who obtain a decent work opportunity (internship, apprenticeship, individual enterprise or formal sector job) Target

Actual

# and % of beneficiary youth 15-18 years old who join a group that promotes collective work (association, workshop, MUSO) Target

Actual

IO3.1 Increased knowledge among beneficiary youth of skills required for work Number and percent of beneficiary youth 15-18 years of age who are certified at the end of their vocational or technical training program Target

Actual

IO3.2 Increased market-based adaptation of vocational training for beneficiary youth # of vocational or technical training programs that adapt their programs based on labor market needs Target

Actual

IO4: beneficiary households receive social protection services and information on workers’ rights # and % of beneficiary households who receive at least one social protection service (school cantine/nutrition, psychosocial support, legal aid for children/workers, referral to MAST/IBESR-abused children, family reunification) Target

Actual

# and % of beneficiary households who receive information on workers’ rights (rights and responsibilities in the context of the Labor Code and/or applicable ILS) Target

Actual

# and % of beneficiary households and other persons in border areas receiving legal documents via project support Target

Actual

% of beneficiary households reporting a positive level of satisfaction with services received from the Centers (survey) Target

Actual

IO4.1 Increased capacity of the Workers’ Rights Centers to provide support services to beneficiary households # of WRC providing services in line with the Operations Manual (references, legal aid, support to obtain identity documents) Target

Actual

# and % of Center staff trained who demonstrate an understanding of the Center’s operations procedures Target

Actual

IO4.2 Increased understanding among beneficiary households of available social protection services and the need for legal documentation # and % of beneficiary households making requests for legal documentation Target

Actual

# and % of beneficiary households requesting social protection services Target

Actual

IO4.3 Improved attitude within target communities regarding child labor # of active local Child Protection Committees working with the project Target

Actual

IO4.3.1 Improved dissemination of awareness raising message on negative aspects of child labor # of persons reached by awareness raising campaigns Target

Actual

# of dissemination activities organized (by type-radio, focus group, meeting, etc.) Target

Actual

IO4.3.2 Adoption of an awareness raising message on child labor that resonates with the target population % of focus group participants who demonstrate understanding of the key elements of the message Target

Actual

IO5 : Increased government, private sector and civil society prioritization of protection of child and worker rights # of project interlocutors that demonstrate increased prioritization of rights for workers and children engaged in child labor Target

Actual

IO5.1 Strengthened capacity to protect child and worker rights within state agencies (MAST, IBESR, BPM, local government) # of systems/devices installed on the departmental level that will ensure improved follow-up of at-risk populations (children and workers) including computers, databases, pilot child labor monitoring systems, supplies and equipment. Target

Actual

# of MAST and IBESR personnel trained whose post-test results demonstrate increased knowledge of Haitian labor laws and/or ILS and child protection Target

Actual

IO5.2 Increased commitment to social compliance within target companies # of companies who sign a social compliance plan Target

Actual

# of companies that implement their policy of social compliance including safety equipment, prohibition of child labor, etc. Target

Actual

IO5.3 Increased involvement by civil society in advocacy to protect the rights of children and workers # of local civil society organizations engaged in advocacy to protect child and worker rights (NGOs, unions, etc.) Target

Actual