End-line Evaluation – ABLI II Project

**Who is the Danish Refugee Council?**

Founded in 1956, the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) is a leading international NGO (non-governmental organization) present in 40 countries, with over 9,000 employees and supported by 7,500 volunteers. DRC protects, advocates, and builds sustainable futures for refugees and other displacement-affected people and communities. DRC works during displacement at all stages: in acute crisis, in displacement, when settling and integrating in a new place, or upon return. DRC provides protection and life-saving humanitarian assistance, supports displaced persons in becoming self-reliant and included in hosting societies. It works with civil society and responsible authorities to promote the protection of rights and peaceful coexistence. DRC has been operational in Kenya since 2005 and is one of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ (UNHCR) largest implementing partners in the refugee response. DRC is present in Garissa (Dadaab & Garissa), Turkana (Kakuma, Kalobeyei & Lodwar), Nairobi, Isiolo, Marsabit, Lamu, and Mandera counties.

**Project Background**

Funded by the European Union), the Area-Based Livelihood Initiatives, Garissa (ABLI-G II) is a two and half-year (33months) programme designed to strengthen self-reliance and resilience among refugees and host communities in Dadaab, Garissa County. The project adopts an evidence-based and phased approach to pilot scalable, market-driven solutions that address systemic barriers to sustainable livelihoods.

ABLI-G II is implemented through a consortium led by the Danish Refugee Council (DRC) in partnership with the Refugee Council of Kenya (RCK), Pastoralists Girls initiatives (PGI), Rights Organization for Advocacy and Development (ROAD), Regional Durable Solutions Secretariat (ReDSS). Delivered as one integrated programme, the consortium draws on the complementary expertise of its members, with DRC leveraging the diverse capacities and contributions of partners to facilitate the transition from traditional aid-based models toward market-oriented livelihoods programming that enables sustainable income generation and long-term economic resilience.

The project’s objective is to enhance displacement affected communities’ access to decent employment in Garissa County – through a holistic intervention that provides assistance to 7,640 direct final beneficiaries to access employment through business development, skills development, agricultural development and market linkages.

Alongside the immediate results, the proposed action builds sustainability by working alongside the government and private-sector partners to improve the enabling environment through evidence-driven advocacy and support for more participatory planning at all levels.

Guided by its Theory of Change, the project delivers three interconnected outcomes:

- To strengthen the capacities of refugees and local individuals to build and utilize their skills to find and sustain employment and link into market systems
- To create sustainable and expanded linkages to finance for MSMEs in Dadaab
- To address the enabling environment and systemic barriers that limit self-reliance of refugees and host individuals

**Objectives of the Consultancy**

The consultant is expected to conduct the end-line evaluation to the required standards. S/he will be expected to lead in the day-to-day management of the activities, including coordinating field-level data collection, analysis, and report writing. The consultant is expected to regularly consult DRC staff while implementing the assignment.

The specific objectives of this evaluation are:

1. Assess the project's performance against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, including the extent to which the project achieved its intended results, objectives, and overarching goal, and whether the resources invested were used efficiently to deliver the desired outcomes.
2. Measure changes over time by comparing end-line findings with baseline data and other available monitoring information to determine the magnitude of achievements and changes in key indicators, including livelihoods, income, employment, business performance, and financial inclusion outcomes.
3. Identify key lessons learned, good practices, implementation challenges, and evidence-based recommendations to inform organizational learning, future programming, and the potential replication, adaptation, or scaling of successful approaches.
4. Conduct an outcome harvesting exercise to identify, verify, and document significant intended and unintended behavioral, social, and economic changes among targeted participants and stakeholders, including changes in business performance, monthly income levels, income consistency and stability, actor's behaviors, and relationships between market actors.

**End-line Evaluation Criteria**

The end-line evaluation will employ specific OECD (Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development) evaluation criteria for humanitarian action, to guide the study, with special emphasis on sustainability.

**Key Objectives/Evaluation Criteria**

**Key Questions to be Asked**

**1. Relevance/ Appropriateness**

The extent to which the intervention objectives and design responded to the needs, priorities, and context of refugees and host communities.

1. Were the programme strategies, assumptions, and Theory of Change realistic and contextually appropriate?
2. To what extent did the interventions respond to the priority needs and constraints of refugees and host communities?
3. Were the selected target groups, sectors, and livelihood opportunities relevant and appropriate to the local context?
4. To what extent were refugees, host communities, women, persons with disabilities, and other stakeholders meaningfully engaged in programme design and implementation?
5. Were interventions conflict-sensitive and implemented in accordance with Do No Harm principles?

**2. Coherence**

The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions, policies, and stakeholder priorities.

1. To what extent was the programme aligned with county and national priorities, refugee policies, and durable solutions frameworks?
2. How effectively did the programme complement and coordinate with other initiatives and actors operating in the same context?
3. To what extent were stakeholder perspectives and feedback incorporated throughout programme implementation
4. Were there any overlaps, duplication, or missed opportunities for collaboration and synergies?

**3. Effectiveness**

The extent to which the intervention achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives and results.

1. To what extent did the programme achieve its planned outputs, outcomes, and overall objective?
2. What factors facilitated or constrained the achievement of intended results?
3. To what extent did programme participants improve their livelihoods, employment prospects, business performance, and access to financial services?
4. Which interventions were most and least effective, and why?
5. To what extent are the achieved outcomes likely to continue beyond the project's lifespan?

**4. Coverage**

The extent to which the intervention reached the intended beneficiaries and the geographical areas targeted.

1. Did the intervention cover all the geographical regions identified as priority areas for assistance?
2. What proportion of the intended beneficiary population was reached by the project?
3. To what extent did the interventions cover the range of services intended for the targeted population?
4. What were the key challenges or barriers that affected the coverage of the intervention?

**5. Efficiency**

The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economic and timely way.

1. To what extent were financial, human, and operational resources utilized efficiently to achieve the intended results?
2. Which implementa