Final Evaluation - Hunger Safety Net II, Social Protection Rights

  1. Background

HelpAge International is the Secretariat of the HelpAge global network which brings together more than 114 affiliates working with older people in over 70 countries globally. HelpAge works with older people to claim their rights, challenge discrimination and overcome poverty, so that they can lead dignified, secure, active and healthy lives. Since 2008, as part of a Government of Kenya led consortium HelpAge has been implementing the Hunger Safety Net Programme (HSNP- I) with financial support from UKAid and AusAID. The HSNP is an unconditional cash transfer (UCT) programme, geographically focused in the four (4) poorest counties of Kenya’s Arid and Semi-Arid Lands (ASALs): Turkana, Marsabit, Mandera and Wajir.  The programme offers an alternative to food aid and aims to reduce poverty and food insecurity, while promoting asset retention and accumulation in poor households. The aim of this programme was to design and pilot cost-effective mechanisms for beneficiary targeting, payment delivery and grievance management in four Northern Kenya counties of Turkana, Wajir, Marsabit and Mandera.

HSNP I contributed to the reduction of extreme hunger and vulnerability by delivering regular and unconditional cash transfers of KES 5,400 bi-monthly to 100,000 households.

Following the successful completion of HSNP 1, HelpAge was awarded the responsibility to undertake the Social Protection Rights component whose main objective was to establish a grievance and accountability mechanism to allow programme stakeholders to realise their rights within the HSNP II programme, as enshrined in the Kenyan constitution.

As a scale up of its precursor, HSNP II, in its five years of operational period (2013-2017) aimed to reach 100,000 households (HHs) – totalling 600,000 chronically poor people - with regular cash transfers of up to KES 2,700 (approx. £19, per month) in the 4 counties. Furthermore, the programme served as a scalable safety net in times of crisis by delivering emergency assistance to additional 275,000 HHs that registered to receive emergency transfers during flooding, drought or other climate-induced emergencies that affect any of the 4 counties.

In the HSNP II programme, which is ending at the end of March 2018, HelpAge has been working with four partner organisations based in Wajir, Marsabit and Mandera counties which include the following;

  1. District Pastoralist Association (DPA)—Wajir
  2. Pastoralist Integrated Support Programme (PISP)—Marsabit
  3. Horn of Africa Women Empowerment Network Kenyan Agency (HAWENKA)—Mandera
  4. Rural Agency for Community Development and Assistance (RACIDA)—Mandera

In Turkana, HelpAge established a sub office in Lodwar Town, where it coordinated the programme activities while work in other counties was led by respective partners with support from the HelpAge Kenya team members.

  1. Purpose of the Evaluation and Intended Use

The final evaluation will strive to interrogate the extent to which the programme objectives have been met and will utilize the OECD-DAC criteria (relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, equity, impact and sustainability) which will be used to structure the evaluation findings.  The evaluation will also draw lessons on scalability of the programme’s approach in promoting the role of Civil Society in the wider work of social protection applicable to national and regional context.

  1. Objectives of the Final Evaluation

The main objective of the evaluation will be to test the extent to which the programme has realised its broader theory of change

Specific objectives

  • To critically assess the level of achievements attained vis-à-vis the initial plan (results framework)
  • To assess the programme of work against the OECD-DAC criteria (effectiveness, efficiency, & value for money, relevance, impact and equity)
  • Assess the sustainability of achievements, implementation procedures, approaches and modalities
  • Identify and draw out key learning as a result of implementation of the programme
  • Provide recommendations to improve the future effectiveness of health programme development
  1. Evaluation Focus and Scope

The evaluation will focus on the following key parameters analysing the strengths and weaknesses in relation the following criteria, in order to identify corrective actions required for the programme to achieve impact. In each of the following areas, evaluation questions have been outlined;


  • To what extent did the programme demonstrate continued relevance to local priorities, needs and rights? How well did the programme relate to HelpAge’s priorities?
  • To what extent did the project adapt to changes in the context and from learning as the project progressed?


  • To what extent was the programme able to achieve the set objectives, outcomes and expected results as outlined in the programme result frameworks?
  • Which result areas showed significant over- or under-achievement and what were the major factors influencing this? 
  • Were there any gaps related to planning, management, monitoring and implementation that influenced the results?
  • Have the lessons learning, monitoring and evaluation systems put in place after the HSNP I evaluation been effective, placing particular attention on the roll-out of the digitization activities?
  • The roles and responsibilities fulfilled by the HelpAge country and regional office as well as regional offices as well as implementing partners at country level.  How the performance of each agency influenced the realisation of the project objectives.


  • Were project activities accessible to and used by the most disadvantaged?
  • What was the profile of the beneficiaries of the programme in terms of gender, vulnerability, disability and age? To what extent did the project provide equal opportunities for both older women and older men?
  • How well were programme activities identifying and addressing the different needs of these groups? What could have been improved?
  • How did the project address the social differentiation (e.g. by gender, ethnicity, socio-economic group, disability, etc)?
  • How did the project ensure equitable outcomes (recognizing social differences according to sex)?
  • How different was accessibility to the project activities for men and women?

 Efficiency and value for money

  • To what extent did procurement, management and partnership arrangements appropriate in achieving quantity, quality and timeliness of inputs and activities?
  • Was the use of resources commensurate with actual and expected results? Was it possible to achieve more with the same resources?
  • Did the input of resources achieve the desired outputs? Did the project provide maximum value for money?

Accountability and learning

  • To what extent was information being provided to stakeholders about the programme and opportunities for them to feedback (including the right to complain) appropriate?
  • How well was the programme using an M&E plan to guide implementation and report on progress, and prepare for the final evaluation?
  • To what extent did monitoring and evaluation systems include and act on direct feedback from beneficiaries? How well were key risks being identified and managed?


  • To what extent will the benefits of the project continue after funding ceases? How well has the programme invested in promoting linkages to ensure that benefits have a lasting impact beyond the project period?
  • What are the options once the programme ends and what preparations are being made to promote sustainability and learning?
  • How sustainable and replicable is the project?
  • Institutional capacity – how far has the programme been embedded in the structures of the state and non-state structures that the project closely worked with.  What changes have occurred in the capacities of local implementing partner organisations that will enable them to continue supporting the work after the programme has phased out.


  • What specific change has this programme brought about in reducing the poverty level of households of older men and women who were direct beneficiaries, on indirect beneficiaries and the broader local community, at the implementing and partner agencies,
  • Have there been any policy changes/directives put in place that support the integration of complaint and grievance mechanisms as a key strategy to support accountability to rights of beneficiaries
  • How has the project impacted on the lives of older men and women differently? To what extent has it recognised the barriers older women including the widows, those with disability living alone have been included in the project
  • Are there any policy changes that have been initiated at county/national level as a result of the impact of the project’s policy advocacy work?
  • What changes have occurred as a direct result of the project at different levels and for different stakeholders?
  • What are the unintended consequences of the project (positive and negative)? 


  • What measures have been taken to mainstream gender in the programme and to what extent have women and vulnerable groups been involved in decision making?
  • What measures were taken to ensure cross project learning within HelpAge and with other like minded organisations
  1. Evaluation Approach and Methodology

The evaluation will adopt a mixed methods approach, where different research methods will be used as follows:

  1. Desk review:  all programme documents such as the project proposal, quarterly reports, budgets, mid-term evaluation report, etc. that will be reviewed against the results framework.  Documents shaping the wider external environment such as in country policies, strategies, employed at the county and national government level will be reviewed.
  1. Field work:  Field visits to a representative sample of selected partners in all programme implementing counties will be conducted.  Data collection methods will include key informant interviews, Focus Group Discussions and one on one interviews. Overall, the choice of the different methods will be based on both qualitative and quantitative data for purposes of triangulation.
  1. Analysis and Reporting:  the evaluator/s will undertake robust and appropriate analysis of the data and provide ample opportunity for feedback and resonance testing

The locations of the field visits will be Wajir, Mandera, Marsabit and Turkana.

  1. Specific Tasks and Deliverables

The evaluator will undertake the following tasks:

  • Undertake a document review to familiarize with the programme;
  • An inception report with evaluation framework and methodology, including evaluation plan and tools and further refine these with the programme team during the inception period.
  • Undertake data collection and analysis in detail
  • Present draft findings and recommendations to programme staff and other stakeholders as may be suggested
  • Prepare and submit final report according to HelpAge guidelines on length and structure

HelpAge will support with the provision of required documents, logistics coordinating with partners in the four counties and with key informants at the national and local level as appropriate.

  1. Expertise required:
  • A minimum of postgraduate qualification (Masters or above) in Social Sciences or in a discipline relevant to this assignment with a minimum of 5 years’ experience.
  • Prior strong experience in research methods and in the evaluation of complex technical assistance programmes relevant to the themes covered by this programme.
  • Strong communication skills, proficient in working across all levels of institutions with experience of conducting interviews sensitively in a range of contexts.
  • Excellent report writing skills in English
  1. Time-frame

The evaluation should commence on 26th March 2018. It is anticipated that the evaluation will take 20 working days, including preparation, travel (7 days in the field), briefings/debriefings and external meetings, presentation/revision of findings to HelpAge and other stakeholders and preparing draft and final reports.

9. Expressions of Interest:

Expressions of interest are sought from applicants meeting the criteria above. These should be addressed to HelpAge International at the following address:, no later than midnight on 20th March 2018. 

All expressions of interest should include:

  • Cover letter: A short (one page) cover letter addressing the selection criteria above.
  • Evaluation team’s CVs (maximum 3 pages) outlining their experiences
  • A most recent example of a relevant piece of work undertaken by the applicant as a pdf attachment
  • A detailed technical proposal maximum ten (10) pages, illustrating the understanding of the TOR, the proposed methods and plans including any logistic support required.
  • Financial Proposal: The financial proposal should provide detailed output based cost estimates for services to be rendered including daily consultancy fees.

Due to urgency of this assignment, applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis hence applicants are encouraged to send their applications as soon as possible.


Data Disaggregation

All evaluation findings should be disaggregated by age and sex.  60-70, 70-80, 80+, ‘younger older people’ may include 50-60

Gender Analysis

All evaluations should provide a better understanding of the differences of the realities of both older men and women who are impacted by the project


Translate this page


Stay updated! Sign up below...

Privacy policy


Here you will find Advice & Support, Online Forms, Technical and Policy Documents, Pension Profiles and much more that can help you.

Visit the pensions watch site

Tags for this page