Consultancy for Mapping of existing CFM and Safeguarding Mechanisms

Project Background and Context

The Uganda Learning, Evidence, Accountability, and Research Network (U-Learn) is a principally UKaid-funded programme designed to facilitate improved response outcomes for refugees and host communities in Uganda. In collaboration with the government and a wide range of implementers and stakeholders, U-Learn focuses on facilitating learning, conducting assessments, and amplifying refugee voice and choice in the protracted refugee crisis in Uganda.

U-Learn's distinctive approach is centred on supporting transformation at the response-level, which sets it apart from most humanitarian programmes which focus on direct aid delivery both within Uganda and on a global scale. U-Learn’s model consists of promoting the adoption of evidence and insights and the inclusion of refugee voice and choice in programmes and policies. Throughout the programme, U-Learn has successfully collaborated with a diverse array of stakeholders and has gained a wide range of support for its work.

U-Learn was launched in 2020 and is a consortium of three organizations: Uganda Response Innovation Lab (U-RIL)[1] (hosted at Save the Children Uganda) is the consortium lead, in partnership with IMPACT Initiatives (hosted at Acted) and International Rescue Committee (IRC). Initially planned for three years of implementation, U-Learn has been extended several times and is currently in its 5^th year of implementation.

The Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) Component

IRC, through the AAP component, identifies and addresses gaps in existing mechanisms for engaging crisis-affected populations by supporting and improving AAP culture and integration across the refugee response. The team supports the Refugee Engagement Forum (REF) community feedback/consultative sessions in the 13 refugee settlements across the country. Similarly, it has identified and supported partner organizations across the 13 settlements in the 3 regions of the North, Northwest (West Nile), and Southwest Uganda.  In this endeavour, this component typically focuses on the following areas.

• Providing practical support through AAP in Action (AAPA). A 6 months technical support programme with 5 technical areas that complements the online training that was conducted by ULEARN and UNHCR in 2021. AAPA enables organizations to translate AAP theoretical knowledge into practice to strengthen AAP in their programming, operations, and beyond.
• Community feedback and consultations sessions. The programme supports already existing Community Feedback Mechanisms (CFM) and safeguarding mechanisms by facilitating community feedback and consultations which enhances the two-way communication with crisis-affected people.
• Awareness creation through training of TOT’s and printing of IEC materials among local actors about Protection from Sexual Exploitation, Abuse and Harassment (PSEAH) have been added.

Project Geographical Scope

The consortium operates across in 13 refugee hosting districts in Uganda, with each consortium partner contributing specialized expertise while collaborating closely with other implementing partners, UNHCR and OPM to ensure coordinated support for improved service delivery in the refugee responses. These include:

1.       1.) Kiryandongo Refugee settlement – Kiryandongo district.

2.       2.) Palabek Refugee settlement – Lamwo district.

3.       3.) Bidibidi Refugee settlement – Yumbe district.

4.       4.) Adjumani Refugee settlement – Adjumani district.

5.       5.) Palorinya Refugee settlement – Obongi district.

6.       6.)  Rhino Camp Refugee settlement – Madi Okolo district.

7.       7.)  Imvepi Refugee settlement – Terego district.

8.       8.)  Kyaka II Refugee settlement – Kyegegwa district.

9.       9.)  Rwamwanja Refugee settlement – Kamwenge district.

10.    10.)  Kyangwali Refugee settlement – Kikuube district.

11. 11.)  Nakikivale Refugee settlement – Isingiro district.

12.    12.)  Oruchinga Refugee settlement – Isingiro district.

13.    13,)  Lobule Refugee Settlement – Koboko district.

Purpose of Mapping Exercise

The overall objective of mapping existing feedback and safeguarding response mechanisms in the supported areas is to facilitate the harmonization of these mechanisms among all implementing partners, with the aim of ensuring a more coordinated, accountable and responsive service delivery to refugees and host communities. The consultant will interact with different partners and community members across all refugee settlements to map feedback and safeguarding channels currently in use, assess their functionality and identify gaps or areas for improvement.

Specific Objectives of the Mapping

1. To map existing feedback and safeguarding mechanisms being implemented by partners across all refugee settlements and host communities.
2. To assess the functionality and effectiveness of current mechanisms, including accessibility, responsiveness, inclusivity (especially of vulnerable groups) and alignment with Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) standards.
3. To identify overlaps, gaps and areas for improvement in current mechanisms and document good practices and any innovative approaches.
4. To establish the extent to which client feedback is utilized by implementing partners to inform decision making process.
5. To establish the most preferred feedback mechanisms among target communities highlighting differences in preference between old case load and new arrivals.

Evaluation questions

In addition to what the consultant shall deem appropriate, the mapping will seek to answer the following questions.

Objective 1: To map existing feedback and safeguarding mechanisms being implemented by partners across all refugee settlements and host communities.

• What type of feedback and safeguarding mechanisms currently exist in the settlements and host communities?
• Which organizations or actors are implementing these mechanisms?
• Are there coordination or referral linkages between different mechanisms and service providers?

Objective 2: To assess the functionality and effectiveness of current mechanisms, including accessibility, responsiveness, inclusivity (especially of vulnerable groups), and alignment with Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP) standards.

• Are the mechanisms accessible to all community members, including women, children, persons with disabilities, older persons, and other minority groups?
• How timely and responsive are the mechanisms in addressing client complaints or support needs?
• Are community members aware of how to access and use the available mechanisms?
• Do the mechanisms ensure confidentiality, safety, and dignity, especially in safeguarding cases?
• To what extent do current mechanisms align with AAP principles and standards?

Objective 3: To identify overlaps, gaps, and areas for improvement in current mechanisms and document good practices and any innovative approaches.

• Are there any duplications in the feedback and safeguarding mechanisms provided by different actors/partners?
• What key gaps exist in terms of coverage, accessibility and effectiveness?
• What are some of the good practices or innovative approaches that have emerged in the current systems?
• What challenges are faced by organizations in implementing and maintaining these mechanisms?

Objective 4: To establish the extent to which client feedback is utilized by implementing partners to inform decision-making processes.

• How is client feedback documented, analyzed and used within the organizations?
• Is there evidence that feedback from affected populations has led to changes in programming or service delivery?
• What internal structures or processes are in place to ensure feedback is integrated into decision-making?

Objective 5: To establish the preferred feedback mechanisms among target communities.

• Which feedback mechanisms are most used and trusted by community members?
• What channels are most preferred by different groups (e.g., women, youth, elders)?
• What factors influence community preferences for certain feedback mechanisms compared to others?
• Are there any cultural, linguistic or logistical barriers that affect preference or use of the different feedback mechanisms?

Methodology

The consultant will be required to develop a robust methodology that is technically sound which shall be reviewed and approved by the consortium partners before field engagement. This will include specification of techniques for sample size determination, data collection and analysis and sampling techniques among other methodological considerations.

The proposed methodology should include, but not be limited to:

• Sample size determination for community individual survey
• Defined qualitative and quantitative data collection methods such as Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), Questionnaires and direct observation.
• Define sampling strategies including justification for selection of stakeholders/partners, clients and community structures involved in the feedback management processes.
• Design tools for data collection including interview guides and other appropriate tools.

In terms of scope, the consultant shall be expected reach all the 13 settlements for the mapping exercise and will be expected to extend to the host communities bordering the refugee settlements to further strengthen the development of a robust, responsive and context-appropriate feedback management system.

Key Responsibilities

The selected consultant will be primarily responsible to:

• Developing an inception report including a detailed methodology and proposed data collection tools.
• Developing and implementing a detailed work plan for the evaluation.
• Working closely with U-LEARN consortium team to agree on the methodology and data collection tools to be used.
• Constituting, deploying, and supervising the data collection team.
• Conducting validation workshops.
• Signing the IRC Uganda Safeguarding Policy and abiding by the terms and conditions thereof.
  

Responsibilities IRC and Consortium Partners

• Providing administrative support to the consultancy team e.g. introductory letters to key stakeholders.
• Reviewing and approving the study design, methodology, and data collection tools.
• Reviewing reports and providing feedback to the consultant and approval of the final report. The reports include the Inception and final report.
• Arranging or mobilizing key stakeholders as per the agreed assessment methodology and work plan.
• Ensuring compliance with contractual obligations between the study partners/stakeholders.
• Providing necessary documents to support the study.

Expected Outputs and Deliverables

1.Inception report (study protocol):

Before initiating the study, the following be submitted electronically in English and detailing the below:

          A.) Study approach

oSampling strategy and sample size.

oData collection strategy and methodologies.

oStudy tools.

oIndicators

oAlignment with log frame

oSuggestions for participatory monitoring and evaluation

oData analysis methodology strategy for continued monitoring.

oEthical considerations include consent forms and data protection plan and other relevant protocols.

·       B.) Work plan:

oData collection processes.

oQuality assurance plan setting out the systems and processes for assuring the quality of the research process and deliverables (piloting of research activities and tools.

oTraining of enumerators.

oLogistical and management planning.

oFieldwork protocols.

oData verification (data cleaning and analysis).

2.Evaluation/mapping report after data collection:

oA draft report highlighting summary of the methodology used, specifying any limitations/complications and changes to the initial design.

oConclusions and recommendations.

oFindings from the mapping exercise

oComprehensive mapping final report considering all the feedback from consortium members highlighting all functional complaints and feedback mechanisms.

3.Presentation of evaluation findings at a dissemination workshop for the stakeholders