Uganda: End of Project Evaluation: Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Prevention among Fishing Communities
This tender invites consultants to work on the final end-term evaluation of the current Plan UK and Uganda Fisheries and Fish Conservation Association (UFFCA) project, “Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Prevention among Fishing Communities on Lakes George and Edward in Uganda” project, which is supported by DFID’s Civil Society Challenge Fund. This is a 4-year project which began in 01 August 2011 and completes 31 March 2015
Plan UK and UFFCA are looking for a consultancy team consisting of a lead consultant and his / her research assistants / data enumerators to carry out the Final Evaluation between January and February 2015, with an indicative total budget of 8,000 GBP. The deadline for submitting the final report to DFID is 30 April 2015 (DFID contractual agreement)
The Final Evaluation aims to report on the specific project outcome and output level indicators and to follow up on the progress made from the baseline and mid-term data collection and reports, in order to inform Plan UK, UFFCA and DFID of progress to date and to identify the success of the project in achieving its objectives and influencing a change in approach to HIV and AIDS responses and service provisions within the fishing communities of northern Uganda. The deadline for submitting the application to this tender is Sunday 04th January 2015.We will expect to appoint a consultant in early January 2015 and for work to commence before end of January.
INTRODUCTION****Plan International (UK)****is one of the leading international, child-centred community development organisations in the world with no religious or political affiliations. It supports interventions in 49 developing countries, benefiting over 11 million children and young people, their families and communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America. Plan’s work, informed by the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, is based on the recognition of children and young people as citizens with their own rights and responsibilities. In partnerships with them, their families, civil society and government, Plan supports their voices to be heard on issues that affect them, thus building understanding and promoting their rights to participate in and benefit from their societies. Plan UK’s mission is to transform the lives of marginalised children, especially adolescent girls, through our programmes and advocacy.
****Uganda Fisheries and Fish Conservation Association (UFFCA)**** is a private and legally incorporated company limited by guarantee and without share capital working for the emancipation and transformation of poor, vulnerable and marginalized lake dependent communities in Uganda.
In August 2011 UFFCA, with funding from DFID secured by Interact Worldwide – a small, UK-based NGO with a specialist focus on SRHR, began implementing the DFID-funded “****Comprehensive HIV/AIDS Prevention among Fishing Communities on Lakes George and Edward****”. On 1st July 2013, Interact Worldwide formally ceased to exist as a charity in itself and merged with Plan UK, meaning that responsibility for completing and evaluating the project lies with Plan UK.
The projects main focus has been on empowering fishing communities to build mutual support and improving their access to SRH and HIV information and services; and increasing responses to the rights and needs of fishing community members living with HIV/AIDS (PLHIV) at individual, community and institutional levels. It aims at mobilizing, building the capacities and empowering fishing communities in the four districts to mitigate the impacts of HIV/AIDS by promoting their rights and advocating for services that they are entitled to in order to improve their quality of life.
BACKGROUNDPlan UK and UFFCA recognize the importance of basing programmatic decision-making, as well as advocacy efforts, on solid evidence and strong methodological approaches. We endeavor to draw on existing best practice, learning from experience and sharing with the development community.
The project was guided by a log frame and followed a monitoring and evaluation framework and process, enabling staff to review and assess project implementation and progress, in order to take appropriate action and promote learning.
A mid-term review was completed in May 2013, and provided a review of the project activities to date and progress made towards achieving the specific project outputs and outcomes as compared to the project baseline and targets. The results indicated that UFFCA had been able to mobilise the fishing community members into 11 Project Advisory Committee (PAC) groups, and had empowered these group members to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS by promoting their rights and advocating for the services they are entitled to for improved quality of life. By mid-term review 29,893 fisher folks had been mobilised into PACs, representing 62 percent of a 49,954 target. Gender representation was equally considered with 55 percent females and 45 percent males.
The project has ensured that HIV and SRH services are available to the fishing communities. Through engaging duty bearers at sub-county and district levels, the project has increasingly applied a rights-based approach. These strategies helped in effectively engaging the local leadership and duty bearers with HIV, SRH and rights so that they are able to respond to the needs of the fishing community.
The project is expected to meet the following outputs;
Improved awareness, access to information and knowledge about HIV prevention, SRH and rights among fishing communitiesIncreased capacity and involvement of community-based institutions i.e. BMUs, PTCs and PLHIV groups and networks in influencing, advocacy and engagement of duty bearers around HIV and AIDS, SRH and Rights in fishing communitiesIncreased access to and utilization of quality SRH, HIV and AIDS services i.e. prevention, treatment, care and support by fishing communitiesDecentralized and National Level Advocacy for HIV and AIDS interventions, SRH and rights in fishing communities undertakenIncreased organizational and technical capacity of UFFCA in programming and engaging with HIV and AIDS, SRH and rights issues in the fisheries sub-sector at all levelsCommunity generated lessons and stories documented for organizational learning and dissemination for sharing best practice in Uganda.PURPOSE AND SCOPEThe purpose of the end of project evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of project planning, implementation, how the various interventions contributed towards the project purpose and goal and how lessons can be utilized for future programming. The review will specifically identify project achievements and constraints; assess the key outcomes and/or impact of project interventions, document lessons learned and propose recommendations for improving the development, implementation and management of future programmes.
The evaluation should include both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, using similar methods and tools to the baseline and MTR and following a final agreed sampling strategy to be proposed by the consultant. Recognising resource constraints, the data collection will be conducted in Kasese, Rukungiri, Kamwenge and Rubirizi districts. In Kasese the focus will be in the six fishing villages, in Rubirizi three fishing villages, in Kamwenge two fishing villages, while in Rukungiri one fishing village.
The Final Evaluation should have the following objectives;1. Has the specific project goal and outputs been achieved, in line with the milestones and indicators set out in the DFID log frame? What were the results and impact?
Did the project reach the intended target groups, and how did they benefit? How many beneficiaries, disaggregated by gender, age and PLHIV, PWD status, were reached?What is the process by which outcomes have been achieved and how effective has it been?Identify and document lessons learned and include recommendations for any new similar project going forward.Specifically:
Knowledge, Attitudes and Practice; to follow-up on the knowledge, attitudes and practice survey developed for the project baseline and MTR in order to update key output and outcome level indicators. Collect qualitative data and beneficiary feedback on any changes that have occurred as a result of the project. All data, quantitative and qualitative, collected through the assessment must be disaggregated by sex and age.Participation;include examination of the active participation of beneficiaries, including youth, and MARP’s and document what was the impact of their participation. On discrimination and inclusion – who benefitted from the project and who was excluded and why? How was feedback from marginalised / vulnerable groups used by the project to influence the design of activities?Relevance of the project; were the project design and approach appropriate and relevant to situation? Were the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the overall goal and the attainment of its objectives during the entire project cycle? Were the activities and outputs of the project consistent with the intended impacts and effects?Effectiveness of the project;to what extent were the project objectives achieved? What were the significant factors which related to the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?Efficiency of the implementation against the planned outputs; were the resources used cost effective and properly allocated? Did the project fully represent Value for Money? Were activities undertaken as planned and objectives achieved on time? Could the project have employed more efficient means of implementation?Impact of the project and the extent to which the changes obtained were gender sensitive or transformative, and rights-based. What were the intended and unintended (positive and negative) outcomes and impact of activities linked to each output, measured according to the indicators in the log frame? What real difference have the project activities made to the beneficiaries? How many men and women were affected?Sustainability of the project. To what extent will the project benefits continue after the project has been completed? What are the major factors influencing the achievement or on achievement of sustainability of the project?Lesson’s Learnt. Identify any emerging lessons learnt (specifically in relation to approaches to empowerment and advocacy, equity and gender equality, capacity building, monitoring and evaluation and innovation by UFFCA).Recommendations; review plans for sustainability of activities and make recommendations to Plan UK, UFFCA, Uganda District Authorities, PACs and Community Leaders a on actions to be taken to continue and sustain the benefits achieved for fisherfolk as a result of this project.The table below details the project outcomes and outputs to be reviewed and assessed in the Final Evaluation, and includes the current log-frame indicators.
GOAL / IMPACTIndicator To contribute to poverty reduction by mitigating the impact of HIV and AIDS on fishing communities around the shores of Lakes George and Edward in South-western Uganda in line with The National Strategic Plan (NSP) for HIV and AIDS 2007/8-2011/12 and National Development Plan (NDP) 2010/11-2014/15 G1. Regional HIV prevalence rate for mid-Western Uganda (includes districts bordering Lakes George and Edward)
G2. National Commitments and Policy Instrument (NCPI) Questionnaires on HIV sector coordination PURPOSE / OUTCOME Indicator To mobilise, build capacity and empower fishing communities to mitigate the impact of HIV/AIDS by promoting their rights and advocating for the services they are entitled to for improved quality of life P1. No. of fisher-folk participating in community institutions (disaggregated by sex, age and people living openly with HIV)
P2. No of health facilities providing HIV and SRH services in fishing communities OUTPUT 1 Indicator Improved awareness, access to information and knowledge about HIV prevention, SRH and rights among fishing communities 1.1 No. and % of targeted fishing population educated on SRH and aware of their SRH rights 1.2 No. and % of targeted fishing population correctly reporting knowledge on STI and HIV modes of transmission and methods of prevention OUTPUT 2 Indicator Increased capacity and involvement of community-based institutions i.e. BMUs, PTCs and PLHIV groups and networks in influencing, advocacy and engagement of duty bearers around HIV and AIDS, SRH and Rights in fishing communities 2.1 No. of community based groups trained and actively implementing joint action plans 2.2 No. and % of women registered as members of community based institutions (PACS) 2.3 No. of community-based groups participating in rights-based HIV and AIDS advocacy activities 2.4 Number of strategic actions amongst duty bearers with regard to concerns of fishing communities OUTPUT 3 Indicator Increased access to and utilization of quality SRH, HIV and AIDS services i.e. prevention, treatment, care and support by fishing communities 3.1 % of of the targeted population reporting using SRH and HIV services at the local health facilities within the last year 3.2 No. and % of PLHIV engaged with the PACs accessing treatment & related services 3.3 No. of ART Adherence Clubs/Groups formed within PACS 3.4 % of people reporting satisfaction with services 3.5 No. of referrals made to service providers by PACS OUTPUT 4 Indicator Decentralised and National Level Advocacy for HIV and AIDS interventions, SRH and rights in fishing communities undertaken 4.1 No. of strategic actions or policy recommendations around HIV and AIDS, SRH and Rights in fishing communities 4.2 No. of local government districts with HIV prevention plans / programs prioritising interventions in fishing communities 4.3 Number of districts with local government budgetary allocations for HIV targeting fishing communities OUTPUT 5 Indicator Increased organisational and technical capacity of UFFCA in programming and engaging with HIV and AIDS, SRH and rights issues in the fisheries sub-sector at all levels 5.1 Number of staff trained in HIV and SRH&Rs and demonstrating increased knowledge 5.2 Number of staff trained in HIV and SRH&Rs gender, rights, empowerment and advocacy and demonstrating increased knowledge 5.3 Evidence of improvement in management and coordination capacity OUTPUT 6 Indicator Community generated lessons and stories documented for organisational learning and dissemination for sharing best practice in Uganda. 6.1 Number of lessons learnt and best practice documents disseminated 6.2 No. of media pieces mentioning the project 6.3 No. of printed project profile raising materials
ASSESSMENT UTILISATIONThe data collected and analyzed will be validated through a stakeholder workshop with UFFCA, District Leaders and PAC representative’s; it will be included in the final report to DFID and will make an assessment of the project according to DFID guidelines on specific output / outcome scores (See Annex 1 – CSCF Evaluation Guidelines), as well as contributing to onward planning and future project design and fundraising by UFFCA.
Plan UK will conduct an assessment of the evaluation report and overall project progress to gather learning and evidence for future programme development and management .
METHODOLOGYThe Final Evaluation will be coordinated by UFFCA with technical guidance and support from Plan International Capacity Building Co-ordinator, based in Uganda, and the SRHR Unit at Plan UK. It is expected that the consultancy team will consist of one lead consultant and his / her research assistants / data enumerators to support the fieldwork and / or data entry. The consultant will use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods, as used in the baseline and MTR
KAP survey (Knowledge, Attitudes and Practices) - (a minimal sample size to be identified as a proportion of the target fisherfolk population, the PACs and their members (males and females across the 12 fishing villages).Key informant interviews (District health officers from the four districts, Local leaders / Community Development Officers, UFFCA Staff and Volunteers / PAC leadership).Focus Group Discussions (FGD’s) (Key project beneficiaries / PAC members in groups of 8-10 people).The consultant is expected to review the project log-frame, the monitoring and evaluation framework as well as the Baseline, Mid-Term Report and annual DFID reports. The consultant is asked to review the baseline and MTR tools and revise these to fulfil the requirements of the Final Evaluation.
UFFCA and Plan will approve the methodology proposed by the consultant, and will assist in selecting an appropriate sample of fisherfolk and stakeholders before commencement of the activities.
The design and implementation of the assessment should consider how beneficiaries including youth (up to age 24) are central to the assessment, that principles of gender equality, including non-discrimination are considered and acted upon throughout, and that the meaningful participation of key stakeholders is promoted in the design and implementation of the assessment. Furthermore, the assessment is required to be conducted in line with Plan International Child Protection Policy and internal guidelines on Child Protection and ethical standards in Monitoring, Evaluation and Research.
The consultancy team will undertake the following tasks as part of the Final Evaluation review:
Briefing meeting with UFFCA and call with Plan UKReview background project management and baseline & MTR methodology / toolsFinalise methodology for the Final Evaluation and present detailed implementation plan, revised evaluation tools and guidance for data collectors in an Inception report format, for approval by Plan UK and UFFCAConduct if necessary a training workshop for UFFCA staff on research methodology to support data collection processProvide weekly email updates of progress on the Final Evaluation to UFFCA and Plan UKConduct field research and data collectionData compilation, develop data screens, data entry and cleaningData analysis of findings from field research – using SPSS or Epidata or similar quantitative research analysis software – and triangulation of data with qualitative dataPrepare a full draft report on the quantitative and qualitative findings, including recommendations for changes in project approaches and priorities for future similar project interventions. The report should meet the criteria included in Annex 1.Incorporate feedback into a revised draft of the report.Present findings to the project stakeholders at the validation workshop and facilitate discussion to reach consensus on findings.Propose specific recommendations for revision following validation workshop.Finalise full Final Evaluation report and disseminate findings to beneficiaries and stakeholders.OUTPUTSThe expected outputs of this assignment are: 1. Detailed Inception Report to outline methodology for the Final Evaluation; including updated data collection tools, guidance for data collection, a detailed work plan and data analysis plan. This should be approved by Plan UK and RODI before field research begins.
· Revised tools for field research that are appropriate for the outputs and indicators from the project logframe and address the specific issues detailed above among the specific target groups.
The work is expected to be implemented through January-February 2014 and be completed by 28 February 2015, allowing time for preparation, field work, writing, feedback and finalisation. The work is expected to last around 20 days. Please note the following timings are suggested as a guideline, and the consultant’s proposal should suggest final timings that include other members of his / her research team.
Activity
Proposed number of days to include;
Background reading, methodology and tools development 3 days
Training and preparation with staff 1 day
Data collection 5 days Data entry and analysis 5 days
Report writing 3 days
Validation workshop 1 day
Finalisation of report 1 day
Dissemination workshop 1 day
TOTAL 20 days9.LOGISTICS AND COMMUNICATIONS
The consultant will work with UFFCA staff based in Kampala and Kasese. UFFCA will provide transportation, fuel and a driver for the fieldwork. 5 UFFCA staff will also be available to support the consultant with organising field research.
The consultant will report directly to the UFFCA Executive Director and Plan International Capacity Building Coordinator. The consultant will undertake evaluation tasks in close consultation with the UFFCA Programme Coordinator and Plan International Capacity Building Coordinator, and other members of the staff in the Secretariat.8.TERMS AND CONDITIONS
The consultancy will be contracted by Plan UK and will be paid directly by Plan UK on the basis of:
Plan UK having reviewed and approved the plan and proposed methodology of the evaluation (50% of costs).Plan UK receiving a copy of the report and final invoice with hard copy receipts for expenses incurred (50%)9.SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE REQUIREDThe successful lead consultant will have a solid track record on the criteria below, with examples of evidence for each:
Generalq Postgraduate qualification in relevant fields Knowledge & Technical Skills and Experience q Experience in quantitative research methodologies and analysis, and ability to present quantitative data in easily accessible formats
q Experience in using SPSS or Epidata (or similar software)
q Experience in qualitative research methodologies and analysis and participatory research
q Experience in leading a research team
q Experience of use of ethical considerations and methodological measures for conducting research with marginalised and disadvantaged groups, including young people.
q Gender, HIV and sexual and reproductive health & rights
q Current policy developments in Uganda
q Advocacy programmes
q Participatory methods; consultation and facilitation
q Design, monitoring and evaluation of HIV and SRHR programmes
q Familiarity and knowledge of Plan International principles and policies including gender sensitivity and Child Centred Community Development Others q Knowledge of DFID grant requirements and policies
q Track record in writing concise, high quality and accessible research reports
q Spoken and written English and local languages
q Ability to be responsive to client needs; creativity and flexibility toward issues arising / challenges in research implementation10.DOCUMENTS TO BE PROVIDED TO CONSULTANT
Project ProposalProject Log frame, revised versions up to November 2014Project M&E frameworkBaseline report, including toolsMid-Term Review report and toolsProject workplansAnnual Project Narrative reportsPeriodic Narrative reportsProject strategy documentsPolicy documentsBudget informationPROPOSALWe invite interested candidates to submit the following documents:
Expression of interest addressing track record and selection criteriaTechnical proposal for the Final Evaluation (maximum 10 pages to cover parts a and b):Your understanding of the issues to be addressedThe objective of the project and the reviewDetails of the proposed methodologyExpected composition of the Consultant/Evaluation teamTimetable of activities, including explicit milestones against which consultancy progress can be measuredA description of measurable products, outcomes and benefits of the final evaluationCVs of the proposed consultants who will conduct the work, explicitly detailing experience in the relevant area.Contact details of two independent referees.Financial proposal detailing consultant(s) itemised fees, data collection and administrative costs.Rate history for similar work to support budget proposalOne recent example of similar evaluation report written by the applicant.The indicative budget available for consultant fees and associated costs is approximately GBP 8,000.
The deadline for proposals is Sunday 4th January 2015.Please feel free to contact us in case of any clarification question.
Please submit proposals to: Executive Director, UFFCA, Seremos Kamuturaki seremoskamuturaki@hotmail.com
Copy your submission to: Juliet Masika, Capacity Building Co-ordinator, Plan International Juliet.Masika@plan-international.org
Annex 1
Civil Society Challenge Fund
Evaluation Guidelines
February 2014
What is the Civil Society Challenge Fund (CSCF)?
The CSCF is a grant mechanism for ensuring DFID reaches poor and marginalised groups (e.g. disabled, children, women, people living with HIV/AIDS, indigenous people, ethnic minorities) through supporting a more empowered and cohesive civil society (made up of NGOs, religious and community organisations, professional associations and others). The CSCF has operated since 2000. From 2010 to March 2015 the CSCF will have supported a total of 156 projects in Africa, Asia, Americas and the Middle East. The fund closed to new grants in 2011 and all projects will end by 2015. Each year projects end. The Fund provides up to 100% of project funding with a maximum contribution of £500,000 to each project for up to, but no more than, 5 years.
Useful background reading for the evaluation
The approved project proposal document.The original project logframe and the last approved project logframe.Annual Project Reports, including financial information.Any case studies produced by the project.Original baseline studies and any subsequent studies to show impact.Other evidence of impact that the project team thinks is important. This could include notes of decisions taken, evidence of policies or programmes that have changed or communication material that may have had an impact on decision-making.Recommended people to interview
Project manager(s)Project staff, including male and female field workers or volunteersTarget groups whose capacity is being built by the project (e.g. health workers, agricultural workers, extension workers)Beneficiaries: men, women, adolescent girls and boys, disabled girls and boys, men and women living with HIV/AIDS.Coalition partner organisations familiar with the project and involved, for example, in advocacyGovernment officials familiar with the projectReport-writing guidance
Recommended length: 25 pages max in plain English. Use Microsoft Word. Arial font 12.
Recommended Format:
Contents PageAbbreviations and acronyms pageBasic Information (1 A4 page maximum)(Project title, Agency name, CSCF number, Country, Name of local partner(s),Name of person who compiled the evaluation report, including summary of role/contribution of others in the team and the period during which the evaluation was undertaken)
Executive Summary (2 A4 page maximum)The main report (see below)Outcome and Output score (see template at Annex A)Annexes: Include the evaluation terms of reference; names and contact details of the evaluators along with a signed declaration of their independence from the project team; evaluation schedule; people met; documents consulted; statistical data on baseline; end of project survey.Recommended content for the report
Results and impact of the project:*Support your findings with examples.*Consider the stated outputs of the project as laid out in the most recent version of the project logframe;Based on the evidence you have collected and analysed, to what extent have each of the outputs been delivered and targets/milestones reached as envisaged?What were the results of the individual outputs? What change was brought about?Taken together, to what extent did the outputs achieve the desired outcome?To what extent were the indicators for measuring outcome appropriate?What evidence is there of impact on the lives of marginalised and poor people as a result of this project?How did the project assess impact?Target groups: Support your findings with examples and recommendations.Which target groups did the project work with? How did they benefit?What is your evidence that the project reached the intended target group(s) as described? For example, specify any sample surveys used by the evaluator, numbers of people interviewed etc.Unintended consequences:*Support your findings with examples and recommendations.*Explain if the project produced any unanticipated consequences or outcomes that were not intended? For example: Were there any positive unexpected benefits? Did something negative happen as a result of the project?
RiskDid the project identify and manage risk effectively? Provide examples, and/or recommendations.
Value for money (VfM)[1]:Evaluate whether the project has been implemented according to principles that support value for money. Provide examples/and or recommendations.
Economy
What has the project management done to buy and use inputs at a value-for-money price? What did the organisation do to drive down unit costs but maintain quality?
Efficiency
How did the project ensure that resources (inputs) were used efficiently to maximise results?
Effectiveness
Do you consider the project has been effective in bringing about the anticipated changes for beneficiaries and target groups?
SustainabilityDo elements (outputs) of this project require future funding and if so has funding been secured?
Lesson Learning on approachesAre there any useful lessons that can be drawn from this project? Note: evaluators do not have to provide lessons under each area. Focus on what is felt to be most useful.
Approaches to Empowerment and AdvocacyWhat has worked well?
Equity and Gender EqualityHas the project learned any useful lessons in understanding and address gender inequality? Explain in brief.
Capacity buildingWhat approaches have worked or not worked? What has the organisation learned to apply for the future?
MonitoringWhat is the quality of monitoring?
Does a system exist or not?
Consider the accuracy of monitoring data, its flexibility and the use made of it.
Consider if the baseline data is adequate.
InnovationAre there any innovative aspects of the project identified during the evaluation, if so describe. Support your findings with examples.
Project Accountability (Beneficiary Feedback Mechanisms)Did the project collect feedback from beneficiaries? If so, describe how. Are there any examples of how the project changed course as a result of feedback from beneficiaries?
Outcome and Output scoringPlease score project performance against the outcome and each output, making a judgement on the actual achievement of expected results using DFID’s five point scoring system:
ScoreDescription of Score A++ Output/outcome substantially exceeded expectation A+ Output/outcome moderately exceeded expectation A Output/outcome met expectation B Output/outcome moderately did not meet expectation C Output/outcome substantially did not meet expectation
Where there has been over- or under-achievement, please explain the reasons. Please state what evidence supports the score.
Contribution to the CSCF ObjectivesThe CSCF has five broad objectives and these are explained below. Please consider if the project has contributed to these objectives and provide examples to support your conclusions.
CSCF Objective Example 1.Building capacity of Southern civil society to engage in local decision-making processes.
Can you find an example where the project has helped marginalised groups to, for example, voice their concerns to local government departments in relation to their rights? ****2.****Building capacity of Southern civil society to engage in national decision-making.
Can you find an example where the project has helped marginalised groups to, for example, voice their concerns to national government departments in relation to their rights (e.g. through the media or through a more direct engagement)? 3.Global advocacy.
Has the project capitalised on its experiences with marginalised groups to conduct advocacy at a global level (e.g. attended UN forums or participated in global campaigns to project the concerns and views of marginalised groups)? Please provide an example. 4.Innovative service delivery.
Have you identified examples of innovative service delivery pioneered by the project? If so, please explain. 5.Service delivery in difficult environments. If the project is contributing to, or providing services, in a difficult environment, please explain. Provide a few bullet points to explain why the environment is challenging.
The deadline for proposals is Sunday 4th January 2015. Please feel free to contact us in case of any clarification question.
Please submit proposals to: Executive Director, UFFCA, Seremos Kamuturaki seremoskamuturaki@hotmail.com
Copy your submission to: Juliet Masika, Capacity Building Co-ordinator, Plan International Juliet.Masika@plan-international.org
0 comments:
Post a Comment