Strengthening Resilience in Agriculture, Livelihoods and Markets Phase II (STREAM II) Full Time NEW

Project Locations: Mvolo, Mundri East and West Counties (Western Equatoria State, South Sudan)

Duration: 30 working days (Between November 24th to December 31st, 2025)

Background

Mercy Corps has been operating in South Sudan since 2005. Since the country’s independence in 2011, Mercy Corps has remained committed to addressing urgent humanitarian needs while laying out the foundation for long-term recovery and resilience. The organization’s work prioritizes food security, peace and good governance, water security, and economic opportunities. With funding from multiple donors, including the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Mercy Corps South Sudan supports conflict-affected youth, women, internally displaced persons (IDPs), returnees, and host communities. Through adaptive management, gender mainstreaming, and resilience-focused approaches, the agency seeks to empower people to recover from crisis, build sustainable livelihoods, and strengthen local systems.

Program Description

The Strengthening Resilience in Agriculture, Livelihoods and Markets Phase II (STREAM II) program, implemented by Mercy Corps South Sudan from February 2023 to June 2026, aims to enhance resilience, food security, and inclusive economic opportunities for conflict-affected households in Greater Mundri, Western Equatoria State. Building on the achievements and lessons of STREAM I (2021–2023), the program continues to address structural barriers that constrain productivity and equitable market participation, particularly among smallholder farmers, MSMEs, women, and youth.

Funded by multiple donors, including the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, STREAM II adopts a Market Systems Development (MSD) approach adapted for fragile contexts to improve agricultural input and output markets, strengthen non-farm enterprises, and foster social cohesion. Key interventions include promoting climate-smart agricultural practices; expanding access to inputs through seed and equipment fairs and village retail shops; supporting post-harvest handling, storage, and solar-powered processing hubs; and linking producers with buyers and off-takers. The program also invests in financial inclusion by partnering with institutions to develop tailored financial products, increase credit access, and build financial literacy. Recognizing the importance of inclusive economic growth, STREAM II deliberately targets women and youth to increase their participation and agency in markets. In Western Equatoria’s complex context—marked by ethnic diversity, economic marginalization, and ongoing displacement, the program is deliberately structured to promote equity, reduce grievances linked to exclusion, and strengthen trust between communities, market actors, and local governance structures.

Mid-Term Evaluation

The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) will provide an independent assessment of STREAM II’s progress toward achieving its objectives midway through implementation. It will generate credible evidence on the extent to which the program is meeting its objectives of enhancing agricultural productivity, strengthening market systems, promoting inclusive economic opportunities, and improving resilience among smallholder farmers and non-farm enterprises in Greater Mundri, Western Equatoria. By critically appraising the program’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and emerging impact, the evaluation will serve both accountability and learning functions for donors, Mercy Corps, implementing partners, and participants.

Specifically, the MTE will generate credible evidence to:

• Measure progress against program outcomes and log-frame indicators.
• Assess how effectively the MSD approach is fostering systemic market change.
• Evaluate the inclusiveness of interventions for women, youth, and other vulnerable groups.
• Determine the likelihood of sustainability of key outcomes; and
• Provide actionable recommendations for program adjustment, scale-up, and future design.

Ultimately, the evaluation will help ensure STREAM II remains relevant, adaptive, and impactful within South Sudan’s evolving context, while contributing to Mercy Corps’ organizational learning on resilience, market systems, and climate-smart development in fragile settings.

Evaluation Objectives and Questions

Guided by the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria, the evaluation will assess the program’s relevance to the evolving needs of conflict-affected populations; its effectiveness in achieving intended outcomes; the efficiency of its resource use and delivery mechanisms; and its emerging impact on food security, market development, and resilience capacities. It will also examine the sustainability of results beyond the program’s lifetime, the coherence of STREAM II within broader donor, government, and humanitarian-development-peace efforts, and the degree to which the program has upheld accountability and inclusion in its engagement with communities. Through this comprehensive assessment, the evaluation will not only provide evidence of results to date but also identify lessons, good practices, and areas for adjustment to maximize the program’s contribution to durable development and resilience outcomes in South Sudan.

Specific Objectives

• Assess the continued relevance of STREAM II interventions to participant needs, local priorities, and donor strategies.
• Examine the extent to which program objectives, outputs, and outcomes have been achieved.
• Evaluate the cost-effectiveness, timeliness, and resource use in program implementation.
• Assess the likelihood that program outcomes will continue beyond donor funding.
• Explore evidence of the program’s contribution to improved wellbeing, resilience, and systemic change.
• Assess the program’s accountability to participants, partners, and donors. 
• Evaluate how well STREAM II interventions complement, coordinate, and align with other initiatives.
• Capture lessons, innovations, and adaptive practices that can strengthen STREAM II during its remaining period and inform future programming.

Evaluation Questions

• Relevance
  • To what extent do STREAM interventions address the priority needs and vulnerabilities of target groups? (farmers, MSMEs, women, youth, IDPs, and returnees)
  • How effectively has the program integrated gender, equity, and social inclusion (GESI) into its design and delivery?
  • How well does the program align with national priorities and respond to contextual dynamics? (conflict, displacement, and climate-related changes)

    Effectiveness

• What progress has been made toward achieving STREAM’s intended outcomes?
  • How have indicators related to food security, poverty reduction, yield improvements, psychosocial wellbeing, and social cohesion evolved?
• How effective have the program’s core approaches been in driving systemic change and inclusion?
  • Has the MSD approach fostered sustainable changes in agricultural and non-farm markets?
  • To what extent have financial inclusion interventions improved access to and use of financial services?
  • How successful have interventions been in enhancing youth and women’s participation in economic and market activities?
• What unintended effects—positive or negative—have emerged from the program

Efficiency

• How well have financial, human, and technical resources been managed to deliver program outputs and outcomes?
• Were activities implemented on time and within budget?
• What factors contributed to any delays or cost overruns?
• How effective are partnership and coordination mechanisms in leveraging resources and local capacities?
• Have collaborations enhanced technical delivery and contextual relevance?
• How well do STREAM II interventions complement and coordinate with other donor or partner initiatives in the target areas
• To what extent has adaptive management supported efficient program delivery?
• Has the program demonstrated flexibility in responding to shocks and contextual changes

Sustainability

• Which STREAM interventions and outcomes demonstrate potential for sustainability, and why?
• What evidence exists from interventions such as seed fairs, village retail shops, processing hubs, and social cohesion groups?
• Are key actors and systems positioned to sustain program results?
• Are market actors (e.g., traders, farmer groups, cooperatives, financial institutions) showing ownership and capacity?
• How are communities, local institutions, and private sector partners engaged in sustaining and scaling innovations?
• How have sustainability strategies been designed and implemented, and what risks remain?
• To what extent have exit strategies and catalytic subsidies promoted sustainability?
• What risks may threaten sustainability, and how are they being mitigated?
• Impact and Resilience
• What changes have occurred in household wellbeing and coping capacities?
• How have household income, food security, and coping strategies evolved compared to baseline?
• To what extent have interventions contributed to reduced poverty and improved quality of life?
• How has STREAM II strengthened community resilience to shocks and stressors?
• What evidence shows improved resilience to conflict, displacement, and climate-related events
• What are the psychosocial and social impacts of the program across different groups?
• How have psychosocial interventions contributed to social cohesion and trust?
• What differential impacts are observed across sub-groups (e.g., men/women, youth/adults, IDPs/host communities)?

Accountability

• How effectively does the program communicate with participants and stakeholders?
• Are objectives, interventions, and outcomes clearly conveyed?
• Are community voices informing program design, adaptation, and decision-making?
• How accessible and trusted are the Community Accountability and Reporting Mechanisms (CARM)?
• Are participants using CARM to provide feedback or raise concerns?
• How is feedback being acted upon?
• To what extent are accountability standards and ethical practices upheld?
• Are donor requirements for transparency and reporting being met?
• How does the program ensure protection, safeguarding, and ethical engagement with vulnerable groups?
• Learning and Adaptation
• What lessons and best practices have emerged that can inform adaptive management?
• Which approaches, tools, or partnerships have proven most effective or innovative?How can these be scaled or replicated in STREAM II or future programming?
• How has the program used evidence and feedback to adapt strategies and interventions?
• What role has monitoring data, CARM feedback, and contextual analysis played?
• What evidence shows that adaptive decisions have improved effectiveness, efficiency, or relevance?
• To what extent are staff, partners, and participants engaged in reflective learning, and how is this shaping program direction?
• How can Mercy Corps and partners adjust strategies to maximize systemic change, sustainability, and inclusiveness?
• How can STREAM II’s experiences contribute to wider organizational learning and resilience programming?
• Intended Users and Use of Findings

The findings from this mid-term evaluation will primarily inform Mercy Corps South Sudan and its donor partners—including the Swiss Development Cooperation (SDC), the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands, and the Norwegian Ministry of Foreign Affairs—in assessing STREAM II’s performance and guiding adaptive management decisions for the remainder of the implementation period.

Insights from the evaluation will support evidence-based programmatic adjustments, enhance strategic decision-making, and inform planning for future phases or related interventions.

Secondary users—including local implementing partners, government institutions, and community stakeholders—will use the findings to strengthen coordination, promote local ownership, and enhance the sustainability of program outcomes.

Key findings and recommendations will be disseminated through stakeholder workshops, internal learning sessions, and donor reporting to ensure broad utilization and institutional learning across Mercy Corps’ resilience and market systems programming portfolio.

Design and Methodology Evaluation

The mid-term evaluation will use a mixed-methods design, integrating both quantitative and qualitative approaches to provide a comprehensive and triangulated assessment of STREAM II’s performance. It will be theory-based, guided by the program’s Theory of Change and logframe, to assess how interventions contribute to resilient livelihoods, inclusive market systems, and reduced vulnerability. While not a full quasi-experimental impact evaluation, the design will incorporate comparative and contribution analysis where feasible to explore causal pathways.

Data Sources: The evaluation will draw on both primary and secondary data sources. Primary data will be collected directly from program participants and stakeholders, while secondary data will include program monitoring data, baseline studies, donor reports, the STREAM II proposal, partner documentation, and contextual assessments relevant to the operational environment.

Data collection: A range of data collection methods will be used to ensure depth and diversity of insights. These will include household surveys to quantitatively measure food security, income, and resilience outcomes; focus group discussions (FGDs) with men, women, and youth to capture varied perspectives; and key informant interviews (KIIs) with program staff, implementing partners, local authorities, and market actors to assess systemic change and sustainability. The evaluation will also incorporate direct observations of program sites and market activities, as well as document reviews of program records and monitoring data.

Sampling strategy: For the sampling strategy, household surveys will use a stratified random sampling approach to ensure representation across gender, age groups (youth/adults), displacement status (IDPs, returnees, host communities), and program intervention areas. Sample sizes will be calculated to ensure statistical validity at a 95% confidence level, with disaggregation aligned to the program’s logframe and donor reporting requirements. FGDs and KIIs will follow a purposive sampling strategy to ensure inclusion of key stakeholder groups and marginalized populations.

Data analysis: Data analysis will involve both descriptive and inferential statistical techniques to assess changes in key indicators such as Food Consumption Scores (FCS), Household Hunger Scale (HHS), Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI), and income levels. Where baseline data is available, comparisons will be made to assess progress. Qualitative data will be thematically coded to identify patterns, explanations, and contextual factors, and findings will be triangulated with quantitative results to generate robust conclusions.

Ethical standards: The evaluation will adhere to ethical standards in line with international research protocols and Mercy Corps’ MEL policies. Informed consent will be obtained from all participants, and their privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected. A do-no-harm approach will be applied, with particular attention to minimizing risks in sensitive and fragile contexts. Special measures will be taken to ensure the safe, meaningful, and dignified participation of women, youth, and other vulnerable groups. The evaluation team will also comply with Mercy Corps’ Community Accountability and Reporting Mechanism (CARM), ensuring participants have accessible and trusted channels to provide feedback or raise concerns throughout the evaluation process.

Limitations and risks: the evaluation will acknowledge and manage potential limitations and risks, including access constraints due to insecurity or weather, biases in self-reported data, and challenges in baseline comparability. Mitigation strategies will include flexible scheduling, use of local enumerators familiar with the context, triangulation of multiple data sources, and adaptive planning to maintain data quality and reliability.

Evaluation Management and Governance Structure

The mid-term evaluation will be managed by Mercy Corps South Sudan, with overall leadership provided by the Country MEAL/CARM Manager, who will serve as the evaluation focal point and primary liaison for the consultant or firm. Technical oversight will be provided by the Regional MEL Advisor and Mercy Corps’ HQ Technical Team to ensure methodological rigor, alignment with global standards, and quality assurance throughout the evaluation process.

The STREAM II Program Team will work closely with the consultant to facilitate access to project sites, stakeholders, and relevant documentation. They will also participate in validation workshops and review sessions to ensure that findings and recommendations are contextually grounded and actionable.

The consultant or firm will lead all technical aspects of the evaluation, including data collection, analysis, and report preparation, in coordination with the Mercy Corps MEL team. Mercy Corps will support logistics, including introductions to local authorities, coordination with implementing partners, and provision of security guidance as needed.

Timing and Deliverables

Deliverable

1. Desk Review Report: summarizes relevant literature on STREAM II core objectives, market systems, and climate resilience in the project implementation areas

Tentative Timeline:5 business days after contract signing

2. Inception Report: includes the survey design, data collection methods, a pre-analysis plan (PAP), a data dictionary and recommendations for analyzing differences within the target implementation counties.

2.1. The pre-analysis plan will outline the learning questions, indicators, sampling strategy, and analysis approach. It will include disaggregation tables and specify or provide the syntax needed for data analysis. The plan will emphasize a sampling design suited to STREAM II’s phased implementation and long-term impact goals, while also noting expected challenges and limitations.

2.2. The data dictionary will document variable names, labels, and value codes for use in recurrent monitoring surveys to be conducted via CommCare, ensuring consistency and clarity in data collection and analysis.

Tentative Timeline:7 business days after contract signing

3. Draft Midline Report: summarizes the study’s findings and presents clear, actionable recommendations to support adaptive management and guide the design and implementation of future STREAM phases. The report should analyze the socio-economic and cultural context, food production systems, market dynamics, trade flows, and climate-related risks and vulnerabilities. It should also identify knowledge gaps and areas for further research, anchoring key learning priorities for the project. Additionally, the report should include relevant indicators and their benchmark values for tracking progress.

Tentative Timeline:19th December

4. Validation Workshop: Consultant will facilitate a validation workshop with relevant Mercy Corps staff, including the STREAM II Program Team, Senior Management, and Regional and HQ technical teams. The purpose of the workshop is to present preliminary findings, gather verbal and written feedback, and ensure that insights and recommendations are contextually grounded and actionable. Feedback from this session will inform revisions and finalization of the midline report.

Tentative Timeline: 23rd December

5. Final Midline Report: includes key sections: background/introduction, methodology, limitations, results, and interpretation/discussion. It will incorporate feedback and revisions from the STREAM II Program Team, Senior Management, and Regional and HQ technical teams to ensure the findings are accurate, contextually grounded, and actionable

Tentative Timeline: 30th December

• Review and Approval Process
• Draft Deliverables will be reviewed sequentially by the STREAM II MEL team, Program Management, Regional MEL Advisor, and HQ reviewers.
• Feedback will be consolidated and shared with the consultant within an agreed timeframe.
• Final approval of deliverables will rest with the Country MEAL/CARM Manager
• Timeframe and Payment

  The proposed activities and schedule will be finalized in consultation with the selected consultant or firm. While the estimated level of effort is 30 days, consultants may propose revised timelines in their technical proposal, provided all deliverables are completed by 30th December 2025. Mercy Corps South Sudan will remunerate based on the actual number of days worked, not the estimated effort, and only upon satisfactory delivery of approved outputs. If additional time is required, the consultant must agree on revised priorities with the STREAM II focal point and confirm changes to the work plan in writing. The consultancy is expected to begin in November 2025, following an initial coordination meeting with the MEAL team and STREAM II staff, and conclude by 30th December 2025 with submission of the final report, inclusive of donor feedback. The final invoice must be submitted immediately upon delivery of the final report.

• Budget and Logistics

All consultant-related costs including professional fees, travel (if applicable), accommodation, meals, insurance, and administrative expenses must be clearly itemized and included in the financial proposal submitted to Mercy Corps. Mercy Corps will provide necessary logistical support such as security clearance, introductions to local authorities, and access to project sites, where appropriate. The consultant will be required to adhere to all Mercy Corps security, ethical, and operational protocols while conducting the assignment.

Consultant

• Manage data collection (hiring, training and supervising enumerators)
• Provide technical leadership and oversight of enumerators’ training, data collection activities, ensuring quality control, methodological rigor, and timely delivery of outputs
• Manage data analysis
• Manage reporting

Mercy Corps

Avail three vehicles for data collection activities.

• Data Ownership, Confidentiality, and Intellectual Property

All data, information, tools, and materials generated through this evaluation including raw datasets, interview notes, photos, reports, and analysis outputs shall remain the sole property of Mercy Corps. The consultant or consulting firm shall treat all information received or generated during the assignment as strictly confidential and shall not, without prior written consent from Mercy Corps, disclose, reproduce, or publish any part of the data or findings for personal, institutional, or external use.

Upon completion of the assignment, the consultant is required to transfer all primary and secondary data, including cleaned datasets, transcripts, analytical code (if applicable), and final deliverables, to Mercy Corps in both editable and final formats. Mercy Corps reserves the right to use, adapt, and disseminate the evaluation results for internal learning, donor reporting, and program improvement, while ensuring proper acknowledgment of the consultant’s contribution.

The consultant shall ensure that data collection, storage, and sharing comply with Mercy Corps’ data protection standards and ethical research guidelines, including safeguarding the privacy and anonymity of all participants.

• Evaluation Ethics and Data Protection

The evaluation will adhere to the highest standards of ethical research and data protection, in line with Mercy Corps’ MEL Policy, Safeguarding Framework, and Data Protection and Privacy Policy. All evaluation activities will be conducted in a manner that ensures respect, dignity, and safety for all participants, with particular attention to vulnerable groups such as women, youth, and persons with disabilities.

The consultant shall ensure that all data collection, storage, analysis, and transfer processes comply with Mercy Corps’ standards where applicable. Mercy Corps will retain ownership of all data and ensure that all findings are handled in accordance with its Do No Harm principles, safeguarding commitments, and ethical standards for research in humanitarian and development settings.

Required Experience and Skills

• A master’s degree (or equivalent professional experience) in social sciences, research, evaluation, or related field.
• A minimum of 10 years’ experience in international development, including at least 5 years conducting research or evaluations for development programs.
• Demonstrated expertise in quantitative and qualitative research methodologies, including panel survey design and analysis.
• Proven experience conducting similar research or evaluation assignments in South Sudan, particularly in Western Equatoria State.
• Prior experience working with Mercy Corps will be considered an advantage.
• Exceptional attention to detail, ensuring high levels of quality, accuracy, and consistency.
• Strong ability to coordinate and manage evaluation activities remotely, engaging effectively with stakeholders and implementation teams.
• Demonstrated integrity, professionalism, and strong work ethic, with the ability to work both independently and collaboratively within diverse teams.
• Excellent written and verbal communication skills in English.

Additional Preferred Qualifications

• Previous consultancy experience with Mercy Corps or similar international organizations.
• Prior involvement in FSL and Market Systems Development (MSD)-related evaluation surveys.
• Familiarity with resilience measurement frameworks and approaches.
• Demonstrated knowledge and experience in climate-smart agriculture and climate resilience programming.
• Experience working in pastoral or fragile contexts, particularly within South Sudan and the Western Equatoria State.

Assessment and award of the assignment

Mercy Corps will evaluate all submitted proposals based on a weighted scoring system comprising technical proposals (70%) and financial proposals (30%) to determine the most suitable candidate for the assignment. The evaluation will consider both the technical soundness and financial feasibility of each submission to ensure value for money and alignment with program objectives. Mercy Corps reserves the right to accept or reject any or all proposals without providing justification and is under no obligation to award the contract to the lowest or highest bidder. Only shortlisted applicants will be contacted for further engagement.

Evaluation Criteria and Weighting

1. Technical Proposal – 70%

Description -Understanding of the Assignment and Methodology

Criteria: Demonstrates clear understanding of the TOR objectives, proposed evaluation framework, data collection methods, analytical approach, and ethical considerations.

Weight (%) 25%

Description -Relevant Experience and Past Performance

Criteria: Proven experience in conducting similar evaluations, particularly in South Sudan or similar fragile contexts; evidence of experience in Market Systems Development, resilience, and climate-smart programming.

Weight (%) 20%

Description -Team Composition and Qualifications

Criteria: Expertise, roles, and qualifications of key personnel; adequacy of proposed team structure and level of effort.

Weight (%) 15%

Description -Work Plan and Deliverables

Criteria: Feasibility, clarity, and practicality of the proposed work plan, timelines, and deliverable structure.

Weight (%) 10%

Subtotal 70%

Financial Proposal – 30%

Criteria: Cost Realism and Reasonableness

Description: Extent to which proposed costs are realistic, consistent with technical approach, and represent fair market value.

Weight (%) 15%

Criteria: Value for Money

Description: Demonstrates efficiency in resource use, clear cost justification, and alignment of budget with scope and deliverables.

Weight (%) 15%

Subtotal 30%

Total Score: 100%

Mercy Corps reserves the right to verify references, request clarifications, and negotiate with top-ranked applicants prior to final award. The contract will be awarded to the consultant or firm whose proposal represents the best overall value, considering both technical quality and financial feasibility.

Documents for Submission

A. Documents to Be Submitted with the Proposal

1. Technical Proposal – A full and detailed proposal that demonstrates a clear understanding of the Terms of Reference (TOR), outlining the proposed methodology, analysis plan, work approach, and any innovative techniques that will enhance the usability and applicability of the evaluation results.
2. Curriculum Vitae (CV) of the Lead Consultant – Providing educational qualifications, relevant working experience, areas of expertise, specific roles and responsibilities, and at least three professional referees with contact details.
3. Corporate Capacity Statement (maximum two pages) – Presenting an overview of the firm’s operations, geographical coverage, years of experience, and a summary of similar evaluations or assessments conducted.
4. One (1) Recent Sample Evaluation Report – From a similar assignment, preferably conducted in South Sudan or in comparable contexts.

B. Additional Information/Documentation to Be Requested After Selection

The successful consultant or firm will be requested to provide the following additional documentation before the contract is finalized:

1. CVs of All Proposed Technical Team Members – Clearly indicating their roles, responsibilities, and the designated Team Leader.
2. List of Local Firms and Nature of Collaboration – Including details of any local partnerships or subcontracting arrangements within South Sudan or the target corridors, with confirmation of availability and capacity to subcontract where necessary.
3. One to Three (1–3) Additional Sample Evaluation Reports – To further demonstrate technical capability and contextual experience.
4. Three (3) Professional References – For similar assignments, including names, email addresses, and phone numbers for direct verification.
5. Organizational Legal and Compliance Documents (If applying as a company) –Such as registration certificates, tax identification, and other statutory documents (if applicable).

Submission Details and Deadline

Interested and qualified individual consultants or consulting firms are invited to submit their expression of interest through the provided link. Submissions will be reviewed on a rolling basis we encourage you to submit your application early, as we may give priority to candidates who are able to move through the process sooner. Incomplete applications will not be considered.

Annex 1: STREAM II Intervention Level Indicators

**Result:**Objective1: Improved, more efficient, and productive agricultural inputs and output markets

Indicators

1.1 % of female and male farmers reporting an increase in food production

1.2 % of the target population with acceptable Food Consumption Score (FCS)

1.3 GERF 1.1 SDG 2.3.2 Average income of small-scale food producers, by sex and indigenous status

1.4 GERF 2.2 Areas of agricultural and pastoral ecosystems where sustainable management practices have been introduced (ha) [SP][EFSD]†

1.5 % of female and male farmers reporting Reduced Coping Strategy Index (rCSI) score

1.6 % of households reporting reduced moderate and severe Household Hunger Scale (HHS) scores

1.7 % of female and male farmers reporting an increase in the number of food secure months

1.8 % change in perception and acceptance for women to engage in traditionally male livelihoods

Result: Objective 2:Enable non-farm enterprises and smallholder farmers to add market value and invest in expanded economic opportunities.

Indicators

2.1 # of MSMEs gaining new or improved access to markets and/or financial services

2.3 GERF 2.17 Number of beneficiaries with access to financial services: (a) firms, (b) people (all financial services), (c) people (digital financial services) [SP][EFSD]‡

2.4 % of male and female smallholder farmers that have reported reduced post-harvest losses

2.5 % of women with positive perception on their influence on business and economic related decision making.

2.6 % of male, female farmers and youth reporting increase cash earned through participation in program value chains and addition services

Result: Objective3: Increase psychosocial capacities and social cohesion among communities and market actors.

Indicators

3.1 % of households reporting improved quality of life and wellbeing caused by the program

3.2 GERF 2.14 Number of people who have benefited from institution or workplace-based VET/skills development interventions supported: (a) all VET/skills development, (b) only VET/skills development for digitalisation [NDICI Global Europe][SP]‡

3.3 % of male and female youth and farmers with increased psychosocial and social strength

3.4 % of female & male farmers and youth reporting that social safety benefits are accessible to their groups

3.5 % of youth and farmers reporting strong social ties with diverse groups

3.6 % of stakeholders who believe that the solutions developed by working together satisfies their respective interests in the issues at hand

3.7 % of participants who believe their relationships with different groups have improved

3.8 % targeted local institutions providing information, experiences intended to shape community aspirations

**Result:**Output 1.

1. Access to Agricultural Inputs, Information and Extension Services

Indicators

1.1.1 % of farmers reporting satisfaction with accessing quality inputs disaggregated by gender and age (youth)

1.1.8 % of farmers who reported knowledge seeds and tillage equipment after attending trade fair shows.

1.1.11 % of village retail shops reporting increase in profit.

1.1.14 % of trained participants reporting an increase in use of knowledge and skills learnt during training.

1.1.15 % of male and female farmers reporting confidence in the quality of extensions services provided by the extension workers and lead farmers

**Result:**Output 1.2. Access to Post-Harvest Handling, Storage and value addition

Indicators

1.2.1 % of smallholder farmers that have reported reduced post-harvest losses disaggregated by gender and age (youth)

1.2.2 % increase in use of post-harvest equipment and value addition technologies

1.2.6 % Of post-harvest facilities implementing two or more post-harvest storage best practices

**Result:**Output 1.4. Access to Quality Standards, Licensing & Certifications

**Indicators:**1.4.3 % of female and male farmers increase purchased certified seeds

**Result:**Output 2.3. Access to Formal & Informal Financial Services

Indicators: 2.3.1 % Increase in loan uptake by male and female farmers

**Result:**Activity 3.2. Creation of Safe Spaces for adolescent girls and women

Indicators: % of adolescent girls and women reporting improved wellbeing, confidence, and social support networks in their communities?

Annexes

The following annexes will be available to the selected consultant/ consulting firm to support a clearer understanding and refining the STREAM II Mid-Term Evaluation scope, methodology, and expected deliverables.

Annex 1: Program Logical Framework / Results Framework

Annex 2: Stream II Proposal documents including other reports

Annex 3: Template for final report writing

Annex 4: Detailed indicator reference table

Tagged as: Mercy Corps, South Sudan