Closing date: 05 Oct 2016
Background
The project “Humanitarian assistance for those affected by the Syrian conflict in Syria, Lebanon and Jordan” aims to make Syrians in Syria, Lebanon, Jordan and their host communities safer, healthier and more resilient. It does so through working with the following groups and sectors:
· Urban refugees and vulnerable members of host communities in Lebanon, in the areas of livelihoods/economic resilience and protection.
· Syrian refugees in and out of camps within Jordan alongside vulnerable Jordanians in host communities, in the areas of health and protection.
· Displaced and other conflict affected persons inside Syria (including Iraqi refugees in Al-Hassekeh), in the areas of health, protection (including in schools) and economic recovery and development
More specifically, the main interventions are the following (not all are in all countries):
· Health – Fixed clinics; Mobile clinics; Community-based health; Facility supplies
· Protection (general, women, children) – General protection information; Community protection monitoring; Legal counselling; Protection referrals; Case management; Psychosocial support; Parenting skills; School-based protection/education; SGBV services; Emergency cash
· Economic recovery & development– Unconditional cash/vouchers; Conditional cash/vouchers; Livelihoods training; Jobs/employment
The humanitarian assistance is delivered in-situ by directly by IRC in Jordan, Lebanon, and the NE and - partially - the NW of Syria, and by partner organisations in Syria (5), Jordan (1) and Lebanon (1). IRC’s operations are managed from across borders in Jordan (from where IRC has no direct access to Syria), Turkey (with partial access) and Iraq (with almost full IRC access). In Lebanon and Jordan most of the assistance is delivered directly by IRC, with only a small amount through partners
The project is funded by DFID to the amount GBP 31M (USD 46M) over 21 months from April 2015 to December 2016. As an indication of relative geographic scale of the programming, in this first year the budget allocation among countries was as follows:
· Syria – 95% by beneficiary reach; 66% by budget allocation
· Lebanon – 2% by beneficiary reach; 22% by budget allocation
· Jordan – 3% by beneficiary reach; 9% by budget allocation
· Regional (support hub) – 3% by budget allocation
Framework
The objectives of the final evaluation are:
To assess achievements of the desired project outcomes and the changes to the lives of the people served by the project
To identify learning and recommendations to maximize future programming outcomes
Both objectives are firmly rooted in the project’s proposal and logical framework (what IRC is accountable to achieving), the relevant and contextualized global IRC theories of change underpinning its programmatic priorities and approaches, and the wider IRC strategic plans in Lebanon, Jordan and Syria (cross-border programs) that the project partially contributes towards.
As the project was first designed (objectives and outcomes articulated) more than 2 years before the end of the project, and country strategic planning processes conducted after it started, and the theories of change launched one year after the project commenced, the evaluation is seen as part of the process of gaining a fuller understanding of theory and strategy in practice, to inform future programmatic choices.
As such, the top-level evaluation questions are:
To what extent did the project achieve its proposed outcomes?
Are there parts of the program theories (causal pathways) and strategies under- or unaddressed by the project and affecting realized or potential outcomes? (*This should be distinguished from the question “are there unmet needs of the individuals or communities the project serves?”, which is not the desired direction of this evaluation*)
What changes could IRC and partners make to achieve better outcomes for people affected by the crisis?
The evaluation pertains mostly to the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria of effectiveness (achievement of purpose) and appropriateness (tailored to local needs).
Scope
While it will be an ex-post evaluation that covers the full project implementation period, many of the outcomes are felt over a relatively longer time period, so this should be taken into account when selecting at least some of the informant beneficiaries.
The evaluation will focus on acquiring a deeper understanding of the end effects of the project, rather than examining the outputs or process of getting there (such as project or organizational implementation or management issues).
The evaluation should cover the widest and most diverse possible types and locations of programmatic interventions, however practicalities will prevent touching on every intervention type in all geographic areas. It is possible that the deepest, and potentially widest, focus may be disproportionally in Jordan and Lebanon, where access by skilled evaluators is the least impeded and therefore of highest likelihood to achieve evaluation quality and usefulness. Ideas and strategies for adequate and quality coverage of Syria are welcome.
Multi-sector programmatic interventions in the same locations will be evaluated to gain a better understanding of holistic approaches, programme cohesion, complementarity in achieving outcomes, linkages between theories of change and actual or potential “packaging” of interventions.
The evaluation will cover both interventions delivered by IRC directly and by IRC’s partner organizations.
The evaluation will build upon, not duplicate, the mid-term review which assessed alignment of the project to strategies and theories of change. It will take a more outcomes-centered, evidence-based and client-informed approach to the question of alignment.
It will also build upon, but not replicate, the findings from regular project outcomes monitoring data.
Methodology
The evaluators will familiarize themselves with the following project documentation:
Project proposal
Most recent approved logframe
IRC’s outcomes measurement plan
IRC’s quarterly reports to DFID including analyzed outcomes monitoring data
IRC’s Results Compact report to DFID
DFID’s Results Compact assessment report
DFID’s annual review report
IRC’s internal mid-term review report
DFID’s Syria independent monitoring contractor site visit reports (2 visits)
SRR country strategy action plans
IRC outcomes and evidence framework including theories of change
The consultant team will propose the detailed methodology for the evaluation, however the below indicates some of IRC’s current preferences.
Primary data collection should be largely qualitative in nature. Quantitative data should be collected by the evaluators only to the degree deemed useful to complement or improve upon project outcome monitoring data that already exists to measure the indicators. All of the project’s outcomes monitoring data (anonymous and unidentifiable) will be made fully available to the evaluators, and should be used as sources of information for the evaluation.
Project implementation sites in all 3 countries will be visited by the evaluators to directly interface with beneficiaries. In order to mitigate against assessment fatigue and increase accountability to affected populations, the evaluations should attempt to give preliminary feedback to beneficiaries participating in the evaluation, while being careful to manage expectations.
As it is primarily an accountability- and outcomes-oriented evaluation, not a process evaluation, IRC and partner staff in these countries will be interviewed primarily to ensure the evaluators have a full understanding of program intent, theory and approaches (this could be done remotely with cross-border staff based in Turkey and Iraq).
At the end of the field visit to each country, the corresponding country program staff should be de-briefed about initial draft evaluation findings (in person or remotely, depending on cross-border staff location). The draft evaluation report will be reviewed by IRC and partner staff for fact-checking and providing further insight to the evaluators. The final evaluation report should be formally presented to key stakeholders. The report (possibly adjusted for any sensitive information) will be shared by IRC within coordination mechanisms and other external organizations, as appropriate.
Timeframe
The following is an indicative time line of the proposed major milestones of the evaluation:
October 2016 – Consultant selection and contracting
November 2016 – Evaluation planning and preparation including logistics
December 2016 – Inception report. Field work may begin
December 2016-January 2017 – Field work
February 2017 – Evaluation report drafted
March 2017 – Evaluation report reviewed, finalized and presented
The evaluation must be fully completed no later than early March 2017, as it will feed into DFID’s own Project Completion Report due by the end of March.
Deliverables
The evaluators will produce the following documentation and actions in the process of conducting the review:
Inception report containing the plan of action and full methodological details for conducting the evaluation, before field work commences
De-briefings for each IRC/partners country program teams after field work
De-briefing of IRC regional office after field work
Draft evaluation report for review
Final evaluation report including an executive summary, methodology, findings, discussion/results (i.e. interpretation of findings), and recommendations for future evidence-based programming
Final evaluation report summary in powerpoint format
Presentation of final evaluation report via Webex (if not possible in person) for IRC, partners and donor
Logistics
IRC’s country program offices are located in Dohuk, Iraq (for NE Syria), Antakya, Turkey (for NW Syria), Beirut, Lebanon and Amman, Jordan (for Jordan and Southern Syria and the regional office). Seven partner organizations have offices or staff representation in Amman, Gaziantep and Beirut.
The current security and operational realities preclude any non-Syrian from entering Syria from any of IRC’s cross-border operations, except to Al-Hassekeh from Iraq.
IRC will endeavour to arrange for the evaluators to have access to beneficiaries while in the field in selected locations, as per pre-agreed schedules. If needed, it is possible for IRC to provide other reasonable administrative and logistics support to the evaluators while in the field in Lebanon and Jordan, but not in Syria; regardless, all such costs should be covered in the consultant’s cost proposal.
Consultant Requirements
It is anticipated, due to the scope and multi-sector nature of the project, that the evaluation will require more than one consultant. The teaming arrangements should be made clear in the application proposal. At a minimum the team should contain technical expertise in the fields of health, protection, gender and economic programming, as well as evaluation. Prior experience and knowledge of humanitarian response in the Syria crisis context is essential. English and Arabic languages will both be necessary.
Applications
Applicants should attach:
Maximum 4-page proposed approach, plan and timeline for completing the evaluation
CV of all team members, clearly indicating roles including the lead evaluator
Past performance references for similar assignments
Cost proposal, including all costs necessary to complete the evaluation, and distinguishing (at a minimum) between:
o Individual consultants’ number of days and daily professional fee rates
o Travel costs
o Field work costs
Applications without all four components will not be considered.
Application deadline: October 5, 2016
IRC is an Equal Opportunity Employer IRC considers all applicants on the basis of merit without regard to race, sex, color, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, age, marital status, veteran status or disability.
How to apply:
http://chm.tbe.taleo.net/chm03/ats/careers/requisition.jsp?org=IRC&cws=1&rid=14339