Türkiye: External Consultant (Terms of Reference for the Position of External Evaluator)

Aug 17, 2022 | Gülümseme ve Zeytin Yardimlaşma ve Dayanişma Derneği (GvZ)
View Original

Gülümseme ve Zeytin Yardimlaşma ve Dayanişma Derneği (GvZ) is a non-profit, non-governmental civil society organization that has been supporting the most marginalized and desperate Syrians affected by conflict in Syria since 2014. Since the beginning, GvZ believes that its role is to create avenues to empower those affected by the conflict by developing their skills and reviving their sense of humanity and dignity. Through its community centers, GvZ provides women, youth, and marginalized groups with a range of various humanitarian services such as relief aid, protection, education programs, and networking with other humanitarian actors on how to advocate for issues deemed essential to highlight. To that end, GvZ strives to continue sharpening the skills of Syrians to partake in the peacebuilding process in Syria and actively advocate for a democracy reflecting a diverse yet socially coherent society.

Project Overview in NW Syria*:*

2.7 million people are internally displaced (IDP) in northwest Syria (NWS). In the Idleb governorate, which hosts the highest proportion of IDPs, the majority of these are sheltering in informal or unregistered camps. In June 2020, according to Camp Coordination and Camp Management (CCCM) Cluster for NWS, 837 out of 1,057 settlements were considered informal. These camps do not comply with humanitarian standards on CCCM, such as minimum standards of service provision and or overcrowding. UNOCHA and the WHO has identified those living in informal settlements in NWS as areas of concern within the COVID-19 response plan.

Local stakeholders in North-west Syria (Local Councils, Syrian Civil Defense SDC, etc.) have scaled up precautions against the spread of the COVID-19 virus in response to identified cases, including restrictions on movements, gatherings, and commercial activities, non-emergency medical consultations, and in-person education services. Furthermore, many NGOs have reduced non-emergency programming in order to focus on COVID-19 priority sectors such as health and WASH. These measures are crucial to containing the transmission, though have intensified humanitarian need by complicating humanitarian response and through their impacts on local markets, income-generating opportunities, and vital services.

The capacity of international NGOs to scale up COVID-19 responses or bring in additional surge staff is limited due to global travel bans. In addition to the scarcity of global supplies such as respiratory masks and other required COVID-19 response supplies, a US embargo on Syria limits the type of supplies that can be procured.

Based on the above-mentioned, GvZ has responded to the critical needs of the most vulnerable IDPs through implementing a WASH project in Northwest Syria while aiming to achieve the following objective:

The overall objective GvZ is seeking to prevent the spread of COVID-19 in the unregistered camps in north-west Syria, Idleb, and north rural Aleppo provinces, through the distribution of hygiene kits, IEC materials and potable water, and the construction of WASH units, including latrines; handwashing stations; laundry points.

The Project has worked on the following outcomes:

1. Targeted IDP households in unregistered camps have the means to enact safe hygiene practices.
2. Targeted IDP households in unregistered camps are aware of COVID-19 prevention measures.
3. Targeted IDP households in unregistered camps have access to safe drinking water.

These outcomes have been achieved through the following activities:

1. Distribution of hygiene kits and IEC materials to the households in the unregistered camps.
2. Construction of the WASH units, including latrines; handwashing stations; laundry points.
3. provision of safe drinking water to the selected unregistered camps.

The project has worked in the unofficial settlements in Idleb and Rural Aleppo in NW Syria and started on 01 February 2021 and ended on 31 July 2022.

Purpose and Scope of Evaluation

Evaluation Objectives

The purpose of this final evaluation is to establish whether the defined project objectives have been met, assess the project against key quality criteria, and make recommendations. Specifically, the evaluation should achieve the following:

• Review the extent to which the project has been delivered successfully in line with the project objective and log frame.
• Assess the project under the following criteria – relevance, effectiveness, efficiency,sustainability, and impact – in line with DAC quality criteria.
• Identify key emerging insights and learnings and recommendations on future WASH programming in NW Syria

Evaluation Criteria & Questions

The final report must answer at least the key questions set out here, in relation to the objectives of the project.

Relevance**:** -To what extent were the interventions relevant to the original call for proposals, and have the objectives and interventions remained relevant?

• To what extent have the objectives of the project aligned with the needs of project participants, partners, and donors, and continued to do where/if circumstances changed?
• How effective was the needs assessment of the targeted population?
• Did the needs assessment identify priority community needs? Did the assessment differentiate between the needs for men and women and for more vulnerable and less vulnerable households? If so, how? If not, why not?
• Was the project design appropriate for meeting the community’s priority needs?
• Did the targeting strategy allow the programme to meet the greatest need in the community (i.e. the most vulnerable households or individuals)? Why or why not?
• Has the programme met the specific needs and priorities of women? Why or why not?
• Effectiveness**:** -To what extent has the project achieved its objectives, and its results, including any differential results across groups?
• Are there processes that supported and/ or hindered effectiveness?
• Did the M&E system provide the right information at the right time to allow for timely programme management and decision-making? Why or why not?
• Did coordination mechanisms in place among different stakeholders enable us to avoid duplication, complementarity, and to learn from each other?
• Has the programme been effective in building GvZ capacity?
• Has working in partnership increased the effectiveness and quality of the project? Why or why not?

Efficiency:

• How well did the financial systems work?
• Were risks properly identified and well managed?
• How was value for money considered in programme decisions? What processes were in place to ensure good value for money? Were unit costs appropriate?
• Are the programmes staffing and management structures efficient? Why or why not?
• Did the programme staff have the right capacity to implement a high-quality programme? Why or why not?

Impact:

• What was the programme’s overall impact and how does this compare with what was expected?
• Who are the direct and indirect/wider programme participants of the programme?
• What difference has been made to the lives of those involved in the programme?
• Did impact vary for different targeted areas, households, or individuals (e.g. men and women)? If so how and why?
• Is there a difference in programme impact across the four Eparchies against the six result areas?
• Sustainability: -Will the intended positive changes (foreseeably) have a lasting effect?
• Are the WASH units sustainable? If so, how?
• How can stakeholders and project participants be involved to ensure sustainability?
• What are the prospects for the benefits of the programme being sustained after the funding stops?
• What has the programme done to support community structures or groups to be able to address community needs and sustain programme impact?
• How is the exit strategy defined and how is this being managed?

Accountability:

• To assess the accountability processes within GvZ including staff awareness of the organization’s accountability systems in place and how they were effectively applied by the staff’?
• Was community participation sufficient throughout the need’s assessment, design, implementation, and M&E? Why or why not? If not, how can participation be increased in future programmes?
• did the programme ensure safety, access, dignity, and inclusion of the community throughout the implementation?
• How was feedback collected, tracked, and analyzed? Were they adapted to the community and context? And were any changes made to the programme based on feedback?
• Environmental Lens: – What was done to ensure that the environment was protected and to manage risks to the environment? And how was this monitored?
• what are the short and long-term environmental impacts (positive or negative)?

Learning and recommendations:

• Were there any significant changes in the programme design or the programme context? What are the reasons for these, and can any useful lessons be learned from this for application elsewhere?
• How does the programme engage with poor and marginalized groups and support their empowerment most effectively?
• How has the design of the programme been amended because of lessons learned during implementation?
• Recommendations for improvements based on observations during the evaluation process (e.g. for sustainability, future programme design, and management).

Budget Note that the budget you submit should include all costs incurred in the final evaluation process (including in-country travel costs, etc.).

Methodology

The minimum requirements regarding the methods and evaluation design will reflect the OECD/DAC standards and should determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, sustainability, Accountability, and environmental considerations of the project, and highlight lessons learned and recommendations. The evaluator will submit an inception report based on their review of key documents provided by GvZ, outlining the proposed methodology.

The methodology should include:

• Desk review of key documents provided by GvZ, including proposals and reports
• Interviews, discussions, and debriefing sessions GvZ staff
• Key informant interviews and focus group discussions with a sample of direct beneficiaries
• Interviews with other relevant stakeholders, such as camp managers, WASH focal points and community members, where possible.
• 3 impact-change case stories

Stakeholders to be included, at a minimum, are the target groups (including family members, project participants and camps leaders), and GvZ project staff. However, if other stakeholders are deemed important during the evaluation, these should also be included.

Principles underpinning the evaluator’s approach should include:

• GvZ recognizes the personal dignity and rights of children and vulnerable adults, towards whom it has a special responsibility and duty of care and respect. In this regard, GvZ expects that the consultant will provide a safe environment for children, young people, and vulnerable adults and prevent their physical, sexual, or emotional abuse while conducting this evaluation. The consultant is expected to adhere to GvZ’s Safeguarding policy and sign GvZ’s Code of Behaviour as an appendix to their contract of engagement and agree to conduct themselves in accordance with the provisions of these documents. It will apply to any other individuals involved in the evaluation (e.g. enumerators)
• Assert that interviewee participation in the survey will be voluntary and they are aware that they can opt-out at any time. (Note that participants may leave or refuse to answer any question at any time and that this will not affect their standing with the organization)
• Anonymity, confidentiality, and safeguarding of survey data will be guaranteed. The exception to this is in the case where violence is reported or suspected against a child or vulnerable adult in which there is an obligation to report
• Consent will be sought prior to commencing data gathering
• Participatory and culturally sensitive process valuing knowledge and approaches from within the context.
• Confidentiality with regards to the local implementing partner and specific locations of implementation in NW Syria.

• Conflict sensitivity and a do-no-harm approach.
• Impartiality and independence of the evaluation process from the programming and implementation functions.

• The credibility of the evaluation, through the use of appropriately skilled and independent expert(s).
• Transparency of the evaluation process.
• The usefulness of the evaluation findings and recommendations, through the timely presentation of relevant, productively critical, clear, and concise information.
• There will be no risks and benefits for individual participants
• For interviews with children, there will be an informed consent process to ensure that all children, their parents/guardians, and vulnerable adults are fully aware of all aspects of the evaluation process and voluntarily provide their consent to take part. All caregivers/guardians will be asked to provide informed consent for children’s participation in the study, in line with UNCRC’s recognition of children’s evolving capacities and a parent/guardian’s responsibility to ensure a child’s well-being and safety.
• The evaluator should sign a data-processing agreement prior to receiving any personal data from project participants and any other stakeholders to be interviewed.

Key Deliverables

The consultant will be expected to deliver the below outputs:

• Inception report describing how the final evaluation of the SYR145 project will be delivered, including a detailed methodology, list of interviewees, and tools for the evaluation. GvZ has final approval over this plan.
• Debriefs with GvZ staff to highlight initial key findings and recommendations, and to address any clarifications prior to drafting the report.
• Draft evaluation report in English for feedback from GvZ
• Debrief (via skype) with GvZ on key findings and recommendations.
• Cleaned quantitative dataset for quantitative data.
• Any other used tools such as FGD score sheets/ reports/photos and key informant interview forms/ reports
• Final evaluation report in English covering the findings of the final evaluation, along with the criteria and evaluation questions defined above.
• Final Evaluation Presentation to present the findings from the final evaluation. During this workshop, the consultant is expected to provide a power point outlining the key findings from the evaluation. This workshop should be participatory and should enable discussions and reflections amongst participants.

Timeline

While the below timeline is approximate, the work including the final report must be fully completed by 27 Oct 2022

• Tender Announcement 15-August and 29-August-2022
• Opening and analyzing tender offers 30-August-2022
• Negotiation and Signing Contract 01-Sep-2022
• Inception Report 12-Sep-2022
• Approval of Evaluation Plan 16-Sep-2022
• Data Collection & Draft Report Submitted 13- Oct -2022
• Feedback on draft Report 15- Oct -2022
• Final Report Submitted 21- Oct -2022
• Presentation of Results 27- Oct -2022

Management and Roles

• GvZ Country Director will be the primary manager of this evaluation, The evaluation team should be composed of a lead evaluator that will be responsible for leading, designing, and implementing the evaluation, as well as drafting and finalizing the report. Key qualifications and experience of the evaluator:
• Extensive demonstrable experience in participatory research, using both quantitative and qualitative methodologies.
• Extensive experience and knowledge of the situation of vulnerable groups, preferably in the context of NW Syria.
• Extensive experience and knowledge of the situation of refugees, IDPs, and host communities, preferably in the context of NW Syria.
• Extensive experience in development and humanitarian program evaluation.
• A very good understanding of the Middle East’s political, economic, social, and cultural context, especially with regard to the Syria crisis.
• Previous experience in producing reviews/evaluations for internationally funded projects (OECD / DAC evaluation experience desirable).
• Proficiency in both English and Arabic is a must.

How to apply

About the assignment

• Technical proposal describing in your own words your understanding of the assignment, the methodology that you will use, your team (including roles and responsibilities, as well as its structure), and a timeline (max 10 pages),
• Financial proposal detailing the budget needed to achieve this piece of work. The financial proposal must include the consultant’s daily rate and all costs necessary to achieve the consultancy’s objectives.

Submission of applications: 

Please submit the offers in a sealed envelope to the GvZ organization’s office at the following address by 29th of August 2020 17:00 (Turkey time):

• Kalyon Kavşağı, Ali Fuat Cebesoy Blv. E. Yalçın Apt. No: 88, Kat: 5, D: 9 Budak Mahallesi, 27090 Şehitkamil / GAZIANTEP

If you have any questions, please send an email to tenders@gvz-tur.org Please mention “SYR145 – External Evaluation” in the subject line of the email.