Closing date: 15 Apr 2018
General:
The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) is the world's
largest humanitarian organization, with 190 member National Societies. As part of the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, our work is guided by seven fundamental
principles; humanity, impartiality, neutrality, independence, voluntary service, unity and
universality.
Summary:
a) Purpose: To evaluate the relevance and the impact of the Red Cross actions implemented under the MDRGR001 Emergency Appeal for Greece.
b) Audience: Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, donors (including ECHO) and other stakeholders and partners involved in and contribution to the operation.
c) Commissioners: This evaluation is being commissioned by IFRC Head of Country Office, Greece, in compliance with its Framework for Evaluations.
d) Reports to: The consultant will report to the IFRC Program Coordinator in Greece.
e) Duration: This consultancy will be for approximately 40 working days including approximately 10 days in the field. The 40 days will include the preparation on the inception report, development of tools, desk review, fieldwork, report writing, validation workshop and finalization of report.
f) Estimated dates: Mid-April – mid-June 2018.
g) Methodology summary: The consultant is expected to develop the methodology, which should include: review and analysis of key documents, key informant interviews, and beneficiary interviews (including FGDs, and individual interviews).
h) Location: The desk review, and the majority of stakeholder interviews can be done at a distance; the interviews with the NS and beneficiaries will be conducted in Athens, the camps in the vicinity. Based on the inception report, a visit to Northern Greece and islands will be considered.
i) Composition: Independent evaluation with an external team leader, and second evaluator that will be provided by Partner National Societies.
Organizational Context:
Greece has been a significant entry point for migrants entering Europe as well as a transit country for people to reach other destinations in western and northern Europe. The country witnessed a dramatic increase in numbers of arrivals beginning of 2015. In May 2015, the HRC received a Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF) assistance to meet the immediate needs of 10,000 migrants. Due to the evolving needs, an emergency appeal was launched on September 2015 to assist 45,000 migrants. In October 2015, the Emergency Appeal was revised to assist 20,000 migrants in transit. In May 2016, with the border closure in March resulting in some 50,000 migrants stranded in Greece, the Emergency Appeal was revised for the second time and finally a third time in March 2017 to adapt the approach in continued response to the needs of the migrants. The table below illustrates the key sectors of the appeal that are envisioned to be evaluated. Other smaller areas of intervention are not mentioned here. There are also programmes that have been implemented bilaterally by PNSs, but mainly funded outside of the Emergency Appeal, and therefore not evaluated here.
Job Purpose:
Purpose of Project and Background
a)Purpose
The purpose of this evaluation is to evaluate the 1) relevance and the 2) effectiveness of the Red Cross actions implemented under the MDRGR001 Emergency Appeal for Greece. Ideally, this should be done along the lines of the Table in the ‘background’ section, including the 3 phases mentioned. Additionally, the evaluation should analyse 3) Movement cooperation overall within the operation.
The evaluation should provide lessons learned and recommendations for future similar operations.
b)Scope
Timeframe: January 2015-March 2018.
Geography: Greece, all major operational points.
Programmes: by key sectors (see table above) that have been funded through the Emergency Appeal.
Evaluation criteriaand key questions
This evaluation will focus on the following criteria:
Relevance of the operation and programmes in relation to the needs of the migrants in the context of Greece
Questions:
· Was the assistance provided relevant and sufficient in relation to the different types of needs of migrants (including ones based on gender, age and vulnerability)? Was it a relevant response to the situation?
· Did the response adapt to changes in need, capacities and context? (this can be linked to the phases, if pertinent)
· Were the different sectors of assistance (e.g. shelter, relief, health…) more relevant and more appropriate than others, comparing sectors within the same phase?
· How did the Red Cross interventions relate to national plans and policies on assistance to migrants.
Effectiveness of the intervention in meeting the needs of the target population.
Questions:
· Has there been any positive and negative changes from an intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended?
· What evidence (both direct and indirect) is available that the interventions contributed to meeting the needs of the affected population? What was the impact for the people assisted?
Movement coordination[1]
Questions:
· Throughout the operation, what were the key challenges and successes in Movement Cooperation (IFRC, HRC, PNS, ICRC)?
· To what extent the different capacities and resources of the Movement were mobilized adequately to address the needs?
While the operation has focused largely on migrants, it has also assisted vulnerable Greeks. Where it is relevant, the same evaluation criteria apply.
Evaluation methodology & process
The evaluation team will be expected to develop a detailed methodology for this evaluation in the inception report, which needs to be approved by the Evaluation managers (the IFRC program coordinator for Greece, who will ensure coordination with: IFRC Planning, Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting (PMER) Officer in Greece, IFRC Regional Office in Budapest (PMER, DM and Head of Migration), operational management as well as representatives from the implementing National Societies).
The methodology needs to include: review and analysis of key documents, key informant interviews, and beneficiary or volunteer interviews (including FGDs, and individual interviews). The evaluator can suggest other methodologies.
· Desk review: Conducting a desk review of documentation, including the Appeal, Plan of Action, proposals, operation updates, revisions, pledge-based reports, M&E data, RTE conducted in 2016, final reports to backdonors, and several reviews and lessons learned papers (see annex of key documents). The latter should be especially examined. Most of this work can be done from outside Greece.
· Key informant interviews: the evaluators need to interview a sufficient number of persons having been involved in the operation to have a solid overview of the different phases. This includes persons from IFRC, PNSs and HRC. Most of the involved persons have left the operation, however, Skype interviews can be arranged. The best long-term overview is with HRC staff and PNS at HQ level (mainly British, Danish and Spanish RC). A list of possible interviewees will be shared upon selection. All PNSs who had in-country presence (programme under its responsibility) should be interviewed. Most of this work can be done from outside Greece.
· Analysis of quantitative data: the data available and collected through ODK, available on the dashboards, should also be analysed where pertinent. Some of the data concerning the operation is not available via ODK.
· Beneficiary or volunteer interviews: the evaluators should interview a sufficient number of persons having been beneficiaries of the operation, in order to have a solid overview of the different phases. A good and representative sample size needs to be selected. This will be challenging, as many of the beneficiaries are no longer in Greece, or are in locations we are not operating anymore. However, camps, such as Skaramagas or Ritsona or Lavrio are possibilities. Additionally, the migrant volunteers can be contacted and might provide a good view of the operation. The evaluators should invest time in ensuring that a sufficient portion of the data analysed comes from beneficiaries, even if it does not cover all sectors. Selection of interviewees will be critical to ensure and unbiased view on the overall operation, taking into account time of arrival, place of stay, duration, and country of origin.
Evaluation deliverables & illustrative timeline
a) Inception report. An inception report demonstrating a clear understanding of the ToR with a realistic plan of work for the evaluation is required. The inception report should include the proposed methodologies, a data collection and reporting plan with identified deliverables, draft data collection tools such as interview guides, and travel and logistical arrangements for the evaluation.
b) Debriefing: Debriefing to the operation team to discuss the initial findings, conclusions and recommendations, before submission of the draft report.
c) Draft report. The consultant will produce a draft report which will be reviewed by the IFRC Greece operations and the regional office. The consultant will be given the feedback after 10 working days to incorporate into the final report.
d) Final report. A Final report will be submitted within 10 days of receiving the feedback from the draft report. Final evaluation report of no more than 50 pages (excluding executive summary and annexes) which highlights key findings, conclusions and recommendations.
Evaluation quality & ethical Standards
The evaluators should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards and applicable practices outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation and respect the Red Cross Red Crescent 7 Fundamental Principles, and will be asked to sign the Red Cross code of conduct.
The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:
1.Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
2.Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
3.Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
4.Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that considers the views of all stakeholders.
5.Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
6.Accuracy: Evaluations should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
7.Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
8.Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.
It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent: 1) humanity, 2) impartiality, 3) neutrality, 4) independence, 5) voluntary service, 6) unity, and 7) universality.
Qualifications
The evaluation team will consist of 2 members: a team leader, and second evaluator. The team leader cannot have had a major role in the operation itself. The team leader will have to present the proposal taking into consideration that she/he will be supported by one or two second evaluators who have a substantial Red Cross experience and will be suggested and fully funded by Partner National Societies that had participated in the operation.
The evaluator (Team Leader) must have experience or significant knowledge of the humanitarian response mechanisms, specifically relief and recovery interventions, and have previous experience in conducting evaluations for medium-to-large scale programmes. The team leader will provide an independent, objective perspective as well as technical experience on evaluations.
The Team Leader will coordinate directly with the IFRC Europe Regional Office in Budapest and IFRC Greece Country Office. The evaluator (team leader) should meet the following requirements:
Required:
· Demonstrable experience in leading evaluations in humanitarian programmes responding to emergency and recovery programs
· Previous experience in coordination, design, implementation and monitoring and evaluation of humanitarian programmes
· Experience in the evaluation of both urban and camp programs and/or post disaster recovery programming and evaluation.
· Knowledge of activities generally conducted by humanitarian organizations in the sectors of relief, water and sanitation, health, and cash transfer system.
· Experience in participatory approaches to evaluations
· Excellent English writing and presentation skills in English, with relevant writing samples of similar evaluation reports.
Desirable:
· Very good understanding of the RC/RC Movement and types of humanitarian response
· Field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian or development programs with prior experience of evaluating Red Cross programmes.
· Academic background and/or work experience in public health; alternatively, similar experience in relief work.
· Greek, Arabic and/or Farsi are considered an asset.
The same qualifications apply for the second evaluator, though experience in leading evaluations is only desirable.
How to apply:
Applications should go through the IFRC Jobs Portal, you can use the below link:
http://www.ifrc.org/en/who-we-are/working-with-us/current-vacancies/job-description/?nPostingId=2724&nPostingTargetId=6936&id=QPFFK026203F3VBQB79LO793E&LG=UK&mask=ifrcextern
To download the full advertisement with the operational table, please visit the link below:
(If you are not able to use the above link, kindly send an email to Azza.Dawi@ifrc.org)
Applications are to be submitted by the 15th of April 2018 through IFRC recruitment Portal.
The following should be submitted with the application:
· Curriculum Vitae (CV)
· Proposal, including budget: A technical proposal should accompany the application, detailing the consultant’s understanding of the ToR with budget indicating the Daily Fee for the team leader. IFRC has standard operating procedures for Travel, Accommodation and Perdiem, which will be followed.
· The proposal should explain how the challenges and constraints outlined in the ToR will be dealt with, and include a timeline of activities with the suggested locations (specifying what part will be done remotely and in the field). The team can expect support in Greece in organizing transport, accommodation and, if the team is not able to arrange this, translation. The team will be responsible for organizing the interviews. The proposal should therefore come with 2 options a) with the team leader and second evaluator, b) with only the team leader.
· One sample of recent evaluation writing (a report or similar) relevant to relief and recovery programming.
For any queries regarding these terms of reference, please contact:
- Niklas Saxen, IFRC Program Coordinator
Niklas.Saxen@ifrc.org Mobile: +30 698 1667 750
With copy to:
- Hanna Steger, IFRC PMER Officer