1. Background:
Since 2015, the Americas region has experienced a surge in migration, particularly from Venezuela. As of February 2021, there are 5.5 million Venezuelan migrants in the world, with 4.6 million (85%) in Latin America and the Caribbean alone. In addition to the unprecedented number of migrants from Venezuela settling throughout the region, countries in the Americas receive significant numbers of extra-regional migrants from the Caribbean, Asia and Africa. Some of these migrants have settled permanently in the region, but many others choose to travel north, crossing from Colombia into Panama through the Darien Gap on their way to North America.
Already in 2019 the Brookings Institute was predicting that the fact that the continuous trajectory of the migration would make the Venezuelan population movement the largest and most underfunded refugee crisis in modern history. This prognosis has been aggravated by Covid. Although migrants first responded to Covid by returning to Venezuela, the recent trajectories clearly show their return back to Colombia and other final destinations. However, this new wave has been made even more hazardous by the augmented health risks associated to the pandemic, but also by the increasing mobility restrictions that this situation has propelled.
Colombia continues to be the number one receptor of Venezuelan migrants, with 1.7 million (35%), which represents 3,7% of the Colombia’s total population and is slightly more than its indigenous population. Since July 2020, the estimated number of irregular Venezuelans in Colombia surpassed the number of regular, reaching up to 950,000. According to IFRC’s report “Least protected, most affected,” the pandemic has compounded risks already directly affecting migrant populations, including: 1) Formal barriers or exposure to smuggling, especially for migrants with irregular status; 2) The loss of social support due to quarantine and/or border closures inhibits movement and prevents connection with family members; 3) Specific protection concerns such as human trafficking with aims of labour and/or sexual exploitation are being exacerbated. In addition, gender-based violence is increasing and is evident through manifestations such as domestic violence, intimate partner violence, sexual violence and psychological violence.
Another important contextual scenario is needed to be understood. Back in 2015, when the population movement from Venezuela began, the CRCS did not have an established program devised to reach migrants with humanitarian aid. This program was just formalized in 2019. This means that the Emergency Appeal has been a fast-paced knowledge lab for the CRCS and all Movement partners who have tried to advance their technical help. In this context, this evaluation takes an incredible value, since it will provide the CRCS and IFRC in Colombia with critical insights to reflect upon and adjust their operational models, outputs and expectations.
2. Evaluation Purpose & Scope
This final evaluation aims to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the activities, systems, management, and coordination of the IFRC Emergency Appeal (MDRCO014) responding to the Population Movement from Venezuela as well as identify lessons learned and provide concrete recommendations to ensure a proper transition from the Emergency Appeal modality to a programmatic approach.
3. Evaluation Objectives - Criteria - Questions.
Objectives:
Objective 1: To assess the structure, systems and processes across different levels of the National Society, related to their programming capacity (in migration), coordination (internally and externally), and how effectively this translates into capacity strengthening.
Objective 2: To assess the relevance and efficiency of the support provided by the IFRC (including the Migration Cell and other regional expert support) to the National Society throughout the operation, focusing on the validity, relevance and expertise of technical support.
The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on the operation’s implementation has to be carefully analysed throughout the final evaluation process, as well as Protection, Gender and Inclusion (PGI) and Community Engagement and Accountability (CEA) as cross-cutting approaches.
Evaluation Criteria
The following are the evaluation criteria by which this evaluation will be conducted. These criteria should be used as applicable for every question and objective, based on their relevance for the given objective and the questions related to the objective.
1) Relevance and appropriateness of the operation in delivering assistance based on needs and context;
2) Coverage in reaching target populations across different groups, considering ethnicity, age, gender, disability, migratory status, etc.
3) Efficiency of the interventions in delivering quality services with minimum resources, effectiveness of the management and systemic mechanisms and strategies; and accountability to the affected population in relation to service delivery, sustainability, engagement, inclusion and resilience building.
4) Impact of the interventions on the National Society’s capacities and the level of resilience of the communities and institutions in areas covered by the operation.
5) Connectedness and sustainability of the interventions in developing the organizational capacity of the National Societies and enhancing the resilience of assisted people against future hazards.
Evaluation criteria are key internationally recognized measures endorsed by IFRC for evaluation of its work. They specify the key areas (criteria) by which assessment will be made.
4. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluator is expected to develop a detailed methodology for this evaluation in the inception report, which needs to be approved by the Evaluation Management Team.
The methodology is expected to include: review and analysis of key documents, key informant interviews (including those with the operational branches), volunteer interviews and interviews with people reached by the emergency response. The evaluator can suggest other methodologies. Sampling as well as data collection methods and pace are to be decided by the evaluator, in consultation with the National Societies and the Evaluation Management Team, and should be reflected on in the cover letter, and if selected, described in detail in the inception report.
• Desk review: Conducting a desk review of documentation, including the Appeal, Plan of Action, proposals, operation updates, revisions, pledge-based reports, M&E data, final reports to donors, and other reviews and lessons learned papers as well as secondary analysis of the appropriateness of surveys and reports conducted during the operation. Most of this work can be done from outside the countries.
• 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, ICRC, PNSs and the 9 National Societies as well as local authorities and other international organizations and NGOs engaged in the operation. Digital/online interviews can be arranged with the persons who have already left the operation. A list of possible interviewees will be shared upon selection. Surge delegates supporting the operation should be interviewed as well. Most of this work can be done from outside the countries.
• Field visits and primary data collection (interviews with people reached and/or community leaders): Depending on feasibility due to COVID-19 related restrictions during the evaluation timeframe, the evaluator should aim to assess the impact and/or to validate monitoring survey results, by interviewing a sufficient number of people in communities who received support through the response operation. If field visits are not possible, coordinate with country teams for remote interviewing options.
The Evaluation Management Team will provide support in developing an arrangement in which primary data collection with people reached and/or community leaders can be feasible, involving the National Society’s capacities if possible. Potential solutions include building on National Society volunteer capacities for interpretation, to establish contact with people to be interviewed by the Evaluation Team or to conduct the primary data collection based on guidance from and questionnaire design developed by the evaluator.
Evaluation Team
The evaluation team consists of an Evaluator and at least one Research Assistant (Consultant's decision, to be included in the proposal). The evaluator will have the ultimate responsibility to lead the evaluation process, design the methodology and deliver the outputs as described below.
Evaluation Management Team
The Evaluation Management Team consists of the IFRC Regional Office for the Americas PMER Manager and two other independent colleagues. The EMT will ensure coordination between the IFRC Country Office in Colombia and representatives from the implementing National Societies. The EMT will support the Evaluation Team with establishing contact with relevant stakeholders in the implementing National Society, and with developing modalities to ensure remote and, if feasible, on-site access for conducting the evaluation. The EMT is tasked with reviewing and approving the deliverables listed in the following section.
5. Deliverables (or Outputs)
Inception report - 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, questionnaire, sampling method, a timeframe with firm dates for deliverables and travel (if applicable) and logistical arrangements for the evaluation.
Debriefing - A debriefing will be conducted with the IFRC Country and Regional Teams after data collection. The debriefing is to update the progress and initial findings with recommendations of the evaluation.
Draft report: The consultant will produce a draft report (identifying key findings based on facts, conclusions, recommendations and lessons for the current and future operations) which will be reviewed by the IFRC operations team and the regional office teams. The consultant will be given the feedback after 10 working days to incorporate into the final report. The draft report will be also shared with the National Societies for validation.
Final report - A Final report highlighting key findings, conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations will be submitted within 10 days of receiving the feedback from the draft report. Final evaluation report of no more than 40 pages (excluding executive summary and annexes such as copy of the ToR, cited resources, a list of those interviewed and any other relevant materials).
Lessons Learned Workshop – the Lessons Learned Workshop - to be conducted in the course of June 2021 –will lay down the conclusions to the IFRC and the National Society in a date to be convened.
The findings and all products arising from this evaluation will be jointly owned by the National Societies involved and IFRC. The evaluator will not be allowed, without prior authorization in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his / her own work or to make use of the review results for private publication purposes. All case studies, anecdotes, any rough tool used and copies of participatory tools to be submitted to the IFRC teams to ensure scientific accountability and data protection of the evaluation.
6. 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 people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, 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 specific, applicable process outlined in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation.
The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:
Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
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.
**
7. Evaluator & Qualifications**
The evaluator 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. It is preferred for the evaluator to have a good understanding of the cash-based interventions.The evaluator should meet the following requirements:
Required:
• 7-10 years of 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 Migration and PGI and CEA, among other sectors.
• Experience in participatory approaches to evaluations
• Excellent English and Spanish writing and presentation skills, 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.
How to apply:
Applications are to be submitted by the 04 of April 2021 to andresfelipe.gomez@ifrc.org stating in the subject line: Colombia Population Movement Emergency Appeal Final Evaluation’.
The application should include:
- Curriculum Vitae (CV)
- Provide samples of previous work (reports of previous evaluations and reviews completed)
- Technical proposal including:
a. A 500 words writing detailing the consultant’s understanding of the ToRs,
b. A detailed budget to undertake the work (max CHF 15,000),
c. A 1,000 words writing explaining the products of the evaluation,
Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.
For any queries regarding these terms of reference, please contact:
Andres Felipe Gómez, PMER, andresfelipe.gomez@ifrc.org