Consultancy for End of Project Evaluation Tender, Turkey - 54714870

Procurement Summary

Country : Turkey

Summary : Consultancy for End of Project Evaluation

Deadline : 30 Jul 2021

Other Information

Notice Type : Tender

TOT Ref.No.: 54714870

Document Ref. No. :

Competition : ICB

Financier : Self Financed

Purchaser Ownership : -

Tender Value : Refer Document

Purchaser's Detail

Purchaser : CONCERN WORLDWIDE
Ankara
Turkey
Email :turkey.tender@concern.net
URL :https://www.concern.net

Tender Details

Tenders are invited for Consultancy for End of Project Evaluation.

Concern Worldwide is an international, non-governmental, humanitarian organization dedicated to the reduction of suffering and working towards the ultimate elimination of extreme poverty in the world-s poorest countries. Concern began working in Turkey in 2013 due to the high number of refugees coming to Turkey. Today, it is estimated there are over 3.6 million refugees, with over 97% of refugee population residing outside of camps in challenging circumstances.

Concern is funded by ECHO to implement an ‘Emergency Education, Protection Support and Resilience Building for Refugees in South Eastern Turkey, Phase III-, ** which started on 01/09/2020 and ends on 30/11/2021, for a total of 15 months. To document and assess impact of the programme, Concern intends to undertake an external evaluation of the programme. The external evaluation will evaluate the programme achievements against the results and indicators specified in the logical framework of the programme. The final evaluation will be implemented in the two months after the end date of the project on November 30th 2021 in the 4 provinces targeted by this action. (Sanliurfa, Adiyaman, Malatya, and Gaziantep).

The evaluation will involve a review of end line data against the baseline to assess programme progress against the Principle and Specific Objectives and targets including results of the programme, a review / analysis of risks and assumptions stated in the proposal.

The principle objective of the programme is ‘*To contribute to the establishment of a protective environment for refugees in Turkey by addressing education and protection needs of the most vulnerable individuals through dignified and appropriate support*.

The Specific Objective of this Action is measured with indicators below[1]:

· % of children who report improved resilience, coping, and adaptation mechanisms as a result of participation in psychosocial activities (80%)

· % of parents and caregivers reporting an improvement in their children-s overall wellbeing (70%)

· % of school-age refugee children out of school enrolled in the formal education system (80%)

· % of surveyed refugees satisfied with the protection services received through intervention (80%)

· % of beneficiaries who report improved wellbeing as a result of Concern Case Management (60%)

The programme is structured into two results focusing on a different aspect of protection programming, which is measured by the indicators listed:

Result-1: At-risk children are enrolled in formal education and receive PSS that contributes to their resilience and supports their success in school[2]

· # of students provided with psycho-social support services (1980)

· # of caregivers completing the Caregiver Engagement programme (990)

· # of targeted girls and boys enrolled in formal education services (1100)

· # of education technical capacity building trainings provided to implementing partners (4)

Result-2: Refugees are aware of their rights and obligations and receive protection services appropriate to their needs

· # of refugees participating in group activities to provide information and raise awareness (4800)

· % of refugees who are aware of their rights and obligations relating to accessing protection and social services (75%)

· # of inventories of functioning services (including corresponding referral pathways) conducted and updated regularly (4)

· # of newly-identified and assessed individuals (4800)

· # of (unique) individuals referred to relevant external (specialized) services (from all sources) (2650)

· # of external referrals made (4500)

· # of protection services/sessions provided/conducted to refugees (3840)

· # of refugees (unique individuals) provided with protection services (3840)

· # of persons who obtain appropriate documentation/legal status (500)

2. PURPOSE OF THE EVALUATION

The purpose of the evaluation is to assess the degree in which the project ‘**Emergency Education, Protection Support and Resilience Building for Refugees-, ** has met the objectives and results as outlined in the programme proposal-s narrative and logical framework and to assess evidence of outcomes and impact on people-s lives over the programme. The evaluation also aims to assess the adaptive management response to COVID-19 by the Concern Turkey team. The evaluation will consider the quality of implementation of the programme and identify lessons learnt, unexpected (good or otherwise) results and best practices to be documented for future programming.

The overall objective of the evaluation is to assess the effectiveness of ECHO funded Protection programme and to assess the degree to which the anticipated improvements in people-s lives have been achieved. The specific objectives of the evaluation are set according to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria and should answer relevant questions listed below against the DAC criteria: Please note the main question should be answered, with the following sub-heading questions as potential areas to explore in the evaluation:

Relevance/Appropriateness [3]**

v Is it still the right thing to do?[4]

· Was the programme concept, design, and implementation arrangements relevant in current context and complementary to the services already provided by governmental and non-governmental service providers?

· What role has Concern-s engagement with Mukhtars, government and community leaders played to address the needs of refugees?

· Whether or not beneficiaries were assisted in proportion to their needs and vulnerabilities?

· What adaptations were made to fit with the realities in an evolving context and respond to changing needs and priorities of vulnerable refugees?

Effectiveness

v To what extent have objectives been met?

· How well did the team and partners apply adaptive management principles in monitoring and evaluation to improve programme quality?

· Were the targets set in the logical framework achieved? (A comparison between baseline and endline data for each indicator and if any change is statistically significant).

· How effective is the information management system for CM and referral?

§ Can this system be made more efficient?

§ How timely were cases responded to?

· How effectively are the information management tools used?

§ To what extent did they support the risk analysis and implementation?

§ How effectively is the data in each tool used?

· Assess how effectively the SDQ and CYRM tools were used?

§ How did the data contribute to improving the children-s wellbeing through PSS activities?

· Assess the effectiveness of Concern-s management of the programme

§ Has the programme targeted the most vulnerable refugees effectively and has met their priority needs as per commitments made in the proposal, and

§ Were issues of equality, gender, age, ethnicity, disability, legal status or any other social identities appropriately addressed in order to ensure the most vulnerable participate and benefit equally in the project. Such as, how are gender issues considered in caregiver sessions?

Efficiency

v Were resources used efficiently?

· How cost effective was the project in accounting for inflation, delays, and insecurity?

· How the funding inputs led to outputs ?

· How efficient CM and IPA processes were?

· Is the documentation of IPA and CM cases appropriate? Is there any important information missing or is there opportunity to simplify the documentation?

Impact

v What indications are there of significant changes taking place? What indications are there of wider impact on project participants, partners and the community?

· This question reviews stakeholder-s participation, including gender balances in participation and influence as well as any external factors such as other programmes, social and economic factors have had any influence in contributing to bringing about change or not; and conflict sensitive programming and how this was accounted for throughout the programme.

· Assess the quality of programme implementation in terms of satisfaction of programme participants.

· Was support to refugees and host communities within the intervention area provided equitably?

· Assess the degree to which changes have been brought about in the lives of programme participants and if these have been negative or positive

· Identify if there were any unexpected outcomes / results of the Action (Negative and positive)

Sustainability

v To what extent might the achievements of the programme last in the life of people benefited.

o To what extent did coordination between Concern and Mukhtars, Government bodies and partners support the sustainability of the programming.

In addition to the DAC criteria, the evaluation will also try to answer below areas:

Connectedness

v How did the protection programme take account of other sector responses, namely education, livelihoods and programme adaptions?

· How was the programme supporting the broader protection environment for refugees in Turkey?

Coherence

v Did the programme adhere to core humanitarian principles and policies, as well as to Concern's Approach to Protection and Concerning PSS policies?

Coverage

v To what extent were protection needs addressed?

· Examining the reasons why the programme provided or failed to provide affected populations with assistance and protection proportionate to their needs.

· What role did partnerships with LNGOs provide to address the needs of refugees?

Coordination

v Assess the added value of links and coordination with other key protection actors, including participation in protection cluster / working group and sub-clusters / sub-working groups

3. METHODOLOGY

External evaluators will independently assess the project-s relevance, effect

Documents

 Tender Notice