Country office: DRC Iraq

Project area: Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala, Kerbala, Najaf, Ninewa, Salah al-Din Application deadline: 30th April 2020

 

1.            INTRODUCTION

1.1.        Who we are?

Danish Refugee Council (DRC) is a humanitarian, non-governmental and non-profit organization founded in 1956 and is working in over 30 countries in the world. In 2003, following the advent of military operations in Iraq, DRC was one of the first organizations to provide humanitarian assistance, opening an office in Diyala and soon after in Basra. Since then DRC has been implementing programmes to improve the protection and promotion of durable solutions for displacement-affected populations in Iraq.

 

1.2.        Iraq Context

As the Iraq crisis enters its fifth year, an estimated 8.7 million people are in need of humanitarian assistance, including internally displaced Iraqis, host community members, returnees and Syrian refugees. Of these, up to 5.2 million people in Iraq are in need of protection assistance . While the Government of Iraq (GoI) declared operational victory over Islamic State (IS) in December 2017, protection and conflict concerns across the country remain multi-layered and self-reinforcing.

Despite the changing context some groups are at persistent risk of arbitrary detention; violence, exploitation, and harm; persecution and neglect on the basis of ideological, familial, sectarian identification; and those facing barriers to (re)integration to local areas or areas of return. Moreover, vulnerable groups remain at risk due to lack of documentation and the ability to navigate the administrative system of legislation in Iraq; the inability to overcome the compounded protection vulnerabilities, result in the continued need for a structured case management service; and the lack of PSS in places of displacement or return to enable successful reintegration.

Through BPRM-supported protection monitoring, DRC Iraq protection teams reported an increased risk of evictions among displaced families residing in informal sites and unfinished buildings due to their inability to meet basic rental payments. In a number of collective sites inadequate water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities compromise the personal dignity of women and girls and expose them to greater sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) and health risks.

Moreover, protection monitoring findings indicate that women and children in particular suffer a high level of psychosocial stress as a result of living in extremely confined collective spaces, often with unrelated families, while men and boys are at increasing risk for detention and arrest.

Across south central and northwest Iraq, waves of and secondary displacement have resulted in a lack of access to essential services for internally displaced persons (IDPs) and displaced households. Many children, particularly adolescent females, are not accessing education due to the cost of transportation to schools or the inability to register in places of displacement.  In some locations, assistance and access to services has been denied to IDP children. As a result, children are frequently withdrawn from school and engaging in forms of child labor, which exposes them to further risks including recruitment into armed groups.

Additionally, displaced families lacking key identification documents are struggling to access public services and basic rights across the region. Through household-level protection monitoring, up to 6 percent of IDPs report having lost at least one crucial piece of civil status documentation. On average, 12 percent of people in camps lack civil documentation countrywide, hindering access to humanitarian aid and legal assistance, freedom of movement, and access to livelihoods and public services, including the Public Distribution System (PDS). Outside of camps, at least 25 percent of IDPs have never registered with the PDS, indicating the need for increased efforts to support registration and legal assistance services.

 

1.3.        The Project

The project is a continuation of the protection BPRM-supported project, focusing on the following three key areas: 1) Access to justice and rights through legal aid programming; 2) Response to both immediate and systemic needs through case management services; and 3) Strengthening PSS and re-integration outcomes through community-based protection services. This proposed intervention structure will enable DRC to build upon the programmatic strengths and achievements from current BPRM funding while addressing key protection needs of extremely vulnerable individuals, households, and communities in Iraq through the provision of support to both first-line protection needs and longer-term durable solutions. DRC’s approach in this project is in line with the 2019 Humanitarian Response Plan (HRP) for IDPs and DRC’s full proposed program interventions for 2019 have been included in the HRP.

The project targeted over 29,778 direct beneficiaries of which 567 individual protection assistance cases. This grant focused on displacement-affected communities in Anbar, Baghdad, Diyala, Karbala, Najaf, Ninewa, and Salah-al Din governorates.

 

2.            EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

2.1.        Broad Objective

The overall objective of this summative evaluation is to review DRC’s BPRM-supported humanitarian response project focusing on the IPA implementation strategy, achievements, challenges and lessons learned. This evaluation is expected to contribute to increased response of conflict-affected persons by generating evidence and knowledge of what works and what does not work in the Iraq context. This will inform decision making for immediate emergency response and support for conflict-prone communities of mixed populations by DRC Iraq.

 

3.            EVALUATION KEY QUESTIONS

Key evaluation questions below, should be answered using a case study, KII and FGD approach on a purposed sample of the IPA activities and locations to be determined at the inception report phase:

 

3.1.        Relevance

•             Was the timely provision of case management, PSS, legal services amongst the highest priority for the target population?

•             Has the project implementation use the set criteria for identification and selection of beneficiaries in accordance with its objectives and DRC policy? If inconsistencies exist, flag recommendations for the selection criteria process in country?

 

3.2.        Effectiveness

•             Was the IPA amount adequate to be effective to the IPA needs of the recipients?

•             What were the major issues influencing the achievement of the IPA objectives?

•             What is the actual use of the IPA assistance made by the beneficiaries, and - in case it was different from what had been agreed upon during the assessment of the case- why did it differ from intended use by protection team?

 

3.3.        Impact

•             Has the project produced any unintended, positive or negative impact to the beneficiaries or their community?

•             A success story from the cases interviewed in depth

•             A challenge/learning story from the cases interviewed in depth

 

3.4.        Connectedness/Sustainability

•             Is the one-off IPA assistance effective in producing a long-term reduction of the protection concerns for the individuals selected?

•             How the availability of and the safe access to local services (NGOs and Governmental) affect the sustainability of IPA interventions and complement them (e.g. services for SGBV survivors, persons with disabilities, etc.)

 

3.5.        Lessons Learnt (using DRC Format)

•             What lessons can we draw from this project and what recommendations can be made for future, similar work?

•             What activities can be replicated in another context?

 

4.            SCOPE OF WORK

The main use of this evaluation will be to assist the future proposal create a more relevant, effective and sustainable intervention. To achieve this the main tasks of this consultancy, include to the following activities:

•             Carry out a desk review of relevant project documents and the different sources of secondary data to leverage already existing secondary data (I.e. global DRC Protection policy, IPA DRC Iraq SOPs, Cash for protection in the Middle east, Protection key policies and guidelines, Iraq Humanitarian Needs Overview, Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan, etc).

•             Develop an inception report detailing evaluation design and methodology, number of cases to interview, Evaluation matrix, tools, work plan schedule and budget to carry out the whole assessment.

•             Develop an appropriate sampling design and data collection strategy that endeavors to capture adequate data to answer all evaluation questions raised in the evaluation criteria.

•             Conduct data collection, analysis and reporting using appropriate tools and approaches.

•             Prepare a draft evaluation report and share with DRC for comments and feedback.

•             Conduct a debriefing session with DRC Iraq to present key findings of the evaluation in one of the planned Senior Management meetings.

•             Submit a final evaluation report to DRC Iraq, including all raw data, original field notes for all in- depth interviews conducted. DRC Iraq has sole ownership of all the final data and any findings shall not be reproduced or shared without the express written permission of DRC.

 

5.            EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The consultant or consulting firm will design an appropriate evaluation methodology based on a firm understanding of the expectations of the terms of reference as well as consultations with DRC Iraq Protection and Monitoring & Evaluation Departments. The evaluation methodology should use a mixed-method approach to data collection to provide both the qualitative and quantitative picture as well as provide the much-needed triangulation. The methodology should include desk studies and field visits if possible. The field visits should include interviews with target groups (beneficiaries, PoC, local leaders and authorities, local and International NGOs and donor representatives). The methodology should also make use of protection minimum standards and humanitarian principles as key reference standards for the evaluation process.

 

This evaluation is focused on the individual beneficiaries of the protection assistance, therefore a clear case by case section method must be defined with the Project manager and have multiple in depth interviews with beneficiaries. The idea is that the evaluator gets deep familiarity with 15-20 IPA cases before going to the field and interviewing them. The cases will be selected by the evaluator from the anonymized list in each selected location, in consultation with the project managers.

 

6.            EVALUATION DELIVERABLES

The ultimate deliverable of this consultancy will be an evaluation report presenting key findings as per the defined evaluation criteria. For the purposes of managing the evaluation process, the following deliverables are expected from the consultant:

•             Inception report detailing evaluation design, methodology (reflective of AGD approach), evaluation matrix, tools, work plan, budget.

•             Draft evaluation report presenting the findings for comments.

•             Presentation of evaluation findings in one of DRC senior management meetings (modalities can be by Skype or in person).

•             Final evaluation report incorporating comments from DRC. The evaluation report should include the following sections as minimum requirements:

o             Abstract (not more than 250 words briefly describing what was evaluated, evaluation questions, methods, and key findings or conclusions)

o             Evaluation Brief as executive (using DRC Format: 4 pages in length that summarizes key points, purpose and background, evaluation questions, methods, findings, and conclusions)

o             Purpose of, audience for, and anticipated use(s) of the evaluation

o             Overview of the context (1-2 pages)

o             Organization and program background (country and/or sector context; specific problem or opportunity the intervention addresses; and how the intervention addresses the problem).

o             Evaluation methodology and description of the limitations of the methodology

o             Evidence based conclusions on each of the sub-components, as outlined above

o             Selected cases with a short description of the case and the challenges it faced

o             Lessons Learnt

o             Recommendations using DRC’s recommendations form

o             Annexes –including TOR, framework/ work plan. Tools used, bibliography, signed disclosure of conflicts of interest

•             Presentation –power point on key evaluation results and recommendations to DRC Iraq Staff.

•             Copies of datasets used in the evaluation process (for verifications).

 

The reports will be reviewed for quality and final payments will be made upon submission of a satisfactory evaluation report that meets evaluation quality standards.

 

7.            COVERAGE

The evaluation of project activities will be conducted through a desk review from DRC’s Country Office in Erbil, Iraq. Field data collection will be conducted in project activity areas where it is accessible and secure. Furthermore, if security permits, the Consultant is expected to travel to the governorates of intervention covering all activities implemented under the project.

 

8.            TIME-FRAME

The evaluation is expected to commence in August 2020 and will take a maximum of 40 working days which includes desk review, preparation, and field data collection and report writing. With a minimum 20 day in country for data collection.

 

9.            ROLE OF DRC IRAQ AND THE CONSULTANT

9.1          DRC Iraq

DRC Iraq will provide logistical support to the consultant while in Iraq, access to programme documents and will be the link between the Consultant and targeted communities and partners. DRC will also review the consultant’s proposal, tools and evaluation report.

 

9.2          The Consultant

The consultant will be responsible for all aspects of the entire evaluation process that includes travel and permit applications, evaluation preparation, data collection and report writing. The Consultant will also present the findings to DRC senior management. The consultant will be responsible for the provision of their own translator during the data collection. In addition, the Consultant will be responsible for all other responsibilities stipulated in other sections of this proposal including providing a translator identification details for field access purposes.

 

CONSULTANT PROFILE

The Consultant is expected to meet the following criteria in order to be eligible for this work:

•             At least 5 years evaluation experience in the protection sector and preferably in the Iraq context.

•             Sound knowledge and experience of the Middle East and the Iraq context.

•             Sound knowledge of protection evaluation approaches for emergency and recovery programmes, in particular cash for protection/IPA.

•             A good understanding of principles, legal and policy issues around protection of vulnerable displacement affected populations.

•             A demonstrated high level of professionalism and an ability to work independently and in high pressure situations under tight deadlines.

•             Familiarity with DRC protection policy

 

10.          How to Apply?

Ask for RFQ documents from: ammar.hadeed@drc.ngo