Consultant For Integrated Emergency Food Security And Livelihoods (Efsl), Water, Sanitation, And Hygiene Promotion (Wash) And Protection Response For Refugees Fleeing Syria, Living In Jordan And Lebanon

Terms of Reference for End of Project Evaluation for Integrated EFSL, WASH and Protection Response for Refugees Fleeing Syria Living in Jordan and Lebanon, funded by Irish Aid     Project title: Integrated Emergency Food Security and Livelihoods (EFSL), Water, Sanitation, and Hygiene Promotion (WASH) and Protection Response for Refugees Fleeing Syria, Living in Jordan and Lebanon   Donor: Irish Aid   Project locations: Balqa and Zarqa governorates (Jordan), and South gatherings around Saida, (Lebanon)     Project duration: July 10th, 2013 to January 9th, 2014     1.0. BACKGROUND:   The present conflict in Syria, now in its third year, has led to large scale population displacement including an estimated 4.25 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) within the borders of Syria and an estimated 1.4 million Persons of Concern (refugees registered with UNHCR or pending registration) across Syria’s borders to the wider region including Jordan, Lebanon, Turkey and Iraq.   In Jordan, there are 569,000 refugees, as per UNHCR official figures, 80% of whom are living outside of refugee camps. The majority of refugees in Jordan are residing in shared rented accommodation but face significant challenges in meeting rising rental costs (as a result of increased demand) and basic needs due to depleted financial resources and minimal income opportunities. At the same time the refugee influx, which currently constitutes almost 10% of the total population in Jordan, was placing a significant strain on the resources and capacities of the Jordanian authorities and risked threatening political stability in the country as tensions rise with host communities over limited employment opportunities and scarce water resources.    In Lebanon, UNHCR estimates the combined number of registered and unregistered refugees exceeds 850,000, while the Lebanese Government (GoL) estimated the total number of people who have crossed the border as a result of the conflict is in excess of one million.  During the first eighteen months of refugee movement into Lebanon, most refugees (both native-Syrian and Palestinian Refugees from Syria) settled in the northern and central regions of Lebanon and, consequently, these areas were serviced by UNHCR, UNRWA, the Government of Lebanon, and other international NGOs.  However, as population density increased, and resources dwindled, many new refugees entering Lebanon were locating either to the capital city Beirut or the southern region of the country occupying either official serviced refugee camps or gatherings poorly or not serviced by under-resourced local authorities frequently on private land in close proximity to official camps. Many of these gatherings were comprised of the families of Syrian men with strong connections with southern Lebanon having hitherto worked in the country legally either seasonally or all year round. Elsewhere, native-Syrian refugees and Palestinian Refugees from Syria have stayed with families or friends in the south where rents are cheaper whilst those most destitute have in some instances occupied abandoned buildings or farms. The combined result has been that the population from Syria in Lebanon is thought to have increased five-fold since the start of the conflict and as December 2013, equates to approximately 25% of the population.   As in Jordan, this population influx created considerable vulnerabilities including increasing the debt burdens of refugees to meet basic needs, asset disposal and child labour as families struggle in the absence of livelihood opportunities.   In addition, refugee families were proving an increased burden on host families, often the poorest in Lebanon, reducing space available to Lebanese families, increasing household expenditure on food and non-food items and minimising the space left to allow for segregation between sexes. Rent prices have also increased as has competition for unskilled labour opportunities thus driving wages further down. Palestinian families are especially vulnerable lacking more limited employment opportunities under Lebanese law than their Syrian counterparts.   This intervention was designed based on the findings of Oxfam’s assessment (triangulated with other agencies’ assessments) of the situation and needs of Syrian refugees and host communities in Jordan. Program design has been formulated to effectively address the immediate and critical needs of refugees and the communities hosting them within the sectors that Oxfam has substantial humanitarian expertise in and can add value to the overall response.   2.0 Target Group:   The project targeted 1,810 vulnerable newly arrived families awaiting UNHCR or UNRWA registration and those who had not been benefitting from the assistance in Jordan and Lebanon and 60 vulnerable host families in Jordan. The project benefitted Syrian refugees in Jordan and Lebanon and, in Lebanon, Palestinian Refugees from Syria (PRS) that had not received assistance.   Target Group in Jordan 200 Syrian refugee families and 60 Jordanian families in communities in Zarqa and Balqa governorates in the northern/central area of Jordan are targeted for this intervention based on rising refugee population numbers and gaps and weaknesses in coverage or support by local authorities or humanitarian organizations. Beneficiaries were targeted based on tested selected weighted criteria through a variety of mechanisms, including accessing lists of refugees who have registered with other INGOs and local organizations, community outreach, and potentially referrals from UNHCR. According to UNHCR statistical data, 53% of Syrian refugees are female, with females making up a relatively larger proportion of the adult population (over 18 years of age). Children under 18 constitute 55% of the refugee population; the 0-4 age group accounts for 19% of all refugees in Jordan. Beneficiary participation starts in the assessment phase through direct discussions with those affected through focus group discussions and household visits and continues through every phase of implementation. This, and regular on-going monitoring, was facilitated through Community volunteers as members of an Integrated Peer Support Groups (IPSG).    Target Groups in Lebanon Out of the 1,610 targeted refugee families in Lebanon, approximately 63% of them are native-Syrian families, and 37% are PRS families. 66% of the individual beneficiaries are female and 34% are male. Both of Oxfam’s project partners in Lebanon, Popular Aid for Relief and Development (PARD) and Development Action without Borders (Naba’a) are well embedded within the communities in which they work. This community-based model (e.g. incorporating a well-established PARD network of community health workers and women’s committees) readily facilitates a close relationship between Oxfam’s partners in Lebanon and the target population which enables easy and constant communication ensuring that assistance is determined based on needs as identified by beneficiaries themselves and that new and emerging needs or challenges are identified quickly including risk of exclusion, revision of scale or amendment to the nature or scope of support provided.      3.0. EXPECTED RESULTS OF THE PROJECT:   The project is expected to have achieved the following 3 results:   Result 1: 1,810 extremely vulnerable families have access to food, hygiene items and shelter in Lebanon and in Jordan Result 2: At least 1,300 men and women have safe access to potable water and are enabled to safe hygiene practices in a dignified & culturally acceptable manner in Jordan Result 3: At least 1300 men, women and children have direct access to information about their entitlements & specialized services in Jordan   The Logical Framework Analysis (LFA) of the project is attached to this TORs.     4.0. OBJECTIVES AND TIMING OF THE END OF PROJECT EVALUATION :   The overall objective is: As this is a summative evaluation, its objective is to assess the extent to which the project has delivered against its expected results, especially considering the key questions that are to be addressed under section 5 below.   Specific Objectives: To assess the level/degree of quantitative and qualitative achievements of the project against its expected results; To assess the design, planning, delivery and management of the project by Oxfam and its partners in accordance with Oxfam Programme Standards, Minimum Standards in Emergencies and Gender in Emergencies Guidelines and all processes modalities as stated in the original proposal, in light of its results; To identify and assess key internal and external factors (positive and negative) that have contributed, affected, or impeded, the achievements; To assess how the programme has impacted upon the protection of the target and affected population, addressed women’s needs and contributed to a reduction of vulnerability; To assess how the project links relief with longer term needs of the affected population and related interventions (i.e. links relief to development); To assess the relevance of the Exit Strategy and consistency with the Do No Harm principle; To draw key lessons and learning from the present project and make recommendations on how the project can be adapted and improved (if any).   The findings and lessons learned from this evaluation will help inform Oxfam’s formulation and design of future projects that will benefit the refugees of the Syria Crisis.     5.0. KEY QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE EVALUATION:   The following provides a guide to the questions to be addressed by this evaluation:   Relevance: Have Oxfam and partners selected relevant operational areas for their work? Have Oxfam and partners targeted the most vulnerable people and women and children in particular? Are the activities carried out in the most appropriate and relevant manner, given the circumstances, and in line with the priorities of the refugees, and the project’s logical framework? To what extent did the key changes, threats and opportunities that arose during the implementation influence and inform project implementation? Are the activities linked with the outputs and results of the project, as stated in the logical framework?   Efficiency: Is the project implemented based on the existing resources/capacity; e.g. partners and other actors physical presence, skills? What key limitations exist on this front? What could Oxfam’s future projects do to increasingly develop and invest in existing resources? How has been the financial management of the project and have resources been spent judiciously? How cost effective was the intervention?   Effectiveness: What have been the results of the activities planned in this project? To what degree is the intervention contributing to addressing the WASH, food security and protection needs of the targeted beneficiaries? How well are the activities carried out in terms of the approach adopted, the timeliness of the intervention, its quality, and the level and quality of community participation (women in particular)? To what degree is the project able to address gender inequality issues? How effective have the strategies employed and implemented by the WASH and the EFSL project been? To what extent have the various cross-cutting issues including those outlined in the original proposal been mainstreamed into the projectwith particular emphasis on the protection of vulnerable or marginalised groups such as women, children, those living with illness or disability, and the elderly. Generally, are the activities carried out in line with the original plan (provide quantitative and qualitative analysis)? If not, were the changes adequately discussed, documented, and justified?   Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL): Was baseline and subsequent data appropriate to the proposed Logical Framework collected, sex disaggregated and relevant to the intervention? Were staff, volunteers, community members and other participants involved in the monitoring process trained and sufficiently competent to undertake their designated roles? Is the MEAL system taking into account women and other vulnerable groups of the targeted communities? How well are the activities, output and outcome (results) monitored? What kinds of systems are developed and in practice? What systems and mechanism are in place to ensure accountability to the beneficiaries? Is the system effective to receive and act upon feedback and complaints from target beneficiaries including of vulnerable groups – women in particular? What are the best practices set-up during the implementation of the project? What are the key lessons and learning that can be drawn from the project? How and to which extent were the MEAL findings used to inform decision-making and the improvement of project implementation? To what extent are the project’s stakeholders involved in developing and maintaining the MEAL systems and mechanisms? What are the key limitations that hindered the stakeholders’ effective participation?   Partnership: What role has partnership played in the project and how might this be built upon in the future? To which extent have the partners in this project been involved in proposal development and in MEAL. Have the ways of working with partners and the support to partners been effective and did they contribute to the project’s achievements? What kinds of systems are developed for mutual accountability between partners and Oxfam? What are the key issues related to the technical and managerial capacities of Oxfam and the partners’ team for the effective implementation of this project? How effectively have these issues been addressed and what are the suggestions/recommendations to address these issues?   6.0. METHODOLOGY:   It is expected that the evaluation will be carried out in conformity with the “Evaluating Humanitarian Action using the OECD-DAC Criteria” and evaluation best practices. The Evaluating Humanitarian Action using the OECD-DAC Criteria can be accessed through this link: http://www.alnap.org/resource/5253.aspx   We anticipate that this summative evaluation will be a participatory review and learning exercise. Thus, it requires the consultant(s) to be experienced in participatory approaches to learning and inquiry, and especially in seeking the views and perceptions of key stakeholders that include: Targeted beneficiaries: in Jordan and in Lebanon Partners and actors directly involved in the project at different levels: Implementing partners; Community leaders (if applicable) and representative bodies of the affected population; Local authorities, regional Government, involved in coordination of humanitarian interventions of the affected population Oxfam staff involved the project’s implementation e.g. country and field teams; Staff of Oxfam Ireland involved in project monitoring.   Time-frame: The evaluation is to be carried out in March or April 2014.   Key activities and expected level of effort:   Total expected level effort: 17 working days   Review essential documents of the project including but not limited to the original project proposals, interim or on-going internal reporting, and evaluations and lessons learnt exercises undertaken thus far and review the key questions suggested and if necessary propose adjustment (3 working days in Lebanon); Develop a detailed Evaluation plan (which will to be endorsed by Oxfam) (1 day in Lebanon); Primary data collection (6 days, 3 of which are in Lebanon, then travel to Jordan for 3 days of data collection); Data analysis and preparation of draft evaluation report (3 days in Jordan); Workshop in Jordan and Lebanon to share the findings from the evaluation (0.5 days in Jordan, then travel to Lebanon for the second 0.5 day workshop i.e. 1 day in total). Selected Oxfam and partner staff will participate in this workshop; Finalize the final evaluation report and send it to Oxfam (1 day in Lebanon). Oxfam will then prepare a management response to be annexed to the evaluation report. Additional time for travel (from the home location of the consultant to Lebanon and back) will be included based on the home location of the selected consultant(s). – travel time is estimated at 2 days       Reporting: The consultant will report directly to the MEAL Officer in Lebanon and will closely work with other Oxfam staff in Jordan and in Lebanon.   7.0. EVALUATOR QUALIFICATIONS:   This summative project evaluation should be led by a person (or persons) with a minimum of 5 years experience in humanitarian interventions including demonstratable  experience in the design, implementation and monitoring of cash transfer/vouchers modalities, and social protection including the use of participatory quantitative and qualitative methods. Strong facilitation and writing skills are also required and a familiarity or direct experience working in Lebanon and Jordan and the working modalities of Oxfam is preferred.   8.0. EXPECTED OUTPUTS:   a)    Draft evaluation report in English to be presented to Oxfam; b)    Workshop to present the draft report (including the findings of the evaluation and the lessons learned), and to give feedback to Oxfam staff and partner agencies; c)    Submit a draft electronic copy of the final evaluation report within one week (7 days) of the workshop. Feedback from Oxfam will be provided within one (1) week after the submission of the draft report. The final report will be produced in one week (7 days) of submission of the comments. It will include changes/modifications, agreed between Oxfam in Jordan and Lebanon, and the consultant. The report should systematically answer the key questions posed; It should fairly and clearly represent the views of the different actors/stakeholders; It should give the conclusions of the evaluator, in a way that is clear and substantiated by the available evidence.   9.0 Budget:   The budget for this evaluation is approximately 9,000 USD including all expenses (travel, per-diem, transportation, calls, etc.).   Payment will be done in two instalments: 25% upon contract signature and 75% upon approval of the final report by Oxfam.   10.0. EXPRESSION OF INTEREST (EOI):   Oxfam invites EOI from organisations, or individuals, with the experience and skills described above. The EOI must include: 1. A cover letter of no more than 2 pages introducing the evaluator/organisation and how the skills and competencies described above are met, with concrete examples. Please also use this cover letter to indicate the consultant’s’ availability to conduct the evaluation in a March 2014 or April 2014 timeframe. 2. An outline of no more than 2 pages of the proposed process and key considerations including: a. Key considerations for this evaluation; b. Proposed outline methodology for this evaluation; 3. A CV for the evaluator, including 3 referees (with phone number and email address) 4. A one-page budget covering all major anticipated costs 5. Two examples of reports from previous evaluations/reviews in cash/voucher transfer programming or other relevant areas.     Please submit the EOI and other documents (as mentioned in 10.0 above) by Monday March 3rd, 2014 at 5:00 PM Lebanon time, to lebanonjobs@oxfam.org.uk with “Final Evaluation for EFSL, WASH and Protection Project” in the subject line.   All questions or clarifications of a technical nature are to be sent to Maria Ghazzaoui (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning Officer at Oxfam, Lebanon Response to the Syria Crisis, based in Beirut) at MGhazzaoui@oxfam.org.uk       **END**