1. INTRODUCTION

   1. Who we are?

The Danish Refugee Council assists refugees and internally displaced persons across the globe: we provide emergency aid, fight for their rights, and strengthen their opportunity for a brighter future. We work in conflict-affected areas, along the displacement routes, and in the countries where refugees settle. In cooperation with local communities, we strive for responsible and sustainable solutions. The Danish Refugee Council was founded in Denmark in 1956 and has since grown to become an international humanitarian organization with more than 7,000 staff and 8,000 volunteers. Our vision is a dignified life for all displaced. Since 2013, DRC Jordan has responded to massive displacement from Syria through the provision of protection and livelihoods activities in camp, urban and rural settings in eight governorates across the Kingdom. Recognizing the profound impact that displacement has on communities, DRC provides services that promote the rights of both vulnerable host communities and refugees.

1. The Project

The proposed project takes a three-pronged approach which encompasses prevention activities, response services, and capacity development. This approach responds to the needs of refugees and Jordanians at risk so that their protection environment is strengthened, protection threats are reduced and capacities to respond are increased (Impact). The project aims to strengthen the capacity of refugees and vulnerable Jordanians, communities, and local and national systems to prevent, respond to, and recover from immediate and longer-term protection-related challenges (Outcome 1). To achieve this, the consortium will focus on providing women, men, girls, and boys at risk of GBV, Child Protection (CP), and other protection concerns with life-saving protection response and rehabilitation services (Output 1.1); mitigating GBV and CP risks through prevention programming and specialised services (Outputs 1.2 and 1.3); and strengthening the capacity of national and local structures that provide protection, rehabilitation and early development services (Output 1.4). This approach is driven by DRC, JRF, and HI’s country strategies and builds upon their extensive experience in implementing protection, rehabilitation and Early Childhood Development (ECD) programming across Jordan.

DRC and JRF will focus on providing life-saving protection response activities including case management, GBV prevention and CP interventions, and individual PSS counselling using successfully tested programme models and curricula. JRF will also operate the Family and Child Helpline which provides women and children with confidential PSS services. HI will respond to the urgent needs of persons with disabilities through referrals to rehabilitation and ECD services, targeted assistance, and outreach.

The three consortium partners will contribute to strengthening the capacity of national and local structures in the targeted locations. DRC and JRF will build the capacity of Community-Based Organisations (CBOs) that implement protection activities. While JRF and HI will support the organisational and technical capacities of governmental and local partners to better enable them to deliver quality protection, rehabilitation and ECD services. In addition, HI will work with the Ministry of Social Development (MoSD) to support the establishment of two Early Intervention (EI) units in Al Manar centres, and with the Ministry of Health (MoH) to build the capacity of Primary Healthcare Centres’ (PHC) staff on the early detection of children with disability and developmental delay, assessment and referrals. HI, with the MoH, will also pilot two Early Detection (ED) clinical pathways (one for cerebral palsy and one for Developmental Dysplasia of the Hip (DDH)) and a referral pathway for children with disabilities.

Lastly, the project will facilitate knowledge sharing across the consortium partners with DRC building the capacity of JRF and HI on mainstreaming of protection and Age, Gender and Disability (AGD). DRC will also train and coach JRF on the provision of comprehensive prevention programming for adult males in GBV and CP, as well as Cash for Protection (CfP) assistance as part of Case Management. Furthermore, HI will build the capacity of DRC and the three CBOs supported by JRF on inclusive programming.

1.2.1 Theory of Change

The project proposes that:

If refugees and vulnerable Jordanians, including persons with disabilities, are provided with life-saving protection support in GBV, CP, rehabilitation and/or general protection; and

If services to children and adults with functional limitations are improved (through better access and higher quality early detection and rehabilitation care); and

If refugees and vulnerable Jordanians, participate in protection prevention programming aimed at reducing the root causes of exclusion of persons with disabilities and of GBV and/or CP concerns; and

If local and national entities are assisted to build their capacity to provide protection and rehabilitation services to refugees and vulnerable Jordanians;

Then refugees, vulnerable Jordanians, communities and local entities will have increased ability to respond to and recover from protection-related challenges.

1.2.2 Project Activities

Impact: The protection environment for refugees and Jordanians at risk of violence, coercion and deliberate deprivation is strengthened through reduced protection threats and increased capacities to respond.

• % of beneficiaries who report an increase in attitudes and/or behaviors that support gender equity and child safeguarding (target: 50%).
• % of beneficiaries supported with direct protection services reporting improvement in their well-being (target: 50%).

Outcome: Strengthened capacity of refugees and vulnerable Jordanians, communities, and local and national systems to prevent, respond to, and recover from immediate and longer-term protection risks.

• % of CfP recipients who consider the assistance was sufficient to mitigate immediate protection concerns (target: 70%).
• % beneficiaries who report increased positive parenting skills and coping methods (target: 60%).
• % of beneficiaries, among those who received rehabilitation services showing improvement in their functional independence (target: 80%).
• % of caregivers who report improved access to quality needed Early Detection and Early Intervention services (target: 60%).
• % training participants (including government stakeholders) who demonstrate increased ability to provide protection related support (target: 70%).

Output 1.1: Women, men, girls and boys at risk of GBV, CP, and other protection concerns are provided with life-saving protection response and rehabilitation services.

1. Case Management Services (DRC and JRF): CM will reach 2251 individuals.
   1. Individual PSS Counselling (DRC and JRF): 711 individuals
      1. Family and Child Helpline (JRF): The line will serve 8226 calls, providing psychological support and consultations for children, adolescents, and parents, and/or referrals to institutions that provide required services, including those offered through this project.
      2. Number of persons with disabilities identified in need of assistance who are receiving specific support (HI): 2500 individuals.
      3. Number of children screened positive for impairments enrolled in Early Intervention (EI) programmes (HI): 700 individuals.
      4. Number of beneficiaries of comprehensive rehabilitation services that are included in vocational trainings and/or employment opportunities (HI): 10 individuals.

Output 1.2: GBV risks are mitigated through prevention programming

1. 1. 1. Engaging Men Through Accountable Practice (DRC, JRF): 1420 individuals.
      2. Expressive Art for Women (JRF): 938 womenwill attend the sessions throughout the project.
      3. Community committees (JRF): 5 community-based mechanisms/groups working on GBV prevention and response.
      4. GBV and Gender Programming for Adolescents (DRC): The total number reach is 3185 individuals.

Output 1.3: Child Protection risks are mitigated through prevention programming and specialised services

1. Parenting programs for men and women (DRC and JRF): 4905 individuals.
   1. Engaging Children in Child Protection Activities (JRF): 8494 individuals.
      1. Early detection and referrals of children with disabilities (HI): It is expected that 300 childrenwill be referred to PHCs by the CBR volunteers.
      2. Establishment of peer-led support groups for family members and caregivers for children with disabilities (HI): The project will support the establishment of 10 peer-led support groups.

Output 1.4: Capacity-building and strengthening of national and local structures providing protection, rehabilitation and early development services

1. 1. Capacity-building CBOs who are implementing protection activities (DRC and JRF): DRC/JRF will provide capacity-building to 538 local CBO staff members.
      1. Capacity building to Government entities engaged in protection, rehabilitation and early childhood development services (JRF, HI): JRF will build the capacity of 660 governmental staff.
      2. Number of knowledge products and technical guidelines produced for government entities: 3

2. EVALUATION OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the final evaluation is to produce an independent and systematic evaluation of the are Relevance, Impact, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and sustainability in line with the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria of implementing partners’ progress towards the project activities as mentioned above. Under each criterion, it is recommended to identify evaluation questions that should embedded to the data collection tools be developed by the consultant and they are but not limited to the following questions:

EFFECTIVENESS:

• To what extent has the programme addressed the needs and priorities of refugees and vulnerable community members?
• were DRC AND PARTNERS able to achieving project objectives? How and why?
• What have DRC AND PARTNERS contributed to achieve (within this theme/timeframe/country)? How and why?
• To what extent were results achieved for the furthest-behind populations?
• How did DRC AND PARTNERS contribute to outcomes or what was the process?
• What factors contributed to or hindered DRC AND PARTNERS’s performance?
• What, if any, were the unintended effects of the intervention?
• What was the most effective pathway to deliver protection services to the target population? Are there any unnecessary or redundant activities or components that could be eliminated, enhanced, or streamlined in future programmes?

SUSTAINABILITY:

• Will DRC AND PARTNERS contributions last to ensure the sustainability of impact and service provision?
• What factors need(ed) to be present alongside DRC AND PARTNERS’s contribution (or are/were missing) for (sustainable) goals to be achieved?

COHERENCE:

• To what extent are the interventions consistent and synergistic with other interventions carried out by relevant international norms and standards?
• To what extent are the interventions coordinated within the implementing partners?
• How well do DRC AND PARTNERS contributions, role, value added, comparative advantages fit within the wider, complex, systemic context it is embedded in? Why?
• Have local partners or community members developed new skills, knowledge, or competencies as a result of their involvement in the programme capacity building activities?
• Have measures been taken to prevent harm to any individuals or communities as a result of programmatic activities?
• Were there any challenges or obstacles encountered in targeting specific groups or populations, and how were these addressed?
• Have relevant stakeholders, including refugees and vulnerable community members, and local partners been involved in the design, implementation, and monitoring of the programme?
• How was beneficiary feedback used to inform programme design, implementation, and monitoring, and what changes were made as a result?
• How did consortium members identify and respond to referrals? Were there clear referral protocols and procedures in place among consortium members Were there any notable successes or challenges in terms of referrals between consortium members? Are there opportunities for improving the referral process between consortium members, such as through technology-enabled solutions or streamlined protocols?

RELEVANCE:

• What are the primary/most important goals from the perspective of different stakeholders?
• What were the evolving needs/priorities of beneficiaries/partners/institutions? Were DRC AND PARTNERS responsive to those?
• Is DRC AND PARTNERS doing the right things?

EFFICIENCY:

• How well were the human and financial resources used in proportion to the outcomes achieved?
• Were there adequate systems in place for monitoring and reporting progress against programme outcomes and impact?
• Has learning from the project been documented and disseminated to relevant stakeholders? Have lessons learned been applied to improve the programme interventions?
• How did the intervention methods adopted achieving the results at a lower cost?
• To what extent has the project team optimized resources (financial, human, logistical, technical, etc.)?
• To what extent were the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders clearly defined and adapted to their expertise?

IMPACT:

• To what extent did DRC AND PARTNERS make a difference, if any?
• What are the broader impacts of the programme beyond its immediate outputs and outcomes (changes in policy or practice, increased community engagement…etc)?
• Did the project produce negative effects/impacts?
• How has the project sufficiently taken into account and/or avoided the risks of negative effects (environmental, economic, safety…)?
• What are the intended and unintended effects/impact of the programme?

Specific consideration in the evaluation should be given to an assessment of the relevance of current activities and methods as well as coordination and coherence with project partners. The final evaluation will provide a comprehensive review and analysis of the programme data, including trend analysis, outcome reporting, data insights, and data interpretation. It will also seek to identify unintended negative and positive effects of the project, identify lessons learned, capture best practices, and generate evidence-based knowledge to further improve and refine the implementation of similar activities. It is designed to complement the internal monitoring and evaluation activities managed by DRC and partners in order to develop a more holistic picture of the intervention’s strengths and weaknesses. The evaluation will provide specific recommendations aimed towards the future adjustments within the project approaches according to contextual needs.

The evaluation results are presented in an accessible format and are systematically distributed internally and externally for learning and follow-up actions and to ensure transparency. In light of lessons emerging from the evaluation, additional interested parties in the wider development community are identified and targeted to maximise the use of relevant findings.

1. SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

• Thematic scope: The evaluation should encompass key project activities delivered under the above-mentioned activities in section 1.2.2
• Geographic coverage: The final evaluation should aim to include data collection in target locations of both DRC and partners.
• Target groups: Most vulnerable Jordanians and Refugees support, Consortium members staff, relevant involved ministries, local partners (CDCs, CBOs, DPOs, NGOs, etc.).

1. ETHICAL CONSIDERATIONS

The consultant is expected to adhere to the DRC’s Code of Conduct in all activities and to act in line with the do no harm principles. Verbal or written consent is to be collected for all respondents and their parents in the case of participants under the age of 18. Within the report confidentiality will be respected when representing personal information. A consent form documenting written consent needs to be used prior to taking any photo. For reasons of confidentiality, the evaluation report remains the intellectual property of DRC exclusively. The consultant will outline specific actions to ensure ethical evaluation approaches are implemented in the inception document.

1. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The consultant will design an appropriate evaluation methodology based on a firm understanding of the expectations of the terms of reference as well as consultations with consortium partners (DRC, JRF and HI) Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) Department and relevant technical units. In order to ensure that the evaluation is appropriate for and closely aligned to the specificities of DRC’s approach and complimentary to its existing M&E exercises, the initial phase of the consultancy should include a review of relevant project documents, technical SOPs, as well as programme’s existing data including monitoring and evaluation data.

The evaluation methodology should rely on a mixed methods approach combining both quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis methods. The hybrid approach for the data collection can be an option but should be justified. The evaluation methodology should include the following:

• Desk review which aims to summarize the achievements and the lessons learnt of the project as well as consulting the DRC and partner staff on the project deliverables from the technical side. The primary purpose of the desk review is to reflect on the successes and challenges in order to contribute to the development of the data collection tools.
• Including a minimum of 20 key informant interviews with key donor, DRC and partner staff.
• Surveys with project participants – the consultant should come up with sampling strategy that fits the project. DRC uses the 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error; however, it’s not necessary the case for this project.
• FGDs with project stakeholders including line ministries
• Additional data collection methods suggested by consultant.

The methodology should also make use of protection minimum standards and humanitarian principles as key reference standards for the evaluation process.

1. EVALUATION DELIVERABLES

Deliverable

Description

1) Inception Report

The consultant should first review relevant project documents, technical SOPs, as well as DRC’s existing monitoring and evaluation data. Moreover, the consultant or consulting firm should organize consultations with key DRC staff to further orient the research. On the basis of this, develop the inception report in English including:

1. Detailed evaluation protocol based on the evaluation criteria and key research question presented above. The ethical consideration approach as well as the methodology to interview children below 18 years old should be included as well.
2. Target groups and sample sizes.
3. Clear evaluation methodology and approaches, data limitation and constrains. This should be covered the data collection tools (all focus group interview guide, semi structured interviews guide etc.)
4. Detailed data analysis and what systems may be used for the data analysis.
5. Detailed workplan. The consultant should provide clear details around field data collection and data quality procedures.

The inception report and tools will have to be validated by DRC and FCDO prior launching the field phase.

2) Training workshop

The consultant is expected to translate and prepare all tools, as well as prepare and train the data collection team, with the attendance of DRC staff, covering both the data collection tools, as well as techniques and quality assurance. The training should cover the data collection ethics and how to respond and refer protection cases/concerns.

3) Draft Report

Draft evaluation report in English within two weeks after completing field data collection. DRC and FCDO will provide comments within ten working days for the consultant to finalize/adjust the report.

4) Presentation of evaluation findings

Presentation of evaluation findings for key DRC and partner staff involved in the project in person.

5) Final Report

The final evaluation report in English have to incorporate the comments collected from the draft report and the presentation of evaluation findings. The evaluation report should include the following sections as minimum requirements:

• Executive Summary
• Overview of the Context and program background
• Evaluation methodology, including selection and sampling methods, and mention any constraints and challenges encountered, and strategies used to overcome them
• Detailed key findings presented per evaluation criteria or activity.
• Best Practices, Lessons Learned and recommendations
• Annexes (including TOR, framework/ work plan. Tools used, bibliography, signed disclosure of conflicts of interest)
• 2-pager brief report to be submitted. This can be used for external dissemination.

6) Raw data

All quantitative datasets are to be deidentified as well as all notes from qualitative data collection activities should be transcribed and shared with DRC.

1. EVALUATION TIMEFRAME

The final evaluation is expected to commence on 17th November 2024 and will take a maximum of 17 weeks, which includes desk review, preparation, and field data collection, report writing and finalization, and a presentation of findings. DRC is expecting some flexibility from the selected evaluator if the number of rounds/reviews take beyond the expected duration. Please find a tentative timeline of the evaluation for reference.

Task

Timeline (week)

17 Weeks

1. ROLE OF DRC JORDAN IN THE EVALUATION

• Compile relevant project documents, technical SOPs, as well as DRC’s existing monitoring and evaluation data for consultant’s use.
• Outreach and sampling lists; provide link between targeted communities and partners.
• Review and provide technical feedback of the consultant’s proposal, inception report, and evaluation report.
• DRC to provide the consultant with clear guidance on how respond and refer and protection incidents they may face in the field and providing a list of designated protection focal points and contacts in each location, to allow immediate follow up by DRC and partners on protection cases.
• DRC will not provide transcriptions or incur additional costs for translations from Arabic to English for any qualitative data.
• DRC will not provide any costs for the field data collectors including the training workshop. The consultant should handle all the related expenses regarding to the data collection process and the movements to field sites/targeted locations. All personnel of the consultancy firm that will be engaged with the service delivery shall be covered by their own relevant liability, health and life insurance, transportation cost and travel insurance, in addition to any other relevant cost while contracted by DRC.

1. CONSULTANT’S PROFILE

Consultants/consultancy firms must be currently located in Jordan. DRC will not cover costs for consultant transport, accommodation, or visa fees into Jordan.

Required

Preferred

At least 7 years’ experience in research and/or monitoring and evaluation.

Knowledge and experience of the Middle East and the Jordanian context.

Proven experience in external project evaluations

Demonstrated expertise in evaluating protection programming, including understanding how to evaluate protection outcomes, as well as demonstrated understanding of core protection principles and how this would impact their evaluation methodologies with protection beneficiaries.

Experience working with persons with disabilities and other vulnerable populations, in general, is an asset

Written and spoken English and Arabic

Experience working with Non-Governmental Organizations; experience working with DRC or any of the consortium members (HI and JRF) is an asset

Experience in refugee, migrant and IDP contexts

Experience in protection and economic recovery programming

Proven experience in qualitative and quantitative research

Knowledge and understanding of protection environment in Jordan

Sound understanding of humanitarian and protection principles and their application

Experience in project evaluation and related methodologies with FCDO (or UK Embassy) funded projects is a plus

1. DOCUMENTS TO BE SUBMITTED

2. Technical Proposal, including work plan and methodology.
3. Updated CV of the consultant/key evaluation team members that clearly spells out their qualifications and experience.
4. A financial proposal showing detailed budget showing daily rate and activity costs for the consultancy.
5. Examples of similar work completed in past (at least two previous similar work examples) and three reference contacts from three separate previous consultancies

6. PAYMENT SCHEDULE

Deliverables

Payment schedule

Singing of Contract (Date to be determined)

30%

Submission and finalization of Inception Report (Date to be determined)

20%

Completion of Data Collection (Date to be determined)*

20%

Finalisation of report

30%

*Upon receipt of the full payment, the consultant will be required to submit a guarantee check to be held until the completion of all project deliverables to an acceptable quality.

*The Down Payment is only applicable for national consultant.

1. RESPONSE PROPOSAL SPECIFICATIONS

All bidders will be scored on a scale from 1 – 10 for each of the below criteria. All bidders must obtain a score of at least five for the total technical scoring, in order to proceed to the financial evaluation. The financial offer will then be weighed against the technical proposal (cost/ quality). Candidates will be evaluated based on the following criteria:

Ccriteria

Description

Weight

Quality of Technical Proposal

• Demonstrated understanding of the methodology and requested deliverables, covering all key components of the TOR
• Methodology (sampling by location) and design issues to be used in undertaking the evaluation that meets methodology requirements above.
• Style, language, sophistication, and presentation of the Technical Proposal

40%

Past expertise in similar policy analysis & advocacy, facilitating policy dialogue events and writing policy briefs

• The consultant should refer past experience in qualitative and quantitative research and humanitarian project evaluations, preferable in Jordan and for protection and economic recovery/ livelihood programming

30%

Qualification of personnel

• The consultant team should include qualified personnel with demonstrated experience in delivering similar scope of work.

30%

How to apply

Complete tender document can be obtained from Tender JO platform FCDO Final Evaluation Re tender or by e-mail, free of charge from Sunday 27/10/2024 to rfq.jor.amm@drc.ngo .

Deadline for bid submission 11/11/2024 14:00 Amman Time.