Evaluation of Pathfinder project in Jordan implemented by JRS. Project no.: 313-001-1025 Terms of Reference

1. Introduction

Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) is an international Catholic organization (HQ based in Rome) with a mission to accompany, serve and advocate on behalf of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons. JRS has been operating in Jordan since 2008, responding to the education and basic needs of vulnerable people in Amman including refugees, asylum seekers, and host community members. JRS Jordan advocates for the rights of the most vulnerable, especially non-Syrian refugees living in Jordan. JRS serves everyone, without any discrimination, and helpsrefugees to heal, learn, and determine their own future. Misereor is the German Catholic aid organization for development cooperation. Together with its local partners, Misereor supports human beings of every faith and culture. The overall goal in its work with partners in countries of the global south is to contribute to sustainable development by promoting projects and programmes that are directed above all towards the poor. Financial support for these projects is made available by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the German Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid (KZE) and by private donors. Misereor has been funding two JRS projects in Amman: – The Pathfinder program, through which English and computer classes, career coaching, community events, and other courses are provided and implemented. – A Protection and psycho-social support program, providing mental health support, accompaniment, and referrals.

2. Description of project

Since 2012 JRS Jordan has been offering the opportunity for refugees and vulnerable Jordanians to access its diverse Pathfinder project (higher education courses such as English or computer skills, career coaching guidance, and scholarship opportunities provided by partners, as well as well-being events, soft skills, and psychosocial activities). During 2023, JRS Jordan implemented its Pathfinder project in its community center located in Jabal Hussein, Amman, with vulnerable youth, refugees, and Jordanians by offering a range of programs and courses. These courses are adapted to a variety of levels to help participants access higher education and livelihood opportunities to enrich their lives and improve their employment prospects. JRS is hosting a range of vocational training and supporting language courses and supplementary services to create pathways to employment, self-employment, and home-based businesses (HBBs) in the digital, clothing, catering, and agricultural – food production sectors, with the aim of assisting refugee and vulnerable Jordanian youth to increase their access to higher education. JRS has been working extensively towards increasing levels of social cohesion and reconciliation among refugees and host communities by delivering reconciliation sessions, community events, and volunteering initiatives including project participants and community members. JRS aims to promote positive interactions and enhance the social cohesion between the host communities and refugees. The design of the project is illustrated by the chart below:

3. Purpose and Objectives

of the Evaluation Misereor and JRS are interested to design a learning-oriented evaluation to understand what processes have worked well and what changes should be made in order to better meet the needs of the target population. The evaluation will provide Misereor and JRS with a learning opportunity to improve upon existing practices by assessing the extent to which the outcomes of the project have been achieved, highlighting accomplishments and underachievement as well as main factors contributing to them and determining the appropriateness, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, impact, and sustainability of the program. The findings and recommendations from this evaluation will also assist in planning the next phase of the project. 4. Questions to be answered by the evaluation. When drawing up these questions, the DAC criteria for evaluations have been taken into account: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

4.1 Relevance

• To what extent was the intervention relevant to the priority needs of the affected population, including specific groups (gender, age, and location)? Has the intervention targeted the most vulnerable population? and/in the most vulnerable locations? how was these needs originally assessed? were there any needs assessments and/ or secondary data? Have there been any updated data on the needs of the population? (The latter could be used also to assess the sustainability of the services • To what extent was the selection criteria relevant and inclusive, and to what extent has the selection criteria contributed to achieving the intended results? • Is the project approach and strategy appropriate with a view to improving – either directly or indirectly – the life situation of particularly disadvantaged groups? • To what extent were the tools relevant to measuring the outcomes and outputs

4.2 Coherence:

• What synergies and links exist between the project and other interventions implemented by the same institution? • Does the project comply with JRS’s vision and standards? • to what extent is the project consistent with the interventions of other actors in the same context? And what is the level of coordination among the actors? • To what extent was the project aligned with the new economic modernization vision in Jordan? • Is the result chain clear, coherent, and logical? Are the outputs and activities logically linked to the outcomes and objectives?

4.3 Effectiveness:

• To what extent were the objectives achieved? • To what extent has the project contributed to rising social cohesion and wellbeing among the targeted population? Does this apply to the same extent to different social groups and gender? • To what extent has the project contributed to better employment opportunities and greater income? Does this apply to the same extent to different social groups and gender? • To what extent has the project capacity building program been effective in enhancing and improving Project staff skills and capacities to better deliver the services? • Which activities and outputs made a particularly important contribution to the achievement of objectives, and which were not so important? • What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives and outputs? Were any of the factors initially considered as part of the risks or assumptions? Were the mitigation methods applicable and effective, if any?

4.4 Efficiency:

• What evidence is there to indicate that the project was implemented with due regard to economic efficiency under the given circumstances? Was the project implemented economically and cost-consciously? • Did the programme have sufficient resources to implement all the planned activities properly and effectively? Were the resources limited or in excess? • Were different resources allocated in ways that considered gender equality? If so, how were they allocated? • Were the results achieved within an appropriate timeframe? Were adjustments made, e.g. due to any changes or challenges? • Does the structure of the organization in terms of the division of departments, tasks, management, and technical capacities of JRS personnel help achieve the expected results? • Is there a monitoring and evaluation system for the programme? Has it been effective in measuring achievement?

4.5 Impact:

• What exactly has changed for the beneficiaries as a result of the project? The focus here should be on social, economic, political, cultural and environmental changes with consideration given to gender aspects and other relevant social differentiations. • Were different genders, and social groups equally impacted by the project? • Which external factors contributed to the changes, and to what extent can the changes be attributed to the project activities (plausibility)?

4.6 Sustainability:

• To what extent are the benefits of the project likely to continue at various levels? Would the same service/activities provided under the project continue to be appropriate and relevant to the people’s needs in the coming period? • Will the people served be able to cope after the project ends? Did the people served acquire appropriate and sufficientskills that would serve them in their lives after the project ends? • What partnerships have been made with local authorities or local organizations to ensure that the benefits obtained will continue into the future? • What are the factors that could influence the sustainability of the project? Could there be managed? • Is there a cohesive exit strategy in place?

5. Methodology

The evaluation should follow a mixed-method approach that draws on both existing and new quantitative and qualitative data to answer the evaluation questions. The methodology design should be developed by the consultant in consideration of the information outlined in this ToR. The inception report detailing the proposed methodology and evaluation matrix should be shared with and reviewed by JRS and Misereor prior to the start of the data collection The evaluation should include: i) findings; ii) analysis of findings; iii) conclusions; and iv) recommendations. Methodological triangulation of quantitative and qualitative data should be used in order to strengthen the validity of the findings. Observations, surveys, interviews, FGDs and testimonies may all be employed. Authorization from JRS and Misereor will be needed prior to data collection. The methodology and the analysis must have a gender mainstreaming approach ensuring a gender perspective is integrated and mainstreamed across tools, collecting data methods, conclusions and recommendations. A methodology and analysis with a gender focus will promote the active participation of women and men, generating scenarios where the presence in the debate is balanced, and analyzing the evaluation questions differentiating both sexes, identifying possible gaps between men and women in the expected results of the program. It will be the task of the evaluation team to define and integrate the gender approach in all analyzes the consultant must include in their technical proposal how they will take into consideration the protection concerns of participants in the design and implementation of the evaluation in line with the Do No Harm

6. Evaluation

Stakeholders mapping Evaluation team: JRS Jordan Office and Regional Office: M&E officers Country Director, Livelihood Officers, RO Programmes Officer, Pathfinder Director, coordinator, and officers Intended Audience: Misereor, JRS, Partners NGOs and target population of the program.

7. Organisation of the mission and work plan

The evaluation shall be carried out by a team of two evaluators, one commissioned by JRS and one commissioned by Misereor. JRS and Misereor will provide the evaluation team with all the necessary information and documents to carry out the evaluation. During the fieldwork, JRS will provide logistical support.

The evaluation should have four phases:

1) Cabinet phase. In this phase, the consultant must: a. Meet with JRS and Misereor for a kick-off meeting b. Review the program, its logical framework, and the system of indicators. c. Review the Program´s Annual reports and tools. d. Develop the Inception Report and tools with JRS and Misereor supervision.

2) Fieldwork: a. Meetings with field teams prior to the collection of data in order to explain the methodology to be used. b. Visit to the project in case needed. c. Training of consultants and data collectors in JRS Child Protection Policy. d. Training of data collectors on tools e. Collection of primary data. f. Collection of secondary data

3) Preparation of the evaluation report a. Systematization of the information collected. b. Data Analysis c. Preparation of report and delivery of a draft to JRS/MIS d. Completion of the final report taking into consideration the JRS/MIS feedback 4) Socialization of the evaluation report to JRS and Misereor a. Presentation of the findings through a workshop with JRS and MIS The tentative schedule of the evaluation is: Evaluation activities Tentative Due Date Cabinet 10July-31July Fieldwork 1 August-18August Preparation of the evaluation report 21 August- September 15 Socialization of the evaluation report to JRS and Misereor To be confirmed later

8. Report

The final report structure should at least contain:

0. Executive summary (max. 6 pages)

1. Introduction

2. Summary description of the intervention

3. Methodology

3.1 Evaluation Matrix

3.2. Methodology and applied techniques

3.3. Limitations

3.4 Ethical Considerations

4. Analysis and interpretation

5. Recommendations

6. Annexes, which will include: – Tools and sources used to collect the information: Documentary review, interviews, list of informants, interview scripts, transcripts, and notes (if merited), survey templates, rough data collected and statistical analysis, consent forms, and any other information that is collected and analyzed. – Claims and comments from different actors to the draft report if deemed appropriate.

9. Budget

The budget allotted for this evaluation is 15,000 euros. This budget includes taxes (5% tax will be deducted from national service and 10% tax will be deducted from International service), bank transfer fees, and all expenses associated with fieldwork, that is, air and/or land transportation, accommodation, data collectors hiring, and any other expenses that could be required. Payment for services will be made in three installments. The first will be 20% of the budget upon submission of the inception report. The second will be 40% of the total, upon completion of fieldwork. The third, remaining 40% of the total, once the final report is agreed upon between the three parties.

10. Requirements

Applicants must meet the qualifications detailed below. ▪ A minimum of 7 years of experience conducting field-based evaluations using mixed methods in a humanitarian context ▪ Experience working in Jordan is required. ▪ Experience conducting evaluations of livelihood is strongly preferred. ▪ Must possess strong analytical skills. ▪ Strong cultural sensitivity ▪ Fluency in English and Arabic (reading, writing, and speaking) ▪ Available to visit Jordan during the fieldwork timeframe.