Evaluation of the ICRC’s Humanitarian Forensic Action 2017-2023

The TOR/RFP is replicated here, for the full version including images and annexes, please download the relevant documents here. Evaluation of the ICRC’s Humanitarian Forensic Action 2017-2023 | ALNAP

1. About the ICRC

The work of the ICRC is based on the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, their Additional Protocols of 1977, its Statutes – and those of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement – and the resolutions of the International Conferences of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. The ICRC is an independent, neutral organization ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. It takes action in response to emergencies and at the same time promotes respect for International Humanitarian Law and its implementation by States at the national level

For further information, visit the ICRC web site: Mandate and mission – overview

1. Introduction to the ICRC’s Humanitarian Forensic Action

Humanitarian Forensic Action is the application and adaptation of forensic sciences and investigative principles to prevent and address matters of humanitarian concern, alleviate suffering, and provide assistance to victims, families, communities, and the society at large. Such matters include the search for missing persons towards the families’ right to know, and the proper treatment and identification of the deceased,including in detention settings. It also looks atpreventing and addressing torture and other forms of ill treatment and sexual violence. The Forensic Unit both promotes and supports humanitarian forensics around the world is grounded in the ICRC mandate consistently demonstrating its added value and capacity to operate where others cannot[1].

The ICRC seeks to commission an evaluation of its Humanitarian Forensic Action (HFA) take stock of the developments of its set of services, its achievements and challenges, limitations, and opportunities. It will help ICRC senior management to better understand to which extent and how HFA as a service is an added value for ICRC mandate and operational impact. It will help Forensic management to steer the future of the ICRC HFA and ensure that its value chain and value proposition are aligned with the analysis of the humanitarian landscape.

The ICRC is the only organization to use forensic sciences exclusively for humanitarian purposes. Humanitarian Forensic Science is an emerging discipline recognized by international scientific bodies (e.g., IAFS, AAFS, etc.) and, while not created by the ICRC, the organization has, through its action (HFA), become the leading actor and a global reference on the topic. In a world where the number of situations resulting in high numbers of fatalities or missing cases are increasing, and as the management of the deceased is more and more seen as suboptimal in crises (i.e., conflicts, disasters, and pandemics), the ICRC has more than ever a key role to play in supporting States and parties to armed conflicts to deal with these issues with a prevention and protection perspective.

Because of its complex legal tenets,HFA supports and enables States authorities and actors of the medicolegal system (who have jurisdiction on these issues) to comply with their international obligations and to develop and implement emergency preparedness and response plans to protect the deceased, to prevent disappearance, and to solve the issue of the missing.

The medicolegal system can be defined as the set of principles, regulations, procedures, and different public or private entities, responsible for the investigation of suspicious deaths and attempts against a person’s integrity. It describes the interprofessional relationship, cooperation, collaboration, and coordination between three main sectors that necessarily interact in medicolegal investigations: the judiciary, law enforcement and forensic services or institutions. Armed Forces are also part of the system in specific circumstances (i.e., armed conflict or when granted judicial police powers). Other entities become part of the system in response to emergencies and may be mandated with tasks that are normally part of the functions of the main entities of the medicolegal system. Examples of these are the armed forces, volunteer organizations, civil defence, and in some countries the national societies of the red cross and red crescent. The main role of the medicolegal system is to support the administration of justice, while ensuring the protection of human rights and in upholding the rule of law. Medicolegal investigations are also critical for aspects related to policy making, prevention of crimes, public health and safety, evaluation of health care, in research, including surveillance, epidemiology, and prevention programs, for example in injury prevention control, prevention of suicide, violence, or substance abuse. In the case of post conflict situations, the system plays an essential role in the overall efforts of truth and justice, including transitional justice, memory, and reparation. The strengthening of forensic systems contributes also to policy making, peace building processes and has an impact in the reconstruction of societies.

Established in 2004, the ICRC Forensic Unit focuses on the issue of Protecting the Deceased and their families and in the Search for and Identification of Missing Persons, as part of the Protection and Essential Services Department (PES) and within the Central Tracing Agency (CTA[2]). Through its team of forensic specialists, the ICRC works globally by providing services and supporting States (and when relevant parties to armed conflict to comply with applicable IHL and IHRL obligations) towards the deceased and their families and to help ensure the deceased are protected and to uphold the right of bereaved families to know what happened to their loved ones. Today, the ICRC has experts from domains including forensic genetics, anthropology, odontology, archaeology, criminalistic and pathology working as part of their forensic team.

Following the initial years of Forensic operations being understood and integrated into ICRC actions, the Forensic Unit began rapidly evolving and growing from approximately 2013. In 2017, forensic services were relocated structurally from the Assistance division, where it was located for 13 years, to become the Forensic Unit within the Protection division. With a significant growth in size, the Forensic Unit began developing its team structure to deal with this growth, for example, the establishment of the role of forensic managers in regional hubs and the establishment of its Global Management Team. The unit continued its growth in terms of workforce and diversification of actions after 2017. Subsequent structural changes saw the unit become part of the Central Tracing Agency (which has been through its own transformation).

[1] Protection of the dead and forensic action | ICRC

[2] The Central Tracing Agency: Reconnecting, reuniting, resolving – now and into the future | ICRC

1. 1. Description of the theory of change or logic model

The work of the Forensic Unit is explained largely in its most recent strategic document: the Strategy for ICRC Forensic Services 2016-2018 (internal), which builds on two previous strategies dating back to 2008, and more importantly the 2022 Forensic Operating model (Figure 1) and actual Forensic Reference Framework. These contain elements of a theory of change for Humanitarian Forensic Action in the ICRC. The evaluation will reconstruct the theory of change during the inception phase for the purposes of the analytical frame of the evaluation. The theory of change will be refined during the process of the evaluation and the revised version will be included in the final evaluation report.

The ICRC Forensic value chain of its services has drastically changed over time. From the provision of ad hoc expertise limited to the missing file, in a few contexts, to the provision of expertise in a wide range of contexts in addition to the provision of advice to State authorities and the delivery of support to medicolegal structures in terms of infrastructure and manpower. Today, the value chain includes a comprehensive systemic approach around the strengthening of medicolegal systems as a key sustainable enabler to prevent and address the consequences of armed conflicts, other situations of violence and emergencies, including the context of migration.

In terms of ICRC capabilities within PES and CTA, the forensic palette of services consists of the following:

• Delivering unique expertise through substitution and/or support to States authorities on management of the dead (MotD), and search for Missing Persons, including acting as a neutral intermediary.
• Delivering unique expertise in the analysis and follow up of institutional caseload of missing persons.
• Advising States authorities on HFA to comply with their legal obligations.
• Strengthening medicolegal system policies, regulations, procedures, and infrastructures
• Developing domestic expertise and know-how.

The priorities of the unit can be defined as:

• Protection of the deceased (dignified and professional management of the deceased).
• Prevention of missing persons.
• Clarification of the fate and whereabouts of missing persons.

1. 1. The legal and operational bases of HFA

The ICRC’s forensic action is largely embedded within international humanitarian law (IHL), meaning the Geneva Conventions, the Additional Protocols and customary international humanitarian law which contain specific provisions and rules pertaining to the search and protection of the dead, the right to know for the families, accounting for the deceased, the treatment of human remains, their examination, burial, the maintenance of gravesites and exhumations[1]. Other than on the matter of enforced disappearance, human rights treaties do not contain detailed provisions dealing specifically with missing persons or the treatment of the dead. However, several provisions contained in these treaties have been interpreted by United Nations treaty bodies and regional courts as giving rise to obligations relevant to missing persons, including on clarifying their fate and whereabouts, as well as requiring states to comply with certain obligations relating to the dead and the right of their relatives. Under international human rights law (IHRL), states can be held responsible for failing to uphold, the right to life, human dignity, the prohibition of torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, the prohibition of enforced disappearance, the right to private and family life and the right to an effective remedy[2],[3]. Domestic laws contain further guidelines for forensic activities and dead bodies’ management, while soft law instruments may address international response activities in times of catastrophes and are important to consider in practice[4].

Working within the above legal frameworks, the ICRC seeks coordination and cooperation, including partnerships, with external actors such as leading forensic institutions and practitioners, development actors and international organizations (See Annex 1 for a list of external actors engaged in HFA). In practice there are some limitations to the scope of cooperation with actors that are involved in judicial or criminal investigations or that are non-operational. Some formal cooperation (e.g., through MOUs) has been established with academic institutions and associations. The full range of Forensic Services consists of eight specific objectives:

[1] See Advisory services legal factsheet: Humanity after life: Respecting and protecting the dead | ICRC. See also: The war dead and their gravesites; Anna Petrig; International Review of the Red Cross; Volume 91 Number 874 June 2009, available on: https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/irrc-874-petrig.pdf (last visited January 2016)

[2] The Forensic Human Identification Process: An integrated approach, available on: https://shop.icrc.org/the-forensic-human-identification-process-an-integrated-approach-pdf-en.html

[3] The 2006 International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance contains specific obligations related to the location of the dead their respect and return of their human remains (Art. 24)

[4] Catastrophe: is a disaster of very large and unexpected proportions. The management of human remains in other disasters (e.g. plane-crash) is normally the exclusive responsibility of forensic specialists (e.g. INTERPOL DVI), whereas in catastrophes first responders often have a leading role for this task, for which they require standards, guidelines, training, advice and tools, such as those offered by the ICRC.

Specific Objectives 1-3: Sustainable capacities:

1. Forensic Systems: Strengthening medico-legal systems, forensic services, and mechanisms
2. Forensic Competencies: Strengthening local competencies
3. Forensic Equipment: Improved working conditions (infrastructure and equipment)

Specific objectives 4-8

1. Forensic IHL/AAP: Alignment of services with IHL obligations and accountability to affected population
2. Forensic Emergencies: Forensic emergency preparedness and response
3. Forensic Caseload: ICRC caseload analysis, case management and follow up
4. Forensic Migration: Search for and identification of missing and deceased migrants
5. Forensic ill-treatment: Victims of ill-treatment, sexual violence, and death in custody

The workforce of the ICRC’s Forensic Unit has grown significantly (up to 125 in-house experts before the 2023 financial reductions for the ICRC). It includes a wide range of scientific expertise including anthropology, archaeology, pathology, genetics, odontology, and criminalistics.

There have been multiple internal changes such as the restructuring of the Central Tracing Agency (within which Forensic Unit is now situated), which is part of the recently created new department of Protection and Essential Services (PES) alongside the department of Operations (OPS). Despite being a year affected by COVID-19, Forensic activities continued to grow at the request of delegations and authorities.

1. About this evaluation

The timing of the evaluation is pertinent to put a focus on HFA in the ICRC. The Forensic Unit and internal stakeholders have accumulated significant experience in delivering HFA since 2003, with the team and expertise growing alongside. The ICRC continues to be the only organization providing this type of services with a humanitarian focus and at this scale.

Recent internal structural changes provided an impetus for pause for thought in terms of revisiting and redefining the future steer of HFA as an ICRC service. Indeed, an articulated revised strategy for Forensic Action has not been put in place since the most recent one ended in 2018. The Forensic Unit is cognizant that it needs to strengthen consistency of the forensic setup across the organization, the reporting system for forensic activities, and its ability to demonstrate objectively the main challenges of its functioning, and the results and impacts of its work.

Against the backdrop of the ICRC’s 2023 financial contraction, and the anticipated new institutional strategy for the ICRC (under development, it will cover 2024-2027), the Forensic Unit seeks to build on its extensive experience and articulate its strategic direction to meet the already known demands and ensure its recognition and adequacy in terms of strategic orientation.

1. 1. Evaluation purpose and objectives

The purpose of the evaluation is to help the Forensic Unit to steer the future HFA as an ICRC service. The evaluation will assess ICRC’s HFA positioning, set-up, performance, results to generate institutional learning with a view to improving the performance, outcome and longer-term change produced by the HFA.The findings and recommendations of the evaluation will feed into the development of the strategic orientations of the Forensic Unit and will directly serve PES and OPS in its promotion of services and in the overall institutional strategies.

Objectives of the evaluation

1. To understand HFA as performed by the ICRC through the lens of both internal audiences (e.g., forensic staff, other CTA staff, protection staff, management, legal) and external perspectives (e.g., key beneficiaries in delegations where we have a significant program, the forensic advisory board, the regular consultants performing missions for the ICRC, etc.)
2. To assess the effectiveness of the forensic setup at all levels to meet the aims of humanitarian forensic action, including in terms of quality and efficiency, while ensuring strong engagement with affected communities and relevant actors.
3. To identify better ways to evaluate / assess and demonstrate the impact of forensic services in humanitarian action on target populations.
4. To analyse the internal positioning of HFA in relation to achieving the best humanitarian outcomes and its contribution to the overall institutional and Movement strategies.
5. To understand the synergies between HFA and other ICRC services to target populations (i.e., in ICRC’s definition: separated, missing, deceased, civilians, actors of influence).

The evaluation has both learning and accountability components across objectives 1-4, with objective 2 speaking most to accountability. The evaluation is anticipated to generate evidence and analysis to make recommendations according to the above objectives – and emerging findings that are unanticipated – that supports the ICRC to:

• Leverage on and strengthen the overall strategic positioning of humanitarian forensic action, including the internal positioning of HFA in the ICRC while contributing to the institutional comparative advantage or competitive value.
• Optimize the setup(s) of the Forensic Unit and reinforce the integration of forensic experts in the institution within PES and their contributions to enhance the multidisciplinary approach in the ICRC humanitarian response.
• Contribute to better understanding and therefore use of HFA in Operations.
• Demonstrate the results and impacts of HFA vis a vis the institutional conventional and statutory mandate and role in relation to IHL.
• Envision the medium- and long-term priorities for further developing HFA in both its scientific basis and field implementation.

1. 1. Intended users

The primary users of the evaluation are the senior leadership of OPS, PES and LDP.

Secondary users of the evaluation are members of the Forensic Unit, CTA and PES staff, further colleagues internal to the ICRC, International Federation of the Red Cross, and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), as a membership of 191 National Societies, and the broader external network of actors working in humanitarian forensic action.

1. 1. Key stakeholders

The key internal stakeholders and participants to be engaged in the evaluation include ICRC staff members from the following Units and Departments:

• Forensic Unit
• Central Tracing Agency
• Department of Protection and Essential Services
• Department of Operations
• Department of International Law, Policy, and Humanitarian Diplomacy (LDP)

The list of key stakeholders and their modes of engagement in the evaluation will be developed and finalized by the evaluation manager in discussion with the external evaluation consultants. Key stakeholders and participants will be engaged in the evaluation through different methods including as part of the validation meetings with the Evaluation Reference Group, workshops for ToC development and discussions of the findings when applicable, during inception phase consultations and key informant interviews as part of the data collection phase.

The list of external actors and partners is available in Annex 1 and selection of key external stakeholders for consultations and interviews will be conducted during the inception phase.

1. Evaluation framework
   1. Evaluation design

A theory-based participatory methodology is proposed for this evaluation, which will require the evaluation team to reconstruct the Theory of Change (ToC) for the ICRC’s current approach to humanitarian forensic action. Theory-based methodology is suitable for this evaluation for several reasons. Reconstruction of a Theory of Change based on the Strategy for ICRC Forensic Services (2016-2018) and more recent strategic documents in draft, along with consultation of the forensic management team will help the evaluation team to use it as a source for the evaluation design and data collection methods. During the analysis and reporting phase, the reconstructed ToC will serve as a conceptual framework for analysis. Given the second objective of this evaluation focusing on accountability through analysis of available evidence of impact the reconstructed ToC will serve as a basis to analyse the current methods and systems for M&E and propose recommendations for enhancement to demonstrate better future impact pathways.

Reconstruction of the ToC should take place in the inception phase, to be used for the purposes outlined above. Based on the findings and recommendations of the evaluation, the external team will present a revised ToC as part of the final report (or accompanying it).

1. 1. Evaluation criteria and key questions

The evaluation will further draw on the OECD DAC and ALNAP criteria of effectiveness coherence, impact and sustainability. These four criteria are emphasized due to the strategic positioning nature of the evaluation which seeks to inquire into humanitarian forensic action at the ICRC – how the organization currently articulates and achieves its aims and ambitions, and how it can continue to do so, and indeed do so better. Evaluation teams may propose additional criteria at the proposal or inception phases with sufficient justification.

The typical OECD criteria of efficiency is implicit in some of the evaluation questions but are not highlighted as distinct theme. Efficiency as a principle, i.e. identification of inefficiencies, will be useful but efficiency as an evaluation criterion is presumed to lack the necessary data for scientific analysis.

Key evaluation questions

Coherence

1. How well does Forensic Unit fit within the wider ICRC architecture ensuring complementarity and harmonization across services for achieving humanitarian outcomes for targeted population?

Effectiveness

1. To what extent Forensic Services resources (financial, manpower and set up within the ICRC at HQ and delegation level, and their articulation) are conducive to meeting the aims of HFA?
2. To what extent and how does the Forensic Unit achieve its intended results?

Impact

1. What evidence is there to demonstrate longer-term changes produced by the Forensic Services?
2. To what extent the current monitoring and evaluation framework and tools for forensic services can capture learning, results and impact?

Sustainability

1. Are the results and impact produced by the ICRC Forensic services likely to be sustained and in what circumstances?
2. To what extent ICRC’s Forensic action (e.g., by strengthening the medicolegal system as a key enabler) addresses long term interconnected problems
3. To what extent Forensic Action reinforces ICRC impact (e.g., refurbishment of a morgue jointly with the WatHab unit to ensure a safe work environment)

4.3 Scope

The temporal scope of the evaluation focusses on 2019-present day (mid-2023) due to Monitoring for Results reporting data being available for this time period. However, the historical evolution of Forensic Services will be of relevance to the context of the current Forensic Unit. Geographic scope is broad across all Forensic Services engagement however, for the purposes of data collection, the external evaluation consultants will work with the Forensic Unit to determine sampling strategies to include and exclude geographies depending on the agreed criteria.

4.4 Evaluation methods and data

Specific methods

The evaluation will deploy both qualitative and quantitative methods for data collection. At a minimum, qualitative data collection methods will include document review, key informant interviews, group interviews and workshops where appropriate. Quantitative methods may be primary (e.g., perception survey) and/or secondary (ICRC internal monitoring data). Analysis methods will require triangulation between multiple data sources and methods. Evaluation teams are encouraged to propose both data collection and analysis methods that are suitable for meeting the needs of the evaluation in the context of humanitarian responses.

Primary data collection expectations, disaggregation

Primary data collection is expected to generate new evidence on the effectiveness and impact of the ICRC’s forensic services, how well the current M&E system captures the current results and long terms changes and how these systems can be improved. Depending on the methods and the sources, data should be collected in a way that it can be disaggregated by individual attributes (e.g., sex, age, disability etc.) and/or contextual attributes (e.g., geography, context of conflict, intervention type etc.).

Secondary data availability

Secondary data

• Monitoring for Results (reporting data) 2019-2022
• Quarterly and selected EoM reports
• Prot 6 data profile and trends (individual case data is not available to external consultants)

Key documents

• Previous strategies of the Forensic Unit (2008, 2009-2014 and 2016-2018)
• Programme Reference Frameworks for Forensics
• Evaluation of the Forensic Strategy, 2014
• Report on surveys to forensic staff in 3 delegations, 2017
• Evaluation of the Integration of Thematics into ICRC Field Responses, 2023 (relevant for questions and evidence on integration and transversal working)
• Internal documents (accessible through the Forensic Wiki) and external publications (accessible through the ICRC eShop)

4.5 Risks, limitations

Known contextual risks for the ICRC include the sensitive and personal nature of the work of the Forensic services for community members whose family members are missing or deceased. Any proposed engagement with community members will require specific ethical protocols.

A further institutional context is the ICRC’s current re-organization and management of the financial situation, which necessarily places responsibilities on staff members and managers to respond thereby reducing their availability for processes such as this evaluation. The evaluation will need to be accommodating regarding the availability of staff members, and in the case of non-availability contingency plans for data collection will be needed to ensure the validity of datasets.

Evaluation teams are required to expand on these contextual risks and include methodological risks, limitations, and mitigations in their proposal and during the inception phase.

4.6 Deliverables

The key outputs (deliverables) for the evaluation include the following, to be modified as required during the inception phase.

1. A 1-page briefing outlining the purpose, timing, and key messages to explain the evaluation process to stakeholders. This acts as a communication tool internal within the evaluation particularly during the data collection phase. It includes the contact details of the evaluators, the evaluation commissioner, and the ICRC’s integrity weblink.
2. A draft and then final inception report with PPT or other ways suggested by the evaluation team with articulated theory of change, detailing a proposed methodology, evaluation matrix, list of stakeholders to be consulted, workplan and timeline, and the tools for data collection to be presented to the Evaluation Advisory Group (EAG) and the commissioning unit.
3. Workshops and/or roundtables as appropriate for consultation with internal stakeholders on emerging issues and/or validation of findings and/or revised theory of change.
4. A draft evaluation report. This should be clear and simply written, free of unnecessary jargon. The main body of the report should not exceed 40 pages. The report outline will be agreed with the supplier as part of the inception report. The report will include the following sections:

• Executive Summary – a short overview of the report
• Context and background
• Methodology
• Revised theory of change with justification
• Main findings of the evaluation, and conclusions
• Concise recommendations, with consideration of the degree of prioritization and any necessary sequencing for actions and the responsible persons

1. A final report, with feedback integrated from the EAG and other internal stakeholders as relevant.
2. A PPT presentation or other ways of presenting the key findings, recommendations, lessons learned, and best practice addressed to the Advisory Group and the commissioning unit. Any relevant complementary materials should be provided as annexes to the final report.
3. A visual communication product such as a poster, infographic or max 4 pages brief that presents the key messages and recommendations of the evaluation in an engaging manner.

5. Ethical considerations and safeguarding

Evaluators are required to adhere to international best practices and standards in evaluation. It explicitly requires evaluators to abide by the Professional Standards for Protection Work; the ICRC’s Code of Conduct; the ICRC’s Code of Ethics for Procurement; and the ICRC Rules on Personal Data Protection.

The evaluation design and implementation must apply the ICRC’s guiding principles and approach on Accountability to Affected People.

Where engagement with community members is proposed and agreed, the evaluation inception report will be subject to formal Ethical Review Board approval (arranged by the ICRC). This will require specific and detailed ethical considerations for the situations and methods proposed.

6. Management of the evaluation

Evaluation commissioner

The Forensic Unit is the managing/commissioning team of this evaluation, with the Head of Forensic Unit with overall responsibility for managing the external evaluation team and convening the Evaluation Advisory Group.

The Evaluation Commissioner will work directly with the External Evaluation Team to develop a final list of stakeholders for participation, facilitate access to the necessary documentation to be reviewed, inform the relevant stakeholders about the evaluation, and facilitate initial introductions between them and the external evaluation team. The team members of the Forensic Unit will contribute to the processes of onboarding the external evaluation team accessing documentation and providing supporting information. The Evaluation Commissioner will facilitate access for the evaluation team to stakeholders (internal and external), and modes of communication for stakeholder types will be agreed in advance of them being contacted.

All evaluation deliverables will be submitted simultaneously directly to the Evaluation Commissioner and the ICRC Evaluation Office in due course for a first review. The Evaluation Commissioner will mobilize and share the inception report and final report with other key ICRC stakeholders for feedback, such as the Evaluation Advisory Group. The Evaluation Commissioner will provide consolidated feedback, including external quality assurance reviews. The key dates for deliverables and milestones will be determined during the inception phase in consultation with the Evaluation Commissioner.

Evaluation Office

The Evaluation Office at HQ will accompany the process providing technical advice and feedback to the Evaluation Commissioner at key stages, including scoping of the exercise, identifying and recruitment of the external evaluation team, providing feedback during the inception phase on the proposed methodology, methods, and data collection instruments, providing feedback on the inception and the final reports directly and through the established Evaluation Quality Assurance process and ensuring impartiality.

Evaluation Advisory Group

An Evaluation Advisory Group (EAG) will accompany the evaluation, providing their expert advice and feedback on key stages. The members of the EAG may be included in the initial onboarding process for the external evaluation team. The EAG will be consulted for the inception phase presentation/discussion on the plan for data collection and analysis, and for the presentation of the final report findings. The membership of the EAG is internal to the ICRC and the composition will be outlined in the relevant protocol internally.

Indicative timeline

The evaluation is anticipated to start in September 2023 with the outcomes anticipated for the beginning of QR2 of 2024. The ICRC does not mandate that working days must be consecutive. However, the ICRC envisages that the consultancy will mainly be done virtually/remotely. During the inception phase, it is recommended for the team leader to visit ICRC HQ office in Geneva during the inception phase for initial in-person consultations and potentially workshop on reconstruction of the ToC.

Evaluation Quality Assurance

The main evaluation deliverables should meet the established quality standards. The quality criteria (checklists) for evaluation products (inception reports and evaluation reports) will be provided to the external evaluation team in advance. Drafts of these key products will be quality assured through the ICRC’s QA mechanism which will provide feedback to the supplier via the Evaluation Office.

Publication of final report

The final evaluation report’s Executive Summary or the brief visual communication product will be published on the ICRC’s website in line with the ICRC’s Access to Information Policy.[1]

Dissemination of findings

The full evaluation report with findings will be disseminated through different modalities internally only to the following stakeholders:

• Protection & Essential Services (PES) at HQ, including:
• Central Tracing Agency (i.e., Protection of Family Links, Protection Data, RCRC Center for Missing Persons)
• Protection, Essential Services (i.e., Water and Habitat, Health, Economic Security, Water & Habitat, Weapons Contamination, Cash & Voucher)
• Thematics: Access to Education (A2E), Migration, Healthcare in Danger, Addressing Sexual Violence, Internal Displacement, Climate Change
• Executive Office of the Director General (EODG) and OPS regions at HQ
• Regional Resources Network (RRN)
• Outcome-Based Approach (OBA) unit
• Support units, Department of People and Culture (PAC), Department of International Law, Policy and Humanitarian Diplomacy (LDP), Department of Mobilization, movement and partnership (MMP), Department of Support and Digital Transformation (STD)
• IFRC

The ICRC might share selected sections of the evaluation report or executive summary with donor(s) and relevant partners.

Follow up of recommendations

In order to strengthen the use of the evaluations at the ICRC, fostering ownership over the process of change and ensuring accountability for results, the intended users of this evaluation will initiate

[1] https://www.icrc.org/sites/default/files/document_new/file_list/access-information-policy.pdf

the management response process as a follow-up action facilitated by the Evaluation Office. The Evaluation Office will support the Forensic Unit and responsible teams and stakeholders in developing and tracking the management response actions through dedicated systems and processes.

Budget range or anticipated working days

The budget ceiling for this evaluation is 70,000 CHF, however overall cost will be taken into consideration for the selection decision. The consultants are expected to elaborate in the proposal on the number of anticipated working days for this assignment based on the budget range, proposed timeline and level of efforts required at each stage of the evaluation. The consultancy will mainly be done virtually/remotely, but the ICRC recommends for the team leader to visit the ICRC HQ in Geneva for initial consultations and/or workshop on reconstruction of the Theory of Change. The travel cost associated with visit to HQ should be included in the budget.

Expertise required

Team Leader:

• Substantial experience (minimum 15 years) in leading teams, and designing and delivering rigorous evaluations in the international and humanitarian sectors, meeting international evaluation quality standards.

• Advanced stakeholder communication, risk analysis, and project management skills. • Demonstrable experience of applied ethics in evaluations.

• Publications and sectoral contributions track record.

• Minimum academic qualification: post-graduate research methods in evaluation, humanitarian response, IHL, human rights, biological and medical science, disaster management or other field relevant to this evaluation.

Across the team

• Experience of conducting mixed- methods humanitarian evaluations.

• Knowledge, understanding, and/or experience of the ICRC’s institutional and operating models.

• Expertise in developing and tailoring qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis tools.

• Technical knowledge and understanding of biological and medical science, investigation and police work, disaster management would be a strong advantage.

• Ability to work in English language is essential with additional languages such as French and Spanish would be an added asset

The TOR/RFP is replicated here, for the full version including images and annexes, please download the relevant documents here. Evaluation of the ICRC’s Humanitarian Forensic Action 2017-2023 | ALNAP