Consultant for Project Review of livelihoods intervention in Syria

The full Terms of Preference as well as relevant annex for the application are available under the following link:

https://wolke.caritas.at/s/okY849SYzMQgNrM

PW: GbxNfrwF8e

1. Introduction/Background

Caritas Austria and its partner Caritas Syria call for tender bids to conduct an external project review of the project Relief to Recovery (R2R) which has been implemented in three locations in Syria: Homs city, Al-Quseir (Rural Homs) and Hama city.

The return of stability in the governorates of Homs and Hama created a window of opportunity for nexus-based programming to support vulnerable populations to protect and sustain their lives, strengthen their livelihoods and increase their self-reliance as they move from relief to recovery to development. Thus, project activities aimed at covering short- and long-term needs of the population: Providing immediate relief through unconditional multipurpose cash grants to vulnerable people, and supporting economic recovery and development through business start-up and re-start grants and business mentoring. Additionally, R2R focuses on capacity building of the implementing organization.

The project with the budget volume of EUR 1.111.000 is funded by Austrian Development Cooperation (ADA: EUR 1.000.000) and Caritas Austria (EUR 111.000). Project activities have been implemented by Caritas Syria and its regional offices in Homs and Hama under the legislation of the Syrian Arab Republic.

Project goals:

R2R is conceptualized based on a nexus-oriented early recovery and livelihoods approach that allows vulnerable people to transition from reliance on basic assistance towards rebuilding resilience and livelihoods.

Overall objective: To contribute to the reduction of poverty and inequalities of vulnerable women and men in Syria and increasing their resilience to socio-economic short- and long-term consequences of the protracted humanitarian crises (SDGs 1, 5, 8, & 10).

Specific objective: Vulnerable women and men in Hama and Homs have improved ability to protect and sustain their lives and livelihoods towards increased self-reliance

Expected Results

• Result 1: Capacity building of implementing organisation in order to contribute to the advancement of nexus programming utilizing a gender-sensitive approach and develop a model that showcases how vulnerable households (HHs) can transition from relief to recovery and self-reliance.
• Result 2: At least 800 IDP and host community HHs (4,000 individuals) with 30% female headed households (FHH) are supported with unconditional multipurpose cash grants (MPGs) in response to the dire socio-economic conditions and addressing the most immediate needs of women, men, girls and boys. Cash grants are provided with the purpose to meet basic needs or to through emergency cash to mitigate COVID-19 related shocks.
• Result 3: 430 women and men have equal opportunities to start and re-start their business addressing issues around relevant knowledge and skills to engage in business activities through relevant training and further provides seed grants as financial support for advancing business ideas. The project will work with beneficiaries of two tracks: Track 1 – Beneficiaries with previous business experience who lost their asset and Track 2 – Beneficiaries with relevant skills but without prior business experience.
• Result 4: 170 women and men have access to grant and further business support (e.g. mentoring, coaching, peer exchange) specifically geared towards eliminating barriers/ constraints for females engaged in IGA. Following the beneficiary tracks established in R3, there will be support through Re-Start Grants to replace lost assets (Track 1) and Start-up Grants (Track 2) to acquire the assets required to start new ones.

2. Rationale

• The purpose of this Final Project Review is institutional learning to improve the design of future interventions. The review’s findings and recommendations will be used to understand how nexus-oriented early recovery and livelihoods interventions can enable vulnerable people to transition from reliance on basic assistance towards rebuilding resilience and livelihoods in Syria, with the aim of replicating success stories and sharing lessons learned with partners and the community of practice. Beyond that, the Project Review will feed into the internal learning process of R2R partners and serve as an important step not only for learning but also for accountability towards donors and project participants.
• The full Project Review covers the 39 months of R2R intervention. The project review will take place in Syria (Damascus, Homs, Hama) with project participants in various project sites, implementing partners, as well as all the funding/technical partners, covering the full scope of the project across all results.
• Key informants for the project include – but may not be limited to – the Caritas project teams, business trainers/mentors, PSS specialists, project consultants and the participants in the main project activities: persons supported through multipurpose cash grants, business development skills trainings, business start-up and re-start grants and business mentoring, in addition to staff members supported by capacity building activities. A workshop based on the findings shall be provided at the end of the review in order to support the learning process for the project team of Caritas Austria and Caritas Syria and potential additional participants.

3. Project Review Objective

The main objective of the project review is to assess the short and medium-term impact of the project intervention on the lives of individual project participants and households, achieved through the delivery of a package of activities, including Multi Purpose Cash Grants (MCGs), business grants and trainings for implementing partners.

The output of the project review is expected to:

1. Provide an assessment of the overall impact of the R2R project against the specific and overall objectives as well as results as defined in the project’s logical framework (disaggregated by women and men).
2. Deepen insight into assumptions and approaches underpinning the project, focusing on the nexus-oriented and gender-sensitive early recovery and livelihoods approach chosen to allow a transition from reliance on basic assistance towards rebuilding resilience and livelihoods.
3. Assess the relevance of the project with regard to design and coherence, including the intervention logic as response to the problems identified in the design phase.
4. Assess the extent to which the project was effective in delivering the planned outputs and outcomes.
5. Provide recommendations for possible future interventions of the same type, focusing on gender-sensitive approaches to early recovery and livelihoods actions in protracted, complex crisis contexts.
6. Provide a workshop to the project team of CAUT and CS presenting the findings and recommendations

This review will be conducted in line with the 2019 revised OECD/DAC evaluation criteria.

3. Specific Project Review Questions

Relevance

• To what extent were project design and approach appropriate to the local situation and specific needs of women and men?
• To what extent are the outcomes and indicators of the project still pertinent?
• Are the planned outputs of the project appropriate to meet the outcome and the overall goal (impact) – as part of the analysis of the logframe matrix / project strategy?
• Are the assumptions and risks still valid?
• To what extent have multiple sources of information (including affected people and communities, local institutions, etc.) been consulted when assessing needs, vulnerabilities and context?
• To what extent are the interventions appropriate: culturally, social-economically, gender sensitively and environmentally?

Effectiveness

• To what extent has the programme already produced its expected outputs or will be likely to achieve them? To what extent has the programme already achieved its outcomes or will be likely to achieve them? What were the major factors influencing the achievements or non-achievements?
• To what extent is the programme likely to achieve real impact (change) for the target groups (male and female)? To what extent is the programme likely to achieve real impact (change) for FHH?
• How is project-generated (additional) disposable HH-income utilised or invested by target HHs (e.g. education, food security, others, etc.)?
• Did the programme contribute to capacity building as planned? To what extent is knowledge of the project teams exploited and contributing to the achieved results (benefits of knowledge management)?
• Was the main target group involved in the project planning phase? Are the statements of the main target group on the attainment of goals identical with the opinions of the actors having provided assistance (e.g. employees of the respective organisation)?
• What have been the key challenges and/or risks hampering implementation of the project? How have these been addressed by the programme management? Which steering and/or mitigation measures have been taken? Have these been the right ones? How effective was the decision-making process?
• In how far did the design and further implementation of the project support beneficiaries transition from reliance on humanitarian assistance towards self-reliance?
• To what extend were gender specific needs taken into account during the implementation of the project in order to promote in particular women’s participation in business development activities.

Efficiency

• Was the project implemented in the most efficient way in terms of time and resource allocation, planning, coordination, and communication?
• To what extent has the project been managed and implemented as planned? In case: what issues occurred and why?
• Are constraints and risks regularly identified and analysed, and plans adapted accordingly?
• Was the transferring modality for MPGs and business grants implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternative modalities or transfer mechanisms?
• Were the budget and available financial resources realistic for the achievement of the intended objectives and outputs (to include staffing, training, capacity building)?
• Are programme management and decision-making processes efficient? What role does participation play in decision-making processes within the programme team?
• Are there clear processes in place to support monitoring and use of the monitoring-results for management and decision-making?

Impact

• Are the results/outcomes of R2R in line with the overall and specific objectives as formulated in the project’s logical framework and specified in the proposal? If any, what were unintended impacts of the programme?
• What has happened as a result of the project? What do beneficiaries (female and male) consider the most significant changes brought about by the project in their lives (immediate impact)? How do beneficiaries (female and male) evaluate the impact of the R2R intervention in proportion to their overall needs?
• What do FHH consider the most significant changes brought about by the project in their lives (immediate impact)? How do female beneficiaries evaluate the impact of the R2R intervention in proportion to their overall needs?
• What were the positive and negative, intended and unintended effects?
• How was the money (MPGs and business grants) used? What was the money used for (or in which sectors)? Were the investments of cash short-term or long-term?
• How where capacity building measures integrated into work practices of implementing partners?
• Have the interventions affected HH behaviours, such as use of coping strategies, changes in food consumption, changes in education or health practices?
• Did beneficiaries consider the vulnerability criteria fair and transparent and understand the selection process? Are any groups missed out in their opinion?

Sustainability

• To what extent will the benefits of a programme or project continue after the project has been completed? What are the major factors which influence the achievement or non-achievement of sustainability of the project? What steps are already and/or need to be taken in order to secure sustainability of the programme?
• To what extent did R2R contribute to building capacities and expertise of implementing partners?
• What are key considerations to keep in mind when developing a second phase of the project? What are key considerations to keep in mind when developing an exit strategy for the project?
• To what extent are the target groups and counterparts able to adapt sufficiently to external changes and shocks? How stable is the situation in the surrounding field regarding social justice, economic efficiency, political stability and ecological balance?

Coherence

• Were (local) coordination structures with relevant actors in the area established? How did the organisations harmonise and coordinate their interventions with other partners? Which factors hindered and supported the coordination? Has the coordination led to more efficiency and impact of the intervention? How was duplication of assistance avoided?

5. Methodology

It is expected that the project review will employ quantitative as well as qualitative data, making use of different methods, such as analysis of documents, structured interviews, focus group discussions, semi-structured interviews (face-to face or remote modality), etc. All data collected needs to disaggregated by sex and age of beneficiaries, be sensitive to gender disparities, seek to include persons with disabilities, and be prepared to probe about unintended outcomes of the project.

The methodology to appear in the proposal should include but not be limited to

• Review of key project documents including: proposal, project reports, PDMs and other related documents.
• Review of R2R process and outcome monitoring data as well as other data collected in the course of the R2R intervention (e.g. primary data for outcome and process monitoring, etc.)
• Interview key staff associated with the project and other stakeholders with each meeting documented (face-to-face or remote modality).
• Interview (KII, FGDs) with project beneficiaries at community level, structure and document all discussions.
• Undertake physical verification visits to project sites or structures to affirm level and results exhibited.

Consultant(s) will be asked to specify methodology for the project review in their technical proposal submitted with the application.

[1]https://www.oecd.org/dac/evaluation/revised-evaluation-criteria-dec-2019.pdf

6. Deliverables

The final project review should entail the following deliverables:

a) Inception Report

In the inception report, the consultant(s) will describe the design of the project review and will elaborate on how data will be obtained and analyzed. The report should at a minimum:

• Highlight any reservations regarding the feasibility and/ or limitations
• Outline the methodology and provide a timeline for the data collection and review
• Contain tools/ templates for data collection during data collection (if feasible and/ or necessary)
• Include selection of locations for data collection and sampling methodology
• Provide an analysis of consulted documentation
• Present outline of the final report

The project management has the possibility to give feedback on the inception report and proposed design. Data triangulation and quality control are very important and need to be discussed in the inception report. The inception report needs approval by CAUT before entering the research & review phase.

CAUT is aware that the limited timeframe for the review can pose a challenge to building the trust/rapport required to get to in-depth conversations; the evaluator(s) is/are invited to reflect on this in the inception report.

b) Final Draft Review Report

The report includes a draft executive summary and clear findings and recommendations to be read and commented by all project partners. The findings and recommendations of the draft final report have to be structured according to the review questions. To be approved by CAUT.

c) Final Review Report

The review report should be clear, well-structured (along the DAC criteria and according to the evaluation questions) and should not exceed 30-35 pages.

An outline of the report’s structure needs to be agreed upon during the inception phase, but should include at least:

• Cover page, table of contents, list of abbreviations
• Reflection on research ethics and limitations
• Executive summary including recommendations (three to five pages)
• Description of the review objective(s), methodology and activities
• Discussion of findings (presented per the specific tasks – Relevance, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Impact and Sustainability)
• Conclusions and Recommendations
• Annexes (e.g. list of reference documents, list of interviewed persons, minutes of meetings)

Findings and recommendations should be based on a critical analysis. To be approved by CAUT.

The raw data set must be submitted as an annex to the final report

d) Validation workshop

To be organised following data gathering phase

e) Final Workshop

A workshop shall be provided at the end of the review in order to support the learning process from the findings implementing teams of Caritas Austria and Caritas Syria and potential additional participants.

7. Process and timeline

Contracting: by 05.11.2023

Desk Review: 06.11.-15.11.2023

Inception Report: by 15.11.2023

Review/ Field phase: 27.11.-17.12.2023

Validation Workshop: by 17.12.2023

Draft Final Review Report: by 07.01.2024

Final Review Report: By 31.01.2024

Final Report Workshop: By 31.01.2024

8. The Review Team

Key qualifications to the review team should be:

• Relevant academic degree
• A minimum of three years’ experience and expertise in the field/sector of business analysis and income-generating projects for vulnerable groups
• Team leader (if applicable) has led or conducted at least three evaluations/reviews in the last five years in this or a related field
• Team member has conducted at least three evaluations/reviews in this or a related field
• Relevant experience and understanding of local economic and political development context
• Experience in project cycle management
• Knowledge of OECD/DAC criteria
• Experience in evaluation/review development and/or humanitarian projects, especially in the sphere of livelihoods/business development
• International experience, especially in the Middle East countries
• Ability to conduct meetings with senior government, UN and NGO level personnel
• Experience and expertise in evaluating cross-cutting issues
• Excellent oral and written English & Arabic skills
• Ability to travel in the indicated project locations in Syria for the purpose of data collection
• Sound MS Office skills

The consultants must not have been involved in the design, implementation or monitoring of this project.

9. Responsibilities & conditions

Confidentiality of information: All documents provided to the evaluator(s) and all data collected during field research must be treated as confidential and used solely for the purpose of this review. Respondents shall not be identified in reports without their explicit written permission. Photo, video, and other research data that can be traced back to individual research participants shall be anonymized unless agreed otherwise, in writing, with the person concerned.

Ownership of data, findings, products: CAUT retains full ownership of all data, findings, and products produced as part of this assignment.

Support by CAUT and partners: All relevant documents including programme proposal, reports, etc. will be provided for the consultant(s). Field research can be supported and facilitated by CAUT and partners based upon the methodology and approach. Applicants shall clearly state expected support in their proposal. Relevant contacts of other stakeholders will be shared upon the consultant(s)’ request.

Safeguarding and protection: For the time of the assignment, the evaluator commits to safeguarding and protection policies and procedures that are shared and reiterated during the preparatory phase.

Distribution Policy: Intended users of deliverables are CAUT, project implementing partners, donor, and other Caritas Internationalis Member Organizations.

All deliverables generated through this project review will be subject to approval by CAUT before public dissemination.