Consultant – Project Evaluation on integrated MHPSS and livelihoods services At Terre des Hommes Germany

Terms of Reference

Consultancy to conduct a project evaluation for the project “EduCare” in Iraq financed jointly by terre des hommes Germany and the German Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ)

Project name: EduCare I – Development of local gender education and therapeutic educational structures for the integration and reintegration of displaced children and adolescents in Iraq

Project holder: terre des hommes Germany e.V.

1. About terre des hommes Germany

terre des hommes Germany (hereafter “tdh”) is an international children’s rights organization that promotes equitable development without racial, religious, political, cultural, or gender-based discrimination since 1967. Together with our local partner organizations in 37 countries, we support more than 240 projects in Latin America, Africa, Asia, MENA and Europe. tdh is an independent non-governmental organisation that promotes civic engagement and the participation of children and youths in all aspects of its work. tdh sees its mission in strengthening children and realising children’s rights for all children because every child has the right to live and to develop in the best possible way. At tdh, we are convinced that sustainable development is possible for all people if the interests of children and future generations are respected and realised.

2. Background and Rationale

The project EduCare I, starting 01.09.2019 and ending 31.12.2022, aims to strengthen resilience and to reduce psychological stress and domestic violence by enhancing livelihoods opportunities with integrated MHPSS (Mental Health and Psychosocial Support) services and gender equality and equity trainings. Lack of economic livelihoods promotes stress, psychological distress, increased conflict, and gender-based violence in family systems and communities.

MHPSS services in Iraq

Research findings in recent years indicate that the effects of immense stress in post-conflict situations (caused by precarious living conditions) lead to lasting psychological distress. For many population groups, the massive stress situation caused by difficult living conditions persists. The intensified efforts in MHPSS sector by international donors of recent years have not come close to meeting the needs, neither in the Kurdish region nor in central Iraq. The “mental health” sector is severely under-resourced: according to a 2017 study, there were only 80 clinical psychologists in all of Iraq. The public health sector in the Kurdish region has approximately 30 psychiatrists (as of 2018). The focus is on drug treatment for mental disorders. Psychotherapeutic approaches are underrepresented. Psychotherapeutic services are covered more by non-governmental, often international organizations. Community-based mental health care is almost non-existent. For those affected, this means that the only available support is provided by family structures or by psychiatric institutions. These facilities are sometimes associated with extremely poor living conditions and degrading treatment of patients. Mental health continues to have significant social stigma and is underrepresented in society’s overall perception. As a direct consequence, mental disorders and stresses are not recognized because those affected do not seek help for fear of stigmatization or are fundamentally unaware that they could be suffering from mental stress.

The overall objective of the project is to establish stronger integrated gender equality and MHPSS support services with livelihoods, education and child protection measures to improve the mental well-being of particularly vulnerable community members in Iraq.

The implementing partner of tdh is Green Desert (GD). GD is a local community-based organisation focusing on MHPSS, Education and Child Protection with integrated livelihoods activities and gender equality trainings. These services are provided by GD within the framework of the EduCare I project for vulnerable internally displaced, returnees, refugees, and host communities.

MHPSS component

The aim of this component is to strengthen and expand local specialist capacities in the psychotherapeutic and psychosocial fields. This includes training of psychotherapists and paraprofessionals such as social workers, teachers etc. The project aims to ensure that the different trainees are related to each other in their daily work. This helps to establish a functioning referral system between the different levels (therapy on the one hand, PSS on the other) and to strengthen the overall structure in the MHPSS sector.

The professionals in training will provide services (psychotherapy and psychosocial support) for vulnerable population groups at the project locations. These MHPSS services are context-adapted and integrally anchored in the project concept and are therefore not “stand alone” measures. At the project sites, the communities are first reached through measures to strengthen prospects such as vocational trainings, the establishment and management of small-enterprises, informal educational opportunities and structured leisure activities for children and young people. These “door-opening offers” have the function of addressing urgent needs of the target groups, building trust, and thus creating access to all people in the communities.

MHPSS offers and a case management system to address child protection concerns, as well as work with men and male adolescents on masculinity perceptions is done successively with the participants of the door opener offers and is also open to all other community members.

3. Purpose, Objectives and Use of the Final Project Evaluation

The overall aim of this evaluation is the provision of an external, strategic review of the performance, achievements, and challenges. The evaluation will not examine the entire project but will focus on the MHPSS component described above. It shall analyze the overall results of the component. In doing so, it shall provide lessons learned about the component’s design, implementation, and management and identify elements, which were beneficial or harmfulfor achieving the objectives. The evaluation is further commissioned in order to

• Assess if (and how well) the design of integrated MHPSS services adequately addresses stakeholders’ needs, which have been identified in the beginning of the project
• Assess if (and how well) the MHPSS referral system is beneficial for MHPSS professionals and beneficiaries alike
• Assess how sustainable the training of third-party NGOs capacities was

Resulting from the analysis, the evaluation shall provide clear recommendations for all stakeholders involved regarding the component’s outcome, project monitoring, or project management by implementing partners or tdh

The evaluation’s results will be used by tdh & the implementing partner to

• Provide evidence to be used for public relations and fundraising
• Learn about challenges and potentials when working in the field of MHPSS to improve future interventions
• Back up or challenge previous assumptions/ findings when working in the field of MHPSS

4. Evaluation Questions

4.1 Relevance

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the project’s objectives and design responded to beneficiaries on global and country level, to partner’s needs, to policies and priorities, and how they will continue to do so if circumstances change:

• Did the component’s design, including priorities, outcomes, and activities reflect and address the target group’s needs?
• Did the components’ impacts in the target communities align with the outcomes outlined in the project proposal?
• Was the right implementing partner chosen for this specific component?
• Was the intervention of relevance for the needs of other important stakeholders?
• Did external changes / influences require adaptations of the component design? If necessary, has the design been adjusted accordingly? If not, why not?

4.2 Coherence

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the compatibility of the project with other interventions carried out by the partner organization(s) and / or tdh as well as its compatibility with other institutions’ activities in MHPSS in Iraq. To create a holistic understanding of the project’s coherence, the differentiation between internal and external coherence is crucial:

Internal coherence: Synergies and linkages between the proposed project and other projects carried out by the partner organization(s) and / or tdh.

External coherence: Consistency of the intervention with other institutions’ projects in Iraq and / or MHPSS. External coherence is critical to add value, avoid duplications, etc.

4.2.1 Internal coherence

• Was the MHPSS component in line with the partner organization’s objectives and did it consider the partner organization’s capabilities and capacities?

4.2.2 External coherence

• Were synergies as well as strategic and / or thematic alliances between the partner organizations (and beyond) established? How can these be strengthened and used more in the future?
• Was the coordination with other stakeholders effective in terms of complementarity and harmonization? How could this be further improved?
• To what extent did the component support national policies in Iraq regarding MHPSS?
• Were the project’s methodology and activities up to date and in line with local / national / international research findings in the area of MHPSS?
• Which added value did the MHPSS component have in comparison with other interventions in the same field of action.

4.3 Effectiveness

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the project achieved its objectives and results, including any differential results across groups:

• Did the component’s design prove adequate to achieve the envisaged results? Which elements were particularly beneficial? Where is room for improvement?
• How did coordination and cooperation with other stakeholders influence the achievement of the component’s objectives? Were coordination and cooperation with other stakeholders satisfying?
• To what extent were the intended outputs and outcomes, related to the MHPSS component, outlined in the project’s planning documents met? If not, why could certain outputs or outcomes not be met?
• Who and how many individuals did directly benefit from the MHPSS component? How exactly? If the number of direct beneficiaries was not achieved, why?
• Did the defined project objectives prove realistic? If not, why not?
• Which internal and / or external factors were crucial for the achievement of the component’s objectives
• Which internal and / or external factors were crucial for the failure to achieve the component’s objectives?
• Would alternative activities have enhanced the projects’ effectiveness?
• Did tdh provide adequate political, technical, and administrative support to the project? Where is room for improvement? Did the project have any negative or unexpected impacts on the project areas or target groups? How were these mitigated?

4.4 Efficiency

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the intervention delivered results in an economic and timely manner:

• Have resources been allocated strategically to achieve the envisaged outcome? What went especially well? Where is room for improvement?
• Was the relationship between input of resources and results and impact achieved appropriate and justifiable? What is the cost-benefit ratio? Where is room for improvement?
• Would there have been any alternatives for achieving the same or better results with given resources?
• What were the main constraints and problems regarding progress towards achieving the component’s objectives? Can these findings inform future tdh project work in the field of MHPSS?
• Was coordination with other stakeholders implemented in a way that increased the project’s efficiency? What went especially well? Where is room for improvement?

4.5 Impact

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the intervention generated significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level / structural changes and effects:

• Did the component offer a good-practice example that can be used for future tdh project work or as a basis for up-scaling processes?
• Did the component provide lessons from failure from which both partner organizations and tdh can learn for future planning, design, and implementation?
• How successful were capacity development measures carried out at the partner organizations as part of the implemented project? Where is room for improvement?
• What would have happened if the component had not been implemented?
• Did the component contribute to / induce any unintended changes / effects?

4.6 Sustainability

The following (non-exhaustive) list of questions supports assessing the extent to which the net benefits of the intervention will continue or are likely to continue:

• How likely is it that the component’s positive effects will perpetuate and prevail beyond the project duration? What is required to ensure such perpetuation?
• Which project elements and activities are likely to have a particularly high and long-term effectiveness? Which effects will likely not last?
• Will the project’s social context enable long-term perpetuation of the positive effects? What may hinder such perpetuation?
• Will the available institutions such as state institutions, civil society networks, laws, regulations etc. enable long-term perpetuation of the project’s positive effects?

5. Methodology

5.1 Methodology

To respond to the questions above, the consultant(s) is (are) expected to conduct both a desk study and field work in Iraq (Kurdistan Region and Central Iraq), applying both qualitative and quantitative methods. In doing so, the consultant(s) shall create a holistic understanding and analysis of the project’s output and outcomes.

Special attention should be paid to participatory methods of data collection, carried out in close cooperation with the partner organizations and representatives of the target groups. The data collection should always be child-oriented and highly sensitive to gender relations; methods must be adapted to target groups and local conditions. The consultant(s) is (are) encouraged to implement this methodology as creatively as possible.

5.2 Methods

Accordingly, the consultant(s) is (are) expected to apply the following methods when conducting the project evaluation:

• A desk study, i. e., an analysis of the project’s background documents, including, but not limited to,
  • the project proposal
  • proposal and evaluation of previous project (phases)
  • Project progress reports
• Key informant interviews with relevant stakeholders
• Focus group discussion(s) with relevant stakeholders
• Individual interviews with local population

The following stakeholders are considered critical and should be involved in data collection:

• tdh staff at the head office
• tdh staff in Iraq
• staff of local partner organization(s)
• experts from universities or other research facilities
• staff of other (local) NGOs
• key informant(s) in the local or national government administration in Iraq
• key informants from local communities
• target group(s) representatives

Whenever the projects’ target groups are involved in the research process, particular attention must be paid to the poorest, most vulnerable, and most remote members of the target groups in order to give them an opportunity to participate in the evaluation.

All services must be carried out between 01.09.2022 and 15.12.2022 with a maximum of 30 working days.

7. Requirements for bidders

• Proven experience with evaluations in the field of MHPSS
• Experience of conducting evaluations and research using a mixed methods approach, including participatory and child sensitive methods
• Profound knowledge and experience with the Iraq/ Syria crisis response preferably in the field of MHPSS
• Very good oral and written proficiency in English, German is an asset, sound oral proficiency in Arabic and/or Kurdish is an asset
• Acceptance of and compliance with tdh’s Child Safeguarding Policy
• Acceptance of and compliance with the EU-General Data Protection Regulation

8. Specification for offers

Offers will be accepted until 31 July 2022 and should include:

• A narrative / technical proposal of no more than 3 pages, including relevant experience, planned methodology, timeline, and staffing for the evaluation. Gender-balanced staffing is desirable.
• A detailed financial proposal for the evaluation
• A separate list of expected travel expenses, which will be reimbursed upon presentation of proof
• Two sample reports; published or unpublished reports approved by the respective clients focusing on the same sector