End Of Project Evaluation at Handicap International – Humanity & Inclusion

TERMS OF REFERENCE

END OF PROJECT EVALUATION

Project Title: Recovery of conflict affected population in Kirkuk governorate for a safe and dignified return in area of origin and strengthening of existing health services.

Implemented in Kirkuk Governorate (with a focus on Hawija and Kirkuk district) **

Start Date: April 2019 End Date: June 2021 Duration: 27 months

1. General information:

1.1 . About Humanity & Inclusion

*Our vision:** Outraged at the injustice faced by people with disabilities and vulnerable populations, we aspire to a world of solidarity and inclusion, enriched by our differences, where everyone can live in dignity.

Our mission: HI is an independent and impartial aid organization working in situations of poverty and exclusion, conflict and disaster. We work alongside people with disabilities and vulnerable populations, taking action and bearing witness in order to respond to their essential needs, improve their living conditions and promote respect for their dignity and fundamental rights.**

On its 35th anniversary, Handicap International network changed its name to Humanity & Inclusion.

Our Values: Humanity; Inclusion; Commitment; Integrity**

1.2 About Humanity & Inclusion in the country/region

HI has been registered and operational in Iraq since 1991 and has become a lead implementing agency in the emergency response in the Health and Protection sectors, operating across Ninawa, Kirkuk, Baghdad, Suleymaniah and Diyala Governorates. Since 2014, HI has scaled up its intervention in Iraq to respond to the humanitarian needs generated by the capture of territory by the IS-group, subsequent military operations and the widespread displacement of Iraqi populations.

In line with HI Iraq’s Operational Strategy for the period 2017-2020, the global objective of HI programming in Iraq is to enhance the protection and resilience of conflict-affected communities in Iraq; an objective achieved through an operational framework of three central pillars:

1. Arms Risk Reduction: Reduce the impact of the Conventional Weapon (CW) and Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) for conflict-affected populations through Risk Education and land release
2. Health: Improve access to specific services for the most vulnerable people whose physical and functional and/or psychological integrity is compromised, through the provision of physical rehabilitation and Mental Health/Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) services
3. Access to Essential Services: Ensure equal access to essential services, protection and basic needs for all conflict-affected populations, including persons with disabilities. These pillars are complemented by three cross-cutting themes: a comprehensive approach to mine action, inclusion mainstreaming, and protection mainstreaming.**

2. Context of the evaluation

2.1 Brief Presentation of Project

This project aims to implement a comprehensive project that supports safe returns for conflict displaced persons though providing explosive hazards risk education and victim assistance in Hawija district of Kirkuk governorate. This project is proposed based on HI’s continuous observations and a contextual understanding of needs through ongoing programming in Kirkuk Governorate and coordination with other protection and health actors as well as the Health and Protection Clusters, in addition to the information collected through the following HI assessments and studies.

This project’s primary objective is to support the safe returns and improved access to services for the population of Hawija. Under the primary objective, there are two specific objectives have defined that to implement wide-ranging project activities that fulfill the needs of vulnerable population in Hawija.

Specific objective 1: To improve the health prospects for vulnerable populations in Kirkuk Governorate (with a focus on Hawija and Kirkuk districts).

HI responds the existing gaps in rehabilitation service provision though the provision of direct physical and functional rehabilitation services. HI’s interventions are focused on the rehabilitation of people with disabilities and injuries at Public Health Care Centre facilities (PHCC level). This supports populations in reaching and maintaining their optimal physical levels of functioning and increasing their independence and active participation in the society. Simultaneously HI addresses the psychological distress that has been caused by the many conflicts and accordingly individual experiences of vulnerable people in Hawija. HI provides direct / indirect psychosocial support to people in needs in order to ensure the populations of Hawija receive a comprehensive approach to Victim Assistance.

Further, HI also addresses the needs for improved quality of and access to healthcare services with the goal of ensuring that capacities are transferred to the local populations and ensures the sustainability of the intervention. HI provides a comprehensive package of training for Directorate of Health (DoH) staff aiming at strengthening the rehabilitation service and at promoting early rehabilitation care at PHCC level. This also includes supporting DoH staff with increased Mental Health and Psychosocial support (MHPSS) capacities through training and by raining awareness. HI puts efforts to make sure a more comprehensive quality service to beneficiaries and patients of the PHCCs.

Specific objective 2: To strengthen the capacity of the community to manage the risks posed by explosive hazard contamination

Under the specific objective two, to respond to the explosive hazard contamination HI more emphasizes its interventions to enhance community safety and protection. HI provides Explosive ordnance risk education (EORE) to the at risk communities in Hawija through direct sessions as well as the dissemination of information of Information Education and Communication materials (IEC). This community based EORE approach will be complemented by the training of Community Safety Focal Points (CSFP) to support sustainable, locally owned risk management in EO impacted communities. Further HI also includes creating, training and collaboration of Community Safety Committees in Hawija. This ensures the sustainability of HI’s overall intervention and build local capacities by creating a community safety network that will last further than the implementation of the project.

Through an ECHO project, HI started its response in Hawija at the end of 2018 with the provision of direct services (both physiotherapy and PSS) and the strengthening of existing capacities in Hawija PHCC rehabilitation service until March 2019. This action and approach will be continued in 2019 and 2020 as per HI Kirkuk governorate strategy with the support of DGD Humanitarian Aid.

HI has been working in Northern Iraq for the last 27 years and has an established relationship with local government authorities. HI has constantly collaborated with Directorate of Health, the directorate of displacement and migration, civil society groups and community leaders as well as to ensure the access, safety and protection of HI interventions HI has built close relationship with security forces and civil defense forces. Specifically for this project, HI will work closely with the Directorate of Health (DoH) by strengthening the capacity of local health structures.

The Directorate of Mine Action (DMA) based in Baghdad is the overarching governing body for Mine Action in Iraq, within the Ministry of Environment. The RE projects are normally implemented upon the receipt of DMA’s task orders. HI has been maintaining a quality relationship with DMA for past projects in Kirkuk that benefits HI to receive the fullest cooperation and support from DMA in EORE implementation.

NOTE: Detailed Logical Framework and narrative project documents will be shared upon final selection.

2.2 Implementation Context:

Iraq’s humanitarian situation is characterized by violent conflict, large-scale internal displacement and overwhelming protection needs. The Humanitarian Response Plan for Iraq 2018 highlighted the scale and pace of the displacement in Iraq has made it one of the largest and most volatile in the world. Intense clashes between Islamic State (IS) Group and Iraqi Security Forces (ISF), supported by coalition forces and ongoing conflict throughout Iraq has displaced millions. Over 1.8 million people remain internally displaced in Iraq, 576,030 of which are in Ninawa governorate, with over four million returnees (IOM, December 2018). The 2019 Humanitarian Needs Overview highlights there are 6.7 million people in need in Iraq.

Throughout 2017, military operations were conducted in Ninewa, Kirkuk, Salah Al Din and Anbar to regain territory from the Islamic State (IS) Group, with the Iraqi Prime Minister declaring all Iraqi territory as retaken and under state control in December 2017. However, throughout 2017 and 2018 insecurity continued across many areas of Iraq, due to the presence of ISIS sleeping cells, and escalating disputes between state and non-state armed actors.

Specifically, Hawija district, Kirkuk Governorate[1] has been under IS group control since 2014. Furthermore, in 2017, IS group continued to occupy Hawija district of Kirkuk and launched sporadic attacks on key surrounding routes and villages. The IS group control continued until October 2017 when the ISF retook the district. This has led to the displacement of 380,412 people, many of whom are transiting or seeking refuge in contaminated areas in the Governorate. In addition, IS group activity continued in the area throughout the remainder of 2017 and into 2018 in the form of sleeper cells and random attacks on civilians.

In 2018, in Kirkuk governorate there was a shift in the humanitarian context which included a massive wave of returns of IDPs to their places of origin. As per the last figures (IOM-DTM 31st Oct. 2018), 313,788 individuals returned to their homes (73% of the overall displaced population since 2014). The major returns concerned Kirkuk district (152,952 returnees to date) and Hawija district (138,448). Furthermore, the number of internally displaced people is still large with 113,688 persons displaced in and out of camps in Kirkuk Governorate (with an estimated 40% coming from other governorates, Ninawa and Salah Adin mainly) and about 62,136 individuals from Kirkuk Governorate are also still displaced in other governorates (40% in Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) but also in Ninawa and Salah e Din mainly). In addition, Kirkuk governorate has been highlighted as a key geographic priority in the draft protection cluster priorities for the 2019 Iraq Humanitarian Response Plan in the areas of general protection and mine action interventions.

The authorities were enforcing strongly for the evacuation of the camps despite numerous barriers to returns being identified: house destruction, Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) and Unexploded Ordnances (UXOs) contamination in Hawija, Daquq and Kirkuk district villages, lack of livelihood and insufficient security conditions. This has seen the decrease of around 50% of the IDP camp population in Kirkuk governorate in 2018 to 13,476 people in camps as of November 2018. The remaining camp population is now only counting for 11% of the total IDP numbers in the Governorate. These trends have accordingly contributed to a phenomenon noticed from July 2018 called the “return of returnees” where individuals move from camps or Kirkuk city to the area of origin and then back to Kirkuk district which is now hosting 71,334 individuals (62% of IDPs population in the governorate).

To understand the needs in Iraq and specifically in Hawija we need to look at the explosive hazard contamination as a result of the conflict and past conflicts and the flow on effects of such. The conflict in the country is resulting in large numbers of people sustaining injuries that often result in permanent disability. According to the Action on Armed Violence, Iraq recorded over 68,721 death and injuries from explosive violence in Iraq between 2011 and 2017. In 2017 alone, 8,896 death and injuries were recoded from explosive violence, and out of these 74% were civilians. Furthermore the numerous conflicts and three years of IS group presence in Hawija district, has resulted in significant levels of contamination of explosive hazards including improvised mines, booby traps, Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) and Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs). The victim toll of IED and UXOs in Kirkuk Governorate is not known however the annex attached “Humanitarian access response monthly security incidents situation report” (August 2018) the main concentration of Explosive Hazards is in Kirkuk and specifically in and around Hawija.[2] This is taking place in a country that was already one of the most contaminated in the world due to 40 years of internal and external conflicts. These explosive hazards not only directly threaten civilians with death and injury, but also present a challenge to the safe return of IDPs, to humanitarian response and recovery efforts, and to long term stabilisation efforts. As former IS group land becomes accessible, the vast impact becomes apparent with explosive hazards impeding access to homes, schools, farmland and essential services. It is likely that the numbers of survivors will continue to rise as communities return to contaminated areas, and that casualties and trauma cases will be high. While there is widespread fear of explosive hazards and especially of IEDs in Iraq, people at-risk are frequently not aware of how to identify hazards and of appropriate safe behaviour to adopt. In an HI study conducted in Hawija in July 2017, 40% of adults and 42% of children among the respondents could not identify IEDs among pictures shown to them. Additionally, the perception of danger that explosive hazards could pose to activities of normal life, such as returning to a site that may be contaminated, using land that may be contaminated, and causing injuries fell short of the real danger posed. The findings of the survey showing people’s perception of explosive hazard-related risks indicate a critical need to sensitize people about the risks of explosive hazards and the need to adopt appropriate safe behaviour.

Healthcare in Iraq has primarily been delivered by the Ministry of Health (MoH) through a network of Primary Health care Centres (PHCC), sub centres and district and general hospitals. However since 2014 there has been a vast deterioration in the health care system. The capacities of the Ministry of Health and Directorates of Health to provide health care services continue to be overwhelmed by the rapidly rising numbers and demands of displaced individuals. Funding uncertainty faced by the government contributes to the inadequate level and quality of health care services in Iraq. In recent years, rehabilitation services have been neglected and received little support, most public centres are currently inoperative, the buildings have often fallen into disrepair and physiotherapy equipment is either lacking, outdated, malfunctioning, missing and/or destroyed. A lack of adequate staff and skills on advanced rehabilitation care techniques, acute shortages of medical consumables and assistive devices due to disrupted supply chain and poor monitoring, follow-up and patient referral mechanisms for persons requiring rehabilitation are among the gaps identified by HI.

Specifically in Hawija, the damage of the conflict has resulted in several heath facilities being hit by air strikes, and there were acute shortages in medicines and trained medical staff. The quality and coverage of the healthcare services remains in a severe state of disrepair as most hospitals and clinics suffered conflict-related infrastructure damage, and from lack of services, equipment, and suitably skilled medical personnel. Physical rehabilitation needs have been high well before the conflict with IS group. Moreover, prior to the conflict, Iraq faced a shortage of physical rehabilitation facilities, reported at only 28 in total and all located in provincial capitals, as well as of mental health services, reported at 0.11 outpatient facilities per 100,000 people. With the IS-led proliferation of indiscriminate and/or civilian-targeted explosive hazards, violent urban battles, and the widespread destruction of and damage to healthcare facilities, the gap between persons with traumatic injuries and the availability of physical rehabilitation services has widened. Whilst humanitarian access to the district is currently limited, recent assessment reports have highlighted a severe lack of basic services, including healthcare facilities.

In Hawija there is currently one functioning hospital and one functioning health care centre with two health centres reported as not functional due to damage. Not all forms of health care are available in Hawija leaving residents with the only option of needing to travel to Kirkuk to access healthcare.[3] Over the past six months prior to the assessment only 4% of those surveyed had received health assistance. Without adequate rehabilitation support, the injuries caused by the conflicts and explosive hazards can become leading causes of morbidities, disabilities, and avoidable pain. Experiences of displacement, physical trauma, loss of relatives and friends, the culture of impunity, and the disrupted social fabric are many factors driving psychological distress. In an assessment done on the PHCC in Hawija in November 2018 it was found that there is no staff with an MHPSS background in the PHCC. There are two other actors in the area working on MHPSS, Medair and MSF with Medair withdrawing from the PHCC in Hawija shortly after this assessment. All of the patients observed during the assessment showed signs of emotional distress and more than half of the staff have reported the need for MHPSS.

Access to healthcare is furthermore hindered by the effects of the conflict in the district including the effects on livelihood opportunities and therefore income to pay for transport to and payment of healthcare services. Before IS group presence in Hawija district, it was one of the most important agricultural districts of Iraq contributing to producing vegetables, fruit, wheat and barley. In the post IS group period, only 7% of income sources can be attributed to the agricultural sector and only 30% of those surveyed adults in Hawija were earning an income.[4] In addition 91% of households surveyed reported being in debt. The top reported reason for not being able to access health care was the cost of the services being too high.[5] Moreover, there is a further barrier in the ability to access health care related to the high costs associated with transportation to healthcare facilities.[6] Therefore residents of Hawija District need to travel to Kirkuk City to access specialized healthcare not available in Hawija, which involve additional costs and logistics. In addition, persons with disabilities face additional access barriers linked with physical barriers, and the lack of specialized care at district level. Hence HI sees the provision of cash for health for people in need of accessing specific services as crucial.

2.3 Justification of the Evaluation

As per project design, HI’s evaluation polices and, donor’s requirement, a final evaluation is required to be conducted at the end of the project. The evaluation report and the recommendations will be used for strengthening future projects/programming (learning) and accountability. Besides, the report will be shared with the different stakeholders of the project to disseminate learnings from the programme.

The users of this evaluation will be:

Type

Users

HI Field

Country Director, Operations Coordinator, MEAL coordinator & Technical Unit

At field level: Area Managers, Project Managers and project staff.

HI HQ

Technical Specialists (MEAL and thematic areas), Operations Officer

External Stakeholders

Donors and other technical and operational staff at Field, Country or HQ Level

3. Context of the evaluation

3 Overall objectives and expectations of the evaluation

The final evaluation aims to assess the effectiveness, level of change and sustainability of the project interventions (Interventions include; all activities implemented by HI under DGD funding) as well as the beneficiaries’ level of participation. Furthermore it aims to provide recommendations for future such projects in order to improve access to and quality of services provided to persons with disabilities. In addition, the evaluation shall measure the impact of the intervention on beneficiaries and stakeholders of the project.

3.2 Specific objectives

The specific objectives of this evaluation are:

1. To establish the relevance of the project design and implementation
2. To determine to what extend the project has achieved efficiency in design and implementation.
3. Assess the comprehensiveness of services between physical rehabilitation and MHPSS.
4. To assess the beneficiary satisfaction of services provided
5. Provide recommendations to project stakeholders based on identified best practices and improvement areas. (lessons learned)

The scope of the external evaluation is to analyze the impact (using mix-method approach) of the implemented project in Kirkuk governorate. The evaluation should clearly report on:

• Was the implementation of the proposed project consistent with the initial assessment, design and plan?

• Was the project implementation aligned with general and specific objectives stated in the project proposal?

• Does the project respect the work plan accepted by the donor?

• Has the designed project produced the expected impacts through the implemented activities?

• Have the project inputs been converted into project outputs and outcomes, as planned? (Quality and Quantity)

• Does the project respect the main donor guidelines? (correspondence of Objectives-Outcomes – Outputs – Source of Evidence)

• Does the project take into account and meet the specific needs for persons with disabilities, children, women and elderly?

• According to the achieved Output-Outcomes, should the Organization change its approach or strategy for the upcoming similar project? Any recommendations must be in line with the evolving context of area of operations.

• Has COVID-19 pandemic affected implementation of project or overall, on any aspect of the project. **

• Have the project adaptations- in respond to COIVD-19 pandemic and context changes -were effective and relevant.**

3.3 Evaluation criteria (HI Quality Framework)

HI subscribes to the Quality Framework defined in HI’s Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Policy, which is based on Development Assistance Committee (HI QUALITY FRAMEWORK) having following 5 evaluation criteria for evaluation:

a. Impact,

b. Effectiveness

c. Efficiency

d. Sustainability,

e. Relevance / Appropriateness,

HI also promotes systematic analysis of the monitoring system and cross cutting issues (gender, inclusion, environment, protection etc.).

All HI external/independent evaluations are expected to use HI Quality Framework throughout the whole evaluation process. In particular, the evaluation must complete the following table and include it as part of the final report.

The evaluator will be expected to use the following table to rank the performance of the overall intervention using the HI QUALITY FRAMEWORK criteria. The table should be included either in the executive summary and/or the main body of the report.

Criteria

Rating

Rationale

1: Criteria not Fulfilled
2: Partially Fulfilled
3: Fulfilled.

1

2

3

Impact (Change – Short to Medium Term)

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Sustainability

Relevance / Appropriateness

3.4 Evaluation Questions

The following set of questions shall be answered by this evaluation exercise.

A. CHANGE:

1. How has the project contributed of improving the health outcomes for the conflict-affected populations in Kirkuk Governorate?
2. How has the project contributed of improving the rehabilitation service provision including direct physical and functional rehabilitation services of the conflict affected population?
3. How has the project contributed of improving the MHPSS service provision including direct and indirect psychosocial support of conflict affected population?
4. How has this project contributed of improving the quality of care in the targeted government health services?
5. How has this project contributed to build capacity of the staff of government health services?
6. How has the project contributed in increasing knowledge on the risks posed by explosive hazards and on safe behaviors to adopt among targeted communities?
7. What changes did the project bring out in targeted communities and partners?
8. Were there any longer terms changes in targeted communities and partners through various sectors of intervention? Is approach adequate enough for longer term impacts? What are the strengths and weaknesses of various approaches?
9. What were the unintended/unplanned changes? Overall from all aspects and especially considering the COVID19 impacts.
10. Did project contribute to risk mitigation through the alternative projects like e.g. implementation of playgrounds was?
11. Did the establishment of CSCs contribute to community resilience improvement and if the community fill more in center of planning and decision making after the intervention

B. EFFECTIVENESS:

1. To what extent were the projects objectives achieved? Were the targets realistic? To what extent the targets were achieved?
2. Did the outputs lead to the intended outcomes? What is the strength of the relations between outcomes with its corresponding outputs?

C. EFFICIENCY:

1. Were stocks and required services available on time and in the right quantities and quality?
2. Were activities implemented on schedule and within budget?
3. Were the processes of inputs to outputs conversion optimal?

D. SUSTAINABILITY:

1. Are the project interventions contributes the local communities to remain sustainability after project ends?
2. Are the benefits likely to be maintained for an extended period after the project ends?
3. What were the aspects of the project that contributes to sustainability?
4. Has the project significantly reduced the vulnerability of all concerned beneficiaries?

E. RELEVANCE

1. Were the project objectives consistent with beneficiaries’ needs and context; and with Humanity and Inclusion policies and strategies?**
2. To what extent did the project meets the needs of the direct beneficiaries?

The evaluation report is expected to provide sets of:

a. Best Practices

b. Lessons Learned

c. Recommendations

4. Evaluation methodology

4.1 Methodology

The general approach is defined here, as methodology shall come from the evaluator based on the evaluation criteria, questions, and COVID19 situation. The evaluator shall adopt a mixed-method approach where following data collection tools maybe applied.

1. Secondary data analysis and reviews with existing data management approaches and M&E Systems in place. The mission has established M&E department at coordination level and is under process of expansion and strengthening of existing systems.
2. Beneficiary survey (if feasible)
3. House-hold Interviews (semi-structured including both open ended and close-ended questions)
4. Key Informant Interviews
5. Focus Groups discussion
6. Phone Interviews (structured and semi-structured)
7. Observations in the field
8. Interviews with relevant staff

POINTS OF ATTENTION

· Please note that all the data collection tools shall cover all quality framework points under study

· The field data collection exercise will take place in Kirkuk governorate.

· Consultants are expected to collect an appropriate range of data using Mix-method approach. This includes (but not limited to):

a. Direct information: Interviews/group discussions with beneficiaries and related stakeholders – observation visit to project sites and to the facilities provided to the beneficiaries

b. Indirect information: Secondary information analysis: including analysis of project monitoring data or of any other relevant statistical data.

4.2 Actors involved in the evaluation

HI Program team

HI technical team (coordination level)

Local Partners:

Beneficiaries: beneficiaries from Hawija

Relevant Key Government Agencies: DoH / DMA and key cluster NGO departments

Management: This evaluation will be coordinated by Coordination office of HI in Erbil. The lead focal point for this exercise will be MEAL Coordinator HI with the support of an Evaluation Committee comprising of Project Managers, Technical and support unit staff and MEAL staff of HI.

External Stakeholders: Consultant and their team will work with targeted populations, community leaders/representatives, donor, local authorities, and other NGO actors in the field, cluster representatives and other related stakeholders.

5. Principles and values

5.1. Protection and Anti-Corruption Policy

Selected consultant(s) and the team will comply with the following institutional policies and values of Humanity & Inclusion.

• Adapting participatory approach
• Respect security policies, protocols and procedures
• Child Protection Policy
• Protection of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse Policy
• Code of Conduct Policy
• HI Values

Humanity: Our work is underpinned by the value of humanity. We include everyone, without exception and champion each individual’s right to dignity. Our work is guided by respect, benevolence and humility.

Inclusion: We advocate inclusion and participation for everyone, upholding diversity, fairness and individual choices. We value difference.

Commitment: We are resolute, enthusiastic and bold in our commitment to developing tailored, pragmatic and innovative solutions. We take action and rally those around us to fight injustice.

Integrity: We work in an independent, professional, selfless and transparent manner.

Follow the following links to review HI *Code of Conduct, Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment, Child Protection Policy and Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy

*Code of Conduct

*Protection of beneficiaries from sexual exploitation, abuse and harassment

*Child Protection Policy

*Anti-fraud and anti-corruption policy

**5.2. Ethical measures***

As part of each evaluation, HI is committed to upholding certain ethical measures. It is imperative that these measures are taken into account in the technical offer:

o Guarantee the safety of participants, partners and teams: the technical offer must specify the risk mitigation measures.

o Ensuring a person/community-centered approach: the technical offer must propose methods adapted to the needs of the target population (e.g. tools adapted for illiterate audiences / sign language / child-friendly materials, etc.).

o Obtain the free and informed consent of the participants: the technical proposal must explain how the evaluator will obtain the free and informed consent and/or assent of the participants.

o Ensure the security of personal and sensitive data throughout the activity: the technical offer must propose measures for the protection of personal data. **

*These measures may be adapted during the completion of the inception report.

5.3. Participation of stakeholders and beneficiaries

Mention the involvement of stakeholders and beneficiaries in the evaluation:

• Involvement of partners in surveys
• Consultation of beneficiaries in the construction of the tools
• Etc…

5.4. Others

Report on safety aspects

Report on sensitive aspects requiring discretionary measures

6. Expected deliverables and proposed schedule

6.1. Deliverables

ü An inception report refining / specifying the proposed methodology for answering the evaluation questions and an action plan. This inception report will have to be validated by the Steering Committee.

ü A presentation document presenting the first results, conclusions and recommendations, to be presented to the Steering Committee.

ü All the transcripts and data in hard and soft will be handed over to HI.

ü A final report of approximately 30 pages maximum and the following annexes. For details have a look at the attached format in the following section.

The evaluation exercise will have the following expected milestones and deliverables.

1. Inception report specifying the methodology

2. Preliminary findings Workshop with Evaluation Committee.

3. Draft report and a possible feedback document to provide feedback

4. Final report, with PowerPoint presentation and summary (mandatory)

The final report should be integrated into the following template:

The quality of the final report will be reviewed by the Steering Committee of the evaluation using this checklist:

**

**

6.2. End-of-Evaluation Questionnaire

An end-of-evaluation questionnaire will be given to the evaluator and must be completed by him/her, a member of the Steering Committee and the person in charge of the evaluation.

6.3. Evaluation dates and schedule

Total mission duration may vary (may add few additional days0, (Preferable Evaluation shall be completed before mid of August 2021)

Activities

Evaluator

Working Days

Evaluation briefing with Evaluation Committee (Skype or face-to-face)

1

Desk review, preparation of field work in close coordination with evaluation focal point of HI

5

Inception Report (including data collection tools)

3

Travel and security brief

2

Field work, which includes collection of primary data, meetings with stakeholders and analysis of available secondary data.

7

Debrief Workshop in-country & Presentation of Preliminary findings

3

Draft Report

5

Feedback from HI Management and Final Report with Data sets

5

Total:

31 working days

7. Means

8.1 Expertise sought from the consultant(s)

1. Relevant degree / equivalent experience related to the evaluation to be undertaken.
2. Previous evaluation / research experience in the middle east
3. Knowledge of relevant Projects/programming with relevant experience for Multi-sectorial and integrated approaches
4. Significant field experience in the evaluation of humanitarian / development projects in similar themes
5. Significant experience in coordination, design, implementation, monitoring and evaluation of programs
6. Ability to independently access and travel to the project location in KRG and Federal Iraq
7. Experience in OECD- Criteria based evaluations.
8. Sound Statistical and analytical skills.
9. Good communications skills and experience of workshop facilitation
10. Ability to write clear and useful reports (may be required to produce examples of previous work)
11. Fluent in English (Arabic/Kurdish will be an asset)
12. Understanding of donor requirements
13. Ability to manage the available time and resources and to work on tight deadlines

8.2 Budget allocated to the evaluation

Statement of the budgetary modalities that the candidate must detail in his offer: the cost per day for each evaluator; the breakdown of the time spent per evaluator and per stage of work; the ancillary costs (services and additional documents); the overall cost of the intervention including transport costs (international and local), logistics costs, translation costs; with proposals for payment modalities.

7.3. Available resources made available to the evaluation team

(Data, documents, housing, software …)

• Evaluation Toolkit
• Project Proposal and Log-frame
• Project Budget
• Assessments/studies
• Reports
• Dataset of beneficiaries (anonymous)
• Any other related documentation to evaluate the project
• Set of Institutional policies of HI
• Project Data
• M&E reports

7.4. Required documentation and resources from consultant(s)**

• Legal and valid registration.
• Evidence that government taxes have been paid
• The consultant(s) are responsible for personal/life/travel and health insurance during the evaluation for themselves and their team(s).
• Proof that the Service Provider has paid social security contributions.
• Certificate from your tax office or equivalent.
• The consultant(s) will also provide any necessary materials (including their own laptops) required for the evaluation.

8.2 Financial Proposal

The financial proposal should outline:

1. Total Cost
2. Cost per day of each contributor;
3. Additional costs (additional services and documents);
4. Transport costs (international and local),
5. logistics costs,
6. translation costs;
7. With agreement proposed schedule of payments.

8.3 Schedule of Payment

Upon submitting the proposals the consultants’ agree upon the below given schedule of payments

· 30% upon contract signature

· 70% upon approval of final draft of the evaluation report with presentation and summary.

All payments will be made upon reception of invoice and signature of the selected consultants, by cheque in USD/EUROS, under the name of the contracting parties. The offer and payments are subject to in-country fiscal regulations applicable and fulfillment of deliverables.

9. Appendices

· HI’s Quality Framework*, on which all evaluators must base their evaluation.*

· The Disability – Gender – Age Policy*, which must guide the approach and the construction of evaluation tools in the technical offer.*

· Etc…

Following Annexes will be shared with the selected consultant.

1. Evaluation Protocol and Standard procedure

2. Inception Report Template

3. PME Policy

4. Report Template

5. Related documentation of the project (log frame, proposal, budget, reports, assessments etc.)

6. Assessing quality of the Evaluation – Template

7. Child Protection Policy

8. Protection, Sexual, Exploitation and Abuse Policy

9. Code of Conduct Policy

[1] Kirkuk governorate located in Northern Iraq is divided between 4 districts (Debis, Hawija, Kirkuk and Daquq) and the provincial capital is Kirkuk city.

[2] See Annex: Humanitarian access response monthly security incidents situation report (August 2018), Section 1.2 Explosive Hazard – total number of Explosive Hazards

[3] Area-Based Assessment Hawija City Preliminary findings presentation, 6th December 2018

[4] Area-Based Assessment Hawija City Preliminary findings presentation, 6th December 2018

[5] Area-Based Assessment Hawija City Preliminary findings presentation, 6th December 2018

[6] RPA Hawija January 2018