Lead Evaluator (consultancy) At International Federation of Red Cross And Red Crescent Societies

The IFRC Country Delegation for Greece is looking for a lead evaluator and optionally up to one additional evaluation team member or a consulting organisation for the Final Evaluation of the MDR65003 Greece: Population Movement Emergency Appeal Operation.

Planned timeframe: Timeframe of the evaluation: September – October 2022.

Location: Greece, all major operational points (primarily Attica region, Ritsona Site, and Thessaloniki)

Programmes: by key sectors that have been funded through the Emergency Appeal.

1.1. Purpose: The International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) seeks to evaluate the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency and sustainability of the Greece: Population Movement (MDR65003) Emergency Appeal which had the operational timeframe of March 2020 to September 2022. 1.2. Audience: The findings will be the basis for the Hellenic Red Cross, IFRC and Partner National Societies (PNS) to inform future planning and response preparedness for similar operations in the future. 1.3. Commissioners: This evaluation is being commissioned by the IFRC Regional Office for Europe jointly with the IFRC Country Delegation in Greece in compliance with its Evaluation Policy for final evaluations. The co-commissioners are Birgitte Bischoff Ebbesen, Regional Director and Jessie Thomson Head of Delegation for Greece. 1.4. Consultant or consulting organisation: A lead evaluator and optionally up to one additional evaluation team member or a consulting organisation not directly involved with this project. If two evaluators apply jointly, the name of the lead evaluator must be indicated in the application. 1.5. Reports to: The evaluator(s) will report to the Evaluation Management Team (EMT). Whilst in Greece (if COVID-19 related situation allows in-country presence), the evaluator(s) will be under the management of the IFRC Head of Delegation in Greece. If a single evaluator applies, a Research Assistant may be recruited locally through a separate process to support the evaluation. 1.6. Duration: 6 weeks (including briefings, desktop review, field work, report writing, presentation, and follow-up). Maximum 35 days covered by consultancy fees (can be divided between two evaluators if necessary). 1.7. Timeframe: 15 September 2022 – 31 October 2022, with a possibility of a 2 week no-cost extension for report finalization. 1.8. Methodology summary: Secondary data review, key informant interviews with stakeholders across different levels and, internal discussions, analysing the quantitative data available from the project interventions and other evaluations/PDMs over the lifecycle of the project, validation on a Lessons Learned Workshop. 1.9. Location: Remotely for desktop review and in Greece for the primary data collection. 1.10. Application requirements: The consultancy for this final evaluation requires understanding of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement and experience of evaluating postdisaster relief and recovery programmes. The evaluator will be responsible for the outcome of the evaluation.

Background Please refer to this link for reports on the Emergency Appeal operation: https://www.ifrc.org/appeals?date_from=&date_to=&appeal_code=MDR65003&text=

Evaluation Objectives Objectives: Objective 1: To assess the overall achievements (responsiveness, impact and quality) of services implemented under the Emergency Plan of Action: • Do project objectives correspond with identified needs? Were the intervention choices appropriately prioritised to meet the most urgent needs first? • What mechanisms were put in place to capture community’s complaints/feedback, and how accountable was the project to implement the feedback and follow up with the community? • How do beneficiaries and other stakeholders involved perceive the effects of the intervention on themselves? To what extent did the services provided made a difference? • To what extent do the activities reach the target population and were there any factors that hindered the ability to reach the population most in need? To what extent did the intended recipients have access to the services provided? • What was the impact of COVID-19 and public health restrictions on the Emergency Appeal’s implementation? How did programs adapt in the face of this change in context? Were appropriate and timely adaptations made in response to changes in the environment? • How effective were processes for planning, monitoring and quality management (e.g. use of assessment data, internal reviews and other quality assurance mechanisms)? • How gender and diversity needs, and potential differentiated impacts analysed, accounted for, and integrated in programming, monitoring and reporting processes? Objective 2: To assess HRC and IFRC collaboration, including the efficiency and relevance of IFRC support and identify lessons learned for other operations in the context of the Emergency Appeal • How did IFRC add value through its operational and strategic coordination in this context? Did the IFRC ways of working with the National Society foster collaboration between sectors/divisions? How could this have been improved/adapted to produce better results? • How was trust, communication and coordination between HRC and IFRC impacted by the HRC’s suspension in 2019 and how did this impact information sharing, data sharing, communication and collaboration? • Did the IFRC presence in Greece enable donor support post-suspension? If so, how/why? • How did the funding mechanisms impact the effectiveness of the response? What was the level, type and timing of earmarking under the appeal and how did this impact the delivery of activities, flexibility and alignment with needs? How did the numerous parallel funding challenges and lack of a unified plan impact program effectiveness and efficiency? • How did delays in financial reporting impact program quality, program management and oversight and planning for financial sustainability of the program? • How did the IFRC logistics requirements on specific items (especially on medicines) impacted the operation and the timely delivery of services to the beneficiaries? Public Objective 3: To assess whether the EA reinforced the National Society’s capacity in the area of Migration • Were there newly established capacities following the appeal that can be sustained? • Did the interventions result in enhanced institutional capacity of the HRC across different levels? • How the emergency response has influenced the status and external cooperation of the HRC in its auxiliary role, and with other organisations within the national context? • What are potential opportunities for continued collaboration between NS and authorities or other relevant stakeholders?

Criteria: DAC + IFRC Framework for Evaluation

The methodology needs to include: review and analysis of key documents, key informant interviews with Host and Partner National Society stakeholders, IFRC personnel, government authorities and other relevant NGOs active in country (FGDs, and individual interviews), people reached and affected communities. The evaluator can suggest other methodologies.