Power To Choose Mid-Term Review Consultant Terms of Reference (ToR) At Oxfam

Terms of reference Program/project title Power To Choose Partner organisation/s Forearms For Change Geographical coverage: country(ies) National / Jordan / Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa

1. Overview, Objectives, and Guiding Principles.

A. Project Overview Oxfam has been in Jordan since the 1990s. We work with local partners in Jordan for a future where everyone can reach their full potential, especially women and young people. We provide essential humanitarian assistance to Syrian refugees as well as vulnerable Jordanians, while promoting longer term sustainable solutions to challenges facing Jordan, with a focus on Climate Justice, Economic Justice, and Gender Justice. Under the Gender Justice program, Oxfam in Jordan is implementing the “Power to Choose” initiative.

This project contributes to achieving equitable access to inclusive health services and supports stakeholders to advocate for evidence-based health care policies.

The initiative builds on Oxfam’s expertise in using a right-based and gender responsive approach and has a focus on reaching vulnerable women and young people in Jordan.

This initiative contributes to Sustainable Development Goal (SDG) 3, to ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all, and SDG 5 to achieve gender equality and empower women and girls. Since August 2023, Oxfam has been partnering with Forearms for change, a civil society organization, working in three governorates in Jordan (Amman, Irbid, and Zarqa) to improve sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), specifically by implementing three main activities 1) creating or reinforcing safe spaces to facilitate access to information and to develop a sense of empowerment, hope, and control; 2) Raising awareness with community leaders, religious leaders, and parents on creating or promoting an enabling environment for SRHR; and 3) providing SRH services to young women and adolescent girls. B. Objectives and guiding principles of the evaluation:

• Assess Relevance: o Evaluate the continued relevance of the project objectives and design in light of any changes in the local context and beneficiary needs. • Measure Effectiveness: o Assess the progress made towards achieving the project’s specific objectives and intended outcomes. o Identify the key factors that have facilitated or impeded the achievement of these objectives.

2 • Evaluate Efficiency: o Analyze the efficiency of project implementation, including the use of financial, human, and material resources. o Determine whether the project has been cost-effective in delivering its outputs.

• Enhancing sustainability: o Provide insights on the potential for sustainability and recommend actions to sustain gains made during the project.

C. Program Principles: The following principles should inform this MTR, impacting the MTR design: a. Feminist Approach

• Ensure gender sensitivity and stakeholder engagement by implementing a feminist MEAL (Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning) approach.

• Use the process of conducting the mid-term evaluation to contribute to transformative change that the program seeks to contribute to.

• Focus on incremental and feasible solutions and actions.

b. Gender Transformation • Apply a gender-transformative and intersectional lens to ensure inclusivity of diverse groups.

• Collect views from diverse rights holders, considering disaggregation by gender, age, and other relevant categories. c. Conflict Sensitivity

• Conduct the evaluation adhering to conflict-sensitivity principles while managing participant expectations.

• Do no harm approach, considering how participating in the evaluation and sharing sensitive information about SRHR may affect stakeholders involved psychologically and socially.

1. Key questions of the evaluation The following key evaluation questions have been developed to guide the mid-term evaluation of the Power To Choose. These questions aim to provide a comprehensive assessment of the project’s impact, relevance, and efficiency. By addressing these questions, the project review shall generate valuable insights into the project’s performance and effectiveness, informing future project implementation and decision-making in the following themes:

• Bodily autonomy • Agency around SRHR • Capacity to make informed life decisions on SRHR

• Gender equity • Social inclusion (class, marital status, gender identity, sexual orientation, ability, displacement, geography, ethnicity) And other themes that will be agreed upon with the selected consultant. 3 A. Are We Generating Change? This question focuses on the impact and outcomes of the project. It seeks to understand whether the project is making a meaningful difference in the lives of the beneficiaries.

• What measurable changes have occurred among the beneficiaries since the start of the project?

• How have the project activities contributed to these changes?

• Are there any unintended positive or negative outcomes resulting from the project?

• How do beneficiaries perceive the changes in their lives due to the project? B. Are We Doing the Right Thing? This question addresses the relevance of the project. It evaluates whether the project activities and objectives are aligned with the needs and priorities of the target population and the broader context.

• To what extent do the project objectives address the needs and priorities of the target beneficiaries? • How well does the project align with the local context and the priorities of stakeholders, including partners and donors? • How do stakeholders perceive the relevance and appropriateness of the project activities? C. Are We Doing Things Right? This question examines the efficiency and effectiveness of the project implementation. It focuses on whether the project is being managed and executed in a way that maximizes resource use and achieves desired outcomes. • How efficiently are the project resources (time, money, human resources) being used to achieve the outputs and outcomes? • What challenges have been encountered during project implementation, and how have they been addressed? • Are the project activities being implemented according to the planned timeline and budget? • What best practices and lessons learned can be identified to improve project implementation? 3. Scope of the evaluation and approach and methods, establishing the basic methodological requirements The MTR methodology, including all relevant tools, should be fully developed by the consultant, and presented in the inception report. This should be designed within possible limitations posed by the sensitivity of the collected data, and the opportunities of more ‘blended’ work with our implementing partner. The MTR methodology should aim to ensure all targeted groups are sampled for the evaluation questions. The evaluation should involve analysis of new and existing qualitative and quantitative data and the updated context analysis as part of this MTR. The data for this analysis will initially come from the project’s existing research and documentation, including Baseline report, Annual Reports and other MEAL data related to the project framework that will be shared with the consultant once being selected as part of the desk review. 4 A. Stakeholder Engagement The consultant should ensure that the involvement of stakeholders is meaningful and comprehensive, incorporating their insights and feedback throughout the process. Stakeholders/ partners Involved: 1. Oxfam Staff. 2. Partner Organizations. 3. SRHR Healthcare Providers. 4. SRHR experts. B. Types of Participation 1. Observation: Stakeholders shall observe the data collection process to ensure transparency and accuracy. 2. Information Source: Stakeholders shall provide critical data and insights through interviews, surveys, and focus group discussions. 3. Active Participation: Stakeholders shall actively participate in workshops and discussions, contributing to the analysis and interpretation of findings. 4. Logistical Support: Some stakeholders may assist with the logistical aspects of the evaluation, such as arranging meetings and focus groups. C. Ensuring Effective Stakeholder Engagement 1. Inclusivity: Ensure that all relevant stakeholders, including marginalized groups, have the opportunity to participate. 2. Cultural Sensitivity: Respect cultural norms and practices in the engagement process. 3. Informed Consent: Obtain informed consent from all participants, ensuring they understand the purpose and process of the MTR. 4. Feedback Mechanism: Establish a mechanism for stakeholders to provide ongoing feedback throughout the MTR process. 4. Timeline, and deliverables A. Timeline: Mid-Term Review Expected Timeline Feminist MEAL workshop (Participation required) 9/16/2024 9/30/2024 4-day workshop 9/16/2024 9/23/2024 Check-in meeting 9/24/2024 9/24/2024 Feminist MEAL workshop final report/feedback 9/25/2024 9/30/2024 Inception report (by consultant) 10/1/2024 10/17/2024 First draft, including full planned methodology and proposed tools. 10/1/2024 10/6/2024 Feedback on inception report 10/7/2024 10/10/2024 Revised inception report 10/13/2024 10/14/2024 Sharing the final version of the inception report 10/15/2024 10/15/2024 Check-in meeting 10/16/2024 10/16/2024 Data collection (by consultant) 10/17/2024 11/12/2024 5 Preparations of the data collection tools (KII/FGD/Quantitative) 10/17/2024 10/23/2024 Developing the list of interviews of KIIs 10/17/2024 10/23/2024 Piloting tools 10/24/2024 10/27/2024 Data collection 10/28/2024 11/11/2024 Progress check-in meeting 11/12/2024 11/12/2024 Final report (by consultant) 11/13/2024 12/24/2024 Data Cleaning (quantitative and qualitative) 11/13/2024 11/14/2024 Data analysis 11/17/2024 11/20/2024 Draft report write-up 11/21/2024 11/28/2024 Internal revision + Partners 12/1/2024 12/4/2024 Report finalization + sharing the report internally 12/5/2024 12/9/2024 Findings/results presentation session 12/17/2024 12/17/2024 Recommendation discussion workshop to set action plan 12/24/2024 12/24/2024 Note: The timeline is subject to modification and revision based on the actual implementation progress. Consequently, it is important to note that the consultant may be requested to extend the contract as necessary. Once the MTR implementation has begun, four phases are distinguished: • Phase one: Inception. Extensive desk review of available reviews and reports is conducted, and initial interviews with key stakeholders involved in the program. This phase is concluded when: o Evaluators participate in a 3-day workshop with key stakeholders, partner organizations and Oxfam staff with the objectives of structuring the feminist approach to the evaluation and, advancing drafts of data collection tools with stakeholders and building a common understanding of the feminist MEAL approach o An inception report is produced by the consultant with the first findings of the desk review and interviews, as well as with the conclusions of the previously mentioned workshop and the full proposed methodology, including data collection tools and sampling. o The evaluators have developed an evaluation framework and related research proposal (included in the Inception report) which is reviewed by key stakeholders. • Phase two: Data collection and analysis. This phase mainly concerns conducting research. • Phase three: Feedback and Validation. The first draft should receive feedback from the Oxfam and Forearms. It should be tabled for sense making and validation to groups of stakeholders during workshop(s) for one or two days. The design (methodology) of workshops is the responsibility of the consultant. Based on the results of the workshop, the consultant shall draft a second version of the draft report to be presented for review.

• Phase four:

Reporting. Based on the feedback of key stakeholders, the evaluators prepare the third and final draft of the report for review. This phase is concluded when the report signs off the third and final draft, which serves as the MTR report. 6 B.

Deliverables:

The following deliverables are part of this MTR:

• Inception report, including updated evaluation questions and a clear evaluation matrix, describing indicators and methods to be used for each evaluation question in English.

• Raw and processed data, of both qualitative and quantitative data.

• Validation and sensemaking workshops, including summary of findings and participants.

• Identified and anonymized success stories amongst beneficiaries to illustrate impact of the programme • Draft MTR reports (first and second versions);

• Final MTR report in English.

5. Evaluation team (consultant) qualifications and skills required:

A. Experience in evaluating the content and intervention strategies relevant to SRHR

B. Having previously performed at least two assignments that are comparable in content

C. Good understanding of participatory, MEAL and feminist/gender transformative MEAL

D. A minimum of 5 years of experience in conducting quantitative and qualitative research

E. Exposure to principles of partnering and local leadership

F. Excellent communications skills in English, including advanced writing skills

G. Strong communication skills in Arabic

H. Demonstrated experience with feminist research and feminist evaluation

I. Strong analytical skills and the ability to translate research findings into actionable recommendations. 6. Submission Requirement Technical Proposal:

A. Introduction: • introduction of the proposing individual or firm.

• Overview of relevant experience in the field of SRHR and feminist evaluation.

B. Methodology: 7

• Detailed description of the proposed Mid-Term Review methodology, including the approach to conducting the feminist quantitative and qualitative data collection.

• Explanation of how the proposed methodology aligns with the objectives outlined in the ToR. • Explanation of how intersectional analyses will be applied. C. Evaluation Team: • All members of the consultancy teams must adhere to Oxfam’s feminist values and principles. • Presentation of the qualifications and expertise of the proposed team, highlighting relevant experience in SRHR and feminist evaluation methodologies and approaches and any specific knowledge of the Jordanian context. • The evaluation team should consist of males and females, preferably 50% women. D. Timeline: • Clear and realistic timeline outlining key milestones and activities for the entire duration of the Mid-Term Review. E. Sample of previous undertakings. Financial Proposal:

F. Budget Breakdown:

• Detailed breakdown of the budget, including costs associated with literature review, data collection, analysis, stakeholder consultations, and any other relevant expenses.

• Transparent explanation of how each budget item contributes to the successful completion of the research. G. Cost Effectiveness:

• Demonstration of cost-effectiveness in relation to the proposed scope of work and deliverables.

• Any potential cost-saving measures or efficiencies that will be implemented.

H. Payment Schedule:

• Proposed payment schedule linked to the completion of specific deliverables or milestones.

• Clearly defined payment terms and conditions.

• The proposed payment should be inclusive of all applicable taxes. 8 I. Payment Terms:

• Proposed payment terms, such as installment details or milestone-based payments. J. Ethical Considerations:

• Explanation of how ethical guidelines will be adhered to during the research process.

• Documentation of any necessary approvals from relevant institutional review boards.

• Maintain strict confidentiality of all data collected or received during the consultancy.

No information should be disclosed to third parties without Oxfam’s written consent.

7. Process of the selection of the evaluator or evaluation team will include seventy (130) points of the overall score, under the following criteria.

Criteria Maximum point Completeness of proposal

20 Methodology 20 Up to three similar undertakings 20 Technical validity of proposed methodologies and data quality assurance procedures 20 Experience -qualified and relevant proposed staff 20 Evaluation of financial Proposals shall be done only for those companies meeting minimum score for technical proposal.

• Thirty (30) points shall be the maximum total score given to the financial component (price).

• Upon opening all the financial proposals, the maximum score is given to the lowest price proposal. All other price

• proposals from interested consultants shall be allocated scores in inverse proportion to the lowest price. Financial Proposal Formula: Score of the financial proposal X = Max. Score of the financial component (30) * Lowest bid price (comparison factor) / Price of the proposal X