Consultant- Evaluator for an EU-Funded Project

Invitation for the submission of applications for the external evaluation of the EU-funded project “CARE – Community Based Primary Prevention of GBV in Greece and Italy”

International Rescue Committee (IRC) Hellas, as the coordinating organization of the CARE project, is launching an open call for external evaluation services within the framework of the project “CARE – Community Based Primary Prevention of GBV in Greece and Italy” (Project No. 101097118) co-funded by the ‘Citizens, Equality, Rights and Values’ Programme of the European Union (CERV–2022–DAPHNE).

Title

Evaluation Consultant CARE project

Total number of consultants

1

Department

IRC Hellas

Proposed Dates

April 2024 – May 2024 (2 months)

Duration

25 Days

Type of Contract

Master Independent Service Agreement

Reports to

Project Manager (Women Protection & Empowerment Manager)

1. Project Information

Project Title

CARE – Community Based Primary Prevention of GBV in Greece and Italy

Project Period

01.02.2023 – 30.07.2024 (18 months)

Lead Partner

IRC Hellas (with activities also in Italy)

Project Partners

Caritas Hellas, Centro Penc, Global Girl Media Greece

Project Location

Athens, Greece and Palermo, Italy

1. Background

IRC HELLAS BACKGROUND

IRC Hellas was established in Greece in 2015. It focuses on assisting refugees and asylum seekers as well as vulnerable people from other communities in Greece. Since the start of programming in Greece, the IRC has provided support and protection services to people living in camps and urban settings. Directly, or in collaboration with partners, in 2023 we have provided mental health and psychosocial and legal support in Lesvos and Athens, employability and labor market integration services in Thessaloniki and Athens, and child protection, women empowerment and gender equality and inclusion services in Athens, while nationwide we support people with vital, reliable, and up-to-date information, protection for people with vulnerabilities, as well as advocacy.

PROJECT BACKGROUND

The CARE project is implemented by four civil society partners from Greece and Italy (IRC Hellas with IRC Italy secondments, Caritas Hellas, Centro Penc, Global Girl Media Greece) with expertise in women’s and girls’ empowerment to contribute towards the prevention of gender-based violence (GBV) against women and girls, with a focus on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV). This will be achieved by tackling the root causes of GBV through community-based interventions that engage women, men, and their children, as well as women-led media dissemination activities for the general public. CARE will be implemented in Athens, Greece and in Palermo, Italy, reaching a total of 400 direct beneficiaries (200 women and adolescent girls, 100 men, and 100 children). In addition, 70,000 people are expected to be reached in the context of an online media campaign.

1. Purpose of the External Evaluation

The overall objective of the external evaluation is to provide an unbiased and critical assessment of the level to which the envisaged aims and results of the project have been achieved, identifying both the successes and any specific shortcomings of the products, processes, and outputs, including the impact on beneficiaries of project activities. The findings of the evaluation will be used to inform and improve future programming. A description of the scope of the evaluation and indicative evaluation questions is included at the end of the Terms of Reference as Appendix A and B.

1. Evaluation Approach and Methods

A variety of methodologies will be applied to collect information during the evaluation. These methodologies include the following:

1. A review of non-confidential documents relevant to the CARE project activities. These will be provided by the IRC Office in Athens, Greece staff, and documentation available with the partner organizations. Documentation to be reviewed will include:
2. IRC Strategic Action Plan for Greece
3. Original project document, Extension, amendments, workplans, supervision and assessment templates used during implementation
4. Project logframe and theory of change
5. Reports/deliverables submitted to the donor, including curricula used and adapted for the project activities.
6. Key informant interviews (KII) and consultations, including focus group discussions (FGDs) (when possible) with the project management, project beneficiaries, key stakeholders, including project partners. The criteria for the selection of stakeholders to be interviewed shall be clarified in the inception report at the beginning of the evaluation.
7. Consultancy Schedule

The evaluation will take an estimated 25 days of work between April and May 2024. It shall be conducted remotely and through in-person interviews. The consultant is expected to prepare an evaluation plan that will operationalize the evaluation. In the inception report, the consultant shall illustrate understanding of the evaluation questions, and elaborate on methods to be used, limitations or constraints to the evaluation, and schedules and delivery dates to guide the implementation of the evaluation. The timeline of the evaluation is as follows:

Activity

Month 1

(April)

• Review project documents
• Draft detailed evaluation plan / inception report
• Approval of evaluation plan / inception report
• Design data collection tools (survey, interview guides, and others as needed)

Month 1-2

(April-May)

• Collect data for evaluation
• Analyze evaluation findings
• Write and submit evaluation report
• Address questions from IRC and revise and edit report
• Present evaluation findings – External Evaluation Report (including lessons learned and best practices to the IRC team in Athens, Greece and other key stakeholders)

1.Deliverables

IRC expects the consultancy to result in the following deliverables:

1. A comprehensive evaluation plan (inception report), which will include a detailed workplan. Once approved, it will become the key management document for the evaluation.
2. Relevant data collection tools.
3. Final accessible, utilization-focused evaluation report written in English and following a standard format of an evaluation report, including an executive summary, introduction, methodology, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, recommendations, and appendices. The report shall not exceed 50 pages.
4. Briefing to IRC Hellas, including presentation slides summarizing findings and recommendations of evaluation report.
5. Work and Deliverables Schedule and Effort and Terms of Payment

The deliverables should be submitted as follows:

Description

# days

Done by

Review project Documents

Deliverable: Inception report, workplan, and data collection tools

April 15, 2024

Collection of Data for the evaluation (Interviews, FGDs – Field Work)

Deliverable: First draft evaluation report. Analyze Evaluation Findings – Write and Submit Draft Report

May 15, 2024

Deliverable: Final evaluation report and briefing to IRC CARE team including presentation slides, after revising report and addressing questions

May 31, 2024

Total

25 days

Terms of payment

The evaluator is to receive payment from IRC Hellas in three instalments:

• 1st Payment: 30 % upon signing of the contract;

• 2nd Payment: 30 % upon the submission of the first draft of the evaluation report;

• Final Payment: 40 % upon the submission of the final evaluation report, subject to its acceptance by IRC Hellas

IRC Hellas will not settle payments unless the consultancy institution accomplished all the tasks in a timely fashion. The basis for payment scheduling is to be determined during contract negotiations.

The cost of the consultancy includes everything related to the consultancy, including but not limited to prints, travel, and accommodation costs.

1. Consultant Location

The locations to be assessed are Athens, Greece and Palermo, Italy. During the evaluation process, feedback shall be received from beneficiaries, partners’ staff, external partners, and other organizations that the partners have cooperated with for the implementation of the project activities.

The consultancy is home-based, with in-person meetings in Athens and/or Palermo to conduct KIIs and FGDs, when applicable. The cost of travel and accommodation at one location – Athens/Palermo will be covered by the consultant (successful candidate should be based in Greece or Italy). The KIIs and FGDs at the second location will be conducted online.

Candidate’s Profile and Qualification

The evaluation consultant should meet the following, required skills and competence profile:

▪ Specialization/extensive experience in conducting evaluations, particularly through participatory evaluation processes, and a proven record in delivering professional results.

▪ In-depth knowledge and experience in refugee and/or gender-based violence projects evaluation

▪ Knowledge of strategic and operational management of humanitarian operations, as well as proven ability to provide strategic and practical recommendation to key stakeholders

▪Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and prepare well-written reports in a timely manner

▪ Experience in qualitative and/or quantitative data collection and data analysis techniques

▪ Expertise in using participatory tools

▪ Familiarity with transparency and downward accountability processes and their values

▪ Fluency in written and spoken English, ideally in conjunction with good skills in spoken Greek and/or Italian

▪ Country and regional experience in Greece and/or Italy

▪ Good understanding and appropriate sensitivity in regard to GBV and different cultures

▪ Minimum qualification of a master´s degree or equivalent combination of education and relevant work experience

The successful candidate should be able to provide an invoice for the services offered, and be based in Greece or Italy.

Duration of services

Due to the nature of the project and its closure in July 2024, the consultant should deliver the requested work in its final version by the 14th of June 2024. The evaluator’s tasks will cover the entire duration of the project since its commencement in February 2023.

1. Appendices

Appendix A

Scope of the Evaluation

All activities under each Specific Objective 1, 2, 3, 4, & 5 will be included in the evaluation. Specific objectives of the project are the following:

SO 1**:** Women from vulnerable communities in Italy and Greece have lower tolerance to gender stereotypes and victim-blaming and learn how to build support networks to protect themselves from all forms of GBV.

SO 2**:** Women from vulnerable communities in Italy and Greece have increased support in terms of GBV prevention and access to response services, from other women Focal Points of their community.

SO 3**:** Men from vulnerable communities in Italy and Greece are enabled to become agents of change with regards to GBV prevention.

SO 4: Women GBV Community Focal Points from Greece and Italy build transnational network with the aim to exchange knowledge and best practices on GBV prevention.

SO 5: General population in Italy and Greece increases awareness of prejudices and gender stereotypes and norms that contribute to the tolerance of violence (through films/campaigns and dissemination activities).

Appendix B

Evaluation Questions

The evaluation will focus on the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, coverage- connectedness-coordination, and diversity and inclusion of the CARE project, in line with the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) criteria, answering the following questions. The questions may be modified in collaboration with the selected Evaluator as necessary.

Relevance

• Which parts of the activities have been the most appropriate and which the least appropriate in light with the overall goal and objectives of the project? Why?

• To what extent is the intervention aligned and meets needs and priorities of the target population, especially women’s and adolescent girls’ safety and empowerment?

• Is the rationale for change in project implementation based on evidence gathered?

• Has a monitoring/ feedback system been developed? How can it be utilized to design activities in the upcoming period?

• Have external factors influenced the implementation of activities and have activities been adjusted? How? Have programmatic changes been made based on evidence and the target group’s and partners’ participation?

• What were the weaknesses and strengths of each of intervention? What was the most useful intervention?

Coherence

• Is CARE project complementary with other I/NGOs operating in similar work? Does CARE synergize with other NGOs, local actors in refugee and GBV prevention interests?

• To what extent does the project collaborate with local and national stakeholders?

Effectiveness

• To what extent have the project objectives, outputs, and activities been achieved and/or are likely to be achieved? Are they of high quality and value?

•Have there been any obstacles in the implementation of the project? How were they/can be overcome?

• How does IRC Hellas and partners coordinate both internally and with external stakeholders? Has it increase effectiveness? What can be improved?

• Are the project components being carried out in the manner envisaged at the time of proposal submission? If they are not being carried out as outlined in the proposal, is there a reasonable explanation for the change?

• Are the project leaders adhering to the proposed timelines of delivery? If not, is there a reasonable explanation for the change?

• Is there reasonable expectation that the project will be finished in a timely manner?

• Was the CARE project logical framework appropriate to outline the project strategy and achievable outputs and outcomes?

• Are there any activities that were less effective, what could we have done differently?

• To what extent has participating in CARE activities contributed to women’s and girls’ empowerment, creation of women’s support networks, shifting of harmful gender stereotypes, and GBV prevention?

Efficiency

• How well is CARE project managing the resources? Is the project resourced (funds, personnel, knowledge, skills, equipment, space) in each component of the logframe and along the implementation?

• Have CARE project governance arrangements within the IRC and with regards to other stakeholders been adequate to achieve the anticipated results?

• To what extent did CARE project management and partners have the capacity to adapt and/or implement the project?

• What type of administrative, financial, managerial, safety, political obstacles did CARE face, and to what extent has this affected the implementation?

• Are activities cost-efficient?

• Is there a potential to make better use of the resources?

• Is there a potential for optimization concerning planning, procurement, and logistics?

Impact [1]

• To what extent do the interventions of the project lead to the realizations of specific objectives 1 to 5?

• Are the recreational activities satisfying for the women and girls participants in Athens and Palermo? Do they see positive changes in their physical and/or mental wellbeing?

• Are the women’s peer to peer groups delivering the intended effects for the participants in terms of increased functionality, wellbeing and connectedness to other women from the community?

•Do film workshops help women and girls participants to challenge negative gender stereotypes, as represented in the media?

•Do men participating in male engagement group demonstrate a positive shift in attitudes and beliefs related to gender stereotypes?

• Does the online campaign and the offline outreach reach a satisfying number of people, according to the target (70,000)?

• Has the project produced positive or negative unintended effects?

• Has the project contributed to the improvement of the capacity (technical programmatic, operational) of IRC Hellas and the partners? If so, how? If not, what were the reasons?

• What did beneficiaries and especially women and girls, say about the project impact on their lives? How did our activities impact them and their families?

Sustainability

• To what extent did the project engage the participation of partners and beneficiaries in design, implementation, and monitoring of the project?

• To what extent did the project collaborate and synergize with local and national stakeholders who could continue the implementation? Can the project be scaled up at national or local levels or encourage collaboration and synergies between local and national actors?

• To what extent and in what ways has the project promoted partnerships with national institutions, NGOs, vulnerable groups and other partners in IRC’s priority areas of work?

• To what extent has the project contributed to build partners’ and stakeholders’ own capacity to apply learnings in the future and continue the implementation?

• Were there any specific activities or approaches implemented to ensure sustainability of the intervention? If so, were these methodologies efficient? How were parties involved satisfied with the approaches and comfortable to continue similar interventions?

Coverage, Coordination and Connectedness

• How does IRC Hellas and partners coordinate internally and with external stakeholders? Are they part of a regular coordination mechanism in Athens/Palermo and/or on national level?

• Are the partners satisfied with internal coordination?

• Are the partners connected with other actors providing similar services, like GBV services and integration services?

• How were public authorities and local civil society organizations involved in the design and implementation of the project?

• What is the level of ownership of partners? GBV community focal points? Local / public entities?

Diversity and Inclusion

• Were appropriate measures taken to include balance of gender, dis/ability levels, different communities, and aged persons within project activity participation?

• Were specific issues related to women, the dis/abled, the aged, and specific communities’ needs incorporated into project activities (e.g., childcare, GBV/VAW/elder abuse/abuse of the vulnerable support, access to special services, space to share).

• Were different groups monitored in reporting e.g., did disaggregation take place, and were there differences in how services were provided to the different CARE project target population?

[1] Assessment ssessment of the impact shall refer to the suggested short, medshort, mediuum, and long term im, and long term impact in the the proposal.

How to apply

Interested candidates are invited to submit the documents requested below here or via email at the following address: [email protected], with the Subject “External evaluator for the EU-funded project CARE” before the 13th of March 2024.

1. Curriculum Vitae (CV) including three (3) professional references, and indicative daily rate.
2. Cover lettersummarizing relevant experience in planning and conducting project evaluations and explaining the suitability to undertake the evaluation based on the criteria mentioned above.
3. Track record of conducted studies, research, publication, samples of previous evaluations, reports and references, including links or attachments of similar work conducted in the past.
4. Financial proposal underlying the evaluation including proposed fee for the suggested working period.

If a candidate is selected, additional statements may be required during the signing of the contract, in order to avoid any conflicts of interest or incompatibility.