External Evaluation of the MHPSS Intervention under the West Bank Protection Consortium 2022

This external evaluation will focus on the emergency response component of the overall action, and more specifically on the Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Emergency Response (ER), which was added as a pilot a year ago. The successful consultant will be tasked with delivering a report, which provides an evidence-based narrative, outlining whether there is added value including an MHPSS intervention, with the current Consortium MHPSS lead, within the action.

The Evaluation will:

Assess the relevance, effectiveness, potential for expansion and gaps and limitations of the current Consortium approach to MHPSS; Assess the Consortium’s MHPSS lead partner’s activities, practices, and objectives, and identify strengths, weakness and synergies that could be further capitalized to promote effective inter-sectorial integration within the consortium; and Provide recommendations outlining whether the Consortium should continue to implement MHPSS and, if yes, how the Consortium can strengthen the Consortium MHPSS response, with a focus on the consolidation and expansion of Consortium approach. 3. Scope and Focus of Evaluation

The Evaluation will be delivered as a summative study, designed to guide the Consortium’s future approach to MHPSS, including recommended strategy and actions. The Evaluation will assess the new MHPSS activities delivered by the Consortium ER (Emergency Response). The Consortium will make programmatic and partnership related decisions, based on the outcomes and recommendations of the Evaluation. The geographical scope of the study will cover the Consortium MHPSS lead’s intervention under the Consortium, which includes programming being implemented in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Gap in terms of geographical coverage and the possibility to cover them should also be highlighted within the study. The evaluation’s analytical framework will be structured around the following evaluation criteria and associated questions: Relevance  Technical approaches: Is the chosen modality relevant (Group session, family session or/and Individual session)? In which situations are each of them the most efficient?  Is the MHPSS approach respectful and up-to-date with global, inter-agency MHPSS standards and guidance (e.g. IASC Guidelines on MHPSS in Emergency Settings, WHO MHPSS guidelines and tools for emergency situations, IASC Common M&E Framework for MHPSS in Emergencies)?  Is the MHPSS approach evidence-based and consistent with IASC standards for MHPSS?  Are the partners participating actively in the different relevant cluster (e.g. CP AoR/MHPSS WG)?  Are cases timely and properly referred to more specialized MHPSS services when needed? Coherence  Synergy and coordination between other Consortium partners.  Complementarity with the other interventions (Result 1, 2 and 3).  Coherence with the Consortium’s protection-centered approach and strategic direction.  Is the response contributing to the Consortium’s overarching goal of preventing forcible transfer? 6 Effectiveness  Is the planning appropriate to the activities? Has fixed planning been respected?  Is the response timeframe (intervention within 72 hours from the incident) respected?  Are human resources and budget sufficient for the implementation?  To what extent has the programme achieved its objectives, including the timely delivery of assistance? Efficiency  How cost efficient are the MHPSS interventions? Impact  Have the activities reached the expected outcomes? Is the longer term impact of the activities adequately monitored?  Unexpected outcomes: Have any negative impacts been observed? Accountability and mainstreaming  To what extent have the activities reached the most vulnerable and less accessible groups?  Does the intervention respect the principles of safety and dignity, accountability, access and participation (protection mainstreaming principles)?  To what extent have activities been designed to be inclusive, age/gender/diversity/culturally appropriate?  Are the process and procedures (SOP) respected all along the MHPSS service provision? Is the referral process effective?  Are beneficiaries adequately followed up also after the first emergency intervention?  How can we ensure that marginalized groups and individuals also have access to the intervention?  Is the risk of SEA adequately prevented and mitigated? The above overview are not exhaustive. During the inception phase, the Evaluator/Evaluation Team will further develop the evaluation’s analytical framework and context-specific sub-questions. 4. Methodology  The consultant should develop a detailed methodology showing how the objectives of the study will be met.  It is expected that the consultant will use a mixed method including qualitative and quantitative data. The method should demonstrate objectivity and lack of biases. It should rely on different sources of information.  As a guide, the method should include:  A desk review of the relevant literature and Consortium documents;  Secondary analyses of Consortium monitoring data, both quantitative and qualitative;  Stakeholders interviews with internal and external key informants, including staff from Partner agencies, DG-ECHO, and community representatives and local authorities (if appropriate/relevant)  On site qualitative data collection methods (FGD, KII) 7  On site quantitative data collection methods (HH surveys) 5. Deliverables INCEPTION REPORT The consultant must provide an inception report that includes:  Summary of desk review (maximum 5 pages),  Description of assessment method (maximum 2 pages)  Data collection tools  Timeframe FINAL ASSESSMENT REPORT  Following the established framework, the consultant should submit an assessment report (maximum 30 pages) that includes the following sections:  Executive summary  Background  Objectives  Methodology  Summary of findings  Recommendations for actions  Bibliography  Annexes including full list of institutional and individual contacts developed throughout the assessment  A draft of the report must be presented before the end of the consultant mission. RFQ.pdf