Request for Proposal for Evaluation earthquake response Türkiye

Background & context:

On 6 February 2023, two earthquakes with magnitude 7.8 and 7.5 heavily affected provinces in Southern and Southeastern Türkiye and Northern Syria. In Türkiye, 11 provinces are affected by the earthquakes, with 9.1M people directly affected, in an area also home to around 2M Syrian refugees. The earthquake happened during winter, which aggravated the impact of the disaster. More than 100.000 people were injured and over 50.000 people lost their lives. Almost 3M people have been displaced by the disaster, either within the affected areas or to other regions of the country.

Cordaid Earthquake Response in Türkiye:

Cordaid has no presence itself in Türkiye: Cordaid only works through its networks. Support has been provided through sister organisations, and this is still ongoing. However, with limited response capacity at the onset of the crisis, Cordaid also established new relationships with three local organisations to be able to provide assistance in a larger geographical area within Türkiye. For this, Hatay, Adiyaman and Malatya provinces were targeted, as being part of the most affected areas, and then specifically those areas that received less support. Cordaid’s response in Türkiye started very soon after the earthquake hit in February 2023, and can continue until latest end 2024, expenditure deadline of SHO (https://giro555.nl/over-sho/), with currently a total planned budget of just over EUR 3.4M.
Considering the capacity and strong presence of Turkish government (AFAD) setting up and concentrating (international) humanitarian assistance in big tent and container camps, Cordaid’s program strategy is to reach the earthquake affected marginalised and vulnerable population in underserved areas with focus on people living outside the official camps; in the second phase some container camps were also included, due to continued needs. By concentrating on this niche and working with local civil society, Cordaid aims to have added value with a limited program next to actors with larger programs. Services are provided in the sectors of Water, Sanitation & Hygiene, Food Security & Livelihoods, Protection, Multi-Purpose Cash and Shelter & Non-Food Items (NFIs), with the focus on covering basic needs and support for (early) recovery.

Purpose and scope

The purpose of this evaluation is to assess the performance of the Earthquake Response in Türkiye of Cordaid and its partners, ensuring accountability towards the Dutch public; it also offers a learning opportunity for all stakeholders. Lessons learned and recommendations for improving quality of programme design and implementation will be part of the evaluation report. The Earthquake Response in Türkiye is part of an Earthquake Response that includes Syria as well. The key objective of the response is to provide emergency lifesaving assistance as well as early recovery support to the people affected by the earthquake through provision of integrated Food Security & livelihoods, WASH, Shelter & NFI, Protection, and MHPSS assistance.

The evaluation should focus on the 9 Commitments of the Core Humanitarian Standard (version 2023), and will include the following questions:

I CHS commitment 1 & 2: Appropriate and Relevant, Effective and Timely

• To what extend have partners conducted a comprehensive and consultative assessment of capacities and needs of different groups of affected population and used results to inform the response?
• To what extend did partners manage to identify most vulnerable, marginalised and in need groups (and thereby supported the added value aimed by Cordaid). Did they miss specific groups and/or unmet needs?
• Does the response provide assistance in a way that is adapted to the needs and preferences of the different groups of affected population assisted (in-kind, cash, services)? Are there different types of assistance and protection for different gender and demographic groups?
• How do different groups of assisted populations think about the relevance and timeliness of the humanitarian assistance provided and how has this supported their lives and recovery.
• How much has the earthquake response project process (identifying CSO, writing individual partner proposals, project approval and funding) been appropriate for a timely start?
• To what extend did the strategy materialise in added value; was the program effective in reaching groups that would not have been reached otherwise?

II CHS Commitment 3: Strengthening of Local Capacities and avoidance of Negative Effects

• Are risks and potential negative effects for affected population identified and considered in programming activities?
• In what ways (both formal and informal) are local communities consulted to ensure response strategies and targeting are in line with local and/or national priorities?
• Are activities including or supportive of local initiatives and capacities, including community-based self-help initiatives particularly for marginalised and minority groups, and first response capacities?
• To what extent have the projects contributed to increasing national actors’ capacities in management of programmes and resources? How do partners evaluate their decision taking power vis a vis Cordaid in design, implementation and adaption of the program. Did Cordaid acknowledge and make use of their knowledge and capacities?
• What were advantages and disadvantages of the set up with one Cordaid consultant in country at a distance and Cordaid staff in The Hague managing remotely for local partners.
• Which activities contributed to longer-term positive effects for affected people’s lives and livelihoods? Did the response have any unintended negative effects for people assisted (specifically related to social cohesion), other stakeholders, the market or the environment?

III CHS commitment 4 & 5: Communication, Participation and Feedback

• Is information about the organisation and response provided in accessible and appropriate ways to different affected groups and can they access the information provided, and do they understand it?
• In what ways is targeted population meaningfully engaged in different phases of the project? and how do people assisted evaluate the options to participate in the project?
• Are communities and people affected by crisis consulted about the design of complaints mechanisms (identification of barriers)? Are all groups within the affected community aware of how to give feedback on the response, and do they feel safe using those channels?
• Are there agreed and respected time frames for the investigating and resolving complaints? Is the time between when a complaint is filed, and its resolution recorded?
• Are there clear procedures to handle sensitive complaints (sexual exploitation, abuse and discrimination) Do staff know and have examples how sensitive complaints are handled?
• To what extent is the targeted population satisfied with the humanitarian assistance and services provided?

IV CHS commitment 6 & 7: Coordinated and complementary assistance, adjusted and improved during the response (learning)

• How did partners coordinate their response, which coordination mechanism (existing or new) are they part of? Is information about the competencies, resources, areas and sectors of work of the organisation exchanged with other organisations, including local and national authorities, and used for example for referral systems or collaboration?
• To what extent have the partners actively collaborated with other stakeholders (government and other actors) in the working area. Provide some examples of good practises.
• How has information from monitoring and feedback of affected population been included in the set-up of the 2nd phase proposals?
• Are gaps and duplication in coverage (with other actors) identified and attempts made to resolve these together?
• Are/ how are learnings and good practises shared with relevant stakeholders?

V CHS commitment 8 & 9: Competent and well managed staff, effective and efficient use of resources

• Do implementing organisations have sufficient competent staff to achieve project objectives and is their (under) performance managed?
• Do staff have clear job descriptions and understand their responsibility and tasks. What kind of formal and informal training and coaching did they receive to strengthen their competences to deliver project objectives?
• Are the organisation’s mandate and values communicated to new staff? Do staff sign a code of conduct or similarly binding document? If so, is their understanding supported by training on it and on other relevant policies?
• What would be opportunities within the program to reach more people with the available budget or to reduce costs while reaching at least the same number of people?
• How effective are the mechanisms used by Cordaid to assess and understand the organizational capacity of partners, including their internal monitoring and quality assurance mechanisms?
• Have the capacities in humanitarian response of local partners and their staff benefited from the Earthquake Response projects, and how was that knowledge positive for their humanitarian work?

Methodology

The methodology as well as all relevant tools will be developed by the consultant and presented in the inception report. Tools and methodologies should be specified for the evaluation questions. The evaluation should be based on combined quantitative and qualitative research methods with triangulation of results, where possible. The data collection strategy should include the use of several tools to gain a deeper understanding of the outcomes of the project, including for example (to be discussed as well with partners which methodologies are feasible in the project areas):

• Desk review of background documents, such as project proposals, internal reports of the individual organisations where available;
• Household (HH) surveys, where possible, with representative and preferably statistically calculated sample sizes;
• Field visits to project sites;
• Focus group discussions, local government authorities, local community members (with reps of gender and age groups);
• Key informant interviews in Türkiye with key staff from three partner agencies, including at field implementation sites, implementing partners; in NL with program staff of Cordaid;
• An online presentation with discussion for Cordaid (and partner) staff.

Planning and data collection will have to be done in collaboration with Cordaid’s partners.

Deliverables

The consultant is expected to lead, accomplish and submit the following deliverables within the agreed timeframe and budget, and in English:

1.An inception report, which will serve as an agreement between parties on how the evaluation will be conducted. Items to address:

• Understanding of the issues and questions raised in the ToR;
• Data sources; how to assess the questions in the ToR;
• Research methodology, including suggested sample and size;
• Team composition;
• Schedule of activities and traveling (timeline);
• Detailed budget;
• Appropriate validated draft data collection tools (e.g. methodological guidelines, group interview questions).

2. A max 25-page draft and final report (in MS Office and PDF for final), excluding annexes, in English, in the following format at a minimum, to be submitted to Cordaid. Use of graphs, visuals, tables and a dashboard with results should be included. The report should consist of:

• Executive Summary in bullets (max. 2 pages)
• Introduction
• Methodology, including sampling and limitations; include scoring grid
• Analysis and findings of the evaluation. The analysis should consist of two parts:
  – Earthquake Response Key Objective (providing lifesaving, emergency and early recovery response)
  – Earthquake Response Added Value Objective, including an analysis of how the response has benefitted the different stakeholders (targeted population, local partners, Cordaid)
• Elaborates on concerns, lessons learned and comments from partners
• At least 10 cases of substantial anecdotal evidence (short descriptions of a few sentences are sufficient) of added value from respondents
• Several stories of change and quotes from respondents
• Conclusions for each of the two parts and for all the evaluation questions
• Operational recommendations to Cordaid and partners linked to the different CHS commitments relevant to strengthen quality and accountability of future response programs.
• Annexes, including: Relevant maps and photographs, Bibliography of consulted secondary sources, Finalized data collection tools, List of interviewees.

3. Online presentation. The structure and activities of the learning and evaluation meeting will be agreed with Cordaid.

The evaluation timeframe is four weeks, in April / May 2024. This period includes the preparation period, evaluation mission and report submission.

Content of Proposal

The following should be included in applications:

• Two relevant reference assignments previously performed by the consultant agency/ lead consultant that are comparable in content, time and money;
• A draft proposal/ work plan of max. 4 pages, including a draft evaluation matrix and time planning based on this ToR that proves their comprehension of the proposed consultancy and clearly shows how they would approach this assignment;
• CVs of all the proposed team members (including the team leader and at least 1 experience evaluator), proving relevant experience and/or diplomas. See also chapter below, award criteria;
• Total price, accompanied with a cost break down in days or hours spend and the related fee, travel costs et cetera.

Qualifications and experience

Required

• Academic degree in Humanitarian/Development Studies, or a related field;
• Demonstrated experience in humanitarian response and knowledge of humanitarian standards (CHS, Sphere, Code of conduct);
• Demonstrated experience of leading evaluations of humanitarian response program;
• Demonstrated experience with quantitative and qualitative research, data base management and statistical data analysis;
• Turkish speaker with deep understanding of the context;
• English speaker and writer;
• Ability to assess and further develop a conceptual evaluation tool;
• Relevant subject matter knowledge and experience regarding at least 2 sectors of this Response (Water, Sanitation & Hygiene, Food Security & Livelihoods, Protection, Multi-Purpose Cash and Shelter & Non-Food Items);
• Experience in/ understanding of measuring the added value of INGO- NNGO partnerships/ cooperation;
• Adherence to Cordaid Code of conduct.

Maximum budget

Maximum Euro budget that the quotation can propose is EUR 10.000; this will cover all costs related to the assignment.