A. Background

Concern Worldwide is a non-governmental, international, humanitarian organization dedicated to the reduction of suffering and working towards the ultimate elimination of extreme poverty in the world’s poorest countries. Concern has been working in North East Syria since 2013, implementing emergency response, WASH, protection and education projects in the area.

With the support of Bureau of Humanitarian Assistance (BHA) under its award titled “Multi-Sector Emergency Response for Conflict-Affected Populations in Northeast Syria – Phase V”, Concern provides multi-sector assistance to vulnerable households in North East Syria.

B. Description of the social, economic and political context

After 14 years of conflict, Syria remains one of the most complex protracted humanitarian crises. It is characterized by hostilities, natural disasters, epidemics, and displacement compounded by the deterioration of socio-economic conditions. According to the most recent Syrian Humanitarian Needs Overview (2024), the number of people in need continues to rise with an estimated 16.7 million requiring humanitarian assistance. An estimated 12.9 million people in Syria require food assistance to cover their daily needs, including all 2.1 million people living in camps, who are considered fully dependent on humanitarian assistance. Additionally, 2.6 million people are at risk of sliding into food insecurity if the crisis continues to worsen (HNO ‘24). The Global acute malnutrition rate has risen threefold over the last 5 years to 4.7%. Impacts of conflict, a protracted economic crisis, and failure of basic services have given rise to widespread early recovery needs across Northeast Syria and contribute to deteriorating humanitarian conditions. This is evident from the fact that average income for NES households reaches only 0.6 USD per person per day – falling below the global absolute poverty line of 2.15 USD.

There are 137,482 people in 12 camps (OCHA, June 2024 NES Population) and 307,625 people in 307 Active locations (SSWG site list, August 2024), which requires water supply, sanitation and solid waste management services, and hygiene promotion. Cholera remains a significant risk, with multiple outbreaks over the past three years, including the most recent one in August 2024.

According to OCHA Situation Report for March 2025, over 16 million Syrians – nearly three-quarters of the population – require some form of humanitarian aid, with ongoing population movements and renewed displacement within the country.

C. Description of the subject of the review/evaluation

The overall purpose of this activity is that the provision of comprehensive multi-sectoral life-saving assistance will reduce the prevalence of harmful negative coping mechanisms, thereby leading to enhanced protection outcomes.

The theory of change (ToC) that the project follows is: if the basic household needs, vulnerabilities, protection risks and emergency needs are addressed then the targeted household assets, coping strategies, and capacities will increase the resilience to respond to shocks and save lives.

The multisector lifesaving emergency response was implemented in Aleppo, Ar-Raqqa and Dier ez Zour governorates with food assistance, WASH, Protection and Shelter and Settlements. The food assistance has been implemented in Kisreh, Al-Thawrah, Menbij and in Ain al Arab sub-districts, expanding to Abu Khashab in year two. In-line with the NES level SMEB value for food assistance and as per the guidance from the FSL WG, CWW provided food vouchers for a maximum of eight individuals per household. The response also provides a holistic WASH response, integrating water supply and sanitation and hygiene services to vulnerable individuals. Additionally, Concern supports children with Psychosocial Support Services (PSS) and with Case Management. Concern also provides caregiver sessions to complement Child Protection activities and improve children’s wellbeing at home. Concern has actively led and participated at Protection Area-Based Coordination meetings to ensure greater localized response and up-to-date service mappings.

D. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation
The purpose of the evaluation is to assess to what degree the program has been successful in achieving the established results and objectives as illustrated in the program proposal and to identify future program options to provide sustainable assistance to returnees. The evaluation findings will be compared with the baseline data collected during beneficiary assessment, routine monitoring data, and other information collected as part of the intervention. The collected information will be used to establish good practices and help formulate new interventions in the program areas.

The midterm internal evaluation was completed during the first year of the project’s implementation, led by internal Concern teams who were not involved in the project design and implementation. This evaluation was carried out with technical expertise from Concern headquarters’ MEAL and programs teams. The midterm evaluation will inform the final evaluation and guide the country team in adjusting strategies, addressing gaps, refining targeting, evaluating achievements, decision-making processes, and incorporating feedback for improved implementation in year two. External consultants, who will assess the overall performance of the project over two years, will conduct the final summative evaluation. The consultants will review the entire project implementation and evaluate the extent to which the country team incorporated the recommendations and lessons from the midterm evaluation during year two.

More specifically, at this end of program evaluation seeks to:

• Assess progress made towards the achievement of objectives, indicators and targets and appropriateness of the targeting strategy used in this context;
• Assess to what extent have the activities interventions adhered to planned implementation and achieved intended goals, purposed and outcomes;
• Support the organization’s commitment to accountability to donors, government, public, and beneficiaries through assessing the good practices, gaps and adjusting the learnings in future programs;
• The extent to which changes—expected and unexpected, positive and negative—did targeted participants, community members and other stakeholders associate with the activity’s interventions;
• Using the DAC criteria, assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, and impact of the program;
• Identify lessons learned and provide practical and innovative program options for assisting returnees in a sustainable manner based on integration and/or relocation.

The proposed external evaluation will address the following tentative key evaluation questions:

Relevance

• To what extent were Multi-Sector Emergency Response for Conflict- Affected Populations in North East Syria humanitarian interventions in-line with the self-identified and international standard needs and priorities of the target groups, including IDPs, returnees, and vulnerable host households?
• Has the program addressed the immediate food security, WASH, Y1 ERMS, Protection and Shelter needs of the targeted households? To what degree will access to these services be improved on a longterm/sustainable basis?
• Has the program improved resilience of affected populations?

Efficiency

• How did the budget utilization compare with the planned budget?
• What was the comparative cost of the program vs. program outputs?

Effectiveness

• To what extent were the objectives of the program, as reflected in the program proposal, achieved
• What changes had to be made to the initial proposal in order to adjust to unforeseen circumstances, if any? What are the lessons learned from these experiences?

Impact

• Has the program helped to decrease the prevalence of negative coping mechanisms to which targeted populations resorted due to lack of resources and services to be provided through the program?
• Has the program allowed households to meet their basic needs?
• Are there any negative impacts evident from the Programming?

Sustainability

• Did the program fully involve the beneficiaries and other stakeholders in the program implementation process?
• Did the program promote ownership of outputs and outcomes by actively involving beneficiaries in decision-making and action at every phase of the program cycle?

Mainstreaming issues

• Was due consideration given to gender equality and ethnic groups so that program intervention did not increase target groups vulnerability and tension among different ethnic or otherwise vulnerable groups?

M&E and Project management

• What are the lessons learned from current gaps identified throughout the program cycle? What are the main action points from this learning to be incorporated into future programming?
• Were recommendations from the Year 1 Mid Term Evaluation incorporated into Year 2?

A score will be assigned to each criteria using the following grading scale:

5 – Outstanding Performance
4 – Very good overall performance with a few shortcomings
3 – Good overall performance but with some minor shortcomings
2 – Generally acceptable performance but with some major shortcomings
1 – Barely acceptable performance with many major shortcomings
0 – Totally unacceptable performance or insufficient data to make an assessment.

Concern’s cross-cutting approaches including Conflict Sensitivity, Protection, Disaster Risk Reduction and the Environment will be considered through the evaluation and the Evaluation Report will include a section covering these cross-cutting approaches, outlining which approaches were considered and how successfully they were addressed in the program.

E. Evaluation Methodology
The evaluation will use a mixed research design with both quantitative and qualitative data. Quantitative data will be collected through structured interview schedules, while qualitative data will be collected through Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) and Key Informant Interviews.

Desk-based research/preparation:
The evaluation team will be expected to make a complete review of program proposal, progress reports, monitoring visits repost, mid-term evaluation, SOPs, distribution records and other supporting documentation. In addition, documents published by other humanitarian organizations will be reviewed to situate the Concern project within the wider context of humanitarian assistance provision in the program area.

In the field:

• In the field, Concern’s MEAL team will facilitate the evaluation by arranging interviews and discussions with a sample of program participants and non-participants and staff through household interviews and focus group discussions (FGDs). Key informant interviews with other key stakeholders – including program participants, local authorities, humanitarian actors, and the relevant clusters – will also be carried out to corroborate findings from FGDs.
• The M&E team will also collect the case studies/human interest stories (HIS) and pictures to highlight the program outcomes for internal and external audiences.

Post-field analysis:
A period will be made available post-field work for the evaluator to analyze and review data collected, to prepare a draft report and to finalize subsequent drafts based on feedback from partners, Concern and other potential peer reviewers.

Activities:
An independent international external evaluator will be selected through adequate recruitment channels. Relevant skills, experience and educational qualifications will be clearly outlined in the job posting. Prior experience in Syria and a good understanding of the local context will be mandatory.

The evaluator will be fully responsible for the following:

• Thorough review of relevant project documents;
• Develop qualitative and quantitative data collection methodology;
• Prepare checklists and questionnaires for data collection;
• Based on indicators, tabulate, analyze and interpret the data collected;
• Provide recommendations for improving the methodology of future programming for maximum outcome/impact;
• Provide a list of organizations, people or groups interviewed, list of sites visited, abbreviations, maps, charts or graphs that may have been used for this evaluation.

Limitations

The time requirement to complete the evaluation within a one month from completing the award will place a time pressure on the evaluators. As the evaluation is a mixed quantitative and qualitative performance evaluation, this may pose a challenge to the external evaluators due to the limited time flexibility. Concern, will thereby seek to have the quantitative data ready to provide the evaluators with sufficient time to analyze the data and identify the areas of focus for the qualitative assessment.

F. Outputs/Deliverables
The evaluator will be fully responsible for the following:

• Inception Report – detailing methodology for data collection – qualitatively and quantitatively, checklist and questionnaire for data collection, work plan and timelines for submission and review. This inception report will include full detail of proposed sampling approach, including sample sizes, detailing the number of focus group discussions and key informant interviews for each category of respondent.
• Final Presentation (PPT and Meeting Recording) – to Concern Country, Regional and Head Office Teams.
• Evaluation report (1st Draft) – with an executive summary and clear recommendations (complete less appendices) for comment from Concern Syria within 1 week of concluding interviews. A presentation of findings to the Concern country team and HQ upon completion of the draft
• Final Evaluation Report – A full final draft of the Evaluation report, integrating the feedback received within one week of receiving consolidated feedback on the draft report.
• The report, in English, should be 30-40 pages long without appendices and should be submitted in electronic format (Word or PDF) to the Country Program and Desk Officer, and RD and include the following sections:
  • Executive Summary (maximum 2 pages)
  • Brief context and description of the intervention
  • Presentation of evaluation methodology and any limitations encountered
  • Presentation of main findings, conclusions and recommendations using graphs, charts and tables where appropriate
  • All information should be disaggregated as per the PRIS for the BHA award, including were permissible and logical presenting the disaggregation per location. The analysis should integrated the quantitative data outcomes, with the issues identified to inform future intervention strategies to tackle the barriers of humanitarian interventions to improve the impact of programs.
  • Recommendations with a strong focus on the wider lessons learned for Concern to improve future emergency multi-sector program planning and implementation, and Management Reponses
  • Scoring against the extended DAC criteria.
  • Annexes: including ToR, list of people/groups consulted, interview frameworks/questionnaires, tools, list of sites visited, abbreviations, maps, charts or graphs that may have been used for this evaluation.

G. Provisional Timeframe

The timeframe for the internal evaluation process will be approximately 14 weeks/70 working days from the date of the commencement of the work. This duration is inclusive of the time required for all work including document review, field visits, debriefing, and final submission of the evaluation report.

The evaluation should be completed by the end of the award’s period of performance.

External Evaluator (tentative time allocation subject to evaluator work-plan).

• Inception Phase – Briefing with Concern Sector Leads, background reading, drafting of Inception Report and Preparation of Evaluation tools and Methodology – Weeks 1-2
• Submission of Inception Report – Week 3
• Review and approval of abbreviated inception report – Week 4
• Data Collection – Quantitative Surveys, FGDs, KIIs with Staff and Stakeholders – Weeks 4-8
• Analysis and Compilation of Report Draft 1 – Weeks 9-10
• Debrief/presentation of findings (to Concern Country Team and Regional Office/HQ) – Week 11
• Review of Draft Report 1 and Comments – Week 12
• Compilation of Final Report – Week 13
• Final Comments and Feedback – Week 14
  Total 14 Weeks/70 Working Days

H. Lines of Communication
The external evaluator will report to the Program Director and MEAL Coordinator.

If the consultant will only partially spend time in NES, please indicate the duration of time as it is expected during the data collection the consultant will be in country.

I. Essential Requirements

• Technical Experts with experience evaluating Multisector BHA Program, with Food Security, ERMS, WASH, Shelter and Settlements, and Protection.
• Experience of qualitative data collection methods, including participatory approaches and experience of data collection in the field.
• Ability to assess the quality of programmatic data collection systems, analyze budgets, results frameworks, MEAL reports and surveys, and other documents.
• Experience of writing evaluation reports to a high standard, in English.
• Gender-balanced data collection team with knowledge of Arabic/Kurdish
• Significant experience in North East Syria and a detailed understanding of the NES Response and Clusters/Coordination Mechanisms/INGO Forum.
• Senior-level Evaluation Team with experience working for INGOs in the region and conducting Evaluation Consultancies.

J. Desirable Requirements

• An understanding of results-based management approaches.
• Strong presenting skills and high-level of analysis and communication.
• Advanced statistical analysis software available to be utilized.
• Experience at both NES/WoS Level.

How to Apply:

The Leading consultant is requested to include a complete Technical and Financial Proposal within the application in accordance to the following guidance under this section.

To apply, please submit your expression of interest to colin.brennan@concern.net, entitling the email ‘Evaluation of Concern’s BHA funded Multi-Sector Emergency Response in Syria’

All expressions of interest must include the following:

• Brief explanation about the applicant with particular emphasis on their previous experience in related areas;
• Detailed CV of the Consultant with a contactable referee. (Contact details must be the work email address of the referee. Personal email addresses will not be accepted).

Technical Proposal

The Technical Proposal should include:

A. Personnel deployed: CV(s) of the key personnel deployed and organogram of the team structure;

• It is highly recommended to highlight the specific CVs of staff who will :
  • Act as the Team Lead under this consultancy.
  • Draft monitoring reports/presentation/final report.
  • Supervise and attend the data collection within Syria.
• Preference will be given to bids with personnel holding senior-level experience and cross-cutting experience of staff having worked for both Consultancy Firms and INGOs (in Programme Implementation).
• Preference will be given to bids with personnel holding specialised experience in intervention sectors relevant to the intervention.

B. Experience in similar projects: Past experience including contracting authority, description of the project, area of intervention, and total budget;

C. Sample from previous work (10-20 pages) from at least 3 separate projects;

D. Technical Proposal including a detailed Methodology, expected timelines and structure of the team .

E. 3 references from previous consultancies, including relevant contact details of the referee.

Financial Proposal

A. Complete cost breakdown

• Budgets will be validated based on cost-effectiveness and realism of costs.
• Clear breakdown of costs for data collection, staff and report-drafting is highly encouraged.
• Clear breakdown of any fees paid to additional companies/entities used to facilitate data collection/daily workers – lack of clarity in this aspect will result in the application not being considered.
• Insurance coverage copy for all experts including professional liability applicable to the project areas.
• It is the responsibility of the consultant to budget for a translator (if required), as well as a medical / health / repatriation insurance.

Final Application Remarks

1. If the consultant will be using an additional, sub-contracted firm to conduct data collection within Syria or use workers who are not directly contracted with the consultancy firm – the details of this must be provided within the Technical and Financial proposals – any lack of clarity on this aspect will lead to the application not being considered:
2. Any changes in the personnel used to collect data during the consultancy must be validated by Concern Worldwide before data collection can take place.
3. Registrations and valid access permissions of any entities used to collect data in Syria must be validated by Concern Worldwide before starting an activity.
4. There may be instances where for pre-selected consultancy firms, a pre-selection meeting is scheduled to evaluate confirm details mentioned in the application package.
5. Concern Worldwide retains the right to make amendments to the Terms of Reference, in collaboration with the pre-selected Agency, before contract signature.
6. Concern Worldwide will not take the responsibility of the transportation, access, accommodation and food-related expenses. It is the sole responsibility of the evaluator to take the appropriate measure to ensure access and lodging of the team on the field. Please note that the consultancy firm will have to comply with all government rules and will be responsible for government taxes. The financial proposal should be cost-effective and show unit costs.