Country: Jordan
Closing date: 15 Jan 2017
1. Introduction & Context
German Red Cross (GRC) and Jordan Red Crescent (JRCS) plan a review of their urgent cash assistance program in Jordan in January 2017 in order to improve implementation of this component.
1.1 Background
Jordan is heavily affected by the Syria crisis and is hosting more than 655,000 registered Syrian refugees. 78 % of them live in urban areas with the rest living in two camps. The presence of such a high number of refugees in the country poses substantial challenges for Jordan’s economy public infrastructure and natural resources such as water. Households face a rise in housing rent and price increases for essential commodities and services. At the same time, the refugees are contributing to economic activity through increased consumption. However, the sheer numbers of arrivals have tested the absorptive capacity of host communities and tensions continue to develop in certain locations, threatening Jordan’s social stability.
Urban refugees settled in host communities in Jordan lack cash and live in sub-standard housing. Until recently, they didn’t have legal access to the labour market for making a living as they were denied work permits. Refugees who are able to find work, are mostly engaged in unskilled daily labour, often at far lower wages than the national average, in environments without insurance or adequate safety measures. Moreover, competition for jobs puts downward pressure on salaries, reducing wages to unacceptable levels, and creates the further potential for conflict between host and refugee populations. To live outside of the camps several expenditures have to be covered as the external support available only partly covers four sectors: health, education, food and shelter to some degree. The available support for urban refugees in these sectors has significantly reduced in the past years due to funding shortfalls; thus, the resources of refugees are exhausted and negative coping mechanisms are increasing. Additional income is needed as there is no support available for utilities, non-food items, hygiene, transportation etc. Non-registered refugees and those whose certification (UNHCR ASC or MoI card) has expired or who have left the camps without the official permit of the authorities are at higher protection risk and are mostly excluded from humanitarian assistance.
1.2 Project/Program set up and institutional context – stakeholders
The German Red Cross (GRC) is a humanitarian organization working in Jordan from 2007 – 2009 and again since 2013. Together with our partner organization, the Jordan Red Crescent Society, GRC implements various projects for Syrian refugees in Jordan and vulnerable host communities. The German Red Cross is part of the Red Cross / Red Crescent Movement under the umbrella of the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).
Since 2013, GRC and JRCS have been implementing relief projects in Jordan, mainly Irbid, for Syrian refugees and vulnerable Jordanians. The main sectors of the programme have been basic needs (NFI, vouchers or cash), community-based health awareness and first aid training (CBHFA) and vocational training.
The following activities are part of the ongoing relief program (June 2015 – December 2016) and of the next approved program (January 2017 – June 2019):
- Regular cash assistance for Syrians
- Urgent/one-time cash assistance for Syrians
- Health awareness campaigns
- Winter relief distribution for Jordanians
- First Aid trainings
- Vocational training
2. Review purpose and users
The purpose of the review is to evaluate and revise the implementation of the urgent cash assistance component in 2016 – with particular focus on effectiveness and implementation risk – and to contribute to improving it for the next project. The main objective for GRC and JRCS is “learning”.
The review is primarily intended for GRC and JRCS in order to use it for the following project implementation. The review will also be shared with the donor of the project, the German Government. Furthermore, it will be shared with other interested cash stakeholders, in particular within the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement.
3. Task description
3.1 Review scope
The scope of work comprises the full period of the implementation of the urgent cash component in Amman and Irbid for 200 beneficiaries – from March to December 2016.
The review of the urgent cash assistance program shall focus on the following guiding question:
How should the current procedures be modified in order to improve the urgent cash assistance program?
3.2 Review criteria including specific review questions related to the project/program
The overall question is how the component has to be adapted in order to improve effectiveness and efficiency of the intervention. Specific and detailed recommendations are therefore required from the consultant.
- Impact
a.Has – and if yes to which extent – the intervention met the stated emergency need of the beneficiary (risk of eviction, medical need, etc.)?
- Effectiveness
a.To what extent were the expected objectives achieved / are likely to be achieved?
b.Is the beneficiary selection process within GRC/JRCS adequate to reach its intended goal?Are the procedures and the criteria for beneficiary selection accurate?
c.What are the risks of the current beneficiary selection process for GRC and JRCS? Are sufficient checks and balances incorporated in the procedures?
d.Is the staff set-up adequate to ensure a quality selection and implementation process?
- Efficiency
a.Were activities cost-efficient?
b.Was the project implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?
4. Review design and methodology
GRC will hire a consultant who will submit an inception report with regards to the review design and methodology. This report will be discussed with GRC and, if necessary, adapted.
4.1 Review team
The consultant will conduct this review exercise and closely coordinate with the GRC Delegate and JRCS.
4.2 Participation of stakeholders
The GRC and JRCS team in Jordan will participate in the review.
4.3 Sources of information
The consultant will have access to all relevant project documents like project proposal, project management documents, standard operating procedures, monitoring tools etc. These documents are confidential but can be cited and used in the review process. Information which could do harm to any stakeholder if published should be treated in a confidential way. The decision about the publication is the right of GRC.
4.4 Methodology
The consultant should use the available secondary data for analysis. For the collection of primary data, participatory methods should be applied. The IFRC standards for evaluation*[1] should be
respected and are the framework and basis for any evaluation activity executed by a consultant under GRC contract.
5. Review process with timetable and reporting
The review process has different phases and is described in the following paragraphs.
The process will be guided by the review management team. The timetable will be agreed by both parties. The consultant should deliver a concept for the review process in form of the inception report including work plan and budget before the start of the evaluation. Further reporting will consist of a preliminary report, which will serve as basis for a review workshop and the final report, which will be the product to be delivered, including the validated workshop results.
5.1 Timetable
The whole evaluation process will take 2 weeks, including 3 days for preparation (including briefing), 5 days of field work and 6 days for writing the report including a management response session.
2 weeks - end-January/beginning February 2017
- Preparation (3 days)
o Analysis of relevant project documents
o Preparation of inception report and exchange with GRC
- Field Visit (5 days in the country without travel time)
o Travel to and from Jordan
o Briefing with GRC and JRCS, IFRC, ICRC and other relevant actors in Amman
o Field visit to Irbid
o Review workshop/Presentation of findings to national society
- Report including Management Response session (6 days)
o Produce final report including revision as per feedback
5.2 Reporting
5.2.1 Inception report
An inception report offers the opportunity for the evaluator/s and GRC to clarify the contract and the ToR after a first study of the existing project documentation. The inception report of the evaluator/s should not be longer than 5 pages. The evaluator/s will give feedback to GRC about the ToR and their feasibility. This is the point where the evaluator/s, based on the information from the secondary data, can clarify open questions and possibly change as well the content or direction of the review. The inception report should be delivered before the review starts. It should contain:
The key data of the review (Project title, project data, commissioner of the review, contractors, etc.)
Feedback / Amendment of the ToR – suggestions for ToR amendments if necessary
Status of the review preparation (team, timetable, distribution of tasks, reporting)
Review design: Chosen methods, approach, steps for their implementation.
Tools for their implementation (questionnaires, data processing and analysis etc.)
A draft implementation plan for the review
The inception report will be discussed with GRC and the evaluator/s. Any changes of the ToR need an agreement of both parties, because they might change the conditions and thereby the contract between GRC and the evaluator/s.
5.2.2 Review and validation workshop / Presentation of findings
Representatives of stakeholders and the evaluator/s will come together in the review workshop. The workshop will be organized in order to discuss and validate findings, lessons learned and recommendations proposed by the evaluator/s. Stakeholders might formulate additional recommendations if necessary. Possible content of a review workshop:
- Presentation and discussion of the findings
- Validation of lessons learnt and recommendations by all stakeholders
- Collection of additional observations or recommendations
GRC and partners are responsible for the workshop preparation and all related logistics.
5.2.3 Final report
The final review report should consider the validation of the stakeholders during the final workshop and has to be delivered at least 2 weeks after the workshop. All consultant works, inception-, preliminary- and final report should be delivered in English language.
The consultant will give his/her recommendations but should incorporate the validation process during the workshop in the final report, including additional recommendations from the workshop participants. The report will have to be approved by German Red Cross. The final report should, as a minimum, include the following elements:
- Key data of the review (from the inception report)
- Executive summary
- Introduction – with purpose of the review, scope, key questions, short description of the project to be reviewed and relevant framework conditions.
- Review design and methodology
- Key findings with regard to the questions pointed out in the ToR
- Conclusions based on evidence and analysis
- Detailed recommendations and practical steps to be implemented in order to improve the project
- Lessons learnt, as generalizations of conclusions for a wider use
- Annexes (ToR, list of consulted persons/organisations, consulted documentation, literature, etc.)
Key findings, conclusions and recommendations should be presented in a clear and transparent way, possibly put next to each other in a table to demonstrate the logic.
The report can be extended by the evaluator/s by additional points if necessary.
GRC RO and HQ, the project team and the partner will analyse the final report, especially the feasibility of the recommendations proposed by the evaluator/s.
5.3 Responsibilities and duties
GRC is responsible for organizing and facilitating the travel of the consultant to Jordan. GRC will make available all necessary project documents. JRCS commits to participating in the review as necessary.
The consultant will be working under and reporting to the GRC Programme Coordinator in Jordan during the consultancy.
6. Review quality and ethical standards
The evaluator/s should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the review is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the review is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organisational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluator/s should adhere to the evaluation standards of the IFRC (See as well footnote page 4).
7. Dissemination of review results and their application
The following institutions will receive the final report: GRC and JRCS, Donor
The accepted recommendations should be used by GRC and JRCS to improve the implementation process as well as for their organisational learning.
The follow up should be organised and a respective response plan should be developed and implemented in an agreed timespan, to ensure the application of the recommendations by the user group of the review.
8. Requirements/ Qualifications
- Demonstrable experience in leading evaluations (consultant is required to send samples of evaluations)
- In-depth knowledge and experience in Cash Transfer Programming
- Knowledge of strategic and operational management of humanitarian operations and proven ability to provide strategic and practical recommendations to key stakeholders
- Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions, make recommendations and to prepare well-written reports in a timely manner
- Experience in qualitative data collection and data analysis techniques
- Knowledge of humanitarian program design
- Knowledge and experience working with the Red Cross/Red Crescent Movement
- Good communication and listening skills
- Very good English writing skills, and preferably Arabic language skills
- Knowledge of the Jordan/MENA region would be an advantage
- Experience in national partner assessment and capacity-building
- Minimum qualification of a master’s degree or equivalent combination of education and relevant work experience
[1]The IFRC Evaluation Standardsare:
Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.
Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost effective manner.
Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
Impartiality & Independence; Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.
How to apply:
Application procedure
Interested candidates should submit their application material by January 15th, 2017 and the application should include the following:
· Curriculum vitae (CV)
· Cover letter which clearly summarizing experience, daily rate, and three professional references
· Technical and financial proposal for the evaluation
· One sample of recent writing (a report or similar) relevant to this ToR.
To be addressed to: crisis04@grcmideast.org
Reference: JOR UCA Review
NB: Application materials are non-returnable, and we thank you in advance for understanding that only short-listed candidates will be contacted for the next step in the application process.