Call for Expression of Interest Evaluation of UNHCR prevention of and response to SGBV in the refugee population in Western Tanzania (2015-2017) Title of the evaluation: Type of evaluation: Evaluation commissioned by: Evaluation manager s contact / Contacts in UNHCR Date: Key Information at glance about the evaluation Evaluation of UNHCR prevention and response to SGBV in the refugee population in Western Tanzania (mid-2015-2017) Decentralised UNHCR Evaluation Service and UNHCR Tanzania Country Office Contact in the Tanzania Office: Mwihaki Kinyanjui kinyanjm@unhcr.org Contact in UNHCR Evaluation Service: Francesca Bonino bonino@unhcr.org Call for EoI including ToR published: 02/November/2017 This call for Expressions of Interest (EoI) is for the two positions of evaluation Team Leader and Team Member to carry out over the course of six months starting Dec. 2017 an evaluation of UNHCR prevention of and response to SGBV in refugee population in Western Tanzania in the 2015-2017 period. Background The Burundian refugee emergency in the spring of 2015 compounded pre-existing SGBV concerns and risks for the refugee population in Western Tanzania. Refugees experienced SGBV, during their flight from Burundi, over-crowding and lack of privacy in the transit centre and camps, resulting in negative consequences on living conditions and greater risk of violence. A December 2015 Refugees International report, and other UNHCR internal documents drew attention to serious problems related to SGBV in border areas upon admission into Tanzania, in transit centres, and in the refugee camps for newly arriving refugees in Western Tanzania. Since then, various steps have been taken by UNHCR and partners to step up SGBV-related activities and interventions, and ensure SGBV prevention and response is integrated across sectoral activities and all elements of assistance delivered in Tanzania. Against this backdrop, this evaluation provides an opportunity to (i) consolidate learning from what worked and what could be done differently in improving SGBV prevention and response during and following a refugee influx and (ii) offer evidence-informed recommendations geared towards building on the strengths and address the weaknesses identified. Some of the main expected uses of the evaluation are: (a) document challenges, risks, programme practices applied, and lessons learned from the 2015 SGBV response; and (b) inform and influence recommendations, decisions, actions and next steps to strengthen SGBV programming moving forward including in the context of Multi-Year Multi-Partner (MYMP) and Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF) roll-out. Evaluation ToR Please refer to the document appended at the end of this call for EoI. Evaluation Team essential qualifications Detailed functional requirements for the individual consultants who should both be able and willing to travel to Tanzania are outlined in section 7 of the ToR. Overall, the essential skills and qualifications of the evaluation team shall include: Proven evaluation experience in topics relating to SGBV, SGBV mainstreaming, and analysis of prevention of and response to SGBV in humanitarian settings including from a multisectoral perspective. Advanced knowledge of SGBV literature, relevant analytical frameworks and programming approaches and standards including mainstreaming. 1
In depth knowledge of and proven experience with various data collection and analytical methods and techniques used in evaluation and operational research. Proven expertise in facilitating participatory workshops involving different groups and participants. Adequate knowledge and technical expertise in the sectoral areas expected to be included in the analysis of SGBV prevention and response across sectors (e.g. touching on shelter; public health; food security, domestic energy). Institutional knowledge of UNHCR s mandate and modus operandi. Selection and contracting The evaluation commissioning offices wish to engage the services of two individual consultants selected by means of a competitive bidding process. The selection will be carried out by a technical review panel comprising UNHCR Evaluation Service (ES) and UNHCR Division of International Protection (DIP). In line with the UNHCR Evaluation Policy, prior to hiring the consultants, any actual or potential conflict of interest will be assessed. Contracting will be via individual consultancy contract. Proposals from individual consultants, as well as from group of consultants are welcome. Please note that in the case of group submissions, each member of the team will be contracted separately. Duration (person days) and rates UNHCR estimates that a total of 65 person days would be necessary to undertake this evaluation (i.e. 65 days to be divided between two consultants if submitting a joint proposal, or tentatively 40 days for the evaluation team leader and 25 for the team member in the case of individual applicants). Rates will be guided by UNHCR s Policy on Individual Consultants. Submission of technical proposals If applying as a team, one member of the proposed team must be identified as the Team Leader. If applying as an individual, the cover message and email shall indicate for which position (team leader or team member) the application should be considered. All proposals should stipulate the level of effort in each phase of the evaluation (see ToR section 6). Applicants for evaluation team leader position should submit: CV in P11 format including three professional references with contact information; Two recent examples of relevant (evaluative) work completed in the last 24 months; Technical proposal emphasizing a general strategy and approach for the evaluation; proposed evaluation methods and tools, and a plan to organize the evaluation. The technical proposal should be concisely presented and structured to include a description of past professional experience as evaluation team leader, with evidence of the capacity to perform this evaluation, including (i) samples of other evaluations or research relating to SGVB in forced displacement contexts; (ii) three references, with contact information. Applicants for evaluation team member position should submit: CV in P11 format including three professional references with contact information; Cover letter highlighting the required qualifications and experience; Samples of previous work relevant for the requirements of this evaluation. UNHCR will contact referees for feedback on previous services provided, and the consultants may be asked to provide additional information at the proposal assessment stage. Contacts and deadlines Expressions of interest specifying the evaluation title in the subject line should be sent to: hqevaser@unhcr.org. The deadline is 19 Nov. 2017 (midnight Geneva time). [Section break Evaluation Terms of Reference follows] 2
Terms of Reference Evaluation of UNHCR prevention of and response to SGBV in the refugee population in Western Tanzania (2015-2017) Title of the evaluation: Type of evaluation: Evaluation commissioned by: Evaluation manager s contact / Contacts in UNHCR Date: Key Information at glance about the evaluation Evaluation of UNHCR prevention and response to SGBV in the refugee population in Western Tanzania (mid-2015-2017) Decentralised UNHCR Evaluation Service and UNHCR Tanzania Country Office Contact in the Tanzania Office: Mwihaki Kinyanjui kinyanjm@unhcr.org Contact in UNHCR Evaluation Service: Francesca Bonino bonino@unhcr.org ToR published: 02/November/2017 1. Introduction 1. Preventing and responding to Sexual and Gender based Violence (SGBV) is a core component of UNHCR s protection mandate. SGBV prevention and response mainstreaming, as well as dedicated interventions, are life-saving and must begin at the very outset of an emergency. Yet critical programming gaps often remain. 2. The subject of this evaluation are UNHCR s interventions to prevent and respond to SGBV focusing on the refugee population in Western Tanzania in the period mid-2015 / 2017 (mid-year) covering SGBV programming and mainstreaming of SGBV prevention and response across all sectors. 2. Context Overview 3. Tanzania has hosted refugees for decades, and by the end of 2014 it was hosting approx. 56,000 Congolese (DRC) refugees and approx. 3,500 Burundian refugees in Nyarugusu camp in western Tanzania, as well as some 30,000 Burundian refugees and 150 Somali refugees in settlements and villages. 4. This situation changed rapidly in April 2015 when an outbreak of civil unrest in Burundi caused Burundians to flee to neighbouring countries, including in large numbers to Tanzania. 5. Prior to the 2015 influx, there was only one refugee camp remaining, Nyarugusa, which was established in 1996 to host Congolese refugees. The camp hosted some 62,000 Congolese refugees in April 2015. 6. The Tanzania government implements a policy requiring refugees to reside in camps with legal consequences for non-adherence. Therefore, also the newly arriving Burundian refugees had to be accommodated in a camp (Nyarugusa). Due to the large number of new arrivals, transit centres had to be set up, and the maximum capacity of the existing Nyarugusu camp was quickly reached 1. As the situation was unsustainable, two former refugee camps (Mtendeli and Nduta) were re-opened to decongest Nyarugusu. By the end of 2016, some 200,000 new Burundian refugees had arrived. In mid-may 2017 the three camps hosted some 241,500 Burundian refugees (Nyarugusu Camp: 65,144; Nduta Camp: 124,581; Mtendeli camp: 51,799). 7. In support of the Tanzania Government, UNHCR and partners had to scale up quickly their presence and operational capacity. The latest Burundi Regional Refugee Response Plan (RRRP) for Jan- 1 The population in the camp had doubled to 137,157 in June 2015 far beyond the capacity of the camp. At the peak of the emergency approximately 500 to 700 refugees arrived daily in Tanzania, where camps exceeded their capacity by tens of thousands. 3
December 2017 has an overall budget for Tanzania of USD 217,250,427 for UNHCR and some 20 partners. The prevention and response to SGBV is also included in the UNHCR-led inter-agency response strategy and priorities, as well as in the Tanzania Operations Plan for 2017. 8. On 31 August 2017, a joint communiqué by the Tripartite Commission (that brings together the Governments of Tanzania, of Burundi, and UNHCR) included the agreement to implement a voluntary repatriation plan of Burundian refugees who wish to return to Burundi 2. 9. In the period between end May to end September 2017, the average number of individual arrivals had decreased to 270. SGBV concerns and steps taken following the 2015 influx 10. SGBV was a concern prior to the 2015 crisis. SGBV prevention and response programming as well as mainstreaming was being implemented for example through: sensitizing community leaders; investing in alternative energy as a source for domestic fuel; and increasing the number of community-based committees. 11. The Burundian refugee emergency in the spring of 2015 further compounded SGBV concerns and risks for refugees experiencing SGBV, including rape, during their flight from Burundi, over-crowding and lack of privacy in the transit centre and camps, resulting in negative consequences on living conditions and greater risk of SGBV. 12. To emphasize the importance of addressing and mainstreaming SGBV from the start of an emergency, the UNHCR-PRM initiative Safe from the Start was launched in 2014. 3 The Tanzania operation received support from this initiative, for example through deployments of two Senior Protection Officers 4. Before that, the operation was included in an IRC protection surge deployment 5. 13. A December 2015 Refugees International (RI) report, 6 and other UNHCR internal documents drew attention to serious problems related to SGBV prevention and response in border areas upon admission into Tanzania, in transit centres, and in refugee camps for newly arriving Burundian refugees in Western Tanzania. A UNHCR internal review in 2015 also highlighted recurrent gaps in programming across several sectors which manifested as risks of SGBV. The review was followed by a 2-day workshop for UNHCR staff at management level across different sectors, and this gave impetus for the development of a Plan of Action for integrating SGBV prevention and response across sectors. 14. Since 2015, various steps have been taken by UNHCR and partners to step up SGBV-related activities and interventions, and ensure SGBV prevention and response is integrated across sectoral activities and all elements of assistance delivered in Tanzania. Some of the steps taken are highlighted below: UNHCR and partners work towards implementing the Inter-Agency Standing Committee (IASC) Guidelines for integrating GBV interventions across some key sectors and related strategies 7. For example, the provision of fuel-efficient stoves and other household energy interventions serve both environmental and SGBV prevention objectives given that collecting firewood continues to be an important risk factor for SGBV. The livelihoods strategy also includes elements to improve resilience of refugees, and is also expected to mitigate the risk of some forms of SGBV. The RRRP includes elements relating to: (i) enhancing cross-sectoral coordination and collaboration on SGBV prevention and response; (ii) providing coordinated case management services for survivors; and (iii) sharing information using the GBVIMS to inform programming and advocacy. An SGBV strategy has been implemented in Nyarugusu camp (for both Burundian and Congolese people of concern) since the beginning of January 2016. This is accompanied by a training plan and a work plan which is monitored quarterly by the Inter-Agency Protection Sub-Working Group (SWG) on SGBV chaired by IRC and UNHCR. A strategy for Kibondo was developed in 2016, along with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for all sites. 2 UNHCR update on the Burundian refugee voluntary repatriation operation. Reporting period 25 Sept. -6 Oct. 2017. Available here. 3 Information Sheet: Safe from the Start project. Available here. 4 One year deployment of a Senior Protection Officer followed by a second year-long deployment of a Protection Officer up to August 2017. 5 http://www.unhcr.org/575a83dd5.pdf 6 https://www.refugeesinternational.org/reports/tanzania 7 IASC (2015) Guidelines for Integrating Gender-Based Violence Interventions in Humanitarian Action - Reducing risk, promoting resilience and aiding recovery. Geneva: Inter-Agency Standing Committee. Available http://gbvguidelines.org/en/home/ 4
Referral mechanisms and case management systems have been put in place to identify survivors of SGBV and provide care to mitigate consequences of SGBV. This includes case management, facilitating access to legal assistance, psychosocial support, health and medical support, including the provision of PEP kits. SGBV is included in all contingency and relocation planning to ensure that the minimum initial service package (MISP) and safe identification and referral mechanisms were in place at all border points. The strategy includes activities with men and boys, and the use of solar lighting to reduce risks, and the introduction of lockable latrines and bathhouses. Government Policy 15. The Tanzanian Refugee Policy and 1998 Refuge Act require refugees to reside in camps, although the government has expressed some willingness to potentially review (i) the policy; and (ii) the Refugee National Legal Framework, in line with international standards. A new draft policy was expected to be finalized in 2017- followed by a revision of the Refugee Act but to date, no progress has been recorded on these commitments. 16. Burundian refugees were accorded refugee status on a prima facie basis. On 20 July 2017, this declaration was revoked by the Tanzanian Government. Since then, the Tanzania government is conducting refugee status determination on an individual basis by an Ad-hoc Committee in accordance with Art. 8 of the 1998 Refugee Act. Coordination and partners 17. UNHCR s main government partner is the Ministry of Home Affairs, and it also works together with the Ministry of Health and Social Welfare. 18. UNHCR coordinates the overall refugee response in line with the Refugee Coordination Model (RCM), and works closely together with various UN sister agencies, as well as with NGO partners such as International Rescue Committee (IRC) on SGBV prevention and response. In the RRRP some 20 partners appealed for funds for the Burundi emergency response in Tanzania. Recent developments 19. UNHCR is committed to the global Call to Action on Protection from Gender-based Violence in Emergencies launched in 2013. The Call aims to fundamentally transform the way SGBV is addressed in emergencies, so that every humanitarian response provides safe and comprehensive services for those affected by SGBV and mitigates SGBV risk from the earliest phases of a crisis. In 2016, Women Refugee Commission (WRC) undertook a mission to Tanzania to assess progress made in implementing the commitments in the Call to Action. 8 20. The New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, and its annex on the Comprehensive Refugee Response Plan 9, includes important SGBV-related commitments, such as We will combat sexual and gender-based violence to the greatest extent possible and Ensure, to the extent possible, that measures are in place to identify persons in need of international protection as refugees, provide for adequate, safe and dignified reception condition, with a particular emphasis on persons with specific needs [ ] and prevention of and response to sexual and gender-based violence. 21. Tanzania is also a roll-out country for the Comprehensive Refugee Response Framework (CRRF), being developed and initiated by UNHCR in close coordination with the Government of Tanzania and a broad range of partners, adopting a multi-stakeholder approach. 22. As of 2016 Tanzania is also piloting a Multi-Year Multi-Partner (MYMP) strategy approach to protection and solution strategies. 3. Purpose, objectives and expected use of the evaluation 23. The evaluation results are expected to be used to: Document challenges, risks, programme practices applied, and lessons learned from the 2015 SGBV response; 8 https://www.womensrefugeecommission.org/images/zdocs/wrc-call-to-action-mission-report-december-13-2016.pdf 9 http://www.unhcr.org/new-york-declaration-for-refugees-and-migrants.html 5
Inform and influence recommendations, decisions, actions and next steps to strengthen the SGBV programming moving forward, including in the context of the MYMP and CRRF roll-out in Tanzania; Generate lessons for consideration by Tanzania and other UNHCR operations that face comparable challenges with scaling up and sustaining an SGBV response during and following an emergency/influx. Inform future thinking for Safe from the Start around effectiveness and sustainability of specific support received through this initiative. 24. The evaluation will serve a dual and mutually reinforcing learning and accountability purpose as it provides an opportunity to (i) consolidate learning from what worked and what could be done differently in improving SGBV prevention and response during and following a refugee influx and (ii) offer evidenceinformed recommendations geared towards building on the strengths and address the weaknesses identified. 25. The primary audience targeted by this evaluation is UNHCR Tanzania (at capital and regional / suboffice level) and its partners including government at capital and district level Secondary audience includes other humanitarian and development actors in-country. Secondary audience includes donor offices and specific to UNHCR the Regional Bureau for Africa, the Division of International Protection (DIP) and the Division of Emergency, Security and Supply (DESS). 4. Key Evaluation Questions 26. The evaluation will address the following Key Evaluation Questions (KEQs). The analysis needed to answer them is likely to touch on other possible sub-questions. Some for consideration are suggested in Annex 1 and will be further refined during the evaluation inception phase 10. KEQ 1: How did UNHCR and partners (including the Tanzania Inter-agency Protection Working Group) seek to improve SGBV prevention and response (medical; psychosocial; legal; safety and security) during and following the 2015 influx? What systems and mechanisms are in place to deal specifically with (a) SGBV prevention and (b) response including from a mainstreaming and multi-sectoral perspective? What has been learned from that response? KEQ 2: To what extent are SGBV objectives and programming (for prevention, response mainstreaming, and SGBV dedicated interventions) appropriate and responsive to the context and to the needs of refugees? In the period under consideration (mid-2015-17), to what extent were intended objectives achieved? How adequate are quality and coverage? How adequately has SGBV been programmed across sectors? KEQ 3: What were the main contextual and programmatic factors within and outside UNHCR s control and influence that affected how objectives were achieved, and contributed to the observed changes (intended and unintended)? KEQ4: What lessons can be learned from scaling up and maintaining adequate levels of SGBV prevention and response in the changing context in Tanzania also taking into account new opportunities in relation to the CRRF, MYMP and greater involvement of development partners? 5. Proposed approach 27. The evaluation is expected to combine elements of (i) a process evaluation to analyse the steps following the 2015 influx from an SGBV perspective, and (ii) a formative evaluation to look at results and changes and generate evidence for strategy and operational adjustments building on the learning from the 2015 response. Specifically, the evaluation team is expected to: Clarify and explain how the SGBV response evolved taking into account contextual factors, risks, assumptions and constraints. Examine results and changes using an outcome-based methodology (examples may include Outcome Mapping; Process Tracing; RAPID Outcome Assessment) suited to answer questions around contribution to results and influence on changes. 10 The Key Evaluation Questions usually remain unchanged (i.e. as included in the ToR). The Inception Report will indicate how the sub-questions have been re-focused and adjusted (as needed) to provide a better fit with the KEQs. 6
28. To address the questions relating to performance and effectiveness of implementation, the evaluation will build on interviews with key informants, and on the analysis of strategy and programme documents from UNHCR and partners. 29. To address the evaluation questions touching on results and changes the evaluation is expected to triangulate across different types of primary and secondary data 11. 30. The evaluation team is responsible to gather, analyse and triangulate data (e.g. across types, sources and analysis modality) to demonstrate impartiality of the analysis, minimise bias, and ensure the credibility of evaluation findings and conclusions. With regards to data collection, the following activities are envisaged: Primary data collection will include community consultations and a survey targeting case workers and community volunteers to understand issues around access, quality of services, broader community dynamics and perception of changes. Interviews with SGBV survivors should be avoided unless ethical requirements are fully met. Informed consent, confidentiality and data protection requirements should be discussed with the Tanzania Office and outlined in a specific protocol to be used throughout evaluation. Secondary data review will include further analysis and triangulation with a recently-conducted community survey on SGBV, document review (including planning and programming documents), UNHCR and partner generated monthly statistical reports and any other information Interviews and stakeholder workshops (including with UNHCR staff, partners, and Government interlocutors at capital and regional level) will be included to understand contextual and programmatic factors affecting the response. A workshop with the inter-agency protection task team in the field may be useful during the data collection phase. To support analysis, two meetings/workshops are envisaged: (1) immediately following data collection, a meeting with key UNHCR staff will help steer the direction of the analysis and emerging findings; and (2) after the findings have been analyzed and prepared by the consultants, a stakeholder workshop will help shape the proposed recommendations and ensure greater ownership of the evaluation results incountry. 31. UNHCR encourages the use of participatory evaluation methods. The methodology will be finalised by the evaluation team during the inception phase and presented in a matrix, and it is expected to: Be explicitly designed to address the key questions asked taking into account evaluability, resources, and timing constraints and combine as relevant the use of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis approaches. Reflect Age, Gender and Diversity (AGD) considerations in all primary data collection activities. Make use of (i) relevant SGBV analytical frameworks and mainstreaming, sectoral standards; and (ii) relevant internationally agreed evaluation criteria 12. Use as relevant (i) the analytical framework and instruments developed by the Real-Time Accountability Partnership on GBV in Emergencies (RTAP) 13 and (ii) the monitoring and evaluation framework used as part of the Safe from the Start initiative. Evaluation Quality Assurance (EQA) 32. The evaluation consultants are required to sign the UNHCR Code of Conduct, complete UNHCR s introductory protection training module, and respect UNHCR s confidentiality requirements. 33. In line with established standards for evaluation in the UN system, and the UN Ethical Guidelines for evaluations, evaluation in UNHCR is founded on the inter-connected principles of independence, impartiality, credibility and utility, which in practice i.a. call for: protecting sources and data; systematically seeking informed consent; respecting dignity and diversity; minimising risk, harm and burden upon those 11 Possible sources of data include: (a) Programme data generated through monitoring activities, and other reporting products and analysis such as those following Safe from the Start deployments; (b) Primary data from UNHCR partners, government counterparts, and service providers; (c) GBVIMS data, and other data available from Health Information Systems, safety audits, and other types of assessments and routine monitoring and reporting activities; and (d) Secondary data including administrative data (where available) for example from police records, and records from district authorities and health facilities. 12 Such as the OECD-DAC criteria adapted by ALNAP for use in humanitarian evaluations. 13 Overview on the RTAP initiative available here; RTAP Baseline Assessment (2016) available here. 7
who are the subject of, or participating in the evaluation, while at the same time not compromising the integrity of the exercise. 34. The evaluation is also expected to adhere with pilot Evaluation Quality Assurance guidance, which clarifies the requirements expected for UNHCR evaluation processes and products. 35. The Evaluation Manager will share and provide an orientation to the EQA at the start of the evaluation. Adherence to the EQA will be overseen by the Evaluation Manager with support from the UNHCR Evaluation Service as needed. 6. Organisation, management and conduct of the evaluation 36. The evaluation will be undertaken by a team of qualified external consultants joined by a UNHCR Staff with protection profile (from a different operation) in an advisory role, and will be supported by UNHCR Evaluation Service (ES) and the Tanzania Country Office. 37. The external consultants will be selected by a panel comprising the Tanzania Office, UNHCR ES, and DIP. The UNHCR Tanzania Office and ES will co-manage the evaluation. 38. The Evaluation Manager(s) are responsible for: (i) managing the day to day aspects of the evaluation process; (ii) acting as the main interlocutor(s) with the evaluation team; (iii) providing the evaluators with required data and facilitating communication with stakeholders; (iv) reviewing all interim deliverables and final reports to ensure quality. 39. The team of external consultants will comprise a senior team leader and a team member contracted as individual consultants as follows: 40 days for the evaluation team leader (international consultant); 25 days for the evaluation team member (international or national consultant). 40. The Evaluation Team is expected to produce analytical and written products of high standards (i.e. informed by evidence and triangulated data and analysis). 41. All deliverables should be copy-edited in English to publication standards, and free from errors. 7. Expected deliverables and evaluation timeline 42. The evaluation should be completed within six months from the date of signing the contract (ideally in November 2017). 43. The evaluation will be managed following the timeline tabled below and key deliverables are: Inception report. Data collection toolkit (including questionnaires, interview guides, focus group discussion guides) and details on the analytical framework developed for / used in the evaluation. Final evaluation report including recommendations (35-40 pages excluding annexes). Executive summary (drafted as stand-alone document). 14 14 The evaluation ToR, final report with annexes, and formal management response will be made public and posted on the evaluation section of the UNHCR website. All other evaluation products (e.g. Inception Report) will be kept internal. 8
Activity Deliverables and payment schedule Indicative timeline Evaluation ToR finalised and call for proposals issued ToR and call for Expression of Interest Nov. 2017 Selection process (bids evaluated, tender awarded) Contract signed Nov/Dec. 2017 Inception phase including: Initial desk review and key informant interviews. EQA review on the draft Inception Report Circulation for comments and finalisation In-country data collection and preliminary analysis phase Data analysis and reporting phase including: Stakeholder workshop in-country to discuss the evaluation findings and conclusions, and refine the proposed evaluation recommendations. Final inception report including methodology, refined evaluation questions (as needed) and evaluation matrix. PAYMENT 20% Presentation of preliminary findings and conclusions at stakeholder workshops PAYMENT 30% Presentation and discussion of draft evaluation conclusions and proposed recommendations at stakeholder workshop in-country Draft report and recommendations (for circulation and comments) PAYMENT 30% Dec 2017- Feb. 2018 Jan-Feb- 2018 Mar. 2018 EQA review of draft report, circulation for comments Consolidated comments Apr. 2018 Finalisation of Evaluation Report and executive summary. Final Evaluation Report (including recommendations and executive summary) PAYMENT 20% May 2018 7. Evaluation team qualifications 44. Functional requirements for the individual consultants are as follows: Evaluation Team Leader University degree (in areas relating to humanitarian action, social science, public health) plus 10-12 years of relevant professional experience in humanitarian contexts, or a post-graduate degree and a min. of 8-10 years of professional experience in SGBV programming, SGBV mainstreaming, monitoring and evaluation of SGBV or other protection-related areas. Minimum of 5 years of evaluation experience in topics relating to analysis of SGBV and proven track record of leading (preferable) or participating as senior Team member in an evaluation. Advanced knowledge of SGBV literature, relevant analytical frameworks, programming approaches and standards. Institutional knowledge of UNHCR s mandate and modus operandi including RCM. In depth knowledge of and proven experience with various data collection and analytical methods and techniques used in evaluation and operational research. Extensive experience in conveying complex evaluative analysis in plain English, in a clear and compelling way, including through using graphics and schematic visualisations as relevant. Evaluation Team Member University degree (in areas relating to humanitarian action, social science, public health) plus 5-7 years of relevant professional experience, or a post-graduate degree and a minimum of 3-5 years of relevant professional experience relating to humanitarian action. Proven experience (min. 5 years) in supporting data collection and analysis for evaluation activities (preferable) or operational research in humanitarian contexts including on SGBV. Advanced knowledge of various data collection and analytical methods and techniques used in evaluation and operational research and proven expertise in facilitating participatory workshops involving different groups and participants. 9
Annexes Annex 1: Possible evaluation sub-questions What were the coordination, leadership, partnership, resourcing and other operational arrangements (including data collection and monitoring) in place before the 2015 influx (2014-2015 period)? How did they evolve during and following the 2015 influx? How was SGBV mainstreaming programmed including from a staffing and resource allocation perspective? What advocacy work was undertaken and with whom to complement SGBV prevention and response actions? What were the key activities / interventions carried out by UNHCR and/or partners during the 2015 response? To what extent did they contribute to an effective response? Were they carried out at a sufficient scale and adjusted in a way that that made a difference, and in a timely manner? What was the coverage and quality of SGBV response implementation (including quality of services and assistance provided as perceived by users - according to relevant SGBV-specific and multi-sector / mainstreaming standards)? To what extent were survivors (women, men, girls, and boys) of SGBV able to access and receive appropriate protection and assistance? How were gaps identified and acted on? What could have been done differently? How have SGBV prevention and response interventions impacted, if at all, refugee women, men, boys and girls' safety, protection, and access to services and assistance? Have results been achieved at a sufficient scale to induce change (e.g. in the perceived and actual safety, well-being, and protection of refugees)? To what extent has UNHCR been employing the most appropriate strategies (including advocacy, partnership, resourcing, coordination) to ensure further violence could be reduced and survivors provided with appropriate services and protection? How have the SGBV prevention and response strategy and related objectives and programming evolved following the 2015 crisis? On which basis have strategy and operational changes been made to improve their impacts on refugee women, men, boys, and girls in Western Tanzania? 10