By continuing to browse this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read our privacy policy

Consultant to lead an end evaluation of the DRC Turkey ECHO HIP 2015 Project

Turkey (Turkey)

Project Title: Humanitarian response to Syrian vulnerable refugees in southern Turkey – ECHO HIP2015 
Timing of Evaluation: January 2017 to February 2017 
Type of evaluation: End of Project Evaluation  
Evaluation Trigger: Accountability / Contractual demand 
Objectives of the Evaluation  
The main objectives of the End of Project Evaluation are 
  • To provide an independent assessment of DRC’s response and achievements in regards to the expected results of the project and assess the projects relevance and ability to meet the urgent needs of protracted displaced persons from Syrian conflict and mixed migrants living in Turkey  
  • Assess whether the project’s approach is still appropriate with regard to the prevailing protection situation in Turkey and future predicted protection needs, in particular in respect to the upcoming ESSN[1] programme in Turkey. 
  • Identify best practices, areas of learning and recommendations to contribute to future programming, decision making and investment –including preparedness and contingency planning for future responses.  
Intended use of the Evaluation findings and recommendations  
Field Level: 
  • DRC Turkey Country Management team will use the findings to inform future programming as well as for inputs to the Annual Review Process 2017 
  • DRC Turkey Protection team will use the findings to evaluate the appropriateness of the activities implemented under the changed political context in Turkey in the second half of 2016 
DRC Turkey M&E department will use the findings to refine M&E framework, practices, methodologies and tools for different activities Regional Level: 
  • DRC MENA will use the findings to evaluate DRC Turkey program against DRC MENA Strategic Programme Document 
HQ/Global Level: 
  • The evaluation will contribute to global learning and guidelines by providing input to ALNAP in their ongoing work stream on evaluation of protection.  
Context and background to the project  
DRC has been one of the leading emergency agencies responding to the Syrian crisis since 2011. Operating in Turkey since 2013, DRC works specifically with Syrian refugees and other displacement-affected communities in the southern provinces of Hatay, Kilis and Sanliurfa, as well as Kahramanmarash where a majority of the Syrian refugees in Turkey reside. DRC has established a robust presence and implementation capacity in South Eastern Turkey, particularly within the sectors of emergency response, protection and livelihoods as well as in coastal areas as part of its mixed migration program. 
DRC is among the key actors when it comes to provision of direct assistance to Syrian refugees (e-voucher for basic needs and winterization as well as in-kind distribution of NFIs) within the areas of operation. In addition, its protection interventions include Special Needs Funds support (SNF), tailored legal counselling, community based protection activities as well as protection monitoring. 
DRC Turkey rolled out its humanitarian response with support of ECHO funding to achieve the overall objective to contribute to the Humanitarian Response to Conflict and Displacement affected population in Turkey. Specifically, through the ECHO project Humanitarian response to Syrian vulnerable refugees in southern Turkey – ECHO HIP2015 DRC sought to respond to the urgent needs of protracted displaced persons from Syrian conflict and mixed migrants living in Turkey through the provision of access to basic needs and protection services. The ECHO project duration is from June 2015 until December 2016. 
The ECHO project includes most of DRC basic needs and protection programs. Large part of DRC’s  distribution of basic need assistance is delivered through restricted cash modality (e-card). The ECHO project was initially designed as an emergency intervention to cope with high 2015 influxes across the South East Border through distribution of NFIs/e-cards for basic needs as well as provision of SNF support for protection cases. However, due to the closure of borders in early 2016, the project was extended (through two cost extensions) to cover for additional protection support including community based protection, additional SNF support, and monthly basic needs assistance to socio-economic vulnerable families. In addition, DRC expanded its protection coverage to include also legal assistance to people on the move and people in detention (refugees and mixed migrants) in the coastal areas of Bodrum, Izmir and Istanbul and surroundings through two local implementing partners. At last, a protection monitoring component was also included in the revised project. 
Therefore the ECHO project covers the largest part of DRC protection programming in Turkey, with a strong focus on protection. 
Intervention logic: the project intends to respond to the urgent needs of protracted displaced persons from Syrian conflict and mixed migrants living in Turkey through the provision of access to basic needs and protection services. As part of the DRC strategy in Turkey the project seeks to strengthen a protective environment of protracted-displacement affected population through enhanced resilience. 
Expected results of the action included the following: 
  1. Under Result 1: DRC targeted the most vulnerable non-camp refugees, including new arrivals, are provided with appropriate assistance to help meet their basic needs 
  2. Under Result 2: DRC sought to provide protection assistance to targeted non-camp, vulnerable refugees to address special needs  
  3. Under Result 3: DRC sought to strengthen the protective environment of protracted-displacement affected and migrant populations in Turkey. 
The project locations are: Kilis, Hatay, Sanliurfa, Kahramanmaras provinces as well as coastal areas or Izmir, Bodrum, and Istanbul and surroundings. The project supports different activities, not necessarily implemented fully in all areas, including within results. The Result 1 is entirely implemented in Kilis while Result 2 is implemented in all areas. Result 3 is implemented only in the coastal and border areas. 
Scope of the evaluation  
The End of Project Evaluation will focus on DRC’s basic needs and protection response to the Syria crisis in Turkey as well as on the mixed migration component. Although the evaluation is limited to a specific ECHO grant, the varieties of activities funded represent a significant   part of DRC’s overall program portfolio in Turkey.    
Thematic areas: The evaluation will cover all three thematic areas reflected by each Result (Result 1: Basic needs; Result 2: Protection and Special Needs; Result 3: Mixed Migration). 
Geographical areas: Access, security as well as timing issues will determine the geographical focus of the evaluation? in Turkey. Depending on the specific activity to be considered, the relevant locations will be selected. The representative samples should be able to generate results allowing comparison of inputs and outcomes on the intended population in the selected districts. 
Key evaluation questions   
Main questions:  
  • Is DRC multi-sector program, with special focus on protection, relevant in focus and scope in regards to needs in the current situation of protracted displacement, especially in respect to the implementation of the ESSN in Turkey? To what extend did the project reach its objectives? To what extent were protection needs covered? 
Sub questions: 
  • Is DRC actively addressing identified barriers to access for all project components (on-site, community outreach, etc.)? What could improve project coverage? 
  • In terms of coverage of needs by the project, how involved did beneficiaries feel in decision making around the services provided? 
  • Were the selection criteria and methodology successful at targeting the most vulnerable individuals in accessing the specific activities/services? 
  • Having the project a strong protection focus and including different Cash Based Interventions (CBIs), are the different Cash Based Interventions (CBIs) complementary in achieving a protection outcome (one-off cash assistance, monthly cash assistance, winterization support, SNF)? 
  • When should CBIs have protection outcomes as main objectives, and which protection concerns can be effectively addressed by CBIs? How can possible protection outcomes generated through CBIs be measured? 
  • How is the DRC Special Needs Fund (SNF) approach in respect to case management contributing to the protection outcome? 
  • Have the distribution and protection departments worked in an integrated fashion to address the needs of vulnerable beneficiaries? Was this effective and best suited to achieve a protection outcome?  
  • How effective is the internal and external referral system? 
  • Whether SNF should be seen as solely a protection intervention modality as it also cuts across several sector issues, and whether protection actors are really best placed to manage these? 
Evaluation deliverable  
A response to the ToR clarifying the suggested team, their capacity and a proposed evaluation design for achieving the objectives of the evaluation and answering the key evaluation questions  
  • Upon awarding of the contract the evaluation team is expected to deliver the following:  
  • Based on project documents and reports and interviews with key stakeholders to the evaluation, a 5 to 10 page inception report that (a) assess the evaluability of the project and relevance of the evaluation questions; (b) suggestions of appropriate evaluation framework  
  •  Field visits and data collection in Turkey (relevant project visits and stakeholder interviews);  
  • A draft evaluation report no longer than 25 pages plus annexes, with an executive summary of no more than two pages and with a list of key recommendations; 
  • A Final Evaluation Report using DRC’s evaluation report format;  
  • A briefing session in Turkey facilitating a discussion on the main findings and possible recommendations to come out of the evaluation. ECHO will also be invited to the briefing session 
The evaluation’s methodological approach will be discussed and finalised with the Evaluation Team, upon their selection. The methodology will be designed to credibly provide answers to the evaluation questions and may be revisited during the evaluation if it appears that this may not be the case.  
In the bid against the ToR the evaluation team is expected to suggest an evaluation model.  
The suggested methodology and approach must build on and be appropriate in relation to previous evaluations, including protection and cash interventions in the MENA region and in response to the Syria Crisis.  
The evaluation should refer and be in line with evaluation guidelines developed by the Active Learning Network for Accountability and Performance in Humanitarian Action (ALNAP) on Evaluation of Humanitarian Action and the Evaluation of Protection Pilot Guide. In addition the following should be taken into consideration: 
  • That the method(s) and approach chosen are relevant to the objective of the evaluation 
  • That the people to be consulted during the evaluation are relevant to the focus of the evaluation 
  • That the method(s) and approach chosen allows for source and method triangulation of findings 
  • That the beneficiaries are consulted only if relevant to the evaluation questions 
  • That collection of data that is not used and not relevant to the evaluation is avoided  
  • That the method and approach chosen are ethically sound and culturally sensible   
Follow Up 
As a minimum the evaluation mission and report should be followed up:  
By DRC Country or Regional programme management: 
  • A signed management response by the Turkey SMT and shared with the Regional Director as well as Evaluation Advisor in OPSU 
Practical Implementation of the Evaluation  
The evaluation is expected to be conducted between January 2017 and February 2017, with field work in Turkey from the 1st to the 20th of February 2017.  
Upon awarding the contract the evaluation team and the DRC Turkey Programme Quality and Grants Manager will agree to a timeline for delivery of the evaluation outputs.  
  • The evaluation is expected to take no-more than 25 work days.  
  • Relevant and pre-approved travel, per diem and translation costs are to be covered by DRC. 
Required competencies, education and work experiences of the evaluator 
The evaluation team/or evaluation consultant should have the following expertise and skills (particularly relevant for the team leader):  
  • Extensive expertise in evaluations of complex programmes in humanitarian context  
  • Knowledge of humanitarian protection work;  
  • Knowledge of cash programming in humanitarian interventions  
  • Extensive experience in conveying complex evaluation analysis and preferably knowledge of theory based evaluations and developmental evaluation;   
  • Excellent writing and communication skills in English  
  • Post-graduate university degree in social sciences or another relevant academic discipline for the team leader and at least a first degree for the other team member(s).  
Interested teams or consultants should submit an expression of interest and updated CV, detailing: 
  • How they meet the profile description and their relevance to the exercise. 
  • A response to the ToR and suggested methodology.  
  • A quote for daily consulting fee in EUR. Accommodation and travel costs inside Turkey are covered by DRC (according to DRC country policy) as well as all logistic arrangements in relation to field visit and interviews are done by DRC. DRC will not cover insurance, international travel as well as other costs related to the assignment (food etc.) 
  • A statement of availability throughout the duration of the Review.  
  • One work sample relevant to the assignment.  
Deadline for applicants is the 6th of January. The contract is expected to be awarded no later than 13 of January 2017. 
If you have questions or are facing problems with the online application process, please contact  
For further information about the Danish Refugee Council, please consult our website 

[1] The ESSN, is an Emergency Social Safety Net programme that is funded by the European Union (EU) and implemented in partnership by the UN World Food Programme (WFP), the Turkish Red Crescent (TRC) and Turkish Ministry of Family and Social Policies (MoFSP). The ESSN falls under the Facility for Refugees in Turkey as part of the EU-Turkey deal signed on 20th March 2016 to tackle migration issues. The Disasters and Emergency Management Presidency (AFAD) provides overall coordination of the programme. The ESSN is implemented through the MoFSP’s social welfare system. It aims to deliver cash assistance to vulnerable people of concern under TP or other form of IP living outside of camps across Turkey.  Assistance will be delivered through Kizilay Cards to allow refugees to cover their basic needs with dignity. Additional details on the ESSN will be provided during the consultancy. 
Before applying, please make sure that you have read the requirements for the position and that you qualify.
Applications from non-qualifying applicants will most likely be discarded by the recruiting manager.

What does it mean?

Click "SAVE JOB" to save this job description for later.

Sign up for free to be able to save this job for later.

  • Organization: DRC - Danish Refugee Council
  • Location: Turkey (Turkey)
  • Grade: NO-D, National Professional Officer - Mid level
  • Occupational Groups:
    • Accounting (Audit, Controlling)
    • Management, Administration and Finance
    • Public Administration - Restructuring
    • Monitoring and Evaluation
  • Closing Date: 2017-01-06

What does it mean?

Click "SAVE JOB" to save this job description for later.

Sign up for free to be able to save this job for later.

Similar Jobs

Humanitarian Affairs Officer (TJO)

UN-OCHA - Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
P-3, International Professional
Geneva (Switzerland)

External Emergency Roster - Monitoring %26 Evaluation Officer

WHO - World Health Organization
P-3, International Professional - Internationally recruited position
Multiple locations (Various)

Evaluation Researcher - QualitativeEvaluation Researcher - Qualitative

GCF - Green Climate Fund
Mid level
Incheon | kr (Korea (Republic of))

Chief of Monitoring Unit

OSCE - Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe
Seconded Position - Mid level - Open for OSCE's 57 participating States
Skopje (Macedonia)

Administrative Officer (TC)(P4)

IAEA - International Atomic Energy Agency
P-4, International Professional - Internationally recruited position
Vienna (Austria)