Background
The Syrian Association for Relief and Development (SARD) is a humanitarian non-profit agency created in 2013 that provides multi-sectoral emergency relief and rehabilitation assistance to vulnerable communities in northwest Syria.
SARD is headquartered in Antakya (Turkey) and has a field office with its partners in Sarmada (Syria). A team of 100+ staff based in Syria is implementing humanitarian activities, including the distribution of cooked meals, NFI/ hygiene kits, food baskets/vouchers and rehabilitation of shelters for the most vulnerable households. Field teams are supported by the Turkey-based team.
As a humanitarian actor in Northwest Syria, SARD is committed to preventing sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA) and child exploitation and abuse (CSG) within its organizational and operational structure. In 2019, SARD developed its PSEA-CSG policy, trained all SARD’s staff on protection principles and appointed PSEA-CSG focal points. Several months into its implementation, there is a need to review the existing policy and approaches while identifying gaps, best practices and opportunities for improvement.
Context
Nearing almost a decade of conflict and compounded by recent hostilities in the North West region, the situation in Syria remains critical and humanitarian needs extensive, with an estimated 2.7 million people in North West Syria in need of various forms of humanitarian assistance. The population in northwest Syria has doubled since the onset of the conflict, with an estimated 2 million internally displaced persons (IDPs) currently living in Idleb and Aleppo. Adequate shelter is unavailable for many, mostly due to a lack of financial resources but also of physical infrastructures. Food insecurity persists, and an estimated 6.5 million people are food insecure across Syria. Assets depletion, lack of income and low purchasing power coupled with high prices and decline of food production have deeply affected households’ ability to maintain their food consumption level.
The renewal of hostilities in Southern Idleb governorate since 16th December 2019 has further aggravated the already dire humanitarian situation in northwest Syria. Airstrikes and shelling have forced an estimated 350,000 people to flee their homes thus creating massive displacements waves towards camps near the Turkey border (Dana sub-district), urban centers such as Idleb and Ariha cities and towards Afrin and Azaz districts in Aleppo governorate. Most internally displaced people (IDPs) have been displaced multiple times thus further exacerbating their vulnerability. Camps and collective centres were already overcrowded and are unable to absorb newcomers, forcing thousands of IDPs to live in informal camps, unfinished buildings and open areas during the winter season.
It is in this context that SARD and its partner’s team operate in Idleb and Aleppo governorates, providing assistance to the most vulnerable population. SARD’s approach focuses on:
the distribution of cooked meals in reception centres, schools and orphanages,
the distribution of food and non-food items to population in needs, including IDPs, returnees and host households living in various type of settlements (open fields, collective centers, individual housing, etc.),
shelter support through cash grant, infrastructure repair, emergency upgrades and distribution of shelter kits in various type of settlements (open fields, collective centers, individual housing, etc.).
As part of its programming approach, SARD seeks to provide assistance to those most in need, often including women-headed households, elderly and/or disabled-headed households and in some (rare) cases, children-headed households.
PSEA and Child Safeguarding Policy
SARD’s Prevention from Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (P-SEA) and Child Exploitation and Abuse (CSG) policy was developed mid-2019 and implemented in the last quarter of the same year. The policy presents SARD’s commitments to prevent SEA and Child abuse while detailing how to raise any concerns (including reporting channels) and roles/responsibilities and providing PSEA focal points contact details.
Purpose of Evaluation and Intended Use
This evaluation will support SARD in identifying strengths and weaknesses of its current PSEA-CSG policy while reflecting on challenges, and drawing good practices and lessons learned. The main objectives of this evaluation are to:
o assess the extent to which SARD’s prevention and response activities are effective and timely,
o identify areas of improvement and suggest new approaches where relevant,
o benchmark/compare SARD’s PSEA-CSG policy with current standards in the humanitarian sector and with cluster/donors’ requirements and recommendations.
The primary user of the evaluation will be SARD Senior Management Team (SMT) team who will directly utilize the evaluation findings to adjust SARD’s PSEA-CSG policy and implementation.
Evaluation Objectives and Scope
The evaluation will focus on all current activities and will focus on both Syria and Turkey-based operations and staff.
The main research questions of this evaluation are:
· To what extent have SARD’s PSEA-CSG prevention and awareness activities been effective at the organizational level?
o To what extent is awareness/knowledge of PSEA-CSG policy and measures (e.g. reporting channels) known among SARD’s senior management, staff and partners?
§ Are SARD’s Code of Conduct and PSEA-CSG policy and procedures part of HR and logistics processes (recruitment and induction of staff, contractors, suppliers, etc.)?
§ Are PSEA-CSG focal points aware and confident in their role and responsibilities?
§ What capacity-building or support do PSEA-CSG focal points require to perform their duty more effectively?
§ Are SARD’s staff aware of PSEA-CSG focal points roles and responsibilities?
o Which tools among those put in place by SARD to prevent and raise awareness are considered by staff as most effective?
§ Do SARD staff and partners feel comfortable and confident in using current reporting channels to raise any PSEA-CSG concerns? Why, why not?
o To what extent are human and financial resources assigned to PSEA-CSG adequate and appropriate?
o What are the key gaps identified by staff when it comes to PSEA-CSG and awareness-raising?
· To what extent do regular community-based activities (assessment/registration, sensitization sessions, complaint and response mechanism – CRM, field visits by M&E and CRM teams, etc.) contribute to the prevention, identification and reporting of SEA-CSG?
o To what extent do SARD’s field teams engage targeted communities in PSEA-CSG (sensitization session, prevention, response)?
§ Who do they engage?
§ Are engagement levels similar across sectors (relief/shelter)?
o To what extent are the PSEA-CSG and complaint and response mechanisms effective?
§ How are those mechanisms monitored and what could be improved?
§ Are CRM and PSEA-CSG mechanisms effective across sectors (relief/sectors)?
§ What are the key strengths and weaknesses of these mechanisms?
· How do SARD’s policy and procedures compare to those currently implemented in North West Syria by other humanitarian actors?
o How effective, context-appropriate and compliant are SARD’s policies and procedures compared to other humanitarian actors and cluster/donors’ requirements and recommendations?
o Are there good practices from other humanitarian actors that could be replicated by SARD?
Methodology
The evaluation consultant/team is invited to propose a methodological approach that will directly answer the questions outlined above. **
At a minimum, the methodology should include a desk review of key internal and external policies, documents and/or guidelines, interviews and group discussions with various stakeholders at a managerial and operational levels.
The evaluation consultant/team is expected to use a participatory approach, involving a range of different stakeholders such as (non-exhaustive list) SARD Turkey and Syria teams, cluster/donors’ representatives, other organizations and agencies working in NWS and community members. Field work in Syria is expected to represent an essential part of this evaluation.
Due to the sensitivity of the subject (and potential stigmatization of those interviewed), the evaluation consultant/team is expected to detail in their proposal interviews’ methodologies and approach (including ensuring confidentiality), in particular with the field team and community members. Please note that in the current context of COVID-19, SARD is welcoming any innovative methodology aimed at reducing risks.
Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards
The evaluation consultant/team should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of people involved, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate. The evaluation should be conducted in a transparent and impartial manner and contribute to organizational learning and accountability.
The evaluation consultant/team should adhere to SARD’s evaluation standards:
· Utility: The evaluation must be useful and used.
· Feasibility: The evaluation must be realistic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.
· Ethics and Legality: The evaluation must be conducted in an ethical manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.
· Impartiality and Independence: The evaluation should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.
· Transparency: The evaluation should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.
· Accuracy: Evaluation should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.
· Participatory: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.
· Collaboration: The consultant/team will be expected to meet on a weekly basis with SARD M&E Department Coordinator to provide updates on the evaluation timeframe.
· Safety and security: The consultant/team will be required to strictly follow SARD Local Security Plan and Standard Operating Procedures while in the field. The consultant/team will be responsible for subscribing to their own (health, accident and evacuation, etc.) insurance.
Deliverables
The evaluation consultant/team will be required to produce the following:
1. Inception Report detailing the evaluation methodology, preliminary desk review findings, evaluation questions (evaluation matrix) and final work plan.
2. Draft and Final Evaluation Report: The evaluation will result in a final report that is a utilization-focused aimed at informing SARD’s SMT decisions in improving the current PSEA-CSG policy. The Evaluation Report shall not exceed 30 pages in length (excluding annexes) and be structured as follow:
Cover Page: Title of the report, country, date, logo of the evaluation team, name of the authors, SARD logo.
Executive summary: This should be a summary that briefly describes the context of the evaluation, its purpose, and main conclusions, recommendations and areas of improvement. The executive summary should be a “stand-alone” document of a maximum of 4 pages.
Background: This will include both the internal and external context in which this evaluation was undertaken, an overview of the situation in SARD’s operation areas in North West Syria, including a description of the objectives of the evaluation.
Methodology: Description of the methodology used to implement the evaluation.
Findings: This section should present findings against the evaluation’s questions.
Conclusions, lesson learned and recommendations: This section should summarise the main findings as well as detail of the current policy’s strengths and weaknesses and areas of improvements. Recommendations should be applicable to the context and SARD’s current (HR and financial) capacities.
Annexes including ToR, photos, tools, etc.
3. PowerPoint presentation of the preliminary findings in SARD Antakya office.
Reports and presentations should be delivered in English. Please note that all data collected as part of this evaluation will remain SARD’s property.
The consultant/team will keep SARD SMT regularly informed of progress and report any key issues that may require additional direction, suggestions for other key informants or reference material.
Timeframe
Proposals should present a detailed (and separate) methodology and budget including the number of expected working days and all evaluation-related costs (travel, accommodation, per diem, insurance, etc.). The evaluation is scheduled to start by mid/late April 2020 with the final report to be submitted at the latest by mid-July 2020.
Responsibilities of SARD
SARD will provide the consultant with relevant internal documents, including policies, procedures and guidelines (PSEA-CSG policy, CRM guidelines, HR guidelines), SARD Strategy, Technical Guidelines, CRM Reports, and any other relevant documentation.
SARD will provide the consultant/team with transportation within the projects’ sites and basic office facilities. SARD will also facilitate the logistics arrangement in Turkey. SARD will appoint a focal point for the evaluation and facilitate communication and coordination with SARD field team in Syria.
Qualifications
SARD seeks expression of interest from evaluation consultants/teams with the following skills/qualifications and expertise:
· Proven experience (minimum 8 years’ experience) in programming, advisory and/or implementation of Safeguarding and prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (essential)
· Proven professional experience in the field of M&E and/or in undertaking technical evaluation and expertise in qualitative data collection and analysis (essential)
· Experience working in the North West Syrian context (preferred)
· Fluent and literate in both English and Arabic (essential)
· Ability to travel and undertake data collection in Syria (essential)
This vacancy is archived.