Expression of Interest for ECHO SHIP Endline Evaluation Closing Date: 20 Feb 2026 Type: Consultancy 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed action will scale up emergency humanitarian assistance that prevents loss of life from the combined effects of armed conflict and natural disasters in Somalia. The actions aim to increase the availability, access, and utilization of essential health, nutrition, WASH, and Food Security services, reaching 223,964 of the most vulnerable internally displaced people (IDPs), returnees, and host community households in Somalia through Integrated Area-Based Programming. Specifically, the action will contribute to reduced morbidity and mortality by providing life-saving, integrated Health, Nutrition, and WASH services, as well as multi-purpose cash assistance, to the most vulnerable and conflict-affected populations in Afmadow, Jamaame, Dhobley, Buale, Jilib, Dinsoor, Erigavo, and Bardhere Districts. The proposed action will result in: 1. Enhanced access to responsive, preventative, and curative health care services. 2. Improved nutrition status for at-risk under-five children, pregnant and lactating women. 3. Improved access to public health-strengthening WASH products and services for at-risk health facilities. 4. Access to timely, gender-responsive Multipurpose Cash Assistance (MPCA), for vulnerable households to meet urgent essential needs enhanced. 5. Life-saving emergency crisis contingency capacities in displacement and conflict-affected communities strengthened. World Vision Germany, together with implementing partners World Vision Somalia, Oxfam Somalia, Oxfam Novib, ZAMZAM Foundation, GREDO, and WASDA, will collaborate with the Ministry of Health at the State and Federal Levels, the Somalia Disaster Management Agency, the State Ministry of Humanitarian and Disaster Management, and other humanitarian and development agencies in delivering life-saving assistance. 1.1 Purpose and Intended Use The purpose of the endline evaluation is to measure the Actions results at completion, verify progress against the logframe indicators, assess program quality and outcomes, and generate evidence, learning, and recommendations for the consortium, communities, and DG ECHO reporting. 1.1.1 Intended Users World Vision Somalia Program (WVSOM) Oxfam Somalia Country Office Implementing partners: ZAMZAM Foundation, GREDO, WASDA DG ECHO and relevant coordination structures (clusters/authorities where applicable) Community stakeholders and committees (for validation and feedback loops) Relevant government ministries (MoH) 1.1.2 Intended Uses of Findings Accountability: Provide credible evidence on outputs/outcomes and explain what worked and what did not. Learning: Identify best practices, innovations, and constraints (access, supply chain, coordination, digital systems, referrals, MPCA delivery). Decisionmaking: Inform closeout, handover of assets/systems, and design of followon actions. Donor reporting: Support DG ECHO final reporting and results communication. 1.2 Evaluation Objectives 1. Measure end line values for outcome/SO indicators and verify key result indicators at end line (including ECHO mandatory indicators). 2. Assess relevance/appropriateness of the integrated response for the needs, context, and evolving risks in targeted districts. 3. Assess effectiveness and quality of delivery across Health, Nutrition, WASH, MPCA, and crisis modifier/contingency activities, including referrals and layering. 4. Assess coverage, equity, and inclusion, including for women, children under five, pregnant and lactating women (PLW), and persons with disabilities. 5. Assess Accountability to Affected People (AAP), protection mainstreaming, safety, and safeguarding in delivery and community feedback systems. 6. Document key lessons learned and provide practical recommendations for consortium partners and stakeholders. 2 EVALUATION SCOPE 2.1 Timeframe The evaluation covers the whole implementation period from 01 Nov 2024 through the endline (March 2026). 2.2 Geographic Coverage The evaluation will cover a purposive and/or statistically representative sample across the eight project districts: Afmadow, Jamaame, Dhobley, Buale, Jilib, Dinsoor, Erigavo, and Bardhere Districts. The final selection of sites will consider access, security, and operational feasibility. 2.3 Thematic Coverage The evaluation will cover all results and relevant crosscutting components: Result 1: Enhanced access to responsive, preventative, and curative health care services. Result 2: Improved nutrition status for atrisk under-five children and pregnant and lactating women. Result 3: Improved access to public healthstrengthening WASH products and gendersensitive services in atrisk health facilities and communities. Result 4: Access to timely, genderresponsive MPCA, enabling vulnerable households to meet urgent essential needs, was enhanced. Result 5: Lifesaving emergency crisis contingency plans and response capacities strengthened (crisis modifier/anticipatory action). 3 EVALUATION QUESTIONS A. Relevance and Appropriateness To what extent did the Action address priority needs and risk drivers among targeted IDPs, returnees, and host communities, including women, children under 5, PLW, and persons with disabilities? How appropriate was the integrated and sequenced approach (Health/Nutrition as entry point with WASH and MPCA layering) to the local context, access constraints, and market conditions? B. Effectiveness and Outcomes Health: To what extent were primary health consultations, community case management, skilled deliveries, SGBV clinical support and referral services delivered and of acceptable quality? Nutrition: To what extent were screening, admissions, treatment, and referrals achieved, and did performance align with standards/targets (e.g., recovery rate)? WASH: To what extent did healthfacility WASH improvements and community WASH response (Erigavo) improve access, practices, and infection prevention and control conditions? MPCA: To what extent did MPCA improve households ability to meet essential needs (MEB/expenditure outcomes) and reduce negative coping strategies? Crisis modifier/DRR: How effectively did contingency/anticipatory mechanisms function (triggers, timeliness, reach, satisfaction, and coordination)? C. Coverage, Equity, and Inclusion Were services equitably accessed across sex, age, disability, and displacement status? What barriers (distance, cost, safety, cultural norms, accessibility) remained? To what extent did the Action reduce barriers and mitigate risks for vulnerable groups, including PWD accessibility within facilities and gendersensitive WASH and cash delivery? D. Accountability, Protection, Mainstreaming, and Safeguarding To what extent did people perceive that assistance was delivered safely, accessibly, accountably, and participatorily, and what corrective actions were implemented during the Action? How effective were complaints and feedback mechanisms (hotlines/IVR, helpdesks, suggestion boxes, community meetings) in resolving issues and closing feedback loops? Were protection risks identified and mitigated (including PSEA, GBV referral pathways, aid diversion risks, and data protection safeguards)? E. Efficiency and Coordination/Coherence How efficient were delivery mechanisms and partner coordination arrangements (supply chain, registration/biometrics, digital systems, referrals, TPM/remote monitoring where relevant)? How coherent was the Action with cluster standards, government strategies, and other programmes (e.g., UNICEF/WFP referral pathways and coordination structures)? F. Learning and Recommendations What innovations and good practices should be sustained or scaled (e.g., digital medical records, Clean Clinic/WASHFIT, vulnerability scoring, interoperability, anticipatory action triggers)? What priority recommendations should inform closeout, handover, and future programming? 4 KEY PROJECT INDICATORS TO MEASURE/VERIFY (Minimum Set) The end line evaluation should measure/verify (at minimum) the following outcome/SO indicators and selected results indicators (as applicable): Crude Mortality Rate (CMR) measured through survey and/or validated secondary sources where feasible. Severe Acute Malnutrition (SAM) recovery rate verified from treatment facility records. Percentage of target population with adequate WASH services and hygiene practices using household survey/KAP and observation aligned to SPHERE. Percentage of beneficiaries reporting assistance delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner using the ECHO recommended tool and disaggregation. Percentage of households without crisis and emergency Livelihood Coping Strategies (LCS). Percentage of persons effectively referred to other specialized services or assistance providers. 5 EVALUATION DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY The evaluation will use a mixedmethods design that integrates quantitative and qualitative methods and triangulates findings across multiple data sources. 5.1 Quantitative Components Household survey: modules aligned to key outcome indicators including Livelihood Coping Strategies (LCS), Minimum Expenditure Basket (MEB)/expenditure, WASH access and hygiene practices, and perceptions of safe/accountable delivery (ECHO process indicator). Health facility/client exit interviews (where feasible): satisfaction, perceived quality, safety, accessibility, referral experience, and barriers. Routine data verification: extraction and verification of DHIS2 / facility registers, CMAM/OTP registers, referral logs, MPCA payment records, market monitoring, and PDM datasets. 5.2 Qualitative Components Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with women caregivers/PLW, men, adolescents/youth, where relevant, and person Tender Link : https://reliefweb.int/job/4198055/expression-interest-echo-ship-endline-evaluation
