Tenders Are Invited For Consultant For Dutch Relief Alliance Evaluation (2024-2026)

Tenders are invited for Consultant for Dutch Relief Alliance Evaluation (2024-2026) Closing Date: 11 Mar 2026 Type: Consultancy 1. Background The Dutch Relief Alliance is a coalition of 14 NGOs1 that have joined forces with many more national and local actors to provide humanitarian assistance to people and communities worldwide. By aligning our efforts, the alliance is able to respond to an acute crisis within 72 hours. Working in partnership with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the alliance strives to enhance the impact of the humanitarian efforts of international, national and local NGOs. The Dutch Relief Alliance was established in 2015 with the aim to enable participating NGOs to timely and effectively respond to international crises. The alliance shows leadership in delivering on Grand Bargain commitments and therefore is a highly-regarded actor in the humanitarian field. Our key strategic priorities are: accountability, innovation, collaboration and localisation. The Dutch Minister for International Trade and Development Cooperation has allocated a block grant to the Dutch Relief Alliance (DRA) for the period 2022-2026 (a total of five years). For the period 2022-2026 the DRA has determined 2 strategic enabling priorities to provide better humanitarian aid. The DRA aims for: Responses that are more efficient, effective and impactful, and with local resilience to crises increased. A more efficient and effective humanitarian system with a leading role for local actors and institutions. The DRA humanitarian response to crises takes shape via two mechanisms. The acute crisis mechanism is there to start up and implement joint humanitarian responses to acute crises (ACJRs), approximately six per year with a common timeframe of six months.2 The protracted crisis mechanism facilitates longer-term response in eight protracted humanitarian settings. A previous set of protracted crisis joint responses (PCJRs) ran from 2022-2023 while the currently ongoing PCJRs cover the period 2024-2026. For each of the 2024-2026 PCJRs currently external evaluations are ongoing at country level. The current round of PCJRs is taking place in the following countries: Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, DR Congo and Ethiopia. 2. Scope & purpose As the strategic period nears its end, an external, independent evaluation on strategy and progress towards strategic objectives is needed. The evaluation will focus on the second half of the strategic period (2024-2026) as the first half (2022 2023) has already been evaluated at midterm. The scope is therefore limited to all DRA and DRA-funded activities in the period 2024-2026. Furthermore, as mentioned above, Joint Responses are currently being evaluated a country level and will not be individually evaluated during this evaluation. The evaluations will however provide input for desk research and feed into overall findings and conclusions. There are two purposes to this evaluation: Accountability The first objective of this Evaluation is to provide the DRA and the MoFA with an independent (outsiders) view on the progress DRA has made towards the strategic priorities. The Evaluation should therefore be in line with IOB evaluation criteria3. These strategic priorities were formulated as follows in the strategic plan 2022-2026: Enabling Priority 1: JRs are more efficient, effective and impactful, and local resilience to crises is increased. Putting people at the center. Furthering gender-sensitive responses and inclusiveness. Reducing humanitarian needs, risks and vulnerabilities. JRs integrate innovation. Stronger local humanitarian leadership. Applying complementarity between INGOs and local actors. Mobilizing resources. An enabling governance structure and mechanisms to fit our ambition. Enabling Priority 2: The humanitarian system is more efficient and effective, with a leading role for local actors and institutions Increase visibility, communication and advocacy. Develop and share learning at three levels: With local actors and DRA partners Within the INGO families Externally going global Learning Secondly, this evaluation aims to facilitate learning towards the future. We are looking for best practices that can be replicated as well as errors and omissions that can be prevented, both at the level of Joint Responses and the DRA grant management in The Netherlands. This evaluation will serve as an input for the proposal and plans for the new strategic period. While the Joint Response projects are a fundamental part of the DRA, ACJRs and PCJRs will not directly be evaluated as part of this evaluation. Project-level evaluations including visits to countries of project implementation are currently taking place. The resulting evaluation reports for the PCJRs will become available from May 31, 2026 onwards and will be made available for this evaluation as part of the desk review. Relevant ACJR evaluation reports are already available. 3. Research questions To meet the learning & accountability objectives of this evaluation, the following research questions have been formulated and organised per OECD DAC evaluation criteria. Relevance To what degree/extent has the DRA developed into a frontrunner on Grand Bargain commitments (specifically, 2, 7 and 8) at global and country level? What has supported and/or hampered this? What are the main differences and commonalities between (PC)JRs when it comes to the relevance of assistance and participation of the affected population in decision-making? What explains these differences/commonalities?4 How have crisis modifier mechanisms been used across PCJRs? Have they contributed to increased relevance of our interventions and what does operational evidence suggest for future application? To what degree/extent has the DRA developed into a key player in the Dutch humanitarian landscape? What has supported and/or hampered this? What is the relevance of the DRA for the Dutch humanitarian sector? Effectiveness To what degree/extent has the DRA achieved its objectives set out in the strategy (and considering DRAs reprioritisation of December 2023)? What has supported and/or hampered this? To what degree/extent have the Joint Responses of the DRA (protracted & acute) met their objectives? What has enabled or hampered the (successful) implementation of the JRs? What are the main differences and commonalities between JRs when it comes to effectiveness (within JRs)? What explains these differences/ commonalities? To what degree/extent and how has the DRAs localisation strategy effectively contributed to increased impact for people affected by crisis? (based on desk review of a.o. JR evaluations and interview with staff & (local) partners as interviews with beneficiaries is out of scope for this evaluation) Coherence: To what degree/extent have the Joint Responses of the DRA implemented activities that have been internally and externally coherent? What has supported and/or hampered this? What are the main differences and commonalities between JRs when it comes to coherence (within JRs)? What explains these differences/ commonalities? To what degree/extent does the DRA facilitate collaboration among its members, both at JR and NL level? To what degree/extent do the partner of the DRA international alliance members and local actors alike work complementarily within the Joint Responses? DRA crosscutting themes: Localisation: Has the DRA been effective in ensuring local actors have a stronger role and greater leadership in humanitarian aid? If so, how, what has supported and hampered this? What can we learn from the various modalities (local partner in the response taskforce, local partner as co-lead and national program committee) in protracted crisis joint responses to implement and enhance local leadership? Quality responses: To what degree/extent has the DRA made progress in enhancing quality of the responses (a.o. upholding the CHS standard) according to the objectives set out in the strategy? What has supported and hampered this? To what degree/extent has the DRA (e.g., through integration of learning) improved the quality of Joint Responses? What has supported and hampered this? Innovation: To what degree/extent has the DRA, through integration of innovation improved the efficiency and effectiveness of Joint Responses? What has supported and hampered this? 4. Methodology The expected methods to be employed for this evaluation include at minimum: Desk review of strategic documents, such as, amongst others the DRA strategy, annual reports, annual working plans, etcetera. Desk review of project related documents, such as, amongst others, ACJR & PCJR including realtime review reports and external evaluations reports (two for ACJR, nine for PCJR). In line with IOB criterion 13, where relevant external documents such as academic literature should be be included in the review, for instance to validate findings Interviews with various stakeholders in and outside the DRA network, which could be including but need not be limited to DRA partner and local partners engaged in the implementation of Joint Responses, members of the Local Advisory Group (LAG), DRA staff, DRA Working group members, DRA Partner representatives and/or Board of Supervisors members and representatives of the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). As this evaluation aims to be in line with the IOB requirements, it is encouraged that external resources and relevant stakeholders outside the DRA Network are included. The final and complete methodology for the evaluation will be determined in close deliberation between the reference committee (see below) and the evaluator(s) but should take the evaluation quality criteria of the IOB into account. The methodology must be designed based on the research questions and include methods resulti Tender Link : https://reliefweb.int/job/4199729/consultant-dutch-relief-alliance-evaluation-2024-2026