Tenders Are Invited For Endline Evaluation Of The Strategic Partnership Agreement Ii Programme And Syria & Lebanon Top Ups

Tenders are invited for Endline Evaluation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement II Programme and Syria & Lebanon Top Ups. Closing Date: 17 Oct 2026 Type: Consultancy 1. Background ActionAid Arab Region (AAAR), together with its local partners, has implemented the Strategic Partnership Agreement II funded by DANIDA in partnership with ActionAid Denmark in Syria and Lebanon from 2022 to 2026. The programme has been implemented in highly complex and protracted crisis contexts, requiring continuous adaptation to changing political, economic, humanitarian and protection conditions. In Lebanon, implementation has been undertaken with SHIFT, Bassmeh & Zaitouneh, and RDFL, with interventions reaching communities in Tripoli, Jeb Jenine and Baalbek. In Syria, implementation was initially concentrated in Northwest Syria, through Violet and Bahar, and subsequently expanded to Latakia and Damascus in response to changing contextual and humanitarian needs. The programme has also been complemented by two Top-Ups, one in Lebanon and one in Syria, which are included within the scope of this endline evaluation. The evaluation should therefore assess the overall contribution and performance of the core SPAII programme alongside the additional interventions and adaptations introduced through the Top-Ups. The programme as a whole is expected to have reached approximately: 75,000+ people in Syria, including people benefiting from humanitarian assistance in its various forms, including distributions, protection services and legal services; people participating in trainings; people accessing youth and safe spaces; and people participating in campaigns, collective action and other forms of civic engagement. 35,000+ people in Lebanon, through similar combinations of humanitarian assistance, protection and legal services, trainings, youth and safe spaces, campaigning and collective action. The programme has been structured around three Strategic Objectives: SO1: Rights and access to services Young people, especially marginalised young women, enjoy fundamental rights through improved access to well-resourced programmes and public services in fragile situations. SO2: Sustainable livelihoods and green solutions Young people from refugee and host communities, especially marginalised young women, enjoy improved, sustainable livelihoods through government that is accountable towards building sustainable green solutions. SO3: Resilience, protection and rights Young people from refugee and host communities, especially marginalised women, are resilient to shocks and enjoy their rights to protection in protracted crises. The programmes Theory of Change (ToC) provides the overarching logic through which interventions are expected to contribute to improved rights, access to services, livelihoods, resilience, protection, collective action and longer-term systemic change. Given the duration and complexity of the programme, the endline evaluation provides an opportunity not only to assess the extent to which the programme achieved its intended results, but also to examine how and why change occurred, the contribution of different interventions and partners, the quality of technical capacity and collective action, the programmes policy influence, and the extent to which programming remained relevant and adaptive in protracted crises**.** 2. Purpose of the Evaluation The primary purpose of the endline evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the performance, contribution and learning of the SPAII programme and its Top-Ups in Syria and Lebanon between 2022 and 2026. The evaluation will assess the programme against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of: Relevance Is the intervention doing the right things? Coherence How well does the intervention fit within its wider context and other interventions? Effectiveness Is the intervention achieving its intended objectives and results? Efficiency How well have resources been used to achieve results? Impact What difference has the intervention made? Sustainability Are the benefits, capacities, relationships and changes likely to continue? In addition, the evaluation will place particular emphasis on the programmes ability to adapt to changing and protracted crisis contexts, the quality and adequacy of ActionAid/AAARs technical leadership, guidance and support, the effectiveness and quality of collective action, the extent and nature of policy influence, and the relationship between programme implementation and the Theory of Change. The evaluation is expected to generate practical, forward-looking evidence and learning to inform future AAAR programming in Syria and Lebanon, the design of regional and country-level programmes, partnership and localisation approaches, adaptive programming in protracted and rapidly changing crises, technical leadership and support to partners, advocacy and policy influencing, youth engagement and collective action, and humanitarian-development-peace programming. Ultimately, the findings will contribute to AAARs organisational learning and strategic decision-making, helping to identify what worked well, where the programme could have done better, why particular approaches succeeded or underperformed, and what should be sustained, adapted or strengthened in future programming. 3. Evaluation Questions The following questions should guide the evaluation. The evaluator should refine and prioritise these during the inception phase. A. Relevance To what extent did SPAII respond to the priority needs, rights and aspirations of young people, particularly marginalised young women? To what extent did interventions remain relevant as the contexts in Syria and Lebanon changed between 2022 and 2026? How well did the programme balance immediate humanitarian needs with longer-term rights, resilience, livelihoods and systemic change? Were there important needs or groups that the programme did not adequately address? B. Coherence How well did SPAII complement other interventions implemented by AAAR and partners? To what extent did the programme create meaningful links between humanitarian response, protection, rights, livelihoods, resilience and advocacy? How well did interventions align with local systems, priorities and existing services? C. Effectiveness To what extent did SPAII achieve its intended outputs and outcomes? Which interventions and approaches contributed most significantly to results? Which interventions were less effective, and why? To what extent did the programme achieve meaningful changes beyond activity and output-level results? What factors enabled or constrained effectiveness? Were there significant differences in results across countries, locations, partners, groups or types of intervention? D. Theory of Change To what extent did the programmes Theory of Change accurately explain how change occurred? Which pathways of change were strongest? Were there unexpected pathways or outcomes? What contextual factors influenced the pathways of change? What should be retained, modified or removed from the ToC for future programming? E. Efficiency Were resources appropriately allocated across interventions and locations? To what extent did the programme achieve value for money? Were programme resources sufficiently flexible to respond to changing needs? How did partnership arrangements affect efficiency? Were there significant operational or coordination constraints affecting implementation? F. Impact What meaningful changes can be attributed or plausibly contributed to by SPAII? What difference did the programme make to young peoples rights, resilience, protection, livelihoods and participation? What unintended positive or negative effects emerged? To what extent did the programme contribute to changes beyond direct beneficiaries? G. Technical leadership and guidance To what extent did AAAR provide adequate technical leadership and guidance to support the quality and effectiveness of SPAII implementation? How well did AAARs technical support respond to the specific realities of Syria and Lebanon, including the constraints associated with protracted crisis contexts? Where were technical leadership or guidance gaps identified, and how did these affect implementation or results? What technical guidance, systems or approaches should be retained, strengthened or developed for future programming? H. Collective Action and Policy Influence What was the quality and significance of collective action supported by SPAII? To what extent did young people influence decisions, institutions, policies or public discourse? What evidence exists of policy or systems-level influence? What enabled or constrained meaningful youth participation? Which collective action approaches should be continued or scaled? I. Adaptation in Protracted Crises How effectively did the programme adapt to changing political, economic, humanitarian and social conditions? Which adaptations were most significant? Were adaptations timely and appropriate? What enabled effective adaptation? What constrained adaptation? Did adaptations maintain alignment with the programmes strategic objectives and ToC? What does SPAII demonstrate about how programmes should be designed and managed in protracted crises? J. Sustainability What programme benefits are likely to continue after funding ends? Which capacities, systems, relationships and practices are likely to be sustained? To what extent have local partners been positioned to continue the work? Are collective action and youth engagement mechanisms likely to continue? What institutional or contextual risks threaten sustainability? What should AAAR and partners do to strengthen sustainability? 4. Evaluation Scope The evaluation will cover: Lebanon: Tripoli, Jeb Jenine, Baalbek Syria: Northwest Sy Tender Link : https://reliefweb.int/job/4231653/endline-evaluation-strategic-partnership-agreement-ii-programme-and-syria-lebanon-top-ups