Tenders are invited for Consultant for External Evaluation of CARMA 4 Project. Closing Date: 18 May 2025 Type: Consultancy Themes: Protection and Human Rights/Recovery and Reconstruction INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND Recent needs assessments highlight continued protection risks faced by vulnerable Syrian households (HHs). The economic crisis has exacerbated the situation by aggravating dire livelihoods, food insecurity, protection needs, and negative coping strategies (NCs). In response, CARMA4 is providing life-saving and sustaining assistance with cash as the modality at its core. Multipurpose Cash Transfers (MPCT) address an increasing basic needs gap for HHs. Protection services built on the learnings from previous project phases (CARMA 2 and 3), including Case management (CM), Cash for Protection (CfP), provision of specialised in-kind services and goods tailored to individual needs and referral. Group Awareness Raising sessions on protection concerns are being offered, as well as structured PSS Programs for all age groups. Information and awareness raising sessions for both basic assistance (BA) and Protection will also integrate environmental issues. CARMA4 will benefit 17.396 individuals. Caritas Austria (CAUT) is leading the action in a consortium that includes Caritas Switzerland (CACH), and the national partners Caritas Syria (CS) and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch and all the East, Department of Ecumenical Relations and Development (GOPA-DERD). CARMA4 continues delivering BA support while investing in protection activities with ongoing development of an effective referral system to reinforce the program synergies at area level. It offers access to a range of other initiatives in Syria implemented by both local partners, also benefitting from the synergies between other Caritas organisations and the faith-based sector in general. The sector division within the consortium guarantees integration and coordination between the two components: CACH leads on BA and MEAL activities, while CAUT takes responsibility for protection and overall grant management. CARMA4 continues to set standards for cash programming in Syria, proving its cost efficiency and hence allowing for further expansion and scaling. RATIONALE The purpose of this final evaluation is institutional learning to improve future interventions designs. The final evaluations findings and recommendations will be used to focus on learning about emergency response and use of the cash modality for basic assistance and protection in the context of the Syria crisis response as well as replicating success stories and sharing lessons learned with partners and the community of practice. The final evaluation covers the 14 months of CARMA4 intervention. The final evaluation shall take place in Syria in various project sites including both implementing partners (CS, GOPA) as well as both funding/technical partners (CAUT, CACH), covering the full scope of the programme across all results. EVALUATION OBJECTIVE The main objective of the final evaluation is to assess the short and medium-term impact of the project intervention on the lives of individual beneficiaries and their families, achieved through the delivery of a package of different emergency response activities and trainings for national partners. The evaluation shall also look at in how far the interlinkage of activities (MPCT and protection) affects (positively but also negatively) affects the wellbeing of the target group. The final evaluation is expected to Provide an assessment of the overall impact of the CARMA4 project against the specific and overall objectives as well as results as defined in the projects logical framework. Deepen insight into assumptions and approaches underpinning the project, and how these compare to the priorities and concerns of beneficiaries. Assess the relevance of the project with regard to design and coherence, including the intervention logic and its assumptions. Assess the extent to which the project was effective in delivering the planned outputs and outcomes. Assess the extent to which the project has managed to achieve a positive impact on the lives of the projects beneficiaries (disaggregated by women, men, girls and boys). Provide recommendations for possible future interventions of the same type. How did the consortium adapt to unforeseen challenges (including changes due to take over of new authorities etc.) This final evaluation will be conducted in line with the revised OECD/DAC evaluation criteria of 2019[1]. EVALUATION QUESTIONS Below a preliminary list of guiding questions, which will be agreed on and finalised in the inception report. Relevance (25%) To what extent were project design and approach appropriate to the situation? To what extent are the outcomes and indicators of the project still pertinent? Are the planned outputs of the project appropriate to meet the outcome and the overall goal (impact) as part of the analysis of the logframe matrix / project strategy? Are the assumptions and risks still valid? To what extent have multiple sources of information (including affected people and communities, local institutions, etc.) been consulted when assessing needs, vulnerabilities and context? To what extent are the interventions (activities, targeting, transfer modalities) appropriate: culturally, social-economically and environmentally? Effectiveness (15%) To what extent has the programme already produced its expected outputs or will be likely to achieve them? To what extent has the programme already achieved its outcomes or will be likely to achieve them? What were the major factors influencing the achievements or non-achievements? To what extent is the programme likely to achieve real impact (change) for the target groups? How is project-generated (additional) disposable HH-income utilised or invested by target HHs (e.g. education, food security, others, etc.)? Did the programme contribute to capacity building as planned? To what extent is knowledge of the project teams exploited and contributing to the achieved results (benefits of knowledge management)? Was the main target group involved in the project planning phase? Are the statements of the main target group on the attainment of goals identical with the opinions of the actors having provided humanitarian assistance (e.g. employees of the respective organisation)? What have been the key challenges and/or risks hampering implementation of the project? How have these been addressed by the programme management? Which steering and/or mitigation measures have been taken? Have these been the right ones? How effective was the decision-making process? Were (local) coordination structures established? How did the organisations harmonise and coordinate their interventions with other partners? Was there a lead agency nominated? Which factors hindered and supported the coordination? Has the coordination led to more efficiency and impact of the intervention? Where activities properly designed to address the needs of the target group and accordingly delivered in an effective manner? Where MPCT effectively distributed (also given the challenges faced due to the change of authorise within Syria)? Was the set of protection activities effective in releasing urgent protection risks among the target group? Efficiency (15%) Was the project implemented in the most efficient way in terms of time and resource allocation, planning, coordination, and communication? To what extent has the project been managed and implemented as planned? In case: what issues occurred and why? Are constraints and risks regularly identified and analysed, and plans adapted accordingly? Was the transferring modality implemented in the most efficient way (cash through FSPs) compared to alternative modalities or transfer mechanisms? Were the budget and available financial resources realistic for the achievement of the intended objectives and outputs (to include staffing, training, capacity building)? To what extent were all items/equipment purchased and used as planned under this programme? Are programme management and decision-making processes within the programme team and steering committee efficient? What role does participation play in decision-making processes within the programme team? Are there clear processes in place to support monitoring and use of the monitoring-results for management and decision-making? In the CARMA project, what are core issues and benefits of working with multiple/different partners in order to create impact? Impact (25%) Are the results/outcomes of CARMA in line with the overall and specific objectives as formulated in the projects logical framework and specified in the proposal? If any, what were unintended impacts of the programme? What has happened as a result of the project? What do beneficiaries consider the most significant changes brought about by the project in their lives (immediate impact)? How do beneficiaries evaluate the impact of the CARMA intervention in proportion to their overall needs? What were the positive and negative, intended and unintended effects? How was the money (cash grants to beneficiaries) used? What was the money used for (or in which sectors)? Were the investments of cash short-term or long-term? Which impact have protection activities had on the target group? Was CfP/in-kind support utilised for the intended purpose and which impact can be seen on the target group? How where capacity building measures integrated into work practices of national partners? To what extent has the programme affected HH dynamics, female participation and/or inclusiveness in HH decisions? Who is in charge of the cash on HH level? How is it distributed on HH level and who is spending the cash (gender differences)? Have the cash transfers affected HH behaviours, suc Tender Link : https://reliefweb.int/job/4148216/consultant-external-evaluation-carma-4-project
