Final Project Evaluation TOR

• Organization: DKH - Diakonie-Katastrophenhilfe
• Location: Aden, Yemen
• Grade: Consultancy Agreement
• Occupational Groups: DKH Quality Team
• Project: Multi-sectoral Emergency Response to support IDPs and other vulnerable groups in Marib, Ad Dali’ and Shabwah Governorates, Yemen.
• DKH Project Nr.: K-YEM-2023-9007
• GFFO Project Nr.:  YEM/YEM/Diakonie/2023/01    
• Closing Date: 12th April 2025

Organizational and Program Background

Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH) is part of the Evangelisches Werk für Diakonie und Entwicklung e.V. (EWDE), one of the biggest welfare institutions in Germany. The organisation supports people affected by natural disasters, war and displacement in 36 countries across the world. This is delivered through a global network of partner organisations. 

DKH provides technical and other backstopping support to all partner organisations by building their capacities and strengthening relations. 

DKH has been supporting partnerships in the delivery of emergency responses and resilience building initiatives in Yemen since June 2019. It current operates from its office in Aden.

Project Background

Project Title: Multi-sectoral Emergency Response to support IDPs and other vulnerable groups in Marib, Ad Dali’ and Shabwah Governorates, Yemen.
Partner Organization: Yemen Family Care Association (YFCA)  www.yfca.org
Build Foundation for Development (BFD) www.bfdyemen.org

Project Location:    

• Yemen/ Middle East
• Shabwah, Ad Dali’ and Marib governorates

Districts: 

• Shabwah governorate: Districts Ar Rawdah and Mayfa’ah 
• Ad Dali’ governorate: Districts Ad Dali’, Ash Shu'ayb, and Al Azariq 
• Marib Governorate: Districts Marib Al Wadi and Marib City

Project implementation

Period: From 1st August 2023 to 30th April, 2025

Target Group: IDPs, host communities, returnees, marginalized groups

Brief description of the interventions to be evaluated

DKH Yemen received a grant from German Federal Foreign Office (GFFO) to support YFCA and BFD to deliver humanitarian assistance to vulnerable communities in Marib and Shabwa governorates. The project aimed to improve access to safe drinking water (output 1), enhance target communities’ knowledge and practices related to hygiene (output 2), improve the target group’ ability to meet basic food needs through various cash modalities (output 3) and finally provide free of charge basic health (output 4) and protection (output 5) services to the most vulnerable communities in the target governorates.

Project Objectives and Outcomes

Overall Objective:

Contribute to improved food security and well-being of targeted vulnerable populations, improved functioning of public water facilities, access to primary health care services, and capacity of the local partner to rapidly respond to future emergencies.

Specific Objective:

Targeted vulnerable communities can meet their basic food needs and have improved access to basic communal assets, safe drinking water, sanitation, and primary health care services.

Project outcome: 214,871 most vulnerable individuals in targeted districts of Marib, Shabwa and Ad Dali' Governorates can meet their basic needs and have improved access to food, safe drinking water, improved sanitation and hygiene, health and protection services.
 
Outcome indicator:

Outcome Indicator 1:  100% of targeted HH with access to safe drinking water.
Outcome Indicator 2: 100% of HHs (men, women, boys, and girls) with access to improved sanitation services.  
Outcome Indicator 3: 75% of participants of hygiene promotion activities who improve their handwashing practices. 
Outcome Indicator 4: 90% of HHs (men, women, boys, and girls) in targeted communities are able to meet their basic food needs through unconditional and conditional cash assistance.
Outcome Indicator 5: 100% of people receiving free of charge health services in the targeted districts.
Outcome Indicator 6: 80 % of beneficiaries who reported feeling safer and more secure after accessing protection services in the project target areas

Purpose and Objective of the Evaluation

The evaluation is intended principally for learning and accountability purposes. It is expected to generate relevant findings, lessons, and recommendations that will be shared with key stakeholders of DKH and used to guide future programming, according to its 2021-2025 strategic plans.

Objectives

The objectives of the evaluation include, but are not limited to, the following:

The main objective of this evaluation is to provide DKH and the GFFO with an assessment of the project, its design, implementation, and results. The aim is to determine the relevance and fulfillment of objectives, coherence, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the project. The evaluation should provide evidence-based, credible, and useful information, enabling the incorporation of lessons learned into the future decision-making processes of DKH and its partners.

The evaluation will specifically:

1)    Assess the extent to which the project met its planned outcomes.
2)    Assess the extent to which the partners met key CHS commitments during the implementation of the project.
3)    Highlight lessons learned, best practices, and recommendations for improvements to feed back into the current and future DKH programming in the same sectoral areas and use similar approaches to meet their objectives.

Research Criteria and Questions

The evaluation shall use all six of the following OECD  DAC  criteria and corresponding questions (Relevance, Coherence, Efficiency, Effectiveness, Impact, and Sustainability). The consultant will be able to review and revise the questions (not the criteria) in consultation with the DKH country office quality team, as part of the inception phase of the evaluation, and as relevant. 

1)    RELEVANCE

The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated. It should include an assessment of the quality of project preparation and design – i.e., the logic and completeness of the project planning process, and the internal logic and coherence of the project design.

The following questions should be answered:

1.1 Was the action adequately designed to respond to the needs of the direct beneficiaries?
1.2 Were the project methodologies and activities relevant to achieve the project objectives? 
1.3    To what extent have the gender, special needs and vulnerability considerations been mainstreamed into activities?
1.4    What was the specific added value of this GFFO funded project? What is the counterfactual? (What would be the situation without the GFFO funding)?

2)    COHERENCE

The compatibility of the partners’ intervention with other interventions in a country, sector, or institution. 
The extent to which other interventions (particularly policies) support or undermine the intervention and vice versa. This includes internal coherence and external coherence. Internal coherence addresses the synergies and interlinkages between the intervention and other interventions carried out by the same institution/government, as well as the consistency of the intervention with the relevant international norms and standards to which that institution/government adheres. External coherence considers the consistency of the intervention with other actors’ interventions in the same context. This includes complementarity, harmonization, and coordination with others and the extent to which the intervention is adding value while avoiding duplication of effort.

The following questions should be answered:

2.1 To what extent is this intervention coherent with other interventions which have similar objectives?
2.2 To what extent is the intervention coherent with the country policy?  
2.3 To what extent is the intervention coherent with GFFO policy? 
2.4 To what extent is the intervention coherent with international obligations (e.g. CHS, Sphere ,,etc.)?
2.5 Where gaps or overlaps found between other interventions in the area and this project? 

3)    EFFICIENCY
The fact that the project results have been achieved at a reasonable cost, i.e. how well inputs/means have been converted into activities, in terms of quality, quantity, and time, and the quality of the results achieved. This requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same results, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.

The following questions should be answered:

3.1 Was the project managed in a cost-efficient manner in terms of (human, financial, and other resources) versus the results?
3.2 Were synergies capitalized on with other actors (local and international) involved in similar projects?
3.3 Were the objectives appropriately operationalized by the local partners in terms of capacity and capability?
3.4 Was the geographical and activity scope of the project appropriate for the available funding? 
3.5 Was coordination between implementing partners efficient? Did all project partners play their envisaged role in an efficient manner? 
3.6 Were participatory processes used? How efficient and inclusive were these processes?
3.7 What is the quality of the project outputs?

The consultant shall analyze the efficiency of project management arrangements and duly justify any issue. Factual statements on the quality and quantity of inputs shall be provided, delays should be measured by means of comparison with the latest update of the planning. Any significant deviations shall be analyzed. Conclusions on the cost efficiency of outputs shall be drawn.

4)     EFFECTIVENESS

An assessment of the contribution made by results to the achievement of the project purpose, and how assumptions have affected project achievements. This should include a specific assessment of the benefits accruing to target groups.

4.1 Were the expected results realized?
4.2 Did the achievement of the results addressed the achievement of the project-specific objectives?
4.3 What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the set objectives?
4.4 If there is a gap between the benefits brought by the activities and the objective of the project, how can it be explained?
4.5 During the project, how well did the partners provide information to communities and people affected by the crisis about the organization, the principles it adheres to, how it expects its staff to behave, the project, and what they intend to deliver?
4.6 Was the implemented monitoring appropriate to address political or contextual changes as well as arising risks and was it effective in adjusting the program-activities in a timely manner? 

The consultant’s focus should be on outputs and outcomes’ delivery and quality (not activities); he/she
is expected to explain any causes of deviations and the implications thereof. The level of achievement of
results should be assessed as reflected by indicators covering the specific objective (outcome), providing
a transparent chain of arguments.

5)     IMPACT

The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the wider policy or sector objectives (as summarized in the project’s overall objective).

The following questions should be answered:
5.1 What evidence is there that the project contributed to the achievement of its overall objective?
5.2 What, if any, were the unintended impacts of the project intervention, both positive and negative?
5.3 Was the project able to monitor, mitigate and respond to any unintended negative effects? 
5.4 What recommendations for future programs can be made based on the “lessons learnt” and “good practices?”

6)    SUSTAINABILITY

An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to continue to flow after external funding has ended (probability of continued long-term benefits).

The following questions should be answered:

6.1 What evidence is there to suggest the project’s interventions and/or results will be sustained after the project ends?
6.2 What are the possibilities for replication and extension of the project’s outcomes? 
Human, organizational (including policies and institutions), and financial factors, as well as environmental
and gender viability, are the main sustainability factors.

Evaluation Methodology

While DKH suggests consideration of the following mixed-methods methodology in order to collect the relevant data, the consultant is expected to determine the final methodological approach for presentation and approval during the inception phase. Final approval will be made by the DKH quality team. The evaluation is expected to be based on the findings and factual statements identified from a review of relevant documents including the project document, ad-hoc, monthly, quarterly and interim reports to the donor. 

DKH will provide the external evaluator with all available project documentation at the beginning of the consultancy. Project-specific context shall also be taken into account. The consultant will also undertake field visits and interview the stakeholders including the target beneficiaries, government officials, respective Clusters, etc. Participation of stakeholders in the evaluation should be maintained at all times, reflecting opinions, expectations, and vision about the contribution of the project towards the achievement of its objectives. 

The methodology must consider participants’ safety throughout the evaluation (including data collection/analysis and report writing) as well as research ethics (confidentiality of data and information collected) and quality assurance (tools piloting, data cleaning). The above-described methodology is indicative, the consultant is expected to provide a detailed methodology and work plan. He/she will also be free to collect additional data in order to reply to all the research questions.

Submission of Proposals

Interested consultants or firms are invited to submit their proposals, including technical and financial proposals, CVs of the evaluation team members, and examples of previous evaluations conducted at procurement.yem@diakonie-katastrophenhilfe.de .

Please provide a maximum of 30 pages. 

Deadline for Submission: Saturday 12th April 2025@ 12:00 pm Yemen time

For technical questions please reach Eng. Ahmed Bin Azoon ‘ahmed.binazoon@diakonie-katastrophenhilfe.de’

Contact Information : procurement.yem@diakonie-katastrophenhilfe.de 
 

To download the related document, Click on the below link