Final Evaluation Consultant

Location: Remote with travel to Syria, Lebanon, and YemenStart: February 2026 End: June 2026 The humanitarian crises in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen remain among the most complex globally, characterized by protracted conflict, economic collapse, and weakened health and protection systems. Women, children (boys and particularly girls), and marginalized groups face heightened risks of gender-based violence (GBV), limited access to basic sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). The IRC has been implementing integrated protection and health interventions to address these needs, guided by feminist principles and localization strategies. The IRC's Regional Integrated Protection and Health Response project (2024–2026) aims to improve safety, health, and well-being for women, children (girls and boys), and vulnerable populations in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The project integrates GBV prevention and response, SRHR services, MHPSS, and child protection (CP) interventions, alongside capacity strengthening of local actors. The CAD 8 million initiative targets over 127,000 beneficiaries and emphasizes gender equality, GEDI, accountability, and conflict sensitivity. The final evaluation will assess the project's relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, aligned with OECD DAC criteria and GAC priorities. Objectives include: Measure key achievements of intended and unintended outcomes and outputs. Validate the Theory of Change and Assumptions. Identify lessons learned and best practices for future programming and designs specifically for each program area. Assess integration of gender-transformative and localization approaches. Assess the sustainability approach and to what extent this component has been achieved This evaluation is intended to help the IRC answer the following key questions: To what extent did the project in its integrated approach improve protection/safety/well-being and health outcomes including SRHR and, MHPSS for women, girls, and children? How effective were integrated service models (GBV + SRHR + MHPSS)?How sustainable the HOW services delivery through partners and across the WLOs/feminist org as well as the women led community committees? How did gender-transformative approaches effectively influenced social norms? Did integration of services enhance client's uptake in services, and improve their overall wellbeing by receiving comprehensive and complementary services? Any unintended effects/impact on the communities targeted by this project? Based on the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, and with focus on cross-cutting themes: Gender Equality, GEDI, Accountability, and Conflict Sensitivity, it is expected that the evaluation questions should be answered while addressing the following criteria: Relevance for meeting the targeted beneficiaries' needs, interests, and expectations. Effectiveness of the project activities in achieving the project objectives, the relation between input/resources and the results achieved on the output, outcome and impact level as relevant. Sustainability To what extent activities, results, and effects are expected to continue after the donor intervention has ended. To what extent the project supported institutional capacity building will continue to contribute to the emergency response and building resilience, how realistic the project approach was in achieving sustainable results for beneficiaries including the relation with internal and external stakeholders. Efficiency: Were the objectives achieved so far in a cost-efficient manner by the project implementation, were there any alternatives for achieving the same results with less resources Impact: As explained in more details below, because of methodological limitations, it is not expected that the review will be able to infer causality between the project and expected impacts. Instead, the review can offer perceptions, correlations and descriptive inferences about how perceived changes could be associated with (but not unequivocally caused by) the program. This can be also assessed through analyzing the project impact indicators. The final evaluation will be based on a mixed qualitative and quantitative approach and carried out in line with OECD/DAC evaluation principles to answer the key evaluation questions and make recommendations for next programming. The selected service provider, based on their technical proposal, will determine in collaboration with the IRC the final evaluation approach. The offer should include the following as a minimum: Primary and secondary Desk Review of project documents Quantitative methods, including community and HH surveys. Qualitative methods, including Key Informant Interviews (KIIs), Focus Group Discussions (FGDs), case studies, qualitative surveys (Indicators endline) Using a represented sample approach, select the targeted locations for data collection; map-out the homogenous communities across the targeted countries The sample is expected to cover communities at the district/areas level in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. Select and design quantitative and qualitative data collection tools based on the identified requirements – Surveys, FGDs and KIIs. Tools should be in-line with global tools, eg, MISP, SPHERE, IRC and WHO.Ensure data collection tools are standardized to support analysis and visualization using Power BI and SPSSCreate a detailed evaluation question matrix to map which data collection tools will be used to answer each evaluation question. Select the appropriate data collection tools for specific groups (for example surveys + FGD for community members, KIIs for civil society organizations, municipalities, and other local administration bodies).Recruit and train enumerators in all countries Syria, Yemen and Lebanon. Train the enumerators on the data collection tools. Pilot and roll-out the data collection tools. Ensure data collection processes are aligned with IRC's approach to Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) and in close collaboration with the MEAL unit at IRC Country Program. Perform data analysis using relevant tools such as SPSS, PowerBI and qualitative tools. Provide insights and recommendations on IRC's values. Present the preliminary findings and recommendations of the study. Deliver a final narrative and statistical report, and presentation of the study. The evaluation team should be committed to providing the IRC with unlimited access to all produced materials as part of this assignment. The evaluation team should ensure data security and data storage for all documents including evaluation data and analysis. Any data sharing is always subject to the IRC prior approval. The evaluators will produce the following documentation and actions in the process of conducting the review: Inception report to include review objectives and scope, review questions, data sources, analytical approaches and methodologies to be employed, data collection tools, relevant theories of change, a work plan and ways of working with key stakeholders, a dissemination strategy, as well as an updated review timeline and budget Bi-weekly progress reports (one page) to be submitted to IRC to summarize review progress and identify any challenges Three participatory review meetings (one for each country team) Draft evaluation report for review Review meeting with key IRC staff to discuss and validate findings and recommendations Final evaluation report in standard required format: Executive summary Introduction/Background (Context, Theory of Change, Evaluation Questions) Purpose, scope and methods Evaluation work plan LimitationsFindingsConclusionsConcrete and feasible Recommendations LearningAnnexesFinal evaluation report summary in Arabic (5-10 pages) Final evaluation report summary in PowerPoint format Case studies (one for each country program) Online presentation of final evaluation report for IRC, partners and GAC