Final Evaluation Block Allocation 2018-2021

1. Introduction

This end evaluation will assess the 2018-2021 Block grant which is funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and implemented by the Netherlands Red Cross (NLRC). The Block grant is a funding mechanism for humanitarian programmes. It has been implemented between 01/01/2018 and 31/12/2022. The evaluation will assess the different components of the Block grant and provide answers to the key questions listed in this terms of Reference (ToR). This evaluation is to be conducted between March and July 2023. The deadline for the end evaluation report to be submitted to NLRC is 30/06/2023.

2. Context and background

The Block allocation is a funding mechanism that has been in place since 2008 between the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) and the Netherlands Red Cross (NLRC) and regulates the framework for the funding of humanitarian programmes in response to disasters and crises worldwide.

The block allocation 2018-2021 had 4 different components:

1. Forecast based Early Action: provision of financial support to the International Federation of the Red Cross (IFRC) Early Action fund to make better predictions and take early action.
2. Silent Emergency Fund: provision of financial support to IFRC Disaster Relief Emergency Fund (DREF)to respond to silent disasters and to start-up large scale disaster rapidly.
3. Emergency Fund: provision of financial support to multilateral components of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies emergency appeals (including a reservation for chronic crises and humanitarian data) and bilateral relief support to National Societies in affected countries.
4. Delegates Fund: deployment of professionals with a specific expertise to IFRC, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and Bilateral Humanitarian Aid programmes.

This end evaluation is commissioned by the NLRC and will be conducted by an external evaluator who is not in any way linked to planning or implementation of the programme. The final evaluation report will be shared with the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which funds the Block grant programme.

3. Purpose and Scope

This evaluation concerns all projects or activities funded by the Block grants from 2018 until 2021.This includes activities carried out between the Netherlands Red Cross and its sister RC Societies, by the Federation or ICRC. Any emergency relief projects or activities funded by the Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the same period, but outside the Block grant, are excluded from this evaluation. The evaluation focuses mainly on the funding mechanism itself and will not include detailed inquiries in the outputs, outcomes or impact of the funded emergency operations in the disaster affected areas. These inquiries have been or are going to be covered through the relevant programme and project evaluations. Existing evaluation reports on emergency operations funded through the Block allocation will be used as input for this evaluation.

The purpose of this evaluation will be twofold:

1. Summarize key conclusions and findings from programme and projects’ documentation
2. Provide in-depth analysis on a few overarching questions of interest for both MOFA and NLRC

The evaluation will use the OECD DAC framework and provide answers to specific evaluation questions under each evaluation criteria.

4. Key questions

The evaluation will aggregate and analyze achievements and challenges from the different projects and components of the Block allocation against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria.

Under each OECD DAC criteria, the evaluation will provide answers to the specific questions:

Relevance and appropriateness

1. To what extent did the Block funding contribute to providing the necessary support in a timely manner and in prioritizing the most urgent needs first?
2. To what extent did the Block allocation funding mechanism adhere to international principles and in particular Grand Bargain commitments ? Especially, which strengths and lessons learned can derived from comparing the Block Allocation to NLRC with the Dutch Relief Alliance.

Effectiveness

1. To what extent were the overall objectives of the Block funding mechanism achieved? Were there any unforeseen/foreseen negative side-effects or positive side-effects? What are the lessons learned in terms of effectiveness for both bilateral and multilateral fundings?
2. How did the NLRC and its partners adapt to the COVID crisis, responded to the needs created by the COVID crisis, within the framework of the Block allocation:
   1. What lessons learned and conclusions from the various covid reports produced?
   2. What are the comparative advantages of earmarked vs unearmarked fundings when it comes to delivering timely response to a crisis: the specific case of COVID earmarked and unearmarked funding under the Block allocation will be analysed ?
   3. To what extent have the 510 activities contributed to digital transformation? And to strengthening national societies’ capacity to use data for better response?

Efficiency overview

1. What were the financial and human resources in relation to the outputs of the project?
2. For bilateral projects: how were funds allocated? Following which process and decision criterias?

Coverage and Impact

1. How many people were reached, and who were the people reached by the different components and funding mechanisms under the Block allocation?
2. To what extent is the Block funding mechanism delivering impact and added value to the Red Cross Red Crescent Movement and the wider humanitarian sector? Which funding modalities should be prioritised in the future?

Sustainability and connectedness

1. How were longer term interconnected problems of affected populations addressed?
2. To what extend was the capacity of the implementing national societies and of NLRC strengthened as a result of the NLRC inputs during the timeframe of the Block allocation?

Coherence

1. How did the projects funded by the Block funding take into account national policies and those of the implementing national society and the wider RCRC movement?
2. How did the 2018-2021 Block allocation build and learn from the previous Block Allocation?

5. Methodology

The primary methodology will be a desk review of existing documents (annex A).

This review will be complemented and triangulated by:

a) An analysis of financial and results data available on the IFRC go platform

b) A survey of implementing national societies’ staff (to substantiate analysis of sustainability, capacity strengthening of national societies, effectiveness of earmarked vs unearmarked in the case of COVID funding, role of 510 activities)

c) Interviews with key stakeholders (annex B). Interviews can be conducted either face-to-face (for the NLRC and Federation Geneva offices) or using telecommunications

A detailed methodological framework is to be elaborated by the evaluator.

The evaluation will follow the IFRC standards described in the IFRC framework for evaluation : IFRC Framework for Evaluation | IFRC:

https://www.ifrc.org/document/ifrc-framework-evaluation

6. Deliverables

Inception report:

The inception report should be delivered within 1 month of the assignment’s starting date, and should result from discussions with NLRC and MoFA. The inception report should interpret the key questions from the ToR and explains how methodologies and data collection will be used to answer these. It should also elaborate a reporting plan with identified deliverables, draft data collection tools such as interview guides, the allocation of roles and responsibilities within the evaluation team, and logistical arrangements for the evaluation.

Evaluation report:

The report will be maximum 30 pages, including executive summary, excluding annexes; the report should contain clear and well-founded recommendations, categorised and in order of priority, that are appropriate to NLRC’s mandate and capacities.

The evaluation report should also include:

• An overview of the projects and emergency appeals funded by the Block allocation categorised following agreed criteria (for example: by region, type of funding, bilateral-multilateral, earmarked-unearmarked), and related to estimated coverage in quantitative and qualitative terms
• A case study on the comparative advantages of earmarked vs unearmarked fundings in the case of COVID
• A case study on the role of 510 in digital transformation and national societies’ capacity strengthening, in the context of Covid

The report should be written in English.

The report will be appraised according to the ALNAP Quality Pro Forma: http://www.alnap.org/resources/guides/evaluation/qualityproforma.aspx, upon which final payment will be based.

NLRC reserves all rights on the final report (copying, distribution).

7. Profile of the desired Service Provider/Company

0.1 Education:

a) University degree or substantial experience in lieu

b) Qualification in humanitarian studies or a related area

0.2 Experience

a) Experience working for RCRC

b) Experience with evaluating large projects and programmes

c) At least 7 years of experience working for a humanitarian aid organisations

0.3 Skills

a) Fluency in English language, French is an asset

b) Ability to write concise, yet comprehensive reports

c) Excellent interpersonal skills

d) Ability to work effectively in intercultural settings

e) Ability to meet deadlines

f) Self-supporting in working with computers (word processing, spreadsheets, statistical software, online surveys)

0.4 Knowledge

a) Knowledge of NL MoFA criteria and policies

b) Knowledge of Grand Bargain commitments and their application

8. Planning

The final evaluation report is to be delivered latest by 31 June 2023. A detailed planning is to be elaborated and proposed by the evaluator in the Evaluation plan. The evaluation is anticipated to be completed in 25 working days.

General planning overview:

Inception report approved:15/04

Draft evaluation report submitted:07/06

Final evaluation report approved by NLRC and MoFA: 31/06

Debriefing with NLRC and MoFA to present final report: 15/07

Evaluation report and management note published: 31/07

9.Climate and Environmental Impact

The evaluation and the evaluation plan should abide by the climate and environment charter signed by NLRC:

https://www.climate-charter.org/

10. Responsibilities and lines of communication

This evaluation is commissioned by the Head of the International Assistance Department of the NLRC. The process of the evaluation will be managed by an Evaluation Management Team (EMT) consisting of the NLRC PMEAL Advisor and the NLRC Disaster Response Coordinator.

The EMT provides input and advice particularly during the inception phase and other important milestones of the review that will be identified in the evaluator’s inception report. It will monitor the evaluation management, design, implementation and quality control.

The evaluator will be selected through a tender procedure. The NLRC-Logistics Officer will post the Terms of Reference (ToR), requesting an expression of interest from at least three candidates. The shortlist will be shared with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The EMT, using a comparative bid analysis tool, is responsible for the final selection, in consultation with MoFA.

11. Analysis Criteria

Key assessment criteria:

1. Proposed methodology and approach

- Suitability & credibility of the approach to answering the key evaluation questions.

- Capacity of proposal to meet all deliverables and objectives set out in ToR.

- Proposal shows understanding of the way NLRC and the RCRC Movement operate.

2. Experience of company/service provider

- Evaluator has proven experience carrying out similar assignments.

- Evaluator has experience working in the similar regions and on similar topics.

- Quality of previous work examples.

- Evaluator has relevant degree and at least 5 years’ experience within the required field.

3 Writing and presentation

- Concise, well written proposal in language matching ToR.

- Layout and presentation of proposal.

4. Environmental Impact

- Proposal clearly attempts to minimise its carbon footprint.

- Proposal is in line with NLRC climate charter.

Annex A

List of documents

1. DREF appeals
2. DREF annual reports
3. DREF evaluation reports
4. Emergency appeals and reports (IFRC + bilateral)
5. Chronic Crisis
6. Delegate fund – list of delegates
7. Appeal reports
8. Appeal evaluation reports – including Covid
9. Findings from Block internal evaluation
10. Block allocation annual reports
11. World Disaster Report

ANNEX B

List of Key Stakeholders

I. NLRC staff

1. 1. Head of International Department
   2. DRU
   3. Desks

II. IFRC Secretariat staff

1. Geneva
2. Region and country offices

III. Netherlands Ministry of Foreign Affairs staff

How to apply

Bidders are requested to submit both a financial proposal, example of previous work and technical proposal (Maximum 5 pages) that best complies with the text laid out in this post. The offer should broadly outline the proposed methodology. The budget should be all inclusive. The evaluator will provide a budget including consultancy fee and expenditures. The consultancy fee will be presented as an inclusive daily rate. Expenditures will include hotel expenses, communication costs, local transport, visa and all other costs which may occur during the execution of the consultancy. The winning bid will be the one deemed the most economically advantageous (quality of technical proposal and previous work vs. value of financial proposal).

Bids should be submitted to logistics@redcross.nl

Deadline: 15/3/23