Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of UNICEF supported specialized child protection case management response in Jordan

TERMS OF REFERENCE FOR SERVICE CONTRACTING

 

Assignment

 

Conduct a comprehensive evaluation of UNICEF supported specialized child protection case management response in Jordan

 

 

 

Location

 

Amman

Duration

 

4 months

Estimate number of working days

 

90 days

Reporting to

 

Chief of Child Protection, Maha Homsi &

Monitoring and Evaluation Officer

 

 

 

 

 

1. JUSTIFICATION/BACKGROUND

Now in the seventh year of the Syria crisis, Jordan – with a total population of 9.5 million – hosts over 660,000 registered Syrian refugees.[1] A recent census suggests that the number of Syrians in Jordan could be as high as 1.3 million.[2] Syrian children in Jordan face particular vulnerabilities, including large numbers of working children, married children, children experiencing violence in homes and schools, children with disabilities, and children in conflict with the law. Within the affected Syrian population, few are as vulnerable as unaccompanied and separated children (UASC). Border closures, changes in government policy, and anticipated donor fatigue have influenced realities on the ground; however, the need for child protection case management remains acute. 

 

UNICEF and partners have been supporting the provision of specialized and multi-sectoral child protection case management[3] services for girls and boys in camps and host communities in Jordan since 2012. This response was put in place to coordinate the provision of and/or referral to appropriate services for girls and boys who are at-risk of suffering from harm or have already suffered harm, including unaccompanied and separated children.

Today, UNICEF supports International Medical Corps, International Rescue Committee, Ministry of Social Development, Family Protection Department, Ministry of Health, Juvenile Police Department and Jordan River Foundation to provide specialized multi-sectoral child protection case management services. Some of the partners are jointly funded by UNICEF and UNHCR.

 

UNICEF’s case management programming has undergone a number of changes over the years. Initially, the programme started in Zaatari Camp where UNICEF supported International Medical Corps (IMC) and Save the Children International (SCI). From February 2013, International Rescue Committee (IRC) replaced SCI for the identification, registration and reunification of unaccompanied and separated children in Zaatari, including through a UNICEF-supported reception center for newly arriving unaccompanied children. Soon after, UNICEF began supporting IMC to provide case management services in urban settings. Over the years, with the exception of UASC in camps, IMC has remained the primary case management agency for all other children at-risk, including in urban settings where IMC supports UASC and other at-risk children. Following the establishment of Azraq camp in 2014, UNICEF supported the expansion of case management services, including the establishment of an additional reception center to receive newly arriving children. New refugee arrivals to Jordan began decreasing in 2014; however, a steady caseload of unaccompanied and separated children continued entering Jordan. Also in 2014, an increasing number of forcibly separated children were placed in the IRC reception center by Jordanian authorities. Forcibly separated children are children who were detained in host communities where they lived with parents – often during the course of unlawful employment or as a result of failure to carry proper documentation. Once detained, the children were forcibly separated from their families and, within days, transferred by the authorities to the UASC Reception Area. A majority of the caseload of unaccompanied children in 2017 involves cases of forcibly separated children.

 

There are several relevant coordination mechanisms that have been integral in the roll-out and scale-up of case management services in the country. The Child Protection sub working group (CPSWG) is co-chaired by UNHCR and UNICEF while the GBV Sub Working group is co-chaired by UNHCR and UNFPA. During 2013-2014, child protection and GBV sub working groups worked very closely to set up standard operation procedures (SOPs) for the prevention and response to child protection and GBV. This was accomplished through an inter-agency programme which was jointly funded by UNHCR, UNFPA and UNICEF with oversight and guidance provided by an inter-agency project management committee (UNHCR, SCI, IRC, UNICEF, UNFPA and National Council for Family Affairs). This project was implemented by IRC, SCI and Jordan River Foundation. Under this Inter-agency project, the following areas were strengthened;

• Setting up of standard operation procedures for the prevention and response to GBV and CP including standard forms
• Inter-agency Referral pathways for CP and GBV
• Specialized 5-day long training package and programme related to CP and GBV Standard Operating Procedure, referral pathways
• Specialized 12-day long training package and programme for the child protection and GBV case management for frontline staff
• Case management standards for the specialized child protection case management
• Amani campaign to create awareness about issues related to child protection and GBV with referral pathways

 

The Case Management Task Force in Jordan was created with members from CP and SGBV Sub working groups in 2013 and was led by the Project Manager of the Inter-agency SOPs project. This task force led the discussion around setting up standards procedures and forms which are part of the SOPs. The Task Force also finalized the guidelines for the formalization of care arrangement for Syrian UASC. Child Protection Sub Working Group also set up an unaccompanied and separated children Task Force. This Task Force co-chaired by UNHCR and UNICEF led the development of UASC SOPs and Best Interest Determination (BID) SOPs. BID panels are held regularly and managed and led by UNHCR. UNICEF is invited to BID Panels on invitation from the BID Coordinators from UNHCR. IRC, IMC, IFH/NHF (Institute for Family Health/Noor Hussein Foundation) and JRF also attend BID panel when they are presenting cases. A representative from the Family Protection Department also attends BID.

 

In addition to being an implementing partner who provides specialized case management services, Jordan River Foundation has been conducting interagency trainings for government case workers, members of the child protection and GBV sub working groups on the SOPs, referral pathways, case management related issues. Additionally, UNICEF has been conducting trainings related to SOPs, referral pathways and other related SOPs as well.

 

UNICEF has also supported the national child protection system by working with Ministry of Social Development, National Council for Family Affairs, Juvenile/Family Courts, Family Protection and Juvenile Police departments. This included both technical and financial support to expand the coverage by these key government stakeholders. Ministry of Social Development and Juvenile/Family Courts are the key stakeholder when it comes to the formalization of care arrangements for the unaccompanied and separated children from Syria. Family Protection Department is the key stakeholder for domestic violence and other violence against children including GBV.

 

Child Protection Information Management System (CPIMS) has been in use in Jordan since the start of 2013 as the case management tool by all agencies. In Jordan, there are two instances of CPIMS: (1) a stand-alone interagency CPIMS used by IRC and IMC supported by UNICEF and (2) the CPIMS-RAIS online module used by JRF, IFH/NHF and UNHCR. The Case Management Task Force was converted into the CPIMS Steering Committee in 2015 and is co-led by UNHCR and IMC. There are information sharing and protection protocols (ISPs) signed by all the agencies which are members of the CPIMS Steering Committee which include UNHCR, IMC, IRC, JRF, IFH/NHR and UNICEF. Data from both instances is merged together every month in line with the ISPs common tracking sheet and discussed at the monthly meetings of the CPIMS Steering Committee.

 

Since December 2016, IRC and IMC have started using the CPIMS+/Primero which was approved for adoption in Jordan by the CPIMS Steering Committee in Jordan and Global CPIMS Steering Committee. CPIMS+/Primero is an innovative, robust and user-friendly platform - a “next generation” CPIMS. It leverages the best of the previous system, building upon its infrastructure and processes. The CPIMS+ is one module of Primero, a modern, browser-based application that supports multiple operating systems, is flexible and highly configurable. It has granular, role-based access, so that only those who need to see information have access to it. Manager level views promote efficiency, good practice and accountability by allowing oversight of case transactions. By the end of April 2017, there are over 3,000 cases in the system which is being used by close over 130 case workers in Jordan.

 

Since January 2013, close to 30,000 girls and boys including over 6,500 unaccompanied and separated children have benefitted from the response. UNICEF has already commissioned two evaluations by third parties to look at the impact and quality of services being provided as part of the overall humanitarian response. Evaluation of “UNICEF’s Emergency Psychosocial Support Response for Syrian Children in Jordan” was conducted in 2015 and covered the period from 2013 to 2014. In 2016, a Real Time Evaluation was conducted to look at UNICEF’s Gender Based Violence in Emergencies Programme since the start of the Syria crisis. Child Protection Case Management response is the only major component which has not been evaluated so far. 

 

The evidence generated will help to adjust the response and help generate more resources for this life saving intervention. Lastly, UNICEF is accountable to donors who are eager to know about the quality and impact of services and how the funding received is being spent.

 

1. PURPOSE

The main purpose of the evaluation is both summative and formative – at this juncture in the case management programming, it is important to evaluate (1) how the programme has done in addressing the needs of the most vulnerable children in Jordan since 2012, and (2) how to adjust the programme moving forward to respond to the reality of a protracted crisis, border closures, deteriorating social cohesion, and decreased funding prospects.  The evaluation should look at processes, output, outcome and impact and will explore how the response influenced the targeted girls and boys, and what capacities it built (relevant and Impact) and if these services were being provided in a coordinated and coherent manner. Further, the evaluation will look into the degree to which the child protection case management response built on existing child protection systems or actors or have strengthened existing child protection systems.

 

The primary user of the evaluation will be programme staff in UNICEF and implementing partners who will be using it to improve the current programming and plan for the future interventions. The evaluation will also be helpful for the members of the Child Protection Sub Working Group in Jordan as well as the member of the Global Case Management Task Force. Given the fact that there is hardly any evaluation of this nature ever done, it would help to set a precedence for future at the national and global level. The evaluation will also generate substantive evidence based knowledge by identifying good practices and lessons learned from intended and unintended consequences of the response.

 

1. OBJECTIVES

The overall objective of this exercise is to assess the, relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, coherence, and coordination and sustainability of the inter-agency child protection case management response in Jordan. The evaluation criteria to be used will be the standard OECD-DAC. The evaluation should address some of the fundamental queries listed under the specific objectives. These are just the broad queries and statements. A more detailed sub set of questions should be proposed by the evaluation team as part of the request for proposal and inception report.

 

The specific objectives of the exercise include;

1. To assess the relevance of the response by looking at the extent to which the interagency child protection case management response has addressed the child protection needs and priorities of Syrian refugee and asylum seeking children in a coordinated manner. Under the relevance, the evaluation will also assess the consistency of services and processes of the child protection response by exploring actual application of Jordan specific inter-agency standards operating procedures, guidelines, standard forms, information sharing and protection protocols and information management systems
   1. Key Questions;
      1. Were the services and processes relevant and consistent with the interagency standard operation procedure related to child protection, unaccompanied and separated children and other information sharing and protection protocols?
      2. How has UNICEF adapted the programme in light of the evolving context and through the transition from emergency response to resilience (or in view of the humanitarian-development nexus)?
2. To assess the effectiveness of case management response by determining the extent to which the response has attained its stated objectives (at the outcome and output level) including caseload and available capacity. Under the effectiveness, the evaluation will also look at the quality of case management response in relation to Global Inter-agency Guideline for case management and child protection; Jordan contextualized child protection minimum standards and Jordan specific child protection case management standards. This should also cover competencies of the case worker, case coordinators and case supervisors, data quality and use as well as quality of case files.
   1. Key Questions;
   2. To what extent the planned results of the programme outputs, outcomes and impact have been achieved both planned and unplanned and what was the quality of the services provided?
   3. To what extent has the overall case management response been in line with the global case management guidelines and the Jordan specific case management standards?
3. To assess the efficiency of the implementation process of case management response by analyzing the qualitative and quantitative outputs in relation to the inputs to see if the response achieved the planned results in the most cost effective manner.
   1. Key Questions;
      1. To what extent did the actual and expected output and outcomes justify the cost incurred?
      2. To what extent did UNICEF capitalize on existing coordination platforms, coordination mechanisms, and existing capacities to achieve results?
      3. To what extent has the child protection case management response addressed the child protection needs and priorities of Syrian refugee and asylum seeking children in a coordinated manner?
4. To assess the impact of case management response existing child protection systems. The analysis should also look at positive or negative; direct or indirect; intended or unintended changes in the lives of children and systems.
   1. Key Questions;
      1. Did the child protection case management response contribute to strengthening existing child protection systems at the local and higher level? If so, how? If not, why not?
      2. What is the impact or effect of the response (intended or unintended) in proportion to the overall situation of children in need of protection?
5. To assess the sustainability of the results of the response in the event of withdrawal of the ongoing support by identifying the degree to which the child protection case management response has built on existing child protection systems or actors or have strengthened existing child protection systems to take this up.
   1. Key Questions;
      1. To what extent are the positive changes and effects of the child protection case management response sustainable in the event of withdrawal of the ongoing support?
      2. To what extent were the different stakeholders including government departments involved in order to make sure that the results from the response are sustained?
6. To assess the coherence of case management response with different inter-agency standard operating procedures related to child protection and gender based violence, unaccompanied and separated children and best interest determination.
   1. Key Questions;
      1. How the coherence was achieved and /or why was there lack of coherence?
      2. Was the response in line with the different IA SOPs related to child protection and UASC?

 

1. SCOPE OF EVALUATION

The evaluation will focus mainly on the interventions being supported and implemented by UNICEF and its implementing partners. The scope of work will include provision of child protection case management services in three refugee camps (Zaatari, Azraq, KAP camps) and in host community all across Jordan with special focus on seven governorates with the highest concentration of Syrian refugees. Some of the interventions included in the context and background sections have nationwide reach like standards setting, referral pathways, information management systems and child protection system strengthening which include the support provided to Family Protection Department, Juvenile Police Department, Ministry of Social Development and National Council for Family Affairs. For the referral of child protection cases, the scope will also cover overall referrals from other sectors and Makani Centres to specialized services providers. The focus of the evaluation will be UNICEF supported child protection case management response from 2013 to 2017.

 

The evaluation team will be provided with all the relevant documentation including copies of SOPs, standard forms, ISPs, training packages, partnership agreement, monitoring and progress reports, minutes of the meetings, assessments already done on the subject (or related to the subject) and other documents requested and relevant to the scope of work. While all stakeholder are important, special emphasis will be placed on ensuring that children (both boys and girls) who are direct beneficiaries of the interventions are heard, enabled to communicate their priorities and needs, and participate in the evaluation process.

 

Other partners whose participation in the evaluation is critical include UNHCR, UNFPA, Save the Children Jordan (previously Save the Children International), International Medical Corps, International Rescue Committee, Jordan River Foundation, National Council for Family Affairs, Ministry of Social Development, Public Security Directorate (FPD and JPD), Sharia/Juvenile Courts. Other stakeholders whose participation will be important to include parents and caregivers of children benefiting from the services.  Local community leaders, frontline workers, volunteers working with the response, members of community committees, religious leaders, youth and social workers will also be consulted in assessing the impact of the response.

 

1. APPROACH AND METHODOLOGY

A specific and detailed evaluation design with methodology should be presented to UNICEF by the team, which are adequate to respond to the evaluation questions listed above with appropriate triangulation. Methodology may include, but not limited to the following:

• Interviews with key informants
• Focus group discussions with children, boys and girls, of different ages
• Specific FGD with male and female parents/caretakers of children attending the response activities
• Structured and semi-structured interviews with relevant stakeholders
• Desk review of programme documentation, including financial records (both from partners and UNICEF)

 

Some of the tools which are already available should be used during the evaluation and should be clearly reflected in the inception reports and evaluation Matrix. Those tools include Jordan Case Management Standards 2014;[4] Promising Quality: Making sure that we deliver excellent services for children; UNICEF South Sudan 2015 and Zimbabwe 2013[5] and Key Performance Indicators for Case Management - CPIMS+ Steering Committee 2017.[6]

 

“Promising Quality” is a good to be used to assess the quality of case files. While the team could use a tool currently being developed by Global Child Protection Case Management for assessing the competencies of the case workers. For the assessment of the use of different information management systems, evaluation team must use the framework prepared by ICRC, UNHCR and UNICEF in 2016; Information and Communication Technology for Child Protection Case Management in Emergencies: A Framework for Design, Implementation and Evaluation.[7]

 

1. EXPECTED DELIVERABLES

The evaluation team is responsible to submit the following deliverables:

 

1. Detailed Inception Report in English: Electronic version to be submitted within four weeks after signing a contract and initial briefing with the evaluation manager and/or evaluation reference group. This report will be 10 to 15 pages in length and should be in line with UNEG standards for inception reports. The inception report should outline detailed purpose, theory of change, scope, evaluation framework, evaluation matrix, methodology, data collection tools to be used, sampling, field visit timing, data collection methods, timeline for activities and submission of deliverables. The inception report should clearly outline potential ethical issues and approaches. The inception report should also include initial data and findings based on the documentary review and final evaluation design/plan. This report will be used as an initial point of agreement and understanding between the evaluation team and the evaluation managers. A draft will be shared in advance for comments, and approved by the Evaluation Reference Group and need to be cleared on ethics in data collection by Institutional Review Board. Final inception report will be presented by the evaluation team to the Evaluation Reference Group. Field visit and data collection can’t start before finalization of the inception report.

 

1. Draft Final Report in English: Electronic version to be submitted within four weeks after completion of the data collection field visits. The draft final report will be in line with UNICEF adapted UNEG Evaluation Report Standards and contain the same sections as the final report (described in the next paragraph) and will be 50 to 60 pages in length (excluding annexes). It will also contain an executive summary of no more than 4 pages that includes a brief description of the programme, its context and current situation, the purpose of the evaluation, its methodology and its main findings, conclusions and recommendations. The draft final report will be shared with the evaluation reference group to seek their comments and suggestions. Given the scale of the study, there is no limit to the number of drafts until a quality product is achieved.

 

1. Final Evaluation Report in English and Arabic: Electronic versions to be submitted after receiving the last consolidated comments and feedback from evaluation managers and ERG. The final report will be 50 to 60 pages in length. It will also contain an executive summary of no more than 4 pages that includes a brief description of the programme, its context and current situation, the purpose of the evaluation, its methodology and its major findings classified as per the evaluation objectives, conclusions and recommendations. All the rest of the information including tools should be included as annex to the report. The final report will be delivered using a UNICEF’s standard MS word format. The final report will be sent to the evaluation reference group for comments and suggestions and will be quality assured by Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Advisor. English and Arabic version delivered good quality preferably after a review from the editor.

    

2. Two case studies in English and Arabic: Final report should also include two case studies on interventions that worked particularly well for potential duplication in other contexts. Case studies should be developed from information and data collected during the evaluation implementation. Each case study should include context and background, programme interventions, challenges, outcomes and human interest and good quotes. It should be between 3 to 4 pages each.

 

The Evaluation report should systematically answer the key evaluation queries and questions included in the objectives sections of this TOR. It should fairly and clearly represent the views of the different actors/stakeholders. It should clearly give the findings, conclusions and recommendations in a way that is substantiated by evidence. All recommendations included in UNICEF’s evaluation require management response. It is pertinent that all recommendations are clear and specific to what UNICEF Jordan could do or influence.

 

1. GOVERNANCE AND ACCOUNTABILITY

UNICEF as commissioner of this evaluation takes the responsibility and accountability of the final product. It designates Child Protection Specialist and Monitoring & Evaluation Officer as supervisor for this evaluation. Managerial function for this evaluation, however, will be done jointly by UNICEF Child Protection Specialist and UNICEF Monitoring and Evaluation Officer. For the purpose of this evaluation, these two staff will act as managers of the evaluation.

 

A) Evaluation managers will have the following responsibilities:

• Lead the management of the evaluation process throughout the evaluation (design, implementation and dissemination and coordination of its follow up)
• Establish evaluation reference group and convene the evaluation reference group meetings
• Facilitate the participation of those involved in the evaluation design
• Coordinate the selection and recruitment of the evaluation team by making sure the lead agency undertakes the necessary procurement processes and contractual arrangements required to hire the evaluation team
• Safeguard the independence of the exercise and ensure the evaluation products meet quality standards
• Connect the evaluation team with the wider programme unit, senior management and key evaluation stakeholders, and ensure a fully inclusive and transparent approach to the evaluation
• Facilitating the evaluation team’s access to all information and documentation relevant to the intervention, as well as to key actors and informants who should participate in interviews, focus groups or other information-gathering methods
• Provide the evaluators with overall guidance as well as with administrative support
• Oversee progress and conduct of the evaluation, the quality of the process and the products
• Approve the deliverables and evaluate the consultant’s/team’s work in consultation with Evaluation reference group and will process the payments after submission of the deliverables that respond to the quality standards
• Take responsibility for disseminating and learning across evaluations on the various programme areas  as well as the liaison with Global Case Management Task Force and the Global CPIMS Steering Committee
• Disseminate the results of the evaluation

 

B). Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) will comprise the representatives of the major stakeholders including evaluation managers, Chief Child Protection UNICEF Jordan, UNICEF Deputy Representative (or OIC), one representative each from International Medical Corps and International Rescue Committee. UNICEF Regional Child Protection and Monitoring and Evaluation advisors will provide a quality assurance of ToR, inception report, draft and final evaluation report. The ERG will:

• Provide clear specific advice and support to the evaluation managers and the evaluation team throughout the whole evaluation process
• Review the ToR, inception report and draft evaluation report and ensure final draft meets the UNICEF-Adapted UNEG Evaluation Reports Standards
• Review and provide comments and feedback on the quality of the evaluation process as well as on the evaluation products (comments and suggestions on the TOR, draft reports, final report of the evaluation)
• Any dispute on the process or disagreements on any other aspect of this assessment will also be solved by this committee.

 

C). The evaluation team will report to Evaluation Managers and conduct the evaluation by fulfilling the contractual arrangements in line with the TOR, UNEG/OECD norms and standards and ethical guidelines; this includes developing of an evaluation plan and matrix as part of the inception report, drafting and finalizing the final report and other deliverables, and briefing the commissioner on the progress and key findings and recommendations, as needed.

 

1. REALISTIC DELIVERY DATES AND DETAILS ON HOW THE WORK MUST BE DELIVERED

   A tentative time frame for the evaluation is provided below. The evaluation is expected to be completed within four months.  This might be subject to change depending on the prevailing situation on ground at the time of the evaluation.

#

Activities/Deliverables

Type and language

Delivery Date

1.  

Inception meeting

English 

15 Oct 2017

1.  

Detailed Inception Report as detailed under 6.1 above

English, MS Word

15 Nov 2017

1.  

Debriefing of preliminary finding from data collection

English 

15 Dec 2017

1.  

Draft Final Report as detailed under 6.2 above

English, MS Word

05 Jan 2017

1.  

Final Evaluation Report as detailed under 6.3 above

English/Arabic, MSWord

15 Feb 2018

1.  

Presentation to UNICEF and other stakeholders

English 

15 Feb 2018

1.  

Two case studies in Arabic and English as detailed under 6.4 above

English/Arabic, MSWord

15 Feb 2018

 

1. OFFICIAL TRAVEL INVOLVED

It is expected that the evaluation team would travel to Jordan (if located outside) including areas outside Amman for field work as per methodology and tools finalized for this evaluation. All travel costs should be planned properly in the technical proposal and included in the financial proposal. All international and external travel and logistics should be arranged by the evaluation team. Please note that if selected, the contract can be a supporting document to obtain entry visa (if necessary). UNICEF will be unable to secure travel visas.

 

1. DESIRED QUALIFICATIONS, SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE OR EXPERIENCE

UNICEF is looking for an experienced evaluation team (institutional contract) which includes both national and international experts with experience in designing and conducting evaluations for child protection, gender based violence related programmes in emergency contexts. Only institutions will be eligible for this consultancy. The team should have the following qualifications:

1. All team members should have Master’s degrees in Sociology, human rights, Anthropology, Social Sciences or a related field (CVs required)
2. The team leader should have at least 10 years of experience in programme evaluation and must have completed at least two high quality programme evaluations in that period, at least one of them being related to child protection and/or gender-based violence related issues in humanitarian contexts. Samples of the work must be submitted with the proposals.
3. The subject expert should have at least 7 years of national and/or international experience in child protection or gender-based violence responses in emergencies
4. Strong familiarity with the international literature and issues related to child protection case management related issues and the inter-agency work done at the global level including information management related issues including CPIMS
5. Familiarity with the socio-cultural context of Middle East and the cultural, political  and religious sensitivities relevant to the Syria crisis
6. Excellent writing and communication skills in Arabic and English (Reference and production of sample work required)
7. One member of the team must be a native Arabic speaker with sufficient experience in conducting focus group discussions in all settings
8. Solid background knowledge on UNICEF work in emergencies, especially related to child protection
9. Expertise in results- and human rights based programme management

 

1. PERFORMANCE INDICATORS FOR EVALUATION OF RESULTS

   (I.e. timeline, value of services rendered, etc.)

Adherence to the timeline and deadlines set out in the assignment work plan; quality of the delivered reports as per the standards described in the TORs as well as UNICEF/UNEG global standards. The evaluation team should conduct evaluation and develop deliverables in line with the UNEG Evaluation Standards and Norms, UNICEF Procedure on Ethics in Evidence Generation (including informed consent, protection of data and protection of human subjects’ identities and safety), and UNICEF UNICEF-Adapted UNEG Evaluation Reports Standards. Overall performance at the end of the contract will be evaluated against the following criteria: timeliness, responsibility, initiative, communication, and quality of the products delivered.

1. FREQUENCY OF PERFORMANCE REVIEWS

   Monthly Meetings with UNICEF to discuss work progress and challenges, present drafts of the deliverables, provide feedback on the drafts of the deliverables, and or the desk review and recommendations discussion, and presentation of final report

    

2. ESTIMATED DURATION OF THE CONTRACT AND PAYMENT SCHEDULES

The evaluation exercise is expected to last for at least four months. All the payments are contingent on approval by the Evaluation managers and will be made in three instalments:

• 15% upon clearance of an inception report by Evaluation Managers (30 Oct 2017)
• 35% upon submission of the first draft of the evaluation report (20 Dec 2017)
• 50% upon submission of finalized evaluation report in Arabic and English (30 Jan 2018)

  The evaluation team may propose different payment schedules that will be considered during the assessment of the proposal.

 

1. CALL FOR PROPOSALS

   UNICEF is requesting for proposals from competent institutions to conduct this evaluation of the child protection case management response. A two stage procedure will be utilized in evaluating the proposals, with evaluation of the technical proposal being completed prior to any price proposal being compared. Applications shall therefore contain the following required documentation:

   1.            Technical Proposal: Applicants shall prepare a proposal as an overall response to ToR ensuring that the purpose, objectives, scope, criteria and deliverables of the evaluation are addressed. The proposal shall include detailed breakdown of inception phase and data collection methodology, coverage and the approach and proposed sampling to be used in the evaluation. It should also include a brief explanation of data collection, analysis and report writing phases. Draft work plan and timeline for the study should be included. The Technical Proposal shall also include updated profiles/CV and Personal History Forms (P11 forms) of the expert(s) to be part of the evaluation, and electronic copies/links of two most recent and relevant evaluations conducted previously by the proposed evaluation team leader.

   2.            Financial Proposal: Offer with cost breakdown: Consultancy fees, international (economy class) and internal travel costs, Daily Subsistence Allowance (DSA) and required translations and other costs. The Financial Proposal shall be submitted in a separate file, clearly named Financial Proposal. No financial information should be contained in the Technical Proposal. Travel expenses shall be based on the most direct route and economy fare. Quotations for business class fare will not be considered.

   The maximum allowed DSA for Amman is USD 306 to cover lodging, meals, and any other costs related to the consultant's stay in Jordan. Consultants can offer a more competitive DSA rate. DSA shall be adjusted to actual days upon signature of Contract. Interested applicants shall provide Financial Proposals that include at least the following items:

   -              Fees

   -              DSA (if applicable)

   -              Travel expenses: international (if applicable) and local

   -              Other costs

   All proposals should be sent to UNICEF Jordan Country Offices Bids at jordanbids@unicef.org. Technical and Financial proposals should be submitted in two documents. All submissions with complete set of documents should reach UNICEF Jordan no later than 3:00 pm (local time) on 15 July, 2017. A selection committee will review all applications as they arrive. All proposals must meet the minimum requirements described above, and those unable to meet these requirements will not be considered.

2. INDICATION OF HEALTH STATEMENT AND CERTIFICATE OF GOOD HEALTH HAS BEEN RECEIVED PRIOR TO SIGNING THE CONTRACT

   Yes

    

3. UNICEF RECOURSE IN CASE OF UNSATISFACTORY PERFORMANCE

   Based on quality of deliverables satisfactory response by the contractor,  UNICEF in consultation with the Evaluation Reference Group will judge whether initial TOR have been met, otherwise payments should be withheld.

    

4. INDICATION THAT THE CONSULTANT/INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTOR HAS RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS DOCUMENT OR. ALTERNATIVELY, AN EXPERT OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS INCLUDING THOSE CONCERNING LEGAL STATUS, OBLIGATIONS AND TITLE RIGHTS.

Yes.

 

1. REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL EVALUATION AND WEIGHTING CRITERIA

   The proposals will be weighed according to the technical (70 points) and financial considerations (30 points). Submitted proposals will be assessed using Cumulative Analysis Method. Technical proposals should attain a minimum of 70% (49 points) to qualify and to be considered. Financial proposals will be opened only for those submission that scored 49 points or above. Below are the criteria and points for technical and financial proposals.

   1. Technical proposal
      1. Overall Response (10 points)

• General adherence to Terms of Reference and tender requirements
• Understanding of scope, objectives and completeness and coherence of response
• Company/Team is properly registered a/o has required certifications, memberships, etc.            
  1. Proposed methodology and approach (30 points)

• Proposed approach/methodology/tools and management control system
• Evaluation matrix, including the evaluation questions and adequate data collection and analysis methods
• Proposed Implementation Plan, i.e. how the bidder will undertake each task, and maintenance of project schedules
• Deliverables are addressed as per TOR; proposed timelines are clearly spelled out
  1. Technical capacity of the Evaluation team (30 points)

• Range and depth of experience with similar evaluations led by the proposed team leader
• Meeting academic requirements
• Minimum years of experience
• Strong analytical skills and qualitative and/or quantitative statistical data processing applications
• Excellent report writing and language skills

  Technical score: 70% of 70 points = 49 points

  1. Financial Proposal/Offer 
     1. Financial proposal will be assessed based on the completeness, clarity and appropriateness. The maximum number of points shall be allotted to the lowest Financial Proposal/offer that is opened /evaluated and compared among those technical qualified candidates who have attained a minimum 49 points in the technical evaluation. Other Financial Proposals will receive points in inverse proportion to the lowest price. (Total point for Financial officer: 30)
     2. Only those financial proposals will be opened which have been technically accepted (scoring at least 49 points) according to the above criteria.
  2. Timetable (Schedule)

 

1. EQUITY, GENDER, HUMAN RIGHTS, INCLUDING CHILD RIGHTS

The scope of the evaluation covers both duty bearers and rights holders as involved in the evaluation process. All relevant instruments or policies on human rights, including equity issues, child rights and gender equality that should be taken into consideration during the evaluation process. Evaluation must cover relevant human rights, including child rights and gender equality aspects throughout the process and should be reflected while answering all the questions in this evaluation. All tools, approaches and methods proposed for this evaluation should be human rights based and gender sensitive. All data should be collected analyzed and presented in a way that the data is disaggregated by sex, ethnicity, age, disability, etc. Equity dimension should come out very clearly throughout the evaluation process including when presentation the report.

1. GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND VALUES

   The evaluation process will adhere to the United Nations evaluation norms and standards and ethical guidelines for evaluation available at:

   http://www.uneval.org/normsandstandards/index.jsp?doc_cat_source_id=4   

   The evaluation team that will work on this project must demonstrate personal and professional integrity during the whole process of the evaluation. The team must respect the right of institutions and individuals to provide information in confidence and ensure that sensitive data cannot be traced to its source. Further, the team must respect ethics of research while working with children including using age appropriate consent forms, age appropriate data collection, and principle of do no harm.

   Furthermore, the team and its members must take care that those involved in the evaluation have an opportunity to examine the statements attributed to them. The evaluation process and consultants must be sensitive to beliefs, manners, and customs of the social and cultural environment in which they will work. Especially, the team must be sensitive to and address issues of protection, discrimination and gender inequality. The team is not expected to assess the personal performance of individuals, and must balance an assessment of management functions with due consideration of this principle. Finally, if the team uncover evidence of wrongdoing, such cases must be reported discreetly to the appropriate investigative body.

    

2. CONDITIONS

The evaluation team will be required to work on its own computer(s) and use its own office resources and materials in the execution of this assignment. The contractor’s fee shall be inclusive of all office administrative costs. International and Local travel and airport transfers (where applicable) will be under responsibility of the contractor in accordance with UNICEF’s rules and tariffs. Flight costs will be covered at economy class rate as per UNICEF policies.