Terms of Reference

Somali Cash Consortium MPCA Real Time Evaluation (RTE) in Somalia

1.       Introduction

The Somali Cash Consortium (SCC) is a consortium of humanitarian organizations working together to provide cash-based transfers to vulnerable households in Somalia. The SCC is led by Concern Worldwide (Concern) as the lead agency and its Implementing Partners (IPs) Save the Children International (SCI), ACTED, COOPI, Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC), Danish Refugee Council (DRC) and IMPACT Initiatives. The SCC aims to provide cash transfers (MPC) to vulnerable households affected by conflict, displacement, and natural disasters in Somalia and implements both short-term humanitarian assistance and long-term social safety net programmes. MPCA allow beneficiaries to purchase the items they need most urgently, whether it be food, shelter, or other basic necessities. By providing cash transfers instead of in-kind aid, the SCC aims to empower beneficiaries to make their own choices and support local markets. The SCC also works closely with local partners and community-based organizations to ensure that the cash transfers reach those who need them most. In addition to providing cash transfers, the SCC also conducts assessments and monitoring to ensure that its programmes are effective and meet the needs of beneficiaries.

Under HIP 2024, DG ECHO awarded the SCC to implement a 12 months Integrated Implementation of Multipurpose Cash Assistance to respond crisis-affected Somali Households. The action has no predefined focus districts, but targets any locations in Somalia based on needs, following the HCT endorsed Integrated Response Framework (IRF).

2.      Background and Rationale

Humanitarian crises often lead to complex needs that require multi-sectoral responses. MPCA[1] being unconditional and unrestricted allows to cover individuals and households basic needs, but in order to provide a truly integrated humanitarian response being able to refer individuals to other humanitarian assistance is crucial. In Somalia, resource constraints, logistical challenges, and security concerns often complicate the delivery of cash assistance, making it imperative to have an adaptive management approach that can respond to issues as they arise. Moreover where conflict and instability are prevalent, the effectiveness of humanitarian cash assistance can be significantly enhanced by optimizing the effectiveness and efficiency of this response and continually assessing and adapting the delivery of MPCA in real time. Real-time evaluation provides a mechanism to gain insights into these aspects, offering a continuous learning process that improves the impact of cash-based interventions.

The SCC is implementing MPCA delivery using a range of implementing modalities and tools that are in alignment with the Integrated Response framework (IRF) enhancing a better integration of MPCA within other sectoral responses. The modalities include lifesaving MPCA in hard to reach and accessible areas, direct nutrition referrals , integration of MPCA with CCCM[2].

In collaboration with other actors to Identify and minimise duplication of beneficiaries: The SCC has set up and signed a Data Sharing Agreements (DSA) with BRCiS, Caafimaad+ consortia and WFP and IOM. Data sharing agreements have been important in fostering collaborative efforts, ensuring seamless information exchange, and enhancing coordinated decision-making among the entities and SCC. Leveraging on the DSA the SCC had been able to minimize duplication through data sharing and deduplication exercise of all registered beneficiaries before providing services.

This real-time evaluation (RTE) aims to contribute to improving SCC programme in such a volatile and unstable environment. It allows for immediate feedback on the implementation process, enabling project teams to make necessary adjustments and improvements to enhance outcomes. This approach will ensure that assistance remains relevant and effective, helping to addressing the cash distribution modalities to the changing needs of affected populations and optimizing the use of available resources.

Given the complexity of the situation in Somalia, understanding the immediate effects of cash transfers, the challenges encountered during implementation, and the lessons collected from the perspectives of beneficiaries are critical.

The Somali Cash Consortium (SCC) aims to strengthen the delivery of cash life-saving assistance by employing a real-time evaluation to review its 0utcomes, assess efficiency of implementing modalities, identify barriers and challenges to implementation, limitations of using IRF guideline, and extract lessons learned to improve ongoing projects and inform other approaches.. This evaluation will focus on the rapid collection and analysis of data to inform decision-making, ensure accountability, and enhance the quality of the intervention. By doing so, SCC seeks to provide timely, relevant, and effective humanitarian assistance that meets the urgent needs of vulnerable populations in Somalia.

Findings of the real-time evaluation will serve for improving delivering modalities, identifying best practices, and highlighting areas for improvement. It will facilitate a more responsive and adaptive approach to humanitarian assistance, ultimately improving the support provided to those most in need.

3. Research Objective and Methodology

The main objectives of the RTE are to provide real-time feedback to the project partners, lesson learning for the continuation of the project and to seek out the views of affected people on the quality and appropriateness of the response.

The RTE aims to be a light and self-sufficient evaluation, but nonetheless to provide a clear understanding of the key issues and challenges of the response through rigorous evidence-based analysis (triangulation, document analysis, key informant interviews etc.). Based on the assessment of the current situation, the conclusions of the RTE will support the Consortium to develop and agree on clear plans of action to address key coordination problems or operational bottlenecks with the overall aim of enabling a more effective response moving forward.

At the end of the real time evaluation SCC will have an overall view on the following areas

1.       The relevance, appropriateness and limitations of cash transfer guidelines/standards developed by the IRF.

2.      The operational effectiveness of the cash transfer  modalities, processes and tools used by SCC

3.       The strategic efficiency (implementing modalities, systems, etc…)

4.      The challenges and barriers that hinder the effectiveness of the cash transfer using the SCC modalities.

5.       The integration and coordination among SCC members and other stakeholders in delivering MPCA.

6.      Actionable and contextualised recommendations for enhancing the delivery and scalability of cash transfer programs.

The RTE aims to address the following questions:

·         Relevance and Appropriateness:

Overarching questions:

• To what extent are activities in line with needs and priorities identified and Integrated Response Implemented Framework (IRF)?

• What parts of the affected populations benefited from SCC MPCA humanitarian assistance? Is this population corresponding to the most vulnerable community members?

• What were the main (security or other) events which hampered the response?

• Do stakeholders adhere to project objectives, methods and strategy?

• Was the design and implementation of the intervention gender-sensitive?

Specific questions:

• Who was excluded, and what were the key barriers to full access? Has humanitarian assistance been impartial (i.e. based strictly on needs)? How minority groups inclusion was ensured?

• What critical factors (i.e. security events, infrastructures, procedures, access, enabling environment, etc.) help explain why the response was or was not delivered in an adequate and timely manner?

• In insecure operating environments, how has this affected humanitarian responsibilities to uphold strict neutrality (i.e. to ensure that humanitarian action does not have the appearance of favouring any party to a conflict)?

• How far has the humanitarian response been tailored to meet local needs and ensure ownership by, and accountability to, affected populations? What measures are in place to ensure transparency in humanitarian action?

• How was gender sensitivity ensured? Where the methods and approaches, as well as main project interlocutors facilitating involvement of all population and gender groups?

• How were the project objectives, methods and approaches been shared and endorsed by stakeholders (community, local government, clusters)?

·         Operational Effectiveness, Coverage and Accountability

Overarching questions:

·         What were the main operational results, and the positive and negative outcomes for the population assisted by the cash intervention?

·         Have critical gaps and issues been identified and addressed in a timely way and with involvement of each partner (international and local)?

·         Have appropriate common standards been adapted/applied to the project deliverables and to what degree have these been met?

Specific questions:

·         How timely and successful is the response in delivering against stated objectives/indicators (as per proposal work plan, individual agencies’ articulated benchmarks)?

·         Which type of learning and self-evaluation processes were in place? How did partners operationalize findings, if any?

·         Is the current strategy for risk management of cash-based operations adequate, and how well do partners comply with it?

·         Do information flows facilitate a balanced response to the needs of the population? Do all actors have confidence in the information made available?

·         What is the partner’s level of commitment and compliance to international standards (such as the Code of Conduct for RC/RC Movement and NGOs in disaster relief, Sphere guidelines, and the best practice encapsulated in People in Aid and the IASC Code on protection from sexual abuse and exploitation)?

·         Which type, if any, of consultation mechanisms with local communities are in place?

·         Has information about the humanitarian response been communicated in a manner that is widely accessible to the affected people in the region? Are feedback mechanisms (CRM) in place that link beneficiary concerns to adaptations in humanitarian strategies/approaches?

·         Are the CRM mechanisms in place effectively responding to the needs of the target communities (i.e. the mechanisms are used / the interested people are receiving a satisfactory reply)?

·         Strategic Efficiency

Overarching questions:

• To what extent are activities implemented in a timely manner?

• Was the planned budget sufficient to the implementation of the activities (TCTR)?

• To what extent has the use of project resources been appropriate to meet humanitarian needs of key target groups (men and women, boys and girls)?

Specific questions:

• Was the set timeframe sufficient for the implementation of the set activities?

• To what extent were the activities implemented as planned?

• Have considerable unforeseen costs arisen?

• Did the planned budget consider all collateral costs associated with delivery modality, distance and monitoring needs?

• Were established transfer values appropriate to the context and needs, and aligned with cluster guidelines?

• Was the intervention cost-sufficient in terms of costs per recipient for different implementation mechanisms/modes of transfer (cash and in-kind)?

• Did project activities overlap in any way with other actors’ intervention in the target area?

·         Coordination and Connectedness

Overarching questions:

• Has an inclusive and well-managed coordination system been established, including with the local (provincial, district level) actors, civil society, clusters and all other relevant stakeholders?

• Were activities planned and implemented in support to pre-existing response plans, structures and capacities?

• Was the coordination system supported by an efficient communication and information management system (i.e. enhancing information flow within the field, between field and central offices, and with CG HQ)?

• How adequately have cross-cutting issues be dealt with in all aspects of the response and in all sectors?

• What have been the linkages between the intervention and any other interventions in relief/recovery/development?

Specific questions:

• How effective has coordination among partners been (with specific focus on harmonization of tools and information sharing towards cross cutting issues, cash transfer schemes, and protection)?

• How effective have the project partners coordinated the response with the humanitarian community (cluster), the local government (provincial, district and local level) and the civil society?

• In what ways, if any, have local capacities been capitalized on and strengthened?

• As areas of intervention are considered of protracted crisis, how has it been ensured that the response supports, rather than undermines, community resilience?

• How effectively have cross-cutting issues been addressed in the response? Was there a network to ensure information sharing and gap filling on cross-cutting issues across programs and sectors?

• To what extent are the people affected not negatively affected but more prepared, resilient and less at risk as a result of the project?

• Is there a well-defined and realistic project exit strategy (referral pathways), taking into account the challenges for sustainability?

·         Impact

Overarching questions:

·         To what extent have short-term emergency measures been consistent with longer-term development interventions and goals?

·         What were the effects of the intervention on recipients’ lives?

·         To what extent third party monitoring is efficient and capture data relevant for decision making?

·         Coherence

Overarching questions:

• To what extent were context factors (political stability/instability, population movements etc) considered in the design and delivery of the intervention?

• To what extent was the partners’ intervention coherent with SCC and CWG key policies and programmes of other partners operating within the same context?

• To what extent was the intervention design and delivery overall in line with humanitarian principles?

Specific questions:

• To what extent was the intervention coherent with other actors’ key policies and programmes – including local and / or national – operating within the same context?

• To what extent has the project engaged in stakeholder coordination, including local and national authorities?

• How has coordination – also with national / local coordination mechanisms – affected the planning and implementation of the project?

• Which factors have restricted coordination, and which factors have supported it? Are there any coordination success factors that can be transferred to other situations?

4. Scope, research approach and principles of the evaluation

The evaluation will analyse data available of the last three years with a special focus on covering the current ECHO HIP 2024 implementing period that goes from April 2024 to June 2025 and will include all regions of Somalia where the project is operational.

The consultant company or research institute will ensure the application of the following principles:

·         Participation: Engage key stakeholders, including vulnerable populations, programme participants, local and international NGOs, key UN agencies, government agencies, and community leaders, to ensure the research reflects the needs and experiences of those most affected by the humanitarian crisis in Somalia.

·         Transparency and Ethical Research: Maintain clear communication with all stakeholders throughout the research process, ensuring ethical standards are upheld, including informed consent, confidentiality, and a do-no-harm approach.

·         Operational Relevance: Focus on generating practical, actionable insights that can be realistically implemented within Somalia’s challenging humanitarian context, considering the constraints and opportunities unique to the region.

5. Methodology

·         Desk review of project documents, reports, and relevant literature.

·         Key informant interviews (KIIs) with project staff, local authorities, and beneficiaries.

·         Focus group discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries to gather qualitative insights.

·         Household surveys to collect quantitative data on the impact of cash transfers.

·         Direct observation of cash transfer processes and activities in selected project sites (e.g. SCC implementing project cycle).

6. Expected Outcomes

·         Inception report: outlining the detailed evaluation plan, methodology, and tools to be used;

·         An in-depth analysis of SCC implementing modalities for cash delivery and alignment with IRF framework (e.g. barriers, challenges, good practices, lessons learned, areas of improvement and suggestions)

·         Final report presenting practical recommendations for enhancing MPCA implementation by SCC, with a focus on improving coordination, reducing inefficiencies, and ensuring that the most vulnerable and marginalized populations receive support.

·         Policy brief on summary of key findings and recommendations for project improvement.

7. Evaluation Team

The evaluation will be conducted by an external team of experts with a good understanding of the Somali context (e.g. gatekeeping phenomenon, clan dynamics, institutional dynamics and security constraints), with experience in humanitarian cash assistance, monitoring and evaluation, and working in complex emergency contexts.

8. Timeline

Activities, and Deliverables

·         The study will be conducted over the period of the project, mainly in the last quarter of 2024. Total number of days will be estimated to 30 days + between two and four days per month for a period of 3-4 months to follow the selected activations. Key activities include preparing the methodology, conducting interviews, analysing data, observing few selected activations approved by SCC through the different phases (RNA, activation analysis and approval, ) and preparing reports.

·         Deliverables:

o    Inception report following the desk review phase (October 2024)

o    Regular progress reports to provide updates on the evaluation activities, data collection efforts, and preliminary findings; these reports could either be in narrative or visualizations. Meetings to present preliminary findings with key project stakeholders would be organized as necessary.

o    Final report, including a summary of key findings and recommendations (December 2024)

o    Presentation in dissemination event(s)

9. Application procedures

The firm/ consultant that fits the requirements should submit an expression of interest in English that is a maximum of 15 pages long and should include the following:

·         A technical proposal with a detailed response to the TOR, with a specific focus on the specific objectives, deliverables, and key selection criteria for respondents

·         Field work: Information gathering/consultation and data analysis

·         A financial proposal detailing the itemized breakdown of the consultancy work, i.e. the number of days and day rates (USD)

·         Methodology and Implementation Plan

·         Company profile and CVs of the core experts that sufficiently demonstrate his/her background in Policy and Advocacy research (maximum of 3 pages per CV, as annex and not included in the page limit)

·         Samples of similar work undertaken by the company or the lead consultant.

·         List of at least 3 client references for similar work undertaken by the company or the lead consultant.

·         Initial work plan based on realistic timelines.

·         Samples of similar work undertaken by the company or the lead consultant (as an annex, not included in the page limit).

[1] Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance

[2] SCC IRF Implementation Modalities

. Consultant/firm’s Profile

The firm/consultant should demonstrate the following competencies:

·         At least 5 years of demonstrated experience in the implementation of cash programs in difficult humanitarian contexts

·         Strong experience in conducting research and assessments

·         Previous demonstrated experience of cash programming in humanitarian contexts

·         Experience on real time evaluations

·         Experienced in working in Somalia and knowledge of the Somali context

·         Can undertake part of the information gathering in-country

·         Excellent communication and coordination skills

·         Fluency in written and spoken English and Somali

·         Demonstrated experience and skills in facilitating stakeholder/working group consultations

·         Experience in working with Government and NGOs/INGOs/Donors

All submissions must be addressed to the Procurement manager, Concern Worldwide, Somalia to the

following email addresses: [email protected]  with the subject of the email as ‘Somali

Cash Consortium – ‘Somali Cash Consortium MPCA Real Time Evaluation (RTE) in Somalia

 ’ by 20/09/2024.