External evaluation of the MHPSS intervention within the framework of the West Bank Protection Consortium 2022

This external evaluation will focus on the emergency response component of the global response, and specifically on the mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) emergency response, which has been added as a pilot project there. a year ago. The successful consultant will be responsible for delivering a report, which provides an evidence-based narrative, indicating whether there is added value, including an MHPSS intervention, with the current MHPSS Consortium Lead, within the scope of the action. .

The evaluation:

Assess the relevance, effectiveness, potential for expansion as well as gaps and limitations of the consortium’s current approach to MHPSS; Assess the activities, practices and objectives of the consortium lead MHPSS partner, and identify strengths, weaknesses and synergies that could be further capitalized on to promote effective cross-sectoral integration within the consortium; and Provide recommendations on whether the consortium should continue to implement MHPSS and, if so, how the consortium can strengthen the consortium’s MHPSS response, with a focus on consolidating and expanding the consortium’s approach . 3. Scope and purpose of the evaluation

The evaluation will be carried out in the form of a summative study, designed to guide the Consortium’s future approach to MHPSS, including strategy and recommended actions. The evaluation will assess new MHPSS activities provided by the ER (Emergency Response) Consortium. The consortium will make decisions about programs and partnerships, based on the results and recommendations of the evaluation. The geographic scope of the study will cover the Consortium’s MHPSS lead intervention under the Consortium, which includes programming implemented in the West Bank, including East Jerusalem. Gaps in terms of geographical coverage and the possibility of covering them should also be highlighted in the study. The evaluation analysis framework will be structured around the following evaluation criteria and associated questions: Relevance  Technical approaches: Is the modality chosen relevant (group session, family session or/and individual session)? In what situations is each of them most effective?  Does the MHPSS approach adhere to and is up to date with global inter-agency MHPSS standards and guidance (e.g. IASC Guidelines on MHPSS in Emergencies, Guidelines and Tools WHO MHPSS for Emergencies, IASC Common Monitoring and Evaluation Framework for MHPSS in Emergencies)? ?  Is the MHPSS approach evidence-based and does it comply with the IASC standards for MHPSS?  Do the partners actively participate in the various clusters concerned (eg CP AoR/MSPSS WG)?  Are cases properly referred to more specialized MHPSS services when needed? Coherence  Synergy and coordination between the other Consortium partners.  Complementarity with other interventions (Result 1, 2 and 3).  Consistency with the Consortium’s protection-focused approach and strategic orientation.  Does the response contribute to the Consortium’s overall objective of preventing forcible transfer? 6 Effectiveness  Is the planning adapted to the activities? Was the set schedule adhered to?  Is the response time (intervention within 72 hours of the incident) respected?  Are human resources and budget sufficient for implementation?  To what extent has the program achieved its objectives, including the timely provision of assistance? Effectiveness  What is the cost-effectiveness of MHPSS interventions? Impact  Did the activities achieve the expected results? Is the longer-term impact of activities adequately monitored?  Unexpected results: Have any negative impacts been observed? Accountability and integration  To what extent did the activities reach the most vulnerable and least accessible groups?  Does the response respect the principles of safety and dignity, accountability, access and participation (protection mainstreaming principles)?  To what extent were the activities designed to be inclusive, age/gender/diversity/culturally appropriate?  Are processes and procedures (SOPs) adhered to throughout MHPSS service delivery? Is the SEO process effective?  Are the beneficiaries adequately followed up also after the first emergency intervention?  How can we ensure that marginalized groups and individuals also have access to the intervention?  Is the risk of SEA sufficiently prevented and mitigated? The above overview is not exhaustive. During the inception phase, the evaluator/evaluation team will further develop the analytical framework for the evaluation and the context-specific sub-questions. 4. Methodology  The consultant must develop a detailed methodology showing how the objectives of the study will be achieved.  It is expected that the consultant will use a mixed method including qualitative and quantitative data. The method must demonstrate objectivity and freedom from bias. It must rely on different sources of information.  As a guideline, the method should include:  A desk review of relevant literature and Consortium documents;  Secondary analyzes of Consortium monitoring data, both quantitative and qualitative;  Stakeholder interviews with internal and external key informants, including staff from partner agencies, DG-ECHO, community representatives and local authorities (if applicable/relevant)  Data collection methods qualitative on-site (FGD, KII) 7  Quantitative on-site data collection methods (HH surveys) 5. Deliverables INITIAL REPORT The consultant must provide an inception report which includes:  Summary of the desk review (maximum 5 pages),  Description of the evaluation method (maximum 2 pages)  Data collection tools  Timetable FINAL EVALUATION REPORT  In accordance with the established framework, the consultant must submit an evaluation report (maximum 30 pages) which includes the following sections:  Executive summary  Background  Objectives  Methodology  Summary of findings  Recommendations for action  Bibliography  Appendices including full list of institutional and individual contact details developed throughout the evaluation  A draft report must be presented before the end of the consultancy assignment. RFQ.pdf

How to register

Please submit your quotation in accordance with the requirements detailed below via email to [email protected] The deadline for submission of quotations is Tuesday June 21, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. sharp. Companies that have not submitted their quote within this time will not be considered. To see all the details of the consultation, please click on the following link: RFQ.pdf

Shirlene J. Manley