REF260908DKHEQM - TERMS OF REFERENCE (ToR)

For the Final Evaluation of DKH

[Earthquake Response/STL]

Summary Table

1. INTERVENTION/Partner BACKGROUND

1.1.   Rational for the Intervention/ Partner

• Describe the context, needs of the population before the Project/intervention;

A devastating earthquake struck Turkiye on February 6, 2023, causing extensive loss of life, displacement, and damage to homes, infrastructure, and essential services across several affected provinces. The affected population, including both refugee and host communities, faced increased vulnerabilities and difficulties in accessing basic services, livelihoods, protection assistance, mental health and psychosocial support, and other essential forms of humanitarian assistance and recovery support.

In response to the severe and widespread humanitarian and recovery needs created by the devastating earthquake, Diakonie Katastrophenhilfe (DKH) in partnership with Support to Life (STL) developed the interventions aimed to respond to the immediate and evolving needs of earthquake-affected communities while supporting their recovery, resilience, and ability to rebuild their lives following the disaster.

1.2.   Intervention/ Partner Objectives

• List the general objectives;

K-TUR-2023-4026 (Shelter, WASH and Protection assistance for earthquake-affected people in Turkiye)

Specialized protection needs and urgent humanitarian needs of at-risk refugees and disaster affected people in Turkiye are met through needs-based, dignified, safe, and community driven service provision.

K-TUR-2023-4051 (Empowering Communities, Rebuilding Lives)

To promote the well-being, safety, and resilience of earthquake-affected populations in Turkiye through comprehensive protection, winterization, community-based initiatives, and duty of care, facilitating sustainable recovery and enhancing their capacity to withstand future shocks.

K-TUR-2025-4023 (Building Disaster Resilience and Recovery in the Aftermath of the 6 February 2023 Earthquake)

The project aims to enhance the resilience and recovery of earthquake-affected communities through DRR, CCAM, and sustainable livelihood development.

• Specify the geographical scope of the programme/project and describe beneficiaries being targeted; Türkiye: (Hatay, Kahramanmaraş, Sanliurfa, Mardin, Adıyaman, Malatya, İstanbul, Gaziantep) The affected population, including both refugee and host communities affected by the earthquake
• Mention other key stakeholders other than our implementing partners if

Local authorities, coordination with other NGOs in the same area of intervention In addition to implementing partners, the project maintained regular coordination with local authorities, government institutions, community representatives, and other NGOs and development actors across the areas of intervention. In all project locations, coordination with Public Education Centres continued on vocational training and employment activities, while communication with community focal points and local actors supported SCLR and CBDRM activities, including community projects, procurement, and identification of local priorities such as water scarcity and rainwater harvesting. Besides that participation in the Livelihoods Coordination Network facilitated information sharing and collaboration among key actors, including the Turkish Red Crescent, DRC, Expertise France, UNDP, KADEM, KİGEM, and relevant chambers and foundations, particularly on employment, referrals, grants, and support to local businesses.

In all cities, coordination with MESEM, İŞKUR, Public Education Centres, the Municipality, and other local institutions supported vocational training, employment, and livelihoods activities, while referrals under SCLR and CBDRM connected communities with relevant public services. Coordination with M. Ereğlisi Municipality was formalized through an MoU, providing a framework for continued cooperation on project implementation, beneficiary outreach, local priorities, and complementary support. Overall, these partnerships strengthened local ownership, inter-agency coordination, and alignment of project interventions with community needs.

The Intervention/ Partner logframes will be provided upon request

1.3.   Intervention/ Partner Current Status

In terms of implementation status, two projects have already been completed, while the third project is expected to be completed by the end of 2026. However, some delays are anticipated in the cultural heritage component in Karkamış due to operational challenges and delays.

2.      PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION

2.1.   Rational for the Evaluation

Why is the evaluation being conducted and justification for timing?

• Requirement of DKH evaluation policy, donor’s requirement, critical timing in the project, intervention implementation, changing situation in country etc.
• The evaluation is being conducted to assess the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the support provided to earthquake-affected populations in Türkiye over the past years. Given the significant level of DKH funding, exceeding EUR 10 million, the evaluation will assess the overall results and added value of the interventions and the extent to which they contributed to meaningful and sustainable changes for affected communities.
• The timing is appropriate as two projects have been completed and the third is approaching completion, providing an opportunity to assess the results of the interventions from a longer-term perspective and to identify key lessons and recommendations for future programming and partnerships.

2.2.   Objectives of the Evaluation

What are the objectives of the evaluation?

• These need to be defined by the key stakeholders, evaluation manager/Team to facilitate consultations and usually include: answering evaluation questions, defining good practice for scale up etc.

The overall objective of the evaluation is to generate evidence and learning on the implementation and results of the interventions and to inform future programming.

The specific objectives are to:

• Assess the extent to which the interventions achieved their intended results.
• Identify key factors that enabled or hindered implementation and results.
• Identify good practices and lessons learned that can be applied to future interventions.
• Examine the contribution of the interventions to longer-term recovery and resilience.
• Provide practical recommendations for future programming and partnerships

2.3.   Users of the Evaluation

Who are the target users of the evaluation?

• Direct users: DKH Regional office DKH HQ and the implementing partner Support to Life (STL)
• Indirect users: DKH International Network, others (donors, partner organisations, federal, regional and local governments, ministries, UN agencies and Global Clusters, NGOs and NGO Consortium (act alliance) as well as humanitarian learning platforms (such as ALNAP).

2.4.   Use of the Evaluation

How will the evaluation be used more generally?

• Final evaluation: learn from experience to develop new strategies at the Regional/global level, collect lessons learnt and Good Practices for future interventions/work in country, collect evidence of DKH/ Partner success on the ground to prepare advocacy and communication content etc.

3.      EVALUATION SCOPE

3.1.   Elements covered by the evaluation

• Describe what the evaluation will focus on: the whole intervention/country level? part of it (only selected objectives? selected geographical areas? selected Projects? selected target groups? Thematic areas?)

The evaluation will cover the overall DKH-supported interventions implemented in Türkiye in response to the February 2023 earthquakes, considering the three interventions as a continuum that reflects the programmatic trajectory from emergency response (Shelter, WASH, Protection – K-TUR-2023-4026), to early recovery (Protection, Winterization, Community-based initiatives – K-TUR-2023-4051), and resilience-building (DRR, CCA, Livelihoods – K-TUR-2025-4023). The evaluation will assess relevant projects, activities, target groups, sectors, and geographical areas to examine both sector-specific results and the overall contribution of the portfolio to recovery and resilience. It will also explore the extent to which each phase is built upon and informed the next, including how the interventions complemented one another across sectors. Particular attention will be given to the perspectives and experiences of affected communities, as well as the partnership and implementation approach between DKH and STL.

3.2.   Cross-cutting issues

• Mention any cross-cutting issues to be addressed throughout the evaluation process in line with DKH Policies: gender, environmental concerns, poverty, community participation, advocacy etc.

The evaluation will consider key cross-cutting issues throughout the assessment, including:

• Inclusion and vulnerability: The extent to which the interventions identified and addressed the needs of the most vulnerable and at-risk groups, including persons with disabilities.
• Gender and inclusion: The extent to which gender considerations were reflected in targeting, participation, and access to assistance and services.
• Social cohesion: The extent to which the interventions contributed to positive relations and social cohesion between refugee and host communities, particularly given the significant focus on host-community populations.
• Community participation and accountability: The extent to which affected communities were consulted and involved in the design and implementation of interventions and whether their feedback informed programme adaptation.
• Environmental considerations: Where relevant, the evaluation will consider how environmental risks and considerations were integrated into the interventions.

4.      EVALUATION APPROACH AND QUESTIONS

As per DKH Evaluation Policy and Guidelines, DKH adheres to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria for evaluating its interventions and partner. Specifically, DKH uses the following adapted criteria: Design, Coherence, Coverage, Relevance / Appropriateness, Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sustainability and Likelihood of Impact.

Evaluation questions have been developed to help the evaluator assess the intervention. The evaluator may adapt the evaluation criteria and questions, but any fundamental changes should be agreed between the evaluation committee and the evaluator and reflected in the inception report.

All independent evaluations are expected to use the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)/DAC criteria in data analysis and reporting. In particular, the evaluator must complete the DAC criteria rating table and include it as part of the final evaluation report.

Evaluation Criteria and Detailed Questions

To assess the intervention/ Partner against each evaluation criteria, the evaluator will respond to the following evaluation questions:

Design: A measure of whether the design is logical, allows for RBM and include a sustainability strategy involving local partners and beneficiaries

1. To what extent was the design logically aligned with the needs, vulnerabilities and priorities of earthquake-affected populations and did it provide a coherent pathway from activities and outputs to intended outcomes?
2. To what extent did the design adequately consider refugee and host communities, women, men, persons with disabilities and other vulnerable or at-risk groups?
3. To what extent did the design incorporate flexibility, risk management, community participation and sustainability considerations to respond to changing needs and context?

Relevance/Appropriateness: A measure of whether interventions are in line with local needs and priorities (as well as donor policies, thus increasing ownership, accountability, and cost-effectiveness)

1. To what extent did the interventions respond to the priority humanitarian, protection, recovery, livelihood and resilience needs of earthquake-affected populations?
2. To what extent were targeting, assistance modalities and priorities appropriate and inclusive for refugee and host communities and other vulnerable groups?
3. To what extent did the interventions remain relevant as the response evolved from immediate humanitarian assistance toward recovery, resilience and longer-term support?

Coherence: A measure of whether interventions are consistent with existing interventions, global and national policies and strategies to ensure consistency, maximize synergies and minimize duplication

1. To what extent were the interventions aligned with DKH strategies, national policies, humanitarian priorities and recovery frameworks?
2. To what extent did the interventions complement other humanitarian and recovery efforts, create synergies and minimize duplication and gaps?
3. To what extent did the DKH-STL partnership and coordination arrangements contribute to coherent and complementary programming?

Coverage: A measure of whether interventions meet the need to reach major population groups facing life threatening suffering wherever they are

1. To what extent did the interventions reach the intended populations, geographical areas and priority groups?
2. To what extent did the interventions adequately reach people facing heightened vulnerabilities or barriers to assistance?
3. To what extent was the scale, geographic distribution and duration of assistance appropriate in relation to the magnitude and distribution of needs?

Efficiency: A measure of how economically resources/inputs (funds, expertise, time, etc.) are converted to results, includes value for money analysis

1. To what extent were financial, human, technical and operational resources used efficiently to achieve planned outputs and outcomes?
2. To what extent did DKH-STL partnership and implementation arrangements support timely and efficient delivery?
3. To what extent did the interventions provide value for money considering resources invested, results achieved, quality, scale and timeliness?

Effectiveness: A measure of the extent to which the interventions’ objectives were achieved, or are expected to be achieved, considering their relative importance and illustrating the effectiveness of DKH approach

1. To what extent did the interventions achieve their planned outputs and intended outcomes, and what factors enabled or constrained results?
2. To what extent did the interventions contribute to improvements in wellbeing, safety, access to services, livelihoods, recovery and resilience beyond the delivery of outputs?
3. How effective was the DKH-STL partnership and implementation approach in supporting the achievement of results?

Sustainability and likelihood of impact: A measure of whether the benefits of an activity are likely to continue after donor funding has been withdrawn and project activities officially cease. Early signs of positive and negative, primary and secondary, short, mid and long-term effects produced by an intervention, directly or indirectly, intended or unintended

1. To what extent are the benefits, capacities, systems, services and other positive changes likely to continue after project funding and activities end?
2. What evidence is there that the interventions contributed to longer-term recovery, resilience, livelihoods, social cohesion and wellbeing?
3. What intended or unintended longer-term effects emerged, and what plausible contribution did DKH and STL make to these changes?

5.      EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the suggested methodological approach for the evaluator to collect quantitative and qualitative data. The evaluator will to the extent possible, develop data gathering instruments and
methods which allow collecting sex-disaggregated data. The instruments need to make provision for the triangulation of data where possible.

5.1.   Evaluation Briefing

Prior to the evaluation taking place, the evaluator is expected to attend an evaluation technical briefing with DKH. Briefings by telephone must be agreed in advance.

5.2.   Desk review

The evaluator/evaluation team will undertake a desk review of intervention/ Partner materials, including the project documents and proposals, progress reports, outputs of the intervention/ Project (such as publications, communication materials, videos, recording etc.),  project final reports, monitoring reports (e.g. PBI reports), internal lessons-learned reports, PDM reports, and external evaluation reports and results of any internal planning process and relevant materials from secondary sources.

5.3.    Stakeholders’ Interviews

As part of the evaluation, the evaluator will interview DKH Regional office to get preliminary information about the intervention/ Partner being evaluated, in addition to interviews with the implementing partner (STL) and other relevant stakeholders

5.4.   Inception Report

At the end of the desk review period and before the field mission, the evaluator will prepare a brief inception report. The report will be written in English and will include the following sections:

• Key elements of the Terms of Reference (TORs) to demonstrate that the evaluator will adhere to the TORs;
• The methodological approach to the evaluation include an evaluation matrix in annex to specify how the evaluator will collect data to answer the evaluation questions, pointing out the limitations to the methodology if any and the choice of sites per field visit; (which should include KIIs with main stakeholders, FGDs and surveys).
• A detailed evaluation workplan and;
• Statement of adherence to DKH Evaluation Policy and outline the evaluation report format. The inception report will be discussed and approved by the DKH regional office.

5.5.   Evaluation Report

The evaluation report shall follow the following format and be written in English:

• Cover Page
• Summary Table to follow template provided
• Table of Contents
• Executive Summary must be a standalone summary, describing the intervention, main findings of the evaluation, and conclusions and recommendations. This will be no more than 2 pages in length
• Background Information
• Methodology describe the methodology used, provide evidence of triangulation of data and presents limitations to the methodology
• Findings includes overall assessment of the project against the evaluation criteria, responds to the evaluation questions, all findings are backed up by evidence, cross-cutting issues are mainstreamed and; unintended and unexpected outcomes are also discussed
• Conclusions are formulated by synthesizing the main findings into statements of merit and worth, judgements are fair, impartial, and consistent with the findings
• Lessons Learnt and Good Practices presents lessons that can be applied elsewhere to improve intervention or Partner performance, outcome, or impact and; identify good practices: successful practices from those lessons which are worthy of replication; further develop on one specific good practice to be showcased in the template provided in Annex VI
• Recommendations should be as realistic, operational and pragmatic as possible; that is, they should take careful account of the circumstances currently prevailing in the context of the action, and of the resources available to implement it both locally. They should follow logically from conclusions, lessons learned and good The report must specify who needs to take what action and when. Recommendations need to be presented by order of priority
• Annexes should be listed and numbered and must include but not limited to: Evaluation Criteria Rating Table, list of documents for the desk review, list of persons interviewed, data collection instrument, evaluation TORs

The whole report shall not be longer than 30 pages, 50 pages including annexes. The draft report should be submitted no later than 20. November.2026, The final report will be submitted no later than the end date of the consultancy contract.

5.6.   Debriefing with DKH

The evaluator should provide a debriefing with the relevant DKH/stakeholders on her/his draft evaluation report, and on the main findings, conclusions and recommendations of the evaluation.

6.      KEY DELIVERABLES

The following are the evaluation outputs the evaluator will deliver to the evaluation manager:

All outputs must be submitted in English and under Word Document format.

 The quality of the inception report and the evaluation report will be assessed by DKH. The evaluator is expected to follow the format, structure and length as defined under section 5.4 and 5.6 above.

7.      MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS AND WORKPLAN

These evaluation TORs have been developed in a participatory manner, by the evaluation team based on inputs from relevant stakeholders.

The evaluation team will directly report to DKH with close coordination with STL. The evaluator will submit all the evaluation outputs directly to DKH. The evaluation committee will do a quality check (ensure required elements are there) and decide whether the report is ready for sharing. The evaluation committee will forward a copy to key stakeholders for comments on factual issues and for clarifications. The evaluation committee will consolidate the comments and send these to the evaluator by date agreed between the evaluation committee and the evaluator or as soon as the comments are received from stakeholders. The evaluator will consider all comments to finalize report and will submit it to the evaluation committee who will then officially forward to relevant stakeholders.

Once the evaluation is completed the evaluation committee will prepare the management response follow-up form to track implementation of the recommendations outlined in the evaluation report. A review of the follow-up process will be undertaken six months after the publication of the evaluation report.

All documentation related to the Assignment (whether or not in the course of your duties) shall remain the sole and exclusive property of the Charity.

Deadline: To participate in the tender process, offers must be submitted to the e-mail-addresses below by 21 September 2026 and consist of the following documents:

• A sound CV of the participating experts, as well as company profile;
• A technical proposal detailing the TPM design, methods, data management strategies and instruments/tools to be used to answer the TPM questions (max. 5 pages);
• Example of previous relevant reports/studies;
• A timetable;
• A budget stating precisely the daily fees for the monitoring team and all additional costs;(including with tax)

e-mail: [email protected]

e-mail subject: REF260908DKHEQM