Job Information ToR Project Evaluation Iraq NGO Information
Contact Name
Contact Email [email protected]
Job Information
Contract Duration 3 months
Governorate Erbil
Job Shift
Nationality National
Working Hours Part Time
Posted 2023-10-04
Minimum Education Bachelor Degree
Degree Title
Minimum Experience 5 Year
Required Travel 25%
Job Status
No Of Jobs 1
Published Date 2023-10-04
Deadline Date 2023-10-11
[Erbil,Iraq ]

Evaluation of Strengthening Social Reconstruction and Resilience of Internally Displaced Persons and Returning Minorities in Northern Iraq project implemented by JRS.

Project no.: 308-900-1092

Terms of Reference


  1. Introduction and background

The Jesuit Refugee Service (JRS) is an international Catholic organization with a mission to accompany, serve and advocate on behalf of refugees and other forcibly displaced persons.[1]

Misereor is the German Catholic aid organisation for development cooperation. Together with its local partners, Misereor supports human beings of every faith and culture. The overall goal in its work with partners in countries of the global south is to contribute to sustainable development by promoting projects and programmes that are directed above all towards the poor. Financial support for these projects is made available by the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ) through the German Catholic Central Agency for Development Aid (KZE) and by private donors.

This evaluation has been initiated by Misereor as the evaluation of the following project, and it is mandatory according to agreements with the Federal Ministry for Economic Cooperation and Development (BMZ).

“JRS Social Reconstruction and Resilience project in Iraq” (project no. 308-900-1092)


The project contributes towards strengthening the resilience of internally displaced persons

and returnees in the Duhok and Ninewa governorates, to overcome post-traumatic

detriments and to develop long-term durable solutions.

Objective no. 1: The protection status of internally displaced persons and returnees has improved.

Objective no. 2: The mental health status of internally displaced persons and returnees reached by the project has improved.

Objective no. 3: Children and youths show improved learning outcomes due to measures of non-formal and formal education as well as improved teaching quality (teacher training)

The implemented activities under this project include:

  • Protection: outreach work (family visits), individual protection assistance / NFI distribution, legal assistance (including assistance with documentation), social work services for children, awareness-raising sessions and workshops (minimising negative coping mechanisms), women support groups, strengthening of self-protection abilities, adult education (literacy, computer and English courses, sewing groups).
  • MHPSS: home visits (individual and family counselling), sensitisation workshops, psychosocial support (PSS) for youths, programme for ISIS survivors, group activities to strengthen social support networks, outings (cultural and religious sites), sports, individual psychological counselling, psychiatric support, medical referrals/tests/diagnostics as needed, JRS staff training.
  • Education: early childhood education (kindergarten), support for access to education, support for UNICEF’s Back to School campaign, education learning support for primary school children and youths, homework support, intensive classes in Arabic and Chemistry, pedagogical training for JRS teachers/tutors.


People reached by project activities from January 1, 2023, to June 30, 2023, are presented in the below table:


People Served




Protection Activities




MHPSS Activities




Education Activities








Total Unique





Although the main focus of the evaluation shall be on the actual funding phases, it shall also consider achievements within the former funding cycles.


  1. Objectives of the evaluation

The aim of the evaluation is to obtain an external and independent assessment of the projects. Along the OECD/DAC criteria for evaluation (relevance, coherence, effectiveness, outcomes and impacts, efficiency, sustainability), it will examine what has been achieved by the projects and in which areas adjustments or a conceptual revision/reorientation might be necessary. These findings and recommendations will assist in planning the next phase of the project.

  1. Questions to be answered by the evaluation

When drawing up these questions, the DAC criteria for evaluations have been considered: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.

  • Relevance

The extent to which project objectives and design respond to the needs, priorities and policies of the target groups and of the organisation responsible for the project and its partner organisations, and continue to do so if circumstances change.

  • What direct and indirect target groups does the project address and why were they selected? What have been vulnerability criteria to determine the different target groups, to decide about disadvantaged groups?
  • To what extent has the project services and activities been relevant and aligned to the needs and priorities of the targeted groups of internally displaced persons and returnees in the Duhok and Ninewa governorates? What were the relevant needs in the past and what are current relevant needs.
  • To what extent the project adapted and responded effectively to changing circumstances and emerging needs during its implementation?


  • Coherence:

The compatibility of the project with other interventions in a country, sector, or institution.

  • Internal: What synergies and links exist between the project and other interventions implemented by the same institution?
  • In what respects is the project consistent with the interventions of other actors in the same context? And what is the level of coordination among the actors?
  • To what extent does the project comply with the response and development response plans/strategies, e.g. of UN agencies?
  • To what extent were project activities consistent with international and local legal standards in Iraq ?


  • Effectiveness:

The extent to which a project achieved, or is expected to achieve, its objectives (as laid out in the Project Contract) and outputs, including differential results across target groups.

  • To what extent were the objectives achieved or are they likely to be achieved? What information is available in this respect with regard to the progress towards the agreed indicators? What other information is available with regard to the achievement of objectives?
  • Which activities and outputs made a particularly important contribution to the achievement of objectives, and which were not so important?
  • What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives and outputs? Were any of the factors initially considered as part of the risks or assumptions? Were the mitigation methods applicable and effective? If any
  • Were the initial objectives realistic? Is the result chain clear, coherent, and logical? Have the agreed project or programme indicators been effective in monitoring the expected changes and have they been used by the project leadership to manage the project?
  • What are the capacities of the project management to adjust strategies based on monitoring, evaluation, and assessment of changes in the project context?


  • Efficiency:

The extent to which the project delivers or is likely to deliver results in an economic and timely way.

  • What evidence is there to indicate that the project was implemented with due regard to economic efficiency under the given circumstances? Was the project implemented economically and cost-consciously? Have there been important resource losses, including staff out-mutation? What were the reasons in case of yes?
  • Were the results achieved within an appropriate timeframe? Were adjustments made, e.g. due to changed conditions?
  • Does the structure of the organization including the management, human resources, technical capacities, and logistics help achieve the expected deliverables? And the set targets within the allotted timeframe?


  • Effects (outcomes and impacts):

The positive and negative changes produced by a project at a higher level. The evaluation should focus on both intended and unintended outcomes and impacts.

  • What were the immediate and intermediate outcomes of the project in terms of protection, mental health, and education?
  • To what extent did these outcomes contribute to longer-term impacts, such as increased resilience and durable solutions for the beneficiaries?
  • Were there any unintended positive or negative consequences or side effects of the project?


  • Sustainability:

The extent to which the net benefits of the project continue, or are likely to continue. Benefits are intended to be socially, environmentally, economically and technologically sustainable. The review is also intended to include institutional aspects.

  • Would the same service/activities provided under the project continue to be aligned with the people’s needs in the coming period?
  • To what extent has the project promoted and supported self-help opportunities for communities of interest, particularly in the context of mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS) activities, especially those related to suicide prevention, rather than solely providing services?
  • What are the factors that could influence the sustainability of the project? Could these be managed?
  • What contribution did the project make to qualifying and supporting its own staff in coping with demands and stresses, i.e., also to retaining qualified staff?
  • What are the lessons learned for the strategic planning of future resilience interventions?


  1. Methodology

A set of varied and adapted methods is to be applied (taking a gender-sensitive approach) that focuses on quantitative and qualitative aspects in the following steps of the evaluation:

  • Prior to field work: document review, preparation of interview guidelines, assessment of the available regional and technical analyses and data, preparation or implementation of quantitative surveys designed by the project team where this seems appropriate ...
  • During field work: kick-off workshop, document review, participant observation, qualitative interviews (open, semi-structured), focus group discussions, context analyses, interviews with key persons, debriefing workshop ...
  • After the field work: report writing, commenting on the report by JRS and Misereor, debriefing with JRS and Misereor
  1. Organisation of the mission

The evaluation shall be carried out by a team of two evaluators, one commissioned by JRS and a second commissioned by Misereor.

JRS and Misereor will provide the evaluation team with all necessary information and documents to carry out the evaluation. During the fieldwork, JRS will provide logistical support.

The tentative schedule of the evaluation is:

  • Preparatory activities (kick-off and inception): End of October- Mid of November
  • Fieldwork: Mid-November for the duration of 2 to 3 weeks.
  • Submission of the (draft) report: 3 weeks after the fieldwork.
  • Debriefing: 2 weeks after submission of the draft report.
  1. Report

Evaluation reports submitted to JRS and MISEREOR should meet a number of requirements. Some of these are binding; others can be adapted to the corresponding situation. These requirements are listed in the document “Minimum requirements to be met by evaluation reports for projects funded by MISEREOR/German Catholic Agency for Development Aid (KZE)”.


Qualifications & Preferred Skills
  1. Requirements

Applicants must meet the qualifications detailed below.

  • An advanced degree in social sciences, international development, public health, or a closely related field, or an equivalent combination of work experience and education in a relevant area.
  • A minimum of 5-7 years of extensive experience conducting field-based evaluations using mixed methods in the context of humanitarian projects, with a proven track record of assessing project effectiveness and impact.
  • Substantial experience working in Iraq, with a deep understanding of the local context, cultural dynamics, and humanitarian challenges.
  • Experience conducting evaluations of protection, MHPSS, and education projects particularly in post-conflict settings is required.
  • Strong analytical and critical thinking skills to accurately assess project outcomes and impacts, and to provide evidence-based recommendations for improvement.
  • Strong cultural sensitivity
  • Fluency in English, Arabic, and Kurdish (reading, writing, and speaking).
How To Apply
  1. Applicant must submit the below documents no later than October 11, 2023, in order to be considered for the consultancy.

    • CV demonstrating qualifications and relevant previous experience.
    • A proposal including evaluation methods, action plan and work schedule.
    • Detailed budget.
    • 3 examples of completed project evaluations where the applicant is the lead evaluator.
    • 2 references from organizations who can verify the quality of the applicant’s work.

    COMPANIES OR FIRMS applying should include:

    • Company's profile.
    • Evidence of business registration.
    • Evidence of Tax registration/ Tax ID

Please submit proposals package with email subject "ToR Project Evaluation Iraq " to:

Linkedid Twitter Share on facebook