1. Background and Rational:

Since February 2023, northwest Syria has faced compounded shocks: protracted conflict, a devastating earthquake, damaged infrastructure and severely constrained livelihoods. In Afrin and Azaz districts, home to long-vulnerable host and IDP communities. Basic services (water, roads, markets) remain impaired, and household coping capacities are stretched to the limit.

About Johanniter, and implementing partners (MAPs and Bahar):

Johanniter is a German non-governmental organization, and together with people all around the world, Johanniter strives for life in good health, with secure livelihoods and dignity, in times of crisis and for a better future. Johanniter develops its international programs together with local communities in a culturally and gender-sensitive way, based on the community’s needs. The Federal Headquarters is based in Berlin, Germany.

Johanniter has been active in the Middle East since 2006, establishing its regional office in Amman, Jordan in 2015. The organisation’s programming in the region focuses on three key thematic areas: emergency preparedness and response, health, and livelihoods.

In Syria, Johanniter has been operating since February 2023 in collaboration with local partners to support communities affected by the earthquake in Northwest Syria. This response includes the provision of both livelihood and health services, implemented in close coordination with relevant actors and humanitarian clusters.

Bahar is a Syrian-led NGO founded in 2012 by medical professionals in Gaziantep, Türkiye, and officially registered as a Syrian NGO in 2014. It delivers rights-based humanitarian and development assistance across northern Syria and Iraq, with core sectors in health, food security & livelihoods, WASH, shelter, protection, education, and early recovery

MAPs is a non-profit and non-governmental organization registered in Germany, Lebanon, and Türkiye. MAPS aims to empower and support the resilience of Syrian refugees and host communities in Lebanon, Türkiye, and Northwest Syria IDPs and host communities to enable them to thrive in their current context and contribute to rebuilding Syria after the conflict; through different sectors: education, health, relief, livelihood, innovation, and capacity building.

About the Projects:

Phase I and II: Laying the Foundation for Stability and Recovery

In response to the fragile and volatile situation in Northwest Syria marked by long-standing conflict, poor public infrastructure, and limited livelihood opportunities, Bahar in partnership with Johanniter conducted Phase I and Phase II interventions, to meet the urgent needs of vulnerable populations, particularly in Sheikh El-Hadid Sub-district. These phases laid the groundwork for long-term recovery by addressing both immediate humanitarian needs and building the resilience of affected households.

At the same time, MAPs in partnership with Johanniter, implemented a comprehensive, two-phased intervention to address the urgent humanitarian needs, stabilize affected communities, and foster long-term resilience.

With Bahar: activities under Phase I and II included Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA), provided in two disbursement rounds to 1,000 earthquake-affected and economically vulnerable households, directly impacted by the earthquake and experiencing acute economic hardship.

This assistance helped people we work with meet basic needs such as food, shelter, clothing, and healthcare, while also contributing to the stabilization of household economies and preventing further deterioration of living conditions.

To reinforce resilience and promote self-reliance, approximately 400 of the most vulnerable MPCA recipients were further supported through Cash-for-Work (CfW), Income-Generating Activities (IGAs), and Small and Medium Enterprise (SME) schemes. These efforts revitalized domestic production value chains across 12 communities in Sheikh El-Hadid, creating short-term employment and livelihood opportunities that reached more than 80% of the local population. In parallel, Phase II also addressed critical infrastructure needs by rehabilitating essential public utilities, including water tanks and feeder roads damaged by the earthquake. This restored access to water and key arterial roads for nearly 7,000 individuals.

With MAPs: response under Phase I, MAPs provided emergency support through the distribution of ready-to-eat meals in both Northwest Syria and Southern Türkiye, fuel deliveries to selected hospitals in Northwest Syria, and the rehabilitation of 50 damaged houses. These measures helped alleviate immediate suffering and ensured critical service continuity.

Phase II expanded upon these efforts to reinforce stability and community reintegration. This included the rehabilitation of an additional 125 homes, scaling up food assistance in displacement camps, and initiating a CfW program to foster community engagement and restore basic livelihoods. Approximately 660 families also received market-based vouchers, allowing them to purchase essential items from local vendors, thereby stimulating the local economy.

Transition to Phase III: A Blueprint for Post-Disruption Recovery

Building on the gains and lessons of Phases I and II, and Phase III is envisioned as a "Transition Framework for Post-Disruption Recovery", targeting the most earthquake-affected households in Afrin and Azaz districts. These communities, already vulnerable due to conflict and socio-economic marginalization, face compounded challenges in the wake of the earthquake, which has further strained infrastructure and depleted livelihood opportunities.

With Bahar: Phase III aims to move beyond emergency response and towards sustainable recovery and resilience building, through a comprehensive and integrated approach that includes:

• Coaching, social cohesion, and business linkage programs, as well as capacity building for long-term recovery for individuals previously supported through SME and IGA activities during Phase II. These efforts will enhance participants’ business acumen, foster collaboration, and link them to local markets and support networks.
• Promoting resilience, sustainability, and strengthening livelihoods through targeted support to vulnerable households suffering from food insecurity, economic deterioration, and income loss. This includes the revitalization of agricultural production and creation of sustainable livelihood opportunities, with risk reduction and mitigation measures integrated into all aspects of the recovery plan to build long-term adaptive capacity.
• Phase III is implemented in close complementarity with Bahar’s ongoing interventions in the same geographic areas. This coordination ensures more effective use of resources, reinforces existing community structures, and promotes a holistic approach to recovery that is aligned with local priorities and capacities.

**With MAPs;**Building on the foundation established in Phases I and II, and Phase III adopts a forward-looking strategy aimed at enhancing resilience and promoting sustainable income-generation for earthquake-affected populations. It is fully aligned with Johanniter’s strategic focus on long-term livelihood recovery.

Key interventions include the continuation and expansion of the CFW program, now tailored to reach the most vulnerable individuals previously supported in earlier phases. In parallel, 200 youth and university students residing in severely impacted areas will undergo intensive digital skills training. These participants, many of whom face limited to no income opportunities, will be supported in securing remote freelance or internship placements with regional companies. This innovative approach not only generates income but also reconnects young people to regional labor markets, enabling them to contribute to improved socio-economic conditions for their families and communities.

Through this multi-faceted and community-driven approach, Phase III aspires to provide a robust framework for transitioning from emergency relief to sustainable development, restoring dignity and self-reliance to some of the most vulnerable earthquake-affected populations.

The overall objectives of both projects are to effectively guide the community of Sheikh El-Hadid through the critical transition from emergency response to long-term recovery, fostering resilience, self-sufficiency, and sustainable development, and to build resilient earthquake-affected communities with sustainable livelihoods, improved well-being, and increased economic opportunities.

The specific objectives with Bahar are:

• Increased income and improved livelihoods for rural and semi-urban households.
• Increased self-awareness, confidence, motivation, and commitment to business growth among SMEs/IGAs participants.
• Enhanced food security, nutrition, financial stability, ability to meet basic needs, and coping with ongoing challenges.
• Improved access to safe and clean water, reduced risk of waterborne diseases, increased environmental sustainability using a green solar system, and enhanced quality of life for community members.
• Increased resilience to climate change and environmental challenges.
• Stronger social cohesion and community development.
• Improved economic prosperity and poverty reduction.
• Sustainable and inclusive economic growth.
• Safe and inclusive environment.

The specific objectives with MAPs are:

• Resilient earthquake-affected communities capable of sustaining themselves.
• Enhanced economic opportunities, especially for youth affected by the earthquake economy incline.
• Improved well-being and mental health through awareness-raising and PSS initiatives.
• Youth empowerment and income generation through digital training programs

Target Population:

The projects reached both internally displaced and host-community households in Afrin and Azaz districts, Northwest Syria, areas hardest hit by the Türkiye–Syria earthquake.

In total:

• 1,000 households (≈ 6,000 individuals) received Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance, with priority to those that lost homes or primary livelihoods.
• 400 of the most vulnerable MPCA recipients were further included in Cash-for-Work, Income-Generating and SME grant schemes.
• 660 families accessed market-based vouchers and emergency in-kind support under MAPs’ interventions.
• 200 youth and university students participated in digital skills training and internship placement activities.

Selection criteria emphasized:

• Recent displacement or loss of shelter/assets in the earthquake
• Female-headed, elderly-headed or households with persons with disabilities
• Extreme food insecurity and lack of alternative income sources

All activities strove for gender balance (≥ 30 % women participants) and inclusion of youth (18–35 years) and persons with specific needs.

Main achievements

With Bahar:

Cash Assistance & Livelihoods:

• Disbursed MPCA in two rounds to 1,000 earthquake-affected and vulnerable households.
• Enrolled 400 of the most at-risk households in CFW, IGA and SME grants, generating over 13,000 workdays and revitalizing local value chains across 12 communities, and issuing 375 small-business grants.

Market Linkages & Skills Building:

• Delivered 725 participants in 4‐session business-coaching and social-cohesion programmes.
• Organized a market exhibition that engaged 600 local entrepreneurs (IDPs & host community).
• Trained 375 beneficiaries in Good Agricultural Practices and Business Development Skills.

Infrastructure Rehabilitation:

• Rehabilitated one150-m³ high-capacity water tank and one artesian well, restoring safe water access for over 1,200 households (around 7,000 people).
• Repaired key feeder roads in Sheikh El-Hadid, improving year-round access for clinics and markets.

With MAPS:

Shelter & Market support:

• Rehabilitated 175 earthquake-damaged homes in Northwest Syria
• Distributed market-based vouchers to 660 families, injecting liquidity into local markets.

Cash-for-Work & Community Services:

• Engaged 143 participants in CFW, delivering 21,186 total workdays across cleaning, PSS and health-awareness activities; improved public spaces and environmental hygiene.
• Conducted 177 health-and-protection awareness sessions, reaching over 350 displaced and host-community families
• Rolled out PSEA and accountability training for 163 staff and participants.

Youth Digital Skills Development:

• Trained 200 youth and university students in digital skills (108 online + 79 physical hours)
• Established partnerships with 14 regional companies to secure 25 internship agreements and connect trainees to paid placements.

1. Study Purpose and Objective:

The final evaluation will promote accountability and transparency by measuring project performance against the OECD criteria.

Its findings and recommendations will guide Johanniter and partners in:

• Closing out the two projects and evaluating their impacts
• Informing future programme design, resource allocation, and scale-up/exit decisions
• Strengthening long-term service delivery and institutional partnerships

Specific objectives of the evaluation

Assess Quality and Coherence:

• Relevance: Alignment of project design with community needs in Afrin and Azaz
• Effectiveness & Efficiency: Achievement of logframe targets and optimal use of resources
• Impact & Sustainability: Short- and long-term changes attributable to the intervention
• Coherence: Integration of gender, disability inclusion and local capacity-building across phases

Measure Results:

• Quantify progress on outputs, outcomes and impacts
• Document the most significant changes and their attribution to project activities

Inform Strategic Decisions

• Recommend resource allocation, scale-up, replication or exit strategies
• Advise on institutional synergies and coordination for future interventions

Capture Lessons Learned

• Identify good practices and challenges across all three phases
• Propose actionable recommendations for project adaptation and improved delivery in similar contexts

1. Scope of the study, approach and methods:

All activities, engagement, and dialogue with relevant stakeholders most importantly with the people we work with will be grounded and based on the Johanniter Code of Conduct to guarantee effectiveness and the integrity of this piece of work.

The identification of interviewees, and respondents, tools for evaluations, and processes will be gender-sensitive, inclusive, culturally sensitive, and participatory. The necessary consent will be solicited before the engagement with relevant interviewees, and responders, this includes taking photos and personal information and testimonies.

Efforts shall be exerted to safeguard the inclusivity and engagement of relevant stakeholders to bring out their voices on how they perceived the implementation of the project; notably, the returnees, IDPs, host communities, the most vulnerable conflict-affected populations, civil societies, government counterparts, community and local authorities' leaders. Key Informants Interviews (KIIs) with representatives from the community, government authorities, and other relevant actors (if any) should be held. Similarly, interviews, FGDs, and surveys with a selected sample from the Returnees, IDPs and host-communities or beneficiaries should be conducted to assess how the project has responded according to their expectations, objectives and priorities.

This study will involve a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods to collect and analyze both primary and secondary data.

• The sources for primary data will include responses from key informant interviews with the Bahar and MAPs Teams in Syria and Türkiye, the people we work with, relevant directorates, councils and stakeholders.
• The Secondary data sources will include the Humanitarian Needs Overview data, available reports by clusters and working groups, and other relevant data.

The data collection methods will include specific qualitative and quantitative tools that will be selected to ensure the participation of relevant stakeholders. The consultant will rely on the following data collection methods:

Qualitative:

• Key informant interviews (KIIs) for stakeholders and partners including open-ended questions.
• Focus group discussion (FGD) with people we work with (open–ended questions).

Quantitative:

• Data Validation (provided means of verification)

Consultants are requested to propose their own methodology of data collection in the proposal; however it will be finalized later with common understanding and in consultation with Johanniter and partners.

1. Process and timeline:

The study will start on 23rd of June 2025 and will conclude on 7th of August 2025, with the full and final reports for both projects to be submitted to Johanniter – Middle East region.

Consultancy phases

Days required,

1. Desk Study: 5 days

• Preparation and work plan development (with detailed deadlines)
• Review of key program documents, project proposal and reports; introduction with program partners and stakeholders; and refining the evaluation framework and methodology

1. On-site Observation: 12 days

• Meeting with project partners; review theory of change; present findings of document review and confirm data collection tools
• Secondary data collection
• Fieldwork; community, partner, and stakeholder consultation (Primary data collection)
• Present preliminary findings to the JIA Team and partners for comments and suggestions to proceed to comprehensive analysis and report writing.

1. Analysis and Report: 7 days

• analysis and draft report; validating findings with partners (and people we work with) – details to be discussed with the selected candidate

1. The first initial report to be submitted to Johanniter

• Submit the first initial report to the Johanniter team by 24th July 2025

1. Johanniter international feedback : 5 days

• Johanniter provide feedback to the consultant on the first initial reports by 31st July 2025

1. Report Writing: 6 days

• After receiving Johanniter’s feedback the consultant finalize the reports and submit them by 7th August 2025

1. Products to be delivered by the consultant:

The consultant shall deliver, within the schedule presented in chapter 4, the following products:

• The work plan includes a detailed methodology and data analysis plan (evaluation design, data analysis steps, and detail, operational work plan)
• Inception Report (with key parameters and indicators to be considered for the final evaluation including the methodologies for data collection and dissemination).
• Data collection tools for proposed study based on the project objectives as elaborated in the project document.
• Cleaned final dataset containing all data collected for the final evaluation, including KII/FGD analysis.
• The consultant will provide two final evaluation reports (one per each project).
• The Final Evaluation Reports (incorporating inputs from the review) will include:
• An executive summary. It should include the major findings of the final evaluation and summarize conclusions and recommendations.
• Introduction/Background
• Evaluation purpose and objectives
• Methods and techniques used (including relevant underlying values and assumptions, theories) with a justification of the selections made (of persons interviewed).
• Analysis and findings (as per OECD evaluation criteria) including indicators achievement of each project as per the logframe
• Conclusions
• Lessons learnt
• Recommendations for future interventions
• Annexes

Evaluation Design:

The evaluation design will include OECD – Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development DAC development aid organizations - six criteria as per requirements by Johanniter.

1. RELEVANCE. The appropriateness of project objectives to the problems that it was supposed to address, and to the physical and policy environment within which it operated. It should include an assessment of the quality of project preparation and design.
   1. Was the action adequately designed to respond to the needs of the direct people we work with?
   2. Were the project methodologies and activities relevant to achieving the project objectives?
2. EFFICIENCY. The fact that the project results have been achieved at a reasonable cost, i.e. how well inputs/means have been converted into activities, in terms of quality, quantity, and time, and the quality of the results achieved. This requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving the same results, to see whether the most efficient process has been adopted.
   1. Was the project managed in a cost-efficient manner (in terms of human, financial, and other resources versus the results)?
   2. Were synergies capitalized on with other actors (local and international) involved in similar projects?
3. EFFECTIVENESS. An assessment of the contribution made by results to the achievement of the project purpose, and how assumptions have affected project achievements. This should include a specific assessment of the benefits for the target groups.
   1. Were the expected results realized?
   2. Did the achievement of the results result in the achievement of the project-specific objective?
   3. What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of set objectives? If there is a gap between the benefits brought by the activities and the objective of the project, how can it be explained?
   4. During the project, how well did partners provide information to communities and people served by the project, the principles it adheres to, how it expects its staff to behave, the project, and what they intend to deliver?
4. IMPACT. The effect of the project on its wider environment, and its contribution to the sector objectives (as summarized in the project’s overall objective).
   1. What evidence is there that the project contributed to the achievement of its overall objective?
   2. What, if any, were the unintended impacts of the project intervention, both positive and negative?
   3. Was the project able to monitor, mitigate, and respond to any unintended negative effects?
5. SUSTAINABILITY. An assessment of the likelihood of benefits produced by the project to continue to flow after external funding has ended (probability of continued long-term benefits).
   1. To what extent does the intervention reflect and consider factors, which have a major influence on sustainability, i.e. economic, ecological, social and cultural aspects?
   2. What are the contributing factors and constraints that require attention in order to improve prospects of sustainability of the project outcomes?
   3. To what extent and how did the project strengthen the resilience of the target population or communities?
   4. To what extent did the project scale interventions? What impact did the targeted participants realize?
6. COHERENCE. To what extent were the project interventions and implementation strategies complementary and coherent to bring about desired changes? What procedures and measures did the project consider to avoid overlap or duplication?

7. Responsibility: Roles, tasks, and responsibilities of each stakeholder, (consulting firm, Johanniter, Bahar and MAPs), regarding the study process:

Consulting firm roles and responsibilities:

• Facilitate desk review of the relevant project documents such as Monthly Monitoring Tracking (MMT), quarterly report, other reports, and project proposal.
  • Take lead on the entire evaluation process including; finalization of methodology and tools, data analysis and reporting.
  • Facilitate key informant interviews (KIIs) with project-relevant participants from the relevant ministries and councils, as well as working groups.
  • Facilitate Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with people served by this project.

Johanniter roles and responsibilities:

• Review the consultant tools and provide inputs/ comments
  • Review the work plan and make sure it is linked with the timeline.
  • Provide all key documentation relevant to the evaluation (project proposal, Reports “monthly, quarterly, and other available reports).
  • Review the analysis of collected data
  • Review the first draft of the Final Evaluation report.
  • Provide coordination and support to the consultant to engage with key stakeholders.

Bahar and MAPs roles and responsibilities:

• Provide essential information about project participants, project activities and other relevant information.
  • Facilitate coordination with project participants and stakeholders relating to meetings, interviews, and focus group discussions.
  • Provide logistic and administrative (including permit if necessary) support in terms of visiting the project site or centers
  • Provide inputs and comments in the initial draft of the evaluation result.

1. Time and Schedule:

The final evaluation process will commence on 23rd of June 2025 and will conclude on the 7th August 2025, with the two full and final reports to be submitted to Johanniter – Middle East region.[EK1] [SI2]

1. Management of the Consultant Contract:

The consultant will be commissioned by the Senior Programme Manager in the Middle East and be lead/supervised by the Programme Coordinator who is responsible for day-to-day coordination and will also be the primary focal point of contact from Johanniter. Bahar and MAPs will support and facilitate the mission of a consultant team during the study and evaluation process.

1. Intellectual property and data protection:

All intellectual property generated by the consultancy will be owned by Johanniter and implementing partners, who will retain the right to disseminate and publish the final report. The agency will follow the data protection policy of Johanniter while collecting, processing, and storing program-related data.