Organizational Context

Terms of reference[1]

International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies: Final Evaluation of Türkiye Earthquake Response

1. Summary

1.1 Purpose: This Final Evaluation will assess the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Turkish Red Crescent (TRC) and partners’ response to the February 2023 earthquakes in Southeast Türkiye. Its purpose is to assess the achievements and quality of the programme’s support to the affected population under the Federation-wide Emergency Appeal (EA). This evaluation complements the Operational Review, and the outcomes of the February lessons learned workshop. Findings will primarily be programmatic in nature and will distil key learnings and formulate actionable and evidence-based recommendations to inform future IFRC and Turkish Red Cross programmes.

1.2 Target Audience: This Evaluation will be used by the TRC, IFRC and its member National Societies, other Movement partners, the IFRC Europe Regional Office (ROE), and Headquarters in Geneva. The report will also be made available to RC/RC stakeholders and external partners involved in the response via the IFRC Evaluation Databank, in a format agreed by all stakeholders involved.

1.3 Commissioners: This evaluation is being commissioned by Birgitte Bischoff Ebbesen, Regional Director, IFRC Regional Office for Europe.

1.4 Reports to: Evaluation Management Team (EMT)

1.5 Duration: Up to 80 working days

1.6 Timeframe: April 2025 – August 2025

1.7 Location: Primarily remote, with field visit to Türkiye

2. Background [2]

On 6 February 2023, a 7.7 magnitude earthquake struck at 04:17, followed by 83 aftershocks and a second earthquake of 7.6 magnitude at 13:24, impacting a wide range of areas in Türkiye and affecting about 15.7 million residents. On 20 February, another 6.4 magnitude earthquake hit Defne district, followed by a 5.8 magnitude quake in Samandağ district, causing further damage.

[1] This Terms of Reference was developed in accordance with the IFRC Framework for Evaluations 2024

[2] Sources: Operational Update #7 on the earthquake response operation and other relevant reports and documents related to the Emergency Appeal, available at: IFRC GO – Emergency

Job Purpose

These earthquakes were among the largest and deadliest in Türkiye’s history. In total, 17 provinces have been impacted by the earthquake with an estimated 9.1 million people directly affected according to AFAD[3]. The disaster severely damaged these provinces’ infrastructure and livelihoods, with agricultural losses estimated at USD 6.4 billion. The affected areas were already impacted by the Syrian civil war since 2011, hosting about 1.8 million Syrian refugees, 47% of all Syrian refugees in Türkiye. Before the earthquakes, the region was already characterized by lower labour force participation and higher unemployment rates compared to the rest of Türkiye. Due to the humanitarian emergency, the overall socio-economic situation has deteriorated for all communities. In addition, climate and typical weather patterns in the earthquake-affected region have intensified the challenges for communities, and this trend is expected to persist.

During the earthquake response, Turkish Red Crescent led mass feeding services under the National Disaster Response Plan and contributed to health services, psychological support, relief item distribution, and shelter assistance. Cash and voucher assistance (CVA) was also utilized to address urgent needs. In the first six months, TRC provided 416 million meals, clean water, hygiene items, and health services. Additionally, 1.34 million individuals received cash assistance to cover basic needs. These achievements were possible by TRC’s extensive network of 13,000 staff, 300,000 volunteers, and its presence in 520 branches across the country.

In response to the disaster, the IFRC launched on 7th of February a Federation-wide Emergency Appeal (EA) of 120M CHF (which included an allocation of CHF 2 million from IFRC’s Disaster Response Emergency Fund (DREF)), aiming to assist 300,000 people. As the scale of the disaster became clearer, the EA was revised twice, with the funding target increasing to CHF 750 million, intended to support mid-to-long-term recovery efforts for 1.25 million people.

2.1 Target population

Number of people being assisted: 1,751,234

2.2 Areas of Intervention

[3] Turkish Disaster and Emergency Management Presidency

Job Duties and Responsibilities

3. Evaluation Purpose and Scope

3.1 Purpose (overall objective)

The Final Evaluation focuses on the programmatic aspects of the Türkiye earthquake response, assessing the

• relevance,
• coverage, and
• effectiveness

of the intervention. It will also provide critical insights into the programme’s strengths, best practices and lessons learned that can be integrated into future disaster response operations.

The findings from the evaluation will be used to inform several key aspects:

• Evidence-based decision-making: The Final Evaluation will provide evidence-based recommendations for ongoing or future operations, guiding strategic decisions for disaster response and preparedness.
• Learning: By identifying the transferable best practices and key lessons learned, the Final Evaluation will inform the development of more effective programming strategies for future responses.
• Accountability: The Final Evaluation will assess whether the earthquake response met its targets and objectives, and whether the operation has been conducted in compliance with the RCRC’s Movement’s standards and principles.

3.2 Scope

The Final Evaluation will assess the interventions carried out under the duration of the Emergency Appeal (7 February 2023 – 28 February 2025) in the 17 Turkish provinces affected by the earthquakes.

The Final Evaluation aims to generate learnings on cash-based interventions including multi-purpose cash (MPC) assistance, cash for protection and cash for livelihoods with the focus on scalability, replicability and innovation.

The target groups that should be included as a source of primary data in the Final Evaluation are those whose perspectives, experiences and feedback are essential to assessing the relevance, coverage, and effectiveness of the interventions. These groups can be categorized as follows:

• Recipients: people (individuals and families) who were affected by the earthquake and were recipients of interventions
• Red Cross and Red Cresent Staff and Volunteers: staff and volunteers of Turkish Red Crescent and international staff from other National Societies involved in the response
• IFRC Secretariat: Staff of IFRC’s Country Delegation and IFRC’s Regional Office for Europe
• Key implementing partners: Turkish Government Entities directly involved in the disaster response coordination, funding and policy implementation; local authorities and municipalities responsible for managing local-level disaster relief efforts

4. Evaluation Criteria and Questions

Below are suggestions for key questions to be addressed in this Final Evaluation. These suggested questions provide initial guidance and can be further elaborated by the Evaluation Management Team and clarified by the consultancy team. The evaluation should follow the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) criteria, and the criteria presented in the IFRC Framework for Evaluation.

Job Duties and Responsibilities (continued)

1., Relevance & Appropriateness[4]

• Were there mechanisms in place for ongoing needs assessment and program adjustments during the implementation of the emergency appeal that can be replicated in future operations?
• To what extent was the choice of modality (e.g., cash, voucher, ATM cards, or digitised payment systems) appropriate to the context, scale of emergency, recipient preferences, and local market infrastructure?
• What was the role of Information Management in ensuring accountability towards key stakeholders (affected population, donors, government institutions)?

2., Effectiveness[5]

• How effective was the targeting system in identifying and selecting populations in need, and to what extent were the targeting mechanisms aligned with programme objectives and needs assessment findings?
• How well did the TRC adapt its response to emerging needs over time, ensuring continued timeliness of service delivery and its continuity in the recovery phase?
• Were there any delays or gaps in the overall response, and what lessons can be learned to ensure quicker responses in future emergencies?
• What are some core operational components of the earthquake response that have a potential for high scalability, and how can these components be optimized to facilitate cost-effective scaling in future emergencies?
• What were any innovative information management practices, such as the use of digital tools or mobile technologies, that enhanced the operation’s effectiveness and can be replicated in future operations?
• What emerging best practices in Community Engagement and Accountability can be identified how can these practices be institutionalized for future operations

3., Coverage[6]

• How well did the TRC assess and respond to the needs of displaced populations, host and refugee communities?
• How well did the prioritisation process ensure that the most vulnerable individuals were prioritised for assistance, particularly in contexts with resource constraints?
• How successfully were inclusion and exclusion errors minimised during the targeting design and implementation, and what measures were in place to address such errors in practice?
• How effectively did the registration process capture and manage accurate and comprehensive data for targeted populations, including through partnerships with external entities such as government/ UNHCR/IOM/WFP amongst others?

[4] Relevance and appropriateness are complementary criteria used to evaluate an intervention’s objectives and wider goal. Relevance focuses on the extent to which an intervention is suited to the priorities of the target group, (i.e. local population and partners).

[5] Effectiveness measures the extent to which an intervention has or is likely to achieve its intended, immediate results. It is based upon an intervention’s objectives and related indicators, typically stated in a logical framework. However, the assessment of effectiveness should not be limited to whether an intervention has achieved its objectives, but also to identify the major reasons and key lessons to inform further implementation or future interventions.

Education

[6] Coverage refers to the extent population groups are included in or excluded from an intervention, and the differential impact on these groups. Evaluation of coverage involves determining who was supported by humanitarian action, and why. Coverage is linked closely to effectiveness (discussed above), but it has been included here as a separate criterion as it is especially relevant for the work of IFRC and its commitment to provide aid on the basis of need alone

5. Methodology

The methodology applied in this evaluation will adhere to the IFRC Framework for Evaluation with particular attention to the processes upholding the standards of how evaluations should be planned, managed, conducted, and utilized.

The EMT will manage and oversee the evaluation that will consist of 2 people including CVA expert and an evaluator who possess good understanding of the Türkiye context.

The Final Evaluation will complement the findings of the Operation Review and Lessons Learned workshop. The detailed evaluation methodology will be proposed by the consultant in close consultation with the Evaluation Management Team, but can draw upon the following primary methods:

• Desk Review: Analysis of the Operation Review and Lessons Learned Workshop report as well as other key program documents including the Operational Strategy, Operation Updates, Recovery Assessments, pledged-based reports, IFRC and TRC monitoring data and further relevant documentation produced as part of the operation.
• Mixed-method Household Surveys: Structured surveys to collect data from recipients to identify key outcomes of the operation.
• Key Informant Interviews: Interviews with IFRC and National Society staff, Government agencies, and other stakeholders.

• Focus Group Discussions: Group interviews with recipients and National Society staff to collect lessons learned from the operation and inform recommendations.
• Field Visits/Observations: If necessary, visits to selected sites to interact directly with the operation’s recipients and the implementing National Society.

The consultant will outline the detailed methodology and data collection plan in the Inception Report that is to be approved by the EMT. The consultant will be responsible for all data collection and analysis activities while the IFRC will provide necessary support, including mapping key informants and facilitating scheduling the interviews and focus group discussions as needed.

6. Deliverables

Inception Report: The Inception Report will outline the agreed methodology and data collection tools, sample size and a detailed work plan including data collection plan, along with allocation of clear roles and responsibilities within the team, firm deadlines for deliverables and the travel/logistical arrangements for the consultant. It will be presented to the Evaluation Management Team at the beginning of the consultancy.

Debriefing and Validation of Preliminary Findings: Virtual session to present the initial findings of the evaluation and receive input and feedback. This will inform drafting of the report. The workshop should include IFRC, TRC and other key stakeholders.

Draft Report: A Draft Report outlining key findings, conclusions, and recommendations to be sent to the EMT for feedback and comments.

Experience

Final report: The Final Report will contain a short executive summary (no more than 500 words) and a main body of the report (expected to be no more than 10,000 words) covering the background of the intervention evaluated, a description of the evaluation methods and limitations, findings, conclusions, lessons learned, and clear recommendations. Recommendations should be specific, feasible and evidence based. The report should also contain appropriate appendices, including a copy of the Terms of Reference (ToR), cited resources or bibliography, a list of respondents, the data collection tools used, and any other relevant materials. The report will also be made available to RC/RC stakeholders and external partners involved in the response via the IFRC Evaluation Databank, in a format agreed by all stakeholders involved.

7. Proposed Timeline

Knowledge, Skills and Languages

8. Evaluation Quality and Ethical Standards

The evaluators should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people and communities involved and shall abide by the “do no harm” principle. The review should be technically accurate and reliable, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contribute to organizational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards and applicable practices outlined in the IFRC Evaluation Framework. The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:

• Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used.

• Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner.

• Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard to the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation.

• Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders.

• Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency.

• Accuracy: Evaluations should be technically accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined.

• Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate.

• Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.

It is also expected that the evaluation will respect the seven Fundamental Principles of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement: 1) Humanity, 2) Impartiality, 3) Neutrality, 4) Independence, 5) Voluntary service, 6) Unity, and 7) Universality. Further information can be obtained about these Principles at https://www.ifrc.org/who-we-are/international-red-cross-and-red-crescent-movement/fundamental-principles.

9. Consultant’s Qualifications and Experience

The lead evaluator should have:

• Minimum qualification of a PhD in international development, social sciences, humanitarian assistance or other related fields, or a Master’s degree with equivalent combination of education and relevant work experience.
• Minimum of 7 to 10 years demonstrated experience in planning and implementing evaluations of humanitarian programs responding to major disasters required preferably with a specific focus on evaluating cash-based interventions.
• Advanced knowledge of cash-based interventions/ cash-based assistance programmes and an ability to provide strategic recommendations to key stakeholders.
• Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions and to prepare well‐written reports in a timely manner.
• Excellent written and spoken English (reference of sample work required).
• Experience in managing teams remotely and comfortable working with online platforms.
• Knowledge and experience working with of Red Cross Red Crescent Movement strongly preferred.
• Experience working in Türkiye strongly preferred.

Competencies, Values and Comments

The consultant will provide an independent, objective, and critical perspective, and will be the primary author of the evaluation report. They will be hired through a transparent recruitment process, based on professional experience, competence, ethics and integrity for this evaluation.

The consultant should take all reasonable steps to ensure that the piece of work is designed and conducted to respect and protect the rights and welfare of the people involved and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate and reliable, is conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to better programming, organizational learning and accountability.

10. Fees and Payment Scheme

Payment shall be made upon satisfactory completion of work in accordance with the ToR. The following shall be the payment scheme to the Consultant:

• 20% of the total amount after submission and approval of the Inception Report.

• 80% of the total amount after submission and approval of the Final Evaluation Report and the delivery of final presentations of the evaluation findings.

Note: The consultant is solely responsible for the payment of taxes and other lawful fees that may be incurred from this contract.

Application Procedures

Interested candidates should submit their application material by 4 April 2025.

Application materials should include:

• Curriculum Vitae (CV)

• A one-page expression of interest
• A technical proposal, not exceeding five pages expressing an understanding and interpretation of the TOR, the proposed methodology, a time and activity schedule, and itemizing estimated costs for services

• Contact details for three professional referees

• At least one example of an evaluation report most similar to that described in the ToR.