Overall objective

The mid-term evaluation aims to assess the overall relevance, effectiveness, and sustainability of the Protect Aid Workers mechanism. It will examine the project as a whole, including its design, implementation, governance, and operational modalities. This evaluation aims to provide stakeholders with a comprehensive understanding of the project's performance, identify strengths and weaknesses, and generate recommendations for improvement.

The evaluation will also take a forward-looking perspective, identifying strategic opportunities for expanding the mechanism’s activities and partnerships, and providing recommendations for the creation of an advisory group to enhance accountability and stakeholder engagement within the direct support pillar.

Evaluation scope

The evaluation will cover the entire scope of the PAW project, with a particular focus on the direct support pillar, which includes protection grants and legal assistance.

The evaluation will cover all PAW implementing partners.

The programming period to be covered by the review is November 2023 – November 2025.

Evaluation approach and questions

We propose using some elements from the OECD/DAC criteria as the primary analytical framework, which include relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, impact.

While grounded in a classical evaluation approach, the methodology also integrates forward-looking elements to inform future programming and strategic positioning.

The 4 main evaluation questions are accompanied by suggested sub-questions. The inception process will help complete and refine this list, providing a better framework for the objectives and expected results.

Is the PAW mechanism effective in addressing the needs of humanitarian workers affected by critical incidents?
Does the mechanism respond adequately to the diversity and urgency of needs encountered in the field?
Are the grants and legal support modalities appropriate, accessible, and responsive (eligibility conditions, grant size, eligible costs, etc.) ?
Are current outreach and communication efforts sufficient to ensure visibility and uptake of the mechanism’s services?
How this mechanism is fitting into the duty of care architecture?
2. Are the systems and processes supporting the mechanism efficient, transparent, and fit for purpose?

Is the current human and partnership setup adequate to ensure effective case management?
Is the monitoring system effective in tracking cases, managing data, and informing decision-making?
How well is the protection approach mainstreamed, particularly in interactions with individual beneficiaries?
3. Is the governance structure of the mechanism clear, functional, and conducive to effective coordination?

Are roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes clearly defined and respected across the consortium?
How well do partners collaborate across the three pillars? How could synergies be enhanced ?
Is the current consortium composition sufficient to achieve the mechanism’s strategic objectives, or would integrating additional partners strengthen its impact and reach?
4. To what extent are the current orientations for scaling or adapting the mechanism aligned with field needs, and based on sound success factors?

Which activities, external referral pathways and partnerships could be strengthened or formalized to improve access to a comprehensive package of care and support for aid workers affected by critical incidents?
What structure and modalities could be envisioned for an advisory group to enhance accountability and partner engagement?
What are the options to ensure the sustainability of the mechanism, including its independence, continued impact, and long-term funding?
Methodology

The precise methodology will be defined by the consultant including sampling techniques, the method (quantitative and/or qualitative), and the tools to be used for data collection. The scope of work for the mid-term evaluation should include the following

Reviewing project documents, including the project proposal, work plans, monitoring frameworks, and progress reports.
Conducting key informant interviews with project staff, stakeholders, beneficiaries, and partners to gather qualitative data on project implementation.
Analysing data collected to assess progress towards achieving the specified result areas and to identify challenges and opportunities.
Conducting a SWOT analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats related to project implementation.
Developing a comprehensive mid-term evaluation report summarizing findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
An internal audit is currently underway and is expected to deliver its findings and recommendations prior to the start of the evaluation. These insights will be considered as a key input to the evaluation process. Efforts will be made to ensure complementarity and articulation between the audit and the evaluation, particularly in areas where both exercises address governance, financial systems, and operational effectiveness.

Key deliverables and timeline

The following are the evaluation deliverables the evaluator will deliver:

Inception Report (including the evaluation questions mapping tool, methodology and workplan) - 15 December 2025
Presentation of preliminary findings - 15 February 2026
Draft Evaluation Report (including methodology, main findings, SWOT analysis, full evaluation of the scope, thematic recommendations and conclusions) - 22 February 2025
Final Evaluation Report, incorporating feedback from the Steering Committee - 16 April 2026
Cost

Protect Aid Workers will accept proposals up to €20,000. Though price will not be the defining factor in selecting the successful consultant, it will be a significant one, so applicants should consider this in their proposal. A full list of the application criteria is detailed below.

Payment schedule

Payments will be scheduled against deliverables:

Signed Contract – 30% up-front.
Draft Evaluation Report including first presentation – 40%.
Final Evaluation Report – 30%

Please send your resume/CV