Afghanistan SHAPE Programme Final Evaluation

Type of evaluation: Final EvaluationPurpose: Complete a final evaluation of the FCDO-funded SHAPE programme in AfghanistanCommissioners: Afghanistan Head of Delegation, IFRC, Country Representative Afghanistan, British Red CrossAudience: FCDO, ARCS, the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) Afghanistan Delegation, IFRC Regional Office in Kuala Lumpur and IFRC Geneva Office, the British Red Cross and Federation-wide partners including participating National Societies, external partners.Reporting to: Evaluation Management TeamTimeframe: Up to 30 flexible working days over the period of April to June of 2026Methodology: Mixed Method approach drawing on qualitative and quantitative data and using triangulation and contribution analysisLocation: Afghanistan (multiple locations)BackgroundThe FCDO funded SHAPE programme contributes to the IFRC Unified Plan 2024-2026 in Afghanistan, the objectives and outcomes of which are designed to support the Afghan Red Crescent Society’s (ARCS) National Society Development Plan 2024-2026, enabling the ARCS to deliver sustainable core services, as well as to support longer term recovery activities of the IFRC Afghanistan Emergency Appeal.The programme objectives and their alignment with the ARCS Strategic Plan are as follows:1. Outcome 1: National Society’s national and local capacity to prepare and respond to emergencies is enhanced. 2. Outcome 2a: Women and children are able to mitigate the impact of their experiences through access to high quality protection services tailored to their specific needs 3. Outcome 2b: People impacted by economic shocks, conflict and natural disasters are able to access locally viable livelihood assistance 4. Outcome 3: Evidence-based best practices are captured and utilized for improvement and advocacy 5. Outcome 4: Local Principled Humanitarian Action in Afghanistan is evidenced, prioritised and promotedIn 2025, following a Mid-Term Review the programme was refined into 5 main sectors of support (Disaster Management, Supporting Women and Girls, Health, Humanitarian Diplomacy, and National Society Development).As the programme design was based on the IFRC Unified Plan and its MEAL framework, the outcomes and outputs were not specific to the SHAPE programme and there was no independent Theory of Change.Evaluation Purpose and ScopePurpose: The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess if and how the Afghanistan SHAPE Programme achieved its intended objectives and the extent to which it contributed to meaningful changes for affected communities. It will go beyond reviewing progress against planned objectives. The evaluation will also identify key learning and actionable recommendations to inform the design and implementation of future programming in Afghanistan.Scope:* Coverage: Review of outputs and outcomes achieved, and unexpected outcomes during the implementation period from 1 September 2025 – 31 March 2026 comparing them to the original plan and revised concept note (2025) in Kabul, and selected provinces in Afghanistan that include Kandahar, Herat, Nangarhar, Balkh, Kunduz, Paktika and Parwan. * Stakeholder Engagement: Involvement of key stakeholders (including targeted communities based on the agreed sampling methodology, ARCS/IFRC programme staff and volunteers, and partners like FCDO, BRC and other partners) in the review to gather diverse perspectives. * Contextual Analysis: What was the impact of any contextual changes to the programme, taking into account sensitivities that could compromise Afghan Red Crescent Fundamental Principles, particularly Impartiality, Neutrality and Independence.Evaluation Objectives and Criteria.ObjectivesThe review will assess the SHAPE programme’s relevance and appropriateness, effectiveness, and coherence through these objectives:1. Evaluate performance: Evaluate the programme's performance and effectiveness against its objectives, assess progress and recognize obstacles or challenges that have hindered progress. 2. Evaluate Relevance: Assess the programme interventions’ relevance and appropriateness to the target population's needs and context. Noting the changes in context from disasters and population movement. 3. Enhance Accountability: Utilize the evaluation process to hold the programme accountable to its stakeholders, by assessing the relevance, effectiveness, and internal coherence of its interventions, monitoring and community feedback mechanisms. 4. Document Learning and Best Practices: Capture and document learning and best practices to inform future programme design 5. Adjust Strategies: Develop actionable recommendations to inform future strategic decisions, resource allocation and programme design based on findings, learning and stakeholder feedback. Provide IFRC secretariat, BRC and ARCS management with relevant information for making informed decisions regarding strategy, alignment with the ARCS Strategic Plan and resource allocation. 6. Value for Money: Conduct a financial review to analyze budget utilization and financial performance to assess value for money according to FCDO’s Five E’s Framework.CriteriaThe evaluation of the Afghanistan SHAPE programme will focus on three main criteria in line with the IFRC Framework for Evaluations 2024. The framework provides a structured approach to ensure that reviews and evaluations are systematic, transparent, and useful.1. Relevance and Appropriateness: Assess whether the programme was relevant to the needs of the target population and appropriate for the context. 2. Effectiveness: Review the extent to which the programme achieved its objectives and desired outcomes while examining how contextual changes such as population movement or natural disasters were addressed. This includes whether objectives or activities were adapted in response, and what expected or unexpected outcomes resulted. 3. Coherence: Examine internal coherence by assessing the extent to which various interventions within the programme are aligned and worked together to achieve the overall purpose and objectives. Examine whether these were aligned with key National Society and partner strategic plans. 4. Sustainability: Assess whether the benefits and outcomes of the programme are likely to continue beyond the end of programme support. This includes evaluating the extent of community ownership, institutional capacity, resource availability, and systems established to ensure continuity.Evaluation Methodology.The evaluation will follow the IFRC Framework for Evaluation 2024, focusing on best practices in planning, management, and execution. The evaluation team will provide a detailed methodology linking to financial aspects and ensuring practicality for learning.The evaluation’s specific methodologies will be developed by the review team in close collaboration with the evaluation management team (EMT). It will employ mixed method approach.Desktop Review: Desktop review of relevant organizational and operational background documents and history relating to ARCS and IFRC, including national policies and SOPs, prior IFRC reports, and any relevant sources of primary and secondary data, such as exit surveys, post-distribution monitoring (PDM) reports, recovery assessment report, learning review reports and other evaluations/reviews relevant to the project.* Survey to selected groups using a calculated sample size with appropriate weighting * Field Visits: Observations at intervention sites taking into account context sensitivities. * Key Informant Interviews: Engaging management from IFRC and ARCS and community members/leaders/influencers/volunteers. * Focus Group Discussions: Including diverse groups of targeted community members and non-targeted community members[VW1] (if considered useful but not for direct comparison). As well as ARCS volunteers, staff and IFRC personnel. * Design: The focus group discussions will be designed to encourage learning and analysis, incorporating some participatory activities to allow for better engagement of the respondents. * Preliminary Findings Presentations: The review will present the preliminary findings to stakeholders and selected leadership levels of the ARCS and IFRC/BRC. This will act as validation as well as a consensus on findings and recommendations.The detailed evaluation design is to be created by the evaluation team lead by the consultant; however, the following should be considered:* Analytical framework and review matrix should be developed by the consultant. Stakeholder analysis should also be conducted at the start of the evaluation, as part of the inception report. * Sampling method for the quantitative data is to be decided by the evaluation team * Interviewee selection to be determined by team and IFRC and ARCS but at minimum, should include ARCS and IFRC secretariat involved in the interventions, volunteers and targeted communities. * Data collection methods and pace are to be decided by the evaluation team, in consultation with the EMT, but should consider weather, travel and cultural restrictions, especially for international consultants. Creative solutions may need to be considered to address these challenges. * The evaluation should triangulate all data to ensure the validity and reliability of the findings, including from secondary data from non-Movement partners.Evaluation Team and Management TeamEvaluation Management TeamAn evaluation management team (EMT) will be appointed to manage and oversee the evaluation and ensure that it upholds Terms of Reference and the IFRC Framework for Evaluation. The WMT consists of 4-5 members that are non-operational:* A team member from ARCS * A team member from IFRC secretariat Afghanistan country delegation (who will lead the EMT) * Team member/s from IFRC secretariat Asia Pacific regional office * A team member from BRCEMT Roles And ResponsibilitiesThe EMT in coordination with ARCS, IFRC Afghanistan Country Delegation and BRC, will ensure the following:* Support the recruitment of the evaluation team. * The evaluation team will report to EMT and will closely coordinate with IFRC and ARCS senior programme management and technical staff. * Ensure the evaluation team has access to all relevant programme documents and data. * Support the evaluation team in accessing key informants and preparing the stakeholder contact list * Coordinate with relevant ARCS focal points for the selection of enumerators to support the evaluation team in data collection if needed. * Ensure the evaluation team complied and delivered according to the TOR.Evaluation TeamThe evaluation team will be led by a suitably qualified and experienced consultant(s) who will be able to complete the deliverables of the evaluation in Afghanistan and has the relevant security training .Review Team Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe review team under the leadership of the consultant team leader will:* Develop the inception report, including preliminary literature review, review design and matrix, methodology, sampling framework, tools, revised workplan and other necessary components * Collect, clean, and analyze qualitative/quantitative (if collected) data. * Coordinate with the EMT, IFRC, ARCS, and other stakeholders. * Facilitate interviews, focus group discussions, and meetings with stakeholders. * Orient ARCS staff in data collection methodologies. * Ensure ethical standards, safeguarding, and cultural sensitivities are respected. * Prepare and deliver high-quality reports and presentations on findings. * Coordinate with IFRC and ARCS on field logistics.DeliverablesThe evaluation consultant will provide the following:* Inception Report (including an evaluation plan) * Draft and final report(s) (See Annex 1 FCDO Report Checklist) * Presentation of findings and lessons learned * Facilitation of validation workshop * Final Data setProposed Timeline.Activity - Location - Days - DeliverableKick-off discussion with EMT and operations team - Remote - 1 -Literature review, develop and submit Inception Report - Remote - 3 - Inception Report submittedReview and approval of Inception Report by EMT - Remote - 1 -Data collection in country (KIIs, participatory FGDs, etc.) - Kabul and targeted locations - 10Conduct preliminary debriefing, validation of findings, and lessons learned sessions - Kabul - 2 - Preliminary Debriefing Sessions completedOrganize and analyze collected data - Remote - 4 -Prepare and submit first draft of report with annexes - Remote - 5 -Findings Presentations/Workshops online - Remote - 1 - Findings Presentations/Workshops deliveredStakeholder review of the draft report - Remote - 1Finalise and submit final report and summary document - Remote - 2 - Final Report and Summary Document submittedSubmit cleaned data sets and inventory - Remote - 0.5 - Cleaned data sets and inventory submittedFinal report approval - Remote - Final report approval by CommissionersManagement response by country team and ARCS - Kabul - Management response formEvaluation Quality and Ethical Standards.To uphold IFRC Evaluation Framework 2024 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 people and the communities of which they are members, and to ensure that the evaluation is technically accurate, reliable, and legitimate, conducted in a transparent and impartial manner, and contributes to organisational learning and accountability. Therefore, the evaluation team should adhere to the evaluation standards and specific, applicable practices outlined in the IFRC Evaluation Framework accompanying this TOR. The IFRC Evaluation Standards are:1. Utility: Evaluations must be useful and used. 2. Feasibility: Evaluations must be realistic, diplomatic, and managed in a sensible, cost-effective manner. 3. Ethics & Legality: Evaluations must be conducted in an ethical and legal manner, with particular regard for the welfare of those involved in and affected by the evaluation. 4. Impartiality & Independence: Evaluations should be impartial, providing a comprehensive and unbiased assessment that takes into account the views of all stakeholders. 5. Transparency: Evaluation activities should reflect an attitude of openness and transparency. 6. Accuracy: Evaluations should be technical accurate, providing sufficient information about the data collection, analysis, and interpretation methods so that its worth or merit can be determined. 7. Participation: Stakeholders should be consulted and meaningfully involved in the evaluation process when feasible and appropriate. 8. Collaboration: Collaboration between key operating partners in the evaluation process improves the legitimacy and utility of the evaluation.It is also expected that the review 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…