Final Evaluation Consultant

Regional Integrated Protection and Health Response in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds to the world's worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is one of the world's largest international humanitarian non-governmental organizations (INGO), at work in more than 40 countries and 29 U.S. cities helping people to survive, reclaim control of their future and strengthen their communities.

A force for humanity, IRC employees deliver lasting impact by restoring safety, dignity and hope to millions. If you're a solutions-driven, passionate change-maker, come join us in positively impacting the lives of millions of people world-wide for a better future.

Location:

Remote with travel to Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen

Start:
February 2026

End:
June 2026

The humanitarian crises in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen remain among the most complex globally, characterized by protracted conflict, economic collapse, and weakened health and protection systems. Women, children (boys and particularly girls), and marginalized groups face heightened risks of gender-based violence (GBV), limited access to basic sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). The IRC has been implementing integrated protection and health interventions to address these needs, guided by feminist principles and localization strategies.

The IRC's Regional Integrated Protection and Health Response project (2024–2026) aims to improve safety, health, and well-being for women, children (girls and boys), and vulnerable populations in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The project integrates GBV prevention and response, SRHR services, MHPSS, and child protection (CP) interventions, alongside capacity strengthening of local actors. The CAD 8 million initiative targets over 127,000 beneficiaries and emphasizes gender equality, GEDI, accountability, and conflict sensitivity.

The final evaluation will assess the project's relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, aligned with OECD DAC criteria and GAC priorities. Objectives include:

• Measure key achievements of intended and unintended outcomes and outputs.
• Validate the Theory of Change and Assumptions.
• Identify lessons learned and best practices for future programming and designs specifically for each program area.
• Assess integration of gender-transformative and localization approaches.
• Assess the sustainability approach and to what extent this component has been achieved

This evaluation is intended to help the IRC answer the following key questions:

• To what extent did the project in its integrated approach improve protection/safety/well-being and health outcomes including SRHR and, MHPSS for women, girls, and children?
• How effective were integrated service models (GBV + SRHR + MHPSS)?
• How sustainable the HOW services delivery through partners and across the WLOs/feminist org as well as the women led community committees?
• How did gender-transformative approaches effectively influenced social norms?
• Did integration of services enhance client's uptake in services, and improve their overall wellbeing by receiving comprehensive and complementary services?
• Any unintended effects/impact on the communities targeted by this project?

Based on the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, and with focus on cross-cutting themes:
Gender Equality, GEDI, Accountability, and Conflict Sensitivity, it is expected that the evaluation questions should be answered while addressing the following criteria:

• Relevance for meeting the targeted beneficiaries' needs, interests, and expectations.
• Effectiveness of the project activities in achieving the project objectives, the relation between input/resources and the results achieved on the output, outcome and impact level as relevant.
• Sustainability To what extent activities, results, and effects are expected to continue after the donor intervention has ended. To what extent the project supported institutional capacity building will continue to contribute to the emergency response and building resilience, how realistic the project approach was in achieving sustainable results for beneficiaries including the relation with internal and external stakeholders.
• Efficiency:
  Were the objectives achieved so far in a cost-efficient manner by the project implementation, were there any alternatives for achieving the same results with less resources
• Impact:
  As explained in more details below, because of methodological limitations, it is not expected that the review will be able to infer causality between the project and expected impacts. Instead, the review can offer perceptions, correlations and descriptive inferences about how perceived changes could be associated with (but not unequivocally caused by) the…