Organizational Context
1. Summary
1.1 Purpose: The Final Evaluation will assess the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescentโs (IFRC) response to the population movement in Armenia between September 2023 and April 2025. It will focus on the relevance and effectiveness of service delivery, the quality of interagency coordination, andโwhere applicableโcoordination within the Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The evaluation will also examine how the response contributed to National Society Development (NSD), particularly in light of the institutional crisis and the adoption of an exceptional operational mechanism, and how the Emergency Appeal aligned with the ongoing operations of the Armenian Red Cross Society (ARCS). Based on these findings, the evaluation will provide evidence-based recommendations to inform future programming, including global emergency relief efforts, with particular attention to strengthening sustainability and long-term impact.
1.2 Commissioners: This evaluation is commissioned by Birgitte Bischoff Ebbesen, Regional Director of the IFRC Regional Office for Europe, and will be overseen by the Evaluation Management Team (EMT).
1.3 Audience: This evaluation will be used by ARCS, IFRC and its member National Societies and other Movement partners, the IFRC South Caucasus Cluster Delegation, the IFRC Regional Office for Europe and Central Asia (RoE) and headquarters in Geneva. It will also inform Partner National Societies (PNS) working with ARCS and contributing to the Federation-wide funding of the Emergency Appeal, namely Austrian Red Cross, Italian Red Cross, Monaco Red Cross and Swiss Red Cross. 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.
1.4 Duration of consultancy: Up to 40 working days
1.5 Estimated dates of consultancy: June โ September 2025
1.6 Location of consultancy: Remotely, with approximately 10 days of field visit in Armenia
2. Background
The situation in Armenia escalated on 19 September 2023, with a large influx of people from Karabakh seeking refuge due to renewed military hostilities. By 31 December 2023, the number of displaced individuals reached 115,388. In response, the Government of Armenia requested international assistance through the Union Civil Protection Mechanism (UCPM). The IFRC launched a Federation-wide Emergency Appeal (EA), seeking CHF 20 millionโof which CHF 15 million was allocated through the Secretariatโto address the urgent needs of 90,000 affected individuals. Following an initial Disaster Response Emergency Fund (DREF) allocation of CHF 498,752, a second allocation increased the DREF to CHF 1 million before transitioning into the Emergency Appeal. To date, over CHF 8.9 million has been raised.
The Government of Armenia rapidly established reception centres and coordinated with humanitarian actors, including ARCS to provide essential services. The emergency response focused on both immediate and ongoing needs, with particular attention to vulnerable groups such as women, children, older people, and persons with disabilities. A comprehensive needs assessment highlighted urgent prioritiesโshelter, food, essential items, and mental health and psychosocial supportโwhile also recognising the need for sustained livelihoods assistance over the longer term.
Job Purpose
Armenia was one of 14 countries globally selected to pilot the IFRCโs New Way of Working (NWoW), now known as the Network Way of Working. This approach emphasised collective analysis, coordinated support, resource mobilisation, and accountability. ARCS was expected to deliver on four core outputs: 1) a shared situational and needs analysis, 2) a multi-year country support plan, 3) a common accountability framework, and 4) a harmonised resource mobilisation plan.
However, the application of this framework was significantly disrupted by an institutional crisis that occurred at ARCS in February 2024. The crisis led to a temporary loss of technical capacities, institutional memory, and programme documentation. In response to this exceptional situation, the IFRC activated a temporary alternative operational mechanism, assuming a greater role in direct implementation than is typical. This shift aimed to ensure continuity in the delivery of critical services during a period of leadership transition and reduced organisational functionality within the National Society.
3. Purpose and Scope
The purpose of the evaluation is to
Assess the IFRC/ARCS Population Movement Operation, focusing on the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and connectedness of the interventions. Determine the extent to which the alternative working modality adopted by IFRC helped maintain service delivery during the leadership vacuum and institutional crisis within ARCS. Examine how the Emergency Appeal contributed to National Society Development (NSD) and worked towards sustainable impact despite the operational disruptions.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 addressing complex emergencies induced by population movement. 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 population movement response met its objectives, and whether the operation has been conducted in compliance with the RCRCโs Movementโs standards and principles.The scope of the evaluation covers all interventions implemented under the Emergency Appeal between September 2023 and April 2025, across the entire country. Primary data collection will take place both in person and online, including interviews and focus group discussions. A validation workshop is expected to be held in Yerevan, and efforts will be made to incorporate the perspectives of affected communities into the findings.
4. Review criteria and key questions
The Final Evaluation will be guided by the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria and the IFRC Framework for Evaluation. The questions below are intended to serve as a foundation for inquiry and may be further refined or expanded by the selected consultant in consultation with the Evaluation Management Team (EMT).
The evaluation will address two primary objectives:
Objective 1: to assess whether the interventions of the IFRC Secretariat and ARCS were delivered in line with the operational strategy of the Emergency Appeal.
Job Duties and Responsibilities
Criterion
Suggested questions
Relevance:
1. To what extent did the programme objectives correspond with the identified needs of the target population?
2. How well did the response adapt to changes in need, capacities and context including the institutional crisis in February 2024, and the temporary shift in operational mechanisms with IFRCโs direct implementation?
3. To what extent were affected populations meaningfully engaged in the design and adaptation of the response?
Effectiveness:
1. To what extent were the stated objectives under this appeal achieved?
2. To what extent were services and items delivered in a timely manner?
3. To what extent did IFRC global response tools (e.g. surge, DREF, EA mechanisms) enable effective coordination and impact delivery under the changed operational context?
Sustainability:
1. What specific efforts were made to ensure that ARCSโs operational capacity was built during the response, so that it could handle future emergencies more effectively?
2. In what ways did the emergency appeal help to integrate NSD objectives into the emergency operations, particularly in areas of volunteer management, governance, and organisational capacity?
Connectedness:
1. How well did the emergency appeal align with ongoing NSD efforts during the crisis period?
2. How did the crisis and the hybrid operational model with IFRCโs direct implementation affect ARCS's ability to implement both the emergency appeal and its ongoing development efforts?
Protection and Safety:
1. Were protection issues, particularly for vulnerable and marginalised groups, systematically integrated into the response design, regardless of who was directly implementing the activities (IFRC or ARCS)?
2. Have protection concerns been adequately addressed in the design of the response, regardless of who was directly implementing the activities (IFRC or ARCS)?
3. How can the provision of humanitarian assistance be improved to better respond to the needs, vulnerabilities and capacities of girls, boys, women, men, persons with disability and marginalised groups, particularly under exceptional circumstances with IFRCโs direct implementation modality?
Movement and inter-agency coordination:
1. How well did the Movement coordination setup correspond to Strengthening Movement Coordination and Cooperation (SMCC) and Seville Agreement 2.0 approach? Where possible, to what extent were the roles and responsibilities of Movement partners in-country fulfilled and how the institutional crisis contributed to that?
2. How did the direct implementation modality affect membership coordination, and was IFRC able to maintain its coordination mandate?
3. How did Movement coordination adjust to the shift in operational responsibility, and was there sufficient alignment in strategic decision-making?
4. How effective has coordination been with non-Movement actors at national and regional levels?
5. Are there any specific recommendations to improve coordination levels?
Job Duties and Responsibilities (continued)
Objective 2: to evaluate the effectiveness of the alternative working modality in maintaining service delivery during the institutional crisis.
Criterion
Suggested questions
Sustainability:
1. What were the implications of the alternative working modality for the efficiency of the operation?
2. In the context of an institutional crisis, what approaches were put in place to overcome the challenges in NS systems, capacities and structures?
3. What lessons from the alternative modality are transferable to other contexts where NS leadership is temporarily compromised?
4. How did the alternative working modality influence the continuity of NSD efforts during the crisis period, and what institutional capacities were preserved, strengthened, or lost as a result?
Effectiveness:
1. How effective was the alternative operational modality in addressing internal challenges and enabling continued impact?
2. How did the alternative modality influence service quality, targeting, and outcomesโcompared to standard NS-led implementation?
Movement and inter-agency coordination:
1. How did the institutional crisis affect the internal communication between IFRC and ARCS, and communication with external partners?
5. Review methodology & process
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 utilised. An Evaluation Management Team will oversee the process.
The EMT will include members from the IFRC Regional Office for Europe and Headquarters along with a member from ARCS and potentially a Partner National Society present in the country but not involved in the current response.
The evaluation methodology will be proposed by the consultant in close consultation with the EMT, but will draw upon the following primary methods:
Desktop review: analysis of operation background documents and other key programme documents including the Operational Strategy and Operation Updates, IFRC and ARCS monitoring data as well as any relevant sources of secondary data and further relevant documentation produced as part of the operation. Focus group discussions: group interviews with programme recipients and staff of the IFRC and ARCS to collect lessons learned from the operation and inform recommendations. Key informant interviews: online or offline interviews with staff of ARCS, IFRC and StakeholdersThe 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.
Education
6. Review deliverables & illustrative timeline
The following will be developed and delivered in line with the IFRC Framework for Evaluation:
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, 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 for the Draft Report. The workshop should include the IFRC, ARCS 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. 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.All products arising from this review will be owned by the Federation. The evaluators will not be allowed, without prior authorisation in writing, to present any of the analytical results as his or her own work or to make use of the review results for private publication purposes.
Experience
The following is an illustrative timeline that will be revisited and refined with more detail during the inception stage of the evaluation:
Time Schedule
Activities
Deliverables
Week 1-2
1. Desktop study of background information
2. Initial briefings and interviews to inform development of inception report
3. Development of detailed Inception Report, or data collection/analysis plan, draft methodology, data collection tools and work plan
ยท Inception report,
ยท Data collection/analysis plan,
ยท Draft methodology,
ยท Data collection tools and
ยท work plan
Week 3-4
1. Preparation and pilot of data collection tools
2. Data collection according to data collection schedule
ยท Piloted data collection tools
ยท Data collection
Week 5
Preparation and presentation of preliminary findings of to the EMT and key staff for initial inputs (validation workshop)
ยท Presentation of preliminary findings
Week 5-6
Preparation of Draft Report
ยท Draft version of evaluation report
Week 7-8
Revision of Draft Report and submission of Final Evaluation Report
ยท Final draft of evaluation report
Week 8
Preparation of final virtual presentation
ยท Final virtual presentation
7. Review quality & ethics
The consultant should take all necessary steps to ensure that the evaluation is designed and conducted in a manner that respects and protects the rights and welfare of the affected populations, while maintaining the highest standards of technical accuracy, reliability, transparency, and impartiality. This includes a clear recognition of the exceptional circumstances and challenges faced during the operational response, such as the institutional crisis in early 2024 and the shift to a hybrid operational model. The evaluator 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.Knowledge, Skills and Languages
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-weare/international-red-cross-and-red-crescent-movement/fundamental-principles.
8. Qualifications
For this position, the IFRC can only consider the applications of individual evaluation consultants.
The consultant should have:
Minimum qualification of a PhD in international development, social sciences, humanitarian assistance or other related fields, or a Masterโs 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 Knowledge of strategic and operational management of humanitarian operations and proven ability to provide strategic recommendations to key stakeholders Previous experience with evaluating Population Movement Operations is strongly preferred Strong analytical skills and ability to clearly synthesize and present findings, draw practical conclusions and to prepare wellโwritten reports in a timely manner Excellent written and spoken English (work sample required) Knowledge and experience working with of Red Cross Red Crescent Movement strongly preferred. Experience working in Southern Caucasus is preferredCompetencies, Values and Comments
9. Application procedures
Interested candidates should submit their application material by 2 June 2025 to hr.europe@ifrc.org with Armenia Emergency Appeal Final Evaluation written in the Subject Line.
Application materials should include:
Curricula Vitae (CV) highlighting relevant experience. 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 of three professional references At least one example of an evaluation report most similar to that described in this TOR.