Jordan
Endline Evaluation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement II Programme and Syria & Lebanon Top Ups
Organization
Posted 30 Sep 2026 Closing date 17 Oct 2026
TERMS OF REFERENCEEndline Evaluation of the Strategic Partnership Agreement II Programme and Syria & Lebanon Top UpsCommissioned by | ActionAid - Arab RegionSyria and Lebanon | 2022–2026
ActionAid Arab Region (AAAR), together with its local partners, has implemented the Strategic Partnership Agreement II funded by DANIDA in partnership with ActionAid Denmark in Syria and Lebanon from 2022 to 2026. The programme has been implemented in highly complex and protracted crisis contexts, requiring continuous adaptation to changing political, economic, humanitarian and protection conditions.
In Lebanon, implementation has been undertaken with SHIFT, Bassmeh & Zaitouneh, and RDFL, with interventions reaching communities in Tripoli, Jeb Jenine and Ba'albek.
In Syria, implementation was initially concentrated in Northwest Syria, through Violet and Bahar, and subsequently expanded to Latakia and Damascus in response to changing contextual and humanitarian needs.
The programme has also been complemented by two Top-Ups, one in Lebanon and one in Syria, which are included within the scope of this endline evaluation. The evaluation should therefore assess the overall contribution and performance of the core SPAII programme alongside the additional interventions and adaptations introduced through the Top-Ups.
The programme as a whole is expected to have reached approximately:
The Programme Has Been Structured Around Three Strategic Objectives:SO1: Rights and access to servicesYoung people, especially marginalised young women, enjoy fundamental rights through improved access to well-resourced programmes and public services in fragile situations.SO2: Sustainable livelihoods and green solutionsYoung people from refugee and host communities, especially marginalised young women, enjoy improved, sustainable livelihoods through government that is accountable towards building sustainable green solutions.SO3: Resilience, protection and rightsYoung people from refugee and host communities, especially marginalised women, are resilient to shocks and enjoy their rights to protection in protracted crises.The programme's Theory of Change (ToC) provides the overarching logic through which interventions are expected to contribute to improved rights, access to services, livelihoods, resilience, protection, collective action and longer-term systemic change.
Given the duration and complexity of the programme, the endline evaluation provides an opportunity not only to assess the extent to which the programme achieved its intended results, but also to examine how and why change occurred, the contribution of different interventions and partners, the quality of technical capacity and collective action, the programme's policy influence, and the extent to which programming remained relevant and adaptive in protracted crises.
The primary purpose of the endline evaluation is to provide an independent assessment of the performance, contribution and learning of the SPAII programme and its Top-Ups in Syria and Lebanon between 2022 and 2026.
The evaluation will assess the programme against the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of:
In addition, the evaluation will place particular emphasis on the programme’s ability to adapt to changing and protracted crisis contexts, the quality and adequacy of ActionAid/AAAR’s technical leadership, guidance and support, the effectiveness and quality of collective action, the extent and nature of policy influence, and the relationship between programme implementation and the Theory of Change. The evaluation is expected to generate practical, forward-looking evidence and learning to inform future AAAR programming in Syria and Lebanon, the design of regional and country-level programmes, partnership and localisation approaches, adaptive programming in protracted and rapidly changing crises, technical leadership and support to partners, advocacy and policy influencing, youth engagement and collective action, and humanitarian-development-peace programming. Ultimately, the findings will contribute to AAAR’s organisational learning and strategic decision-making, helping to identify what worked well, where the programme could have done better, why particular approaches succeeded or underperformed, and what should be sustained, adapted or strengthened in future programming.
The following questions should guide the evaluation. The evaluator should refine and prioritise these during the inception phase.
The Evaluation Will Cover:Lebanon: Tripoli, Jeb Jenine, Ba'albek
Syria: Northwest Syria, Latakia, Damascus
The evaluation should ensure adequate representation of different geographic and contextual settings rather than relying solely on the most accessible locations.
Time period2022–2026Programme scopeThe Evaluation Will Cover:
PartnersLebanon: SHIFT, Bassmeh & Zaitouneh RDFL
Syria: Violet, Bahar
The evaluation should use a mixed-methods, participatory and theory-based approach.
A purely indicator-based assessment will not be sufficient. The evaluation should combine quantitative evidence with qualitative investigation of contribution, change, adaptation and learning.
The evaluator is expected to propose a detailed methodology during inception. This should include, as appropriate:
5.1 Document reviewThe evaluation will include a review of key programme documentation, including the programme design and Theory of Change, logframes and IPTTs, monitoring and DQA data, partner and monitoring reports, assessments and previous evaluations, learning and advocacy documentation, Top-Up documentation, and relevant contextual and needs assessments.
5.2 Quantitative analysisThe evaluation will analyse available monitoring data to assess programme reach, participation, demographic and geographic coverage, achievement against targets, and trends across the implementation period and intervention types.
The evaluator should critically assess data quality and limitations and should not treat reported reach as equivalent to meaningful change.
5.3 Qualitative researchThe evaluation will use qualitative methods to capture the perspectives of programme participants, young people and marginalised young women, communities, partners, volunteers, AAAR staff, technical teams, duty bearers, service providers, civil society and policy stakeholders.
Methods may include key informant interviews, focus group discussions, participatory reflection, outcome harvesting, contribution analysis and selected case studies, as appropriate.
5.4 Theory of Change assessmentThe evaluator should conduct a dedicated assessment of the SPAII ToC, identifying:
Inputs → Activities → Outputs → Outcomes → Strategic Objectives → Longer-term changewhile testing the assumptions and contextual conditions between each stage.
The evaluation should identify successful and unsuccessful pathways of change and explain why they occurred.
5.5 Case studiesThe evaluator will develop a limited number of illustrative case studies highlighting significant examples of individual or community change, collective action, policy influence, technical leadership and guidance, adaptation to crisis, innovative or alternative solutions, and unintended change. Case studies should focus on the pathways and mechanisms of change, demonstrating how and why change occurred rather than simply describing activities or outputs.
The evaluation should assess the partnership model as an important determinant of programme performance.
Questions Should Include:
The evaluation should particularly examine the balance between partner autonomy and AAAR technical accompaniment, quality assurance and strategic support.
Given the sensitive nature of programming in Syria and Lebanon, the evaluation must adhere to ActionAid safeguarding requirements and ethical research principles, including informed consent, confidentiality, anonymity, data protection, do-no-harm and conflict-sensitive approaches, gender-sensitive research, and safe participation of young people. Appropriate referral procedures should be in place where sensitive protection concerns arise. The evaluation should minimise risks associated with discussing protection, legal assistance, displacement, conflict and other sensitive experiences. No personally identifiable information should be included in the final report unless explicitly authorised and ethically justified.
The Selected Evaluator/team Will Be Expected To Produce:
Including:refined evaluation questions; evaluation matrix; detailed methodology; sampling strategy; data collection tools; analysis framework; ethical and safeguarding approach; workplan; limitations and mitigation measures.
II. Data Collection ToolsIncluding Appropriate Tools For:KIIs; FGDs; participant consultations; partner consultations; policy stakeholder interviews; case studies; and other proposed methods.
III. Preliminary Findings PresentationA presentation of emerging findings to AAAR and relevant partners for validation and reflection.
IV. Draft Evaluation ReportIncluding:
Maximum recommended length: 40–50 pages excluding annexes.
VI. Learning ProductA concise SPAII Learning Brief synthesising key lessons and practical recommendations, including what worked and what did not, why, what AAAR and partners should continue or do differently, and what should be adapted to strengthen future programming in protracted-crisis contexts.
VII. Final Learning WorkshopFacilitation of a participatory learning session with AAAR and relevant partners to validate findings, identify key lessons and priorities, translate findings into actionable recommendations, and discuss implications for future programming.
The evaluator should propose a purposive sampling strategy that ensures representation across:
The evaluation should avoid relying exclusively on programme success stories or easily accessible participants.
The Evaluation Should Be:Independent – providing an impartial assessment of programme performance.
Utilisation-focused – producing findings that can directly inform future decisions.
Participatory – ensuring meaningful engagement of partners and programme participants.
Theory-based – testing the programme's Theory of Change rather than simply measuring indicator achievement.
Contribution-focused – recognising that change in Syria and Lebanon cannot necessarily be attributed to SPAII alone.
Context-sensitive – recognising the complexity of protracted crises.
Gender-responsive and youth-centred – examining who benefited, who did not, and how power and inclusion influenced results.
Learning-oriented – identifying not only successes and failures but the reasons behind them.
Ultimately, the evaluation should answer five practical questions for AAAR:
What approaches, interventions, partnerships and adaptations generated meaningful results?
What underperformed, and why?
Which pathways in the Theory of Change worked, for whom and under what conditions?
How can AAAR become more adaptive, locally led and responsive?
What should be continued, stopped, adapted, strengthened, scaled or tested differently?
Activity TimelineInception phase Week 1
Data collection Week 2 to Week 6
Data analysis Week 7
Validation workshop Week 8
Draft final report Week 9
Final report and learning product Week 10
Final workshop Week 11
Maximum 16,230 JODs inclusive of 5% tax for Jordanians and 10% for non-Jordanians.
The assessment must follow ActionAid’s safeguarding principles and ethical standards:
How to apply
*Submissions :*The consultant shall submit the following documents (attached templates) to this email ari.jobs@actionaid.org by October 17, 2026 :
Technical link Template: https://docs.google.com/document/d/13W8JoHA7yU6wUpzdfcnZvpl9qFc-q3Wb/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=113933132343415204910&rtpof=true&sd=true
Financial Link Template: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/18Gez8pvBx1-4Ki609rHE9LFm9zp38RJo/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=113933132343415204910&rtpof=true&sd=true
Job details
Country
Source
Type
Career category
Years of experience
Share
