1
TERMS OF REFERENCE
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.
2.
commissioned)
Introduction and background
Rationale for the review (the reasons why the review has been
3.
Review purpose and intended use (e.g. to assess…, to serve as basis for
decision-making, accountability, lessons-learning, etc.)
4.
Review audiences (i.e. who receives the report and will ensure and
participate in the follow-up of recommendations, etc.)
4.1. Primary Audiences
4.2. Secondary Audiences
5.
Review scope and focus (i.e. what period will be assed, what exactly are we
going to assess, please note that criteria used may vary)
5.1. Relevance/appropriateness and effectiveness of activities
5.2. Efficiency and effectiveness
5.3. Document background
6.
Authority and responsibility (i.e. who manages and participates in the
process, roles, validation of deliverables, etc.)
7.
Review methods (e.g. desk review of documents, field visits, interviews, etc.to be further developed by the review team)
8.
Deliverables (to be produced by the review team)
8.1.
Review inception report/work plan
8.2.
Review report
9.
10.
Composition and profile of the review team
Timing
3
1. Introduction and background
Primary objective of the Project
Addressing the humanitarian consequences caused by urban violence in the most affected
neighbourhoods of the city of Medellin through a joint ICRC – Colombian Red Cross project.
Rationale
Taking into account the situation of armed violence in the city of Medellin over the course of the
last 20 years and its important humanitarian consequences, the delegation came to the
conclusion that on the basis of its long term presence (since 1995) in Medellin, its knowledge of
local dynamics and key interlocutors, the present political realities (opportunity) and the operational
capacities of the sub-Delegation and the local Colombian Red Cross, the ICRC was in a position to
generate an added value for the victims of urban violence by developing activities in their favour,
through interventions with armed actors and through a process of mobilization and persuasion of
state actors.
Currently
Based on its knowledge of the situation in the city and its past experience in assisting victims of the
conflict residing in Medellin, the sub-Delegation, in close cooperation with the Antioquia Branch of
the Colombian Red Cross, directly assists selected victims (target population) of urban violence,
develops prevention mechanisms as well as projects aimed at creating alternative opportunities,
engages state actors and armed forces (Police and Military) in mobilization and persuasion and
develops a protection dialogue with the relevant armed actors (criminal structures).
Developments since its inception (structure / coverage / partnerships)
2010: largely inspired by the ICRC Rio project, the Medellín sub-delegation prepares and presents a
similar project proposal for the city of Medellin, combining the efforts of both the ICRC and CRC
Antioquia Branch, which was approved by the Delegation and the Region (see 2010 annex).
2011: evaluations were conducted by the different delegation units to define their own activities,
recruitment of consultant (on Education) and staff (90% external to ICRC) and drafting of first
Planning for Results 2012 document. Consultations/invitation were made to CRCSA to become
partner in this project. At that time, the protection component was largely missing from the
evaluation and only one 60%delegate and a Head of Project were in charge of the protection
activities (Protection of the civilian population, detention and detention of minors) and of the
dialogue with armed actors.
A team of two professionals in Education was recruited in place of the consultant.
Drafting of the Cooperation Agreement with the CRC was done.
The project covered the following geographical areas: Independencias 1, 2, 3, Alfonso Lopez,
Kennedy, Aures 2, Santo Domingo/Sabio 2, Villa Liliam, Villa Turbay, and La Sierra.
2012: launch of the four-year project and addition of one full time protection delegate. The
coordinators were requested to get involved in the definition of the Urban Violence 2013 PfR
document.
Partnership with Profamilia, Interactuar, Formentamos and Esumer was concluded.
.
2013: signature of the Cooperation Agreement with the CRC. Validation of the Protection Strategy
by PROT GVA early 2013 and cancelation of the same strategy by PROT BOG in November 2013.
By the end of 2013, an organizational change happened: the Urban Violence team was integrated in
the sub delegation, the Head of Project reported to the Head of sub delegation and the units to their
respective coordinators. CRCSA expanded its contribution in the implementation of activities in
particular in detention of minors with their “PACO” program.
Dissolution of partnership with Formentamos.
4
2014: joint monthly reporting was abolished and joint trimestral/bi-annual/annual reporting to ICRC
and CRC were adopted. For the first time, PfR exercise included the full contribution and
participation of the CRCSA for the definition of results and indicators. The following sectors were
added to the coverage of the project using the Priority Zone Methodology: La Avanzada, La
Esperanza, Castilla and La Loma. DHoSD/Head of Project becomes responsible for the Project’s
specific Admin/Finances reporting in June 2014.
2015: phase out from 10 sectors throughout the year (end of the project). Identification of four
additional sectors, Aranjuez, El Salado, Antonio Nariño, Eduardo Santo and continuation in La
Loma and Villa Liliam for 2016 through the Priority Zone methodology.
Termination of partnerships with Crearcoop and Interacturar.
2. Rationale for the review
After the four-year implementation of the joint ICRC Colombian Red Cross (CRC) Antioquia branch
project “Más Espacios Humanitarios, más alternativas” (MEHMA), the delegation decided to have a
performance review for the following reasons:
- Management of the project: given the objective to address the humanitarian consequences
caused by urban violence in the most affected neighbourhoods of the city of Medellín in the
form of a project and given the choice of this exceptional form of ICRC intervention in an
urban setting, the ICRC needs to establish whether the project form added value to its
humanitarian objectives:
- Partnership with a National Society branch: given the project’s nature as being a
humanitarian intervention in an urban setting by the ICRC with a National Society branch,
the ICRC needs to define whether this partnership added value in terms of the humanitarian
impact in favour of victims of urban violence;
- Relevance of activities: the nature of urban violence, its consequences for the civilian
population and the formulation of a needs-based humanitarian response pose particular
challenges to the ICRC and host National Societies. The ICRC and the Antioquia branch of
the CRC need to establish whether the protection and assistance activities deployed during
the four-year period have been relevant in light of the population’s needs;
- Prevention dimension: with the intention to deploy a multi-disciplinary ICRC and NS
operation within the project, the dialogue with arms carriers has been a particular challenge.
The ICRC needs to know whether those prevention activities contributed to improve the
respect by arms carriers of the civilian population.
Finally, having been intentionally defined by the ICRC as a four-year project because its intervention
in Medellín took place in “unchartered waters” and in the wake of the ICRC Río pilot project, the
ICRC, with this performance review can add a new learning experience with regard to its response
to humanitarian needs in an urban setting, under the threshold of IHL applicability.
3. Review purpose and intended use
The performance review of the MEHMA project serves as a delegation and institutional lessonslearning for the ICRC humanitarian response of urban violence. Its intended use is first and
foremost the delegation’s adequate objective-definition when wanting to address humanitarian
needs in favour of victims of urban violence. The review is an opportunity to have some
recommendations for future ICRC interventions in comparable urban settings.
4. Review audiences
ICRC delegation in Colombia, OP_AMERICAS.
4.1. Primary audiences: ICRC delegation in Colombia, CRC national and branch level
5
4.2. Secondary audiences: OP_AMERICAS with équipe régionale de coordination (ERC), ICRC HQ
working group on urban violence, Norwegian Red Cross, other delegations in the Americas.
External to the Movement:
- ANALP (http://www.alnap.org/resource/9810)?
- ATHA (http://atha.se/)?
- Relief Web (http://reliefweb.int/)
5. Review scope and focus
5.1. Context/ Relevance
What have been the key changes in Colombia context that triggered or influenced the project?
What have been the key institutional changes (e.g. priorities, resources, policies) in the ICRC that
triggered or influenced the project?
To what extend did the project correspond to the changing national/ local context?
To what extend did the project correspond to the changing ICRC institutional context?
5.2. Appropriateness and effectiveness of activities
To what extend were the outcomes and outputs identified from the onset of the project?
To what extend was the planning logic known and understood by its key stakeholders?
5.2.1. Protection and detention:
How were the protection and detention activities integrated in the project? What have been the
reasons to choose the approach that has been implemented? How were they implemented?
Has the protection dialogue with armed actors (i.e. armed groups/gangs, Police, military forces)
contributed to better respect for the civilian population?
In order to address this question the following considerations are important: development/progress
of quality dialogue with armed actors, ICRC comprehension of armed actors’
structures/organization, networking capacity, possibility to address protection problems with armed
actors, interaction with armed actors.
Detention related activities in favour of minors: have the treatment, detention conditions, and judicial
guarantees been improved for minors in detention?
5.2.2. Assistance
Economic security: to which extent were these activities relevant (i.e. responding to the target
populations’ need? still valid in the future? consistent with the overall objective of the project, having
had an impact on the lives of the target population?), effective and sustainable?
Health: the focus of the review in this field should be the training, promotion, persuasion and
mobilisation activities in relation to first aid, reproductive health, mental health and protection of the
medical mission (relevance/appropriateness, results achieved, effectiveness, efficiency and
sustainability). A special focus should also be on health programme management and coordination.
WeC: the review should focus on violence prevention, i.e. mitigation of violence effects in high
schools, risk management through Save Behaviours in communities and high schools, and activities
of “Brigadas Educativas”.
More generally, the review should look into the relevance of ICRC’s intervention in educational
activities, violence mitigation/prevention through education.
5.2.3. Cooperation:
6
The review focus should be on the added value of the partnership between the ICRC and the
Antioquia Branch of the CRC, the complementarity of the Branch’s traditional activities (Brigadas
Educativas, PACO in detention, first aid and risk management in communities and schools) with the
ICRC activities and on the impact of Participating NS funding on the ICRC-CRC partnership in the
project.
5.2.4. Prevention
Have prevention activities (mainly dialogue with and dissemination to Police forces) helped to
shape/change the behaviour of those arms carriers that generate humanitarian consequences?
Communication and education: why and with which objectives has the project included the
education activities? Did the public communication initiatives contribute to the project’s goals in
general and the education objectives in particular? What has been the delegation’s narrative of the
project towards external audiences?
5.3. Efficiency and management
5.3.1. Management of the project
What have been the prerequisites and the concept behind the project and how/why was the
managerial set-up chosen?
Why did the ICRC choose the form of a project rather than the form of a particular programme? Did
the ICRC’s choice of a project contribute to the project’s goals?
How efficient has the implementation phase been: with regard to the time element (four years), with
regard to the resources used and to the professional skills chosen? Has the project’s existence
along with the other sub-delegation activities helped the project team to achieve the stated goals?
What has been the ICRC HQ’s contribution to the project and how has this influenced the
implementation phase?
What comes after the project and how does the delegation and the Antioquia CRC branch
continue/discontinue the project’s activities?
5.3.2. Partnership
What partnership model has been chosen in the framework of the project and why? Added value of
the partnership to the project’s objectives and implementation?
How did the partnership work, in terms of strategic discussions between the ICRC and the CRC
branch, in terms of implementation modalities, ownership by the CRC?
Has there been an added value of the PNS (i.e. Norwegian Red Cross) decision to get involved in
urban violence activities together with the Antioquia CRC branch?
5.4. Document background and groups to consult:
- Logical Framework & Sustainability Framework
- Periodic reports 2012 - 2015
- Ecosec, Health, Education, WeC, Cooperation, CRCSA and Protection reports on specific
lessons learnt outcome and deliverables
- Profamilia, Crearcoop, Interactuar (partners)
- PfR & BFR,
- Individual interview of beneficiaries
- Individual interview with CRC and ICRC staff in Medellin and in Bogota (including former
staff involved in the creation / early years of the Project, either in MEE or in BOG)
- Cooperation agreements
7
-
-
Evaluation of Protection dialogue with armed actors, including Police, through interview
(including gang members), MoM, Prot 5 statistics and COM/FAS reports on training on the
Use of Force.
Education baseline and impact evaluation (developed systematizing tool and reports).
Physical and electronical archives
EcoSec Medellín Urban Violence Project proposal (August 2011)
EcoSec MEHMA Midterm Evaluation (April 2013)
EcoSec “Ficha de Proyecto”
EcoSec beneficiary database.
6. Authority and responsibility
The overall responsibility for the performance review rests with the ICRC. As it is included in the
delegation’s 2016 planning for results document, the Colombia delegation is responsible for the
professional input, the planning of the field phase of the review and any other support needed. The
current head of project will act as a facilitator of the review. The head of delegation will be
overseeing performance review’s field phase, closely follow all other phases and participate in the
final conclusions and recommendations. He will be responsible for the integration of the review’s
recommendation in the delegation’s future planning.
At HQ, the overall responsibility for the successful implementation of the review rests with
OP_AMERICAS with the help of the ICRC ‘Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Unit’:
OP_AMERICAS
DP_FAS
OP_PROT_AMERICAS
DIR_GEN_MOUV_OP
OP_ASSIST_CHF
OP_ASSIST_WEC
7. Evaluation methods
To be produced by the review team.
8. Deliverables
To be produced by the review team.
8.1. Review inception report/work plan
To be discussed: skeleton of the review and specific aspects of the project to be reviewed should be
received from units through OP_AMERICAS.
8.2. Review report
9. Composition and profile of the review/evaluation team
1. One external participant with proven track record in project evaluation, capable to analyse
outcome and measure impact of multidisciplinary operations, preferably Movement
knowledgeable or familiar with ICRC mandate. This person will be the main reviewer and
responsible for the quality of the review’s results.
8
2. At least one ICRC delegate experienced in ICRC activities in other situations of violence (with
assistance and protection activities), project evaluation and/or cooperation but external to
Colombia (especially for Protection confidential data).
10. Timing
Two months full time review including desk studies and field visit(s).
BOM not before February 2016 and EOM not later than April 2016.