Request for Proposals: External Impact Study on Integrated Peacebuilding

Background

MCC is a global, Christian nonprofit organization that strives to share God’s love and compassion for all through relief, development, and peacebuilding.

As part of the MCC 2021-2025 Strategic Plan, MCC is undertaking a series of evaluations to understand progress made on its strategic directions.

MCC’s strategic directions 2021-2025 include:

• Increase the capacity of the church and other partners as they support and equip vulnerable people, especially people who have been uprooted and displaced.
• Increase responsive engagement across the full range of Anabaptist churches and beyond, with an increased focus on audience-based communications, fundraising and recruitment efforts with a new generation.
• Increase peacebuilding as a key component in all of our relief and development work and expand our efforts for justice and peace.
• Design and assess MCC’s program and operations in light of our commitment to care for God’s creation and accompany marginalized communities harmed by climate change.

This evaluation aims to expand MCC’s evidence base on the strategic direction “increase peacebuilding as a key component in all of our relief and development work and expand our efforts for justice and peace.”

One way that MCC is working toward this is through increasing and improving integrated peacebuilding programming. As MCC continues and expands multi-sectoral programming in its international program, there are opportunities to identify lessons learned and opportunities for growth. This evaluation will inform the extent to which MCC’s approach to integrated peacebuilding programming is coherent and effective in its international programs.

Terminology

MCC defines integrated programming as multisectoral interventions which involve at minimum components from two fields of expertise (i.e., education, health, WASH, food security, livelihoods, humanitarian response, or peacebuilding). In MCC’s approach, projects must include specific outcomes (or objectives) from both sectors to promote critical analysis of the impact from both fields of expertise. The idea of multisectoral integrated programming is also known in wider civil society and international non-governmental organizations work by a variety of names: “triple nexus,” “multisectoral,” or “HDP” (Humanitarian Development and Peacebuilding). MCC’s definition of integrated peacebuilding programming requires that it includes at least one peacebuilding outcome and ensures that a peacebuilding focus is embedded into the design, monitoring and evaluation of the project.

In MCC’s approach, integrated programming is distinct from conflict sensitivity, which applies principles (or a lens) from peacebuilding to humanitarian or development work, without implementing peacebuilding programming as part of those interventions. MCC expects all programming to be conflict sensitive, practice do no harm and align with Sphere humanitarian principles.

Purpose of the Study

1. To inform future resourcing and support for integrated peacebuilding programming within international programming.
2. To contribute to MCC’s knowledge base and capture case studies, best practices and lessons learning on integrated peacebuilding programming for broader sharing within international program.
3. To contribute to our accompaniment of partners, including church partners, in designing and implementing integrated peacebuilding projects.

Key Themes: Coherence and Effectiveness

Key Lines of Inquiry

1. To what extent are MCC’s integrated peacebuilding projects designed and implemented coherently and aligned with peacebuilding best practices?
2. What factors contribute to integrated peacebuilding project effectiveness?
   1. What differences emerge in achieving peacebuilding outcomes when peacebuilding is the primary sector or a secondary sector?
   2. To what extent are integrated programming outcomes effectively achieved in both sectors?
   3. To what extent do certain combinations of sectors and sector practices/approaches appear to be more effective or well conceptualized?
   4. What challenges do MCC program staff face in accompanying partners in the effective design, monitoring, evaluation, and learning of integrated peacebuilding programming and which best practices address these challenges?
   5. To what extent are MCC-supported integrated peacebuilding projects carried out effectively by faith-based partners (specifically Anabaptist Church partners), and what unique learnings originate from such projects?

Scope and Methodology

The consultant will propose the methodology for this evaluation which will be validated by relevant MCC staff before beginning data collection and will include the following steps:

• Completion of a desk study, including MCC strategic plan, relevant policies, procedures, tools, and literature review of resources and reports related to integrated peacebuilding programming.
• Review and mapping of project data from integrated programming implemented over the past five years, provided by MCC.
• In-person data collection from two or three international program contexts. Potential locations could include Uganda, India, Colombia, or DR Congo; however, the locations will be finalized in consultation with the consultant and country program. Data collection in one or more of these contexts could be carried out by local consultants working under the guidance of the lead evaluator. Ideally the lead evaluator will carry out field data collection in at least one context. Criteria for field data collection sites:
  • Combination of peacebuilding and development integrated programming (i.e., education, health, WASH, agriculture, livelihoods, etc.), and peacebuilding and humanitarian response integrated programming.
  • At least two geographical areas (Africa, Asia, Middle East, and Latin, South or Central America).
  • At least one externally funded project.
• Online or in-person interviews and focus group discussions with select staff from MCC’s international program (Area Directors, Country Representatives, Program Officers and Planning, Learning and Disaster Response Team members), partners, and other MCC departments.

Timetable

May – September 2024

Final Report

The final report should be a maximum of 35 pages, not including appendices. The following appendices should be included: methodological note, data collection tools, list of research participants, raw data/transcriptions.

Time commitment and budget parameters

• Number of working days: 40 days.
• Timeline to complete evaluation: Flexible to start between May and Sept. 2024, with consultancy dates expected to be spread out over several months.

Consultant qualifications

• Five years of experience evaluating peacebuilding programming.
• Five years of experience conducting research in conflict-affected countries.
• Familiarity with best practices in integrated humanitarian, development, and peace programming.
• A graduate degree in a related field (peace, development, etc.) or comparable experience.
• Willingness to travel internationally in conflict-affected countries.

Submission requirements

Please submit the following to be considered:

• Expression of interest letter.
• Narrative proposal: Include relevant experience, work process and division of responsibilities if proposing a team, proposed research approach and methodology.
• Curriculum vitae.
• Budget proposal: Include all costs associated with completing the evaluation (MCC will cover travel costs for data collection and typically pays a daily rate of up to $400).
• Two examples of past evaluations or writing samples.
• Three references: Include contact information.