Shelter Solutions in Turkey

Program Overview: Habitat Shelter Solutions in Turkey

1.1 PROJECT TITLE

Shelter solutions in Turkey

1.3 NAME(S) OF IMPLEMENTING PARTNER(S)

Funded by Habitat for Humanity Nederland (HFHNL);

Implemented by Habitat for Humanity International (HFHI) MENA region in partnership with Miyamoto Relief.

1.4 PROJECT START AND DURATION

Start date: 30 June 2023

Completion date: 30 June 2024

1.5 TOTAL BUDGET

Euros: €1,000,000

1.6 GEOGRAPHICAL FOCUS

Turkey: Kahramanmaras, Elbistan and portions of Gaziantep

1.7 APPROXIMATE NO. OF AFFECTED PEOPLE

• 2.7 million people in Turkey have been affected, including migrants, have been displaced

1.8 TOTAL NO. OF DIRECT BENEFICIARIES

• Turkey: 1,562,742 direct beneficiaries

The 2023 Turkey-Syria earthquake has caused widespread damage to infrastructure, public buildings and houses, and a staggeringly high number of IDP’s. This has resulted in a shelter crisis that urgently requires an effective and sustainable response. Even though Turkey has high-end earthquake-resistant structures and infrastructure, it has become clear that codes and regulations have not always been followed in the construction, causing such widespread devastation. Turkey’s DFAD, the Disaster and Emergency Management Authority has done rapid assessments, and evaluated areas and buildings affected by the earthquake. A unique to the sector system of QR coding of assessed buildings has been used instead of the more widely recognized color coding or points system used in other responses. The QR code does not easily show the status of a building, which has left people confused. This has resulted in the displacement of tens of thousands– the so-called Empty Town Syndrome. Approximately 80% of the assessed homes are only lightly damaged or are undamaged. But as many people left their homes out of fear or were forced to evacuate for safety purposes and the QR-code system is not clear to them, they fear returning to their homes.

Overall program objective: To provide safe and secure access to shelter for vulnerable households and IDPs affected by the earthquake in Turkey by providing rapid and sustainable emergency shelter solutions.

Expected Result 1: Facilitate the return home of IDPs of immediately habitable structures in Turkey

Following the earthquake in Turkey, many households faced uncertainty about the safety of their homes despite government assessments labeling them habitable. To address this, a two-part strategy was implemented: first, identifying undamaged structures through meticulous assessments by engineering teams and then launching a community-oriented communication campaign. This campaign utilized digital platforms and partnerships with local municipalities to disseminate crucial information, aiming to instill confidence in households about the safety of their homes. Access to trusted information, such as green tagging homes, was crucial in boosting confidence and aiding in the self-recovery process for affected households.

• Activity 1.1 Design and implement an effective communication campaign aimed at promoting the reoccupation of undamaged structures: direct beneficiaries: 1,501,733 individuals people

Because of this intervention, a total of 743 undamaged buildings were assessed and 7,658 households in Kahramanmaraş and surrounding cities and towns were equipped with improved knowledge on structural safety issues as pertains to their homes. With 7,658 households reached, and 4 people per household, this benefited over 30,632 individuals.

In addition, through social media, the campaign reached more than 1,501,733 individuals across Turkey.

Expected Result 2: Facilitate the safe return home of IDP’s to rapidly repairable structures in Turkey

A significant portion of earthquake-damaged buildings suffered only light to medium damage, often overlooked or demolished due to uncertainty about repairability. Focusing on these structures, rapid repairs guided by technical assistance were implemented, offering a cost-effective solution to support community self-recovery. Thousands of families benefited from these interventions, as technical assessments provided crucial guidance for the rapid, safe, and cost-efficient repair of buildings, making them habitable again.

• Activity 2.1 Develop and implement repairability and cost quantification assessments for lightly damaged and rapidly repairable structures: direct beneficiaries: 15,072 people
• Activity 2.2 Disseminate building repair guidelines and best practices through town hall meetings: achieved to date – 1 townhall meeting with 100 beneficiaries participating. This activity is currently being redesigned (original projected beneficiaries 3,000 people)
• Activity 2.3 Implement a communication campaign to further assist in disseminating information on cost-effective and safe repair methodologies: the campaign reached an estimated 15,072 people

As a result of this intervention, approximately 2,556 buildings were assessed, with 3,768 households and approximately 15,072 individuals as direct beneficiaries. The original target for activity 2.1 was 1,750 structures/buildings to be assessed, however, this was increased to 2,544 buildings (overachieved). The repair needs, cost estimates, and BOQs for each inspected building were produced, providing the targeted households with the necessary information to rapidly, and safely implement cost-effective repairs. Given that the majority of buildings within the affected areas are multi-family apartment buildings, 3,768 housing units were assessed. This intervention benefited 3,768 households, (approximately 15,072 individuals). In addition, the content was also advertised through the social media campaign included in Activity 1.1, reaching 1,501,733 people in Turkey.

• Activity 2.4 Rapid repair construction of selected lightly damaged buildings in priority districts: direct beneficiaries: 25 households (118 people)

25 lightly damaged houses were repaired for 25 families displaced from their apartments after the earthquake due to light damage, the project team completed full repairs of their homes. After the repairs were complete, each family was able to return home safely and with peace of mind. To demonstrate the safe repair strategies, the same housing units served as demonstration sites. The demonstrations aimed to build awareness about their safety for reoccupation, and the availability of cost-effective and safe methods that are rapidly implementable. The repairs were documented and provided video footage material to support the implementation of a broader communication campaign targeting households, IDPs, and earthquake-affected municipalities.

Expected Result 3: Increase access to resources and tools for earthquake-affected communities in Turkey

Documenting and then broadly disseminating/communicating intervention approaches, tools, resources, and materials including guidelines on safe repairs, the intervention supported municipalities and earthquake-affected communities to recover quickly and effectively.

• Activity 3.1: Transfer of approaches and tools to promote rapid and sustainable housing recovery solutions as effective strategies for self, community, and economic recovery to key local policymakers in other municipalities: direct beneficiaries: 15 government officials in 2 municipalities.

During the closing out of the project, all relevant data, materials, and tools were formally handed over to the participating local government project counterparts. Lessons learned and insights were shared to help inform recovery and reconstruction strategies with the majors and their offices, and other municipal and local government counterparts/authorities. Fifteen government officials from 2 municipalities were included in training on assessment and repair methodologies.

Objectives of the final evaluation

The final program evaluation aims to:

1. Review the program’s design for coherence and adequacy, including alignment with objectives and clarity of intervention methods, with a focus on gender equality and social inclusion.

Review program design by examining the adequacy and coherence with the stated objectives, focusing on the alignment of activities with intended outcomes and objectives, clarity of intervention methods, appropriateness of target population selection, and overall comprehensiveness of the program’s approach. The review of program design will look at the clarity and coherence of the program’s logic model and theory of change. The review of the program design should also look into the GESI component of the program.

1. Assess the program’s adaptability and flexibility in response to changing contexts, examining its ability to adjust strategies and activities, and evaluate the potential for replicability in similar contexts.

Assess the program’s adaptability and flexibility in responding to a rapidly evolving context and needs, including its ability to adjust strategies and activities, and the enabling conditions for replicability and scalability of the self-recovery approaches and tools developed within the program, (assessing their transferability for replication and scaling in other earthquake-affected localities in Turkey).

1. Evaluate program implementation processes, including expertise and resources allocated, adherence to safeguarding policies, inclusivity, and adherence to timelines.

Evaluate the program implementation elements/processes in terms of expertise and capacities allocated for the program from Habitat and the partner’s side including technical engineering skills, in addition to complementary skills and resources necessary for the successful design and implementation of the program -this includes evaluating allocated resources and skills in areas such as community engagement, strategic communications, gender and social inclusion, monitoring and evaluation to understand how these capacities helped the implementation to go according to plan and to what degree these capacities contributed to the responsiveness of the program; implementation of safeguarding policies and procedures and assessing the extent to which the program was safe, accessible, and inclusive of affected individuals; and planning and implementation timeframes to evaluate adherence to the original schedule and communication of any changes to it, exploring the feasibility of completing the program one year earlier than initially planned, and examining any potential impacts of accelerating the timeline on program outcomes and quality.

1. Analyze the program’s overall effectiveness, considering intended and unintended consequences, as well as its sustainability and long-term impact on target groups.

Assess the program’s overall effectiveness and outcomes, encompassing both intended and unintended consequences, to provide a comprehensive understanding of its effects on stakeholders and target populations. (Evaluate not only the achievement of stated objectives but also any unintended and/or negative impacts, analyzing factors such as adverse side effects, unintended consequences, and any potential harm experienced by individuals or communities as a result of program activities.)

1. Assessing the sustainability of the intervention and the long-term impact of activities on the target groups.

Specifically for Activity 3.1: Transfer of approaches and tools to promote rapid and sustainable housing recovery solutions as effective strategies for self, community, and economic recovery to key local policy makers in other municipalities

1. Evaluate the program’s efficiency, including cost-effectiveness, financial stewardship, and compliance with donor requirements.

Evaluate the program’s efficiency, including cost-effectiveness, financial stewardship, compliance with donor’s financial requirements. This will include assessing the extent to which the program was responsible and ethical in the management of financial resources, and how budgeting, accounting, financial reporting, and internal budget controls were carried out. Additionally, analyze how adherence to financial compliance impacted the implementation and achievement of targets for program activities.

Key evaluation questions:

1. Program design review:
   1. How well does the program design align with its stated objectives and to what extent does it address gender equality and social inclusion?
   2. Are the intervention methods clearly defined and appropriate for the target population and how comprehensive is the program approach in addressing the identified needs of the target communities?
   3. To what extent does the logic model demonstrate clarity and coherence?
   4. How does this program build on and help improve Habitat for Humanity Disaster Response programs?
2. Adaptability and flexibility of the program design to the context and Flexibility:
   1. How effectively did the program adjust strategies and activities in response to the changing context, and what enabled/facilitated this adaptability?
      1. What adaptations did the program undergo and what challenges were faced when doing so? What impact did those adaptations have on the program?
   2. Can the self-recovery approaches and tools developed within the program be replicated and scaled in similar contexts within Turkey earthquake-affected localities? And what factors influence their transferability to other earthquake-affected areas in Turkey?
3. Program implementation mechanisms:
   1. Were expertise and resources adequately allocated for successful program implementation? And how did these contribute to implementation success?
   2. How did the program adhere to safeguarding policies and procedures, ensuring safety, accessibility, and inclusivity for affected individuals?
   3. Were timelines for planning and implementation adhered to, and what were the implications of any deviations?
4. Overall effectiveness analysis:
   1. To what extent and in what ways did the program achieve its intended objectives on 1) the feelings of safety for people residing in undamaged and safely repairable structures, and 2) self-recovery and feelings of empowerment to repair houses for the affected communities?
   2. What unintended consequences, if any, arose from program activities beyond the articulated results in the logframe?
   3. Did the program create any negative impact or cause any harm) for the target population? And how were these addressed?
5. Sustainability:
   1. To what extent were the shelter solutions provided by the program sustainable in the long term beyond the program duration? And what challenges exist to sustaining the program’s impacts in the future? (This is specific for Activity 3.1)
   2. How effective were the efforts in transferring approaches and tools to key policymakers and local authorities for future use? (How effectively did the program build capacity among local authorities and communities to maintain and replicate program approaches in the future, ensuring long-term sustainability?)
6. Efficiency:
   1. How cost-effective was the program in achieving its goals?
   2. Did the program demonstrate responsible and ethical financial management? And were financial controls (including budgeting and financial reporting) effectively carried out?
   3. To what extent did compliance with donor requirements impact program implementation and achievement of targets?

Methodology

The methodology will employ a qualitative data collection method to answer the evaluation questions.

This includes:

• Desk review of program documentation, including partner reports, financial reports, program design documents, program database, logframe, IPTT, and learning documents.
• Qualitative data collection and analysis from key program stakeholders and target groups.

Sample

The qualitative data collection will be in the form of:

• Key informant interviews (KIIs) with:
  • 5 KIIs with Habitat team members involved in the program, including team members from Habitat Netherlands Office and the MENA team involved in the program.
  • 4 KIIs Miyamoto management and implementation teams.
  • 4 Representatives from local authorities, including municipal representatives and officials (2 from each municipality);
  • 3 Key sector actors including other INGO representatives working in the shelter sector within the earthquake response in the program target areas, in addition to shelter sector coordination entities.
• 8 Semi-structured interviews (SSIs) with key community leaders and representatives, to include mukhtars and other key figures (4 from each geographic location);
• 12 Focus group discussions (FGDs) with target community groups (6 in each geographic location), including residents/tenants of assessed buildings, and community members attending the different communications campaign events and meetings; these are to be gender and nationality segregated.
• 2 FGDs with government officials receiving training on assessment and repair methodologies.

Deliverables

Deliverable

1. Inception report
2. Data collection tools
3. Data set and primary findings
4. Draft Evaluation Report
5. Final evaluation report (as per the template provided by Habitat)

The following is the expected outline for the Evaluation Report:

1. Executive Summary
2. Introduction
3. Description of the project
4. Evaluation purpose and Methodology – context of evaluation, questions, team, limitations…)
5. Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendations
6. Lessons Learned
7. Appendices:
8. Terms of Reference
9. Evaluation design and methodology
10. List of persons interviewed
11. List of documents reviewed

Executive summary document

The following is the expected outline of the evaluation executive summary:

• Program description
• Evaluation questions
• Design Description
• Key findings
• Focused learning briefs
• Key recommendations
• Executive summary table (as shown below)

1. PowerPoint Presentation

With main evaluation findings, focused learning briefs, and recommendations

1st draft to be submitted to Habitat for review and feedback prior to finalizing the PPT

Roles and responsibilities

The consultant team will work in close collaboration with the Habitat team.

The Consultant will:

Deliverable

Anticipated timeline

(to be confirmed upon contracting)

• Conduct a desk review of all program documents and datasets
• Consultation with the program team to review the scope of the evaluation and refine it if needed.
• Produce Preliminary Desk Review Findings report
  • Generate initial program findings
  • Identify knowledge gaps
• Develop inception report based on the preliminary findings that details and/or refines the methodological framework and data collection tools

7 days

• Design primary data collection tools for evaluation
• Provide data analysis plan

4 days

• Conduct data collection

10 days

• Data collection part 1: Present data findings from the field

3 days

• Submit evaluation report – Draft 1
• Present preliminary evaluation findings

8 days

• Submit the final evaluation report
  • Produce executive summary
  • Produce evaluation PowerPoint presentation

8 days

Level of effort – Total number of working days: 40

Habitatwill:

• Support the service provider with access to relevant documentation, areas, and stakeholders where needed;
• Validate the desk review report findings and identify knowledge gaps;
• Validate and revise primary data collection tools and methodology;
• Review preliminary primary data collection findings;
• Review and input into evaluation report draft;
• Validate and approve final evaluation reports and products.

Qualifications of the evaluation team

• Applicants for this consultancy can either be an individual (with a team) or a consultancy firm registered as a company;
• The applicant must provide the CVs of all evaluation team personnel;
• The consultancy team must include (1) at least one shelter expert with experience working on disaster response programs;
• Experience leading and implementing final evaluations for disaster response programs with a shelter focus;
• Experience in conducting evaluations resulting in clear recommendations on program design, implementation, and scope improvements;
• Fluency in spoken and written English (required for the primary contractor) and Turkish (required within the team if not possessed by the primary contractor).

Submission requirements

Note that missing documents may result in disqualification from the selection process. The prospective consultant will be expected to submit:

• A technical proposal that details (i) the proposed methodology, detailing how the contractor will conduct the work and responsibilities within the team, (ii) a proposal for how data collection will be completed and by whom, and (iii) a timeline for the work;
• A detailed financial proposal;
• CV/resume for all consultants detailing relevant experience, including experience with shelter programs, disaster response programs, economic research, and experience in Turkey;
• At least one example of similar previous work done on final program evaluations of a similar disaster response program with a shelter focus;

Selection criteria

Criterion

Weight

CVs and qualifications of consultancy team

15%

Experience in Turkey

10%

Previous experience in final program evaluations

20%

Examples of previous work

10%

Technical proposal (including methodology and timeline)

30%

Financial proposal

15%

TOTAL

100%

How to apply

Submission requirements

Note that missing documents may result in disqualification from the selection process. The prospective consultant will be expected to submit the following via email to [email protected] with the subject “Shelter Solutions in Turkey”:

• A technical proposal that details (i) the proposed methodology, detailing how the contractor will conduct the work and responsibilities within the team, (ii) a proposal for how data collection will be completed and by whom, and (iii) a timeline for the work;
• A detailed financial proposal;
• CV/resume for all consultants detailing relevant experience, including experience with shelter programs, disaster response programs, economic research, and experience in Turkey;
• At least one example of similar previous work done on final program evaluations of a similar disaster response program with a shelter focus;