English   |   Castellano

Helmholtzstraat 61 G
1098 LE Amsterdam


Vacancy information

Work area


Level of education




Share |

At the moment we are looking for a:


From02-05-2017 Locationna Hoursna Educationna

WCH is implementing a child protection/psychosocial programme through a network of CBOs in the Middle East region. The programme builds the capacity of CBOs to provide child protection, including psychosocial support and resilience-based awareness raising for children and adults. The activities conducted by CBOs are: awareness raising and community mobilisation activities, structured and semi structured psychosocial support for children and parents in child friendly spaces following WCH IDEAL methodology (for more information on the methodology please see: http://www.warchildlearning.org/ideal ).



In a number of challenging humanitarian settings remote management has been identified as the modus operandi to ensure humanitarian assistance and protection to the civilian population in areas difficult to access. Remote management is defined by OCHA as the withdrawal for security reasons of international staff and the transfer of program responsibilities to local staff or partner organisations[1]. UNICEF, on the other hand, defines remote management as “a programming modality -- nationally or locally defined – where due to the lack of access by UNICEF staff due to insecurity or lack of permission from authorities in control, programme implementation and monitoring responsibilities are delegated to NGOs, private contractor and/or authorities.”.[2] Remote management, which is typically characterised as an international organisation partnering with a local NGO, has been a critical adaptation of the child protection response to deliver services to children in need in areas with impeded access. Differing partnerships have added multiple layers of “remoteness”, for example, UN agencies partnering with INGOs, partnering with local NGOs based outside the country, partnering with local CBOs inside. Previous studies have highlighted the challenges associated with remote management, including tensions in partnerships around issues of access, security, transfer of risks and related “duty of care”, capacity and reporting requirements.



While there have been studies[3] that examine partnerships between international and local organisations engaging in humanitarian action through remote management modalities no such study has focused on the specific learning for child protection programming, which tends to rely more heavily on the sustained presence of skilled child protection actors to deliver services, rather than supplies. The purpose of this assessment is to improve evidence base on how international organizations (INGOs and international donors) partner with local organizations to deliver quality child protection programming through remote management modalities.


Specific objectives

To document key lessons learned (what has worked well – “good practices” - and why and what has not worked well and why) in order to inform future programming for 3 target groups: 1) local NGOs implementing child protection programming, 2) INGOs and UN agencies managing child protection programming, 3) International Donors funding child protection programming.  The findings of this assessment will aim to improve the ways in which international and local NGOs work together in settings of remote management.



Lead the assessment of lessons learned and good practices from the programme in cooperation with WCH team and partners, including   local NGOs, other INGOs and UN agencies.


The assessment should focus on answering the following questions:

  • To what extent the current child protection and education programming through remote management can be considered an effective modus operandi?
  • To what extent the current child protection and education programming through remote management can be considered an efficient modus operandi?
  • What is the added value of this operational modality compared to others?
  • What are the risks that INGOs and international donors have to be ready to accept to operate in this modality and how to minimize these?
  • Are the benefits, in particular in terms of access to vulnerable populations, outweighing the risks?
  • What are the main issues affecting the positive/negative results on the ground by different local organizations?
  • Linked to the above, what should be the main point of attention for INGOs and international donors when selecting local partners for remote management implementation?
  • What should be considered as realistic expectations on the part of INGOs and international donors when implementing child protection programmes through remote management?
  • What are the key success factors for genuine “localization” efforts?
  • What have we learned in terms of transfer of risks and “duty of care”?



  • Before commencing the data collection and based on consultations with War Child Holland and UNICEF, a short inception report is presented by the consultant, in which selected methods (including tools), data sources, sampling and indicators are presented to War Child Holland and UNICEF;
  • All data collected through quantitative and qualitative evaluation methods, will be consolidated in an organized data file;
  • A preliminary findings debrief workshop will be held with relevant staff members of War Child Holland,  partner organizations, UNICEF and other relevant international organisations prior to departure from country;
  • Assessment report:
  • A draft of the report is submitted to War Child Holland and UNICEF for inputs;
  • A short summary of findings and recommendations to enable relevant stakeholders in country to access and understand the report findings;
  • A final report, including documentation of timeline, methodology; analysis, final recommendations. The final report will be submitted in soft copy in English and will follow this indicative structure:
  1. Executive summary (max. 2 pages)
  2. Introduction (2 pages)
  3. Methodology (3 pages)
  4. Findings and analysis (15 pages)
  5. Conclusions, lessons learnt and recommendations (3 pages)
  6. Annexes:
  • Bibliography of consulted secondary sources
  • List of key informants


Profile of consultant


  • Relevant academic qualifications and field experience;
  • Knowledge of remote management in humanitarian settings;
  • Knowledge and experience in child protection and community-based approaches in high threat environments;
  • Extensive experience in analyzing lessons learned and in the design and implementation of evaluations;
  • Excellent analytical and report writing skills;
  • Fluency in English (both spoken and written);
  • Understanding of issues and sensitivities required when working with vulnerable groups;
  • Ability to operate independently with minimal supervision



  • Experience of assessing or managing child protection and psychosocial programs
  • Knowledge of and experience in the Middle East
  • Fluency in Arabic (if not, please include an interpreter in the budget);


Time frame: The consultancy is expected to take place in May and June 2017, for a total of maximum 20 working days, including preparation, evaluation design, travel, field work, report writing and presentation of findings and recommendations to War Child Holland. Consultant(s) are asked to provide a detailed planning proposal.


Submission of proposals

Applications should be sent to Ahmad.Dhayni@warchild.nl and should include:

  • A CV outlining relevant skills and experience.
  • A 2-3 page expression of interest which includes methodology and approach, a description of deliverables, and a timeline.
  • A budgetary proposal including: 1) Working days per evaluation phase (inception, primary data collection; reporting); 2) Travel costs; 3) Boarding & lodging; 4) Other costs (including visa); 5) Unforeseen (max. 5%); 6) Taxes; 7) The total budget. The budgetary proposal should be clear about the honorarium of the evaluator(s) and the number of working days required.


The deadline for applications is   the 11th of May (COB). The consultant is expected to be available to start the evaluation in May – June 2017.

[1] UNOCHA, To Stay and Deliver: Good practice for humanitarians in complex security settings, 2011

[2] UNICEF, Remote Programming in Humanitarian Action, 2012

[3] See Breaking the Hourglass: Partnerships in Remote Management Settings – the Case of Syria and Iraqi Kurdistan, Feinstein International Centre 2015

Share vacancy    
22-06-2018 na na na
21-06-2018 na na na