The humanitarian crises in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen remain among the most complex globally, characterized by protracted conflict, economic collapse, and weakened health and protection systems. Women, children (boys and particularly girls), and marginalized groups face heightened risks of gender-based violence (GBV), limited access to basic sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR), and mental health and psychosocial support (MHPSS). The IRC has been implementing integrated protection and health interventions to address these needs, guided by feminist principles and localization strategies.
Syria (SY): considered one of the largest and most complex displacement crises in the world. More than ten million Syrians remain forcibly displaced, including more than 3.5 million refugees hosted in Lebanon, Jordan, and other neighboring countries. Since the fall of the Assad-led government in December 2024, more than 1.1 million refugees and 1.9 million internally displaced persons have reportedly returned to their areas of origin. Yet despite this increase in the return movements, most displaced Syrians are unlikely to return in the near term, with many citing ongoing concerns over safety, access to services, durable solutions, limited civil documentation, and scarce economic opportunities. Lebanon (LB): Five years of economic crisis have left LB with 3.9M people requiring humanitarian aid. Needs are particularly severe in North and Akkar, remote, underserved, and hosting more than 357,000 Syrian refugees. IRC/partner, GBV Working Group, and Child Protection AoR data/findings show declining access to essential services and decreasing protections, particularly for women & children (girls and boys). IRC studies also find that lack of documentation for those who are discriminated against, or cannot afford or properly follow legal processes, profoundly affects women, limiting movement for fear of interrogation or detention. Lebanon continues to face overlapping humanitarian pressures driven by ongoing insecurity, economic collapse, and large-scale displacement. Despite a November 2024 ceasefire, hostilities and violations persist, contributing to widespread destruction and leaving over 860,000 people internally displaced, with essential services severely disrupted across multiple regions. Akkar and North Lebanon—already among the country’s poorest areas—have absorbed substantial new arrivals from Syria, hosting over 17,000 newly displaced individuals in Akkar alone, many living in overcrowded shelters or with host families amid significant gaps in WASH, shelter, and protection services. Simultaneously, return movements to Syria have increased following political shifts there, with more than 146,000 Syrians returning from Lebanon since December 2024; however, conditions in Syria remain unstable, and many returnees face obstacles related to documentation, housing, and livelihoods, raising concerns about the sustainability and voluntariness of returns.
Yemen (YM): W&Gs in YM face acute humanitarian and protection needs, resulting from ten years of conflict. An estimated 21.6M people need humanitarian and protection aid, with 6.1M having catastrophic need, and 4.5M internally displaced (77% women and children)
The IRC’s Regional Integrated Protection and Health Response project (2024–2026) aims to improve safety, health, and well-being for women, children (girls and boys), and vulnerable populations in Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. The project integrates GBV prevention and response, SRHR services, MHPSS, and child protection (CP) interventions, alongside capacity strengthening of local actors. The CAD 8 million initiative targets over 127,000 beneficiaries and emphasizes gender equality, GEDI, accountability, and conflict sensitivity.
IRC and partners propose a critical two-year humanitarian intervention in the heavily crisis-impacted regions of northeast Syria, northern Lebanon and Lahj, Yemen, based on the following Theory of Change: IF women and children are able to access quality, lifesaving integrated GBV, SRH, MHPSS and CP services, AND IF social norms support women and girls’ rights and promote women and girls’ SRHR and condemn GBV, AND IF women-led organizations (WLOs), CBOs, and health systems are strengthened to support SRH rights and leadership to respond to and prevent GBV, THEN women and children will be empowered and safe from GBV, and can achieve their SRH and protection rights (See annex 1 for full Logical Model).
4. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation
The final evaluation will assess the project’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact, aligned with OECD DAC criteria and GAC priorities. Objectives include:
•
Measure Key achievements of intended and unintended outcomes and outputs.
•
Validate the Theory of Change and Assumptions.
•
Identify lessons learned and best practices for future programming and designs specifically for each program area.
•
Assess integration of gender-transformative and localization approaches.
•
Assess the sustainability approach and to what extent this component has been achieved
5. Evaluation Scope and Key Questions
This evaluation is intended to help the IRC answer the following key questions:
• To what extent did the project in its integrated approach improved protection/safety/well-being and health outcomes including SRHR and, MHPSS for women, girls, and children?
• How effective were integrated service models (GBV + SRHR + MHPSS)?
• How sustainable the HOW services delivery through partners and across the WLOs/feminist org as well as the women led community committees?
• How did gender-transformative approaches effectively influenced social norms?
• Did integration of services enhance client’s uptake in services, and improve their overall wellbeing by receiving comprehensive and complementary services?
• Any unintended effects/impact on the communities targeted by this project?
Based on the OECD DAC evaluation criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability, and with focus on cross-cutting themes: Gender Equality, GEDI, Accountability, and Conflict Sensitivity, it is expected that the evaluation questions should be answered while addressing the following criteria:
•
Relevance for meeting the targeted beneficiaries’ needs, interests, and expectations.
•
Effectiveness of the project activities in achieving the project objectives, the relation between input/resources and the results achieved on the output, outcome and impact level as relevant.
•
Sustainability To what extent activities, results, and effects are expected to continue after the donor intervention has ended. To what extent the project supported institutional capacity building will continue to contribute to the emergency response and building resilience, how realistic the project approach was in achieving sustainable results for beneficiaries including the relation with internal and external stakeholders.
•
Efficiency: Were the objectives achieved so far in a cost-efficient manner by the project implementation, were there any alternatives for achieving the same results with less resources
•
Impact: As explained in more details below, because of methodological limitations, it is not expected that the review will be able to infer causality between the project and expected impacts. Instead, the review can offer perceptions, correlations and descriptive inferences about how perceived changes could be associated with (but not unequivocally caused by) the program. This can be also assessed through analyzing the project impact indicators.