Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review of CST Ethiopia’s Protection Portfolio (2019–2025)

Back Ground

CST Ethiopia represents the Catholic development agencies of Ireland, Scotland, England and Wales and works in partnership with local, secular & church organizations. CST Ethiopia works in the thematic areas of resilience building, humanitarian response, peace building, and women’s empowerment. Working through a partnership model with local non-governmental organizations, CST provides capacity strengthening, technical and financial support to local organizations. CST has been working in Ethiopia for over 40 years and jointly with Caritas sister agencies SCIAF and CAFOD as CST Ethiopia since 2009. CST is a member of Caritas Internationalis, CIDSE and brings wide-ranging support to peace building, resilience building, and conflict mitigation work globally.

Over the past 6 years, CST has implemented a wide range of protection and gender-based violence (GBV) prevention and response interventions across multiple regions of Ethiopia, particularly in conflict and post-conflict contexts. These interventions have included emergency GBV response, case management, Women and Girls Safe Spaces (WGSS), psychosocial support (PSS), legal aid, emergency cash assistance linked to case management, referral systems strengthening, livelihoods and socio-economic reintegration, dignity kits provision, community-based GBV risk mitigation and social norms change, implemented in partnership with local civil society organisations and in coordination with government service providers.

Rationale

In recent years, CST has commissioned evaluations, produced final reports, learning documents, proposals, and routine monitoring data across different GBV and protection projects. These documents reflect a rich body of experience, innovation, challenges, and lessons, particularly in fragile, insecure, protracted crises and post-conflict settings such as in the Tigray region in northern Ethiopia. However, learning to date remains fragmented across individual projects. There is a strong institutional need to systematically synthesize evidence, learning, best practices, challenges, and recommendations across CST’s protection portfolio, to inform:

• Program quality improvement aligned with international standards and GBV programming best practices
• National-level learning and dissemination within Ethiopia, global platforms, donors

To respond to this need, CST seeks to commission an independent, high-quality meta-analysis and learning review, using mixed methods and grounded in the IASC GBV Minimum Standards, with particular attention to conflict and post-conflict GBV programming.

Overall scope

The consultant will conduct a meta-review of 7 CST GBV and protection projects, covering diverse geographic areas, implementing partners, donor frameworks, and time period from 2019-2025. The review will draw on existing documentation and datasets and KIIs. The scope includes, but is not limited to:

• Final evaluations and endline reports
• Regular reports, monitoring reports, project management meeting reports
• Learning and best practice documents
• Project proposals and logical frameworks
• Monitoring data and indicator performance
• Internal programmatic reflections and technical documents
• Relevant national and international GBV standards and guidance

Thematic Focus

The review will be structured around the IASC GBV in Emergency Minimum Standards, WHO safe and ethical GBV data management, and relevant protection frameworks, including the following thematic areas:

a) Survivor-Centred GBV/MHPSS Services and Systems

• To what extent have CST-supported GBV services been survivor-centred, safe, and aligned with the IASC GBV Minimum Standards across different contexts?
• What case management, MHPSS, WGSS, referral, and legal aid approaches have worked well, under what conditions, and why?
• What challenges have affected service quality, access, coordination, staffing, and continuity, particularly in emergency and post-conflict settings?
• How effective have coordination mechanisms and referral pathways been in ensuring timely, ethical, and multi-sectoral support for survivors?
• What adaptations have improved quality assurance, supervision, staff wellbeing, and ethical practice?

b) Prevention, Risk Mitigation, and Community Engagement

• How effective have CST-supported interventions been in reducing GBV risks and preventing harm at community and service-delivery levels?
• How effective are current information-sharing mechanisms in ensuring timely and equitable access to available response services?
• How well has GBV risk mitigation been integrated across sectors and services, including dignity kits and community-based safety initiatives?
• What Do No Harm risks and unintended effects have emerged, and how effectively were they identified and mitigated?

c) Recovery, Resilience, and Adaptation in Conflict and Post-Conflict Contexts

• How have livelihoods, cash assistance, and economic recovery interventions contributed to survivors’ safety, recovery, and resilience?
• What links can be observed between economic support, psychosocial wellbeing, and GBV risk reduction?
• How effectively has GBV programming been adapted to conflict, post-conflict, displacement, and access-constrained environments?
• What risks, unintended consequences, and ethical challenges have arisen in recovery-focused interventions, and what mitigation strategies have proven effective?
• What lessons can inform the transition from emergency response to recovery and longer-term programming?

d) GBV Technical Resources, Tools, and Guidelines

• Types of GBV resources used (e.g. GBV case management guidelines, WGSS toolkits, referral SOPs, PSS manuals, MEAL tools, ethical data collection guidance)
• Processes used to adapt global or regional tools to local contexts, including language translation, cultural relevance, and contextual sensitivity in conflict and post-conflict settings
• Ease of use, practicality, and accessibility of tools for frontline staff, including caseworkers, PSS facilitators, supervisors, and health and legal service providers
• Adequacy of training, coaching, and ongoing technical support provided to enable effective use of tools
• Enablers and barriers affecting consistent and quality application of technical guidance in emergency and recovery contexts
• Evidence of how the use (or non-use) of tools influenced service quality, ethical practice, and survivor experience.
• This thematic area will generate learning on how technical resources can be better designed, adapted, and supported to enhance frontline practice and program quality.

e) Partnership Approaches and Capacity Strengthening of Local Implementing Partners and government service providers

• Capacity strengthening modalities used (e.g. trainings, on-job support, tools provision, joint monitoring, peer learning)
• Enablers that supported local partners to deliver quality, survivor-centred GBV programming in line with international standards
• Barriers and constraints faced by local partners, including staffing, turnover, workload, security, access, institutional capacity, and funding limitations
• Power dynamics, decision-making, and communication within partnerships
• The role of partnerships in promoting localization, ownership, sustainability, and systems strengthening in conflict and post-conflict contexts
• Evidence of changes in partner capacity over time and lessons for strengthening future partnership models
• This thematic area will contribute to learning on effective localization and partnership practices that enable local actors to deliver high-quality GBV programming under challenging conditions and build an evidence-base that working through local actors enables better outcomes for women and girls.

The overall analysis of these thematic areas will be framed based on the contextual settings of each project/programme (see Annex 1), to capture nuances in programme design and delivery to reflect the factors that influence modalities, delivery of services and effectiveness.

MORE DETAILS ON EXPECTED APPROACH, METHODOLGY ETC CAN BE FOUND ON OUR WEBSITE FROM WHERE THE RFT CAN BE DOWNLOADED

Procurement – Trócaire

Your proposal marked should be emailed to tenders_eth@trocaire.org and will be acknowledged after the deadline.

The deadline for the receipt of tenders is 03.05.2026.

All queries relating to any aspect of this RFT must be directed via email to Tsega.amaze@trocaire.org with cc. kirubel.girma@troicaire.org

——

To facilitate the tender evaluation, we ask all tenderers to submit a detailed tender response as per below structure. This structure is not limited and can be expanded with additional documentation.

1. Administrative Details

• Consultant profile including some history and current top three clients.
• Details on previous relevant experience and references.
• Details on available human and technical resources.
• Acceptance or comments on CST’s General Terms and Conditions for Procurement and Supplier Code of Conduct.

2. Technical Details

• A detailed technical proposal outlining the approach and methodology, CVs of key personnel involved, and references from at least two similar assignments.

3. Pricing Details

• A financial proposal with a detailed budget breakdown. The financial proposal should be presented in a way that is structured to reflect the level of effort required to deliver each of the deliverables and their corresponding fees.
• Details of VAT and other relevant taxes.
• The proposal should indicate the period for which prices and terms quoted will hold good.

Tagged as: Agriculture, Food Security and Livelihoods