May 2022

RURAL RESILIENCE ACTIVITY MIDTERM EVALUATION SCOPE OF WORK

 

Consultancy Assignment	CONDUCTING A MIDTERM EVALUATION FOR THE RURAL RESILIENCE ACTIVITY ACROSS FOUR STATES IN NORTHEAST NIGERIA
Project Location(s):	BORNO (Biu, Awul, Kwayar Kusar, Jere, MMC); ADAMAWA (Yola South, Yola North, Mubi North, Mubi South, Gombi, Hong, Song); YOBE (Nguru, Jakusko, Nangere, Potiskum, Damaturu); GOMBE (Dukku, Funakaye, Kwami, Akko, Billiri) BENUE (Gboko, Konshisha, Guma, Agatu, Apa); EBONYI (Abakiliki, Ikwo, Izzi , Ohaukwu, Ezza North); KEBBI (Birnin Kebbi, Aliero, Arewa, Argungu); NIGER (Bosso, Wushishi, Gbako, Lavun, Suleja); and FCT (Abaji, Kwali, Bwari)
Duration:	Maximum of 45 Days – 1st June 2022 – 2nd September 2022

Background

The Rural Resilience Activity (hereafter referred to as the Activity) is a five-year, $45 million initiative funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) within the states of Adamawa, Borno, Gombe, and Yobe in North-eastern Nigeria (NEN). The goal of the Activity is to facilitate economic recovery and growth in vulnerable conflict-affected areas. The purpose of the Activity is to sustainably move people out of chronic vulnerability and poverty in NEN. This will be accomplished through expanded economic opportunities. Its overarching approach involves strengthening resilience capacities at household, community, and market-systems levels to ensure the sustainability of poverty reduction and economic recovery efforts. The Activity intends to reach 567,780 individual participants (farmers, MSMEs, youth, women, children) for a total number of 45 Local Government Areas (LGAs) across the nine states by the end of the program. The Activity is implemented by a consortium, with Mercy Corps as the lead Implementing Partner in partnership with Save the Children International (SCI) and the International Fertilizer Development Center (IFDC). In July 2021, the Activity received an additional $15 million to support 45,000 smallholder farmers and small ruminant producers and 5,000 microenterprises, as well as 50 agro-input firms and 40 women cowpea processors to recover from the impact that COVID-19 has had on livelihoods and markets.

 

The Activity has five core components which include: 1) providing up-to-date evidence for selection of market systems, livelihoods and employment opportunities that contribute to inclusive and resilient growth and improved nutrition; 2) stimulating market systems growth and diverse economic opportunities.; 3) building capacities of market actors to take advantage of market systems opportunities; 4) sequencing, layering, integrating (SLI), and collaborative learning to improve activity effectiveness, sustainability, and scale; and 5) cushioning impacts of COVID-19 on households and micro-enterprises through cash transfers. Added to these are cross-cutting elements that are essential for building the resilience capacities of the NEN population. They include integration of gender and youth, nutrition-sensitive agriculture, climate change adaptation and natural resource management, conflict sensitivity, peacebuilding and social capital, and cohesion.

 

In our Year 3, the Activity set out to engage market actors through 27 interventions across eight intervention areas. After six months of implementation, validated learning informed the Activity’s decision to “resize” its interventions to 16 under 6 intervention areas.  Evidence generated from the Year 3 implementation experience show that if RRA pivots from 27 interventions to 16 falling under six intervention areas, and from 30 indicators to 24, it would amplify results and consolidate gains. Because of the adjustments, merging and realigning the interventions, RRA is also renaming and realigning some the intervention areas. The following would comprise the six intervention areas: 1) Seed and Agricultural Input Supply System; 2) Grain Supply Chain Management; 3) Business and financial services; 4) Inclusion and Micro Enterprise Strengthening, 5) Livestock and Poultry Productivity Enhancement, and 6) Cross Market Services. Early evidence from that these intervention areas will yield large scale benefits, strengthen market systems, and also accelerate resilience and poverty reduction for individuals, households, and communities in NEN. 

 

 

Evaluation Purpose, Methodology and Evaluation Questions

The scope of the mid-term evaluation is to evaluate progress and effectiveness of activities implemented by the Activity towards achievement of its set goals and objectives since inception (October 2019) to date. The review will assess the overall approach, successes and learning of the Activity in its progress towards meeting the Activity’s outcomes and impact and provide insight on the Activity’s relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, performance, and progress towards meeting results against targets that would help to review the Activity results framework and theory of change (design). This process will involve a review of the Activity’s results and achievement to date, relevance of the program and indicators that would determine how the program progresses towards achieving its set results, as well as implementation strategies towards improved efficiency and effectiveness as well-informed decision making within the remaining period of the Activity implementation.

 

The midterm evaluation will contribute to the following general objectives:

 

1. Enable the Activity, its partners, and project participants to assess and improve the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, and anticipated outcomes and impact of the program.
2. Provide feedback to all actors and stakeholders involved on the implementation of the program activities to improve the planning, program formulation, appraisal, and effective implementation of the program in the remaining period of program implementation,
3. Ensure accountability for results to the program actors (donors) stakeholders and participants.
4. Generate insights and lessons that can be leveraged towards enhanced performance of the project during implementation and sustainability of project outcomes after implementation

Evaluation Methodology

The evaluation will be undertaken in accordance with the Activity Monitoring and Results Measurement strategy and guidelines with the support of an independent consultant(s). The evaluation team will review the Activity’s documents, conduct key in-depth interviewed with the Activity’s implementation team, facilitate relevant key interviews, and focus group discussions with program participants to understand programme achievements and outcomes to date that can further be explored to generate the required insight and learning and their potential use for resilience and development programming activities and strategies. Data collected through surveys will be triangulated to the extent possible to ensure validity and reliability of findings by drawing on both qualitative and quantitative methods: surveys; key informant interviews; focus groups; field visits and comparison groups.

 

Together with the consultant(s), the final evaluation methodology will be refined to include a detailed stakeholder’s evaluation matrix with a clear evaluation design aligned to the proposed evaluation dimension and evaluation questions.

Evaluation findings Primary users

The primary intended users  of the evaluation’s findings will include.

1.     USAID as the main funder - We hope that the evaluation findings will be used to decide if and how to further support similar economic recovery and resilience programmes in Northeast Nigeria.

2.     Mercy Corps Nigeria and its Partners – We hope that the evaluation findings will be relevant to guide review of the programme achievement and sustainability plans, refine key programme documents including programme log frames and performance indicators and tools, and development of the the next funding strategy and help develop relationships with funders.

3.     Implementing partners and the broader international not-for-profit organizations – for implementing partners and not for profit organizations implementing such programmes in the Northeast Nigeria, we hope that the findings will be useful to assess their role in designing and implementing similar programmes.

 

In addition, we hope that the evaluation findings will not only be critical to meet the above highlighted purpose, but also serve as a learning experience, where the process of generating answers to the proposed evaluation questions will provide the Activity and the implementation team with new understanding on the Activity’s achievements and inform an effective implementation strategy for the remaining period of implementation.   

Proposed Evaluation Questions

The review questions proposed for the midterm review are illustrative and informed by the Activity design, Theory of Change, and results framework as well as the evaluation minimum standards. At inception, the evaluation team together with Activity implementation team is expected to refine and expand on the following proposed questions that focuses on the four key themes:

 

1.     Technical components focusing on each of Rural Resilience Activity’s (RRA) five objectives.

2.     The strengths/weaknesses of the approaches used in delivering RRA objectives.

3.     Program quality and cross-cutting themes focusing on the depth to which the cross-cutting themes of gender, youth, conflict mitigation and MEL have been built into the Activity.

4.     Lastly, the implementation process focusing on the effectiveness of RRA delivery and targeting.

 

Scope of the Review

 

The review will assess the overall approach, successes and learning of the Activity in its progress towards meeting the Activity’s outcomes and impact. The Review will focus on the following:

 

1.     Intervention Design:

 

a)     What are the strengths and challenges of the overall design and implementation so far? What factors have promoted or impeded operations?

b)     Are the assumptions that underpin RRA’s theory of change robust? Are the Theory of Change assumptions still valid, relevant, and appropriate? Are Theory of Change assumptions accounted for in intervention models?

c)     To what extent has the program delivered on its approved workplans? Has the program delivered any additional outcomes outside of the original design?

d)     Are the interventions relevant to the context?

e)     How closely do implementation processes adhere to the underlying principles and conceptual approaches of the Activity? What factors in the implementation and context are associated with greater or lesser efficiency and quality?

f)      To what extent, and how effectively, does the Activity match resources with certainty in an approach and scale of results, i.e., by mixing small pilot investments with larger scale-ups in a deliberate and efficient manner?

g)     What benefits or challenges are seen in layering multiple interventions that target the same sets of participants?

h)     What contextual changes have occurred and to what extent have these effected program implementation, outputs, and outcomes?

i)      To what extent are gender equity and diversity, nutrition, youth, and conflict mitigation being addressed by the program?

 

 

2.     Implementation: Assess progress towards implementation of the principles of a flexible and adaptive Activity

 

a.     Does RRA recognize uncertainty, and adopts a deliberately experimental approach, testing viable solutions, with rapid feedback loops to identify where progress can be made, and flexibility to adjust strategy accordingly?

b.     Is RRA focusing on solving local problems that are debated, defined, and refined by local people in an ongoing process?

c.     Is the RRA building ownership and momentum among key stakeholders (private sector partners, participants, and government) throughout the process?

d.     Is RRA working through local partners, economic, non-profit, and public sector with a stake in progress of partner states and regions?

e.     Is RRA fostering tangible results – real solutions to real problems that have real impact on the lives of Nigerians? What are the stories of change?

 

 

3.     Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning: Assess the effectiveness and use of the Activity’s MEL System:

 

a.     How are activities using data to learn and adapt? Are reports provided on time to align with key programmatic decision-points? How are reports being utilized by teams to inform decision-making? Are shifts in programming being documented and is the rationale for them supported by data and evidence?

b.     To what extent has the program’s evidence-based learning been used to modify/adapt existing approaches and strategies and/or develop new ones?

c.     How is information shared with participants and other key stakeholders? How have other stakeholders been influenced by RRA’s data, research, or reporting?

d.     Are the Activity's MEL/MRM systems fit for purpose? Is the Results Framework sufficient for monitoring and evaluating RRA’s activities? Are there elements of complexity in the program design which are not sufficiently captured? Has the transition from MEL to MRM supported the program to document learning and data in an improved manner?

 

4.     Engagement, Partnership and Communication: Assess the degree and benefits of effective coordination, collaboration, and convergence with external organizations that are critical to achieve project goals and purposes. Illustrative questions under this objective may include:

 

a.     How has RRA’s engagement with key stakeholders (including states actors, other FTF Activities, non-state actors) progressed in the period under review?

b.     What lessons have been learned regarding stakeholder engagement? How have these lessons informed the engagement strategy?

c.     What is the level of cooperation and collaboration between RRA and other FtF Activities on areas of common interest? What has been RRA’s role/contribution?

 

5.     Sustainability: Assess early evidence of sustainability produced by RRA, thereby determining the extent to which outcomes, systems, and services are designed and being implemented to continue after the project ends. Illustrative questions include:

 

a.     Which components of the program’s intervention package show early signs of sustainability, and which do not?

Required Sources of Information

For each evaluation question, the evaluators are expected to define the information required, sources of information, procedure for collecting data and ensuring its validity and credibility, and the method of analysis (Data Analysis Plan), interpretation, and synthesis. This will be an iterative process between the evaluation team and the programme teams at the inception stage. This process will also anchor the review of the original evaluation questions in the SoW when designing the criteria and standards for the data that would be required to answer them, to refine and finalize on the learning evaluation questions. In addition, the recommended sources of information, the Activity implementation team will avail the programmes logframe and work plans to enable extraction of further learning questions for in-depth analysis.

Consultant Activities:

Successful consultant (consultancy firm) will work closely with the Activity MEL Manager, Chief of Party, and Deputy Chief of Party to design and conduct this mixed-methods evaluation and post-evaluation workshop deliverables.

 

The consultant will be expected to:

 

1.     Review program updated work plans and quarterly/semi-annual/annual reports

 

2.     Review and use the program’s up to date IPTT and other data including:

 

a.     Baseline study data (if conducted)

b.     Annual survey and/or recurrent monitoring data

c.     Post Distribution Monitoring (PDM) data

d.     Gathering some contextual data

e.     Review other key program documents (e.g., gender analysis, formative studies conducted for the program, etc.)

f.       Prepare an inception report* including the final evaluation design, a draft data analysis plan (DAP) appropriate for the mixed-methods study (i.e., analysis using both quantitative and qualitative data), sample design(s) and size(s), a practical method to assess the quality of the program’s key services/interventions, a revised and final timeline for conducting the MTE 

g.     Develop evaluation instruments

h.     Develop a final Data Analysis Plan (DAP) *

i.       Conduct secondary analysis of RMD (if the final design requires this)

j.       Train FGD/KII facilitators & note takers (and enumerators if applicable)

k.     Conduct and analyze key informant interviews (KII) and focus group discussions (FGD) and manage that new qualitative data.

Consultant Team:

Every team member’s resume must show substantial application of strong qualitative and quantitative research and evaluation skills and prior evidence conducting similar reviews.

 

The Team Leader should have significant formal education at the postgraduate level (Applicants that do not hold a graduate degree in a field should document relevant formal education in the field) in a field relevant to evaluation (e.g., program evaluation, statistics, anthropology, applied research, organizational development, sociology, organizational change, etc.) and extensive experience using mixed methods of investigation (qualitative and quantitative) in developing countries.  Knowledge in Market Systems Development (MSD), agriculture value chains and livelihoods are highly desirable.

Each Technical Specialist should have a postgraduate degree (M.S., M.A., or Ph.D.) in a field related to at least one of the technical sectors of the project, plus extensive practical experience in developing countries.

Team members’ roles

The Team Leader’s roles include to:

●        organize and lead the overall evaluation.

●        assure a thorough review and analysis of available secondary data by the appropriate team member(s).

●        lead the selection of a purposely selected sample of activity sites and outputs for primary data collection and assure adequate triangulation and validation of findings.

●        lead the collection[1] and analysis of primary and secondary data to evaluate the program’s MRM processes and the integration of program sectors and activities.

●        assure that 1) final report presentation is logical and presented in a way that clearly separates findings, conclusions, and recommendations, and 2) all findings, conclusions and recommendations are based on evidence presented in the report.

 

The Technical Specialists would be responsible to:

●        lead the collection and analyses of primary and secondary technical data related to his/her field(s) of expertise and form recommendations.

●        consider all general aspects of the implementation of all activities related to his/her sector, i.e., resource management, staffing, linkages/partnerships, branding, community involvement, cultural acceptability, gender, exit/sustainability measures, environmental protection, adherence to schedules, and integration with other sectors.

Consultant Deliverables:

The Consultant will provide the following during their contract:

 

1. An evaluation plan, including:
1. Mixed-methods evaluation design, methodologies used and sampling design/criteria, frame, size(s) for the qualitative data collection
2. the Data Analysis Plan (DAP) for the mixed methods study  
3. Suggested improvements to the evaluation scope
4. Revised evaluation timeline
5. Ethical considerations
2. All additional documentation requested for USAID and Nigerian IRB approval
3. 1-day workshop to present the evaluation plan to key staff
4. 4 days training of facilitators, interviewers and/or enumerators
5. 2-day preliminary results analysis workshop
6. 1-day presentation of results to USAID
7. A report of the evaluation will be produced. The topics listed below should be contained in the final report.

Proposed Evaluation Report Structure and Content

1. Executive Summary (2 pages)
2. Introduction/Background (5 pages)
3. Mid-Term Evaluation Objectives (1 page)
4. Mid-Term Evaluation Methods (including strengths and limitations of methods) (5 pages)

1.     Intervention Design

2.     Implementation

3.     Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning

4.     Engagement, Partnership and Communication

5.     Sustainability

5. Conclusions (2 pages)
6. Recommendations (3 pages)
7. Annexes

                                               i.     List of acronyms

                                              ii.     MTE SoW

                                             iii.     MTE Plan and Schedule

                                             iv.     Composition of the team

                                              v.     Bibliography

8. 1–2-day presentation of key findings and recommendations to RRA staff

Note:

·       The Chief of Party will approve a) evaluation plan, b) preliminary results to be presented in the 2-day workshop c) the presentation/slide deck to present to USAID and the d) final report.

·       MC will be responsible for hiring the interviewers/enumerators. MC will cover cost for transport coordination and tablets for collection of data. MC will also cover hotel accommodation and transportation for the consultant.

Evaluation Implementation Work Plan and Timeline

The Activity Chief of Party and the Deputy Chief of Party, MEL Manager and the MRM team will manage the evaluation process in coordination with the evaluation team (external consultant) to provide technical support in the refinement of the evaluation methodology and - in the case of data collection tools, inputs, and all supporting documents - to guide design and finalization of the evaluation methodology and data collection instruments.

The Consultancy will run for approximately 45 days between 1^sh June 2022 and end of 2^nd September 2022. Due dates for deliverables and activities are outlined below:

 

Duration	Activity	Stakeholder
1 Day	Entry and Inception - Review the evaluation SOW with the External Evaluators to clarify timeframe, assignment objectives and deliverables aligned to budget. Agree on evaluation tools, time schedules, and delivery period for data collection activities.	Chief of Party (CoP), Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP) MEL Manager and MEL Focal Points, Activity Technical Leads, Country MEL Manager, and External Evaluator/Consultant
3 Days	Undertake desk review of the relevant Activity documents that include the proposal, workplan narrative, implementation plans, revised program design and timelines, program implementation reports, implementation strategy documents, PDM reports, assessment reports, and any other relevant documents. Develop an inception report detailing the process and methodologies to be deployed to answer the evaluation questions. This should include all evaluation tools, and crucial time schedules for this exercise, and be presented to Activity Implementation team for review and further inputs before going to the field.	External Evaluator/Consultants, Chief of Party (CoP), Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP) MEL Manager and MEL Focal Points, Activity Technical Leads, Country MEL Manager
2 Days	Provide feedback to inception report and tools for External Evaluator to incorporate (feedback will be consolidated from all reviewers before returning to External Evaluator)	External Evaluator/Consultants, Chief of Party (CoP), Deputy Chief of Party (DCoP) MEL Manager and MEL Focal Points, Activity Technical Leads, Country MEL Manager
3 Days	With input from Activity Programs team and MRM team, refine data collection tools and translate them in local languages (Hausa and Kanuri) as appropriate	External Evaluator
	Provide final versions of inception report and data collection tools to Mercy Corps	External Evaluator
	Consultant/firm submits complete draft of the DATA ANALYSIS PLAN (DAP) to Mercy Corps’ POC (a complete draft includes dummy tables, placeholders for charts/graphs/images, description of how data triangulation/synthesis will be conducted, how qualitative data will be analyzed, etc.)	External Evaluator
	Mercy Corps’ POC distributes DAP complete draft to ALL Mercy Corps reviewers (and donor reviewers if, required) and consolidates feedback returning this to consultant/firm	Activity MEL Manager, Activity Implementation team
	Consultant/firm submits FINAL DAP to Mercy Corps’ POC having addressed consolidated all feedback	External Evaluator
4 Days	Train enumerators/surveyors; pre-test data collection instruments	External Evaluator/Consultants and the Activity MEL Team
2 Days	Finalize and test data collection instruments / tools	External Evaluator
10 Days	Conduct and oversee data collection	External Evaluator
5 Days	Encode and analyze data	External Evaluator
5 Days	Prepare a draft evaluation report and learning summary	External Evaluator
5 Days	Provide detailed feedback to draft report	External Evaluator, Program Director, Consortium Program Manager, Senior MEL Officer, Consortium MEL Team, Country MEL Manager, Program Sector Leads
5 Days	Finalize report, produce a presentation of findings, and share back with MC (number of pages as provided in the report structure – all other additions can be included as annexes)	External Evaluator
	After donor review of report, incorporate any feedback from donor for final donor reviewed version.	External Evaluator
	Data sets, code books, syntax, etc. are delivered to Mercy Corps’ POC	External Evaluator
TOTAL	45 Days

 

The evaluation team (consulting firm) is expected to deliver a comprehensive, professional quality final assessment report. The assessment report should be soft copy (PDF and Word - submitted electronically) along with the analysis plan and the data set. The page limit for the full report is as specified in proposed evaluation report structure (exclusive of annexes and attachments).

 

Timeframe / Schedule:

 

It is expected that evaluators/consultants will be available to start on 15^th June 2022   with an initial meeting with the Activity Implementation team. The consultants will then work through 2^nd September 2022  where the final evaluation report (refined to include donor’s feedback) is to be shared. Note that Mercy Corps will only pay consultants for days worked. The following are the key deliverables aligned to the deadlines and payment terms:

 

Deliverables	Timeline	Payment Terms
Engagement and signing of contract	June 2022	N/A
Finalized Inception Report	July 2022	30% Initial down payment
Progress Draft report with preliminary findings and analysis.	August 2022	40% for initial milestone deliverables.
Final Assessment report with key findings and recommendations and updated program Documents	August/September  2022	30% completion payment within the next seven working days after submission of final deliverables

Evaluation Roles and Responsibilities

Mercy Corps Support:

To ensure adequate support towards accomplishment of the above-mentioned tasks, Mercy Corps will:

 

• Share all relevant background documents needed for a desk review and to understand the details of the assessment.
• Provide input to all tool designs and any support necessary during the assessment.
• Provide feedback to the draft report.
• Support with coordination and planning including accommodation and field movement, mobilization of fieldwork enumerators, among others. (To be clarified during inception phase)
• Activity Implementation team, and the Country Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Manager will be available to work directly with the consultants throughout the consultancy and to answer any question as they emerge.
• Consultant’s movement and travel is subject to Mercy Corps security clearance.

The Consultant/Consulting firm will

 

●        Ensure timely delivery of the assigned tasks.

●        Oversee data-collection with all involved stakeholders and program teams in all the assessment locations.

●        Share all data collected as part of the deliverables.

 

The Consultant will report to: Activity MEL Manager supported by the Country MEL Manager

 

The Consultant will work closely with:

           

§  RRA’s Chief of Party and Deputy Chief of Party

§  RRA’s MEL Manager and MEL Team

§  RRA’s Implementation Team

 

Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Achieving our mission begins with how we build our team and work together. Through our commitment to enriching our organization with people of different origins, beliefs, backgrounds, and ways of thinking, we are better able to leverage the collective power of our teams and solve the world’s most complex challenges. We strive for a culture of trust and respect, where everyone contributes their perspectives and authentic selves, reaches their potential as individuals and teams, and collaborates to do the best work of their lives. 

We recognize that diversity and inclusion is a journey, and we are committed to learning, listening, and evolving to become more diverse, equitable and inclusive than we are today.

Equal Employment Opportunity

We are committed to providing an environment of respect and psychological safety where equal employment opportunities are available to all. We do not engage in or tolerate discrimination based on race, color, gender identity, gender expression, religion, age, sexual orientation, national or ethnic origin, disability (including HIV/AIDS status), marital status, military veteran status or any other protected group in the locations where we work.

 

Safeguarding & Ethics

Mercy Corps team members are expected to support all efforts toward accountability, specifically to our stakeholders and to international standards guiding international relief and development work, while actively engaging communities as equal partners in the design, monitoring, and evaluation of our field projects. Team members are expected to conduct themselves in a professional manner and respect local laws, customs and MC's policies, procedures, and values at all times and in all in-country venues.

 

Assessment and award of the assignment

 

Mercy Corps will evaluate Technical and detailed financial proposals to establish fit and award the assignment based on technical and financial feasibility. Mercy Corps reserves the right to accept or reject one or all proposals received without assigning any reason and is not bound to accept the lowest or the highest bidder. Only those shortlisted will be contacted. Subcontracting to other entities is not allowed and will not be accepted under this assignment.

 

Documents Comprising the Proposal

Interested evaluators (consulting firms) should submit the following documentation for the proposal:

 

●        Concept Note/ Expression of Interest – This needs to be detailed as possible, especially the methodology and the proposed evaluation design, as well as the budget.

●        CVs of proposed staff / team members noting identified roles and team lead as specified in team members roles.

●        1-2 example reports from similar work, with a preference for work done in Nigeria.

●        Corporate Capacity statement (not to exceed two pages) detailing where they have worked, years of experience in the evaluation industry, office locations if any, and types of evaluation previously conducted.

 

 

Electronic Submissions must be sent in PDF Format via email to   ng-tenders@mercycorps.org>   Questions will be answered and uploaded to: www.mcnigeria.com/tenders

About Mercy Corps Mercy Corps is a leading global organization powered by the belief that a better world is possible. In disaster, in hardship, in more than forty countries around the world, we partner to put bold solutions into action — helping people triumph over adversity and build stronger communities from within. Now, and for the future.