Individual National Consultant, Category Level 3 at IOM

Addis Ababa, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia -

Full Time

Start Date

Immediate

Expiry Date

27 Jan, 26

Salary

0.0

Posted On

29 Oct, 25

Experience

5 year(s) or above

Remote Job

Yes

Telecommute

Yes

Sponsor Visa

Skills

Evaluation, Data Collection, Qualitative Research, Quantitative Research, Stakeholder Engagement, Project Management, Capacity Building, Monitoring and Evaluation, Report Writing, Analytical Skills, Community Engagement, Mixed-Methods Approach, Survey Design, Interviews, Focus Groups, Ethical Standards

Industry

International Affairs

Description

EVALUATION CONTEXT The project specifically aims to contribute to the efforts of the Government of Ethiopia (GoE) to protect and empower migrants in vulnerable situations, with a focus on the most vulnerable groups (USMC, VoTs, women and girls, elderly people, migrants with disabilities). To achieve this, IOM implemented initiatives under two components. The first outcome aims to achieve vulnerable migrants' increased levels of resilience to irregular migration by ensuring the provision of tailored direct assistance, improving the accessibility and quality of services at Migrant Response Centres across the country, and improving access to livelihood alternatives upon return in communities of origin. The second outcome of the project look at increasing duty bearers', first of whom the Government of Ethiopia (GoE), capacity to assist migrants through strengthened case management and referral systems. This take the form of support to draft a directive on the National Referral Mechanism to guide mandated stakeholders in its operationalization, the development of a standardized set of vulnerability assessment, case management, referral and monitoring tools to guide the referral of vulnerable migrants, support to local actors in operationalizing the NRM following a phased approach and promoting transit communities' involvement in migrant referral and protection. The final evaluation will look at the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability and impact of the project. To this end, the evaluation will assess the achievements of the programme against its key objectives. It will also identify factors that have facilitated or impeded the achievement of the objectives. EVALUATION PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE More specifically, the external final evaluation has the following objectives: - To assess the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, coherence, sustainability and impact of the project - To document good practices, evaluate stakeholders and beneficiaries’ satisfaction with project activities and results accomplished so far. - To track indicators against the project objective and outcome level targets as per the project’s result matrix (Annex 1). - To provide a set of recommendations to improve the quality of the ongoing projects and empirical findings of the assessment will provide evidence-based scope for future programming. - To generate evidence for accountability to the donor and stakeholders by assessing the relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability, and impact of the project - To support internal learning and strategic decision-making by identifying key lessons, good practices, and areas for improvement. EVALUATION SCOPE The final evaluation covers both project outcomes within the project implementation period. In terms of geographical coverage, the evaluation will include the cities of Addis Ababa, Bahir Dar, and Dire Dawa, where the project was actively implemented. It also covers the Federal level and some regional level contexts. The inclusion of Bahir Dar and Metema will depend on the evolving security landscape, as the current situation in the region remains fluid and highly unpredictable. EVALUATION CRITERIA The evaluation will cover all OECD/DAC criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability and impact. EVALUATION QUESTIONS The final evaluation will explore the evaluation questions below, based on the OECD/DAC criteria. This provisional and indicative list of questions is to be reviewed and refined by the evaluator in the scoping and inception phase of the evaluation process. Criteria Evaluation question Relevance Are project activities addressing the needs of all vulnerable migrant groups identified (USMC, VoTs, women/girls, elderly, migrants with disabilities, medical cases)? Is capacity building provided to government and civil society partners in line with their roles in migrant protection and assistance? Are gender, disability, and protection issues integrated into service delivery and capacity building? Are affected populations and stakeholders involved in design, implementation, and monitoring? Are activities and outputs aligned with national policies, SDGs, and the Global Compact for Migration? Effectiveness Have all planned outputs been delivered (direct assistance at MRCs, mobile outreach teams, Migrants Rights Guide, livelihood support, referral tools, capacity building workshops)? Are minimum standards for MRC services and referral mechanisms being applied? Are vulnerability screening and eligibility criteria for assistance consistently applied? Are efforts made to reach and remain in contact with the most vulnerable individuals/groups? Are specialized services (dignity kits, PSS, family tracing) provided to target groups? Efficiency Are activities implemented according to the work plan and budget (timely, economic, and resource allocation)? Are delays in assistance provision documented and addressed? Are existing services and referral actors leveraged to avoid duplication and maximize impact? Are monitoring and reporting mechanisms in place and used regularly? Coherence Is there coordination among MRCs, government agencies, civil society, UN partners, and community groups? Are multi-stakeholder agreements and MoUs in place and operational? Are local referral mechanisms functional in MRC areas and pilot zones? Are activities integrated with other interventions (UNICEF, WHO, UNHCR, local NGOs)? Is the project contributing to improved inter-regional coordination and responsibility sharing? Sustainability Are capacity-building activities (Including MRC) resulting in increased ownership by government and local actors? Are community-based structures (youth centers, community associations) established and active? Are measures in place to ensure continuity of benefits after project closure (training, institutional support, technical assistance)? Are partnerships with government, civil society, and the private sector strengthened for long-term impact? Is environmental sustainability considered in livelihood and community activities? Impact What significant changes occurred as a result of the intervention? Were these changes sustained over time? Did the intervention contribute to systemic or structural transformation? Were there any unintended effects—positive or negative? Who benefited most, and who might have been left out or adversely affected? EVALUATION METHODOLOGY The final evaluation will adopt a mixed-methods approach, incorporating both quantitative and qualitative data sourced from primary and secondary sources. Quantitative data will be collected through surveys using a structured questionnaire for key project stakeholders and project beneficiaries (e.g, training and shelter beneficiaries). 1. Document review of all relevant documentation. This would include a review of project documents; theory of change and results framework; consolidated annual reports; highlights of project management meetings, project monitoring reports (technical/financial), baseline survey, reports, success stories, inception phase assessment reports (community action plans, conflict analysis, gender analysis, environmental and hazard assessments), national level strategies/policies and frameworks that contribute to the project. 2. Beneficiary survey: As part of the final evaluation, a beneficiary survey will be conducted to capture the perspectives and experiences of individuals who directly received assistance through the project. The survey aims to assess the relevance, quality, and effectiveness of the support provided, as well as the extent to which the interventions contributed to improved protection outcomes for vulnerable migrants. It will also explore beneficiaries’ satisfaction levels, perceived changes in their well-being, and any remaining gaps or challenges. The findings will provide valuable insights for both accountability to stakeholders and internal learning to inform future programming. 3. Semi-structured in-depth interviews with key stakeholders including returnees, host community representatives, key government counterparts, donor, representatives of service providers, organizations, project staffs of implementing partners. 4. Field visits and on-site validation of key tangible outputs and interventions. Other methods such as observational visits, focus group discussions should be employed as necessary. 5. Data review and analysis of monitoring and other data sources and methods should ensure maximum validity, reliability of data (quality) and promote use of mixed approach; the evaluator will ensure triangulation of the various data sources. The evaluator is expected to follow a participatory and consultative approach that ensures close engagement with the project team, implementing partners and direct beneficiaries. A more detailed methodology for the assignment will be elaborated by the evaluator on the basis of this TOR, in consultation with the project staff in the inception report. The final methodological approach including interview schedules, field visits and data to be used in the evaluation should be clearly outlined in the inception report and be fully discussed and agreed between the project team, stakeholders and the evaluator. Assistance will be provided in the identification of key stakeholders for interviews and site visits, as necessary. Upon completion of the data collection and analysis, the evaluator will provide a debriefing to the project team and implementing partners on the evaluation findings, conclusions and recommendations. The evaluator will also debrief key stakeholders in a workshop to discuss and validate the results and fill information gaps if necessary. Sampling methodology The evaluator will be required to develop and present a clear and robust sampling methodology as part of the evaluation design. This should include the rationale for the chosen sampling approach, the sampling frame, sample size calculations, and procedures for selecting respondents across different target groups and geographic locations. The methodology must ensure representativeness and reliability of findings, particularly for the beneficiary survey and any qualitative data collection. Special attention should be given to ensuring inclusivity and diversity within the sample, including gender, age, and vulnerability status, to accurately reflect the experiences of the project’s target population. The proposed sampling strategy will be reviewed and approved by the project team prior to data collection to ensure alignment with evaluation objectives and ethical standards. Data collection and quality assurance The evaluator is expected to propose and implement appropriate data collection methods and tools that align with the evaluation objectives and questions. This may include a mix of quantitative and qualitative approaches such as surveys, key informant interviews, focus group discussions, and document reviews. All tools must be contextually relevant, culturally sensitive, and designed to capture meaningful insights from diverse stakeholder groups, including beneficiaries, implementing partners, and government counterparts. To ensure the credibility and reliability of findings, the evaluator must apply rigorous data quality assurance measures throughout the process. This includes pre-testing tools, training data collectors, ensuring consistency in data collection procedures, and applying quality checks during data entry and analysis. Triangulation of data sources and methods is essential to validate findings and minimize bias. The evaluation should also include a clear validation approach, such as stakeholder debriefings or participatory review sessions, to confirm the accuracy and relevance of key conclusions. ETHICS, NORMS AND STANDARDS FOR EVALUATION The evaluation must adhere to high ethical standards, including obtaining informed consent from all participants, ensuring confidentiality and anonymity, and minimizing any potential harm or discomfort. Special attention should be given to the protection of vulnerable populations, particularly migrants, and to ensuring that participation is voluntary and respectful. The evaluator must comply with relevant organizational and international ethical guidelines and seek approval from any required ethical review boards if applicable. As part of this commitment, the evaluator should ensure that the evaluation designed and conducted complies with the norms and standards of the UN Evaluation Group and IOM’s Data Protection Principles and expects all evaluation stakeholders to be familiar with the ethical conduct guidelines of UNEG and the evaluators with the UNEG codes of conduct as well as IOM reporting format.

Responsibilities

The consultant will conduct a final evaluation of a project aimed at protecting and empowering vulnerable migrants in Ethiopia. This includes assessing project relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence, sustainability, and impact, while documenting good practices and providing recommendations for future programming.