AN END OF CYCLE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT 119 views0 applications

« Strengthened Capacities for Improved Coordination, Identification, Protection, and on Prosecution Trafficking in Persons (TIP) in Algeria »

Commissioned by : IOM ALGERIA Country Office, Migrant Protection and Assistance (Counter-trafficking) division.

1. Evaluation context

The International Organization for Migration (IOM) works to ensure the orderly and humane management of migration, promote international cooperation, assist with practical solutions, and provide humanitarian assistance to migrants.

Combatting trafficking in persons is a core element of IOM’s overall comprehensive approach to migration management. In Algeria, since the opening of its country office in May 2016, IOM has been providing support to the government in promoting the development of policies, legislation and administrative structures that promote efficient, effective migration management. In close cooperation with the Algerian authorities, the proposed project seeks to strengthen the capacities of key actors working on Trafficking in Person (TIP) for improved coordination, victim-centred investigation, prosecution and reporting of TIP in country. Algeria is one of the last stops of a long journey that Sub-Saharan and West African migrants undertake before reaching North Africa and possibly Europe; those migrants, particularly unaccompanied migrant children and women traveling with children as mentioned in the US State Department TIP report 2019 for Algeria, are extremely vulnerable to exploitation and extortion.

A National Referral Mechanism (NRM) comprising of representatives of the Inter-Ministerial Committee on Trafficking, Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) and International Organizations (IOs) will be set up to coordinate its efforts in a strategic partnership to enhance the TIP response in Algeria. An appropriate NRM structure, with Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) and formal tools/guidelines for victim identification and referral based on IOM standardized screening, referral, risk assessment and assistance tools will then be developed and implemented. Victims of Trafficking (VoTs) identified through the NRM will be supported by this project for protection, legal, medical, social, return and reintegration assistance.

The overall goal of this 36-month project is to contribute to the Government of Algeria’s (GoA) efforts to coordinate anti-trafficking responses, identify and prevent trafficking, prosecute traffickers, protect, and assist victims of trafficking. This will be achieved under three objectives:

1) To improve the capacity of law enforcement officials, the judiciary, health care officials and social workers to identify, investigate and adjudicate TIP crimes in a victim centred manner.

2) To improve identification, referral, and protection services to current and potential VoT through enhanced coordination.

3) To increase the understanding of TIP and risks of irregular migration through awareness raising.

2.Evaluation purpose

The overall objective of this end of cycle external evaluation is to feed when/where appropriate into strategic planning for future interventions on trafficking in persons in Algeria.

More specifically, the evaluation will focus on the 3 main objectives:

1- To determine whether the objectives, outputs and outcomes as stated in the logical framework were achieved.

2- To identify lessons learned and provide recommendations for future operations.

3- To assess effectiveness/appropriateness of project management systems and tools.

4- To identify shortcomings and gaps and make recommendation for future improvement of the projects.

3.Evaluation scope

The evaluation will assess the period of the project (36 months), it will assess all the project activities and outputs covering the implementation context (Algeria) and the project components stated in the project, i.e., Improve capacities of governmental stakeholders, improve identification, referral and protection services through coordination, and to increase understanding of Trafficking in persons and risks of irregular migration through awareness raising.

4. Evaluation Criteria

The Evaluation should consider the following criteria:

1- Relevance: assess the project objectives and outputs relevance to the targeted stakeholders and beneficiaries.

2- Efficiency: assess whether the utilization of the resources (physical and financial) where compatible with the project intended results.

3- Effectiveness: assess if the beneficiaries have used the services and products availed of by the project and, if so, whether this has led to the intended benefits specified by the project outcomes.

4- Appropriateness: assess the extent to which inputs and activities were delivered in a manner that is in line with the host community and beneficiaries needs, customs and cultures**.**

5- Coherence: assess the extent to which there is consistency across security, development, trade, military and humanitarian policies, and the extent to which all policies consider humanitarian and human rights consideration.

5.Evaluation questions

For each criterion, the Evaluator or the Evaluation team should be answering the bellow question:

1- Relevance:

· Do the project activities and outputs consider relevant policies and guidelines?

· Does the project still respond to the needs of the other target groups/stakeholders?

· Does the project still respond to the needs of the project beneficiaries?

· Is the Project aligned with, and supportive of national strategies?

· Is the project aligned with and supportive of IOM national, regional, and/or global strategies and the Migration Governance Framework?

2- Efficiency:

· Were the project activities undertaken and were the outputs delivered on time?

· How well are the resources (funds, expertise, and time) being converted into results?

· Is a workplan and resource schedule available and used by the project management and other relevant parties?

· To what extent are activities implemented as scheduled?

3- Effectiveness:

· What is the quality of the results/services/products provided?

· Are there any factors that prevent beneficiaries and project partners from accessing the results/services/products?

· If any unplanned negative effects (e.g. related to environment, gender, human rights and governance, or others) on target groups occurred, or are likely to occur through the project, to what extent did the project management take appropriate measures?

· To what extent have there been any unplanned positive effects in relation to anticipated results in the project document? To what extent has this contributed to results produced/services/products provided?

4- Appropriateness:

· To what extent were the delivered supplies adapted to local needs?

· To what extent were tools and technologies used adapted to the local context?

· To what extent were local stakeholders and beneficiaries consulted and involved in the implementation of activities, thereby improving ownership, accountability, and effectiveness?

· To what extent were services provided appropriate to the individual needs of beneficiaries?

6.Evaluation methodology

The methodology to be used for the evaluation should be a mix of quantitative and qualitative approach and data analysis. It would contain the following elements:

o For quantitative analysis, all the desegregated data resulted from activities conducted during the overall project implementation will be shared with the evaluator.

o Documentation review

o For qualitative analysis, Conduct Field visits/ focus groups and interviews with the Project team, other concerned IOM staff and units, stakeholders, and Beneficiaries, when/where applicable.

o The evaluator is encouraged to propose additional methodology that they deem most appropriate to the project under evaluation.

Note:

• The evaluation must consider relevant cross-cutting themes of right based approach to project programming, protection and gender mainstreaming, and environmental sensitivity and sustainability.
• The evaluation must follow the IOM Data protection principles, UNEG norms and standards for evaluations, and relevant ethical guidelines.**

7.Evaluation deliverables

The evaluator is expected to deliver the following outputs with acceptable quality and satisfaction of the evaluation manager/project manager:

· Inception report: This report should be written following an initial document review and meetings with the evaluation manager. This document reveals the evaluator(s)’understanding of the evaluation exercise, how each evaluation question will be answered and the intended data collection methods. (Annex 5.7)

· Progress reports : It is encouraged that evaluator(s) regularly report on the progress made while conducting the evaluation, so the evaluation manager or committee can periodically monitor how well data collection is going and if the methodologies selected for the evaluation are being properly used.

· Debrief of initial findings : this should be presented at the end of the field visit or the data collection phase, providing an opportunity for relevant parties – such as government stakeholders, donors, beneficiaries or implementing partners – to identify any misinterpretation or factual mistake at an early stage before report writing.

· Evaluation report : The evaluation report should first be provided in draft format to allow stakeholders to provide comments .After the evaluator receives the consolidated feedback, he/she should revise the report as necessary and submit the final version.(Annex 5.8 / 5.9)

· Evaluation brief: The brief provides a short overview of the evaluation, ensuring that conclusions, recommendations, lessons learned, and good practices are provided. (Annex 5.10)

· Preliminary management response matrix: Evaluator(s) should prepare a draft management response matrix by inserting the recommendations, as well as indicative time frame or deadline for implementation

8. Evaluation workplan

Activity
Days
Responsible
Support
Location Timeline
Feb March
2nd28th 1st – 31st
3 4 1 2 3 4
Contract signature 1 HR IOM project team
Management meeting N/A Evaluator/
Evaluation managers Any relevant stakeholder
Developing inception report (including methodology, tools, and conceptual framework) 5 Evaluator/
Evaluation managers IOM project team
Submission of inception report 5 Evaluator NA
-Revision of project results, IOM documentation, analysis of IOM procedures and, internal M&E mechanism, analysis of partnerships with CSOs and local authorities, interviews and focus groups with key actors, partners and beneficiaries, project team, IOM MPA staff, counsellors (any other relevant actor), field visits of IOM transit Center and Victims of Trafficking in persons shelters
-Sharing Progress reports and 30 Evaluator Evaluation managers
Submission /debrief of initial findings 1 Evaluator Evaluation managers
Approval of the initial findings report 3 Evaluation managers
Submission of final evaluation report 5 Evaluator NA
Drafting the Evaluation brief 1 Evaluator NA
Having feedback on the evaluation report and brief
2 Evaluation Managers NA
Drafting and presenting the final evaluation presentation
1 Evaluator Evaluation Managers
Drafting the Preliminary management response matrix
2 Evaluator NA
Complete the Preliminary management response matrix 2 Evaluation Managers NA

· The evaluation manager: evaluation committee

· The evaluator: external consultant

· The evaluation users: IOM and beneficiaries

10. Ethics, norms, and standards for evaluation:

1. Internationally agreed principles, goals, and targets
2. Utility
3. Credibility
4. Independence
5. Impartiality
6. Ethics
7. Transparency
8. Human rights and gender equality
9. National evaluation capacities
10. Professionalism
11. Enabling environment
12. Evaluation policy
13. Responsibility for the evaluation function
14. Evaluation use and follow-up