CFCV/2019/12 Evaluator Consultant – Extension 226 views0 applications

Final External Evaluation of the Project “Protection Services to Vulnerable and Stranded Migrants in and Transiting through North Africa (PROTECT)”

1.Evaluation context

The scale of irregular migration towards Europe continues in staggering numbers as over 360,000 migrants crossed the Mediterranean Sea in 2016 alone according to European arrival data. During the same period, IOM’s Missing Migrant Project recorded 5,079 maritime deaths in the Mediterranean, representing levels of a humanitarian emergency. This is a vast increase of over 54% as compared to recorded maritime incidents in 2014. Amid an unresolved Syrian civil war, protracted social conflict in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, as well as evolving humanitarian crises in Libya, South Sudan and beyond, IOM expects that the number of irregular adult and child migrants transiting to Europe will continue to increase in 2017. Statistics from the first months of 2017 support this prediction, as irregular arrivals and migrant fatalities substantially surpassed figures of the same period in 2015 and 2016.

IOM Egypt proposed this project with the objective to contribute to reducing the vulnerabilities of stranded migrants along migratory routes across North Africa. Working towards this objective and responding to the challenges of migration flows from and through North Africa towards Europe, IOM responded to the increased humanitarian needs of vulnerable migrants along major migratory routes and strengthened their protection, including through return and reintegration to their countries of origin. Across Algeria, Tunisia and Egypt, IOM addressed needs for Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) in a flexible, efficient and needs-based manner. IOM provided case specific and comprehensive AVRR services to vulnerable and stranded migrants to their countries of origin (CoO), contributing to their sustainable reintegration and thereby alleviating drivers for irregular migration. This was underpinned by the first phase of a pilot reintegration programme in Sudan to identify labour market demands in sending and return communities of irregular migrants and thereupon upgrade vocational training curricula to respond to market needs, supporting the sustainability of the reintegration of returnees in Sudan.

In Egypt, IOM consolidated the provision of protection services and durable solutions by establishing centralized multi-agency migrant assistance facilities in a beneficiary-friendly location along migratory routes and thereby responded to increased needs for direct assistance.

Similarly, in Tunisia, IOM strengthened shelter services by refurbishing and equipping assistance facilities for stranded migrants in Tunis as well as in the South of Tunisia (Medenine). In parallel, IOM provided technical and capacity-building support to the newly established National Commission to fight human trafficking. This project ensured that vulnerable and stranded migrants across North Africa enjoy better protection, including return and reintegration to their CoO.

2.Evaluation purpose

This is summative evaluation whose main objective is to assess the extent to which the project realized its set short, medium and long term goals in line with the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria, to document lessons learned and good practices and to devise recommendations that will inform the overall improvement of the next project phase (PROTECT II). Furthermore, the evaluation will specifically aim to assess the extent to which the project design and implementation strategies are aligned to IOM’s AVRR framework and policy.

3.Evaluation scope

The evaluation will cover the whole project implementation period from 1 December 2017 to 15 September 2019. The evaluation is expected to cover all programme components and the evaluator is expected to visit selected countries where the project is implemented (Egypt, Algeria and Tunisia).

The scope of the evaluation will focus on the following three thematic areas of PROTECT I:

• Improved access for vulnerable migrants to protection services through dedicated facilities along migratory routes in Egypt and Tunisia to better address their needs;
• Increased numbers of return assistance to their country of origin received by vulnerable and stranded migrants in Algeria, Egypt and Tunisia; and
• Increased access of returnees to sustainable reintegration opportunities in their communities of origin.

4.Evaluation criteria

Project’s performance will be evaluated according to the OECD/DAC evaluation quality standards based on the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact.

5.Evaluation questions

The evaluation is expected to respond to the following key evaluation questions under each of the evaluation criterion below:

a)Relevance

• To what extent has the project responded to the priority needs of the target beneficiaries and stakeholders?
• To what extent has the project responded to national priorities in implementing countries?
• To what extent was the programme’s approach to protection and direct services in line with IOM policy on AVRR? (Relevance)
• Did the project respond to the needs of the project beneficiaries and other target groups /stakeholders?
• Is the project in line with donor priorities?

b)Effectiveness

• To what extent were the project activities translated into planned outputs, outcome and long term goal?
• To what extent did the dedicated migrant assistance facilities improve the access of vulnerable migrants to protection services prior to their return?
• What is the quality of the results /services/products provided?
• What are the main obstacles or barriers that the project has encountered during the implementation of the project? Has the project been successful in addressing these obstacles?
• Are there any factors that prevented beneficiaries and project partners from accessing the results/services provided?
• How appropriate are the project designs to achieve project results in the context in which they operate?
• How coherent and realistic was the intervention logic based on target country specific needs?
• What external socio-economic and political factors affected the implementation of the projects?

c)Efficiency

How effectively were the project performances and results monitored?

Were the projects’ activities undertaken and outputs delivered on time?

Were the costs proportionate to the results achieved?

d)Impact

What impact did the project have on the beneficiaries and what are the key project intervention and delivery strategies that contributed to the observed impact if any?

Are there any unintended positive or negative effects in relation to anticipated results in the project document?

Which positive/negative and intended/unintended effects are being produced by the project?

Does the impact come from the project activities, from external factors or from both?

Did the project take timely measures for mitigating any unplanned negative impacts?

e)Sustainability

What are the key project activities and benefits that are like to continue after the project has ended?

Are structures, resources and processes in place to ensure that benefits generated by the project continue once external support ceases?

To what extent is the project embedded in institutional structures that are likely to continue addressing migrants’ vulnerabilities once external support has ceased?

Are there functional mechanisms that to ensure continuity of project activities and benefits beyond the project life cycle?

Do the project partners have the financial capacity and are they committed to maintaining the benefits of the project in the long run?

To what extent have target groups and possibly other relevant interest groups /stakeholders been involved in the planning /implementation process?

Do the target groups have any plans to continue making use of the services/products produced in the project framework?

The above are key evaluation guiding questions. The evaluator may propose additional questions that are relevant for responding to collect sufficient data to meet the expectations of the evaluation.

Gender mainstreaming: the evaluation is also expected to assess the extent to which the project mainstreamed gender in its design, implementation packages and strategies as well as in reporting.

The evaluation should respond to the following specific question on gender:

• To what extent did the project ensure gender mainstreaming throughout its processes?

6.Evaluation Methodology

This summative evaluation will be conducted through an external evaluation company. It is expected to use mixed methods approach to collected needed quantitative and qualitative data to assess the project performance in relation to intended short, medium- and long-term results. Efforts shall be exerted to safeguard the inclusivity and engagement of relevant stakeholders to bring out their voice on how they perceived the implementation of PROTECT I, notably vulnerable migrants, returnees, reintegrated migrants to CoO, host communities, civil societies, government counterparts, community and local authorities’ leaders. Key informants’ interviews (KIIs) with representatives from the community, government authorities. Focus group discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries will be conducted to assess how the PROTECT I has responded accordingly to expectations and objectives set.

The evaluation is expected to use a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods to collect data needed to inform the objective assessment of the project performance in relation to planned results. Minimum expected data collection methods shall include:

(1) Desk review to have a better understanding of the circumstances that surrounded the project throughout its life cycle;

(2) Field visits in some selected areas in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria and Sudan;

(3) FGDs with beneficiaries in selected project implementation sites; and

(4) Key Informant Interviews with community leaders, relevant authorities, staff involved in the implementation of the project and the management.

The evaluator is expected to develop further the methodological approach in close consultation with IOM in order to ensure rigour in the evaluation process and resultant findings and recommendations.

The evaluation processes shall be in line with IOM Data Protection Principles, IOM’s code of conduct, do no harm principles, UNEG norms and standards for evaluations.

7.Evaluation Deliverables

The consultant will produce the following:

1. A draft evaluation inception report that illustrate the approach to the evaluation. The inception report should comprise the evaluation matrix, evaluation data collection instruments, a detailed provisional work plan
2. A presentation of the preliminary evaluation findings
3. A draft evaluation report outlining lessons learnt and recommendations
4. A final analytical evaluation report with a summary of the evaluation brief (two pages) that reflect comments and feedback from IOM. The final report should be structured according to IOM evaluation report template that include the following key sections:
   • Executive summary
   • Introduction
   • Context and purpose of evaluation
   • Evaluation framework and methodology
   • Evaluation findings
   • Conclusion and recommendations
   • Annexes

8.Evaluation work plan

Please revert back to the attached call for CV document

9.Payment schedule

The payment shall be issued upon receipt of satisfactory deliverables according to the following disbursement schedule:

• Satisfactory inception report submission – 40%
• Submission of a draft report – 20%
• Satisfactory final report, the evaluation brief and relevant annexes – 40%

10.Required qualifications and experience

The candidate is expected to demonstrate the following minimum academic background and experience in evaluation:

• Master’s degree in advanced applied research/evaluation methods, economics or any related academic discipline or an affiliation with a research institution or a university; holding a PhD, or being in pursuit of a PhD in a relevant field is an advantage;
• Conversant with the context in Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Sudan and other countries in the Middle East or MENA region;
• Experience in developing and implementing Evaluations with the UN, International NGOs or donors;
• Familiarity with the OECD/DAC and UNEG evaluation framework;
• Strong background in monitoring and evaluation techniques in humanitarian and development contexts;
• Creates a respectful office environment free of harassment and retaliation and promotes the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA);
• Accepts and gives constructive criticism;
• Follows all relevant procedures, processes, and policies related to the organizational principles;
• Meets deadline, cost, and quality requirements for outputs;
• Monitors own work to correct errors or incorporate inputs;
• Takes responsibility for meeting commitments and for any shortcomings;
• Experience in evaluating programmes addressing migration governance and familiarity with migration dynamics in North Africa particularly Egypt;
• Experience in gender analysis and knowledge of English, French and Arabic is an advantage.