Fina Evaluation of Addressing Human Security through Integrated Support for the Most Vulnerable and Crisis-Affected Communities in South Kordofan 34 views0 applications

Nature of the consultancy:

The International Organization for Migration (IOM), in collaboration with the United Nations Mine Action Service (UNMAS), implemented the UN Trust Fund for Human Security-funded program, “Addressing Human Security through Integrated Support for the Most Vulnerable and Crisis-Affected Communities in South Kordofan”. The overarching goal of this initiative is to support vulnerable and crisis-affected communities in South Kordofan by utilizing a holistic human security approach and community-based programming to enhance resilience and promote social cohesion.

Project Context and Scope:

This program focused in two locations within South Kordofan State in Kadugli town and Al Rahamnia village in Abu Jibaha locality, following the community-based planning approach to deliver an integrated package of interventions that addressed critical needs in areas such as water, sanitation, hygiene (WASH), food security, personal safety, and livelihoods, contributing to conflict prevention. It aligned with the humanitarian-development-peace nexus (HDPN), thereby creating the conditions necessary for sustainable development.

The project activities improving access to life-saving WASH services, health care, food security, and livelihoods by leveraging existing community resources and priorities identified by local representatives. The project was implemented in Al Rahamnia village in Abu Jibaha locality and included the survey and clearance of explosive ordnance (EO) as well as the provision of explosive ordnance risk education (EORE) to ensure a safer and more secure environment for the communities, with a focus on Kadugli town.

Moreover, the program promoted community cohesion through community-led initiatives that fostered collaboration and coexistence. These initiatives were designed to generate peace dividends and collective benefits, addressing both immediate humanitarian needs and long-term development objectives.

Objective: Supporting crisis-affected communities in South Kordofan through community-based programming that promotes resilience, social cohesion, and lifesaving water, sanitation, hygiene, food and personal security and livelihood interventions to contribute to conflict prevention. The programme outcome include:

Outcome 1: Community-based initiatives to improve access to basic services and resources enable a protective and inclusive environment that promotes human security and social cohesion amongst the target communities in South Kordofan.

Outcome 2: People at risk know how to mitigate the threat of explosive ordnance (EO) and the local population and humanitarian and development actors safely use areas previously contaminated with EO.

Outcome 3: Restore self-sufficiency for vulnerable populations in South Kordofan by providing more equitable access to basic services and resources.

Outcome 4: Partners/peer organisations engage with and adopt human security concepts in their policies and programmes

Organizational Department / Unit to which the Consultant is contributing:

WASH and Basic Infrastructure.

Responsibilities and Accountabilities

1. Evaluation purpose and objective

This final programme evaluation aims to assess IOM’s programme “Addressing Human Security through Integrated Support for the Most Vulnerable and Crisis-Affected Communities in South Kordofan”, focusing on the thematic areas of social cohesion, human security, access to essential services and strengthening policies and programs around human security. The evaluation’s specific objectives are:

• Assess the programme’s contribution to its objectives and intended results.
• Evaluate the program’s efforts to promote social cohesion and mitigate tensions and assess the program’s effectiveness in improving community access to essential services, such as healthcare, education, and water.
• Analyse the impact of the recent crisis in Sudan on programme activities and the programme’s adaptation to the new context, needs, and challenges.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of the programme’s approaches, including design, implementation, and monitoring and evaluation to identify shortcomings and recommend corrective measures.

This evaluation serves two main audiences. First, the IOM Sudan Programme Management Team and programme partner will benefit directly from the insights gathered, including actionable recommendations, lessons learned, and key best practices. These findings will be essential in shaping future programmes, enhancing their effectiveness and ensuring continuous improvement in similar initiatives.

Additionally, the evaluation aims to provide valuable feedback to the donor to inform strategic planning and funding decisions. This comprehensive analysis will guide future investments and support ongoing efforts. Furthermore, lessons learned will be shared with other stakeholders, including government bodies, to promote knowledge-sharing and influence the design of future programs.

2**. Evaluation Scope**

This evaluation will focus on the activities undertaken during the programme implementation period from 01 August 2024 to 30 January 2025 in Kordofan State in Kadugli town and Al Rahamnia village in Abu Jibaha locality. A key emphasis will be placed on assessing the programme’s ability to adapt to the changing context, particularly following the conflict in April 2023. The evaluation aims to identify the challenges encountered and provide clear insights into how well the programme has contributed to stabilising communities. The evaluation will assess the programme’s contributions at both state and locality, focusing on its impact on socio-economic development and promoting peaceful coexistence between host and displaced populations. It will also examine the direct support and social benefits provided to communities, as well as the involvement of state and local authorities. Additionally, the evaluation will consider the extent to which individuals and communities were engaged in the design and implementation of the programme. Furthermore, it will review the design, scope, and impact of the programme on the target populations.

In addition to these areas, the evaluation will examine crucial aspects such as coordination efforts, institutional capacity building, community engagement, and the sustainability of programme outcomes. It will assess the overall strategy used and identify key areas for improvement and future learning to enhance the effectiveness of similar interventions moving forward.

While it is ideal to cover all intended programme locations, current security constraints may require the evaluation to concentrate on accessible areas. The evaluation should also cover cross-cutting themes like rights-based approach (RBA), conflict-sensitivity, protection mainstreaming, gender mainstreaming, environmental sensitivity, sustainability and accountability to affected populations (AAP).

3. Evaluation criteria

The evaluation will be conducted based on the programme strategy and intervention logic. The evaluation criteria should include relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability to assess the programme’s overall performance. It will also examine the programme’s integration of cross-cutting issues such as gender and human rights. Within that same framework, the following are some evaluation questions.

4. Evaluation questions

More specifically, the evaluation will seek to provide informed answers to the following questions:

Relevance:

1. To what extent do the programme’s objectives and outcomes align with local, national, and community priorities, addressing immediate humanitarian needs and long-term sustainable development?

2. To what extent did the programme address conflict drivers and factors for peace identified?

3. particularly in response to the 2023 crisis? To what extent did the programme respond to contextual shifts, including the April 2023 crisis?

4. How well does the programme contribute to the local and national priorities for long-term recovery and sustainable development?

5. To what extent has the programme identified, built on, and supported existing local peace initiatives and structures in target localities or states?

6. To what extent was the intervention designed in ways that respond to the specific rights, needs and priorities of different rights-holders, including women and girls, and people of relevant marginalised groups

7. To what extent were gender mainstreaming issues considered in programme design and implementation? Assess the extent to which the programme intervention empowered women and youth.

Coherence:

1. Did the intervention effectively complement and avoid duplicating other ongoing humanitarian and development efforts? What unique added value did the programme bring compared to these other initiatives?

2. Were there any potential conflicts or inconsistencies between the intervention and other initiatives carried out by programme partners or other organisations? If so, how were these challenges addressed?

3. To what extent did the implementing partners complement each other’s work and leverage their respective comparative advantages?

4. To what extent is the intervention consistent with the human rights-based and gender equality policies, strategies, and other interventions of the donor and partner institutions

5. Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict sensitivity? To what extent was it implemented?

Effectiveness:

1. Were the programme approaches across its various components (e.g., access to basic services, human security, mitigating explosive ordnance risks, and adopting human security concepts in policies and programs) effective in achieving the intended outcomes, specifically in supporting community resilience, peacebuilding, and social cohesion?

2. Did the programme effectively identify and address the evolving needs of target beneficiaries, particularly in response to the 2023 crisis

3. How effectively did the project bridge short-term humanitarian support with long-term development goals, ensuring sustainable impacts?

4. What external socio-economic, political, or environmental factors influenced the programme’s performance and its ability to achieve the desired results?

5. Were the partnerships with local organizations, government bodies, and other humanitarian and development actors effective in contributing to the achievement of programme objectives?

6. How did the 2023 conflict impact the programme’s objectives, and how well did the programme adapt to the changing needs and context because of this conflict?

7. How effective was the community-based approach in promoting resilience and social cohesion

8. To what extent did the project substantively mainstream gender and support gender and youth-responsive peacebuilding

9. To what extent has the intervention promoted meaningful participation and enabled rightsholders to be aware of and claim their rights

Efficiency:

1. To what extent were programme resources (time, funding, staffing, expertise) utilized effectively and efficiently to address the most urgent priorities and deliver the intended outputs?

2. How well did the overall programme management structure, including field presence and staffing, support the efficient implementation of programme activities? Was the structure adequate for achieving the intended goals

3. Were the programme activities carried out on schedule, and were the expected outputs delivered on time and in the planned quantities? If not, what were the contributing factors for any delays or deviations?

4. What were the key strengths and weaknesses in the programme’s implementation, particularly in relation to the efficient use of resources?

5. Have the associated risks of the programme at the national, state, and community levels been anticipated and addressed?

6. What monitoring and evaluation mechanisms were employed by IOM and its partners to track the programme’s progress and ensure timely adjustments? Were these mechanisms efficient and responsive?

Impact:

1. How effectively has the programme contributed to achieving its long-term intended outcomes? Are these outcomes still pertinent given the current socio-economic and political context?

2. Do the programme partners and beneficiaries believe that the intervention has meaningfully contributed to strengthening community resilience, fostering peaceful co-existence, enhancing social cohesion, and supporting economic development

3. The programme included several components. Were all these components effective in delivering the objectives? If not, what challenges were encountered, and what additional aspects should be considered for future programming?

4. How well did the intervention leverage existing resources, previous peacebuilding and social cohesion interventions and local capacities to enhance its impact and sustainability?

5. Have there been any lasting changes in the target populations’ socio-economic conditions or overall well-being that can be directly attributed to the programme’s interventions?

6. To what extent did the intervention have an impact on peacebuilding processes, prevention or resolution of conflicts and trauma recovery

7. Did the programme result in any unintended positive or negative consequences for the target populations or the community at large?

Sustainability:

1. To what extent did the programme’s design and implementation strategies incorporate sustainability principles? Are there mechanisms established by the programme that are likely to ensure the continuation of key initiatives once the programme ends?

2. Which programme activities and benefits are most likely to continue if external funding were to cease? What factors contribute to their sustainability?

3. How sustainable are the programme’s outcomes, particularly given the challenges posed by the ongoing conflict?

4. What systems, structures, or partnerships have been put in place to ensure that the benefits and progress achieved by the programme continue beyond its formal lifespan?

The evaluator/firm may identify additional questions to better respond to the evaluation objectives and purpose.

5. Evaluation methodology

The evaluator/firm is expected to design and propose a participatory, results-driven mix of quantitative and qualitative methods that aligns with the objectives of the evaluation. This should include a comprehensive data collection strategy that integrates various methods such as surveys, interviews, document reviews, focus group discussions, observation, and the analysis of monitoring data. To facilitate this process, IOM will provide all necessary programme documents, including proposals, technical assessments, progress reports, and monitoring data.

The methodology should also outline how the data collected will be analysed, desegrated by social criteria, such as gender and location, and interpreted to ensure robust findings. In addition to collecting primary data, the evaluation will utilise data collected throughout the program period, including progress reports and monitoring data.

Considering the security challenges in Sudan, the evaluator/firm must consider potential access limitations and propose alternative approaches to data collection if target areas become inaccessible. These challenges may include security restrictions hindering data collection in certain areas, potential bias in available data, and difficulties in verifying the accuracy and reliability of information at the field level. A sound understanding of the local context is crucial, and the evaluator/firm should present a strategy to mitigate risks associated with restricted access and insecurity.

Key stakeholders include project partners, local communities, relevant government agencies, programme staff, and donor representatives. The evaluator/firm may also recommend additional stakeholders, providing a clear rationale for their inclusion.

Additionally, the evaluation should encompass cross-cutting themes such as a rights-based approach (RBA), protection mainstreaming, gender and disability inclusion, conflict sensitivity, environmental sensitivity and sustainability, and accountability to affected populations (AAP).

6. Ethics, norms, and standards

The evaluation must comply with IOM Data Protection Principles, United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) Norms and Standards for evaluations and relevant ethical guidelines.

7. Evaluation deliverables

Expected evaluation deliverables to be produced by the evaluator/firm are:

1. Inception report1 with a detailed description of the evaluation approach, methodology, and work plan. The inception report should also include an evaluation matrix and draft data collection tools and should be written in a way that demonstrates a good understanding of the assignment as outlined in the ToRs.

2. First draft evaluation report1 Supported by annexes of quantitative/qualitative analysis. The report should not exceed 20 pages, supported by quantitative/qualitative analysis annexes. The final evaluation report will focus on an analytical comparison of the programme’s implementation approaches and achievements and their complementarity.

3. Final evaluation report, Evaluation brief and Management Response Matrix1 supported by annexes of quantitative/qualitative analysis. The final evaluation report will focus on an analytical comparison of the programme’s implementation approaches and achievements and their complementarity.

4. PowerPoint slides and presentation to the relevant IOM team on the overall findings of the evaluation.

All deliverables shall be provided in English and meet good language standards. The final evaluation report should meet the standards laid out in the UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports.2

8. Specifications of roles:

8.1. Evaluator/firm:

• Lead data collection method development (tools, sample size, methodology) with support from the M&E Officer and Program Manager input.
• Revise and incorporate IOM team feedback on methodology and tools.
• Coordinate and lead data collection, informing the Evaluation Manager of any issues.
• Conduct KIIs with IOM teams, partners, donors, and government stakeholders.
• Clean and analyse all collected data.
• Interact with the Evaluation Manager and update on progress and challenges.
• Submit deliverables according to the timeline.

8.2. IOM Sudan Team – Transition, Recovery and Development Unit

• Provide the consultant/firm with all relevant information, documents, proposals, and reports.
• Provide timely feedback on data collection tools, methodology, inception and evaluation reports.
• Facilitate and coordinate KIIs with the IOM team, partners, donors, and government officials (as needed).

9. Time Schedule

The evaluator/firm is expected to start the assignment by 01 April 2025 and to submit the final evaluation report and relevant annexes no later than 20 May 2025. The consultant/firm will complete the scope of work in about 18 working days. The table below offers an indicative timeline for the tasks involved. The consultant/firm is requested to propose a realistic timeline for delivering the final products within the timeframe.

Activity TimeLine

1. Desk review 3 days
2. Preparation and Submission of an inception report, including all data collection tools as annexe 2 days
3. Data collection and Field Work (remote and non-remote, depending on the security situation) 8 days
4. Presentation of the preliminary findings and recommendations 2 days
5. Preparation and submission of a first draft of the evaluation report 2 days
6. Submission of a revised draft evaluation report 2 days
7. Submission of a final draft of the evaluation report and evaluation brie 01 day

10. Evaluation budget and payment

IOM seeks a qualified and independent individual evaluator/firm to conduct this final evaluation. The evaluator/firm must provide a detailed budget, covering costs associated with data collection, logistics, translation services, and any other expenses related to completing the evaluation. While IOM’s data collection at the field level in Sudan will be adapted based on stakeholder access, the evaluator/firm must design a methodology that considers the ongoing security situation and limitations on access.

Disbursement of the evaluation consultancy fees will be made upon satisfactory submission and approval of the following deliverables by IOM:

• Inception report – (Twenty per cent (20%) will be paid upon submission and approval of the Inception Report.)
  • First draft of the evaluation report – (Fifty per cent (50%) will be paid upon submission of the first draft of the evaluation report based on the provided template)
  • PowerPoint presentation on overall findings
  • Final evaluation report, Evaluation brief and Management Response Matrix – Thirty per cent (30%) will be paid upon approval of all deliverables)

The evaluator/firm will closely collaborate with the Programme Manager TRD and M&E officer, Sudan, to prepare a detailed management response matrix.

Required Qualifications and Experience and/or skills required:

Education:

A minimum of a master’s degree or equivalent in Humanitarian Studies, Social Sciences, Monitoring and Evaluation, Development Studies, or a related field

Experience:

At least five years of experience in evaluating similar projects or programs.

Skills:

• Demonstrated expertise in evaluation methodologies, including quantitative and qualitative research techniques.
• Proven ability to manage and coordinate large-scale evaluation projects, including planning, coordination and reporting.

Languages:

Fluency in English is required, and knowledge of Arabic is advantageous, especially for staff involved in primary data collection at the field level

Competencies:

IOM’s competency framework can be found online. Competencies will be assessed during the selection process.
Values – all IOM staff members must abide by and demonstrate these values:

• Inclusion and respect for diversity: respects and promotes individual and cultural differences; encourages diversity and inclusion wherever possible.
• Integrity and transparency: maintains high ethical standards and acts in a manner consistent with organizational principles/rules and standards of conduct.
• Professionalism: demonstrates ability to work in a composed, competent and committed manner and exercises careful judgment in meeting day-to-day challenges.

Core Competencies – behavioral indicators level 2

• Teamwork: develops and promotes effective collaboration within and across units to achieve shared goals and optimize results.
• Delivering results produces and delivers quality results in a service-oriented and timely manner; is action oriented and committed to achieving agreed outcomes.
• Managing and sharing knowledge continuously seeks to learn, share knowledge and innovate.
• Accountability: takes ownership of achieving the Organization’s priorities and assumes responsibility for own action and delegated work.
• Communication: encourages and contributes to clear and open communication; explains complex matters in an informative, inspiring, and motivational way.

Managerial Competencies – Behavioral indicators – Level 2

• Leadership: Provides a clear sense of direction, leads by example and demonstrates the ability to carry out the Organization’s vision. Assists others to realize and develop their leadership and professional potential.
• Empowering others: Creates an enabling environment where staff can contribute their best and develop their potential.
• Building Trust: Promotes shared values and creates an atmosphere of trust and honesty.
• Strategic thinking and vision: Works strategically to realize the Organization’s goals and communicates a clear strategic direction.
• Humility: Leads with humility and shows openness to acknowledging own shortcomings.

Others:

APPLICATION PROCESS

The interested applicant is invited to submit to IOM Sudan specific documents as stated below:

• An updated CV, overview of previous employment undertaken and contact details, accompanied by a cover letter detailing the applicant’s motivation.
• The appointment is subject to funding confirmation.
• Appointment will be subject to certification that the candidate is medically fit for appointment.
• No late applications will be accepted.
• IOM has zero tolerance with discrimination and does not discriminate against HIV/AIDS status.
• This position is open to all nationalities.
• Vacancy close at 23:59 local time Khartoum, Sudan on the respective closing date. No late applications will be accepted.