FINAL EVALUATION OF THE UNITED NATIONS TRUST FUND FOR HUMAN SECURITY PROJEC
Job Description
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
1
TITLE: FINAL EVALUATION OF REINTEGRATION AND RECOVERY ASSISTANCE IN AREAS OF RETURN IN IRAQ
Commissioned by: IOM IRAQ COUNTRY OFFICE
The International Organization for Migration (IOM) is part of the United Nations System as the leading inter-governmental organization promoting since 1951 humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all, with 174 member states and presence in over 100 countries. IOM works on migration and development, facilitating migration, regulating migration and solutions for forced migration. IOM activities that cut across these areas include the promotion of international migration law, policy debate and guidance, protection of migrants’ rights, migration health and the gender dimension of migration.
1. EVALUATION CONTEXT
1.1. Political, Environmental, and Socio-economic Context:
The crisis in Iraq saw the occupation and control of large areas of the country by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) followed by government-led military operations to re-take ISIL controlled areas. The armed conflict led to massive internal displacement, and external migration across the borders. After the defeat of ISIL was declared by Prime Minister Abadi in December 2017, Iraq quickly started to transition to a post-conflict environment. The Government of Iraq (GoI) and international organisations are now focused on the returns and recovery of conflict-affected communities. This includes planning and delivering reintegration services for returnees inside Iraq and those returning from abroad, and strategies for integrating the IDPs who will not be able to return, for reasons related to security/protection and other concerns.
After the retaking of Mosul in September 2017, large numbers of displaced populations have started to return home. Many conflict-affected areas and communities are receiving a high number of returnees which puts the already-limited resources and services available under strain. The returns of many IDPs can potentially raise tensions in the community due to competition for resources and amplify sectarian ethno-religious divisions and perceived affiliations with parties in the conflict. Stayees and returnees both face harsh living conditions, with limited access to employment opportunities and basic services, and poor housing conditions.
As people return to their areas of origin, there is need to ensure that the returns to the areas of origin are sustainable, and conditions are put in place to promote durable solutions for returnees. There is a need to determine areas where there are no sustainable returns and what is causing the returnees to move, and possible intervention to promote durable solutions in these areas, by developing tools to determine priority areas of assistance.
Obstacles to return
Concurrently, a number of IDPs and Iraqis abroad are unable to return to their locations of origin. This is due to a variety of reasons, specific to each community and location, but principally due to security and protection concerns. For some ethnic minorities, the reasons are related to not only destruction of their locations of origin but also the fact that new and security actors exercise control, the ethnoreligious composition at the areas of origin has changed, there are psychological factors related to fear of return, as well as families perceived affiliated with extremist groups.
Capacity and policy of the Government of Iraq
The conflict depleted the capacity and resources of the government to provide services, and co-ordinate at the central and local levels, including the critical functions of migration management and security. The capacity in various government ministries has been challenged, characterised by a limited number of adequately trained staff, lack of data and skills in migration data collection and analysis, and lack of cooperation and information sharing between the government ministries dealing with migration.
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
2
1.2. Summary of the IOM project:
Donor Project Title Start date End date Locations Total Budget
EU DEVCO
“SAFE RETURN - Reintegration
and recovery assistance in areas
of return in Iraq (AWDA
AMINA)”
6-Dec-18 5-Dec-23
Diyala, Salah al-Din,
Ninewah, Dohuk,
Baghdad, Basra,
Suleymaniah Erbil
9,000,000.00 EUR
The project aimed to support the objectives set by the Commission’s Decision on the Special Measure for “Addressing migration and forced displacement challenges in Asia and the Middle East: A comprehensive regional EU Response”. The project followed the lines of the commitments undertaken by the Commission in the Agenda on Migration and within the framework of the Sustainable Agenda 2030, especially regarding the progressive achievement of the Sustainable Development Goal 10, target 10.7, to facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well-managed policies.
The overall objective of the project was to contribute to the Government of Iraq’s efforts in strengthening migration governance through a comprehensive approach including institutional support and community-based reintegration services. With this overall objective, the project addressed several challenges Iraq is currently facing, namely: social tensions due to the high number of displaced and returnee populations, poor socio-economic opportunities for reintegration of IDPs and returnees inside Iraq, and lack of adequate capacity of governmental institutions to enable fast effective and sustainable migration management. Therefore, IOM aimed to address livelihood and social cohesion needs in return areas, benefiting returnees and stayees alike. In addition, this project focused on the pressing need to strengthen inter-ministerial coordination among the governmental entities involved in return and reintegration and enhance the government’s capacity to plan a cohesive and long-term strategy for migration management. Capacity building and technical support were provided to the government to do so. Through creation and joint management of the Community Resource Centres in the major areas of return, the project aimed to increase the government’s operational capacities to manage the complex return and reintegration process and help create relevant services for returnees, thus expanding their opportunities for durable socio-economic reintegration and enhancing the communities’ wellbeing, resilience and social cohesion.
The final beneficiaries of the action were IDPs, returning IDPs, Iraqi returnees from Europe and other countries, stayees and the host community. While the overall focus of the project was on locations of protracted internal displacement and areas of high returns of IDPs, locations with returnees from Europe and other countries were included in the project activities.
The overall objective of the project was achieved through complementary and inter-linked specific objectives:
SO1: Improved GoI migration governance structure and policies
SO2: Strengthened coordination of reintegration infrastructure in return areas
SO3: Enhanced socio-economic inclusion of conflict-affected populations
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
3
2. EVALUATION PURPOSE
The evaluation is an IOM final evaluation to be conducted through an external firm or consultant in all the targeted governorate and locations. Lessons learned, best practices, and recommendations will be used at a strategic level to improve implementation, and service delivery for future interventions.
The evaluation specific objectives aim to:
- Assess the overall project's performance from planning, implementation and knowledge management by identifying the key strengths and areas of gaps and make the necessary recommendations for improvement.
- Document vital lessons-learned/best practices for future strategies and interventions.
- Support the use of relevant and timely contributions to organisational learning, informed decision-making processes resulting from the analysis, conclusions or recommendations as well as and accountability for results.
- Endorse IOM's obligation on transparency and Accountability to the Affected Populations (AAP), donors and Iraqi Government authorities as well as assess the effectiveness of IOM’s Complaint Feedback Mechanism effectiveness and the level of beneficiaries’ usage.
3. EVALUATION SCOPE
The scope should focus on all the specific objectives and results of the project as below:
- Improved Government of Iraq migration governance structure and policies.
- Increased technical capacities of relevant Government Ministries for sustainable return
- Strenghened institutional capacity of Government of Iraq on migration governance
- Government has increased capacity to stregngten migration governance and legal framwrowks in Iraq
- Government has increased technical knowlege and ability to collect, use and report migration data
- Stregnghtened coordination of reintegration infrastructure in return areas
- A neutral, inclusive and safe space established and functional, to mitigate vulnerabilities created due to protracted displacement
- Strengthened network of government led Community Resource Centers (CRCs) as the main GoI instrument for assessment and implementation of recovery actions
- Increased understanding of the local socio-economic context in the areas of return and protracted displacement
- Enhanced access to information for communities
- Strengthened reintegration co-ordination and services in the areas of return and areas of protracted displacement
- Comprehensive reintegration support and assistance provided to returnees
- Enhance socio-economic inclusion of conflict-affected populations
- Increased income-generating capacity of conflict-affected populations
- Improved access of crisis-affected populations to socio-economic and other reintegration services
- Increased capacity of community members to defuse tensions and address conflicts
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
4
4. EVALUATION CRITERIA
Project's performance should be evaluated against the evaluation OECD/DAC criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, sustainability and impact. In total, the evaluation criteria form the basis and guidance for the evaluation suggested questions as presented below.
5. EVALUATION GUIDING QUESTIONS
Relevance
a) How appropriate are the project’s intended results for the context within which it operates?
b) Was the project aligned with and supportive of national strategies?
c) To what extent were the needs of stakeholders taken into account in project design?
Effectiveness
d) To what extent were the activities implemented aligned with the needs and gaps of the key project stakeholders (GoI and returnees)?
e) To what extent are the project activities leading to improved coordination among the different actors of the GoI?
Efficiency
f) How efficient is the overall management of the project?
Sustainability
g) Are structures, resources and processes in place to ensure that benefits generated by the project continue once external support ceases?
h) To what extent are the results achieved sustainable?
i) To what extent were stakeholders involved/consulted during the project?
Impact
j) What significant change(s) does the intervention bring or is expected to bring, whether positive or negative, intended or unintended?
k) What are the remaining gaps in the project that could be addressed through a potential Phase 2 of the project?
6. EVALUATION METHODOLOGY
The firm/ consultant is ultimately responsible for the development of the overall methodological approach of the evaluation and is expected to propose methodologies that the firm/ consultant considers most appropriate to achieve the aims of this evaluation.
Efforts shall be exerted to safeguard the inclusivity and engagement of relevant stakeholders to bring out their voices on how they perceived the implementation of the project; notably, the returnees, IDPs, host communities, the most vulnerable conflict-affected populations, civil societies, government counterparts, community and local authorities' leaders. Key Informants Interviews (KIIs) with representatives from the community, government authorities, and other relevant actors (if any) should be held. Similarly, interviews, focus groups discussions (FGDs), and surveys with a selected sample from the returnees, IDPs and host-communities or beneficiaries should be conducted to assess how the project has responded according to their expectations, objectives and priorities.
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
5
The evaluation processes shall be in line with IOM Data Protection Principles1, IOM code of conduct, Do No Harm principles, UNEG norms and standards for evaluations2. The results of this evaluation will contribute to improving learning for future interventions.
The evaluation is expected to take place in-person and to travel to Iraq. The firm/ consultant may engage national consultants based in Iraq to support their work.
Summary of the Evaluation Methodology and Data Collection Tools
Table 01: Evaluation Methodology and Data Collection Tools
Method
Tasks
Tools required
Desk study
Review of proposal, project reports, work plans and other documents.
Inception report
Key Informant Interviews
Identify and secure an interview with relevant KIs: programme staff, community and stakeholder's representatives (IDPs, host-communities, governmental authorities, civil societies, and other actors).
Structured questionnaire
On-site observation
Conduct field visits, observation of project activities and sites.
Observation guides
Focus group discussion (FGD)
• FGDs to explore stakeholder opinions and judgements towards the engagement level, processes, and project implementation.
• In-depth information on the needs, motivations, intentions, and experiences of the group to assess how the project has responded according to their expectations.
FGD questionnaire
Beneficiary Interviews and surveys
Identify and secure interviews with beneficiaries (sample for each activity should be selected based on a statistically relevant sample per the survey system, that is, a 95% confidence level and a confidence interval of 5).
Structured questionnaire
7. EVALUATION DELIVERABLES
The evaluator should produce:
1- First draft of inception report as per the IOM template including the tools/materials. A data collection plan should also be submitted with the inception report: 09th March 2024 COB Baghdad Time
2- A final version of inception report: 19th March 2024 COB Baghdad Time
3- Providing weekly report on activities starting from the data collection: every Thursday
4- Routine meetings and discussions with the M&E Officer, Programme Manager/ Project Team, Project focal points : based on needs
5- First draft of the final evaluation report (based on IOM template) with a summary of the evaluation brief (2-page evaluation brief with IOM template). All data collected from the different sources must also be shared with IOM with the 1st draft of the final report : 18th May 2024 COB Baghdad Time
6- Meeting with IOM Team to present the main findings, recommendations and challenges: 19th May 2024
1 IOM Data Protection Manual, https://publications.iom.int/books/iom-data-protection-manual.
2 UNEG norms and standards for evaluation: http://www.uneval.org/document/guidance-documents.
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
6
7- Final version of the evaluation report, including a) updated Results Framework and b) Management and Action Plan Matrix: 02nd June 2024 COB Baghdad Time
8. EVALUATION PROPOSED WORKPLAN
Table 02: Evaluation workplan
9. EVALUATION BUDGET AND DISBURSEMENT
The payment terms shall be issued per the terms and condition of the Purchase Order (PO) based on the disbursement schedule below;
• Satisfactory inception report submission – 30%
• Submission of first draft of the evaluation report together with raw data – 30%
• Satisfactory final report with relevant annexes – 40%
The final payment shall be issued not less than 30 days upon (1) the completion of the work, (2) receive of the final original invoice and (3) receive of the final evaluation report and summary of the evaluation brief following the incorporation of feedback from the IOM Team.
Activity
Responsible
Location
Start
Inception report
Data Collection and Reporting
February
March
March
April
May
June
1. Kick off meeting
IOM
Home-based
X
18th Feb
2. First draft of the inception report: report,
tools for the FGD, survey and KIIs, data collection
plan.
Evaluation firm
Home-based
X
09th March
3. Final version of inception report
Evaluation firm
X
19th March
4. Fieldwork – data collection
Evaluation firm
Iraq - Field
X
X
5. First draft of evaluation report
Evaluation firm
Home-based
X
18th May
6. Meeting to present main findings, recommendations
Evaluation firm
Home-based
X
19th May
7. Final version of the evaluation report
Evaluation firm
Home based
X
2nd June
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
7
10. REQUIREMENTS
An international consultancy firm with valid registrations, and it should have legal registration paperwork in Iraq, and formal access to the locations of the programme implementation.
The selected firm/ consultant should possess the following minimum qualifications as follows:
Table 03: Qualifications and Experience
Qualifications and experience
Academic skills
Master's degree in advanced applied research/evaluation methods/ economics, business, 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.
Previous Experience
o 5 of years evaluating humanitarian programmes
o At least two evaluation contracts of similar value, nature and complexity implemented over the last three years or more.
o Strong background in monitoring and evaluation techniques and ideal experience in conflict-affected countries.
o Conversant with the context in Iraq, other countries in the Middle East or MENA region.
o Experience in developing and implementing evaluations with the UN, International NGOs or donors.
o Familiarity with the OECD/DAC and UNEG evaluation framework.
o Excellent knowledge and experience in survey design, implementation of surveys and statistical data analysis.
o Excellent analytical, communication, writing and presentation skills in English.
o Ability to analyse complex intervention.
Accountability
o Creates a respectful office environment free of harassment and retaliation and promotes the prevention of sexual exploitation and abuse (PSEA).
o Accepts and gives constructive criticism.
o Follows all relevant procedures, processes, and policies related to the organisational principles.
o Meets deadline, cost, and quality requirements for outputs.
o Monitors own work to correct errors or incorporate inputs.
o Takes responsibility for meeting commitments and for any shortcomings.
Orientation
o Identifies the immediate and peripheral programme staff of own work.
o Establishes and maintains productive working relationships with staff.
o Identifies and monitors changes in the needs of evaluation, including donors, governments and project beneficiaries.
o Keeps staff/managers informed of developments and setbacks related to the evaluation.
11. SUBMISSION OF APPLICATION/EXPRESSION OF INTEREST
EVALUATION TERMS OF REFERENCE
8
The interested firm/ consultant should submit a technical proposal with a detailed evaluation methodology, indicative work plan, and the overall approach to the evaluation and an all-inclusive budget proposal no later than 11th January 2024. The submission of proposals (technical and financial) and/or related questions should be directed via procurement email to: IRAQCFP@iom.int with the title Reference number 22189
The submission should include the followings:
o Company/ Consultant profile including a history of similar projects (if applicable);
o A cover letter;
o CV and biographies of independent consultant/consulting firm and key assessment team members (if any);
o References for each evaluation team member or the firm;
o An example of a recent evaluation report.
Important Note: When evaluating the competing applicants, IOM will consider the written qualifications/capability, financial offer, the information provided by the applicants, and any other information obtained by IOM through its research.
IOM reserves the right to change the calendar of events or revise any parts of the requirements of the evaluation at any time.
