Consultant (Final External Evaluator) At International Organization for Migration

Vacancy Notice Number: CON#2024/018

Position Title: Consultant (Final External Evaluator)

Classification: Consultancy Contract

Duty Station: Türkiye

Deadline of Applications: 23 October 2024

Number of People to be hired: 1

Category: Internal & External

General Functions:

Commissioned by: IOM Türkiye, Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability, and Learning (MEAL) Unit

Managed by: Protection Unit and MEAL Unit

Evaluation context

The International Organization for Migration (IOM), now the UN Migration Agency, was established in 1951 and is the leading inter-governmental organization in migration, working closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners. With 173 Member States, eight states holding observer status and offices in over 100 countries, IOM is dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all.

The IOM established its operations in Türkiye in 1991. IOM’s partnership with the Government of Türkiye (GoT) was formalized in November 2004, when Türkiye became an IOM Member State. IOM Türkiye closely works with the government of the Republic of Türkiye, regional authorities, the UN, donors and civil society organizations to address migration challenges in Türkiye by implementing programmes through three pillars: Resilience, Mobility, and Governance.

The project titled ‘Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration of Irregular Migrants in Türkiye,’ funded by the European Union, with a span of 42 months (22 June 2021-21 December 2024 as originally planned) contributed to the objectives outlined under Action 8 (Home Affairs) of the Financing Agreement for Annual Action Programme for Türkiye for the Year 2016, which seeks to contribute towards improving Türkiye’s migration and asylum management in line with the EU standards and best practices. In the context of legal and irregular migration, national strategies have been put into place to raise the standards of Türkiye in line with the EU and international standards. The Türkiye 2019 Report notes that “Türkiye is working on developing a national mechanism for Assisted Voluntary Return.”[1] In line with this, capacity building on Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) is stipulated among the priorities of Türkiye’s action plans.

Therefore, as part of Türkiye’s current efforts to upgrade its migration management system, Türkiye intends to continue developing an effective, sustainable and rights-based AVRR mechanism in its current return policies framework. Effective return policy and AVRR programme in Türkiye will promote enhanced cooperation with the EU by promoting coherence between the policy frameworks (including return policy) of EU member states and Türkiye and providing the AVRR option on a more consistent and widespread basis to migrants stranded in Türkiye. To contribute to overall and specific objectives of the action, the activities that have been carried out in Phase III of the project include the provision of information and counselling activities for the main target group referred by PMM to IOM; the provision of gender-sensitive return and reintegration assistance to migrants; and capacity-building workshops particularly for personnel of public authorities, civil society organizations, and representatives of countries of origin and transit in the context of supporting coordination on the AVRR systems, as well as improving AVRR assistance for vulnerable migrants. Within this context, the proposed action was highly relevant for the PMM to support its efforts to strengthen Türkiye’s AVRR system as one coherent component of its overall migration management strategy.

This action is the third phase of the AVRR programme, the previous phases of which were also supported by EU’s Instrument to Pre-Accession (IPA) funds as part of their 2011 and 2014 programming. During the AVRR Phase I, the focus of capacity building was on establishing the AVRR mechanism. Phase III focused on delivering knowledge on AVRR standards among governmental and non-governmental partners (including consulates and NGOs) and identifying mechanisms required to assist UMCs (Unaccompanied Migrant Children).

Overall objective: To contribute towards improving Türkiye’s migration and asylum management in line with the EU standards and best practices.

Specific objective: To support PMM in the establishment of a comprehensive and sustainable assisted voluntary return and reintegration system. To achieve these objectives, the following activities have been implemented:

Major Duties and Responsibilities:

Evaluation purpose and objective

The main objective of the final evaluation is to assess the implementation and results of the project ‘Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration of Irregular Migrants in Türkiye’, implemented between June 2022 and December 2024. Furthermore, the evaluation will build upon the results of the evaluation conducted under AVRR Phase II and will assess to what extent recommendations formulated by the evaluator and subsequently endorsed by the Phase II Steering Committee were fulfilled.

This evaluation consists of both an accountability function with a summative component (assessing the current project activities and implementation) and a learning function with a formative component, which will focus on informing the further project designs and implementation.

The evaluation will examine the project’s implementation as well as the overall performance in delivering the outputs described in the project documents, aiming at devising and implementing any necessary adjustments for future implementations. Findings and specific recommendations are expected to inform future IOM programming in this area. Thus, this evaluation will be a lesson-learning and forward-looking exercise rather than purely an assessment of past results. The emphasis on learning lessons speaks to the concept of understanding what has and what has not worked as a guide for future planning.

Specific objectives:

1. To analyze the project implementation and assess how project activities and results contribute towards the achievement of set objectives,
2. To assess and document the effectiveness and sustainability of the implementation of AVRR activities
3. To provide recommendations on strengthening M&E processes within the programme in line with IOM global AVRR standards to enhance efficiency and accountability.
4. Analyzing the strengths and weaknesses of the project approach; looking at project performance and capturing achievements; determining challenges and best practices/lessons learned; and informing the project team and stakeholders about developing similar return and reintegration projects in the future.

The evaluation will also give the donor and stakeholders an opportunity, especially the Presidency of Migration Management (PMM), to assess the relevance and accountability of the project to the intended beneficiaries, which are PMM, governmental and non-governmental institutions, migrants, and host communities of Turkiye.

Based on the collation and analysis of relevant data and information, the evaluation will generate evidence, conclusions and key lessons and make recommendations concerning IOM’s future AVRR programme. To this end, the evaluation process will include a review of project deliverables and is expected to provide recommendations on strengthening the program. The results of this evaluation are mainly intended to be used by IOM management in the Mission for review in current and future projects, in coordination with project partners, and to assess organizational effectiveness in implementing strategy. Upon completion of the evaluation, a half-day event will be organized in Ankara with the participation of Steering Committee members to present the evaluation recommendations and plan response measures to address them. During the event, the international consultant(s) who performed the evaluation will present the evaluation’s main findings. Based on the presentation, project stakeholders will discuss actions to be taken by the project to address such findings and enhance the capacities of all parties involved.

Evaluation scope

Temporal focus: The final external evaluation will cover the entire project implementation period from 22 June 2021 until the end of the project activities.

Geographic focus: The geographic coverage of the evaluation will align with the implementation of the project in Turkiye and the main countries of origin. As of June 2024, the project provided return assistance to migrants from 68 countries of origin. However, a sample of countries and migrant groups will be decided by the evaluator(s) and IOM team during the inception period based on certain criteria, such as the current situation in the country of origin, availability of resources, and returnees.

Programmatic focus: The scope of this evaluation will encompass outcomes and how they have led to the achievement of the objective. It will also cover the project’s full implementation up to the evaluation’s time. Outputs will be evaluated for their contribution to achieving project outcomes and objectives and determine the project’s impact. The evaluation will also provide tangible recommendations, good practices and lessons learned for future or similar programs. It will alsoinclude an analysis of the integration of IOM cross-cutting themes of gender, accountability to affected populations, protection, and rights-based approaches in project activities and implementation.

Evaluation criteria

The evaluation will cover the criteria of relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the project and, to the extent possible, will address the likely impact. It will also examine the project’s complementarity and coordination with other relevant interventions under the criterion of coherence. The OECD-DAC definitions will guide the evaluation.

• Relevance: The extent to which the intervention’s objectives and design respond to beneficiaries’ global, country, and partner/institution needs, policies, and priorities and continue to do so if circumstances change.
• Coherence: The compatibility of the intervention with other interventions in a country, sector, or institution.
• Effectiveness: The extent to which the intervention achieved or is expected to achieve its objectives and results, including any differential results across groups.
• Efficiency: The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in an economical and timely way.
• Impact: The extent to which the intervention has generated or is expected to generate significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.
• Sustainability: The extent to which the net benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue.

Evaluation Questions

Relevance

1. To what extent do the project, its objective, and targets remain relevant in the current national context, including the strategies and priorities of the Government of Türkiye?
2. Was the project aligned with and supportive of IOM national, regional, and/or global strategies, including the IOM Strategic Vision and the Migration Governance Framework?
3. Are reintegration support measures relevant to the socio-economic context and development priorities of the country/community of return?
4. Is the project responsive to the return and reintegration needs and priorities of migrants interested in the AVRR?
5. To what degree are returnees engaged in the reintegration process (including reintegration plan design), considering men, women, and other key groups?
6. To what extent was the project’s approach to protection and direct services aligned with IOM’s global policy on AVRR?

Effectiveness

1. To what extent were the project activities translated into quality, sufficient and timely outputs following the stated plans?
2. To what extent can changes be observed in terms of the intended outcome?
3. To what extent did the project adapt to changing external conditions to ensure project outcomes?
4. Which project strategies were more effective and less effective in producing planned short and long-term results and why?
5. What could have been done differently (design and implementation approaches) to ensure the project is more effective in reaching short and long-term target results?
6. What (if any) lessons can be drawn from the project?
7. How appropriate is the project design to achieve project results in the context in which it operates?
8. What were the factors that facilitated or hindered the achievement of the intended results of the project?

Efficiency

1. To what extent has the project made good use of its human, financial and technical resources in the most cost-efficient way?
2. To what extent has the project used an appropriate combination of tools, approaches, and partnerships to achieve its results?
3. Did the project have the necessary coordination mechanisms and communication flow to ensure that the allocated resources were efficiently converted into the expected outputs?
4. Were the projects’ activities undertaken and outputs delivered on time?
5. Has the project sought synergies with other services (e.g., via the case management referral mechanism) to optimize resource utilization?
6. Have improvements in the application and coordination of AVRR procedures in Turkiye been observed among partners?

Coherence

1. Were the project activities coordinated with other actors in the sector, i.e., were there other interventions with the same type of activities or with similar objectives implemented by IOM or other actors, and to what extent were they complementary to IOM’s activities?

Impact

1. Which positive/negative and intended/ unintended effects could be observed in the project, including those related to the environment, gender, human rights, and governance? To what extent did the project contribute to those changes?
2. 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?
3. Are there any unintended positive or negative effects in relation to anticipated results in the project document?
4. Did the project take timely measures to mitigate any unplanned negative unintended effects?
5. Do migrants and stakeholders believe that the assistance contributed to the safe, timely and dignified return of migrants in a gender and vulnerability-sensitive manner?

Sustainability

1. What are the key project activities and benefits that are likely 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?
2. To what extent is sustainability embedded in project design, implementation and exit strategies? Are there functional mechanisms that ensure the continuity of project activities and benefits beyond the project life cycle?
3. Did the project contribute to the sustainable reintegration of returnees, and to what extent did it contribute to safe and dignified returns?
4. Do the project partners have the financial capacity, and are they committed to maintaining the benefits of the project in the long run?
5. What potential exists for the project stakeholders and partners to carry on with some of the processes and activities put in motion by the project?
6. Did the project strengthen AVRR cooperation among national and local capacities (governmental and non-governmental)?

Cross-cutting themes

1. To what extent has the project addressed cross-cutting issues such as gender, human rights, protection mainstreaming, AAP, and the environment?

The above are key evaluation guiding questions. During the inception phase, in consultation with IOM, the evaluator/evaluation team could develop and modify the questions and supplement them with additional, detailed, and specific sub-questions as appropriate and needed. The evaluation matrix will be prepared by the evaluation team and shared with IOM for review.

The evaluator may also propose additional questions relevant to collecting sufficient data to respond to the evaluation purpose. The focus should be on summative assessment of the performance and results to date, particularly effectiveness about outcome level changes, contribution to impact, and sustainability. The evaluation should also document any lessons learned and good practices to be used by IOM to inform the design and implementation of similar projects, whether in the country or globally. Finally, recommendations should highlight any actions that could be taken to strengthen performance and achievement of results in ongoing or future similar projects.

Evaluation methodology

The evaluation should involve theory-based, participative, and mixed-method approaches that combine various data collection methods and data sources, including consultation and inclusion of all relevant stakeholders. However, the evaluator(s) will be responsible for developing a detailed evaluation methodology that will be followed to respond to the above evaluation purpose and questions. A mixed methods approach is expected to be followed to get the diverse data required to reach an objective assessment of whether the project achieved what was set out to do and draw useful recommendations, lessons and conclusions. Therefore, it is expected that a combination of quantitative and qualitative methods of data collection will be used, including document review, key informant interviews, surveys, and other data collection methods as necessary to respond to the above set of evaluation questions satisfactorily.

IOM will share relevant background documents and project records as needed by the evaluator or evaluation team. In addition to comprehensive desk reviews and document analysis, the evaluation will require data collection in the countries of origin to conduct interviews with returnees. The evaluation will be participatory and use structured interviewing techniques; additionally, it will take a gender-sensitive and human-rights-based approach.

Methodology for this evaluation should include, but not be limited to, the following quantitative and qualitative data collection methodology:

1. Desk and documentation review, including:
   1. Project documents and progress reports.
   2. National and global strategy documents.
   3. Institutional guidelines of IOM on reintegration and return, including the RRR Policy
   4. Project monitoring reports and indicator performance tracking table.
   5. Data from IOM’s case management system, MiMOSA (modules on monitoring reintegration and beneficiary satisfaction)
   6. Evaluation of the previous AVRR projects
   7. Any other project document shared by IOM during the inception of the evaluation.
2. Primary data from key stakeholders using semi-structured questionnaires (in-person where feasible, otherwise remotely). The in-depth interviews should include:
   1. Interviews conducted with programme beneficiaries in Country of Origin (COO) (in person or via telephone/video call)
   2. Interviews with PMM.
   3. Interviews with involved IOM staff in Turkiye and COO (in person or online)
   4. Any other relevant IOM documentation that could be made available by IOM.

Data will be disaggregated according to

• Age
• Sex
• Nationality and CoO
• Assistance type
• Date of voluntary return

The evaluator(s) might require interpreters for the necessary interviews. Interviews will be scheduled in advance by the evaluator, and phone interviews will be conducted if necessary.

Ethics, norms and standards for evaluation

IOM abides by the Norms and Standards of the UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) and expects all evaluation stakeholders to be familiar with the Ethical Conduct Guidelines of UNEG and the consultant(s) with the UNEG Codes of Conduct. This evaluation will be guided by IOM’s Evaluation Policy, M&E Guidelines, and Guidance on Quality Management of IOM Evaluations, including the quality checking tool for inception reports and final reports. Due regard will be incorporated into the evaluation policies and guidelines of UNHCR and UNFPA. Each UN agency will raise pertinent considerations per their respective institutional policies during the evaluation process. The evaluation must also consider the IOM Data Protection Principles, as laid out in the IOM Data Protection Manual.

Evaluation deliverables

A final evaluation report should be submitted in English to IOM. IOM will decide on the external use and distribution of the final report. A draft report will be shared with IOM Türkiye for comments. The first draft should be submitted to IOM after the fieldwork is completed. Preliminary results should be presented to IOM Türkiye at the end of the field visit.

The evaluator will be responsible for providing the following:

1. The evaluators should develop an inception report[2] that illustrates the approach to the evaluation. The inception report should comprise the evaluation matrix, evaluation data collection instruments to describe their understanding of the TOR and how they will conduct the evaluation, including any revisions to the methodology as required and a detailed provisional work plan. This should be submitted to the IOM Turkiye following the document review phase for comments and discussion with the evaluator to finalize plans before the interview phase.
   1. Following the interview phase, the evaluators should prepare a presentation of the preliminary evaluation findings and tentative conclusions and recommendations. The evaluators will use this to debrief the IOM team and identify and address any misinterpretations or gaps.
   2. Building on the debrief and initial feedback received, the evaluators should prepare a draft evaluation report[3] outlining lessons learned and recommendations. The evaluators will be responsible for compiling comments/feedback, including the comments and feedback from IOM members. The evaluators will finalize the report based on the comments/feedback received.
   3. The final report shall be written in English, meet excellent language standards, be grammatically correct, and proofread. The final report should be structured according to the IOM evaluation report template described in the IOM Project Handbook template for evaluation reports that include the following key sections: an executive summary, list of acronyms, introduction, evaluation context and purpose, evaluation framework and methodology, findings, lessons learned, conclusions and recommendations. Annexes should include the TOR, inception report or evaluation matrix, list of documents reviewed, list of persons interviewed or consulted, data collection instruments, and any other relevant information.
   4. A two-page evaluation brief[4] in English, a succinct summary of the evaluation, the key findings, lessons learnt, and recommendations. IOM will provide a template as guidance, which can be adapted by the evaluators but should be no longer than two pages. Page one should include Identification of audience; Project information (project title, countries covered, project type and code, project duration, project period, donor(s), and budget); Evaluation background (purpose, team, timeframe, type of evaluation, and methodology); Brief description of the project. Page two should summarise the most important evaluation results: Key findings and/or conclusions, best practices and lessons learned (optional), and key recommendations.
   5. Once the evaluation report and brief are finalized and accepted by IOM Turkiye, the evaluator should prepare a draft Management Response Matrix using the IOM template[5] by inserting the recommendations and an indicative timeframe or deadline for implementation. The IOM team will finalize the matrix in coordination with project stakeholders.
   6. Finally, an online presentation of the final key evaluation findings and recommendations will be delivered to key stakeholders, including the IOM team, national partners, and donor representatives. A draft presentation should be shared with the IOM project and MEAL teams, and comments from the IOM teams on the draft presentation should be incorporated into the final version.

All deliverables are to be written in English and meet good language standards. IOM Türkiye will not cover any cost related to interpretation during data collection or translation of the reports; all related expenses should be factored into the budget proposal. The final report should meet the UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports standards.

Upon final approval of the deliverables, the IOM Türkiye MEAL team will coordinate the necessary steps to make the final evaluation findings accessible to all the concerned stakeholders, including posting to IOM’s global Evaluation Repository.

Specifications of roles

The roles of the IOM project team, evaluator(s), and stakeholders are identified below:

External evaluator(s):

• Carry out the evaluation as per the ToR.
  • Implement the data collection, analysis, and reporting activities of the final evaluation.
  • Conduct bilateral meetings with the IOM project team.
  • Provide regular updates and flag any challenges or emerging issues with the IOM project team and MEAL team.
  • Prepare and deliver the inception report, final report, two-page evaluation brief, and the visual presentation (MS PowerPoint) of the evaluation of the findings and recommendations.

The Evaluation Manager will be Marko PEROVIC, who will coordinate and liaise closely with Nilam Sunchuri (M&E Officer) and Melike Arslan (Senior M&E Associate) throughout the evaluation process.

MEAL Unit of IOM:

• Lead the coordination with the evaluator at every phase of the evaluation process
• Agree on the work plan with the evaluator
• Provide a Stakeholder list and support setting up interviews with stakeholders as needed
• Facilitate organizing evaluation documents (information and documents related to the project and M&E reports).
• Review the inception report and related evaluation deliverables.
• Coordinate the review of the evaluation deliverables with the project team, IOM staff, and other key stakeholders.
• Review and ensure the final report incorporates and accepts input related to factual corrections.

Project Team of IOM:

• Provide general information on IOM and projects, as well as IOM resources, including strategy documents and guidelines, general information, and documents related to the project.
• Review the inception report, final report, and related evaluation deliverables.
• Support in-person and virtual meeting scheduling and send meeting request correspondence to identified key stakeholders.
• Support logistical and travel arrangements as required.
• Coordinate with relevant stakeholders, including government counterparts.

Regional Office of IOM Vienna (Regional M&E Officer, Thematic Specialists):

• Review and provide inputs/guidance as needed to the evaluation deliverables.

Government stakeholders/beneficiaries:

• Coordinate with IOM to schedule meetings.
• Provide feedback on the evaluation findings and brief.

Schedule

The final evaluation will take 44 working days, including preparation, data collection, analysis, and reporting (57 days total, including IOM review). The assignment is expected to commence in February 2025, with a final report in April 2025 and a presentation by April 2025. The specific dates will be identified in the discussion with the selected evaluator.

The final evaluation of the project will cover three phases:

Phase 1 – Desk Review Phase – Inception

Proposed timing:

Weeks 1, 2 and 3

Outputs:

• Kick-off meeting minutes

• Workplan and schedule of meetings

• Inception report and presentation (understanding of assignment, work plan, methodology and approach)

• Interview guidelines/questionnaire developed (as required)

Areas to be covered

• Kick-off meeting held

• Project document review conducted

• Presentation (if required)

Location:

IOM Türkiye, online if needed

The Inception Report, including the Evaluation Matrix, will be due within two weeks of the start of the assignment to demonstrate the evaluator’s understanding of the assignment, methodology and approaches to be used, along with the final proposed work plan linked with the identified outputs of the evaluation. The Inception Phase will occur in close coordination between the IOM Türkiye Protection Unit, MEAL Unit and PMM to obtain all the necessary documentation for the desk review and contact information of all relevant stakeholders so that meetings and interviews can be organized as early as possible.

The key tasks of the Desk Review phase are:

• The evaluator and IOM team will have a virtual briefing during the first week of the evaluation process’s start. Relevant IOM colleagues and government focal points will also hold a kick-off meeting to decide on the precise table of contents of the inception report and discuss evaluation questions, information needs, additional fieldwork, and methodology.
• By the first week of the start of the evaluation, the evaluator will review all available information, including project documents and reports provided by IOM and the monitoring reports provided by the MEAL team and identify all additional sources of information.
• Draft an inception report to present the intervention logic, the revised methodology, the work plan, and an evaluation matrix. Together with the inception report, the evaluator will share tools to be applied in the Field phase and the interview schedule with IOM for input and approval.
• Based on the input from the IOM teams, review and finalize the Inception Report, including the evaluation questions, methodology, tools, and work plan for fieldwork. Emphasis should also be put on sampling and evaluation questions, as well as ways to contact returnees.
• The IOM will arrange meetings to ensure a common understanding of the evaluation process, provide necessary information to the evaluator for the logistical arrangement, and provide input to the inception report. If needed, the IOM team will arrange a meeting with the evaluator and other stakeholders to finalize the methodology and work plan and validate the Inception Report.

Phase 2 – Field Phase – Stakeholder Engagement and Analysis

Proposed timing:

Weeks 4 – 8

Outputs:

• Results of documentation review/consultations/interviews

• Draft Evaluation Report

• Presentation and meeting notes

Areas to be covered:

• Interviews and/or surveys and focus group discussions conducted

• Draft evaluation report developed

• Evaluation findings presented for fine-tuning

Location:

IOM Türkiye, online if needed

The main goal of the Stakeholder Engagement and Analysis Phase is to conduct consultations and collect data from key stakeholders (using interviews and/or surveys), including:

1. Protection Department staff in IOM Türkiye
2. Senior Management team in IOM Türkiye
3. Regional Office thematic specialists in IOM’s Regional Office in Vienna
4. Other key staff and project focal points in support units (MEAL, Public Information, Project Development Strategy and Support Unit, Resource Management and Supply Chain Units) in IOM Türkiye
5. Presidency of Migration Management
6. Migrants who benefited from return and reintegration assistance.

The Field Phase should start upon the evaluation manager’s approval of the Inception report. The main tasks of the field phase are:

• Submit a detailed data collection work plan with an indicative list of people to be interviewed, surveys to be undertaken, dates of visit, itinerary, and name of team members in charge. This plan must be applied in a flexible way to accommodate any last-minute changes in the field. If any significant deviation from the agreed work plan or schedule is perceived as creating a risk for the quality or timeline of the evaluation, these should be immediately discussed with the IOM.
• Ensure adequate contact and consultation with IOM and different stakeholders; work closely with the IOM teams during their entire assignment; use the most reliable and appropriate sources of information and harmonize data from various sources to allow ready interpretation. At the end of the field phase, summarize the field work, discuss the reliability and coverage of data collection, and present the preliminary findings in a meeting with the IOM teams.

A precise timeline for the preparation and implementation of data collection and field visits will be established with the selected evaluator(s).

Phase 3 – Finalization and Sharing of Final Report

Proposed timing:

Weeks 8 – 11

Outputs:

• Final Evaluation Report and Final Lessons Learned Report

• Evaluation Brief and Management Response Follow-up Matrix

• Final presentation

Areas to be covered:

• Evaluation Report and Lessons Learned Report in coordination with relevant colleagues finalized

• Evaluation findings and recommendations should be presented to the relevant units of IOM, Senior Management, and key stakeholders.

Location:

IOM Türkiye, online if needed

Based on comments shared by IOM during Phase 2, the evaluator must amend and revise the draft report. Comments requesting methodological quality improvements should be considered, except where there is a demonstrated impossibility, in which case the evaluation team should provide full justification. Comments on the report’s content can be accepted or rejected, with a focus on making factual corrections only. If rejected, the evaluation team must provide a justification and explanation for the decision.

Upon completion of the evaluation report, a half-day event will be organized in Ankara, with the participation of the Steering Committee members and other key stakeholders presenting the evaluation recommendations and planning response measures to address them. Based on the presentation, project stakeholders will discuss actions to be taken by the project to address such findings and enhance the capacities of all parties involved.

The following table gives an overview of the estimated timeline and distribution of responsibilities for a total of 44 working days for the evaluator:

Activity: Kick-off meeting, exchange of relevant project documents. Review documents and preparation of a detailed inception report, including the evaluation matrix and the data collection tool

Responsible party: Evaluator

Number of days: 5 days

Activity: Finalize the inception report and the field visit agenda

Responsible party: Evaluator

Number of days: 2 days

Activity: Planning and facilitation of the data collection activities, including pre-testing, logistical arrangements, and schedule.

Responsible party: Evaluator, in coordination with the IOM Team.

Number of days: 3 days

Activity: Data collection, including travel time.

Responsible party: Evaluator, in coordination with the IOM Team.

**Number of days:**12 days

Activity: Preliminary data analysis, preparation of the presentation, and delivery of the presentation (MS PowerPoint) to the IOM team

Responsible party: Evaluator

**Number of days:**5 days

Activity: A draft evaluation report

Responsible party: Evaluator

Number of days: 8 days

Activity: Submission of the final evaluation report

Responsible party: Evaluator

Number of days: 5 days

Activity: Development and finalization of the evaluation brief in English

Responsible party: Evaluator

Number of days: 3 days

Activity: The final evaluation presentation (MS PowerPoint)

Responsible party: Evaluator

Number of days: 1 day

Evaluation budget

The evaluator’s fee will be all-inclusive. The fees include all costs related to flights, hotel accommodation, field trips to relevant implementation sites, translation and any other costs associated with completing the evaluation assignment. Disbursement of the evaluation consultancy fees will be paid upon satisfactory submission and approval of the following deliverables by IOM:

• Inception report
• Draft evaluation report
• Final evaluation report

Payment Plan

Deliverable: Submission of the inception report

Percentage of the Payment: 15%

Deliverable: Submission of the first draft of the reports

Percentage of the Payment: 30%

Deliverable: Submission of the final report and brief

Percentage of the Payment: 55%

Total: 100%

Duration of the Contract

The evaluation process is expected to take 57 working days (including the IOM review, of which 44 working days for the evaluator), including preparation, data collection, analysis, and reporting. The evaluator should be able to undertake the tasks concurrently to fit within the planned timeframe without compromising the expected quality. The assignment is expected to be conducted between February 2025 and April 2025.

Evaluation requirements

IOM Türkiye is seeking an independent, multidisciplinary external evaluation consultant.

Required Qualifications and Experience:

Education:

• At least a Master’s Degree in International Relations, Evaluation, Public Administration, Social Policy, Psychology, Sociology and other related fields
• Experience conducting at least three to five evaluations of large-scale projects comparable to the one to be evaluated.

Experience:

• Strong background and expertise in conducting quantitative and qualitative data analysis.
• Demonstrated sound understanding of migrant’s thematic topics, e.g. return programmes, migration governance, labour migration, trafficking in persons, crisis management, border management, etc.
• Experience working with IOM is an advantage.

Languages:

• Fluency in English is required.
• Working knowledge of Turkish is advantageous.

Required Competencies

The incumbent is expected to demonstrate the following values and competencies:

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 – behavioural 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 for 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.

Other:

The consultant must adhere to the International Organization for Migration (IOM) Data Protection Principles (IN/138) and maintain confidentiality.

The consultant will be responsible to follow IOM writing guidelines and latest glossaries in all given assignments for accurate translation.

Any offer made to the candidate in relation to this vacancy notice is subject to funding confirmation. Appointment will be subject to certification that the candidate is medically fit for appointment, accreditation, any residency or visa requirements, and security clearances.