INDEPENDENT PROGRAM END EVALUATION SERVICES At SEED Foundation

SEED Foundation (SEED) is a locally registered NGO in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI), whose mission is to protect, empower, and support the recovery of survivors of violence and others at risk. SEED seeks to engage an experienced consultant to conduct an independent impact evaluation of the “Protection of survivors of trafficking” program funded by the US Department of State’s Office to Monitor and Combat Trafficking in Persons. The overarching scope of impact evaluation is to measure the impact of the project against outcome level result indicators.

PROGRAM OVERVIEW

The Protection of Survivors of Trafficking (POST) Program builds on SEED’s expertise serving survivors of trafficking in persons (TIP), and long-standing collaboration with the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) to address anti-TIP objectives and increase protections for survivors across the Kurdistan Region of Iraq (KRI). The POST Program provides comprehensive services to support survivors’ protection and recovery, to advance policy and legislative reform, and to strengthen the capacity of the KRG. The program serves survivors and those at risk through provision of shelter, case management, and legal, health, and mental health services, including psychosocial support. Survivors are served in the community, and at the STEPS Center – Iraq’s first shelter for survivors of trafficking operated by SEED through a public-private partnership. The program develops and strengthens existing policies and procedures to enhance protections for survivors, through the development of referral mechanisms and improved collaboration with key KRG stakeholders. Using a survivor-centered, trauma informed, and rights-based approach, the program builds the capacity of first responders and other government actors to identify and protect victims of trafficking (VoTs) and implement the KRI Law on Combating Human Trafficking No. 6 of 2018 (KRI Anti-TIP law), through the delivery of training and mentorship. The program also raises awareness of TIP through the development and distribution of materials, posts on social media, and television and radio spots, all of which seek to uphold rights, and improve understanding of trafficking-related exploitation and the protections and services available for survivors.

PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Objective 1: Protect VOTs and those at risk through provision of specialized shelter care. SEED opened a rights-based, survivor-centered, trauma informed, non-discriminatory shelter (the STEPS Center) for VOTs and those at risk in 2019.

• Activity 1.1: Provide shelter to VOTs and those at risk
• Activity 1.2: Increase shelter access to VOTs and those at risk through strengthened identification of VOTs and referrals through referral training and capacity building of government personnel

Objective 2: Improve protection and wellbeing of VOTs and those at risk through high quality, comprehensive aftercare services.

• Activity 2.1: Provide case management to VOTs and those at risk
• Activity 2.2: Provide mental health services to VOTs and those at risk
• Activity 2.3: Provide legal services to VOTs and those at risk

Objective 3: Protect VOTs and those at risk and prevent human trafficking through training, partnerships, and awareness raising.

• Activity 3.1: Provide technical assistance to the KRG in designing at least four tools, regulations, and/or procedures to support implementation of the Anti-TIP Law by the end of the program
• Activity 3.2: Build the capacity of key government actors through in-depth training and hands-on capacity building support to better respond to TIP cases and protect VOTs by the end of the program
• Activity 3.3: Convene forum to coordinate among anti-TIP actors, consult on training priorities and on implementing policy and procedures under development, and lessons sharing
• Activity 3.4: Conduct three anti-trafficking awareness initiatives to combat TIP over 37 months
• Activity 3.5: Build the capacity of 24 immigration officers and TIP police to identify and protect VOTs
• Activity 3.6: Strengthen the capacity of 24 members of the judiciary to apply the Anti-TIP Law to protect VOTs
• Activity 3.7: Build the capacity of 30 immigration officers and MOLSA personnel to identify and refer VOTs, including through coordination with other agencies
• Activity 3.8: Conduct series of practical training workshops for TIP Police Units leaders and officers on various topics critical to survivor-centered implementation of the anti-trafficking law

The evaluation will assess the specific impacts achieved against following outcome level result indicators.

• Outcome Indicator 1.1.1: % of VOTs and those at risk who report improved sense of safety.
• Outcome Indicator 1.2.1: % of government actors provided with capacity building who demonstrate improved understanding of protection and shelter services.
• Outcome Indicator 2.1.1: % of VOTs and those at risk receiving case management who report improved well-being.
• Outcome Indicator 2.1.2: % of surveyed clients who report satisfaction with case management services.
• Outcome Indicator 2.2.1: % of VOTs and those at risk receiving mental health services demonstrate reduction in symptoms.
• Outcome Indicator 2.2.2: % of clients satisfied with mental health services.
• Outcome Indicator 2.3.1: % of clients who report satisfaction with the legal assistance received.
• Outcome Indicator 3.1.1: % of KRG departments using new tools, regulations, and/or procedures that assess them as effective.
• Outcome Indicator 3.2.1: % of key government actors who demonstrate improved knowledge and skills in responding to TIP cases and protecting VOTs.
• Outcome Indicator 3.3.1: Assessment of changes made to policy or practice by government or practitioners.
• Outcome Indicator 3.4.1: % of those reached who demonstrate understanding of TIP and rights of migrant workers.
• Outcome Indicator 3.5.1: % of Residency Directorate personnel and TIP police who demonstrate improved knowledge and skills in identifying and protecting VOTs.
• Outcome Indicator 3.6.1: % of judges and judicial investigators who report that they have strengthened capacity to apply the Anti-TIP Law to protect VOTs.
• Outcome Indicator 3.7.1: % of immigration officers and MOLSA personnel who demonstrate improved knowledge and skills in identifying and protecting VOTs.
• Outcome Indicator 3.8.1: % of TIP Police Unit leaders and officers who demonstrate improved knowledge or an improved process adopted in their work as a result of the workshops.

The impact evaluation shall be conducted in the governorates of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq where the program was implemented. The interviews of supported and reduced persons who left the region shall be conducted remotely depending on their availability and access.

EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

The impact evaluation shall be both transparent and participatory, involving all relevant stakeholders, including SEED staff, implementing partners, clients and participants, trained government staff, and others as deemed relevant.

The consultant(s) is expected to use participatory evaluation methodologies and mixed data collection methods to complete this evaluation. The consultant(s) is expected to conduct in person or remote interviews, key informant interviews, and desk review of program data. The methodology used must be gender sensitive, conflict sensitive, trauma informed, and respect the Do No Harm principle.

EVALUATION CRITERIA

The following evaluation questions will be included in the evaluation criteria. This evaluation criteria is based on the OECD DAC, which include relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability.

• RELEVANCE
• The project was designed in a way that was relevant and appropriate to the context and the needs of the target group? Has the project reached the target group?
• The project adhered to international standards and guiding principles for Protection and Trafficking in person?
• COHERENCE
• To what extent did the training program support government personnel in providing better intervention to clients?
• Which project activities should be continued, changed, strengthened or added.
• How does POST complement similar interventions by other actors?
• What harmonization and coordination mechanisms are there?
• EFFECTIVENESS
• The project has been implemented in accordance with its overall intention and in accordance with the approved results-framework.
• To what extent has KRG departments benefited from using new tools, regulations, and/or procedures.
• Have government departments improved their capacity in understanding the protection and shelter services?
• How well have the desired short term changes been achieved?
• EFFICIENCY
• Assess whether the activities are cost-efficient and within the program budget?
• Cross-cutting issues have been taken into account for the project implementation.
• What elements could have helped or hindered the program?
• IMPACT
• The survivors assisted have been able to overcome the situation and/or experience of trafficking.
• How did the POST Program’s technical assistance efforts contribute to the improvement of human rights protections for marginalized people?
• What were immediate changes and longer term changes due to the activities of the program on the targeted group and community members?
• SUSTAINABILITY
• How and to what extent are the achievements of the POST Program sustainable beyond the period of the program?
• To what extent are the processes and systems established during the POST Program likely to support future TIP programs?

TIMEFRAME & DELIVERABLES

The duration of the assignment will be 30 consultancy days including travel (if needed) and delivery of the final report. The evaluation is expected to take place during April 2023 with a finalized evaluation report submitted by April 30, 2023. Key findings will be presented in mid- May 2023.

The timetable below will guide the consultant.

Stage

Activity

Staff Responsible

Inception Phase:

Contract signing and project kick-off

Lead Evaluator & SEED

Desk review of relevant information, including program quarterly reports, articles and online content

Lead Evaluator and Program Team

Conceptualize evaluation approach

Lead Evaluator

Develop data collection tools

Lead Evaluator

Inception meeting with SEED

Lead Evaluator & SEED

Submit draft inception report

Lead Evaluator

Consultation on the inception report

Lead Evaluator & SEED

Submit final inception report

Lead Evaluator

Schedule KIIs and FDG with government officials for Fieldwork phase

Lead Evaluator & SEED

Fieldwork Phase:

Training of national researcher(s) or data enumerators, if needed

Lead Evaluator

Qualitative data collection, including FDGs and KIIs, desk review

Evaluation Team

Quantitative data collection, desk review

Evaluation Team

Data quality assurance

Lead Evaluator

Analysis and Reporting Phase:

Data cleaning and coding

Lead Evaluator

Data analysis and interpretation

Lead Evaluator

Develop draft report (narrative and PowerPoint slides)

Lead Evaluator

Submit draft report for feedback

Lead Evaluator

Present evaluation findings

Lead Evaluator & SEED

Submit final evaluation report

Lead Evaluator

Deliverables (SOW): Phase I

The following deliverables will be submitted by the consultant(s) for Phase I of the evaluation:

1. Inception Report During the inception phase, the consultant will submit a draft inception report to SEED for discussion, feedback, and agreement, outlining:
   1. Proposed evaluation design and its rationale
   2. Data collection methods and tools
   3. Work plan

A final version of the inception report, incorporating feedback from SEED, must be approved prior to beginning data collection.

1. Presentation of Findings During the analysis and reporting phase, the consultant will deliver an informative PowerPoint presentation to SEED, containing:
   1. Key evaluation findings
   2. A brief summary of the final evaluation report
2. Outcome Evaluation Report During the analysis and reporting phase, the consultant will submit a draft narrative evaluation report to SEED for discussion and input. The evaluation report must be clear, concise, empirically grounded, and persuasive, no longer than 15 pages (excluding annexes), and in the described format:
   1. Executive Summary
   2. Program description, including implementation context
   3. Evaluation purpose and scope
   4. Evaluation design and data collection methods
   5. Data/findings and discussion
   6. Conclusion
   7. Recommendations
   8. Annexes
   9. Terms of Reference

A final version of this report, incorporating feedback from SEED, must be submitted to SEED by the completion of the consultancy by April 30th, 2022.

All deliverables should be submitted in English. In addition to the deliverables specified above, periodic check-ins will take place between SEED and the consultant to assess progress and exchange relevant information throughout the consultancy.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONSULTANT

In conducting the evaluation, the consultant(s) must:

1. Coordinate with SEED’s Senior MEAL Manager and Program Manager.
2. Compose an evaluation team that is capable of achieving required deliverables to a high level of quality within the specified timeframe. Any additional personnel should be mentioned in the proposal.
3. Manage all logistics in coordination with SEED.
4. Ensure the consultant and all personnel adhere to SEED’s Code of Conduct, Prevention of Sexual Exploitation and Abuse (PSEA), and Child Safeguarding (CSG) policies.
5. Submit all deliverables on time.
6. In case of any delays or changes, inform SEED in a timely manner.
7. Maintain strict confidentiality of all information gathered and findings.
8. Utilize their own technology equipment and maintain a workable ZOOM account and email account for communications.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF SEED

1. Provide access to all relevant program data, policies, documents, and contact information for relevant stakeholders.
2. Connect consultant(s) with key stakeholders and actors as required for interviews and meetings and keep them informed of the evaluation.
3. Share PSEA, CSG and Code of Conduct policies and conduct briefing.
4. Issue payment of the consultant fees upon satisfactory completion of the assignment within the stipulated time frame.
5. Provide feedback/comments for draft inception report and data collection tools, draft report, and presentation.

REQUIRED COMPETENCIES, SKILLS, & EXPERIENCE

Core Competencies:

• Effective verbal and written communication;
• Proactive approach to work;
• Creative and problem solving;
• Transparent and accountable;
• Strong research and analytical skills;
• Strong understanding of capacity building programming;
• Good understanding of TIP, MHPSS, GBV, PSEA, safeguarding,
• Accountability, and protection.

Education:

• A Masters/Advanced degree in a relevant field – (Human Rights, International Development, International Law, Social work, Psychology, Monitoring and Evaluation, etc.)

Qualifications and Experience:

• Minimum five years’ experience designing and conducting evaluations and writing reports (USG working experience preferred; at-least two evaluations);
• Excellent ability to assess, interpret, analyze and present qualitative and quantitative data
• Excellent communication skills, including fluency in written and spoken English;
• Experience working with governmental agencies in humanitarian and development settings;
• Demonstrated experience working in the field of human rights programs, preferably human trafficking programs and initiatives a plus;
• In-depth knowledge and experience in evaluating humanitarian and/or development programs, including trafficking in persons, GBV, and/or other protection programs. Preference will be given to candidates with demonstrated experience evaluating MHPSS services; advocacy for legislative and policy change; and training and capacity building.
• Proven experience in conducting sensitive and ethical research with vulnerable populations, including survivors of GBV and human trafficking.
• Experience working in the KRI and/or the Middle East is preferred.
• Fluency in oral and written English required; Arabic and/or Kurdish a plus.

Preference will be given to consultants or organizations who are based in the KRI.

The consultant will work under the supervision of the Senior MEAL Manager and the Program Manager; guidance on other reporting lines during the assignment shall be communicated, and for own security and safety, the consultant will be required at all times to abide by the SEED’s applicable rules and regulations, Code of Conduct, PSEA and CSG policy, and other policies as applicable.