The following four outcomes contribute to the achievement of the overall objective:
1) At-risk communities in key hotspots have adopted more climate-resilient livelihood options
2) At-risk communities are able to make more informed decisions about migration which reduce the risks of trafficking
3) Local disaster risk reduction and mitigation frameworks integrate counter-trafficking strategies through evidence-based and localised approaches (in the Philippines only)
4) The evidence base and understanding of the climate change-human trafficking nexus are enhanced

The CREATE project recognises that climate change strains livelihoods, worsens pre-existing socio-economic vulnerabilities and can lead to increased risks of trafficking if people choose high-risk migration as a coping strategy. The project is implemented in Ethiopia and the Philippines as they are both significantly impacted by climate change and human trafficking. In Ethiopia, the climate impacts are usually characterised by slow-onset events and processes (such as drought), while in the Philippines, the climate change impacts are usually characterised by sudden-onset events (such as typhoons).
CREATE focuses on two communities per country. In Ethiopia, both communities are in Oromia Regional State; one is located in East Hararghe Zone and another in Jimma Zone. In the Philippines, both communities are located in the Bicol Region; one is in the Province of Albay, and another is in the province of Camarines Sur.
Evaluation Purpose
The endline evaluation will focus on assessing the extent to which the project achieved its intended outcomes and objective. As CREATE was a pilot initiative, the evaluation is expected to assess what worked well and what did not work where in what context and draw out lessons learned and generate recommendations to improve the design of similar interventions in the future and increase in scale. An important element of the evaluation will be an analysis of the Theory of Change (ToC) and results framework and the validity of underpinning assumptions and take into account learning that has emerged from the project since they were originally developed. The final report is expected to include proposed changes to the ToC and results framework (including indicators) for the project.
The evaluation will be primarily used by IOM and key project stakeholders in Ethiopia, Philippines and the UK, including the donor.
Scope
The evaluation is expected to begin in February 2025 (following completion of all activities under the CREATE project) and conclude by April 2025.
The geographical areas to be covered include:
– Ethiopia
o Addis Ababa (IOM project team and Central Government (Federal and Regional) project stakeholders.
o Jimma Zone1 and East Hararghe Zone2 in Oromia Regional State (community beneficiaries and local government (Zone/Woreda/Kebele) stakeholders.
– Philippines:
o Manila (IOM project team and Central Government project stakeholders).
o The municipality of Pio Duran3, in the Province of Albay, and the municipality of Minalabac4 in the Province of Camarines Sur, both in the Bicol Region (community beneficiaries and local government stakeholders).
– UK
o London (project coordination team and donor).

The focus will be on reviewing and measuring indicators at objective / impact and outcome level, but the evaluation should also take into consideration output level indicators and the change logic throughout the project. Lessons learned, good practices and recommendations should be identified both for scale up and design improvements. Qualitative change stories will also be required to illustrate the project impact.
The final report should also include proposed changes to the ToC and results framework (including indicators).

Evaluation Criteria and Questions
The evaluation will assess the projects’ performance against the six standard, OECD/DAC evaluation criteria which focus on relevance, coherence, effectiveness, impact, efficiency and sustainability as indicated below with some of the respective broad questions:

-Relevance: In what ways did the project respond to the needs of the beneficiaries? To what extent did the project design fit the purpose and intended objective?

-Efficiency: to what extent were project resources allocated and utilized to enable project delivery with most efficacy. To what extent did the project achieve value for money?

-Effectiveness: to what extent did the project successfully convert resources and activities into quality outputs and outcomes? What, if any, are the observed unintended negative or positive results? What factors enabled or hindered greater project effectiveness?

-Coherence: How well did the project compliment other initiatives implemented by IOM or external stakeholders? How did the policy environment affect the project? What gaps did the project fill and how well?

-Impact: to what extent has the project contributed to the overall objective and intended impact? What, if any, are the intended/unintended positive/negative effects has the project produced?

Sustainability: to what extent are the effects of the project contribution likely to live on after the project has ended? What measures were put in place to support sustainability beyond the project and are there indications that they are working? To what extent are project activities and benefits likely to continue after the project has ended?

Methodology
The evaluation is expected to use a mixed methods design which the evaluator will develop to response to the defined purpose, criteria and evaluation questions set out in this document (and in coordination with the IOM evaluation reference group).
Key data collection methods are expected to include a desk review, community survey, key informant interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). These will generate both quantitative and qualitative data, including the required change stories. A retrospective baseline enumeration will need to be included in the methodology. As the project faced challenges with gathering baseline data for some of the indicators in the results framework, the evaluation is expected to also include in its methodological approach, retrospective enumeration to establish baseline conditions for specific indicators.
The evaluation should comply with the IOM Data Protection Principles, UNEG norms and standards for the evaluation and other relevant guidelines and pertaining to the conduct of evaluation.

Roles and Responsibilities
Evaluator

The evaluation team will lead the evaluation process in close consultation with relevant IOM colleagues (detailed below) and is expected to undertake the following specific activities:
• Review key project documents to understand the context, intent, design, desired outcomes and objectives. This includes the ToC, Monitoring, Evaluation and Learning (MEL) Plan and quarterly reports among others.
• Design an appropriate evaluation protocol that clearly articulate the overall approach to the assignment and methodology, methods, and tools as well as timelines for key activities.
• If and where needed, train (remotely or in-person) field workers (interviewer and supervisors) on data collection tools and procedures to ensure standardized
methodology and same level of understanding and rollout in each location (this may
include field testing the data collection instruments before use)5
• Manage and oversee the data collection, processing and analysis in line with indicator requirements.
• Produce the draft evaluation report according to appropriate structure to be agreed in advance. The report much comprise a review of the ToC, underlying assumptions and pathway to change. Proposed changes to the TOC and results framework (including indicator) must also be included. The report should also include lessons learned, good practices and clear recommendations for future improvement and or replication.
• Incorporate feedback/comments from the evaluation reference group and prepare final report
IOM

IOM will form an evaluation management group, including staff from the offices in London (the project coordination site), Ethiopia and the Philippines (implementation sites) as well as an IOM monitoring and evaluation specialist. This group will undertake the following activities:
• Provide relevant project documents
• Facilitate and support the evaluation through timely provision of necessary logistics and coordination support as required
• Facilitate access to the communities where activities are being implemented
• Monitor progress and provide additional information as needed.
• Review, provide inputs to and approve each deliverable.
Budget

The budget available to complete the evaluation, inclusive of all related costs (e.g. travel) is £36,000.

Deliverables and Time Schedule

The evaluation will begin in February 2025 and conclude by April 2025.
The expected deliverables and indicative time schedule of the evaluation exercise are:
a) An evaluation inception report that further enumerates the proposed methodology,
data collection tools and an evaluation matrix, with more specific evaluation
questions under each evaluation criteria. It will also indicate the tentative workplan
to finalize the assignment and preparations that need to be made – by mid-February 2025
b) Development and submission of tools to be used in the final evaluation. These include
but not limited to; a survey, KII guide, FGD guide, qualitative change story guide/template and retrospective baseline assessment tool – by end of February 2025
c) A draft evaluation report for review, feedback and comments – by mid-April 2025
d) A final evaluation report integrating feedback- by end of April 2025
e) A two-page evaluation brief integrating feedback that provides a succinct summary of key findings, recommendations and lessons learnt if any – by end of April 2025
All the deliverables are to be written in English and should meet good language standards. The final report should meet the norms and standards laid out in the UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Report.

Interested evaluation organizations are requested to submit a proposal to LondonHumanResources@iom.int on or before 8 January 2025 with the subject line: “Endline Evaluation for the CREATE Project”. The submission package should include the following documents:
Technical proposal
• A technical proposal that clearly outlines the approach to the assignment including the methodology (sampling, data analysis, reporting) in response to the ToR.
• An indicative workplan.
• CVs of core team members highlighting qualifications and experience in similar projects.
• Work references – contact details (e-mail addresses) of 3 referees (organizations for which similar assignments were produced)
• 2 recent sample reports of any previous evaluations done for other clients.

Financial proposal
A financial proposal indicating the breakdown of expenses should be provided that aligns to the technical proposal (this should not exceed the budget ceiling of £36,000).

Shortlisted bidders will be invited to provide further details on their proposals and respond to clarification questions on 16 January 2025.

Level of Education: Bachelor Degree

Work Hours: 8

Experience in Months: No requirements