Consultant (Final External Evaluation – BRIDGE) At International Organization for Migration


Final external evaluation of the project

“Bridging Recruitment to Reintegration in Migration Governance: Philippines (BRIDGE)”

Commissioned by: United Nations Resident Coordinator (UNRC), International Organization for Migration (IOM), International Labour Organization (ILO), and UN Women Philippines

Managed by: IOM, as the lead of the Joint Programme

Evaluation Context

During the inception phase of the BRIDGE joint programme, there were 2.3 million Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs), and over USD 32.2 billion remitted by 2018, representing 10 percent of the Philippine gross domestic product (GDP). Since the mid-1970s, challenges related to Philippines labour migration and recruitment have existed despite the government’s sincere efforts to protect OFWs. While overseas labour migration is an overwhelmingly positive force and a driver of community development, when migration is not well managed, migrants, especially women, can be particularly susceptible to risks of exploitation, violence, and trafficking.

Internationally, manipulation of workers through debt by employers and recruiters affect more than half of all victims of forced labour. For OFWs who have had to return to the country, reintegration challenges include insufficient access to appropriate services and relevant information, including the mismatch between skills acquired abroad with jobs available in the Philippines upon return. In response to these challenges, the government of the Philippines has developed migrant worker welfare and protection policies and mechanisms. However, employment-related government assistance only accounts for about less than 1 percent of returnees. As a result, returnees would resort to re-migration through unethical and unsafe recruitment avenues.

The Philippine government seeks to improve its migration governance, along with other commitments to the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development. Specifically, Target 10.7 calls to facilitate orderly, safe, and responsible migration and mobility of people, including the implementation of planned and well-managed migration policies. Safe, orderly and regular migration is defined more comprehensively in the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM, 2018), with its objectives serving as a blueprint for action.

Moreover, migration is a priority policy area with the GCM mainstreamed into the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2023 through an entire chapter on “Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration.” In particular, the Government has identified Objective 6 (Facilitate fair and ethical recruitment and safeguard conditions that ensure decent work) and Objective 21 (Cooperate in facilitating safe and dignified return and readmission as well as sustainable reintegration) as priority GCM objectives to meet.

BRIDGE supported the Philippine government in working towards achieving Objectives 6 and 21 through the lens of the GCM Thematic Area 4: Facilitating regular migration, decent work and enhancing the positive development effects of human mobility.

BRIDGE seeks to equip and strengthen the approach by government and civil society towards effective reintegration frameworks and services that are tailored to the COVID-19 context, mindful of its gender-differentiated implications on men and women migrants. Further, anticipating the eventual surge of deployments by OFWs in the post-COVID environment, and the increased risk of exploitation as a result, BRIDGE’s focus on fair and ethical recruitment seeks to strengthen and align national standards on recruitment to international standards, while ensuring a more consistent and impactful approach from recruitment to reintegration.

Specifically, BRIDGE focused on assisting the government a) to promote fair and ethical recruitment, as well as reintegration services that are evidence-based, gender-responsive and coordinated through a people-centered, whole-of-government and whole-of-society approach and b) to establish mechanisms to translate evidence into policy and best practices pertaining to recruitment and reintegration throughout the migration cycle.

Evaluation Purpose and Objective

The purpose of the joint final independent evaluation is to examine the overall performance, achievement of results and impact of the joint programme to feed into forward-looking operational and strategic recommendations in guiding and informing subsequent programming. It will focus on four primary objectives:

  1. Generate evidence on the impact of the project, including documentation of lessons learned, effective strategies and best practices;
  2. Determine the significant higher-level effects of the project interventions;
  3. Assess the program’s effectiveness in encouraging greater coherence and collaboration of the broader UNCT and UN reform agenda; and
  4. Integrate recommendations, lessons learned, good practices into ongoing projects and identified priorities into future resource mobilization in supporting similar projects within the same themes.

Evaluation Scope

To determine the extent the project achieved its intended short-, medium- and long-term outcomes, the final evaluation should cover:

  • Full project period from 27 October 2020 to 23 April 2023
  • Full geographic scope to the extent feasible in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and logistical considerations for programme participants
  • Cross-cutting themes that will be assessed such as gender equality, human rights and disability inclusion, among others
  • All groups of participants, including members of the project team, beneficiaries, and local stakeholders, to the extent feasible in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and logistical considerations for programme participants, such as the creation of the Department of Migrant Workers and the transition to a new national government administration

Evaluation Criteria

The project will be assessed according to all six of the OECD Development Assistance Committee (DAC) evaluation criteria[1] – relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, contribution towards impact, and sustainability – as well as human rights, and gender equality, the two principles[2] required of the evaluation process.

[1] OECD (2021), Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, OECD Publishing, Paris,

[2] OECD (1991), Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance, Paris,

Evaluation Questions

The following table specifies guiding questions based on the OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and evaluation questions related to cross-cutting themes, which shall be answered by the evaluation. It is also envisioned that the evaluation will assess the joint programme model under each of the OECD-DAC criteria.

Criteria & Evaluation Questions



  1. To what extent are the Joint Programme objectives aligned and consistent with beneficiary requirements, country needs, global priorities, and partners’ and donor policies, especially with regards to migrants’ rights and gender equality?
  2. To what extent has the JP adapted to changing external conditions to ensure JP outcomes?


  1. In what capacity have key stakeholders aligned their policies and programmes with GCM objectives on reintegration and fair and ethical recruitment as a result of the JP?

Contribution towards Impact

  1. To what extent have the government stakeholders and national partners engaged in the project have an increased capacity on sustainable gender-responsive recruitment and reintegration programming?
  2. To what extent did the JP achieve meaningful change in the key policy areas and in delivering tangible benefits for beneficiaries?


  1. What structures, resources, and processes are in place to ensure that relevant stakeholders uphold fair and ethical recruitment within their scope and mandates, even after programme completion?
  2. To what extent do government and relevant stakeholders have ownership of the JP and how does this affect the gains achieved from the JP?

Cross-cutting Themes: human rights, gender equality and disability inclusion

  1. To what extent did the JP project cycle (design, implementation, monitoring and reporting) and management structure reflect and align with these GCM guiding principles? Are there lessons learned or good practices that can be identified?

GCM Guiding Principles: Whole of Government / Whole of Society / People-Centered

  1. To what extent did the JP project cycle (design, implementation, monitoring and reporting) and management structure reflect and align with these GCM guiding principles? Are there lessons learned or good practices that can be identified?



  1. To what extent has the joint programme arrangement and UN agencies working together increase the efficiency of implementation, maximizing impact of pooled resources etc, coherence and coordination?
  2. To what extent did the project mitigate the immediate challenges to programme implementation given the creation of a new government agency and the transition to a new government administration?


  1. How did the joint programme arrangement lead to increased synergies amongst the PUNOs, as well as their implementation partners in government, private sector, and civil society?

Lessons Learned

  1. What lessons can be learned to improve timeliness and efficiency for future labour migration programmes, as well as joint programmes?
  2. To what extent and how was the program able to adapt from its original design, in response to technical recommendations, and contextual factors?

Evaluation Methodology

IOM, ILO and UN Women suggest a mixed methods approach utilising primary and secondary sources, and both qualitative to ensure triangulation. The evaluator should provide a detailed and appropriate data collection methods to get credible evidence to address the evaluation objectives and to respond to the above evaluation questions.

Suggested methods for qualitative data include:

Methods & Data Sources/References

Desk review

  • Project documentation, including project proposal, narrative donor updates, baseline report, and monitoring data and reports, minutes of meeting conducted by the JP steering committee and with other stakeholders

Outcome harvesting to collect evidence of what has changed and, determine whether and how the intervention has contributed to these changes

  • Pre- and post-tests from trainings, project documentation from stakeholders

Key informant interviews and focus group

  • Project team, implementation partners, community members, CSO representatives, local authorities, and/or government officials

Ethics, Norms and Standards for Evaluation

IOM, ILO, and UN Women abide by the Norms and Standards of UNEG[1] and expects all evaluation stakeholders and the consultant(s) to be familiar and compliant with the UNEG Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation,[2] as well as the UNEG Codes of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System.[3] The evaluation must be conducted in full respect of IOM Data Protection Principles.

[1] United Nations Evaluation Group (2016), UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation,

[2] United Nations Evaluation Group (2008), UNEG Ethical Guidelines,

[3] United Nations Evaluation Group (2008), UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN system,

Cross-Cutting Themes

1) Gender Mainstreaming:

Gender mainstreaming refers to the process of assessing the implications of any planned action, including legislation, policies, and programmes, for people of different gender groups, in all areas and at all levels. It is an approach for making everyone’s concerns and experiences an integral dimension of the design, implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of interventions in all political, economic, and societal spheres so that all gender groups benefit equally, and inequality is not perpetuated. The goal is to achieve gender equality.[1]

Gender-responsive evaluation has two essential elements: what the evaluation examines and how it is undertaken. It assesses the degree to which gender and power relationships—including structural and other causes that give rise to inequities, discrimination and unfair power relations, change as a result of an intervention using a process that is inclusive, participatory and respectful of all stakeholders (rights holders and duty bearers).[2]

The following are a few points to consider under gender mainstreaming:

  1. Assess how the project addressed different needs and capacities of the beneficiaries, target communities, and local stakeholders, with an aim to eliminate gender disparities supporting women’s role in the peacebuilding context
  2. Assess how the intervention capture gender perspectives that measure gender-specific changes, such as perceptions of gender norms, roles, and relations within the context of labour migration

Consequently, the evaluator shall ensure that persons interviewed or surveyed during data collection are diverse and gender-representative of all concerned project partners and beneficiaries. Surveys, interview questions and other data collection tools should include gender issues. Evaluation reports should firmly incorporate a gender perspective, such as analysis of sex-disaggregated data and attention to project effects and impacts related to gender equality.

[1] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into All

Policies and Programmes of the United Nations System: A/52/3/Rev. 1 (SUPP).

[2] UN Women (2015), How to Manage Gender-Responsive Evaluation,

2) Human rights: The protection of rights at work is an integral part of fulfilling human rights obligations. Moreover, in line with the Declaration of Human Rights at Work and its Follow-up, upholding human rights throughout the labour migration process should be exercised through five key principles:

  • freedom of association and the effective recognition of the right to collective bargaining;
  • the elimination of all forms of forced or compulsory labour;
  • the effective abolition of child labour;
  • the elimination of discrimination in respect of employment and occupation; and
  • a safe and healthy working environment.

The evaluator should consider these key principles in designing the tools and analysing the interventions and results of the joint programme.

3) Disability Inclusion: The evaluation should also review the efforts to support the achievement of the inclusion of persons with disabilities and their human rights. Wherever applicable, review and assessment should also include the promotion of disability inclusion, including in best practices, lessons learned, and recommendations.

[1] OECD (2021), Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully, OECD Publishing, Paris,

[2] OECD (1991), Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance, Paris,

[3] United Nations Evaluation Group (2016), UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation,

[4] United Nations Evaluation Group (2008), UNEG Ethical Guidelines,

[5] United Nations Evaluation Group (2008), UNEG Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN system,

[6] United Nations Economic and Social Council, Mainstreaming the Gender Perspective into All

Policies and Programmes of the United Nations System: A/52/3/Rev. 1 (SUPP).

[7] UN Women (2015), How to Manage Gender-Responsive Evaluation,

Evaluation Deliverables and Payment Tranches

The following deliverables are to be provided by the evaluator throughout the evaluation process, upon a pre-agreed schedule confirmed in the inception phase:

Deliverables, Payment Requirements, and Payment Tranche

Inception report with detailed description of the evaluation approach and methodology, and detailed work plan. The inception report should also include an evaluation matrix and interview and focus groups guides, and other data collection instruments to be used for the evaluation.

  • Evaluation designed including the methodology, detailed work plan and research instruments presented by the evaluators and approved by the Project Management Team.
  • 20%

Draft evaluation report submitted for comments to the Evaluation Manager supported by annexes of quantitative and or qualitative analysis, including cleaned dataset.

Presentation of the evaluation findings

  • Draft report submitted and presented to the Project Management Team.
  • 50%

Final evaluation report incorporating the management response and initial comments from the presentation of the draft report*.* Supported annexes of quantitative and/or qualitative analysis should also be included.

Evaluation brief that outlines the key findings, conclusions, and recommendations (two-page summary).

Management response matrix[1]that details recommendations from the evaluation report, as well as a follow-up action plan and indicative time frame for implementation.

  • Packaged Final Evaluation is submitted and cleared by the Project Management Team; Evaluation Brief developed and submitted by the consultant with the clearance of the Project Management Team; Management response matrix completed and submitted by the consultant with the clearance of the Project Management Team.
  • 30%

The evaluation report should follow a structure the include the following sections, at minimum:

  1. Cover page
  2. Executive summary
  3. List of acronyms
  4. Introduction
  5. Evaluation framework and Methodology
  6. Key Findings
  7. Lessons learned
  8. Conclusions and recommendations for the different stakeholders involved in the JP
  9. Annexes (itinerary, communities and stakeholder institutions/organisations met, question guides, etc.)

The evaluator is expected to submit the evaluation report and relevant accompanying annexes in English not later than the set timeline agreed upon during the inception phase.

Specification of Roles

The Evaluation team: composed of an Evaluation Team Leader who will hold overall responsibility of the evaluation conduct, methodology, data collection and analysis and report drafting. The Evaluation Team Leader shall also be working with a Philippines-based Gender Evaluation Expert who will support the entire evaluation process, particularly in reviewing evaluation products, lead some data collection in cooperation with the team lead, lead specific gender analysis, etc.). Additional team members may be included by the Evaluation Team Leader upon discussion with and approval of the Evaluation Management Group.

To ensure independence and impartiality, the following mechanisms will be established and used:
An Evaluation Management Group (EMG): composed of representatives from each PUNO. The EMG will be responsible in overseeing the day-to-day oversight and management of the evaluation, making key decisions, and reviewing evaluation products;

The Evaluation Reference Group (ERG): Members of the JP Project Steering Committee will serve as ERG to provide strategic oversight to the evaluation. Draft inception and evaluation reports will be shared for their comments.

The evaluator’s primary focal point for the evaluation will beAna Maria Raymundowho shall act as lead Evaluation Manager, in coordination with the EMG. However, the evaluator shall also work with a local gender specialist throughout the evaluation.

The following project team members will be available to support the final evaluation:


  • International Organization for Migration (IOM)
  • International Labor Organization (ILO)
  • UN Women


  • UN Office of the Resident Coordinator
  • Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA)
  • Department of Migrant Workers (DMW)
  • Overseas Workers Welfare Administration
  • National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
  • Blas F. Ople Policy Center and Training Institute (Ople Center)

IOM, ILO and UN Women team will arrange meetings to ensure a common understanding of the evaluation process, confirm the methodology and provide inputs on the inception report. The team will also support in identifying relevant stakeholders and arranging meetings with key partners.

A quality assurance process shall be integrated into the evaluation, as follows:

  1. Final terms of reference (TOR) shall be agreed between Evaluation Manager, Reference Group and the Evaluator.
  2. The inception report shall be reviewed by the Evaluation Manager, Reference Group, revised by the Evaluator, and finalized only upon Evaluation Management Group’s acceptance.
  3. The Evaluator will timely raise any emergent challenges or barriers with the Evaluation Manager, who will support with finding appropriate solutions to facilitate the evaluation process.
  4. The final report and brief shall be reviewed by the Evaluation Manager, PUNO Heads of Agencies, and Resident Coordinator, revised by the Evaluator, and finalized only upon Evaluation Management Group’s acceptance.


An indicative schedule for the evaluation is provided below, to be finalized upon agreement with the evaluator and approval of the Evaluation Management Group (EMG) during the inception phase. The timeline assumes start date of 01 March 2023 and anticipates the Evaluator’s commitment for 35 full working days.

Below is the indicative timeline for the consultant.

Activity, Responsible party, and Due Date

Inception meeting

  • Evaluator, EMG
  • 1 Mar

Detailed inception report (including evaluation matrix, methodology and tools) submitted and presented to EMG

  • Evaluator
  • 8 Mar

Inception report returned to evaluator for revision

  • EM and EMG
  • 10 Mar

Final inception report submitted to EM

  • Evaluator
  • 15 Mar

Final inception report accepted by EMG

  • EM
  • 17 Mar

Planning of field data collection and coordination on logistical arrangements and agenda

  • Evaluator with support from Project Team
  • 20 Mar

Evaluation data collection (desk review and field work)

  • Evaluator
  • 27 Mar

Draft report submitted to EM

  • Evaluator
  • 10 Apr

Presentation of the evaluation findings

  • Evaluator
  • 12 Apr

Draft report returned to evaluator for revision

  • EM and EMG
  • 14 Apr

Draft brief and management response submitted to EM

  • Evaluator
  • 19 Apr

Final report and brief by Evaluator for final approval

  • Evaluator
  • 19 Apr

Final report accepted by EMG

  • EM
  • 21 Apr

[1] A management response matrix template is available in the OIG/Evaluation publication, Management Response and Follow-up on IOM Evaluation Recommendations.

Evaluation Requirements

The external evaluator should meet the following requirements:

  • Advanced degree in a relevant field such as social sciences or statistics is required.
  • Minimum of five years of experience leading and conducting evaluations is required.
  • Knowledge/ experience of UN system
  • Experience in labour migration is preferred.
  • Skills in evaluation design, quantitative and qualitative data collection and analysis, drafting and editing in English, communication, time management and cultural sensitivity are required

How to apply

Interested evaluators are invited to submit their applications to by 26 February 2023 with a subject line CON 2023 001 – Consultant (Final External Evaluation – BRIDGE)

  1. CV of the evaluator
  2. A cover letter (not more than one page)
  3. IOM Personal History Form. To access the form, please visit link.
  4. References – names and contacts of three to five referees from the current and/or previous direct supervisors using the sequence below:
    • Name
    • Position
    • Company
    • Relationship (Current or Previous direct Supervisor)
    • Contact number/s
    • E-mail address
  5. Technical proposal (outlining proposed evaluation methodology including data collection plans and analysis techniques, quality control measures, and timeline)
  6. Financial proposal (all-inclusive budget for the evaluation, to include expert fees and all other expenses to be incurred)
  7. Sample evaluation study relevant to the proposed evaluation

Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.

Join Now

Search Jobs By Country

List of Countries

July 2024