Evaluation Expert at International Organization for Migration

CALL FOR APPLICATIONS FOR CONSULTANCY SERVICES

Duty Station: Ouaka, Nana Mambere, Ouham Pende, Ouham and Bamingui Bangoran prefectures

Duration: 2 Months

Tentative start date: 1 September 2022

Delivery date: 30 October

CONTEXT:

1. Background (national context)

Community Violence Reduction in Greater Bambari Area (implemented from September 2017 to August 2020)

The Central African Republic (CAR) is a fragile state due to its prolonged years of armed conflicts. There was proliferation and fragmentation of armed groups on almost the entire territory of the country. This situation resulted to mass displacement of the population living in internally displaced (IDP) camps and host communities. In 2017, tensions continued to breed and the struggle for control of the territory intensified among armed groups and government forces. Regions that were perceived to be peaceful/stable also became affected by these conflicts. This situation considerably increased the humanitarian needs and caused waves of displacement that CAR had known since 2014. More than 600,000 people became internally displaced by November 2017 and more than 500,000 refugees were reported in neighboring countries. The humanitarian actors were particularly affected by this violence with 14 colleagues killed while bringing assistance to people in distress.

In 2017, parts of the central and southeast regions were particularly affected and clashes among armed groups in these regions reached an unprecedented level. In 2018, the humanitarian needs overview indicated that 2.5 million Central Africans needed multisectoral assistance to survive, which was more than half of the country’s population. The whole country was affected by these different cycles of the conflicts.

There were multiple factors believed to be the root causes of the conflicts including political and economic, and resulted in ethnic, religious and inter and intra communal tensions for political and economic gains. The size of the armed groups increased for the control of the territory with the aim of controlling the resources that existed in the controlled region. The armed groups operated in more than half of the territory. Several major cities in CAR were under their control which, in some cases, no longer hesitate to confront the UN peacekeeping forces. In several areas, the armed groups organized parallel systems of decentralized state services. The capacity/resources of MINUSCA became overstretched to stop, contain or prevent violence meted against the population. This situation required strong political commitment from national actors and international organizations in the search for political solutions to the conflicts.

Although the efforts of the consolidation of peace continued in 2017, the country continued in renewed cycles of violence. Since the end of the election period in 2016, CAR had witnessed gradual deterioration of the security situation in areas affected by previous years of conflict but also in areas that had been relatively calm. Since the beginning of 2017, this deterioration evolved and accelerated in a very worrying way, in particular because of:

• The expansion of conflict zones and the proliferation of new areas of tension;
• The increase, fragmentation and rebirth of armed groups;
• The resurgence of abuses committed against civilian populations and inter and intra community violence, as well as the targeting of specific categories of population based on their ethnic and religious affiliations;
• Insecurity which restricted access of the most vulnerable population to humanitarian assistance as humanitarian actors also became victims of the violence;
• The vulnerability of the population heightened/worsened due to repeated cycles of violence and the continuous increase in humanitarian needs;
• Humanitarian assistance was underfunded and did not allow humanitarian actors to provide appropriate humanitarian response to all the needs of the affected population covering the most affected zones;

The response to the violence committed by the armed groups required an innovative means of providing solutions. Community Violence Reduction (CVR) actors needed to short-circuit the manpower lines of the armed groups. Unemployed youths who considered joining the armed groups as the only source of survival needed an alternative to abandon their enrollment/enlistment and participation into armed conflict. These youths had conflict carrying capacities and it was therefore necessary to starve the armed groups with the manpower they needed to continue the conflicts.

The national Community Violence Reduction strategy aims to provide the Government of CAR (GoCAR), the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA) and CAR international partners engaged in CVR programming with an overarching conceptual framework, and to foster coordination between the actors implementing CVR and related stabilization programs. During the strategy development process, it was observed that several organizations were designing and implementing CVR and CVR-like interventions in isolation from each other, and sometimes in competition in the same locations. The strategy serves to close both the policy and implementation gaps, and to create synergy among actors to maximize cost-effectiveness towards a common goal.

Article 6 of the DDR agreement also set up provisions for armed groups elements not holding war firearms to benefit from various socio-economic support programs such as CVR. Based on available information, elements of the ex-Séléka factions were more likely to fulfill the DDR eligibility criteria (particularly with regards to the possession of weapons of war), while many of the Anti-Balaka elements and other spoilers to peace could not fulfill these criteria, their modus operandi during the conflict being characterized by the use of locally made/traditional fire weapons rather than weapons of war.

Community Violence Reduction programmes in the Central African Republic (CAR) have proven to be an essential tool in building trust among the otherwise conflicting groups and in the significant reduction of violence within its operational areas. The positive impact of the CVR approaches and related implementation modalities have attracted attention of national and international stakeholders, particularly its effectiveness in building local conflict resolution mechanisms, and in bringing together armed groups elements and members of communities to create mixed groups of beneficiaries and associations, together building income generating activities, contributing to social cohesion, and the re-ignition of local economies. CVR programmes have played an essential complementary part to DDR programming. The overall selection criteria for CVR beneficiaries are that they will all be individuals with conflict-carrying capacity but ineligible for the DDR programme as they are:

• not formally recognized members of the DDR signatory armed groups, and/or
• are unable to present a weapon of war for disarmament.

In this manner, Community Violence Reduction in Greater Bambari Area implemented from September 2017 to August 2020 was designed to be fully complementary to the ongoing pre-DDR activities and the future national DDR programme, avoiding overlap of beneficiaries and ensuring a comprehensive and holistic approach to the security enhancement and stabilisation process in the target area.

Appui à la Phase de Formation des Ex-Combattants Incorporés dans les Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS) à la suite de l’Accords Politique de Paix et de Réconciliation en Centrafrique (implemented from June 2019 to October 2020)

The establishment of the Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS) was one of the recommendations from the political dialogue to be considered in the peace agreement. A political dialogue led by the African Union (AU) was held between the Government of the Central African Republic and 14 recognized Armed Groups (AG) as stakeholders in the conflict in CAR. The dialogue led to the signing of a peace accord on 6 February 2019 in Bangui. Although this is the 8th peace agreement since 2012, it marked a new hope for CAR to emerge from a conflict which began at the end of 2012. As the result of this conflict, thousands of human lives were lost, it led to massive violation of people’s rights and displacement of about a third of the population. Since then, insecurity has remained in CAR, the AGs continue to fragment and are present over almost the entire territory. In recent years, the abuses committed by the AGs have been associated in particular with the control of territories for access to natural and mining resources as well as to the population through the collection of taxes, particularly during the transhumance period including the movement of people and goods. As one of the recommendations in the peace accord, the President of the Republic declared the establishment of the USMS.

To facilitate the implementation of the peace agreement, it was important to intervene and address some of the root causes of the conflicts in order to reduce inter and intracommunal tensions. In article 6 of the APPR, the transitional security arrangement stipulates that the parties undertake to establish the USMS comprising the defense and security forces and, in the majority, members of the AG. This provision of the Agreement offers a crucial opportunity to enable the AGs to embark on a path allowing inclusive peace alternatives but also to build trust between stakeholders and finally to secure highly fragile/volatile areas in order to guarantee human security. The implementation of the USMS as decided by the APPR contributes to addressing the structural and key problems of the conflict in CAR. Some ex-combatants, once they have initially gone through the Disarmament and Demobilization process, including vetting, will integrate into the USMS to strengthen security in certain geographical areas with priority security issues such as transhumance corridors and mining sites. The APPR indicates that the deployment of the USMS would contribute to the protection of the populations and seek to establish confidence between the communities.

The USMS are placed under the supervision of the Chief of Staff of the Armed Forces. As such, their establishment and operation follow not only the general principles that the peace agreement recognizes, as they are fundamental to the rule of law in CAR, but also to the military governance system of the country. In the event of any violations, recourse will be made through this legal framework. It is important to note that procedures for military discipline, code of military justice and the code of conduct of soldiers will apply to all members constituting the USMS. Specifically, it is envisaged that a certain number of women will be included in the USMS. This will facilitate links with communities, particularly with regards to their role in protecting the population, especially the protection and prevention of violence against women. Although this legal framework governs the USMS, there are challenges in operationalizing it. It was therefore necessary to create a protection framework that was more accessible to the populations who will encounter this new type of deployment, with particular emphasis on the protection of women and young people. The USMS is responsible for the protection and security of civilian populations, strengthen public order, secure transhumance corridors, and provide support to the CTS (Comité Technique de Securité).

1. CONTEXT OF IMPLEMENTATION

IOM CAR mission implemented two projects funded by PBF focusing on community violence reduction and the establishment of the “Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS)”.

• Community Violence Reduction in Greater Bambari Area implemented from September 2017 to August 2020

The implementation of a community violence reduction project was an innovative way of reducing the manpower of armed groups in the country. Inter and intra communal violence reduction was therefore a necessary condition to improving relationships among political and ethno-religious groups, while the restoration of inter and intra-communal social and economic relations remained equally crucial to the short-term recovery and to medium-term stabilization. The departure of the armed groups from the city of Bambari and parts of the axes became an opportunity to quickly launch peacebuilding related initiatives including establishing conflict resolution, conflict mitigation and conflict management and social cohesion mechanisms in highly tensioned communities in order to drive towards peaceful coexistence. The Community Violence Reduction in Greater Bambari Area implemented from 2017 to 2020 became one of the initiatives that contributed to the implementation of the Bambari stabilization plan. Youth with conflict carrying capacities needed to get engaged in order to abandon their participation into armed conflicts. Bambari was once considered one of the safest places in the country as it was termed as “ville sans armes (city without arms)”. The temporary stability gained overtime quickly vanished when the armed groups captured the Bambari. Massive enrollment of the youth into the armed conflicts was observed and this needed rapid action to overturn their decision and to discourage their continuous participation. Youth became both victims and perpetrators of violence to the conflicts. This clearly indicated how vulnerable the young people can be in conflict situation. Lack of employment opportunities (limited skills development options) for the youth and due to the crises, their inability to go to school to acquire formal education to get gainfully employed make it easier to convince them to join the armed groups. The absence of state authorities and the judicial systems paved the way for impunity and lack of confidence between the population and the local authorities.

The Theory of Change (ToC):

• If current DDR efforts do not cater to all former combatants’ needs for reintegration, THEN the ‘Republican Pact for Peace, National Reconciliation and Reconstruction’ could suffer from the presence of armed groups and local youths with conflict carrying capacity left unassisted.
• If members from armed groups not eligible to the national DDR programme and youth with conflict-carrying capacity are being included into positive activities within their communities, provided with economic opportunities (cash-for-work, trainings, IGAs) and participate to the improvement of the resilience and to the rehabilitation efforts of the overall community, THEN the risk for local violence reduces.
• If the capacity of the community to cope with instability and to become an active actor and catalyst of social cohesion is strengthened and consolidated, including through an increased participation of women to the established decision-making mechanisms at the community level, THEN the likelihood of a sustainable reintegration of the former combatants and local youths with conflict carrying capacity locally will increase.
• If the capacity of the community to cope with conflicts and to become an active actor of promotion of the dialogue at both the communal and intercommunal levels, and social cohesion is strengthened through the establishment dialogue and mediation mechanisms supported by training and capacity building, THEN the likelihood of sustainable safer environment is improved.

Expected results of the project:

• Outcome I: Social reinsertion of armed groups’ elements non-eligible for the national DDR Programme into their communities achieved and community security enhanced, through their joint participation with local youth with conflict-carrying capacity, in the implementation of high-priority community infrastructure projects, identified as such by the LCS of the target communities.
• Outcome II: Economic reintegration of all CVR direct beneficiaries achieved through market-study-verified vocational/skills training, tutoring and development of income generation activities.
• Outcome III: Increased social cohesion, peaceful coexistence and resilience of target communities achieved through participation of CVR beneficiaries, LC members, local authorities and key local actors in selected trainings, sensitization campaigns and the strengthening of community dialogue, including mechanisms for peaceful settlement of intercommunal disputes as an alternative to violence, and the possible implementation of relevant early warning mechanisms.
• Appui à la Phase de Formation des Ex-Combattants Incorporés dans les Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS) à la suite de l’Accords Politique de Paix et de Réconciliation en Centrafrique (implemented from June 2019 to October 2020)

For the implementation of the USMS, IOM was responsible to implement the logistical component of the operationalization of the USMS including the construction of the camps, operationalization of the training programs and deployment support for members of the USMS. The construction of the USMS camps began in Bouar and later extended to Paoua, N’dele and Bossangoa. The duration of the “Appui à la Phase de Formation des Ex-Combattants Incorporés dans les Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS) à la suite de l’Accords Politique de Paix et de Réconciliation en Centrafrique ” project was 15 months (including 3 months of NCE), from June 2019 to October 2020. The total project budget approved by PBF was 3,730,499.

The Theory of Change (ToC) of Appui à la Phase de Formation des Ex-Combattants Incorporés dans les Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS) à la suite de l’Accords Politique de Paix et de Réconciliation en Centrafrique (implemented from June 2019 to October 2020)

• Si les capacités des USMS permettent de renforcer la protection et la sécurité des populations civiles, et de renforcer l’ordre public particulièrement en sécurisant les zones de transhumances;
• Alors, le projet parviendra d’une part à renforcer la confiance entre le gouvernement et les GA, et d’autre part à améliorer la confiance de la population dans le processus de paix, réduisant ainsi les obstacles vers une paix durable en RCA;
• Car, la mise en œuvre de l’APPR sera perçu par les ex-combattants, les FDS et les communautés comme étant transparent et bien organisé ; et car les liens entre les parties concernées seront appuyés à travers l’identification conjointe des solutions aux risques sécuritaires prioritaires dans les zones de déploiement.

Expected results of the project :

• Résultat 1 : 800 ex-combattants et 533 FDSI intégrés dans les USMS sont capables de conduire les opérations prévues dans leurs termes de références à travers une formation efficace et répondant aux besoins de leur déploiement
• Résultat Attendu 2 : Le déploiement des USMS est stratégiquement orienté en fonction des priorités sécuritaires des zones de transhumance et minières.
• Résultat 3 : Les USMS sont déployés dans les localités stratégiques et prioritaires liées à la transhumance et activités minières.

TASK TO BE PERFORMED

1. PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES OF THE EVALUATION
2. Purpose

The final evaluations of these projects will present an opportunity to assess the achievements of the CVR project in Ouaka (Bambari) and the USMS project in an inclusive way and to determine its overall added value to peacebuilding in CAR in the areas of community violence reduction, peacebuilding and peace consolidation. In assessing the theory of change, the evaluation will assess the degree to which the project met its intended peacebuilding objective(s) and results. The evaluation will provide key lessons about successful peacebuilding approaches and operational practices, as well as highlight areas where the project performed less effectively than anticipated. In that sense, this project evaluation is equally about accountability as well as learning.

Cross-cutting themes, such as Gender, Accountability to Affected Populations (AAP), Rights-Based Approach, Environment shall be evaluated, as well.

1. Objectives of the evaluation:

• Assess the relevance and appropriateness of the project in terms of:
  • addressing key drivers of conflict and the most relevant peacebuilding issues;
  • alignment with National Peacebuilding Policy and national priorities of CAR;
  • whether the project capitalized on the UN’s added value in CAR; and
  • the degree to which the project addressed cross-cutting issues such as conflict and gender-sensitivity in CAR;
• Assess to what extent the PBF projects have made a concrete contribution to reducing a conflict factor in CAR. With respect to PBF’s contributions, the evaluations may evaluate whether the project helped advance achievement of the SDGs, and in particular SDG 16;
• Evaluate the project’s efficiency, including its implementation strategy, institutional arrangements as well as its management and operational systems and value for money;
• Assess whether the support provided by the PBF has promoted the Women, Peace and Security agenda (WPS), allowed a specific focus on women’s participation in peacebuilding processes, and whether it was accountable to gender equality;
• Assess whether the project has been implemented through a conflict-sensitive approach;
• Document good practices, innovations and lessons emerging from the project;
• Provide actionable recommendations for future programming.

1. Scope of the project evaluation

This evaluation will examine the projects’ implementation process and peacebuilding results, drawing upon the projects’ results framework/matrix as well as other monitoring data collected on the project outputs and outcomes as well as context. Evaluation questions are based on the OECD DAC evaluation criteria as well as PBF specific evaluation criteria, which have been adapted to the context. Evaluators will ensure that the evaluation of the peacebuilding result is the main line of inquiry.

Peacebuilding projects frequently employ approaches that work through thematic areas that overlap with development or humanitarian goals. An evaluation of peacebuilding projects, however, must include not only reflection on progress within the thematic area but the degree to which such progress may or may not have contributed to addressing a relevant conflict factor. The final evaluation will assess all the projects’ outputs and results, from the launching of the projects through the operational set-up, and the implementation of the planned activities up to the project end date.

1. Evaluation Questions for Community Violence Reduction in Greater Bambari Area (implemented from September 2017 to August 2020)

RELEVANCE:

• Was the project relevant in addressing youth’s participation in armed conflicts, inter and intra – communal/religious tensions/conflicts, women’s participation in peacebuilding initiatives, youth’s skills development and their participation in community recovery initiatives?
• Was the project relevant in providing livelihood alternatives and temporary employment opportunities to the target beneficiaries with the aim of reducing youth’s participation in armed conflicts and did the project adequately address other needs and priorities of the target groups/beneficiaries?
• Did the project bring about change in the way the youth perceived their participation in armed conflicts and did the project contribute to reducing violence within the target communities?
• Was the project relevant in setting up local conflict prevention and resolution mechanism as alternative to violence and did the project contribute to building the capacity of the local leadership structures responsible to prevent and resolve conflicts?

EFFICIENCY:

• How efficient was the overall staffing, planning and coordination within the project? Were the project funds and activities delivered in a timely manner?
• How efficient and successful was the project’s implementation approach, including procurement, number of implementing partners and other activities?
• How well did the project team communicate with implementing partners, stakeholders and project beneficiaries on its progress?
• To what extent did the project ensure synergies within different programs of UN agencies and other implementing organizations and donor with the same portfolio?

EFFECTIVENESS:

• To what extent did the project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to reducing violence in target communities?
• To what extent was a gender-sensitive, rights-based and accountable approach used in the implementation of the project?
• Were the project’s communities and target beneficiaries properly identified based on their exposure to conflicts and were they reached as planned? Are the target beneficiaries and benefiting communities satisfied with the services provided?
• Was the project monitoring system adequately capturing data on peacebuilding results at an appropriate outcome level?

SUSTAINABILITY & OWNERSHIP

• Are small businesses (micro projects) setup for beneficiaries still functional and are they addressing the market needs of their communities? Are the community infrastructures rehabilitated/constructed being used to provide relevant services to the communities?
• Is the conflict prevention and resolution mechanism setup still functional?
• Did the intervention design include an appropriate sustainability and exit strategy (including promoting national/local ownership, use of national capacity etc.) to support positive changes in peacebuilding after the end of the project?
• How has the project enhanced and contributed to the development of national capacity in order to ensure suitability of efforts and benefits?

COHERENCE

• To what extent did the project complement work among different entities, especially with other UN actors?
• If the project was part of a broader package of PBF, to what degree was the project’s design, implementation, monitoring, and reporting aligned with that of other projects?
• How were stakeholders involved in the project’s design and implementation?

CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY

• Did the project contribute to addressing key conflict – sensitive issues within the target communities?
• Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict-sensitivity?
• Were internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict-sensitive approach?
• Was an ongoing process of context monitoring and a monitoring system that allows for monitoring of unintended impacts established?

CATALYTIC:

• Was the project financially and/or programmatically catalytic?
• Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work and/or has it helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?

GENDER-RESPONSIVE/GENDER-SENSITIVE

• Did the project consider the different challenges, opportunities, constraints and capacities of women and men in the project’s designs (including within the conflict analysis, outcome statements and results frameworks) and implementation?
• Were the commitments made in the project proposals to gender-responsive peacebuilding, particularly with respect to the budget, realized throughout the implementation?
• If the target groups (women and men) experienced unintended impacts, did the project take appropriate measures?

RISK-TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION

• If the project was characterized as “high risk”, were risks adequately monitored and mitigated?
• How innovative was the project’s approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform similar approaches elsewhere?

1. Evaluation Questions for Appui à la Phase de Formation des Ex-Combattants Incorporés dans les Unités Spéciales Mixtes de Sécurité (USMS) à la suite de l’Accords Politique de Paix et de Réconciliation en Centrafrique (implemented from June 2019 to October 2020)

RELEVANCE:

• Was the project relevant in supporting the government to address some provisions in the peace accord regarding the establishment and operationalization of the USMS, mainly providing logistical support?
• Did the project contribute to reducing violence (inter and intra communal tensions between communities and herders) along the transhumance corridors as a result of USMS deployment?
• Was the project well-timed to support the government in establishing USMS camps for training of ex – combatants?
• Did the project’s theory of change clearly articulate assumptions about why the project approach is expected to produce the desired change? Was the theory of change grounded in evidence?

EFFICIENCY:

• How efficient was the overall staffing, planning and coordination within the project? Were the project funds and activities delivered in a timely manner?
• How efficient and successful was the project’s implementation approach, including procurement, number of implementing partners and other activities?
• Were there delays to project implementation? Did these delays create missed opportunities to address time-sensitive peacebuilding opportunities?
• To what extent did the project ensure synergies within different programs of UN agencies and other implementing organizations and donor with the same portfolio?

EFFECTIVENESS:

• To what extent was a gender-sensitive, rights-based and accountable approach used in the implementation of the project?
• To what extent did the project achieve its intended objectives and contribute to the training and deployment of the USMS?
• To what extent was a gender-sensitive, rights-based and accountable approach used in the implementation of the project?
• Were the training sites properly identified based on government’s priorities for training of the USMS and were the beneficiaries satisfied with the services provided?

SUSTAINABILITY & OWNERSHIP

• Are the USMS camps still functional and trainings are still being provided?
• Did the intervention design include an appropriate sustainability and exit strategy (including promoting national/local ownership, use of national capacity etc.) to support positive changes in peacebuilding after the end of the project?
• How strong is the commitment of the Government and other stakeholders to sustaining the results of PBF support and continuing the initiatives?
• How has the project enhanced and contributed to the development of national capacity in order to ensure suitability of efforts and benefits?

COHERENCE

• To what extent did the project complement work among different entities, especially with other UN actors?
• If the project was part of a broader package of PBF, to what degree was the project’s design, implementation, monitoring, and reporting aligned with that of other projects?
• How were stakeholders involved in the project’s design and implementation?

CONFLICT-SENSITIVITY

• Did the training and deployment of the USMS contribute to addressing key conflict – sensitive issues within the deployment locations?
• Did the project have an explicit approach to conflict-sensitivity?
• Were internal capacities adequate for ensuring an ongoing conflict-sensitive approach?

CATALYTIC:

• Was the project financially and/or programmatically catalytic?
• Has PBF funding been used to scale-up other peacebuilding work and/or has it helped to create broader platforms for peacebuilding?

GENDER-RESPONSIVE/GENDER-SENSITIVE

• Did the project make provisions for addressing the needs of women and men (different needs, equal opportunities) during the establishment of the camps and trainings of the USMS?
• Did the project consider the different challenges, opportunities, constraints and capacities of women and in the project’s designs (including within the conflict analysis, outcome statements and results frameworks) and implementation?
• Were the commitments made in the project proposals to gender-responsive peacebuilding, particularly with respect to the budget, realized throughout the implementation?

RISK-TOLERANCE AND INNOVATION

• If the project was characterized as “high risk”, were risks adequately monitored and mitigated?
• How innovative was the project’s approach? Can lessons be drawn to inform similar approaches elsewhere?

TANGIBLE AND MEASURABLE OUTPUT OF THE WORK ASSIGNMENT

1. METHODOLOGIES AND APPROACH

The evaluation will be summative and will employ a participatory approach whereby discussions with and surveys of key stakeholders provide/verify the substance of the findings. Proposal submitted by the prospective consultant should outline a strong mixed method approach to data collection and analysis, clearly noting how various forms of evidence will be employed vis-à-vis each other to triangulate gathered information. The proposal should be clear on the specific role each of the various methodological approaches plays in helping to address each of the evaluation questions. The methodologies for data collection may include but not necessarily limited to:

• Desk review of key documents
• Key informant interviews and focus group discussions, as appropriate, with major stakeholders including country PBF team, officials from key ministries and government agencies, representatives of civil society organizations; community and religious leaders. Evaluators should be aware not to deploy KIIs with officials, professionals and other higher-status stakeholders while relegating grassroots stakeholders to Focus Group Discussions. The ToR should make clear that the different approaches should meaningfully relate to the different kinds of data yielded by each and their connection to the evaluation questions. The ToR should be clear that evaluators must ensure participation among men and women and across age groups
• Systematic review of monitoring data and internal assessments and evaluations
• Systematic review of existing, relevant data at the outcome or country context level
• Systematic review of PBF Eligibility Requests and Annual Reports
• On-site field visits
• Surveys

E. DELIVERABLES

Inception Report: The expert will prepare an Inception Report to further refine the evaluation questions and detail the methodological approach, including data collection instruments, in consultation with the PBF technical team. The Inception report must be approved by both the evaluation manager, PBF Secretariat and PBSO prior to commencement of data collection in the field. The inception report should include the following key elements:

• Overall approach and methodology

• Key lines of inquiry, linking refined evaluation questions to data collection instruments

• Data collection instruments and mechanisms

• Proposed list of interviewees

• A work plan and timelines to be agreed with relevant PBF focal points

2. Presentation/validation of preliminary findings to relevant in-country stakeholders and PBF

3. Final evaluation reports: The expert will prepare separate final evaluation reports for the two projects based on PBF’s evaluation reporting template. The first draft of the final reports will be shared with an Evaluation Reference Group, composed of representatives of all direct fund recipients and the PBF/PBSO (at a minimum), for their comments. The final accepted version of the report will reflect ERG’s comments. The Final Report must be approved by both the Evaluation Manager and the PBF.

F. TIMEFRAME

link below

TimeFrameEvaluationExpert.docx

It is important to note that the timeline indicated may go beyond involuntarily based on the donor’s timing in communicating response/comments on the final evaluation reports. Also, although the evaluations for the two projects are combined, they will have separate reports as requested by IOM and the donor.

G. Ethics, norms and standards for evaluation

IOM abides by the norms and standards of 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 as well.

IOM abides by the Norms and Standards of the UNEG and expects all stakeholders to be familiar with the Ethical guidelines for evaluation of UNEG and the consultant with the UNEG code of conduct for evaluation in the UN System as well. UNEG documents are available under IOM Evaluation Webpage www.iom.int/evaluation. The UNEG Norms and Standards will also be a key component of the quality management system.

The evaluation process will be conducted in accordance with IOM’s Data Protection Principles.

H. Specifications of roles

The evaluations will be managed by:

Programme Coordinator

With support from CAR RMU (Resources Management Unit) and

PBF field office in Bangui

The evaluations should be conducted by a firm represented by an International in the country. The evaluation should include:

• 1 International Evaluation Consultant
• 1 National Consultant (IOM to cover the cost)
• 1 National IM (IOM will release the National IM to support the evaluation team)
• A team of data collectors

The Programme Coordinator will make available relevant source documents to the Consultant including the project proposals, interim and final reports and all related documents of the projects. The data collection teams will support the data collection exercises while key stakeholders within PBF (Evaluation Reference Group) and the management cycle of IOM CAR will review and provide inputs/comments to the draft reports for consideration before validation and submission of the final version.

I. Evaluation budget

The consultant is expected to share a proposed budget with IOM upon which the cost will be assessed in accordance with the tasks outlined in this ToR. The proposed amount will be paid in installments and based on deliverables attained according to the timetable:

• 40% upon signature of the contract,
• 20% upon delivery and acceptance of the draft report revised according to stakeholder comments and
• 40% upon final approval of the report by PBF (Evaluation Reference Group) and IOM

J. Evaluation requirements

• Master’s degree in Statistics, Economics, Social Sciences, International Development or related fields
• Experience of 5 – 10 years in conducting project evaluations with focus on CVR, reintegration and reinsertion of former combatants, community stabilization and resilience building and experience working with unemployed youths with conflict carrying capacity
• Academic and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research methodology, design and implementation required
• Demonstrated competency in data analytics and statistical software, such as Excel, SPSS, STATA, SAS, R required
• Experience in data collection and community engagement in the context of IOM or similar organizations/sectors is preferred
• Experience of working with IOM and UN missions and agencies in crisis and conflict – affected environments, in terms of programme design, management and evaluation.
• Experience working in Central African Republic or in similar contexts is an asset.
• Capacity to speak and write clearly and concisely in French and English

DESIRABLE QUALIFICATIONS:

• Master’s degree in Statistics, Economics, Social Sciences, International Development or related fields
• Experience of 5 – 10 years in conducting project evaluations with focus on CVR, reintegration and reinsertion of former combatants, community stabilization and resilience building and experience working with unemployed youths with conflict carrying capacity
• Academic and practical experience in quantitative and qualitative research methodology, design and implementation required
• Demonstrated competency in data analytics and statistical software, such as Excel, SPSS, STATA, SAS, R required
• Experience in data collection and community engagement in the context of IOM or similar organizations/sectors is preferred
• Experience of working with IOM and UN missions and agencies in crisis and conflict – affected environments, in terms of programme design, management and evaluation.
• Experience working in Central African Republic or in similar contexts is an asset.
• Capacity to speak and write clearly and concisely in French and English

Competencies:

• Demonstrated ability to deliver on set objectives in hardship situations
• Proven records of effectively coordinating actions with other implementing partners
• Ability to manage a large number of staff and works effectively with authorities, stakeholders, beneficiaries, and the broader community to advance IOM’s objectives on the ground the broader community to advance country office or regional objectives

Language:

• French (fluent)
• English (fluent)

How to apply

• CV (include language fluency)
• Cover letter: Consultants should indicate their available start date

Please send to the following email addresses: IOM CAR RECRUITMENT – iom-car-recruitment@iom.int on or before August 26, 2022 with the subject line***: CFA/CF10/26/2022 Application for the Post of Evaluation Expert***

All applications should include a functional e-mail address and mobile number

Please note that only applications sent by email will be accepted and only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.