The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds to the world's worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is one of the world's largest international humanitarian non-governmental organizations (INGO), at work in more than 40 countries and 29 U.S. cities helping people to survive, reclaim control of their future and strengthen their communities. A force for humanity, IRC employees deliver lasting impact by restoring safety, dignity and hope to millions. If you're a solutions-driven, passionate change-maker, come join us in positively impacting the lives of millions of people world-wide for a better future.
Integrated Emergency Response in Northwest Nigeria USG-OHA
Terms of Reference for Endline Evaluation
Target location: Sokoto, Katsina, & Zamfara states
1. Introduction
The International Rescue Committee (IRC)-led consortium, together with ALIMA, COOPI, GISCOR, and LHI, has been implementing the Integrated Emergency Response to the Displaced Population across Zamfara, Sokoto, and Katsina States. As of September 2025, the intervention had reached 223,167 individuals (81,529 male; 141,638 female), including 153,481 internally displaced persons (IDPs) and 69,686 members of host communities. The programme has been delivered in a highly complex and fluid context, characterized by persistent insecurity, with 1,780 recorded incidents including armed banditry, abductions, and attacks on health infrastructure. These dynamics, alongside ongoing military operations, farmer–herder conflicts, and seasonal flooding between June and August 2025, have continued to constrain humanitarian access and exacerbate vulnerabilities among affected populations.
Implementation of the programme was further challenged by the U.S. Government’s Stop Work Order issued on January 24, 2025, which required the suspension of activities related to Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) and Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA). This directive disrupted service delivery, referral systems, and partner coordination. Although partial waivers for lifesaving interventions were introduced in February 2025 and expanded in March 2025, delays in funding and limited operational clarity affected the pace of programme recovery. In response, the consortium adopted adaptive management approaches, including the activation of contingency measures, strengthening of security risk management systems, and adjustment of implementation modalities, while maintaining close coordination with relevant government stakeholders.
Despite these constraints, the consortium delivered integrated, multi-sectoral assistance across health, nutrition, protection, WASH, and cash-based interventions. Key achievements include the provision of health services to 73,693 individuals through supported facilities and mobile teams; nutrition support to 35,300 individuals through community-based management of acute malnutrition and infant and young child feeding programmes; and protection services to 32,463 individuals through case management, psychosocial support, and legal assistance. Prior to its suspension, MPCA reached 24,063 IDPs, after which alternative modalities such as cash-for-food were integrated into sectoral responses. In addition, 57,648 individuals benefited from WASH interventions, including hygiene promotion and water and sanitation infrastructure support. Within this context, the endline evaluation is intended to assess the overall performance, outcomes, and impact of the intervention, and to generate evidence to inform future humanitarian programming in Northwest Nigeria.
2. Purpose of the Endline Evaluation
The evaluation aims to generate evidence on effectiveness of strategies and processes used during project implementation. It will document innovative aspects of the project, lessons learned, and main challenges related to strategies used and make recommendations for the implementation of future similar projects.
Specific objectives
Assess the overall performance and effectiveness of the project against its objectives and intended outcomes
Measure changes in key outcome indicators across sectors, comparing both baseline, midline and endline findings
Evaluate the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact, and sustainability of the intervention
Generate evidence-based lessons learned and best practices
Inform future programming, policy, and scale-up of integrated humanitarian responses in Northwest Nigeria
3. Evaluation Questions based on OECD-DAC criteria
Relevance
To what extent does the project consider IDP’s different needs according to age, gender, ethnicity, other religious minorities and highly vulnerable groups?
How appropriate was the integrated area based multi-sectoral approach?
Effectiveness
To what extent were prevailing context factors (political stability/instability, population movements etc.) considered when designing and delivering the intervention?
To what extent were planned outputs and outcomes achieved across sectors (Health, Nutrition, Protection, WASH, MPCA)?
Efficiency
To what extent do the resources deployed (time, human, financial, material) justify the results?
Were implementation modalities appropriate given the operational context?
Impact
How appropriate was the integrated area based multi-sectoral approach?
What changes can be observed in health outcomes, nutrition status, protection environment, and access to services?
Sustainability
To what extent has the project created conditions enabling changes on men and women, boys and girls and community actors to continue?
To what extent are project outcomes likely to be sustained beyond the project lifecycle?
Coverage and Equity
To what extent did the project reach the most vulnerable populations, including women, children, and persons with disabilities?
Coherence and Coordination
How well did the project align with government systems and other humanitarian actors?
How appropriate was the integrated area based multi-sectoral approach?
The endline evaluation will assess progress against key project indicators as outlined in the project’s Indicator Tracking Table (ITT), with a focus on outcome-level indicators across all sectors. The consultant will review, validate, and analyze these indicators to measure changes from baseline to endline, ensuring disaggregation by sex, age, and population group (IDPs and host communities). Where applicable, findings will be aligned with USAID/BHA standard indicators and sector benchmarks. The final set of indicators may be refined during the inception phase in consultation with IRC to ensure relevance, feasibility, and data availability.
S/N Indicator code Indicators title
1 M02 % of households who report being able to meet the basic needs of their households (all/most/some/none), according to their priorities
2 M03 % of beneficiaries reporting that humanitarian assistance is delivered in a safe, accessible, accountable, and participatory manner
3 FS01 % of households with poor, borderline, and acceptable Food Consumption Scores (FCS)
4 N08 % of infants 0-5 months of age who are fed exclusively with breast milk
5 N09 % of children 6–23 months of age who receive food from 5 or more food groups
6 H15 % and percentage of community members who can recall target health education messages
7 W12 % of individuals targeted by the hygiene promotion activity who report using a latrine the last time they defecated
8 H08 % of community members who can recall target health education messages (two or more messages)
9 H20 % of the target population who can recall two or more protective measures
10 W04 Percent of households targeted by the WASH promotion activity that are properly disposing of solid waste
11 W09 Percent of households targeted by the hygiene promotion activity with no evidence of feces in the living area
12 W10 Percent of people targeted by the hygiene promotion program know at least three (3) of the five (5) critical times to wash hands
13 W11 Percent of households targeted by the hygiene promotion activity who store their drinking water safely in clean containers
14 W12 Percent of individuals targeted by the hygiene promotion activity who report using a latrine the last time they defecated
15 W15 Percent of households in target areas practicing open defecation
16 W18 Percent of households targeted by latrine construction/promotion activities whose latrines are completed and clean
17 W20 Average number of users per functioning toilet
18 W26 Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the contents of the WASH/MHM NFIs received through CVA distribution
19 W28 Percent of households reporting satisfaction with the quality of WASH/MHM Kit received through CVA distribution (i.e., kits) or value vouchers
20 W33 Percent of households targeted by WASH programming are collecting all water for drinking, cooking, and hygiene from improved water sources
21 W35 Percent of households whose drinking water supplies have a free residual chlorine (FRC) > 0.2 mg/L
1. Evaluation Scope and Timeline
The endline evaluation will assess the overall performance and results of the Integrated Emergency Response to the Displaced Population project implemented by the IRC-led consortium across Zamfara, Sokoto, and Katsina States. It will cover the full implementation period from May 2023 to March 2026, examining progress from baseline to endline and capturing changes in outcomes among internally displaced persons (IDPs) and vulnerable host communities. The evaluation will include a comprehensive review of project design, implementation processes, and achievements across all sectors Health, Nutrition, Protection (GBV, Child Protection, and Protection and Rule of Law), WASH, and Multi-Purpose Cash Assistance (MPCA), including subsequent adaptations such as cash-for-food. Particular attention will be given to the effectiveness of integrated service delivery, functionality of referral pathways, and alignment with the project’s objectives and theory of change.
Geographically, the evaluation will be conducted in selected Local Government Areas (LGAs) of Anka, Gusau, and Tsafe in Zamfara; Goronyo, Rabah, Sabon birni, Sokoto South and Isa in Sokoto and Katsina, Batagarawa and Batsari in Katsina state. It will also assess cross-cutting themes such as gender, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected populations (AAP), inclusion, and safeguarding. In addition, the evaluation will examine how contextual and operational challenges, including insecurity, displacement, seasonal flooding, and the January 2025 Stop Work Order affected implementation and outcomes. The scope will therefore not only focus on what was achieved, but also how the consortium adapted to these challenges, the efficiency of delivery approaches, and the sustainability of interventions, including community systems and government engagement.
The evaluation is expected to be conducted over a period of approximately 4 - 5 weeks, commencing in the first week of May 2026.
2. Methodology
The end-line evaluation will be conducted by an independent external consultant or firm, responsible for designing and implementing a rigorous and context-appropriate methodology to assess project performance against its objectives. The consultant is at liberty to design innovative methodology with consideration such quasi-experimental approach to ensure some evidence can be generated and use to inform future programming. Also, the use of a mixed methods approach with a focus on integration is encouraged. The consultant should use participatory and inclusive approaches - ensuring adequate representation of internally displaced persons (IDPs), host communities, and vulnerable groups, including women, children, and persons with disabilities.
During the inception phase, the consultant will refine the evaluation design, including the development of a detailed sampling strategy, data collection tools, and analysis plan. Quantitative methods will include a household survey to measure key outcome indicators and enable comparison with baseline data where available, as well as secondary analysis of routine monitoring data such as the Indicator Tracking Table (ITT), health facility records, nutrition registers, protection case management data, and WASH service data. Qualitative methods will include Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with government stakeholders, consortium partners, service providers, and community leaders, alongside Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with beneficiaries from IDP and host communities. These will be complemented by direct observation of supported facilities and infrastructure, as well as a comprehensive review of project documentation.
The consultant will ensure that sampling is statistically representative for quantitative data and purposively selected for qualitative inquiry to capture diverse perspectives across locations and population groups. Data analysis will include descriptive and comparative statistical analysis for quantitative data, and thematic analysis for qualitative findings, with strong triangulation across sources to enhance validity.
Ethical standards will be strictly upheld, including informed consent, confidentiality, and “Do No Harm” principles. The methodology should also account for contextual constraints such as insecurity and access limitations, proposing mitigation measures where necessary. The consultant will work in close coordination with IRC and consortium MEAL teams for data access and validation, while maintaining independence in analysis and reporting, and will submit a detailed inception report for approval prior to field implementation.
3. Key Expected Deliverables
Inception Report
Refined methodology, evaluation matrix, sampling strategy, and detailed workplan
Review of data collection tools, data analysis plan, and enumerator training plan
Desk review and meeting with key program colleagues and stakeholders
Submit inception report to IRC
Data Collection Training
Select/collaborate with IRC staff to identify the data collectors
Conduct data collection training
Submitting the training report
Data cleaning, analysis and reporting
Submit cleaned quantitative datasets/analysis
Submit qualitative data transcripts/notes and synthesis
Share comprehensive draft addressing all evaluation questions (OECD-DAC criteria)
Prepare a PowerPoint slide and present the preliminary findings to IRC staff and partners
Document the feedback and comments from the presentation
Final Evaluation Report and Presentation
Submit final revised report incorporating all feedback
Executive Summary (2–4 pages)
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Introduction
Evaluation Scope and Methodology
Findings Organized by OECD-DAC criteria and baseline, midline & endline comparison
Integration of cross-cutting themes (gender, protection, AAP, inclusion)
Lesson Learned
Conclusions and Recommendations
Includes annexes (ToR, evaluation matrix, tools, list of respondents, limitations
PowerPoint presentation summarizing key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations - delivered to IRC, consortium partners, and relevant stakeholders
Submission of all datasets, tools, reports, and supporting documentation
Ensuring compliance with Office of Humanitarian Assistance (OHA) data management and sharing requirements
4. Major Tasks, Deliverables, and Timeframe
Table 1: Expected deliverables and timeline
Tasks Timeline
Inception report 4th May 2026
Data Collection Training 5th May 2026
Data Cleaning, Analysis and submission of draft Report 20th June 2026
Presentation of Key preliminary findings 27th May 2026
Final Report 5th June 2026
1. Consultant Qualifications and Experience
Advanced university degree or equivalent in Humanitarian/Development Studies, Social Sciences, statistics or other fields related to the provision of humanitarian assistance in WASH, Health, Nutrition, Protection and/or other relevant sectors.
Relevant experience and proven expertise in the humanitarian sector, with at least five years in evaluations.
Significant experience in assessment, data analysis, visualization, and data verification and validation systems
Strong quantitative and qualitative research skills.
Knowledge of the current literature/practice on displacement-related to protection, health and nutrition, ERMS, WASH and Shelter programming. Familiarity with Nigeria/West Africa emergency response preferred.
Ability to work independently and achieve quality results with limited supervision
Strong analytical, synthesis, and writing skills
Excellent command in written and spoken English
Experience of participatory, equity and gender responsive evaluations.
Key working contacts: IRC MEAL Specialist, MEAL Manager, Team lead and IRC program and partner staff.
2. Evaluation and Selection Criteria of the consultancy
A two-stage procedure will be utilized in evaluating proposals. The first stage will involve an evaluation of the technical proposals, which will be completed before any financial proposals are considered. A 70/30 assessment model will be employed, where the technical proposal accounts for 70% of the evaluation and the financial proposal accounts for 30%. The cumulative weighted average methodology will then be applied to determine the proposal that offers the best value for money. See table below for more details.
Table 2: Evaluation Grid
Technical Evaluation Scoring Grid
Overall Response & Methodology Max Score
1. Understanding of scope, objectives, and completeness of response 10
2. Quality of the proposed approach, methodology, and implementation plan 10
Proposed Team and Organizational Capacity Max Score
3. Institution and Team Members experience and familiarity with the context 20
4. The technical expertise of the proposed team members 20
5. The technical expertise of the bidder (team lead) 10
Total Marks for Technical Component 70
Financial Proposal
Scoring Grid
Cost efficiency will be a crucial factor in determining the points. Full points will be awarded to the lowest-priced proposal that meets the minimum technical score. The financial score will then be assessed based on value for money. 30
Total Marks 100
1. Terms of payment
All deliverables must meet IRC's requirements and quality standards. Payment will be made only for work that is satisfactorily completed and accepted by IRC. IRC reserves the right to withhold all or part of the payment if performance is unsatisfactory, if work or outputs are incomplete or not delivered, or if deadlines are not met.
2. FINAL REPORT FORMAT
The final report should be clear, concise, evidence-based, and follow the structure below:
Executive Summary (2–4 pages)
Acronyms and Abbreviations
Introduction
Evaluation Scope and Methodology
Findings Organized by OECD-DAC criteria and baseline, midline & endline comparison
Integration of cross-cutting themes (gender, protection, AAP, inclusion)
Lesson Learned
Conclusions and Recommendations
Annexes
How to apply
Interested applicants at a minimum should provide the following documents (in English)
How to apply
Financial proposal, including daily professional fee and any other associated costs for the assignment. The consultant should itemize all costs in Naira for the duration of the assignment.
CVs of prospective consultants and any relevant staff that will be participating in evaluation.
A summary of relevant work experience; including at minimum 2 examples of past work
All technical and financial proposal (embedded as one pdf document) should be submitted online.
PROFESSIONAL STANDARDS
All International Rescue Committee workers must adhere to the core values and principles outlined in IRC Way - Standards for Professional Conduct. Our Standards are Integrity, Service, Equality and Accountability. In accordance with these values, the IRC operates and enforces policies on Safeguarding, Conflicts of Interest, Fiscal Integrity, and Reporting Wrongdoing and Protection from Retaliation. IRC is committed to take all necessary preventive measures and create an environment where people feel safe, and to take all necessary actions and corrective measures when harm occurs. IRC builds teams of professionals who promote critical reflection, power sharing, debate, and objectivity to deliver the best possible services to our clients.
Cookies: https://careers.rescue.org/us/en/cookiesettings