Job Description
Introduction
Established in 1951, IOM is a Related Organization of the United Nations, and as the leading UN agency in the field of migration, works closely with governmental, intergovernmental and non-governmental partners. IOM is dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all. It does so by providing services and advice to governments and migrants.
Established in 1951, the International Organization for Migration (IOM) is the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration and works closely with governmental, intergovernmental, and non-governmental partners. IOM works to help ensure the orderly and humane management of migration to promote international cooperation on migration issues, assist in the search for practical solutions to migration problems, and provide humanitarian assistance to migrants in need.
One of IOM Mexico’s core pillars is safeguarding lives and providing protection and assistance to vulnerable migrants. In line with this mandate, the Counter-Trafficking Unit implemented the project “Robust Interventions to Combat Human Trafficking in Mexico,” funded by TIP Office, from April 2023 to August 2026. This intervention was designed in response to persistent and emerging protection gaps affecting migrant and displaced populations across Mexico. The intervention aligned with TIP Office priorities and supported Mexico’s commitments, particularly regarding victim identification, protection, and coordinated multi-sectoral responses.
As Mexico continues to be a significant source, transit, and destination country TIP, shaped by longstanding structural drivers such as socioeconomic inequality, corruption, widespread violence, inadequate rule of law, and the heightened vulnerability of groups including migrants, internally displaced persons, children, and indigenous communities. Despite the existence of national and state-level institutional mechanisms, critical challenges remain in coordination, victim identification, trauma informed assistance, frontline capacities, and access to specialized protection services.
The project was implemented in key areas on the U.S-Mexico and southern Mexico border and the Metropolitan Area of the Valley of Mexico, specifically in the following five states: Baja California, Chihuahua, Mexico City, State of Mexico and Chiapas - and 7 cities - Tijuana, Mexicali, Ciudad Juárez, Chihuahua, and Mexico City, Tuxtla Gutierrez, and Tapachula. These areas registered some of the highest levels of detected cases of trafficking and represent areas where 3P response capacities were overrun considering the sheer volume and presence of highly vulnerable groups, underdeveloped capacities of frontline actors, and a lack of local coordination between C Counter-Trafficking actors, among others.
Under this context, the project’s main goal was to increase identification and protection of victims of trafficking, particularly among migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere. To achieve this, the project was structured around four mains objectives and outcomes, and their corresponding activities:
Project´s Goal: Increase identification and protection of victims of trafficking, particularly among migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border and elsewhere.
Project Objective 1: Enhance the capacities of service providers by strengthening existing and creating new inter-agency and multi-sectoral coordination mechanisms.
Outcome 1: An increase in availability, scope, participation, and frequency of new and existing inter-agency mechanisms leads to more frequent communication and a greater number of actors (including government, NGOs) collaborating on 3P activities at the local level.
Main activities:
1.1 Interview members of the state commissions in Mexico City, State of Mexico, Baja California, Chihuahua, and Chiapas and the existing local CT working group in Tapachula to determine key 3P priorities, informing project design.
1.2 Design project information packet with visual products on main objectives, outcomes, and activities.
1.3 Conduct launch meetings with state commissions and the Tapachula working group to propose methods of including a greater number of actors in commission-related conversations and planning, establishment of working groups and yearly meetings, and the operationalization of 2 new local working groups in Ciudad Juárez and Mexicali, stressing inclusion of survivor-led organizations in each location / mechanism.
1.4 Systematize feedback from interviews and launch meeting and draft terms of reference (ToR) on designing and operationalizing working groups.
1.5 Conduct 3 regional anti-TIP forums - 1) Chiapas; 2) State of Mexico and Mexico City; 3) Baja California and Chihuahua - with key UN, NGO, academic, governmental (local and federal), law enforcement (with vetting), and survivor-led agencies/advocates to identify main challenges and opportunities in local 3P responses in states/cities with high levels of migration and mobility.
1.6 Realize sessions in forums on local TIP trends and dynamics; enhancing screening and identification; improving local referral mechanisms; increasing access to victim-centered remedy and care; and reforms to the national law, presenting and validating the proposal to expand collaboration with non-commission members in target locations and create new working groups.
1.7 Draft and publish forum minutes and design state-level workplans / action agreements with commission heads and working group focal points to guide project- and non-project-related inter-agency Counter-Trafficking activities, updated by IOM and focal points on a yearly basis and oriented in TIP Office NOFO priorities.
1.8 Finalize workplans, operationalize working groups, and expand state commissions.
1.9 Provide logistical, administrative, coordination, and financial support to, and attend annual meetings of state intersecretarial commissions and local working groups, producing information products on key developments and successes.
1.10 Support the realization of annual technical encounters between state and federal commission members with a different thematic focus each year - potentially focusing on the reform process of the National Anti-TIP General Law in 2023 and protection implications, per request from the Secretariat of the Interior (SEGOB).
1.11 Complete sustainability meetings before project finalization to discuss key successes and options to continue mechanisms into the future, as well as any further technical assistance from IOM.
Project Objective 2: Enhance the capacities of service providers and non-specialized shelters to provide protection services for victims of trafficking, especially children and women victims.
Outcome 2: Victims of trafficking, including migrants and adult women and children, have increased access to multi-sectoral protection services.
Sub-Objective 2: Strengthen capacities of 2 NGOs to detect, screen, and manage human trafficking cases through technical and financial assistance.
Main activities:
2.1 Sign cooperation agreement with No más cuartos vacíos (Tijuana, BC) and FOCA (Chiapas) to provide protection for foreign and national VoT (including migrants, IDPs, etc.), focusing on women and children.
2.3 Hire an international evaluator (Consultant A) with experience providing care to male VoT and a local TIP expert with a child protection background (Consultant B) to provide technical accompaniment during the shelter preparation phases.
2.4 Conduct site visits to the subgrantee and evaluate necessary staff, infrastructural, administrative/financial, and technical capacities needed to prepare each shelter to receive VoT - drafting a step-by-step roadmap / workplan for each with clear activities and responsibilities.
2.5 Elaborate SOPs on operationalization / implementation of the care and protection mechanism, oriented in human rights, informed consent, do no harm, security, non-discrimination, confidentiality, self-determination, survivor participation, best interests of the child, etc., and aligned with IOM global handbooks on protection, assistance, and reintegration. SOPs will contemplate receiving referrals, intaking VoT, providing victim- and trauma-centered care, referral to other service providers, and responding to needs based on individual profile - men/boys, different forms of trafficking, VoT with families, indigenous persons, migrants, IDPs, etc.
2.7 Build capacities of NGO’s staff through training sessions on how to detect, screen and manage human trafficking cases according to international standards.2.8 Fund and provide technical support to provide assistance to victims of human trafficking (medical, psychological, legal, recreation, etc.).2.12 Maintain budget to pay for transport of VoT to shelter if needed. Provide hotel vouchers for safe and secure housing for VoT, with hotel locations inspected and approved by IOM field security staff.
2.13 Realize frequent meetings with subgrantees during implementation. subgrantee to submit interim reports every 6 months and a final report at project close, asked to report on actions taken to secure more funding/sustainability after the end of IOM support.
2.14 Schedule sustainability meetings with key government institutions and donors within 8 months of project finalization to highlight successes in the initiative and discuss options for continuation past project finalization.
2.15 IOM directly coordinates repatriation of any interested VoT assisted by the subgrantee through its Assisted Voluntary Return (AVR) program (in close coordination with consulates) and provides support to link survivors with other assistance through the global Emergency Victim Assistance Fund if needed.
Project Objective 3: Improve referral to care for vulnerable and at-risk populations particularly on the U.S.-Mexico border.
Outcome 3: Service providers refer VoT to specialized care and protection more frequently, easily, and efficiently per individual victim profile.
Sub-Objective 3.A: Develop SOPs and information guides to improve government and civil society coordination and increase access to protection services for trafficking victims.
Main activities:
3.1 Consultant C performs referral mechanism mapping assessments alongside commissions and working groups, accompanied by SOP manuals for operationalization and use, in Baja California, Chihuahua, State of Mexico, Chiapas, and Mexico City, based on a previous pilots completed by IOM and oriented in IOM's Guidance on Referral Mechanisms.
3.2 Evaluate the referral process for remedy and care of VoT between different actors involved in the state response, types of services offered by each (shelter, food, safety, health, etc.), and visual flow diagrams of the referral chain, highlighting gaps in the referral process between actors based on key informant interviews and systems analysis, alongside recommendations for improvement.
3.3 Ask each actor in the mechanism to report whether they have a standard screening tool and request a copy of each screening form for later capacity development activities.
3.4 Hire psychosocial expert Consultant E to realize trauma-informed, confidential, and safe interviews with survivors in the 5 target states to explore perceptions and feelings regarding the services provided to them and ways in which these services could be improved, accessing diverse profiles of survivors.
3.5 Synthesize observations from survivor interviews and compose a summary document to be published and shared alongside referral mechanism assessments, contemplating differential outcomes by location / victim profile.
3.6 Present referral mechanism assessments and survivor experience report to state commissions, federal commission, and working groups for feedback and validation, generating a non-binding roadmap on ways to address referral gaps.
3.8 Present flow diagrams to working groups and intersecretarial commissions for validation, alongside discussions on formalization of mechanisms.
3.9 Analyze the screening forms submitted by actors during referral mechanism mappings and conduct workshops/technical exchanges with actors in the 5 states to offer support in developing or updating screening forms in line with international standards / IOM's standard forms, including informed consent messages, accompanied by interview guides and instruction on how to realize interviews.
Project Objective 4: Enhance screening mechanisms to identify trafficking victims among migrants and vulnerable children while promoting prevention and protection through community awareness-building activities.
Outcome 4: More victims are identified by specialized and non-specialized actors, and key entities and target populations have greater awareness of the risks of trafficking.
Sub-Objective 4: Train under-targeted sectoral areas and provide tools to increase victim identification at the U.S. - Mexico border (including Tijuana area).
Main activities:
4.1 Realize ToT sessions in Mexico City, for authorities from target states on prevention, screening, identification, and referral for key frontline staff in the CEAV (per request), as well as under-targeted government sectoral areas: Child Protection (PFPNNA and SNDIF) and Health (SALUD), sharing model screening forms and awareness-raising information materials.
4.2 Deliver training sessions jointly between IOM and government sectoral trainers to frontline staff (health workers, child welfare case workers, in the project target states (funded by IOM), with the agreement that each sectoral area in each state realize another session with frontline staff before the end of the project, without IOM assistance.
4.3 Coordinate with consular offices for origin countries in Mexico City, collaborating closely with PADF and Camino Seguro project to build capacities of their consular networks to provide protection and assistance to nationals who are VoT in Mexico, through the elaboration of SOPs (by Consultant G) (based on IOM's SOPs created for Mexican consulates in the United States) and a tool kit with directories, interview guides, data management good practices, processes on voluntary return, etc.
4.4 Conduct trainings with consular offices in Mexico City, the south (Tapachula) and north (Baja California, Ciudad Juárez) in close coordination with PADF to teach the SOPs and toolkits and discuss steps for implementation, as well as follow-up IOM technical assistance during the project.
4.5 IOM will hold sustainability meetings 6 months prior to project finalization in order to discuss ways in which each agency / consulate could continue the Counter-Trafficking trainings into the future, contemplating additional technical support needed from IOM.
4.6 Create videos, social media graphics, flyers, information cards, and pamphlets on the risks and signs of trafficking in persons, and information on who to contact to report suspected cases or seek help (national hotline 8005533000 run by Consejo Ciudadano), sharing information packets widely with frontline actors during project trainings, screening activities, community awareness sessions, etc.
4.7 Contact migrant shelters in Tijuana, Mexicali, Ciudad Juárez, Mexico City, and Tapachula to conduct public awareness sessions on the risks and signs of human trafficking with migrants in shelters.
4.8 Conduct brief ToT sessions with migrant shelters to realize "trafficking awareness information sessions" with beneficiaries (sharing awareness videos and communication materials), accompanying them for the first session and encouraging them to realize subsequent sessions on their own.
4.9 Enhance IOM's own trafficking screening activities with periodic visits of trained Counter-trafficking/protection staff to INM migrant centers in Tapachula, Mexico City, Mexicali, Tijuana, and Ciudad Juárez, including with males.
4.10 Enhance trafficking screening activities in NGO migrant shelters, including with males, and provide technical support and resources to migrant shelter staff for TIP prevention, and identification, and referral of potential VoT.
4.11 Enhance trafficking screening activities in IOM's migrant information windows, specifically those in Tijuana, Mexicali, Mexico City, and Tapachula, and provide technical support and resources to information window staff for TIP prevention, and identification, and referral of potential VoT.
4.12 Maintain a small internal victim assistance fund to provide key protection services to VoT assisted by IOM during project implementation (whether for medical evaluations, housing, childcare, etc.).
Within this complex and evolving landscape, the project sought to address persistent gaps in coordination, victim-centered assistance, and frontline capacity. The final evaluation examines the extent to which the project’s design, implementation, and outcomes responded effectively to these contextual challenges, while also generating lessons learned to inform future programming and support institutional learning.
Evaluation purpose and objective
The final evaluation of the project is commissioned primarily for use by the donor (TIP Office), IOM, and the Counter-Trafficking Unit of IOM Mexico. The evaluation aims to generate credible, evidence-based findings that support accountability, institutional learning, and informed decision-making for future programming among project managers, donors, governmental counterparts, and other relevant stakeholders.
In line with TIP Office requirements and IOM evaluation policy, the evaluation will be conducted in accordance with the norms and standards of the United Nations Evaluation Group (UNEG) [1], and will be aligned with the evaluation criteria of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development/Development Assistance Committee (OECD/DAC) [2], namely: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability. Additionally, the evaluation will assess selected outcome-level indicators[3] from the project’s Results Monitoring Plan (RMP) through triangulation of existing monitoring data and primary data collection.
As established in the approved project proposal and agreed with the donor, the evaluation will be conducted by an independent external evaluator, with technical support and guidance from Counter-Trafficking Unit and specialists at IOM’s Regional Office.
[1] See UNEG (2016) Norms and Standards for Evaluation
[2] For further details, see OECD (2020) Mejores criterios para una mejor evaluación y OECD (2021) Applying Evaluation Criteria Thoughtfully.
[3]Indicators RMP: 1.7.1;1.10.1;1.11.1;3.2.2; and 4.5.1.
As specific objectives:
To examine the political, economic, institutional, and social factors that influenced the implementation of the project, with particular attention to the extent to which the results and coordination mechanisms associated with Outcomes were sustained, institutionalized, or further evolved following project completion.
To measure selected outcome-level indicators (1.7.1; 1.10.1; 1.11.1; 3.2.2; 3.6.1; and 4.5.1) as defined in the RMP and to assess their contribution to the achievement of the project’s overall objective.
To assess the extent to which interagency coordination mechanisms supported through IOM’s technical assistance became more frequent, functional, and effective, and to examine how these mechanisms contributed to improved collaboration, communication, and collective action among government institutions, shelters, and civil society actors at the local and state-levels.
To assess the extent to which project interventions effectively and sustainably strengthened the technical, operational, and institutional capacities of the implementing partner, contributing to improved access for victims of trafficking—especially women and children—to multisectoral, rights-based protection services in line with international standards.
To evaluate the relevance, impact, and effectiveness of capacity building efforts delivered to government entities, shelters, consular staff, and other frontline actors, including the extent to which training processes strengthened institutional knowledge, skills, and practices related to trafficking in persons (prevention, detection, identification, referral, and assistance).
To determine the effectiveness, usability, and institutional uptake of standardized tools—including screening instruments, referral pathways, and flow diagrams—and to assess the extent to which these tools contributed to improved detection, identification, and referral of victims of trafficking and access to appropriate assistance.
To assess the reach, relevance, and perceived effectiveness of awareness raising initiatives, including information materials, digital campaigns, and sessions delivered in shelters, and to evaluate their contribution to improving knowledge of trafficking risks, warning signs, and reporting mechanisms among key populations and frontline stakeholders.
To assess the extent to which the project integrated a human rights-based approach (HRBA) across its design, implementation, and results, in line with IOM and United Nations principles.
Evaluation scope
The final evaluation will cover the project’s implementation and achieved results from 1 April 2023 to 30 April 2026. The geographical scope will include the states of Baja California (Tijuana and Mexicali), Chihuahua (Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua), Chiapas (Tapachula and Tuxtla Gutiérrez), and Mexico City.
Temporal scope: From April 1, 2023, to April 30, 2026.
Geographical scope: Baja California (Tijuana and Mexicali), Chihuahua (Ciudad Juárez and Chihuahua), Chiapas (Tapachula and Tuxtla Gutiérrez), and Mexico City. While the project initially intended to include the State of Mexico in its implementation, its inclusion in the scope of the final evaluation will not be feasible due to contextual and institutional constraints encountered during implementation, including limited responsiveness from state counterparts. In particular, the prolonged inactivity of the State Anti-Trafficking Commission (SACT) and the absence of designated authorities for follow-up limited the level of implementation and resulted in only sporadic participation in selected activities.
Thematic and institutional scope: The evaluation will cover all activities, deliverables, and results produced under the project., with a focus on the following key thematic areas
(i) coordination and institutional strengthening through SATCs; (ii) awareness‑raising and prevention activities in migration contexts; (iii) detection, screening, identification, and referral mechanisms for VoTs, (iv) capacity building; and (v) implementing partners.Cross‑cutting themes: The evaluation will examine the extent to which human rights-based approach, including trauma-informed care, do no harm principles, confidentiality, informed consent, accessibility, and non-discrimination were integrated into project activities, deliverables, and outcomes.
Limitations and challenges. Several contextual and operational factors may influence the evaluation of findings. These include limited stakeholder participation in the State of Mexico due to the delayed reactivation of the SATC; staff turnover and changes within public administration, which may affect continuity of engagement and the availability of consolidated evidence; the limited timeframe for applying capacities strengthened toward the end of the project; and operational constraints affecting implementing partners, such as administrative processes, staffing changes, and reporting cycles.
In addition, some limitations are expected in assessing impact, as impact is typically observable in the longer term. A key challenge concerns involving multiple stakeholders from different sectors across five states within a limited timeframe.
The evaluation must place particular emphasis on documenting lessons learned, considering the conclusion of IOM Mexico’s technical support at project closure, so that these insights can be integrated into its knowledge management cycle. Findings and recommendations will be shared, among other areas, with:
The project implementation team, so that lessons learned and good practices can be incorporated into similar future activities.
The unit is responsible for strategic planning and project development, with the aim of strengthening future projects against TIP.
The Chief of Mission informs institutional and political factors that influence the effectiveness and areas of opportunity related to TIP projects.
-
TIP Office, findings may be considered in future projects.
Evaluation criteria
This evaluation will focus on the following OECD/DAC evaluation criteria:
Relevance: examines the extent to which the intervention’s design and objectives address the needs and priorities of beneficiaries and stakeholders, as well as national and local priorities. It also assesses whether the intervention has remained appropriate as conditions and contextual factors evolved.
Effectiveness: assesses the degree to which the intervention achieved its intended objectives and results, defined in the project’s RMP, including any differential results across population groups. It also considers the factors that facilitated or hindered achievement.
Efficiency: evaluates how well the intervention converted inputs (funding, time, expertise) into outputs and outcomes in an economical and timely manner. It considers value for money, implementation modalities, operational constraints, and whether alternative approaches could have achieved results more cost effectively.
Coherence: assesses how well the intervention fits within IOM Mexico’s broader portfolio and with other initiatives implemented by UN agencies, government counterparts, and relevant stakeholders in the same context. It also evaluates complementarity, synergies, potential overlaps, and alignment with global and regional frameworks relevant to Counter‑Trafficking.
Impact: refers to the positive or negative, intended, or unintended, higher-level effects of the program perceived by beneficiaries and counterparts.
Sustainability: refers to the extent to which the net benefits of an intervention continue, or are likely to continue, over time.
Evaluation questions and data sources
Table 1. Evaluations questions by OECD/DAC evaluation criteria
Evaluation methodology
The final evaluation will apply a mixed‑methods approach, combining quantitative and qualitative techniques to ensure methodological rigor, triangulation of data sources, and alignment with OECD/DAC evaluation criteria and IOM evaluation standards. The final evaluation design, including sampling parameters and data collection tools, will be refined and finalized during the inception phase, in close coordination with IOM Mexico and the evaluator. At a minimum, the evaluation will include the following components:
1.Desk review of policies and guidelines, as well as state and national counter‑trafficking frameworks across the four states covered by the evaluation; and relevant project documentation, including the project proposal and budget; monitoring outputs such as interim narrative and financial reports; datasets; meeting minutes and summaries; implementing partner reports; and core deliverables developed under the project.
2.Data Collection. The evaluation will draw on a combination of existing monitoring and administrative datasets generated during project implementation, as well as primary data to be collected by the evaluator. Existing data sources include:
Table 2. Indicative mapping of available datasets and key variables by thematic scope
Note 1/: The variables listed are illustrative and may vary by dataset and reporting period. Final data extraction parameters will be confirmed during the inception phase.
To capture the experiences, perspectives, and perceived benefits of different stakeholder groups involved in the project—such as members of SATCs, government institutions, CSOs, and migrant shelters—the evaluation will collect primary data through key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and online surveys, targeting the following thematic scope and stakeholders (see Table 3).
Note 2/: The approximate number of institutions indicated is provided for methodological reference purposes only, to give the evaluator an overview of the estimated sample of relevant stakeholders. These figures are indicative.
Sampling strategy for qualitative analysis. The sampling will prioritize non probabilistic techniques (purposive, snowball, quota based, and/or voluntary participation), consistent with the UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation (notably Norms 4 on credibility and 6 on ethics), the IOM Monitoring and Evaluation Guidelines, and OECD/DAC guidance for evaluations of complex and sensitive interventions. This approach emphasizes credibility, ethical considerations, and plausible contribution over statistical representativeness, particularly in Counter-Trafficking contexts. Accordingly, the evaluation does not seek to generate statistically representative inference.
Cross-cutting themes. The evaluation will systematically integrate a human rights-based approach across data collection, analysis, and interpretation of findings. This will include consideration of principles such as do no harm, confidentiality, informed consent, accessibility, non-discrimination, and trauma-informed approaches when engaging with stakeholders and interpreting evidence.
3.Assessment of selected outcome‑level indicators from the project’s RMP, as presented in Table 4 below, through triangulation of existing monitoring data and primary data collection methods. These will include KIIs, FGDs, documentary verification, and/or other appropriate data collection tools. The evaluation will report progress against established baselines and targets, disaggregated by location and sector where applicable, and will transparently document all known data limitations, including instances in which indicator measurement is primarily perception‑based.
Specifically for indicator measurement, the evaluator will: (i) review existing monitoring datasets; (ii) operationalize each selected indicator presented in Table 2 using clear inclusion and exclusion criteria; (iii) collect primary data (interviews and structured questionnaires) to validate reported progress, and capture project outcomes; and (iv) apply additional data collection tools when needed. The evaluator will assess data completeness, reliability, and potential bias, and will explicitly state any limitations affecting data interpretation.
Table 4. Outcome-level indicators to be measured in the final evaluation.
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 as the Data protection and privacy principles of the United Nations, and IOM Data Protection Manual especially those relative to interaction with beneficiaries. The evaluator should submit the signed Pledge of Commitment to Ethical Conduct in Evaluation[1].
[1]Available on: Ethical Guidelines for Evaluation Pledge
Responsibilities
The evaluator will deliver the following products:
Inception report includes the detailed evaluation methodology, evaluation matrix, data collection instruments, and workplan. This report should be prepared using the IOM inception report format.
Draft evaluation report summarizing the findings of the desk review, primary and secondary data analysis, as well as corresponding conclusions and recommendations. This report should be prepared using the IOM final report format and include separate chapters with findings and recommendations in each selected country.
Power Point presentation for the validation workshop.
Final evaluation report incorporating feedback from the validation workshop and comments from IOM. The Final Report will include an executive summary of a maximum of 10 pages.
Evaluation brief in Spanish and English (two-page document using the IOM template) to facilitate the dissemination of key findings, conclusions, and recommendations.
Management response matrix is partially filled using IOM template.
-
Power Point with evaluation findings and highlights of the final evaluation.
All deliverables need to be available in English and meet good language standards. Only the Evaluation brief is required to be delivered in both English and Spanish. If the evaluator decides to draft deliverables in Spanish, she/he is responsible for a professional English translation. This translation work needs to be included in the workplan presented in the inception report. Translation costs must be fully covered by the evaluator and will not be borne by IOM. The final report should meet the standards laid out in the UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports and comply with IOM internal guidelines including the IOM M&E Guidance and IOM’s housing and styling.
Specifications of roles
The parties involved in the evaluation process are:
Evaluator responsible for proposing the methodology, conducting, and/or coordinating evaluation activities including primary data collection, developing the deliverables specified in the TORS, and incorporating IOM comments into final products.
Evaluation manager is the Project Manager of the project who will provide project operational information and context as needed to ensure an adequate understanding of challenges and circumstances of the program.
Evaluation Reference Group consists of the Regional Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation Officer (RPMEO), and the Monitoring and Evaluation Assistant, or an officially designated Monitoring and Evaluation focal point from IOM Mexico.
The role of the Evaluation Reference Group will be advisory, providing guidance on the evaluation approach and validating the methodology, as well as reviewing and providing quality assurance on key evaluation deliverables. The Reference Group may review draft reports and provide comments to support the technical quality and credibility of the evaluation of products. The Reference Group reserves the right to review draft reports/documents and request modifications to guarantee the quality of the evaluation products.
Time schedule
The assignment is scheduled to take place between May and August 2026. The evaluation budget is intended to cover professional fees, as well as operational costs related to data collection activities, including focus group discussions, potential field visits, and translation services, as applicable. Given the project’s geographical coverage across four States and the limited timeframe, the feasibility of field visits versus virtual data‑collection modalities may be assessed and agreed upon during the inception phase.
Qualifications
Required Qualifications and Experience
Education
Master’s degree in social sciences, preferably in Migration Studies, Public Policy, Economics, Evaluation, or other relevant fields.
Experience
Minimum of five (5) years of demonstrated experience in project and/or program monitoring and evaluation.
At least five (5) years of proven experience in the evaluation of social projects or programs.
Experience in the design and implementation of surveys and interviews.
Experience in quantitative analysis.
Experience in qualitative analysis.
Experience in the application of OECD-DAC evaluation criteria and UNEG Norms and Standards for Evaluation.
Experience working in M&E with UN agencies and/or the United States Government (e.g., TIP Office, USAID, INL, PRM) is considered an asset.
Knowledge and understanding of TIP dynamics in Mexico, particularly in the states covered by this consultancy (Chiapas, Mexico City, Baja California, and Chihuahua), is an advantage.
- Proven experience in evaluating social projects related to protection, Counter-Trafficking, prevention of TIP, or other related crimes will be considered a strong asset
Skills
Strong analytical and writing skills, with the ability to produce high quality evidence-based reports.
Languages
Full professional proficiency in English and Spanish (oral and written).
Required Competencies
IOM’s competency framework can be found at this link. Competencies will be assessed during the selection process.
Values - all IOM staff members must abide by and demonstrate these five values:
- Inclusion and respect for diversity: Respects and promotes individual and cultural differences. Encourages diversity and inclusion.
- Integrity and transparency: Maintains high ethical standards and acts in a manner consistent with organizational principles/rules and standards of conduct.
- Professionalism: Demonstrates ability to work in a composed, competent and committed manner and exercises careful judgment in meeting day-to-day challenges.
- Courage: Demonstrates willingness to take a stand on issues of importance.
- Empathy: Shows compassion for others, makes people feel safe, respected and fairly treated.
Core Competencies – behavioural indicators
- Teamwork: Develops and promotes effective collaboration within and across units to achieve shared goals and optimize results.
- Delivering results: Produces and delivers quality results in a service-oriented and timely manner. Is action oriented and committed to achieving agreed outcomes.
- Managing and sharing knowledge: Continuously seeks to learn, share knowledge and innovate.
- Accountability: Takes ownership for achieving the Organization’s priorities and assumes responsibility for own actions and delegated work.
- Communication: Encourages and contributes to clear and open communication. Explains complex matters in an informative, inspiring and motivational way.
Notes
IOM covers Consultants against occupational accidents and illnesses under the Compensation Plan (CP), free of charge, for the duration of the consultancy. IOM does not provide evacuation or medical insurance for reasons related to non-occupational accidents and illnesses. Consultants are responsible for their own medical insurance for non-occupational accident or illness and will be required to provide written proof of such coverage before commencing work.
Any offer made to the candidate in relation to this vacancy notice is subject to funding confirmation.
Appointment will be subject to certification that the candidate is medically fit for appointment, accreditation, any residency or visa requirements, security clearances.
IOM has a zero-tolerance policy on conduct that is incompatible with the aims and objectives of the United Nations and IOM, including sexual exploitation and abuse, sexual harassment, abuse of authority and discrimination based on gender, nationality, age, race, sexual orientation, religious or ethnic background or disabilities.
IOM does not charge a fee at any stage of its recruitment process (application, interview, processing, training or other fee). IOM does not request any information related to bank accounts.
IOM only accepts duly completed applications submitted through the IOM e-Recruitment system (for internal candidates link here). The online tool also allows candidates to track the status of their application.
No late applications will be accepted. Only shortlisted candidates will be contacted.
Interested candidates are invited to submit their applications –cover letter, resume of the evaluator technical and economic proposal, and an example of other evaluation conducted.
The selection process will include a review of the education and experience of the evaluator, as well as the technical and economic proposal. Short-listed candidates will be interviewed to assess their technical skills and competencies.
For further information and other job postings, you are welcome to visit our website: IOM Careers and Job Vacancies
Required Skills
Job info
Contract Type: Consultancy (Up to 11 months)Initial Contract Duration: 3.5 months
Org Type: Country Office
Vacancy Type: Consultancy
Recruiting Type: Consultant
Grade: UG
Is this S/VN based in an L3 office or in support to an L3 emergency response?: No