International Consultant for External Final Evaluation of “Labour Migration Programme - Central Asia”

Job Description

Introduction

The International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations (UN) Migration Agency, was established in 1951 and is the leading intergovernmental organization in the field of migration, working closely with governmental, intergovernmental, and non-governmental partners. With 175 member states, 8 states holding observer status, and offices in 172 countries, IOM is dedicated to promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefit of all. 

IOM established its office in Kazakhstan in 1997. Since then, the Organization has been promoting humane and orderly migration for the benefits of all, providing services and advice to the government as well as to migrants. As the Country Office with Coordinating Functions for Central Asia, the IOM mission in Kazakhstan helps to address specific sub-regional migration issues and emerging trends in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, establishing priorities for project development in the country offices in the context of sub-regional strategies, policies and consultative processes.

Since June 2022, IOM has been implementing the regional project “Labour Migration Programme - Central Asia” (Phase 1), funded by the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC), which aims to contribute to the improvement of labour migration management in order to use the human mobility impact on development in countries of origin, as well as in countries of destination. Project participating countries: Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan. Through six key outcomes, the project aims to support the efforts of governments and other stakeholders in target countries to develop coordination mechanisms to identify problems and regularly adapt and improve labour migration policies and processes at the national and regional levels.

More specifically, the project aims to achieve this objective with six key outcomes: I Governments and other stakeholders develop coordination mechanisms to identify challenges and regularly adapt and improve labour migration policy and processes in the region. II. SRAs, PRAs and vocational training centres improve services to better anticipate and respond to labour market needs as well as needs and priorities of prospective migrant workers. III. Employers in targeted sectors in destination countries adjust their recruitment practices to engage in managed ethical labour migration programmes in Central Asia. IV. Prospective migrant workers are better informed and prepared to protect themselves in recruitment and migration. V.  Migrants and their families achieve greater financial inclusion and uptake of financial services to sustainably improve their livelihoods. VI. Governments integrate data and research on return migration into their economic planning and targeted social protection initiatives

Specific Objectives of the Final Evaluation

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to:

• Assess the extent to which the project has achieved its stated objectives (outcome and impact levels) and outputs, while identifying both negative and positive factors that have facilitated or hampered progress in achieving the project outcomes, including external factors/environment, weakness in design, management, and resource allocation.

• Measure project’s degree of implementation, efficiency and quality delivered on intended and unintended results (outputs) and specific objectives (outcomes), against what was originally planned. 

• Provide summative evaluative evidence on the contribution of the project towards supporting efforts of governments and other stakeholders in target countries to develop coordination mechanisms to identify problems and regularly adapt and improve labour migration policies and processes at the national and regional levels

• Assess the management and financial efficiency of the project.

• Assess the extent to which the project's outcomes will be sustainable (without the need for external support) and contribute towards the objective of the project.

• Assess project’s contribution to gender equality and women’s empowerment and the broader “Leave No One Behind” agenda. 

• Generate substantive evidence-based knowledge by identifying best practices and lessons learned that could be useful for remaining project implementation, other interventions at national (scale up) and international level (replicability).

• Provide a forward-looking perspective for IOM’s positioning in relation to labour migration for subsequent phases.

• Provide formative recommendations toward design and implementation arrangements of MEAL for subsequent phases.

Through a participatory approach, the evaluator will actively engage relevant stakeholders, including IOM project staff, focal points of the national counterparts and beneficiaries from different activities. 

Recommendations, emerging from the evaluation, should be strongly linked to the findings of the evaluation and should provide clear guidance to IOM and its stakeholders on how they can address them.

Furthermore, the evaluation will have a focus on what worked, what did not work, and why, based on feedback against evidence and provide actionable recommendations, highlight best practices, share lessons learned, and offer valuable insights, which will inform the remainder of the implementation of the project or potential subsequent phases. An essential aspect of the evaluation involves analysing the integration of IOM cross-cutting themes of gender equality, non-discrimination and human rights-based approach into project activities and implementation.  

Additionally, the evaluator shall contribute to the following activities, taking a lead role in their implementation:

• Review of Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) approach, with recommendations aimed at contributing to overall programme strengthening.

• Review of Monitoring, Evaluation, Accountability and Learning (MEAL) support activities assigned to the staff and/or consultants.

• Review of application of IOM’s Project Handbook for programme design, implementation, and MEAL under relevant evaluation questions; and ensuring the uploading of monitoring data, reports, and evaluation documentation in line with IOM Evaluation Policy.

• Review of programme risk register, including recommendations for improvements of the Project Risk Register Matrix and related risk management strategies and plans, where appropriate.

Evaluation Criteria

The OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, likely impact, and sustainability will guide the final evaluation. All assessments will be conducted in accordance with the OECD-DAC definitions to ensure methodological rigour and consistency with international standards. 

• Relevance: The extent to which the intervention's objectives and design respond to the needs, policies, and priorities of beneficiaries at the global, national, and institutional levels, and continue to do so as circumstances evolve.

• Coherence: The extent to which the intervention is compatible with other interventions within the same country, sector, or institution.

• Effectiveness: The extent to which the intervention has achieved, or is expected to achieve, its stated objectives and results, including any differential results across groups.

• Efficiency: The extent to which the intervention delivers, or is likely to deliver, results in a cost-effective and timely manner.

• (Likely) Impact: The extent to which the intervention has produced or is expected to produce significant positive or negative, intended or unintended, higher-level effects.

• Sustainability: The extent to which the benefits of the intervention continue or are likely to continue.

Evaluation Questions

In the light of the evaluation parameters, the Evaluator is expected to analyze data and share their findings, conclusions and recommendations generated by this analysis. As a reference point for the evaluation, the evaluator is provided with indicative evaluation questions below; which are expected to be amended, elaborated and submitted as part of the Inception Report and shall be included as an annex to the final evaluation report described below. In consultation with the Evaluation Manager, in the inception phase, the evaluation team will further develop and refine the evaluation questions to ensure detailed and specific information is gathered for each criteria. The evaluation matrix will be reviewed collaboratively with the Evaluation Manager to the evaluation criteria and questions should be agreed upon and reflected in the inception report.

The following key questions will guide the evaluation process:

Evaluation Approach and Methodology

The evaluation should be transparent, inclusive, participatory and utilization-focused. The overall
methodology should be implemented following a theory of change approach, framed by the UN/OECD DAC^[1] evaluation criteria drawing upon mixed methods (quantitative and qualitative) data to capture direct project results as well as (likely) contributions.

In line with good practice in evaluating this type of complex system change-focused intervention, the overall methodology should be based on three concrete pillars:

1. the project’s theory of change;
2. an evaluation matrix grouping key evaluation questions and sub-questions by broad OECD/DAC criterion allowing analysis of programme results at different levels of its results chain
3. a data collection toolkit for the evaluation describing the quantitative and qualitative primary and secondary data collection tools that will be deployed to collect and analyse data to answer the evaluation questions.

The evaluation process should be participatory, engaging government officials, implementing and development partners, project staff, key stakeholders and a wide cross-section of staff and beneficiaries while ensuring inclusion of elements of gender equality.

The main analytical framework for the evaluation is provided by the Project’s theory of change, which should be used to organize the evaluation questions according to the Project’s expected results at each level of its results chain. In doing so, the evaluation should use a broad Contribution Analysis (CA) approach to causal inference with a view to understanding the influence of relevant contextual factors, and alternative and additional drivers or obstacles to change at the regional and national levels that may have influenced the Project’s direct and indirect, intended and unintended results.

The evaluation should also seek to apply additional evaluation techniques that can further strengthen the plausibility of links between the results of the different strands of work on various intended Project outcomes at the policy, community and individual beneficiary levels as well as telling the story of how and why both intended and unintended change has or has not happened as a result of the intervention. The methodological prism may involve contribution analysis (effectiveness), process tracing (case studies), outcome harvesting/most significant change (unplanned/emerging results), landscape analysis (relevance and coherence), quantitative analysis (indicator achievement and funding analysis), document review (relevance and efficiency), light foresight (forward-looking aspects) and techniques linked to participatory evaluation^[2].

In line with UN evaluation practice, the scope of the evaluation should cover six core UN/OECD DAC evaluation criteria: relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, likely impact, sustainability, and crosscutting issues. In proposing how to conduct the evaluation, the evaluation team should use an evaluation matrix to operationalize the theory of change and its agreed framework of direct and indirect results into a set of measurable categories of evaluative analysis following the results chain of the intervention. The evaluation matrix should properly address gender equality (GE) and human rights (HR) dimensions, including age, disability and vulnerability.

The evaluation questions above present a set of preliminary questions that the evaluation team should address in their proposed approach, following the revised UN/OECD DAC criteria. A final, more detailed evaluation matrix will be developed during the inception phase on the basis of document review and initial consultation with key Project stakeholders.

On the basis of the questions included above and the information present elsewhere in this Terms of Reference, the evaluation team should deploy a set of data collection methods and tools (that includes gender disaggregation) and allow for rigorous triangulation. These methods and tools will allow leveraging existing secondary data as well as collecting new primary data to be gathered during the field visit, which together will be able to answer the initial questions listed above. 

The combination of primary and secondary tools or the number of separate ‘lines of evidence’ should be at least five and be designed – as with the rest of the evaluation - with triangulation and complementary assessment of the sub-questions in the matrix in mind.

The evaluator is requested to propose a set of mixed methods data collection/analysis methodologies and techniques to answer the evaluation questions.^[3] This will be refined in the inception phase. The following lines of evidence should be considered: 

• Document, literature and monitoring systems review: Evaluation Manager will provide access to all relevant documentation, data collected, and analysis. Further documents may be requested by the evaluation team. The Project team will share information and provide guided walk-throughs of the Project and project management methods, platforms and tools. This should include a review of;
• Project document and description of the action
• Result Framework/MEAL Framework and Plan 
• Work Plan
• Donor/Progress Reports 
• Monitoring Reports
• Project Steering Committee meeting minutes
• Studies relating to the country context and situation 
• Financial documentation and reports.
• Background documents and other documentation.
• Analysis of deliverables and financial reports: Comprehensive access to deliverables, financial reports, and reporting dashboards will be provided alongside documentation.
• Structured, semi-structured and/or in-depth interviews or Key Informant interviews (KIIs): The team will provide a stakeholder list, including a wide range of stakeholders from the donor, national government and local administrations, as well as project partners, IOM representatives and the project team, and selected provincial stakeholders. All interviews should be undertaken with full confidentiality and anonymity. (The final evaluation report should not assign specific comments of individuals)
• Focus groups discussions with capacity building participants.
• Quantitative surveys: Surveys should have a clearly defined scope and seek to answer specific questions about the Project outcomes/objectives.
• Secondary data analysis.
• Direct observations.
• Case studies/deep dives for different types of activities.

The Evaluator will ensure triangulation of the various data source. Data and evidence will be triangulated with multiple sources to address evaluation questions. The final methodological approach including interview schedule and data to be used in the evaluation should be clearly outlined in the inception report and fully discussed and agreed between IOM, stakeholders and the Evaluation Team. 

Data collection tools should be gender sensitive, ensure that the data collection is disaggregated by sex and take into account the broader cross-cutting issues as presented below and elsewhere in the ToR.

Cross-cutting

As noted above, the promotion and protection of Human Rights (HR) & Gender Equality (GE) and Disability Issues (DI) and LNOB are central principles to the mandate of the UN, and all UN agencies must work to fundamentally enhance and contribute to their realization by addressing underlying causes of human rights violations, including discrimination against women and girls, and utilizing processes that are in line with and support these principles. Those UN interventions that do not consider these principles risk reinforcing patterns of discrimination and exclusion or leaving them unchanged. It is therefore important that evaluations commissioned by IOM take these aspects into account.

The methodology and techniques to be used in the evaluation should be described in detail in the Inception Report and the Final Evaluation Report, and should contain, at minimum, information on the instruments used for data collection and analysis, whether these be documents, interviews, questionnaires or participatory techniques following high level of research ethics and impartiality. 

Final decisions about the specific design and methods for the evaluation will be made through consultation among IOM, the Evaluation Team and key stakeholders about what is appropriate and feasible to meet the evaluation purpose and objectives as well as answering the evaluation questions, given limitations of budget, time and data.

Ethics, Norms, and Standards for Evaluation 

The evaluation team must follow the IOM Data Protection Principles,UN Evaluation Group (UNEG) norms and standards, and relevant UNEG ethical conduct guidelines while carrying out the final evaluation. The evaluation of the project is to be carried out according to ethical principles and standards established by the UNEG. 

• Anonymity and confidentiality. The evaluation must respect the rights of individuals who provide information, ensuring their anonymity and confidentiality. 
• Responsibility. The report must mention any dispute or difference of opinion that may have arisen between the Evaluator and Project Team in connection with the findings and/or recommendations. The Evaluator must corroborate all assertions and disagreements. 
• Integrity. The Evaluator will be responsible for highlighting issues not specifically mentioned in the ToR if this is needed to obtain a more complete analysis of the intervention. 
• Independence. The Evaluator should ensure its independence from the intervention under review and must not be associated with its management or any element thereof. 
• Incidents. If problems arise during the interviews, or at any other stage of the evaluation, they must be reported immediately to IOM. If this is not done, the existence of such problems may in no case be used to justify the failure to obtain the results stipulated by IOM in this Terms of Reference. 
• Validation of information. The Evaluator will be responsible for ensuring the accuracy of the information collected while preparing the reports and will be ultimately responsible for the information presented in the evaluation report. 
• Intellectual property. In handling information sources, the Evaluator shall respect the intellectual property rights of the institutions and communities that are under review.
• Delivery of reports/deliverables. If delivery of the reports/deliverables is delayed, or in the event that the quality of the reports delivered is lower than of the quality desired by IOM, the Evaluator will not be entitled for any payment regarding that specific report/deliverable, even person/days for submission of the report/deliverable has been invested.

Human Rights, Gender Equality, Vulnerable Groups and Disability Issues

The methodology used in the final evaluation, including data collection and analysis methods should be human rights and gender-sensitive to the greatest extent possible, with evaluation data and findings disaggregated by sex, ethnicity, age, etc. Detailed analysis on disaggregated data will be undertaken as part of the final evaluation from which findings are consolidated to make recommendations and identify lessons learned for enhanced gender responsive and rights-based approach of the project. These evaluation approach and methodology should consider different types of groups in the project intervention – women, youth, minorities, and vulnerable groups.

The promotion and protection of Human Rights (HR) and Gender Equality (GE) vulnerable groups and Persons with Disabilities are central principles to the mandate of the UN, and all UN agencies must work to fundamentally enhance and contribute to their realization by addressing underlying causes of human rights violations, including discrimination against women and girls, and utilizing processes that are in line with and support of these principles. Those UN interventions that do not consider these principles risk reinforcing patterns of discrimination and exclusion or leaving them unchanged. It is, therefore, important and required that evaluations commissioned by IOM take these aspects into account.

• Guidance on Integrating Disability Inclusion (DI) in Evaluations^[1]
• Integrating Human Rights and Gender Equality in Evaluations^[2]

Concretely, evaluation team members are requested to incorporate the following key principles from the UNEG guidance for integrating human rights, gender equality, and disability inclusion into their work:

Inclusion. Evaluating HR, GE, and DI requires paying attention to which groups benefit and which groups contribute to the intervention under review. Groups need to be disaggregated by relevant criteria: disadvantaged and advantaged groups depending on their gender or status (women/men, age, location, etc.), duty-bearers of various types, and rights-holders of various types, in order to assess whether benefits and contributions were fairly distributed by the intervention being evaluated. In terms of HR & GE, it is important to note that women and men, boys and girls who belong to advantaged groups are not exempt from being denied their human rights or equal rights. The same applies to persons with disabilities. Therefore, the concept of inclusion must assess criteria beyond advantage. Likewise, it is not unusual that some groups may be negatively affected by an intervention. An evaluation must acknowledge who these stakeholders are and how they are affected, and shed light on how to minimize the negative effects.

Participation. Evaluating HR, GE and DI must be participatory. Stakeholders of the intervention have a right to be consulted and participate in decisions about what will be evaluated and how the evaluation will be done. In addition, the evaluation will assess whether the stakeholders have been able to participate in the design, implementation and monitoring of the intervention. It is important to measure stakeholder group participation in the process as well as how they benefit from results.

Fair Power Relations. Approaches to human rights, gender equality and disability inclusion issues seek, inter alia, to balance power relations between or within advantaged and disadvantaged groups. The nature of the relationship between implementers and stakeholders in an intervention can support or undermine this change. When evaluators assess the degree to which power relations changed as a result of an intervention, they must have a full understanding of the context, and conduct the evaluation in a way that supports the empowerment of disadvantaged groups. In addition, evaluators should be aware of their own position of power, which can influence the responses to queries through their interactions with stakeholders. There is a need to be sensitive to these dynamics.
 

Responsibilities

Final Evaluation is expected to be conducted between 15 June 2026 – 28 August 2026. In total, it is expected that the evaluation will require maximum 40 person/days input to complete, including all contributions to the inception, country visit and write-up phases of the evaluation inclusive of all related costs. 

The below-proposed timeframe and expected deliverables will be discussed with the Evaluation Team and refined during the inception phase. The final schedule of deliverables should be presented in the Inception Report. The Evaluation Manager reserves the right to request revisions to the evaluation deliverables until they meet the quality standards set by the IOM guidelines. 

The Evaluator is expected to submit the following deliverables to the satisfaction of IOM*:

* The deliverables associated with the tasks, apart from the Final Evaluation, and their respective timelines are outlined in the Annex.

** The number of person/days are solely provided to give the Evaluator an idea on the work to be undertaken inclusive of all related evaluation costs. The payments shall be realized in accordance with Evaluation Budget and Terms of Payment section, irrespective of the number of person/days to be invested for the completion of each respective deliverable. The person/days indicated shall include all related costs for field mission and data collection including travel, accommodation, local transportation, and translation/interpretation.

*** Dates may be changed according to the actual contract start date.

The final report of the evaluation will be shared with the IOM and key stakeholders. It will be attached as an Annex to the final report for donor submission. The results of the evaluation report will be presented and discussed with IOM, stakeholders, and the donor.

The external evaluation team is expected to deliver the following: 

• Inception report + Data collection toolkit

This report will be 30 pages maximum in length and will propose the methods, sources and procedures to be used for carrying out the independent evaluation. The report should justify why the said methods are the most appropriate, given the set of evaluation questions identified in the ToR. It will also include a mission programme which indicates proposed timeline of activities and submission of deliverables as well as an Evaluation Matrix. The Evaluation Matrix will demonstrate the evaluation team`s understanding of the ToR and outline data collection and analysis plans, to be completed and reviewed with the IOM prior to the field visit. The report should be submitted to IOM after the document review phase for feedback and discussion, prior to the interview phase. The Inception Report should include in Annex a Data Collection Toolkit that includes a set of data collection instruments for both qualitative and quantitative data collection tools to be used in the course of the evaluation (i.e. for qualitative data: interview guides, focus group discussion guide, direct observation forms, questionnaires for consultations with stakeholders, etc; for quantitative data, surveys, relevant templates to assess change in basic financial and operational performance of the partners over the period supported by IOM). The toolkit should also include a proposal around how the different data sources will be organized and synthesized. The data collection toolkit should be able to be tailored to both English and local language data collection needs. The Evaluation Team will maintain an audit trail of the comments received and provide a response on how the comments were address in the revised drafts. This document will be used as an initial point of agreement and understanding between the Evaluator and IOM. In principle, the report is expected to contain the outline provided in the footnote link.

• Presentation of the initialfindings

Following the field visits phase, the evaluation team should prepare a presentation of the preliminary evaluation findings, tentative conclusions, and recommendations. This will be used to debrief the IOM team and address any misinterpretations or gaps. 

• A draft evaluation report

Based on the debrief and initial feedback, the evaluation team should prepare a draft evaluation report[1]  incorporating lessons learned and recommendations, and share with the IOM Team. It will also contain an executive summary of no more than 5 pages that includes a brief description of the project, its context and current situation, the purpose of the evaluation, its methodology and its main findings, conclusions and recommendations. The findings section must be organized by evaluation criteria and sub-questions, presenting evaluation findings and recommendations for the Project, aggregated and synthesized on the basis of the results of the different data collection and analysis tools (35-45 pages). Annexes must be presented with a summary of findings from each of the ‘lines of evidence’ used to support the evaluation findings. All completed tools and datasets making up the different lines of evidence should be made available to IOM. IOM will disseminate the draft evaluation report to the evaluation reference group in order to seek their comments and suggestions. Comments and suggestions of IOM and Evaluation Reference Group will be collected in an audit trail and will be shared with the Evaluation Team for final revisions. There could be up to three rounds of review, typically first by IOM for quality assurance, then by evaluation reference group, and finally by senior management.

• Final evaluation final report + Audit Trail

Once finalized, the evaluation team will submit the final evaluation report in the IOM-provided template. The report should include an executive summary, a list of acronyms, an introduction, an evaluation context and purpose, an evaluation framework and methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. Annexes should include the TOR, the inception report, the list of documents reviewed, the persons interviewed or consulted, and the data collection instruments. In addition, the Final Evaluation Report should contain clear recommendations that are concise, feasible, actionable and clearly linked to conclusions and findings. The Final Evaluation Report will be shared with IOM to be disseminated to the key stakeholders. The Evaluation Team will also submit its responses to the Audit Trail to show the actions taken/not taken and revisions made/not made in line with suggestions and recommendations of IOM and Evaluation Reference Group providing detailed justifications in each case. 

• Evaluation brief (two-page summary according to the IOMtemplate) and infographics

The evaluation team will prepare a concise two-page evaluation brief[2]  in English, summarising key findings, lessons learned, and recommendations. IOM will provide a template that may be adapted but it should not exceed 2 pages. Page one should include identification of audience; project information (project title, countries covered, project type and code, project duration, project period, donor(s), and budget); evaluation background (purpose, team, timeframe, type of evaluation, and methodology); and a brief description of the project. Page two should summarise the most important evaluation results: key findings and/or conclusions, best practices and lessons learned (optional), and key recommendations. The evaluation team will also prepare infographics summarizing key findings, good practices, lessons learned, conclusions, and recommendations. The purpose of these infographics is to enhance accessibility of results for diverse audiences and support effective dissemination. 

• Management response matrix (IOM will provide the template)

After IOM approves the evaluation report and brief, the evaluation team should draft a Management Response Matrix[3] using the IOM template, listing recommendations and indicative timelines for implementation. The IOM team will finalize the matrix in coordination with project stakeholders.

• The final presentation of the evaluation report (online briefing with a slide deck for IOM staff, the donor, and key stakeholders to be identified and agreed upon)

A meeting will be organized with key stakeholders including IOM and Evaluation Reference Group members to present findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The meeting will be held online. The presentation will be on main findings and lessons learned but will also be forward looking in proposing recommendations that are actionable by IOM and stakeholders. A draft slide deck should be shared with the IOM project and MEAL teams in advance, and feedback should be reflected in the final version.

All deliverables are to be written in English and meet good language standards. The final report should meet the standards laid out in the UNEG Quality Checklist for Evaluation Reports. IOM will not cover any cost related to translation/interpretation during data collection and reporting; all related expenses shall be included in the evaluation team’s payments.

Duty Station, Travel and Facilities to be Provided

Duty Station for the Assignment is home-based with specific in-country travel requirements. The Evaluation Team will be requested to travel totally for at least 10 days (excluding travel days and weekends) to IOM Kazakhstan and other implementing IOM missions where the Project has been implemented as tentatively indicated in the expected data collection mission agenda (to be finalized during inception phase with IOM). The evaluator should be experienced with relevant technical knowledge of the intervention being assessed. All the costs associated with visa, travel, accommodation and any other living costs shall be borne by the Evaluator unless otherwise agreed upon.

The methodology—including the final sampling strategy and choice of locations to be visited—should be further developed by the Evaluator during the inception phase in coordination with IOM. In total, it is expected that the evaluation will require maximum 40 person/days input to complete, including all team members’ contributions to the inception, country visit and write-up phases of the evaluation.

The locations of partners and stakeholders do not rule out the probability of a remote monitoring mission if approved by the Commissioning Unit under exceptional circumstances. The names of cities are there to indicate a potential sample which must be agreed between the Evaluation Team and the Commissioning Unit.

Evaluation Costs and Terms of Payment

The evaluator’s fee will be all-inclusive, covering all costs related to visa, international/domestic flights, local transportation, hotel accommodation, meals, field trips to respective implementation sites, translation/interpretation, venues for focus groups, printing, communication, and any other expenses required to complete the evaluation. Payment of consultancy fees will be processed in 30 calendar days upon IOM’s approval of deliverables. 

Qualifications

Required Qualifications and Experience

Education

          Required:

• Master’s degree (or higher) in a relevant field such as Migration Studies, Political Science, International Relations, Public Administration, Law, Social Sciences or related disciplines. 

  Asset:

• Formal training or certification in evaluation methodologies (e.g., OECD DAC evaluation, RBM, or equivalent). 

Experience

           Required:

• Minimum 10 years of overall professional experience in research design, field work, qualitative, quantitative and mixed-method research strategies, including but not limited to focus groups, surveys and interview techniques. 

• Minimum 7 years of relevant evaluation experience with designing, conducting, and managing complex international/national humanitarian/development evaluations either as a team leader, evaluation team member or sole evaluator that apply Theory of Change-based mixed-methods approaches to a variety of different modalities in development cooperation, involving inter-governmental organizations and their government, non-governmental and private sector counterparts. Evidence and links to at least three evaluation reports/research shall be submitted. 

  Asset:

• Having conducted at least 5 evaluations/reviews/assessments on one or more of the following thematic areas: migration governance, labour migration, or related areas as team member, sole evaluator or team leader. 

• Experience in evaluating UN-implemented or SDC-funded projects/programmes in Central Asia or comparable contexts. 

Languages

Required:

• Excellent command of spoken and written English.

• Good command of spoken and written Russian will be an advantage. 

Required Competencies

• Having conducted minimum 2 evaluations/reviews/assessments on one or more of the following thematic areas: migration governance, labour migration, or related areas as team member, sole evaluator or team leader. 

• At least 2 years of professional experience in implementing or assessing institutional capacity development and public sector reforms

  Notes:

• Internships (paid/unpaid) are not considered professional experience. 

• Obligatory military service is not considered professional experience.

• Professional experience gained in an international setting is considered international experience.

• Experience gained prior to completion of undergraduate studies is not considered professional experience.

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.

For further information and other job postings, you are welcome to visit our website: IOM Careers and Job Vacancies

Required Skills

Job info