Job Description

  1. Duty Station of the Consultancy: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. However, the consultant will be expected to travel to the project implementation sites as part of the end-line evaluation. The consultant will use her/his own laptop and cell phone.   

  2. Duration of Consultancy: 2 months (15 April – 15 June 2026, including preparation, data collection, analysis, reporting, and handover of all data collected and final reporting. The consultant should be able to undertake some tasks concurrently to fit within the planned timeframe without compromising the expected quality. The final evaluation is expected to be conducted on June 25, 2026.

  3. Nature of the consultancy: Category B, National Independent Evaluator, for the final evaluation of the project entitled “Strengthening Resilience of Disaster-Affected Communities through Durable Solutions in Oromia and Somali Regions of Ethiopia.” 


 4. Project Context and Scope:

Ethiopia continues to face significant internal displacement, with recent data indicating that millions remain displaced due to conflict, climate-related shocks, and other drivers. In response, the Government of Ethiopia has reinforced its commitment to advancing durable solutions through the establishment of the Durable Solutions Initiative (DSI) in 2019 and the launch of a National Durable Solutions Strategy in November 2024, alongside the development of five regional strategies with costed action plans, including in the Oromia and Somali regions, to guide coordinated and sustainable responses to displacement.

In light of the complexity and the dimensions of displacement situations in Somali and Oromia regions, International Organization for Migration (IOM), the United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO), and the United Nations Human Settlements Programme (UNHABITAT) are implementing a multi-year programme titled “Strengthening Resilience of Disaster Affected Communities through Durable Solutions in Oromia and Somali Regions of Ethiopia” with the support of the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation (SDC) and the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida). The programme is being implemented over four years, from 1 November 2022 to 31 October 2026.

The overall goal of the programme is to contribute to durable solutions through improved conditions for sustainable socio-economic recovery and the peaceful coexistence of Displacement Affected Communities (DAC), with particular attention to the most vulnerable groups, while strengthening local government capacity in responding to the needs of internal displacement.

The programme pursues a nexus-based, multi-dimensional and integrated approach to enable communities to move towards recovery and resilience by employing durable solutions and actions that enhance communities’ coping mechanisms against future shocks to anthropogenic disasters and natural hazards. Programmatic areas are intervening to devise a continuity of care where an area-based approach is adopted, with the agencies maximizing resources for a shared group of beneficiaries. The programme targets conflict and climate-induced IDPs (looking to locally integrate and relocate or return) and host communities in various locations of displacement of the Somali and Oromia Regions.

The programme seeks to achieve four key outcomes with interlinked components:

  • Outcome 1: Target communities are supported to voluntary return, relocation/resettlement, and (re) integration through the implementation of community-based planning and multi-sectoral recovery interventions aimed at building community cohesion and resilience.

  • Outcome 2: Enhanced economic status of the vulnerable members in the displacement-affected communities through facilitated opportunities for livelihood diversification options through on-and off-farm interventions and increased access to finance.

  • Outcome 3: Strengthened area-level spatial planning to ensure sustainable reintegration of DAC for improved access to HLP.

  • Outcome 4: The Government’s capacity in mainstreaming durable solutions in its programs is enhanced. The empowerment and inclusion of marginalized youths, women, and persons with disabilities are cross-cutting themes mainstreamed throughout the programme.

5. Purpose and Objectives of the Evaluation

The purpose of the final external evaluation is to assess the relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact, and sustainability of the joint programme in accordance with the OECD/DAC evaluation criteria, and to inform future policy and program design in Ethiopia’s Durable Solution and HDPN contexts.

The specific evaluation objectives are as follows:

· Assess the relevance and coherence of programme interventions

· Assess the extent to which the programme achieved its intended outcomes and impact.

· Evaluate the effectiveness of implementation strategies between the implementers, coordination, and resource utilization.

· Assess the extent to which the programme has built on its mid-term review and other learning activities.

· Evaluate the cost efficiency of the programme

· Providing evidence for rights holders about the intervention to enhance transparency and accountability

· Assess the HDPN in the context of programme design and implementation, particularly the peacebuilding and livelihood (development) aspects of the programme pillars.

· Provide evidence-based, prioritized recommendations to improve future HDPN and Durable Solutions interventions

· Determine the sustainability of outcomes and benefits beyond programme completion

· Assess the programme’s potential as a model for scale-up to promote durable solutions for internally displaced persons

· Document lessons learned and best practices (including gender equality, disability inclusion, human rights, and environmental sustainability) for future programming

  1. Organizational Department / Unit to which the Consultant is contributing:  PSU and PDCU units

  2. Category B Consultants: Tangible and measurable outputs of the work assignment

The consultant will be responsible for preparing for and carrying out data collection (quantitative and qualitative), training enumerators, coordinating the secondary source of data with the programme teams, monitoring the quality of the data collection process and analysis, and producing the final evaluation deliverables outlined below: 

Table 1 Deliverables

Deliverable #Working Days LOT Location Instalment
Desk review  7 Review of primary and secondary sources of data Home-based  
Submission of inception report and presentation  7 Inception report with clear methodology and data collection tool Addis Ababa 30% of the total payment 
Data collection and analysis  14 Field level data collection in the selected sites of the project  Field 70% of the total payment 
Submission of the first and second draft evaluation report  10 Draft report for technical review and feedback  Addis Ababa
Submission of final evaluation report  7 Final submission of the report  Addis Ababa
Submission of two pager report and management response plan  2 Two pager report  Addis Ababa
Validation workshop  1 Present the key findings and recommendation  Addis Ababa
Total LOT 1 48 (2 months)     100%
  • Evaluation inception report (15 – 20 pages). A concise inception report detailing the evaluation design, refined evaluation questions, methodology (including sampling strategy and limitations), field visit plan, evaluation matrix, and overall workplan. Final versions of KII guides, FGD guides, observation checklists, and case study templates submitted as annexes to the inception report. The inception report shall be shared with the Evaluation Committee and donors for review and finalization before the start of data collection. 

  • Draft evaluation report. Building on the debriefing and initial feedback received, the evaluator will produce a draft evaluation report that shall be shared with the programme management team  (IOM, FAO, UNHABITAT) and donors for their review. The programme management team will provide the evaluator with consolidated feedback. 

  • Validation Workshop: Facilitate a validation workshop to share the preliminary findings with key stakeholders, including donors and community representatives, for verification. The arrangements for the validation workshop will be defined and supported by the programme team during the inception phase.

  • Final evaluation report (50-60 pages including executive summary and annexes): Once feedback is provided by the programme management team, the evaluator will prepare the final report fully reflecting stakeholder feedback and meeting quality standards. The final report should be written in English, proofread, laid out well, including an executive summary, a list of acronyms, an introduction, an evaluation context and purpose, an evaluation framework and methodology, findings, conclusions, and recommendations. 

  • The evaluator will prepare an evaluation brief to facilitate the sharing of the key findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

  • Management response partially filled out (template will be provided by IOM). 

  • Presentations to stakeholders: Upon completion of the data collection and analysis, the consultant will provide a debriefing to the project team on the survey findings, conclusions, and recommendations. The consultant will also debrief key stakeholders in a workshop to discuss and validate the results and fill information gaps if necessary

In line with the deliverables outlined above, payment will be structured as follows: 30% upon submission of the inception report, and the remaining 70% upon submission of the final report, subject to approval by the IOM Ethiopia Evaluation Manager.

  1. Performance indicators for the evaluation of results

The evaluation will seek to answer the questions outlined below, which evaluators are encouraged to review and refine during the inception phase in consultation with IOM, FAO, UN-HABITAT, and Donors. The evaluator will further review the evaluation questions in consultation with the evaluation stakeholders (IOM, FAO, UN-Habitat, and Donors) during the preparation of the inception report.

  1. Relevance: Is the intervention doing the right thing?

  • To what extent did the programme meet the needs and priorities of the DACs and host communities, including genderspecific needs, roles and barriers affecting displacementaffected women, men, girls and boys, and across relevant IASC Durable Solutions dimensions (e.g., safety/security; adequate standard of living—housing, water, health, education; HLP; livelihoods and self-reliance; documentation/civil registration; participation and access to decision-making; family unity; non-discrimination)?

  • How well did the programme align with GoE Durable Solutions Initiative (DSI) priorities, National and regional DS strategies, and relevant sector policies?

  • Were the programme outcomes and implementation strategies aligned with donor and implementing agencies’ (IOM, FAO, and UN Habitat) strategies including national and regional frameworks? 

  • Was the programme’s theory of change adapted following the different inception phase assessments (gender analysis, environmental, conflict assessment) and Community Based Planning (CBP), and the recommendations from the mid-term review?

  • To what extent did the beneficiaries actively participate in the programme implementation process (planning, implementation, and monitoring) including decision-making?

  • How do the beneficiaries perceive the outputs/outcomes of the intervention?

  1. Coherence: How well does the intervention fit?

  • To what extent are the interventions implemented by IOM, FAO, and UNHABITAT complementary, mutually reinforcing and coordinated? 

  • To what extent is the programme coherent with other similar ongoing initiatives by other relevant agencies?

To what extent did the programme support and or/influence national and regional agendas on gender equality, HLP, peacebuilding, resilience, and sustainable development?

  1. Effectiveness: Has the programme achieved its intended results? 

  • To what extent has the programme supported community adherence to voluntary return, relocation and reintegration of IDPs? Have results been achieved equitably for men and women, different age groups and displacement status, and persons with disabilities?

  • To what extent has the programme enhanced the livelihoods of vulnerable members in selected displacement affected communities? Have results been achieved equitably for men and women, different age groups and displacement status, and persons with disabilities? Are the livelihoods cost efficient and sustainable?

  • To what extent has area-level spatial planning enhanced integration, access and living conditions for communities in the programme areas?

  • To what extent has the programme contributed to the different IASC Durable Solutions dimensions (safety/security; adequate standard of living—housing, water, health, education; HLP; livelihoods and self-reliance; documentation/civil registration; participation and access to decision-making; family unity)? 

  • To what extent the capacity of the Government of Ethiopia, particularly programme implementing regions, has been enhanced in mainstreaming durable solutions?

  • What evidence exists that the programme has contributed to reducing key barriers to durable solutions for DACs including access to services, livelihoods, social cohesion, HLP and local governance capacity? 

  • To what extent has the community-based planning approach contributed to strengthening participation and adherence of programme beneficiaries? Did it contribute to achieving the expected outcomes effectively?

  • Was there any established appropriate and accessible complaint and feedback mechanisms for the beneficiaries to raise concerns related to programme? 

  • What unplanned positive or negative immediate outcomes emerge as a result of the programme?

  1. Efficiency: How well are resources being used?

  • How well are the programme’s activities/operations in line with the schedule of activities as defined by the work plans?

  • To what extent were the costs of intervention in line with the products and results obtained compared to similar activities/interventions? (value for money) 

  • Through the different components of the programme, how can the programme’s efficiency be measured in terms of reaching the targeted beneficiaries as indicated in the programme document during the second phase implementation?

  • What type of obstacles (administrative, financial, and managerial) did the joint programme face, and to what extent did this affect its efficiency at the terminal phase? 

  • Were synergies with similar interventions adequately leveraged to avoid duplication?

  • To what extent did the M&E systems produce timely, reliable data that supported evidence-based adjustments?

  • Were risks (security, drought, operational delays) managed effectively to minimize disruptions and maintain efficiency?

  • How efficient were the ME&L, management and accountability structures of the programme?

  • Were resources allocated to support gender equality, inclusion and accountability?  If so, how were they allocated? Was resource allocation appropriate? 

  • Did the joint UN implementation improve or reduce efficiency?

  • To what extent did the partners (IOM, UN Hab, FAO, governement) activities complement each other and build on each other’s expertise? 

  1. Impact: What difference has the intervention made?

  • To what extent has the programme contributed to improved selfreliance, stability, cohesion and resilience among displacementaffected communities? Have results been achieved equitably for men and women, different age groups and displacement status, and persons with disabilities?

  • To what extent did the programme contribute to achieving/ pathways to durable solutions of DACs and along with the IASC durable solutions dimensions? 

  • To what extent did the programme influence the government’s policy/strategy, systems and capacities related to durable solutions? 

  • What were the impact measurement tools used and what lessons can be learned for future programming? 

  • Did the intervention reinforce existing discrimination and power structures or was it transformative? If so, in what way?

  • Were there any gender-related differences in engagement, experience, and impacts? If so, why did these differential impacts occur?

  • What unintended (positive or negative) longterm outcomes emerged?

  1. Sustainability: Will the benefits last in different scenarios (e.g. if funds are unavailable)?

  • To what extent are the programme results likely to be sustained and expanded after the completion of the programme? Will they be sustained equitably for men and women, different age groups and displacement status, and persons with disabilities?

  • Did the programme have a realistic and context appropriate exit and transition strategy in place? 

  • How well were the activities and capacities institutionalized within local government, community structures and DSWGs (including contributing factors and constraints) to leverage the benefits of the programme? 

  • What knowledge transfer took place during the programme implementation that will guarantee government institutions fulfill their role when the programme ends? 

  • To what extent has the programme established the enabling conditions for sustainable replication or scale-up (e.g., institutional arrangements, capacities, partnerships, financing mechanisms, and operational guidance), and what key gaps remain?

  • To what extent did the programme activities and results integrate environmental sustainability?

  • How is the sustainability of the programme likely affected by the current crisis (conflicts and natural disasters) and in context of the national and global response? Were changes to the exit strategy effectively made to account for these factors? 

To compute the above evaluation matrix, the consultant is expected to lead the overall final evaluation of the Strengthening Resilience of Disaster-Affected Communities through Durable Solutions in Oromia and Somali Regions of Ethiopia project and complete the evaluation according to the TOR and the deliverables

  • Review project background materials (e.g., project document, progress reports)

  • Conduct preparatory consultations with the IOM project team

  • Review prior survey design, methodology, baseline survey report, and project log frame indicators thoroughly to inform the final design and planning

  • Develop a detailed final evaluation plan, including a sampling frame and methodology 

  • Engage relevant stakeholders involved in the project process to ensure consistency and comparability

  • Prepare an inception report

  • Lead and coordinate the quantitative and qualitative data collection, including training enumerators, scheduling field data collection, and supervisory site visits

  • Clean and analyse quantitative datasets collected from the field

  • Conduct qualitative field research, interviews, as appropriate, and collect information according to the suggested format

  • Proactively plan and arrange for their travel arrangements and other logistical arrangements, including cost coverage

  • Upon completion of the data collection and analysis, the consultant will prepare a draft report and provide a debriefing to the project team on the survey findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

  • The consultant will also debrief key stakeholders in a validation workshop to discuss and validate the results and fill in information gaps if necessary

  • Prepare a comprehensive final evaluation report, including findings, conclusions, and recommendations disaggregated by sex, location, and as appropriate, considering the evaluation design

  • Provide quality deliverables by the expected deadline and in the correct template 

  1. Education, Experience and/or skills required

  • Advanced degree in Monitoring and Evaluation, Social Sciences, Sociology, Psychology, Social Research Methods, Statistics or a related field from an accredited academic institution.
  • Minimum experience of 10 years in conducting research and evaluations, including 3 years as a lead researcher/evaluator.

  • Previous experience in conducting evaluations of humanitarian response programs.

  • Previous experience in conducting evaluations for IOM.

  • Demonstrated understanding of the Ethiopian context and crisis response in Ethiopia. 

  • Excellent critical thinking and analytical skills.

  • Excellent quality report writing skills, facilitation, and communication skills.

  • Excellent knowledge of and experience with UNEG guidelines, principles, and standards.

  • Fluency in English required. Knowledge of Amharic, Somali, Afar, or Tigrigna is considered an advantage.

  1. Travel required

In-country travel for data collection and validation workshop.

  1. Competencies 

    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 one's own actions and delegated work. 

      • Communication: encourages and contributes to clear and open communication. Explains complex matters in an informative, inspiring, and motivational way.

Responsibilities

Conduct a desk review including, review of the project background materials and other secondary source of information (e.g., project document, progress reports)

  • Conduct preparatory consultations with the IOM project team

  • Review prior survey design, methodology, baseline survey report, and project log frame indicators thoroughly to inform the final design and planning

  • Develop a detailed final evaluation plan, including a sampling frame and methodology 

  • Engage relevant stakeholders involved in the project process to ensure consistency and comparability

  • Prepare an inception report

  • Lead and coordinate the quantitative and qualitative data collection, including training enumerators, scheduling field data collection, and supervisory site visits

  • Clean and analyse quantitative datasets collected from the field

  • Conduct qualitative field research, interviews, as appropriate, and collect information according to the suggested format

  • Proactively plan and arrange for own travel arrangements and other logistical arrangements, including cost coverage

  • Upon completion of the data collection and analysis, the consultant will prepare a draft report and provide a debriefing to the project team on the survey findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

  • The consultant will also debrief key stakeholders in a validation workshop to discuss and validate the results and fill in information gaps if necessary

  • Prepare a comprehensive final evaluation report, including findings, conclusions, and recommendations disaggregated by sex, location, and as appropriate, considering the evaluation design

  • Provide quality deliverables by the expected deadline and in the correct template 

Qualifications

Advanced degree in Monitoring and Evaluation, Social Sciences, Sociology, Psychology, Social Research Methods, Statistics or a related field from an accredited academic institution.

  • Minimum experience of 10 years in conducting research and evaluations, including 3 years as a lead researcher/evaluator.

  • Previous experience in conducting evaluations of humanitarian response programs.

  • Previous experience in conducting evaluations for IOM.

  • Demonstrated understanding of the Ethiopian context and crisis response in Ethiopia. 

  • Excellent critical thinking and analytical skills.

  • Excellent quality report writing skills, facilitation, and communication skills.

  • Excellent knowledge of and experience with UNEG guidelines, principles, and standards.

  • Fluency in English required. Knowledge of Amharic, Somali, and Afan oromo are considered an advantage.

How to apply 

  1. Click the Apply button.

  2. Make sure your candidate profile is fully updated before applying. To access your profile page, click Update Profile at the top of your application. Alternatively, you can navigate via: Home > Me > Career and Performance > Skills and Qualifications.

  3. Complete all candidate application questions and ensure your application is signed.

  4. Click the Submit button. Any changes made after submission will not be reflected in the application.

Please attach your technical and financial proposals 

Required Skills

Job info

Contract Type: Consultancy (Up to 11 months)
Initial Contract Duration: Two months and 7 days
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
At Impactpool we do our best to provide you the most accurate info, but closing dates may be wrong on our site. Please check on the recruiting organization's page for the exact info. Candidates are responsible for complying with deadlines and are encouraged to submit applications well ahead.
Before applying, please make sure that you have read the requirements for the position and that you qualify. Applications from non-qualifying applicants will most likely be discarded by the recruiting manager.