Consultancy for Endline evaluation and documentation for Uganda Humanitarian Fund (UHF)

The International Rescue Committee (IRC) responds to the world's worst humanitarian crises, helping to restore health, safety, education, economic wellbeing, and power to people devastated by conflict and disaster. Founded in 1933 at the call of Albert Einstein, the IRC is one of the world's largest international humanitarian non-governmental organizations (INGO), at work in more than 40 countries and 29 U.S. cities helping people to survive, reclaim control of their future and strengthen their communities. A force for humanity, IRC employees deliver lasting impact by restoring safety, dignity and hope to millions. If you're a solutions-driven, passionate change-maker, come join us in positively impacting the lives of millions of people world-wide for a better future.Endline evaluation and documentation of best practices and lessons learned. Uganda Humanitarian Fund (UHF) — Emergency Lifesaving Integrated Protection ProjectProject DescriptionThe project delivers urgent, coordinated, lifesaving support across four interconnected sub-sectors: Community-based protection and access to justice: Mobile protection teams conduct real-time monitoring, human rights documentation, and integrated case management serving 841 individuals at critical risk (including 286 GBV survivors, 250 children at heightened risk, and 305 other at-risk people). Legal assistance will address civil documentation gaps and rights violations.GBV prevention and response: Survivor-centred case management through Women and Girls' Safe Spaces (WGSS) and mobile outreach, safety audits, community dialogues engaging 9,500 individuals directly, and 24-hour one-stop centers for emergency support.Child protection: Emergency case management prioritizing unaccompanied and separated children, family tracing, Child-Friendly Spaces, and community protection committees targeting 7,785 individuals directly and 23,353 indirectly.Cash assistance, shelter, and NFI: Targeted cash transfers to 8,040 individuals to remove financial barriers; emergency shelter support for 5,310 people; and Non-Food Item (NFI) distribution, including dignity kits for women and girls. Purpose and objectivesThe evaluation will assess project performance against the relevant OECD-DAC criteria — relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, impact/contribution, sustainability, and accountability to affected populations — and generate evidence-based recommendations for future programming.Specific Objectives Are To Assess the effectiveness and impact of the integrated protection, GBV, child protection, and cash/shelter/NFI response in improving the safety, wellbeing, and self-reliance of at-risk refugees and host community members reached across all four sub-sectors.Determine the relevance and appropriateness of the project's design, targeting, and delivery modalities in addressing the identified protection risks and urgent needs of the caseload, including GBV survivors, at-risk children, and other vulnerable individuals.Evaluate the efficiency, coverage, and coordination of service delivery across the four interconnected sub-sectors, including the extent to which referral pathways and integration between protection, GBV, child protection, and cash/shelter/NFI components functioned as intended.Assess relevance, coverage/inclusion (including women, girls, unaccompanied children, persons with disabilities, and survivors of violence), efficiency, and sustainability.Generate evidence-based lessons, best practices, and actionable recommendations to strengthen the sustainability of outcomes, inform future programme design, and support accountability to donors and affected populations Evaluation scopeThe Evaluation Will Cover The Full Duration And Geographic Coverage Of The Project And All Four Sub-sectors Described In Section 1. It Will Assess Results Against The Project's Approved Log-frame Indicators And Targets, And Will Include, At Minimum All direct beneficiary categories: protection case management clients, GBV survivors, children reached through child protection services, and cash/shelter/NFI recipients.All project sites and operational locations.The full project implementation period, from start-up to the endline data collection window.Cross-cutting themes: gender equality, protection mainstreaming, accountability to affected populations, and disability and age inclusion.The evaluation will not re-open or duplicate individual case files; any protection or GBV case-level data reviewed will be handled strictly in de-identified, aggregate form, consistent with the ethical and safeguarding provisions in Section 6.Evaluation questionsEvaluation questions are organised according to standard OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, adapted to this project's four sub-sectors, plus a cross-cutting learning criterion.Relevance To what extent did the project's design and targeting criteria correspond to the actual protection, GBV, child protection, and basic-needs risks faced by the population?Were the selected delivery modalities (mobile teams, WGSS, Child-Friendly Spaces, cash transfers, one-stop centres) appropriate to the operating context and caseload profile Effectiveness To what extent were the specific objectives and log-frame targets achieved for each of the four sub-sectors?What evidence exists of improved safety, wellbeing, and access to justice for protection and GBV case-management clients?What evidence exists of improved safety and wellbeing outcomes for unaccompanied, separated, and other at-risk children?Did cash, shelter, and NFI assistance reduce the financial and material barriers it was intended to address Efficiency and coverage Were resources (staff, time, funding) used efficiently to achieve the results reported across the four sub-sectors?Did the achieved caseload and outreach match planned coverage targets, and how were gaps addressed?How well did referral pathways function between protection, GBV, child protection, and cash/shelter/NFI components? Sustainability To what extent are protection and GBV outcomes likely to be sustained after project close, including through community protection committees and strengthened referral systems?What capacities, systems, or community structures have been strengthened that will outlast the project?Which outcomes are likely to be sustained after closure, and what is needed to sustain them Cross-cutting learning and best practices What practices, innovations, or adaptations were most effective, and why?What challenges or unintended consequences arose, and how were they addressed?What lessons should inform the design of future integrated protection programming? Evaluation design and methodologyThe evaluation will use a mixed-methods, cross-sectional design, triangulating quantitative outcome data against project targets with qualitative evidence on process, perception, and lived experience. Given the project's protection and GBV components, the design will apply a survivor-centered, do-no-harm approach throughout.IRC recommends a rapid ex-post mixed-methods evaluation anchored in Outcome Harvesting, complemented by a retrospective quantitative survey, qualitative inquiry, secondary data review, and systematic triangulation. No causal attribution will be claimed; the evaluation will instead build a credible, evidence-supported contribution story.Core components the evaluator must deliver Outcome Harvesting: identify, document, and verify intended and unintended outcomes; each outcome assessed for what changed, who, when/where, significance, supporting evidence, and IRC's contribution.Desk review of project documents: proposal, log-frame, monitoring data, case management data (aggregate/de-identified), prior assessments, and donor reports.A statistically representative sample will be drawn for the quantitative survey component, stratified by household or beneficiary survey (95% confidence, 5% margin of error, non-response adjusted), disaggregated by settlement (Adjumani, Kiryandongo, Lamwo/Palorinya, Obongi/Palabek) and sector, with a minimum 10% sample intentionally targeted to persons with disabilities.Qualitative inquiry: Key Informant Interviews (project staff, OPM/district officials, UNHCR and cluster leads, implementing partners, Refugee Welfare Council leaders) and Focus Group Discussions, separated by sex/age (adult women, adult men, adolescent girls and boys 14–17).Secondary data review: monitoring databases, distribution/attendance records, PDM findings, aggregated and de-identified case management and referral records, and financial and partner reports.Convergent, triangulated analysis: quantitative and qualitative data collected concurrently and triangulated against secondary evidence, and assessed against OECD-DAC criteria and cross-cutting themes (gender, protection, inclusion, participation, conflict sensitivity).Review of aggregate, de-identified case management data to assess case trends, referral pathways, and resolution rates.Direct observation of select service delivery points (WGSS, Child-Friendly Spaces, one-stop centres), subject to safeguarding clearance.The evaluator's role is to finalize data collection tools against IRC's Evaluation Matrix (provided at inception), recruit/train enumerators, manage fieldwork logistics, and lead analysis, synthesis, validation, and reporting. Data analysisQuantitative data will be analyzed descriptively, with disaggregation by site, sex, age, and PSN/disability status where relevant, and compared against baseline and log-frame targets. Qualitative data will be thematically coded and triangulated against quantitative findings to strengthen interpretation and identify convergent or divergent evidence.Ethics and safeguardingThe Project Serves Survivors Of Violence, Unaccompanied And Separated Children, And Other People At Heightened Risk. Where An Ethical Requirement And a Data Requirement Conflict, The Ethical Requirement Prevails. The Evaluator And All Team Members, Including Enumerators, Mu

• Design and lead the overall evaluation methodology, tools, and analysis. • Manage and supervise enumerators and qualitative researchers. • Ensure adherence to ethical, safeguarding, and data protection requirements throughout. • Deliver all outputs listed in Section 7 to the required quality standard and timeline. • Commission and manage the evaluation, including contracting and quality assurance. • Provide access to project documentation, monitoring data, and relevant staff. • Facilitate access to project sites, communities, and safeguarding clearance for data collectors. • Review and provide feedback on inception and draft deliverables. • Provide technical input on sub-sector-specific evaluation questions and indicators. • Support identification of key informants and appropriate community entry points. • Review findings for factual accuracy and provide input on recommendations. • Advanced degree in social sciences, monitoring & evaluation, development studies, or a related field. • At least 7 years' experience leading evaluations of humanitarian or protection programming, including rapid, ex-post, and mixed methods designs. • Demonstrated expertise in Outcome Harvesting and retrospective ("then-now") quantitative methods. • Experience evaluating protection, GBV/VAWG, or child protection programming, using survivor-centred and PSEA-compliant approaches.