Towards Improved Knowledge on Labour Market and Employment Conditions of Syrian Refugees and Host Communities in Jordan and Lebanon.

2. BACKGROUND INFORMATION

This term of reference (TOR) is designed to describe the assignment of the external collaborator to be contracted by the ILO for the purpose of conducting a final internal evaluation of the project entitled “Towards Improved Knowledge on Labour Market and Employment Conditions of Syrian Refugees and Host Communities in Jordan and Lebanon”. The evaluation will assess project performance in relation to stated objectives, outcomes and outputs. It will evaluate the effectiveness of management arrangements and project design, as well the efficient use of resources, and impacts. Identified opportunities for learning will also form part of the evaluation.

The final evaluation will attempt to determine, as accurately and objectively as possible, the relevance, efficiency, effectiveness, impact and sustainability of the project. The evaluation is expected to lead to recommendations and lessons learned for future use by the office.

2.1 Project Background

The crisis in Syria has led to massive population displacements, both internally and to neighbouring countries. Jordan and Lebanon are dealing with the largest influxes of Syrian refugees, at a time when both countries already had to contend with difficult socioeconomic conditions before the Syrian crisis, particularly in communities where refugees have settled. 

Over the years, access of Syrian refugees to decent jobs and economic opportunity has become even more crucial, raising Lebanon’s and Jordan’s governments’ concerns over the increased competition for jobs in their local labour markets. That said, the two countries embarked on a number of measures to facilitate access of Syrian refugees to work while at the same time protecting their citizens.

In promoting an employment-rich national response to the Syrian refugee crisis in Jordan and Lebanon, the ILO has identified supporting evidence-based policy development as one of the three key pillars of its response strategy. In this context, it has conducted a number of studies at the national and sectoral level in Jordan to better measure the impact of the influx of refugees on the labour market and to assess the impact of the measures taken to facilitate access of Syrian refugees to the labour market. In Lebanon, the ILO also undertook an “Assessment of the impact of Syrian refugees in Lebanon and their employment profile”, which was completed in 2013.

Considering the protracted nature of the crisis and the volatility of the situation in both countries, the ILO identified the need for continuously improving and updating knowledge on the labour market and employment conditions of Syrian refugees and host communities in order to inform policy development. In particular, in Lebanon, there is still a lack of data and evidence on the employment and working conditions of the various vulnerable population groups, which needs to be addressed; while in Jordan, there is an urgent need for an updated evidence-based research on work permits regulations and their impact on decent work.

In terms of collaboration, the ILO office in Jordan and Fafo Institute for Labour and Social Research, Osla, Norway, implemented both quantitative and qualitative surveys to serve under the project's outcomes. The collaboration with Fafo included the development of research's tools, designing the sampling frame taking into consideration the characteristics of the targeted groups, leading the exercise of the study's sample listing, capacity building for the field team, technical follow up and support for  data collection process and other related activities, including statistical analysis and drafting of final reports, as well as the launching and validation of key findings of both qualitative and quantitative researches results with ILO and the key stakeholder in Jordan.

To this end, the ILO has embarked on a 2-pillar project in Jordan and Lebanon, aimed at improving knowledge on the employment and labour market situation of Syrian refugees and host communities in both countries to ultimately help inform policy making. In particular, the 2 pillars are as follow:

• Pillar 1 in Jordan: Advancing Decent Work under the Jordan Compact: Work Permits and their Impact on Decent Work for Syrian Workers in Jordan
• Pillar 2 in Lebanon: Employment and Working Conditions of Vulnerable Lebanese and Refugee Population Groups in Lebanon: Assessing the Labour Market Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis through an Informal Economy and Vulnerability Survey.

A number of changes not reflected in the project’s concept note have been made by the project team, following the eruption of the COVID-19 crisis, and should be taken into account, particularly those related to the widening scope of the studies, to take into account in particular the repercussions of the pandemic in both countries, in addition to the financial and economic crisis and the Beirut port explosion in Lebanon.

Overall, this project contributes to the Programme and Budget (P&B) 2020-21, and links to outcome 7 on “Adequate and effective protection at work for all”, and particularly to output 7.4 on “Increased capacity of constituents to provide adequate labour protection to workers in diverse forms of work arrangements, including on digital labour platforms, and in informal employment”. It also contributes to the Sustainable Development Goals, and is linked to SDG 8 “Promote sustained, inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all”.

1. Advancing Decent Work under the Jordan Compact: Work Permits and their Impact on Decent Work for Syrian Workers in Jordan

Building on ILO’s 2017 Impact Assessment on Work Permits, the ILO has proposed to conduct a follow-up study to highlight the impact of changes made to the work permit regime on decent work outcomes for Syrian refugees in Jordan. Following suggestions made for follow-up work under the 2017 assessment, the study uses a larger sample size of Syrian workers in a greater number of sectors and focuses on gender specific outcomes. It also aims to collect data from sectors where large numbers of Syrians are employed, including the manufacturing sector, the agricultural sector and the construction sector. The study further tries to understand how work permits impact the employment of Syrian workers and can help address wider labour market challenges in Jordan, including labour market segmentation, low labour force participation, weak job creation and decent work deficits. A review of work permit systems in other regions of the world provides a comparative analysis to identify practices that have been used to address similar labour market challenges. 

This is a timely and important exercise that can help fill several gaps in knowledge, and ultimately support advancing the objectives of the Jordan Compact through evidence based advocacy and policy recommendations on work permits.

Overall, this pillar’s objective is as follows:

‘Contribute to and advance the evidence base on the impacts of work permit regulations and procedures governing Syrians’ access to the labour market and feed into advocacy and evidence-based policymaking. The study will focus on different work permit policies and regulations and their implications on Syrian workers’ formal employment and access to decent work. It will provide insight into the impact of work permits on wider labour market challenges in Jordan, including labour market segmentation and employers’ access to qualified labour. At the same time it will evaluate how work permits impact non-Syrian workers’ access to decent work.’

In support of the abovementioned objective, planned outputs and activities are outlined as below:

Under outcome 1: Knowledge and evidence of the impacts of work permit regulations on employment and decent work is advanced.

Output 1.1 Key stakeholders have access to quantitative analysis of work permit issuance, employment and labour market data.

                Activity 1.1.1 Mapping of available data on labour force participation, employment,         education, skills, work permits and working conditions among Syrians, Jordanians and   migrant workers in Jordan, disaggregated by age, gender, nationality and governorate.

                Activity 1.1.2 Draft and validate survey instruments to fill identified gaps in data.

                Activity 1.1.3 Conduct survey with Syrian, Jordanian and migrant workers, as well as         their employers, including at least 30% female workers.

                Activity 1.1.4 Clean and analyze quantitative data and summarize preliminary findings in a            research report.

                Activity 1.1.5 Validate quantitative findings with key stakeholders with a view to inform the          elaboration of qualitative data collection.

Output 1.2 Key stakeholders have access to qualitative data on work permit regulations, employment and decent work for Jordanian, Syrian and migrant workers in Jordan.

                Activity 1.2.1 Draft and validate qualitative data collection tools including interview          questions and focus group discussion questions.

                Activity 1.2.2 Conduct interviews and focus group discussions, with special attention to female workers, youth and persons with disabilities.

                Activity 1.2.3 Analyze qualitative research and summarize findings in a research report

                Activity 1.2.4 Validate qualitative findings with key stakeholders.

Output 1.3 Syrian, Jordanian and migrant workers, their employers and members of their host communities have a better understanding of issues surrounding Syrians’ employment in Jordan

                Activity 1.3.1 Triangulate data in a mixed methods research report, shared with key stakeholders

Activity 1.3.2 Disseminate research findings through awareness raising campaigns and communication materials.           

Under outcome 2: Knowledge on female labour force participation is enhanced at the sectoral level (construction and agriculture).

Output 2.1 Key stakeholders are better informed of gender specific barriers to the labour force participation of Syrian women

Activity 2.1.1 Draft and validate interview and focus group discussions, in collaboration with gender specialists.

Activity 2.1.2 Conduct interviews and focus group discussions with Syrian and Jordanian female workers, female migrant workers and those not yet in the work force and/or working from home.

Activity 2.1.3 Summarise research findings in a brief.

Activity 2.1.4 Disseminate findings through communication materials, social media and awareness raising sessions, targeting policy makers and employers.

Output 2.2 Syrian women have information on labour market opportunities and procedures

                Activity 2.2.1 Hold information sessions with Syrian and Jordanian women about               employment opportunities through the ILO employment service centres.

                Activity 2.2.2 Launch social media campaign to support female labour force participation in          Jordan.

Under outcome 3: Evidence base feeds into advocacy and evidence-based policy making on Syrians’ access to the labour market and decent work for all in Jordan.

Output 3.1 Key policy processes are informed of research findings

                Activity 3.1.1 Host a stakeholders meeting to define the limits of “casual workers” and “self-employed workers,” with a view to inform policy guidelines             

                Activity 3.1.2 Host a final validation workshop to review mixed methods research report and discuss possible reforms to address identified barriers and challenges

Output 3.2 Research products and communication materials are uploaded online and made accessible

                Activity 3.1.2 Social media campaign is developed and launched, with a view to reach young workers

                Activity 3.1.3 Communication materials are developed and disseminated to ensure beneficiaries are reached, regardless of their internet connectivity

2. Employment and Working Conditions of Vulnerable Lebanese and Refugee Population Groups in Lebanon: Assessing the Labour Market Impact of the Syrian Refugee Crisis through an Informal Economy and Vulnerability Survey

In Lebanon, and amidst lack of data on employment and working conditions of the different vulnerable population groups in the country, the ILO proposed conducting a focused survey to also allow development of evidence-based policy recommendations that could ultimately inform national policy design and help enhance resilience, growth and development in Lebanon, while at the same time protecting the various vulnerable population groups in the country. Data and objective assessments are particularly important in a country where the society and the government have become increasingly hostile towards Syrian refugees, despite unavailability of objective and in-depth impact assessments and analysis.

Such information is also needed to report on some of the SDG indicators that pertain particularly to goal 8 on decent work and inclusive economic growth.

As such the ILO planned to commission a study to provide currently unavailable information on the supply side (through a household-based sample survey) and demand side of Lebanon’s labour market (through focus group discussions), targeting the most vulnerable populations among Lebanese, Syrian Refugees and Palestinian Refugees. Unlike the ILO 2018-2019 Labour Force and Households’ Living Conditions Survey, which provides national data and estimates on the labour market in general, this small sample survey of 5,000 households aims to collect information on specifically the most vulnerable population groups in the country, to help address their particular needs and challenges. The sample will be representative but the targeted population remains limited to those identified as most vulnerable.

Overall, this pillar objective is as follows: 

‘Assess the level of vulnerability and informality among three different population groups – Syrian refugees, deprived Lebanese and Palestinian refugees, both men and women –years after the start of the Syrian refugee crisis, and provide recommendations to better direct national and international support towards programmes and interventions that best respond to the needs of the most vulnerable groups.’

Below are the relevant outputs, and activities contributing to the abovementioned objectives:

Outcome 4: knowledge and evidence on vulnerability and informality of Syrian and Palestinians refugees as well as host communities in Lebanon is improved, providing basis for policy development and reforms.

Output 4.1: An Informal Economy and Vulnerability household survey accompanied by FGDs is conducted and an analytical report with conclusions and recommendations developed.

Activity 4.1.1     Conduct a desk review of available resources;

Activity 4.1.2      Develop survey questionnaire and collect quantitative data; followed by data entry and analysis;

Activity 4.1.3      Conduct FGDs;

Activity 4.1.4     Report writing.

Output 4.2: Findings and results of the study disseminated for awareness raising and policy influence.

Activity 4.2.1     Organize a tripartite national outreach and advocacy workshop;

Activity 4.2.2     Create a webpage for the project;

Activity 4.2.3     Prepare brochures/policy briefs to be distributed both in hard and soft copies;

Activity 4.2.4     Produce a short video for public awareness

2.2 Project Management Arrangements

Project management was divided between the 2 pillars of the project as follows:

• The Senior Employment Policy Specialist managed the Lebanon component of the project, supported by a team including the Regional Labour Statistician and a number of national officers in Beirut; and
• The Jordan component was managed by the Senior Resilience/Crisis Response Specialist & ILO Iraq Country Coordinator, supported by a team including national project officers (Dutch-PROSPECTs); Fafo institute for Labour and Social Research, Oslo, Norway; an ILO external collaborator for research and data analysis; a team of (22) field assistants and supervisors.

3. PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF THE EVALUATION

3.1 Evaluation Background

ILO considers evaluation as an integral part of the implementation of development cooperation activities. Provisions are made in all projects in accordance with ILO evaluation policy and based on the nature of the project and the specific requirements agreed upon at the time of the project design and during the project as per established procedures.

As stated in the project’s concept note, a final internal evaluation is to be conducted for the project. According to the Development Assistance Committee (DAC) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), an internal evaluation is defined as, “Evaluation of a development intervention conducted by a unit and/or individuals reporting to the management of the donor, partner, or implementing organization.”

The internal final evaluation will be conducted, in line with the ILO policy, and will be used to assess the progress towards the results, identify the main difficulties/constraints, assess the impact of the programme for the targeted populations, and formulate lessons learned and practical recommendations to improve future similar programmes.

3.2 Purpose of evaluation

Internal evaluations are used for the purpose of programme improvement and/or organizational learning. This planned final internal evaluation provides an opportunity for in-depth reflection on the efficiency, effectiveness, relevance, sustainability, and potential impact of the 2 pillars of the project and provide recommendations for future similar projects, particularly in the area of informality and promotion of decent work for refugees and host communities. This evaluation will also identify strengths and weaknesses in the project design, strategy, and implementation as well as lessons learned.

More specifically, this evaluation aims to:

• Determine if the project has achieved its stated objectives and explain why/why not;
• Determine the impact of the projects in terms of sustained improvements achieved;
• Provide recommendations on how to build on the achievements and results of the project; and
• Document lessons learned, success stories, and good practices in order to maximize the experiences gained.

The evaluation will comply with ILO evaluation policy, which is based on the United Nations Evaluation Norms and Standards and the UNEG ethical guidelines will be followed.

3.3 Scope of the evaluation

The evaluation will look at the project activities implemented both in Jordan and Lebanon and their respective outputs and outcomes. While each of the two pillars of the project was implemented as a separate exercise in a separate country, both looked at similar issues, with the aim to increase knowledge and awareness on levels of vulnerability among disadvantaged groups in the labour market, and support policymakers for the design of better policies that take into account the needs of refugees and host communities.

The evaluation will take into consideration the project duration, existing resources and political and environmental constraints, and will take place from XX October 2021 until XX November 2021.

The evaluation will integrate gender equality and the rights of refugees and vulnerable host communities as a cross-cutting concern throughout its methodology and deliverables.

3.4 Clients of Evaluation

The primary clients of this evaluation are ILO ROAS, ILO constituents in Lebanon and Jordan, implementing partners and the donor. Secondary users include other project stakeholders and units within the ILO that may indirectly benefit from the knowledge generated by the evaluation.

4. EVALUATION CRITERIA AND QUESTIONS

The evaluation utilizes the standard ILO framework and follows its major criteria:

• Relevance and strategic fit – the extent to which the objectives are aligned with the countries’ priorities and needs, including national constituents’ priorities and needs;
• Validity of design – the extent to which the project design, logic, strategy and elements are/remain valid vis-à-vis problems and needs;
• Efficiency - the extent to which the outputs achieved are derived from an efficient use of financial, material and human resources;
• Effectiveness - the extent to which the two pillars of the project can be said to have contributed to their overall objectives and more concretely whether the stated outputs have been produced satisfactorily; in addition to the extent to which synergies have been built with national initiatives and with other donor-supported projects;
• Impact - positive and negative changes and effects caused by the project at the sub regional and national levels, and propositions for increased project impact;
• Effectiveness of management arrangements; and
• Sustainability – the extent to which the existing results are likely to be maintained beyond project completion; the extent to which the knowledge developed throughout the project (research papers, progress reports, manuals and other tools) can still be utilized after the end of the project to inform policies and practitioners, both in Lebanon and Jordan.

Relevance and strategic fit

5. To what extent does the project overall objective fit the needs generated by the crises within the two countries?
6. How well do the activities fit into the previous and current national practices underway both in Jordan and Lebanon to address informality and crisis-related issues? Does the projects’ design fill any existing gaps, including in terms of knowledge and evidence, but also beyond, that other ongoing interventions have failed to address?
7. Are the project objectives aligned with tripartite constituents’ objectives and needs? What measures were taken to ensure alignment?
8. How well does the project complement and build on other previous ILO projects in Lebanon and Jordan?

Coherence and validity of the design

Are the project strategies and structures followed in Jordan and Lebanon coherent and logical (what are logical correlations between the overall objective, outcomes, and outputs)? And to what extent are the project's intended outcomes realistic? Did the project undergo design readjustments when necessary?

5. To what extent did the project designs take into account: Specific gender equality and non-discrimination concerns relevant to the project context, as well as concerns relating to inclusion of people with disabilities?

Project progress and effectiveness

5. What progress have the projects made towards achieving the overall objectives and outcomes? (analysis of achievements and challenges by outcome and at the output level is required)
6. How did outputs and outcomes contribute to ILO’s mainstreamed strategies including gender equality, social dialogue, poverty reduction and labour standards?
7. To what extent did operation through a local organization specialized in data collection in Lebanon facilitate activities on the ground? Has the collaboration with the Fafo Institute in Jordan facilitated project implementation? and was it satisfactory for the ILO?
8. To what extent did the projects in Jordan and Lebanon respond to emerging needs brought by COVID-19 pandemic? How did the pandemic affect project implementation?
9. Have the studies conducted under both pillars of the project been successful in leading to the identification of relevant policy actions? Have these policy actions been discussed and/or implemented at the national level? Are national stakeholders made aware of these proposed policy actions?

Efficiency of resource use

5. To what extent have project activities been cost-effective? Have resources (funds, human resources, time, expertise etc.) been allocated strategically to achieve outcomes? To what extent can the project results justify the time, financial and human resources invested in the project?
6. To what extent have the projects been able to build on other ILO or non-ILO initiatives either nationally or regionally, in particular with regard to the creation of synergies in cost sharing?
7. How could the efficiency of the projects be improved?

Effectiveness of management arrangements

5. What was the division of work tasks within the project? Has the use of local skills been effective?
6. How clear was the understanding of roles and responsibilities and division of labour between project’s staff and implementing partners/ contractors?
7. How effective was communication between the project teams, implementing agencies, and the regional office and the responsible technical department at headquarters? Have the projects received adequate technical and administrative support/response from the ILO backstopping units?
8. How effectively does the project management team monitor project performance and results? Does the project report on progress in a regular and systematic manner, to PRGRAM and the donors?

Impact orientation

5. What is the likely contribution of the project initiatives to the stated objectives of the interventions?
6. How well have the results of the two studies been disseminated? Did the studies achieve their objectives of raising awareness on key issues and influencing policy development and design?
7. To what extent are national partners able and willing to implement the project’s recommendations? How effectively has the project built national ownership and increased awareness of national stakeholders of the needed measures for the promotion of decent work in Jordan and Lebanon, for both refugees and host communities?
8. What hinders the ability of tripartite national stakeholders to effectively implement the project’s recommendations (e.g. lack of institutional capacity, limited financial resources, political instability, etc…)?

Sustainability

5. Are the results achieved by the projects likely to be sustainable? What measures have been considered to ensure that the key components of the project are sustainable beyond the life of the projects?
6. Do future planned ILO projects in Jordan and Lebanon build upon the results of this current project, ensuring sustainability and optimal use of results?

Lessons learned:

5. What good practices can be learned from the project that can be applied to similar future projects?
6. Based on the challenges identified during project implementation, what do you think could have been implemented differently for greater relevance, sustainability, efficiency, effectiveness and impact?

5. METHODOLOGY

The evaluation will be carried out by an external consultant. The following is the proposed evaluation methodology. Any changes to the methodology should be discussed with and approved by the Evaluation and Project Managers.

a. Document review and analysis

In preparation of any given internal evaluation, an important first activity that should be carried out is the review and analysis of project-related documents. These include project documents or concept notes with logical framework, work plans, progress and technical reports, financial reports, any materials/ studies/ events proceedings prepared or undertaken within the framework of the project. 

b. Briefing and inception report drafting

The evaluator will have an initial consultation with the Evaluation Manager and the relevant ILO specialists managing the project in ROAS. The objective of the consultation is to reach a common understanding regarding the status of the project, the priority assessment questions, available data sources and data collection instruments and an outline of the final assessment report. The following topics will be covered: status of logistical arrangements, project background and materials, key evaluation questions and priorities, outline of the inception and final report.

c. Individual Interviews and Group Discussions

Following the desk review conducted by the evaluator and after the initial consultation/briefing with the EM and the project managers for the Jordan and Lebanon components in ROAS, as well as the approval of the inception report, the evaluator will hold virtual meetings with constituents/stakeholders together with interpreters supporting the process if needed. Individual or group interviews will be conducted with the following:

1. ILO staff/consultants that have been active;
2. ILO ROAS DWT Director, RPU, Senior Employment Policy Specialist and Senior Resilience/Crisis Response Specialist & ILO Iraq Country Coordinator;
3. Interview with the donor, the Ford Foundation;
4. Interviews with implementing partners (Statistics Lebanon in Lebanon and FAFO Institute for Labour and Social Research in Jordan).
5. Group discussions with national tripartite stakeholders (government, public institutions, social partners, etc.)

d. Presentation of preliminary findings

The evaluator will convene a workshop inviting individuals who have taken part in the interviews and FGDs as a way to present preliminary findings and validate the interpretations.  

e. Drafting the evaluation report

The evaluator will draft the evaluation report based on the outline agreed upon in the inception report. The evaluation manager will share the draft report with relevant ILO staffs, partners and stakeholders will consolidate their feedback. The evaluator will thereafter, amend the evaluation report and submit a final version to the evaluation manager.

Evaluation Management

The evaluation process is expected to be conducted within a 35-day period. The evaluation manager will be the direct focal point for this exercise. The ILO ROAS office will provide administrative and logistical support during the evaluation exercise.

Evaluation Timeframe is mentioned in the attached document.

Implications of the COVID crisis on the evaluation

The current COVID-19 pandemic severely restricts the mobility of staff and consultants. As the situation in Lebanon and Jordan remains largely unpredictable, the consultant will primarily rely on online methods to interview individuals and groups. If consultant is available for in-person meetings in any of the 2 countries, a hybrid face-to-face/ remote approach could be implemented.

6.  MAIN DELIVERABLES

The main outputs of the evaluation consist of the following and be in English:

• Deliverable 1: Inception Report.
• Deliverable 2: Draft evaluation report.
• Deliverable 3: Final evaluation report with executive summary.

Inception Report

The evaluator will draft an inception report that describes the conceptual framework planned for undertaking the evaluation in line with the scope and purpose described in the evaluation ToR.

The elements of an inception report include:

• • Project background
  • Purpose, scope and beneficiaries of the evaluation
  • Evaluation criteria and questions
  • Methodology and instruments
  • Main deliverables
  • Management arrangements and work plan.

Final Report

The final version of the report will follow the format below and be in a range of 20-30 pages in length, excluding the annexes:

1. Title page
2. Table of Contents, including List of Appendices, Tables
3. List of Acronyms or Abbreviations
4. Executive Summary with key findings, conclusions and recommendations
5. Background and Project Description
6. Purpose of Evaluation
7. Evaluation Methodology and Evaluation Questions
8. Key evaluation findings (organized by evaluation criteria)
9. A table presenting the key results (i.e. figures and qualitative results) achieved per objective (expected and unexpected)
10. Clearly identified conclusions and recommendations (identifying which stakeholders are responsible and the time and resource implications of the recommendations)
11. Lessons Learned (in prescribed template)
12. Potential good practices (in prescribed template)
13. Annexes (list of interviews, TORs, list of documents consulted, etc.)

The quality of the report will be assessed against the EVAL Checklists 4 and 5. The deliverables will be submitted in the English language, and structured according to the templates provided by the ILO. 

7.  MANAGEMENT ARRANGEMENTS

7.1 REQUIREMENTS

The evaluator should have:

• An advanced degree in social sciences, economics, or related field.
• Proven expertise on the evaluation of development interventions, preferably for the ILO or other UN agencies
• Knowledge in employment, labour rights, statistical methodologies, and labour market analysis.
• Knowledge of Lebanon and Jordan and the regional context,
• An understanding of the ILO’s tripartite culture;
• An understanding of gender issues in relation to formal and informal employment and the labour market
• Full command of the English language (spoken and written) will be required. Command of the national language would be an advantage.

The final selection of the evaluator will be approved by the Regional Evaluation Officer in the ILO ROAS based on a short list of candidates.

7.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

The External Evaluator is responsible for conducting the evaluation according to the terms of reference (ToR). He/she will:

• Review the ToR and provide inputs, propose any refinements to assessment questions, as necessary, during the inception phase;
• Review project background materials (e.g., project document, progress reports).
• Conduct preparatory consultations with the ILO Evaluation manager and project managers prior to the interviews.
• Prepare an inception report;
• Conduct individual and group interviews, as appropriate, and collect information according to the suggested format;
• Prepare an initial draft of the evaluation report, and submit to the Evaluation Manager for his/her review and for feedback solicitation from ILO specialists, donor and constituents/stakeholders;
• Prepare the final report based on the ILO, donor and constituents’ feedback obtained on the draft report.

The ILO Evaluation Manager is responsible for:

• Drafting the ToR;
• Finalizing the ToR with input from colleagues;
• Hiring the consultant;
• Providing the consultant with the project background materials;
• Participating in preparatory consultations (briefing) prior to the interviews;
• Assisting in the implementation of the assessment methodology, as appropriate (i.e., faciliatet and participate in meetings, etc…);
• Reviewing the initial draft report, circulating it for comments and providing consolidated feedback to the External Evaluators;
• Reviewing the final draft of the report;
• Disseminating the final report to all the stakeholders.

The ILO REO:

• Provides support to the planning of the evaluation;
• Approves selection of the evaluation consultant and final versions of the TOR;
• Submits final evaluation report to EVAL for inclusion in the i-track database.

8.  LEGAL AND ETHICAL MATTERS  

• This evaluation will comply with ILO evaluation guidelines and UN Norms and Standards.
• The ToRs is accompanied by the code of conduct for carrying out the evaluation “Code of conduct for evaluation in the ILO” (See attached documents). The selected consultant will sign the Code of Conduct form along with the contract.
• UNEG ethical guidelines will be followed throughout the evaluation.
• The consultant will not have any links to project management or any other conflict of interest that would interfere with the independence of the evaluation.