Evaluation Consultant/Team Leader (National)

Assess the effectiveness of the implementation strategy (i.e. implementation modalities, issues of coordination and partnership arrangements, and synergy among the LMI projects as well as with other initiatives/programmes of IOM Türkiye).

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.

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

Provide a forward-looking perspective for IOM’s positioning in relation to labour market integration for the remaining project duration and potential subsequent phases.

Provide formative recommendations toward project implementation and course-correction for the remaining project duration.

Cross-cutting issues of gender, non-discrimination and human rights, social dialogue, and international labour standards will be addressed throughout all the objectives as relevant. The evaluation will provide the project management, the donor (EUD), and key partners with an indication of project performance- how well the project is doing, the quality of project implementation, and any bottlenecks in implementation, in order to identify problems in a timely manner and in which areas corrective action may be required.  

Through a participatory approach, the evaluation team will actively engage relevant stakeholders, including IOM Türkiye staff, focal points of the national counterparts and beneficiaries from different activities. A tentative Expected Interview Schedule is provided in section 10 to indicate the level of effort and in-country travel required for data collection.

Recommendations, emerging from the evaluation, should be strongly linked to the findings of the evaluation and should provide clear guidance to IOM Türkiye 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. An essential aspect of the evaluation involves analysing the integration of IOM cross-cutting themes, particularly gender considerations and a human rights approach, non-discrimination, social dialogue and international labour standards into project activities and implementation.  

The project implementation period is from 01.04.2024 to 31.03.2028. The mid-term evaluation will assess implementation from the project’s inception to its midpoint, covering the period from 01.04.2024 to May 2026.

3. Evaluation Criteria

The OECD-DAC evaluation criteria, relevance, coherence, effectiveness, efficiency, likely impact, and sustainability will guide the mid-term evaluation.  The main focus will be on the effectiveness, efficiency, and sustainability of the project activities to inform the assessment of progress to date, inform any needed adjustments, and ensure a transition/phase-out plan and exit strategy are developed. In addition, the evaluation will examine coherence, with particular attention to the project's complementarity and coordination with other relevant projects. 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.

4. Evaluation Questions

In the light of the evaluation parameters, the Evaluation Team is expected to analyze data and share their findings, conclusions and recommendations generated by this analysis. As a reference point for the evaluation, the Team is provided with indicative key and sub-evaluation questions below; which are expected to be amended, elaborated, aggregated, consolidated and submitted as part of the Inception Report and shall be included as an annex to the midterm report described below. In consultation with the Commissioning Unit, 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 criterion.

The evaluation matrix will be reviewed collaboratively with the Commissioning Unit. Any fundamental changes to the evaluation criteria and questions should be agreed upon between the evaluator(s) and the Commissioning Unit and reflected in the inception report.

The sub-questions included in the ToR are intentionally designed to guide prospective evaluation team by outlining the expected scope of the assessment, key thematic areas to be explored, and the breadth of analysis anticipated. They are meant to provide a comprehensive picture of what the evaluation should cover and to support evaluators in developing a robust evaluation matrix. Further refinement and consolidation of evaluation questions is an essential step during the inception phase. The evaluation evaluation team will be expected to prioritize, aggregate, and streamline these questions to ensure analytical depth, coherence, and a focused final report.

The following key questions will guide the evaluation process:

Evaluation CriteriaEvaluation Questions 

Relevance

Key Evaluation Question-1: To what extent is the project design, theory of change, and implementation approach relevant to the needs of target groups and stakeholders, and aligned with national, institutional, and global labour market integration priorities?

Sub-questions

To what extent have the theory of change applied and interventions designed in the project been relevant so far to serving the needs of the target groups, beneficiaries and stakeholders?

To what extent is the project aligned with national labour market policies, employment strategies, and global and regional integration frameworks?

To what extent were the design and strategy of the project activities aligned with the UN, IOM and EU priorities?

To what extent does the project fit into the comparative advantages of IOM’s global experience and presence in the area of labour market integration?

What opportunities are there to better align the support/activities to the changed context and the needs of the beneficiaries for future needs?

To what extent were the participants of project activities representative of public, civil society, academia, private sector and other relevant target groups where applicable?

Coherence

Key Evaluation Question-2: To what extent is the project internally coherent and externally aligned with other interventions, ensuring logical consistency and synergy with broader labour market initiatives and systems?

Sub-Questions

7. (External coherence) To what extent did the project create synergy/linkages with other projects and interventions in the country i.e. other projects implemented for labour market integration? How well does the project complement government-led labour market initiatives and public employment services?

8. (Internal coherence) To what extent are the project’s objectives, outcomes, outputs, and activities logically aligned and mutually reinforcing? How coherent is the project’s theory of change in linking labour market interventions (e.g., skills training, job placement, employment support) to intended employment outcomes?

   Effectiveness

   Key Evaluation Question-3: To what extent is the project achieving its intended outputs and outcomes, and how effectively are its interventions improving employability, labour market access, and institutional capacities?

   Sub-Questions

   To what extent is the project on track to achieve its intended outputs and outcomes until midterm evaluation? (The Evaluation Team is expected to provide detailed analysis of 1) planned activities and results and 2) achievement of results.)

   How effective have the project’s interventions (e.g., vocational training, skills development, job placement support, employer support) been in improving final beneficiaries’ employability and access to jobs? To what extent have project activities responded to the needs of target groups (e.g., SuTPs, PUIPs, host community members, youth, women) and the demands of the labour market?

   How effective has the project been in engaging employers and private sector actors in employment pathways for beneficiaries?

   What are the key factors contributing to project success or underachievement during the project execution?  How might this be improved for the remaining duration?

   To what extent have the project partners/beneficiary institutions increased their capacity on implementation of the project interventions?

   To what extent have monitoring mechanisms supported effective implementation and results achievement?

   To what extent and in what ways has ownership - or the lack of it - by the partners/beneficiary institutions impacted the effectiveness of the project?

9. How can the project design can be strengthened to scale up results?

Efficiency

Key Evaluation Question-4: To what extent are project resources (financial, human, and time) being used optimally to deliver timely, cost-effective, and high-quality results, supported by effective management and adaptive systems?

Sub-Questions

How well are the resources (funds, expertise, and time) being converted into results? To what extent were project outputs delivered on time and with high quality? To what extent has the project ensured value for money? 

How efficient are the project’s approaches to skills development, employability, and labour market integration compared to alternative approaches?

What was the progress of the project in financial terms, indicating amounts committed and disbursed across results (total amounts & as percentage of total) by IOM? Was funding sufficient for the achievement of results? (funding analysis)

To what extent and in what ways has ownership - or the lack of it - by the partners/beneficiaries impacted on the efficiency of the project? 

Was there any identified synergy between IOM initiatives/projects that contributed to reducing costs and optimizing resources while supporting results? 

How well did implementation arrangements work for achievement of results? Does the project have the necessary coordination mechanisms, implementation arrangements and communication flow to ensure that the allocated resources are efficiently converted into the expected outputs?

To what extent did project MEAL systems provide management with a stream of data that allowed it to learn and adjust implementation accordingly?

What type of (administrative, financial and managerial) obstacles did the project face and to what extent has this affected its efficiency?

How appropriate and effective has IOM’s partnership strategy employed by the project been? What factors contributed to its effectiveness or ineffectiveness?