CONSULTANCY TO CONDUCT FINAL EVALUATION OF THE PROJECT: “MANAGING MIGRATION THROUGH DEVELOPMENT (MMDP 2.0) IN EDO STATE, NIGERIA

The International Organisation for Migration (IOM), the UN Migration Agency, began operations in Nigeria in 2001 with the Assisted Voluntary Return and Reintegration (AVRR) Programme, one of the organisation's global initiatives, which helps stranded migrants who wish to voluntarily return home safely and supports the most vulnerable to get back on their feet. In 2002, IOM signed a cooperation agreement with the government of Nigeria and launched the country mission. Ever since then, IOM has continued to assist stranded migrants in host countries to return voluntarily to their home countries through the AVRR programmes. Since 2017, in partnership with the Government of Nigeria and development partners, IOM has facilitated the voluntary return of over 29,000 stranded migrants from Libya, Niger and other countries.  

 Edo state accounts for a significant number of the returned migrants, many of whom have been exposed to violence, exploitation, and abuse during their migration journeys. To address these challenges, in 2018, the Edo state government established the Edo state Taskforce Against Human Trafficking (ETAHT) with a mission to reduce human trafficking and irregular migration and reintegrate returnees back into society. The Task Force aims at implementing evidence-based strategies for tackling human trafficking while working in collaboration with relevant agencies in addressing human trafficking in Edo State. Durable solutions are key in addressing the social, economic and psycho social factors that influence the sustainable rehabilitation and reintegration process of returnees. IOM aims to continue its collaboration with key Government partners to enhance a coherent response in protecting and assisting returned migrants, and vulnerable returnees, including unaccompanied and separated minors, victims of trafficking, people living with disabilities, and other migrant groups vulnerable to violence, abuse and exploitation.  

In collaboration with the Office of the Governor, IOM proposed to contribute to the efforts of the Edo State government to prevent human trafficking and protect vulnerable migrants and community members under the project entitled “Nigeria: Managing Migration through Development (MMDP) 2.0 in Edo State,” funded by the Italian Government, through the Directorate General for Italian Citizens Abroad and Migration Policies of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation. The proposed intervention targeted migrants and community members with multiple vulnerabilities in Edo state. To this end, the situation and different needs of the vulnerable groups were assessed and taken into consideration in all activities and at every stage of project implementation. The project contributed to the following MMDP 2.0 migration pillars: Pillar 1 - Returnee Resettlement and Reintegration, Pillar 2 - Promoting Regular Migration, Pillar 3 – Eradicating Human Trafficking & Victim Support, Pillar 4 – Preventing Human Trafficking and Promoting Livelihoods and Pillar 5 – Sustainable Partnership & Coordination.  

Evaluation purpose and objective 

The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the overall implementation and outcomes of the project in order to contribute to learning and accountability. This will help to demonstrate project results to the donor, partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries. It will generate lessons learned, recommendations as well highlight any best practices that can be applied to improve the implementation and results delivery in future interventions.  

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to:  

Examine the extent to which the project has delivered its commitments as contained in the project’s results framework with a view to providing accountability for results and to identify outstanding or emergent needs requiring similar programming.  

Determine the extent to which the project has contributed or is positioned to contribute to higher level results (outcomes and impact). 

Assess how well the project, resources and partnerships were managed and how that contributed to efficiency and sustainability prospects of the project.  

Identify best practices, lessons learned and propose relevant recommendations for the development and implementation of any further interventions.  

Examine the extent to which key IOM crosscutting priorities were mainstreamed in the design, implementation, reporting and M&E processes and identify any relevant results achieved.  

Evaluation scope 

This proposed evaluation shall cover the period of time between commencement of the project (01 December 2022 – 31 May 2025). The evaluation data collection will be undertaken in person in Nigeria in Edo state and where not feasible remotely. The geographic scope will cover all or a sample of the major implementing areas in the state (Benin City, Auchi, Ekpoma, Ubiaja, and Uromi). Stakeholders targeted through the evaluation will include Edo State Migration Agency (EDMA), National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NAPTIP) Edo State Command, Benin Technical College, Ministry of Women Affairs and Social Development/ SRAC Centre, Edo State Legal Hub, Society for the Empowerment of Young Persons (SEYP) and CARITAS as well as migrants and local community members.  

The evaluation will assess the performance of the project against the agreed upon three project outcomes namely: 1) Returning migrants and their local communities achieve economic self- sufficiency, social stability and psychosocial wellbeing, and, 2) State and non-state actors provide effective and comprehensive reintegration and protection support to returning migrants and their community members, and 3) Youth actively leverage diverse forms of media to shift social norms around TiP and SoM.  The review should also consider cross-cutting issues such as gender and human rights aspects of the interventions. 

Evaluation criteria  

For this evaluation, the standard OECD project –DAC evaluation criteria will be used: effectiveness, coherence, efficiency, relevance, impact and sustainability (to the extent possible). In addition to these OECD criteria, IOM core crosscutting priorities  1) Integrity, Transparency and Accountability, 2) Equality, Diversity & Inclusion, 3) Protection-centred and 4) Environmental Sustainability will also be assessed to ascertain the extent of their mainstreaming in compliance with IOM Strategic Results Framework (SRF). 

 Evaluation questions 

The following evaluation criteria questions are recommended but the evaluator’s enrichment will be welcome. 

Evaluation Criteria  

Evaluation Questions 

Coherence: The compatibility of the project with other interventions in the project’s countries, state, sectors, or institutions  

To what extent has the project been complementary to other migration projects or initiatives undertaken by key project partners, as well as other UN and non-UN actors?  

To what extent was the project coordinated with other relevant migration projects or initiatives, as well as national or state processes?  

How did existing policy frameworks align with or influenced the project and conversely how did the project influence them?  

Relevance: assessing to what extent the project’s objective and intended results remain valid and pertinent either as originally planned or as subsequently modified.  

How appropriate was the project design to achieve its objectives in the context in which it operates?  

To what extent were the needs of beneficiaries and stakeholders taken into account in project design?  

Which parts of the intervention were or have been the most and least appropriate and why? 

Effectiveness: assessing the extent to which the project achieves its intended results.  

To what extent has the project delivered on planned activities and outputs?  

What are the major factors (internal or external) that affected the achievement and/or non-achievement of the activities and outputs set for the project?  

To what extent has progress been made on the previous recommendations on MMDP 1.0 Pillars.1 

Sustainability: assessing to what extent the project’s results will be maintained for a certain period of time after the current project has phased out.  

To what extent have local governance structures taken responsibility and leadership in supporting reintegration and what does that say about continuity after this project?  

To what extent has the capacity of Service providers (protection actors) improved to provide services to the beneficiaries in need in the absence of the project? 

What other measures did the project put in place to enhance the sustainability of the AVRR activities in the state and is there evidence that such measures have worked or are working?  

Efficiency: assessing how well human, physical and financial resources are used to undertake activities, and how well these resources are converted into outputs.  

What does final financial burn rates, activity accomplishment, project time spent, and output delivery say about the project’s management efficiency?  

How were the designed activities, implementation and other resources in terms of time, finance and expertise adequate to achieve sustainable project objectives and results 

In which areas have the project been successful in identifying and addressing key gaps in the targeted institutions? What are the areas needing further development and review, and how? 

Impact: Positive and negative, intended or unintended, primary and secondary long-term effects produced by the project, directly or indirectly.   

To the extent possible, what extent and how has the project contributed to changes in knowledge, attitude and practice on migration and opportunities at home?  

To the extent possible, what change(s) has the project brought at community or individual levels (whether positive or negative, unintended or intended), directly and indirectly?  

Cross-cutting priorities: IOM crosscutting priorities and how they were mainstreamed.  

To what extent did the project design, implementation processes, and M&E mainstream crosscutting priorities? 

What evidence exists to show that results were achieved in any of the crosscutting priorities  

In addition to the evaluation criteria questions above, the evaluator will collect data on the project’s objective level indicators namely: 

% of assisted returnees expressing contentment with the level of their reintegration (disaggregated by age, and sex) 

% of migrants acknowledged the feeling of stability as a result of the assistance (disaggregated by age, and sex) 

% of beneficiaries who reported feeling part of the community by the end of the project (disaggregated by age and sex) 

% of state and non-state actors who indicate they are confident with their capacity to provide effective socio-economic reintegration support  

Evaluation methodology 

The suggested evaluation methodologies include:  

Document Review: IOM and the project implementation team will provide the following documents (among any others) to the evaluator: Project proposal and results matrix, Project budget, Interim and final financial and narrative reports, Activity reports, Documents related to project outputs such as visibility material, relevant brochures and other publications related to the project. Donor’s documentation, such as: donor’s reports, signed agreement, important correspondence. 

Key Informant Interviews: Key Informant interviews are to be conducted with IOM project staff, selected beneficiaries, community leaders and government officials directly involved in project implementation. The total number of KIIs to be discussed and agreed upon with evaluator.  

Focused Group Discussion: Focused Group Discussion will be conducted with selected project beneficiaries to gain more insights on the project. Evaluator to elaborate further on selection criteria and number of FGDs adequate to give them sufficient insight directly from beneficiaries 

Direct Observations: Field visits to beneficiaries’ business sites within Edo State will be organized during the data collection period.  

Assistance will be provided to the Evaluator to access key stakeholders, and in organizing the schedule of interviews and site visits. 

Ethics, norms and standards for evaluation  

The evaluation will adhere to IOM Data Protection and research Principles, IOM central Evaluation Guidelines on Evaluations; the UN Evaluation Group’s ‘Norms and Standards for Evaluation 2017 Guidance’ (see http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/1914) and the ‘UNEG, Resource Pack on Joint Evaluations, 2014’ (see http://www.uneval.org/document/detail/1620). IOM Nigeria expects all evaluators to maintain ethical and professional standards as guided by both IOM and UNEG’s guidelines cited above.  

Evaluation deliverables  

The lead evaluator will produce the following:  

Before / during the Field mission: 

An inception plan / containing workplan, evaluation matrix and data collection tools to reviewed and approved by IOM Nigeria M&E team before the field mission. 

A presentation outlining the initial findings (last days of field mission), so as to facilitate the early discussion and feedback.  

After the Field mission: 

A draft Evaluation report (as per IOM Evaluation template and standards) 

A draft Evaluation Brief (as per IOM template) 

A draft Management Response Matrix - MRM (as per IOM Template) 

Final report and evaluation brief having considered received comments.  

 

Roles and Responsibilities 

The Evaluator will be responsible for refining the evaluation methodology (if necessary), develop a data collection plan, design data collection tools, carry out data collection and analysis, timely delivery of quality deliverables and ethical conduct at all stages of the evaluation process.  

Field Officers from the Office of the Governor of Edo State will support the Evaluator in carrying out data collection. 

The IOM project management and M&E teams will be responsible for providing required documentation, timely review of deliverables and any necessary internal coordination to facilitate the evaluation, including inputs to evaluation report by stakeholders. 

Additional stakeholders in government, partner organizations etc: provide timely inputs via participating in key informant interviews and other evaluation activities, and any evaluation document or finding reviews.  

An Evaluation Reference Group (ERG) which include representatives from the Office of the Governor and other key stakeholders, will be established where feasible. This will reinforce stakeholder engagement and support the implementation of recommendations 

The Regional Monitoring and Evaluation Officer: provide additional review to evaluation deliverables to optimize quality and adherence to institutional standards.  

 Evaluation purpose and objective 

The purpose of this final evaluation is to assess the overall implementation and outcomes of the project in order to contribute to learning and accountability. This will help to demonstrate project results to the donor, partners, stakeholders and beneficiaries. It will generate lessons learned, recommendations as well highlight any best practices that can be applied to improve the implementation and results delivery in future interventions.  

The specific objectives of the evaluation are to:  

Examine the extent to which the project has delivered its commitments as contained in the project’s results framework with a view to providing accountability for results and to identify outstanding or emergent needs requiring similar programming.  

Determine the extent to which the project has contributed or is positioned to contribute to higher level results (outcomes and impact). 

Assess how well the project, resources and partnerships were managed and how that contributed to efficiency and sustainability prospects of the project.  

Identify best practices, lessons learned and propose relevant recommendations for the development and implementation of any further interventions.  

Examine the extent to which key I