External Evaluation Consultant

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.

• To what extent did INGOs, CSOs, and key international stakeholders report improve coordination, information sharing, and advocacy because of LIF’s intervention (impact indicator)?
• To what extent were the three specific objectives achieved:

• Improved evidence-based advocacy?
• Strengthened inter-INGO operational, policy, and advocacy coordination?
• Improved CSO organizational capacity and sustainability through localization efforts?

• Were planned output delivered in line with targets and quality expectations (e.g. coordination meetings, advocacy products, legal mapping, CSO participation, mentorship and ToT)?

• To what extent was the project design and implementation aligned with the needs and priorities of INGOs, CSOs, and affected populations?
• Did the intervention remain relevant as the political, legal, and access context evolved during implementation?
• To what extent did the project promote localization by building on existing local capacities?
• Were coordination and advocacy processes inclusive, gender-sensitive, age-sensitive, and accessible to persons with disabilities?

• To what extent were stakeholders satisfied with LIF’s advocacy, analysis, and information provision?
• To what extent were LIF members satisfied with operational and policy coordination mechanisms?
• To what extent did participating in CSOs report improve organizational capacity, coordination skills, and sustainability?
• Which activities contributed most to observed changes, and which contributed least?

• Were financial, human, and material resources used efficiently to deliver planned outputs?
• Was implementation timely and adaptive to access, security, and political constraints?
• To what extent did remote and hybrid modalities improve efficiency without undermining participation, inclusiveness, or quality?

• To what extent are coordination mechanisms, advocacy practices, and CSO capacity gains likely to be sustained in the short and medium term?

• To what extent have coordination practices, CSO participation, and advocacy approaches been institutionalized within LIF and participating CSOs?
• Is there evidence that capacity gains from mentorship, ToT, and the localization roadmap will continue post-project?
• How do external factors (political shifts, legal changes, security conditions) affect sustainability?

Objective: Assess internal and external coherence of the intervention.

• To what extent were project components (coordination, advocacy, legal mapping, localization) internally coherent and mutually reinforcing?
•  To what extent was the intervention coherent with humanitarian principles, localization commitments, EU priorities, and relevant UN and coordination frameworks?

• To what extent were conflict sensitive and Do No Harm principles integrated into project design and implementation?
•  Were risks to national staff, CSOs, and partners adequately identified and mitigated, particularly in advocacy activities?
•  To what extent were stakeholders meaningfully informed, consulted, and able to provide feedback?
• What feedback and accountability mechanisms were in place, and how effectively were they used?

• What key lessons can be drawn from the project regarding coordination, advocacy, legal analysis, and localization in restrictive environments?
•  What worked well, what worked less well, and why?
• What concrete, prioritized, and actionable recommendations should inform future LIF, EU-funded, or similar coordination and civil society support initiatives?

The consultant will develop and implement a mixed-methods evaluation methodology aligned with the project’s theory of change, logical framework, and OECD-DAC criteria. The methodology will be detailed in an Inception Report, clearly outlining how each evaluation question and relevant logframe indicator will be assessed, including data sources, data collection tools, and analytical approaches.

The methodology will include a desk review of key project documents, key informant interviews with LIF Secretariat, LIF members, Libyan CSOs, donors, UN agencies, and other relevant stakeholders, as well as satisfaction surveys. Light quantitative analysis of monitoring data will be complemented by qualitative triangulation.

Data collection will rely primarily on remote modalities, with in-person engagement undertaken only where access, security, and feasibility are allowed. Sampling will ensure representation across stakeholder groups and consider gender, age, disability, and geographic diversity where applicable. The consultant will apply a contribution-based analysis, appropriate for coordination and advocacy interventions.

All data collection tools and the methodology will be reviewed and approved by LIF and IRC prior to implementation. Ethical standards, including informed consent, confidentiality, safeguarding, and Do No Harm, must be strictly followed.

Must contain:

Logic of end line evaluation proceedings based on desk review.

Findings from the desk review

Evaluation questions and an overview of how these will be answered.

Detailed work plan, research methods, sources, procedures for data collection, analysis, sampling of key indicators etc.

Proposed timeline of activities, schedule of tasks and submission of deliverables.

The draft addresses most of assessment questions and works towards presenting meaningful findings, conclusions, and recommendations.

The draft report needs to provide for disaggregated data analysis by gender, age, location, and vulnerability status to ensure inclusiveness in evaluation findings.

The draft report will present the tools used and findings (figures and graphs) of client data.

Draft report will be shared with LIF and IRC for feedback and approval.

The final report will include the following:

The LIF’s and IRC feedback on the draft report has been addressed. Systematically assess the project impact on individual clients and institutions.

Provide

factual evidence of direct and indirect results of interventions.

Synthesize information received for purposes of conclusion and recommendation.

All International Rescue Committee workers must adhere to the core values and principles outlined in IRC Way - Standards for Professional Conduct. Our Standards are Integrity, Service, Equality and Accountability. In accordance with these values, the IRC operates and enforces policies on Safeguarding, Conflicts of Interest, Fiscal Integrity, and Reporting Wrongdoing and Protection from Retaliation. IRC is committed to take all necessary preventive measures and create an environment where people feel safe, and to take all necessary actions and corrective measures when harm occurs. IRC builds teams of professionals who promote critical reflection, power sharing, debate, and objectivity to deliver the best possible services to our clients.

Cookies: https://careers.rescue.org/us/en/cookiesettings