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 Project

Project description

The 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 objectives

The 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 scope

The 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 questions

Evaluation 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 methodology

The 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 analysis

Quantitative 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 safeguarding

The 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, must comply with:

• Written research access clearance from OPM and IRC ethics review before any fieldwork begins; informed consent/assent for all participants, with parent/caregiver consent plus separate assent for ages 14–17.

• Child participation rules: no child under 14 in a focus group; adolescent groups (14–17) banded by sex, maximum 8 participants, two vetted same-sex adults present, sessions of 60 minutes or less, stopped immediately if a participant becomes distressed.

• On VAWG: no instrument asks about personal experience of violence; survivor evidence enters only via aggregated, de-identified case data or voluntary Most Significant Change accounts referred through a survivor's own case worker.

• Every field team carries a verified inter-agency referral pathway; same-day referral of any disclosure of harm; no cash incentives (reasonable transport/refreshment only).

• All team members sign the IRC Code of Conduct and PSEA policy and complete PSEA briefing before deployment.

• Data protection: encrypted, password-protected devices; pseudonymized analysis dataset; identifiers restricted to the MEAL Lead and Lead Evaluator; retention per the donor agreement and IRC policy.

Limitations

As a cross-sectional endline exercise, the evaluation cannot establish causation in the way a panel or experimental design could; findings on outcomes will be presented as consistent with, rather than proof of, programme contribution. Self-reported indicators, particularly on sensitive protection and satisfaction questions, may be subject to social-desirability bias. These limitations will be stated transparently in the final report.

Deliverables and timeline

The assignment covers 30 calendar days, with the following deliverables:

1. Inception report

Evaluation design, evaluation matrix, data collection tools, sampling plan, and detailed workplan.

2. Data collection tools

Finalized, field-tested quantitative and qualitative instruments in required languages.

3. Draft evaluation report

Full draft report against all objectives and evaluation questions, for review and comment.

4. Validation workshop

Presentation of preliminary findings to project stakeholders for feedback prior to finalization.

5. Final evaluation report

Finalized report incorporating stakeholder feedback, including executive summary, methodology, findings by objective, and prioritized recommendations.

6. Best practices and lessons-learned brief

A standalone, donor- and sector-shareable evidence brief documenting best practices and lessons learned identified under Specific Objective 5.

7. Clean, anonymized dataset

Final quantitative dataset and qualitative coding framework, delivered in an agreed format for the MEAL Department's records.

Indicative timeline

Days 1–3

Inception meeting with the Evaluation Reference Group; confirm logistics; finalize tools against the fixed methodology and Evaluation Matrix.

Days 1–7 (parallel)

Ethics/access clearance (OPM, UNHCR, IRC review) runs in parallel with tool development.

Days 4–10

Tool finalization, translation, enumerator recruitment/training, piloting.

Days 8–20

Fieldwork: quantitative survey (n=425), 20 KIIs, 16 FGDs across the four settlements.

Days 18–24

Data cleaning, transcription, analysis and triangulation; draft evaluation report.

Days 22–25 (Wk 4)

Validation workshop with the Evaluation Reference Group to discuss findings and agree recommendations.

Days 25–30

Finalize and submit the final evaluation report, cleaned datasets, and a summary presentation.

Final outputs: inception notes; data collection tools; cleaned quantitative and qualitative datasets; draft and final evaluation reports (executive summary, findings by evaluation question, and recommendations); a validation workshop; and a summary presentation of findings.

Evaluation team, roles and responsibilities

Lead evaluator / evaluation team

• 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.

MEAL Department

• 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.

Programme and Protection/GBV teams

• 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.

Evaluator qualifications

• 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.

• Strong quantitative skills (sampling, survey analysis) and qualitative analysis skills; familiarity with Uganda refugee response coordination structures (OPM, UNHCR) is an asset.

Submission requirements

Because the evaluation design and methodology are fixed and non-negotiable (Annex 1), applicants are not required to submit a technical or methodological proposal but must submit a one-page statement demonstrating a clear understanding of the assignment. Applications will be assessed solely on the evaluator's capacity to deliver the specified design. Applicants must submit only the following three items:

• CV(s) for the lead evaluator and any proposed team members, demonstrating the qualifications in Section 9 (including relevant past evaluations).

• Work plan: a day-by-day or week-by-week schedule showing how the applicant will deliver the fixed methodology (Section 4) and the deliverables and timeline in Section 7 within the 30-day window.

• Budget: a detailed, itemized budget covering consultant fees, enumerator costs, transport, data collection tools/licenses, translation, and other direct costs.

Application requirements

Interested consultants or firms must submit the following documents to IRC by the deadline specified in the cover letter/advertisement:

1. Technical proposal

Maximum 10 pages. Must include understanding of the ToR, proposed methodology, work plan, team composition and CVs, and risk management approach.

2. Financial proposal

Detailed budget in UGX, with daily rates per team member and itemized field costs. Submitted in a separate sealed document/email.

3. CVs of key team members

For the lead consultant and all specialists. Maximum 3 pages per CV. Must show directly relevant experience.

4. Samples of previous work

At least 2 samples of similar endline evaluations/assessment reports completed within the last 5 years (links or PDF attachments).

5. References

Minimum 2 professional references from organisations for which similar work was conducted (include name, title, email, phone).

6. Registration certificate

Certificate of company/firm registration (for firms). Individual consultants may submit a NIN or passport copy.

NB: The advert will close on 15 September 2026. Applications will be reviewed on a rolling basis.

Professional Standards: 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